|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted October 10, 2008 01:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
EDIT: I like you Moon you know that so please don't take that personal. It's just that I find claims that 9/11 was a conspiracy outright ridicolous. But perhaps I'm ignorant .
If USA was a far leftside country close to the Marxisme, there would never be a possibilty in the ocean that they would hit themself for utter reasons and power.
USA is however a rightside capitalist country, and this opens the dam door for oppertunities of galactic dimensions. I agree it COULD have been a insidejob created by several great people who is just greedy. There is allway this chance, and it will be like that thil the opposite is proven.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 10, 2008 01:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In 99% of cases having more money isn't going to decrease quality of life.
Not instantly but in time it will.
Poor people don't "love" being poor and starving but they are struggling to survive and thus can't think about the "other stuff". Most times, rich people are satisfied a lot harder -- they do not appreciate the "small stuff" like the other people.
And with disease: if someone is happy and has a disease and dies in a year, and someone who hasn't a disease but works 24/7 (exaggeration but you get the point) and is frustrated has a lower quality of life in my opinion. If you live only with frustration and desires and 'inner pain' so to speak what's the point?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 10, 2008 02:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Poor people don't "love" being poor and starving but they are struggling to survive and thus can't think about the "other stuff".
I strongly disagree.
And not all poor people struggle to survive.
Quote:
Most times, rich people are satisfied a lot harder -- they do not appreciate the "small stuff" like the other people.
What are you basing this on?
Personal experience?
"frustration and desires"
are you saying poor people do not have desires and frustration?
I would say that they have alot more frustration and desires than people who can afford to buy what they like 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 10, 2008 02:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What are you basing this on?
Personal experience?
Give a poor person a bad car and he will be extremely grateful. Give a rich person who can afford a Bugatti Veyron a bad car and he will not even look at it.
Of course I'm over-generalizing, I'm stating that "most" not all of course!
Quote:
are you saying poor people do not have desires and frustration?
No I'm saying they have a lot less and DIFFERENT. Thus both have and (not all non-poor people suicide anyway!) different types so quality of life depends on individual, so to speak. It's by no means something measurable without looking at the person in question.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2008 11:01 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
FACT: There were no weapons of mass destruction found dispite their intelligence supposedly knew for certain Saddam had them. Given this was stated as one of the biggest reasons to invade Iraq, I would imagine there would be some serious political consequences in the realization that this war is Illegal. I don't know about you, but I consider this something major to take into consideration. Bush JOKED about there not being any weapons of mass destruction. What the hell?
We invaded Iraq for its oil, and to feed the military-industrial complex. Of course there are no WMDs. This doesn't mean that 9/11 was a setup, though.
Quote:
FACT: WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolition.
False. WTC7 collapsed as a result of fire and bad construction.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Not instantly but in time it will.
Becoming richer may not automatically increase your quality of life (although it did to my family), but it certainly doesn't usually decrease it!
Quote:
Poor people don't "love" being poor and starving but they are struggling to survive and thus can't think about the "other stuff". Most times, rich people are satisfied a lot harder -- they do not appreciate the "small stuff" like the other people.
On the other hand, they have means to satisfy themselves with bigger things - so it at least balances out in the end. And if the rich person doesn't get his Ferrari, he/she isn't going to die, unlike the poor person without food.
Quote:
if someone is happy and has a disease and dies in a year, and someone who hasn't a disease but works 24/7 (exaggeration but you get the point) and is frustrated has a lower quality of life in my opinion. If you live only with frustration and desires and 'inner pain' so to speak what's the point?
If the poor person is happy, he/she is happy despite the disease, not because of it - diseases are painful things. They're not fun. I'm sure most people would rather work 24/7 that be suffering from a fatal disease 24/7.
Quote:
No I'm saying they have a lot less and DIFFERENT.
Indeed, they are different, but I certainly wouldn't say that they're less.
But there is an interesting point - are people who are more likely to become rich more likely to be happy? That is, are these two factors dependent on some third factor, but not directly on each other? To clarify, look at two people, Person A and Person B.
Person A is a woman who got pregnant in college and dropped out. She didn't have much of her own will, and thus got into an unhappy marriage. She then got divorced, and lost a lot of money (that isn't to say that she was rich before). And she keeps messing up her life.
Person B is a guy who certainly didn't grow up rich, but not really poor. He got an education and a high-paying job that he likes. He never messed up his life, got into a good marriage, and has several kids who are also happy and getting educated. Though he isn't a millionaire, he certainly is far from poor.
So, here's the interesting question. If you gave Person A a million dollars, she would lose it somehow in a month, and would just be as poor as before. If you gave Person B a million dollars, in a month, he would have even more. And Person B is certainly happier than Person A. Tell me, is this a result of wealth, or a result of similar values/ethics resulting in both happiness and wealth?
I'm leaning towards the second. People who are motivated, don't get depressed over minor things, get into stable, serious relationships, and don't take risks that have a high chance of ruining their lives without a payoff that truly justifies it are both more likely to be happy and more likely to become rich.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted October 11, 2008 12:33 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 00:53, 11 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
Moonlith:
Quote:
FACT: There were no weapons of mass destruction found dispite their intelligence supposedly knew for certain Saddam had them. Given this was stated as one of the biggest reasons to invade Iraq, I would imagine there would be some serious political consequences in the realization that this war is Illegal. I don't know about you, but I consider this something major to take into consideration. Bush JOKED about there not being any weapons of mass destruction. What the hell?
We invaded Iraq for its oil, and to feed the military-industrial complex. Of course there are no WMDs. This doesn't mean that 9/11 was a setup, though.
It does undermine the reliability of statements made by your government. Moreover it means this war was started under FALSE PRETENCES, as such is illegal, and heads should roll.
Quote:
Quote:
FACT: WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolition.
False. WTC7 collapsed as a result of fire and bad construction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj487RNAi14
Not false. It is a FACT WTC7 collapsed as a result of controlled demolition.
Meh, we are drifting off topic. I'll make a seperate topic for this.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2008 04:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It does undermine the reliability of statements made by your government. Moreover it means this war was started under FALSE PRETENCES, as such is illegal, and heads should roll.
ZOMG! The government lied! New and exciting! Of course they lied. Heads should indeed roll. But they won't.
And 7 collapsed because of a severe structural flaw.
But this really doesn't belong in this thread.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted October 11, 2008 10:57 AM |
|
|
Heh, you are ACCEPTING a lying government (with far-going consequences)by not revolting against it...
And people wonder why I bash Americans.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2008 06:11 PM |
|
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted October 11, 2008 06:21 PM |
|
|
As far as I know, demonstrating is your divine right. If you get thrown in jail for that, that only underlines the fact your government is corrupt.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2008 06:57 PM |
|
|
Oh, I thought you meant that I should do something beyond demonstrating. There are plenty of people demonstrating already - the problem is, many of them are not all there in the head, so no one takes them seriously.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 03:56 PM |
|
|
And that only further underlines the sheep theory
Sheep so indoctrinated they don't need a dog to keep them in line: they themselves mock and redicule those that step out of line and those who think outside the box. Hm, but again the topic seems to drift to psychology now rather than economics.
____________
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted October 20, 2008 11:33 PM |
|
|
Just to lighten up the harsh climate of the last days ...
____________
The empty set
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 24, 2009 05:15 AM |
|
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 02:06 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 14:13, 06 Feb 2009.
|
I'm totally going to revive this dead thread regardless of the consequences, because I want to get a little discussion about the truth of money circulation going, since I'm thinking so far I can point out why profits are bad.
Personally I don't think they are just bad, I think they are disastrous and that dumb sheep populations some day, somehow, were taught to believe a profit system is actually good, and didn't see those people who they thought were intelligent rational beings were in fact the most evil shadowkings straight from hell the world had ever seen. CEOs and Bankers are Satanspawn.
But that's just me.
Anyway, about the money circulation in a profit system....
The basic premise is that companies are considered to be good healthy companies when they make profits. So, when their Income > Costs. We're gonna generalize for the next examples.
It should be stated all costs eventually end up with humans, wether it is loan or people who get paid for producing machines, digging up recources, or sitting on their fat ass pretending to be doing important management duties, as well CEO loans (profits are an extra), all money ends up with humans, the mass population.
As a second statement, the government does NOT aim for profits; sometimes it has more expenses, sometimes it has money to spare. Since we're talking about a model here, we're gonna say a Government's income and costs are both 50.
So let's assume in the year 2000 all companies run well and have a total income of 150, and 100 costs. Aka, 50 = profits, so they are good healthy companies. Now my question is, where does that money come from? The total costs were 100, so the population received 100 total. And of that 100, they paid 150 for all products.... Sounds a bit weird? To me it does, but that's how our society works.
So, where does that money come from? In our society there is only two possible sources for the lacking 50 (and it can be safely said those 50 directly represent PROFITS).
A) Bankrupting companies. Suppose we split all companies in the society into 5 different groups. 4 groups have 100 costs, and 110 income. The 5th group has 100 costs, and 60 income. Voila, circle closed. So basicly we can state that the profits for one group of companies comes directly from companies that actually give more to the population than take from it. Said companies are considered bankrupt and will disappear.... So we have a society in which profits are created over the removal of jobs. Not to mention said broken company can easily be bought up by those that actually have the money to pay it; those that make profits.
B) Banks: The people LOAN 50 in order to pay off their obvious debts, which they have to make since without doing so, no company would make profits
Problem is, the bank wants that money refuned, with a little extra. So what we get is a closed money cirquit, but with a population left in DEBT.
In our current society, both A and B are where money comes from. Companies go bankrupt or banks hand out loans, that's the ONLY source from which profits can come.
The inevitable result is that the total population is always left indebted and the elite will always get a little more. And of course, if you cannot pay off your debts they will take what little you have left And in this society model, debts are inevitable.
Sure, you can argue "But if you're smart you can get to the top and make profits yourself!" Oh sure, lets ALL become like that
I mean, does ANYBODY understand the ONLY reason person A can make profits, is if it COMES from person B? You can't have both people making full profits, it HAS to COME from somewhere.
So I'm basicly asking all capitalist-supporters, is THIS a society model you support? A model based on exploiting a large portion of the society kept indebted and working for the profits of a select few? BAH, I'm so not getting my thoughts out right; sucks not having English as a mothertongue.
In any case, I'm going to debunk two counter arguments I'm sure will be flung my way, just to make sure some jackass won't fling them and run off laughing without ever looking back to see if I didn't respond to them....
1) "You are wrong, companies going bankrupt is a good thing; it provides a cleansing effect and ensures only the good, productive, healthy companies will remain standing."
Of cooouuurrsee, that's why the American government GAVE over 700 BILLION (I believe Obama doubled it?) to fat companies that were better described as unhealthy, unproductive, and outdated Cleansing effect ey? By the way, that 700+ billion dollars is TOTALLY BORROWED So basicly you, the american population, just GAVE 700 billion dollars to a group of whiny snowass unhealthy exploitive companies and YOU can pay it back WITH INTEREST to the FED  Life is awesome aint it ?
That aside, I still wonder how you can possibly ethically defend feeding off on someone's corpse. At least, as "enlighted" humans you would think we would be more civilized and caring, right ?
2) "You are wrong, you totally neglected the fact companies INVEST money as well!"
I did not, actually. The investments are added the next year in 2001. The 50 in profits is invested in the hopes of making the company more productive, so the total costs go to 150 instead of 100, and of course they will still make profits, even more than before since that is obviously the main goal: growth. So their income would be around 225 this time It's a downward spiral.
I'm aware people will be TOTALLY unable to follow this story but mehhh, it feels good getting it out of my head for once, even if it is chaotic and poorly described. By the way, feel free to prove me wrong and I will stand defeated, if I can't counter it. I really want to know if I'm getting it right or if I'm missing some tiny little detail that totally makes the system work in an ethical way dispite all the current apparent contradicting evidence because you know, so far it is doing a damned good job at keeping me dilluded and thinking it's satanspawn
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 02:38 PM |
|
|
Moonlith, you have committed one of the biggest fallacies in economics - the lump of labor fallacy.
How do companies take in 100 and come out with 150? I'll tell you: they make 50. That's their value-added.
In A, the fifth company will go bankrupt, and the first four will go on with slightly bigger profits. So?
In B, I already explained the fallacy in that thinking. People do not take out loans that they don't think they can pay back.
Quote:
I mean, does ANYBODY understand the ONLY reason person A can make profits, is if it COMES from person B? You can't have both people making full profits, it HAS to COME from somewhere.
Wrong.
As for the bailout, I didn't support it. It's one of the most anti-capitalist bills ever to pass through Congress. But paying it back with interest to the Fed? The Fed isn't really a traditional bank. No one really pays it back.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 02:52 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 14:57, 06 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
you have committed one of the biggest fallacies in economics - the lump of labor fallacy.
Howso? The wikipedia is full of high-term gibberish which I can't follow - as I'm sure you've noticed from the rather simplistic words I used here.
Quote:
How do companies take in 100 and come out with 150? I'll tell you: they make 50. That's their value-added.
You're talking about products, I'm talking about money. They don't take in 100 and give 150 (that's making losses), they take in 150 and give out 100.
And "value added"? Give me a break.
Quote:
In A, the fifth company will go bankrupt, and the first four will go on with slightly bigger profits. So?
Sooooo one company and all its employees are left without a job? That is, untill the other four companies buy the broken one and provide new working seats. So now we have 4 people with wealth and power instead of 5 Then another one goes down, and now we have 3 people with wealth and power instead of 4. Etc.
And you do realize small fish can't compete with big daddies, right ?
Quote:
In B, I already explained the fallacy in that thinking.
You didn't, you posted a link..
Quote:
People do not take out loans that they don't think they can pay back.
So it's totally a personal choice? By all means I like to think I can save enough money to fully pay off a house the moment I move out to live on my own but, gosh Clarabelle, I think I'd have to work for over 30 years before I'd be able to. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to live with my sweet dear mother untill I'm 50, but I'm a retard. Everyone NEEDS a morgage to pay off a home over a longer term.
Besides, we know the money supply HAS to expand when production of goods goes up. So where does the money go? It's not like the banks just GIVE the money to the population. No, it's LOANED. Yes I too think you need to have a brain tumor the size of your left testicle to resort to taking on a loan you need to pay back with interest, and I love to think most people are dumbass ignorant rednecks which they in fact, truly are. But I still think it's a flawed system when you look from an utopian POV with only enlighted people around that are actually interesting to interact with.
Quote:
Quote:
quote:I mean, does ANYBODY understand the ONLY reason person A can make profits, is if it COMES from person B? You can't have both people making full profits, it HAS to COME from somewhere.
Wrong.
... Uhm... No YOU'RE wrong you poopiehead! ?
Let me TRY to make it EVEN MORE simplistic for you...
You have 2 happy human beings on the planet!
Person A produces 6 Meat!
Person B produces 6 Bread!
They trade 3 of each so they both enjoy 3 bread + 3 meat!
Person A decides he wants to make profits!
So he wants 2 Bread for every piece of Meat!
Person A gets 4 Meat and 4 Bread!
Person B doesn't make profits! He gets 2 Meat and 2 Bread!
Person B is a very sad person!
Are you starting to follow Tinkerbell?
Quote:
As for the bailout, I didn't support it. It's one of the most anti-capitalist bills ever to pass through Congress. But paying it back with interest to the Fed? The Fed isn't really a traditional bank. No one really pays it back.
I was under the impression the Fed basicly owns all banks through its control over the money supply that should have technically remained under government control
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 03:06 PM |
|
|
Talking to you about economics is like teaching a quadriplegic how to swim. I'm done. You will never listen. You will never even come close to listening.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 03:28 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 15:34, 06 Feb 2009.
|
Things you might suffer from
No seriously, my views can change, if only someone provides a clear and unbreakable argument. So far you fail at that.
But apparently that doesn't matter, because I'm just a TROLL, right?
____________
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 03:41 PM |
|
|
I am a socialist. But, from what I've seen, I cannot associate myself with the modern Left. It's full of hippies, deep ecologists, and black/hispanic/female supremacist groups. Marx would be ashamed - he rightly supported conquering nature.
As for the subject at hand: there is absolutely no question that capitalism is the most productive system. However, productivity is only one side of the coin - distribution is the other, and capitalism does not do nearly as well at that. People have needs that are not reflected in their abilities.
However, all these banking conspiracy theories are a distraction from the real problem. There is no conspiracy - there is just a flaw in the system. There's no trick to it, it's just there.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
