Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2294883 - 02/02/04 05:17 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

It was lack of effort... :rolleyes:

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Azmodeus writes:

Generally when you have enough food, tools to work with, clothes, and a bit extra for whatever is enough.

When you have "enough" for how long? For the next 24 hours? The next six months? The rest of your life if you are retired? For unexpected emergencies which arise?



Knowledge of skills needed to provide for yourself are a good start.  Obviously you need extra supplies for winter,,,how much  is up to you. Stockpiling more food that you cna eat in two years would be wastefull.

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:When you have "enough" for whom? Yourself and only yourself? For yourself and your wife? For yourself, your wife, your children (don't forget their university educations), your destitute parents and your wastrel brother?



For yourself.  Anyone else is extra.  If your brothers retarded, his family should provide for him, not the public.

Well i never said i was for the government to take...

Everything you write implies that the government is to take the "excess". If the government is not to take it, either the owner gets to keep it (which mushmaster is arguing) or someone else gets to take it. If you don't want the government to seize it, then who do you think should? The Mafia, perhaps?



Heres the contradiction.  I agree with mushmaster that the individual should keep what they make, butat the same time realise how cumulative collection of wealth creates an eternal imbalance in our society.  I don't agree to forcing them to chnge, but feel as a species, we must move beyond material aquisition in order to manage what little resources we have left.  If you have individuals influencing large companies to keep harvesting for profit, we eventually won't have anything left. This also is a balance....too much and we exhaust our resources, but trade markets, and economics must be taken into factor as well....it makes everyones life easier to trade for thing they don't have or can't make.  I don't have a answer for wher this balance should be...

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:...but the passing on of fortunes eventually leads to powergroups, which then war for more power... harvest at wastefull rates, all the things ppl with alot of money end up doing.

The above is true in totalitarian societies. However, in societies where politicians are elected by the general populace, those who might war are elected by Joe voter, and Joe voter has an irritating tendency to think for himself. The wealthy "powergroups" can of course choose to donate money to the election campaigns of their cronies, but we have just witnessed a convincing demonstration of the fact that money spent on promoting a candidate guarantees nothing. Howard Dean had massively better funding than anyone else, and he got beaten like a Chinese gong.



But does it matter which overfunded person becomes president?...not really.  The waste remains.

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:THe ceo gets many times more than what he needs for nothing...simply because his business was bought or inherited.

Unlike some who post here, I have spent quite a bit of time in the corporate world, and have met and talked with (and of course worked for) several CEOs. None of the ones I met inherited their position, nor did they buy it. All of the ones I met were among the most intelligent, ambitious, decisive, and hardest-working people I have ever met. Right up there with surgeons.



Do they work harder than a mill worker? They must work 50x as hard in a day to be paid so much.  Guess i was wrong about ceo's...

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:If you think just anyone can be a successful CEO, I suggest you submit your application to one of the big corporations. The board of directors would be delighted to inform the shareholders they had found a CEO willing to work for "enough food, tools to work with, clothes, and a bit extra for whatever is enough." The greedy shareholders could then pocket much more in the way of dividends and everyone would be happy.



i never meant you work for food, tools clothes etc...i mean you make them. Grow your own food, make cloth, or sew, you don't have to do everything, trade is good. Shareholders want easy money, driven by greed for more money....like most people today.


Quote:

pinksharkmark said:Because to be filthy rich means your consuming more than others, without giving back.

How on earth do you figure the rich give back nothing? You think people just give the rich their mansions and champagne and Ferraris? The rich give back money -- money which is spent on products and services which employ people like bakers, for example.



Money made from money isn't earned.  The small amount they give back  generated from thier wealth, is not of the same value to them as to those they give it too.

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:You can live off of interest alone, but that imbalance isn't right.

Explain what you mean by "imbalance."



I mean the imbalance of having more money that you need...of making many times that of someone doing the same amount of effort.  Not just a bit, but many many times what  a baker or someone would get.  It is unescessary to have that much money.


Quote:

pinksharkmark said:It is of course true that not all six billion-plus  people on the planet can live by doing nothing more than investing then living off the interest. It is also true that not all six billion-plus can live as singers. Nor can all six billion-plus live as dancers -- or as artists or movie stars or even for that matter as potters or cabinet makers or construction workers or automobile manufacturers or farmers or fishermen. The only way that many people can support themselves is through division of labor. Some farm, some manufacture, some promote, some entertain, some invest. Everyone consumes.



So man cannot live self sufficently by himself?

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:I don't understand why you would endeavor for wealth your whole life...what a wastefull meaningless existance.

And I don't understand why someone would endeavor to be a beggar in an orange robe contemplating his navel for the rest of his life. Our inability to understand the motivations behind those who choose to spend their lives differently than we would doesn't mean we should forcibly prevent them from doing so. If you want to live your life at a subsistence level, fine by me. If you want to attempt to make a billion dollars by age fifty, also fine by me.



And by me, but it is sad to watch us destroy ourselfes with over harvesting, breeding etc...we cannot go on with greed as the driving force in our lives.

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:No, ..... its a big fat guy threatening everyone away and eating until he vomits, while the others go hungry.

You have just illustrated mushmaster's point about how you view the production of wealth perfectly. It appears you honestly believe there is a static amount of wealth in the world -- that the economy is a pizza pie, and if one guy eats two slices, someone else has to eat the box. This belief is incorrect. Read any basic economics text. I suggest you start with Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson", or just about anything by Thomas Sowell.

pinky



By the pizza analogy, i mean to protray how the fat guy stuffs his face out of competition from others, thus wasting the pizza, and keeping his fellows hungry.  It is self defeating.  Teach them how to make a pizza instead.

Theres really no point to what im saying.  Im not for the redistribution of others wealth, but to hoard and have many times what you need is defeating.  And if that is the goal in most ppls lives, we are in a sorry state indeed.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2295115 - 02/02/04 07:04 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Azmodeus writes:

It was lack of effort...

I thought that might be the case. :smile: 

Stockpiling more food that you cna eat in two years would be wastefull.

Let me make sure I understand you. Suppose I'm a retired dude of 65 years old. Worked as a coal miner all my life, now I'm too old to continue mining coal.

I have enough money to keep myself alive for two years and you think that's enough? What do I do when I hit sixty-seven and have no money left to pay the rent, buy my food, buy new clothes etc.? Rob a rich guy?

For yourself. Anyone else is extra.

My wife is "extra"? My three kids aged 2 to 9 years old? Dude, and you call me harsh! My kids aren't knowledgeable enough or strong enough to earn what they need to keep themselves alive.

If your brothers retarded, his family should provide for him, not the public.

Ummm... by definition if he is my brother, I am his family. Am I to be allowed to accumulate enough money to ensure his continued existence for just two more years as well?

...his family should provide for him, not the public.

On this we are in 100% agreement. Too bad he's set for just the next two years, though.

I agree with mushmaster that the individual should keep what they make, butat the same time realise how cumulative collection of wealth creates an eternal imbalance in our society.

Why one earth does this upset you?

We are not a a hive species. Humans aren't ants or bees or termites. If by "imbalance" you refer to the fact that different people have different skill sets, can you not see that it is completely unrealistic to expect everyone to produce the same amount of wealth or to expect everyone to be satisfied with a hand-to-mouth existence if they are capable of doing better than that?

Further, who is harmed? How does my driving a 2002 Honda Accord rather than a 1985 Yugo prevent Joe Peasant in Bangladesh from buying another water buffalo? Demonstrate the connection, please.

I don't agree to forcing them to chnge, but feel as a species, we must move beyond material aquisition in order to manage what little resources we have left.

If this is true, the way to accomplish this is through persuasion, not force. If your conviction is strong enough, you can become a world-famous evangelist, travelling from country to country preaching the ideal of subsistence existence. If you are persuasive enough, others will follow in your footsteps and people will revert to neolithic lifestyles. This will solve any perceived overpopulation problem as well.

If you have individuals influencing large companies to keep harvesting for profit, we eventually won't have anything left.

Any what left?

With today's technology alone (let alone what remains to be discovered -- always presuming there are lazy people with enough money left over beyond the subsistence level to fund research) pretty much the only resources which are not recyclable are the ones we burn. What are you afraid we'll run out of?

I don't have a answer for wher this balance should be...

No one does. This is why planned economies (Marxism and all its various offshoots) are doomed to fail. Let the Earth decide what the balance will be. The Earth has done a good job of it so far.

But does it matter which overfunded person becomes president?

Nice dodge. The fact remains that the amount of money spent -- whether it comes from ten thousand small contributers or two hundred big ones -- guarantees nothing. Therefore the few thousand people in the "power groups" have less impact than the hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients in determining which stuffed suit hands out the pilfered goodies.

Do they work harder than a mill worker?

Did the guys who invented the transistor work "harder" than a mill worker? Does a neurosurgeon? Does James Brown (the "hardest working man in show business")? Depends what you mean by "harder", doesn't it?

The quantity of calories one expends in a day doesn't always directly relate to the worth of what one produces. If it did, we could all get rich by digging ditches with teaspoons then filling them in again with colanders.

Guess i was wrong about ceo's...

You were wrong about the successful ones. As in any field of endeavor, some are better at it than others. This variability is, of course, an "imbalance".

i never meant you work for food, tools clothes etc...i mean you make them. Grow your own food, make cloth, or sew...

It's a bit of a tough chore to grow enough food in a midtown Manhattan apartment to support even a single guy, let alone a family. And do you have even the slightest idea how difficult it is to make cloth?

Think about this -- there is no single person on this planet with the knowledge and skills to make a standard yellow-painted wooden pencil with a rubber eraser tip from scratch. Not one.

...you don't have to do everything...

Not only does one not have to do everything, one cannot. See above.

...trade is good.

Not only is trade good, trade is essential once one gets past the hunter-gatherer stage. Even then, hunter-gatherer societies exercised division of labor.

Shareholders want easy money...

Who doesn't? The thing is, to own shares, one must first buy them. To buy them, one must obtain money. To obtain money, one must either work or persuade someone else to give you some.

I own shares. So do you (by proxy) if you have a bank account which pays interest. I don't know about you, but I worked damn hard for the money (of which the Canadian government took over half) I earned which I exchanged for those shares. There was nothing "easy" about it.

...driven by greed for more money....

How much do you earn a year? If you were offered a job which payed you thirty per cent more for the same hours, would you accept it? If so, then by your own definition you are "driven by greed for more money".

Why do you deserve to make more money than a janitor or a burger-flipper? Do you work "harder" than they do?

Money made from money isn't earned.

So sorry, it is.

I took some of my money and invested it in a small business. The business made some money for a while, then failed. I ended up losing a fair bit of cash.

I worked damned hard for the money I invested in that business. I earned it. I risked it and lost it. If my investment had been a success, I would have deserved the money it made for me, just as because it was a failure I deserved to lose the money.

Note that although the government was quite content to "share" in my my meager profit in the beginning, they were nowhere to be found when I went looking for them to share in the losses.

The small amount they give back generated from thier wealth, is not of the same value to them as to those they give it too.

Are you saying the $300 I put in my pocket from selling a rich guy a new car is of less importance to me than the $300 I put in my pocket from selling a baker a new car -- because the rich guy doesn't miss it and the baker does? Are you saying that money has value only when there is pain attached to parting with it?

News flash -- I couldn't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut how much the rich dude values that $300. What matters to me is how much *I* value that $300.

I'll take it further -- the rich guy buys a new car every two years. The baker buys a new one every ten years. The rich guy "gave back" to me $1500 in the same decade that the baker "gave back" to me $300.

Who is "giving back" more in the above scenario?

I mean the imbalance of having more money that you need...

More than two years worth of subsistence-level living, right?

...of making many times that of someone doing the same amount of effort.

We've been through the whole value-of-effort business above.

Not just a bit, but many many times what a baker or someone would get.

If the baker wants more, he should change his line of work. I did.

It is unescessary to have that much money.

Of course it is. So what?

It is unnecessary to have the computer you typed your post on. It is unnecessary to have a telephone. Or a TV or a stereo or an X-Box. Or a car. Or haircuts. Or a tatto. Or bedroom slippers. Or a pet. What's your point?

So man cannot live self sufficently by himself?

Each and every one of the six billion-plus currently inhabiting the planet? Not a chance.

To support that many people, division of labor is a necessity. If there is division of labor, then trade is a necessity, which makes currency a necessity, which makes exchanging labor for currency a necessity, which makes "imbalance" a certainty.

And by me...

Then we are arguing for nothing. We are in agreement -- as least as far as the political and economic aspects of this discussion are concerned. If you wish to discuss the spiritual side of things -- i.e to bemoan the sorry state of the world where "greed" is the norm, may I suggest you take it up in the Spirituality and Philosophy forum?

By the pizza analogy, i mean to protray how the fat guy stuffs his face out of competition from others...

The fat guy doesn't stuff his face because he wants to compete, he stuffs his face because he's a glutton.

...thus wasting the pizza...

If he bought the pizza with his own money, he can wear it as a toupee for all I care. I'll buy my own pizza.

... and keeping his fellows hungry.

I ask again -- how does my buying a car prevent Joe peasant in Sri Lanka from buying a water buffalo? You seem still to be convinced that in order for me to buy something I want, someone else must do without something he wants. This is just not true.

What's the most recent thing other than food, clothes, water, or rent that you bought? Maybe a CD? How did your buying it prevent someone else from buying the same thing? In other words, if you had refrained from buying it, who would magically have been empowered to buy it who lacked that power previously?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEkstaza
stranger than most
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 1 year, 15 days
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2295179 - 02/02/04 07:26 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

You my friend have a complete and concrete grasp of what's real in life. After reading your last post I feel better, knowing that people like you exist.


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2295194 - 02/02/04 07:29 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

No single person anywhere in the chain of people involved in making a $200 pair of sneakers receives anywhere even close to $199.90 to put in his/her pocket. If you honestly believe the CEO of Nike pockets $199.90 out of each $200 sale you need to re-examine your premises.

im fully aware that its not quite that simple..but still true in principle nonetheless...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2295204 - 02/02/04 07:31 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

disregard

edit: tangent


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Edited by afoaf (02/02/04 07:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: afoaf]
    #2295246 - 02/02/04 07:44 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

afoaf writes:

Because they are marginally less polluting than 20 years
ago, that should be reason for us to allow fuel efficiency
to digress?

Re-read what I wrote. They are not "marginally" less polluting, they are vastly less polluting. Several orders of magnitude less than the cars of thirty years ago, an order of magnitude or two less than they were twenty years ago.

...that should be reason for us to allow fuel efficiency
to digress?

Again, you need to do some fact checking. Compare a 100 horsepower car of 1984 with a 150 horsepower car of today and then get back to us on which one gets the better gas mileage. You'll be amazed.

In the econobox class, there are some which routinely get in the high 30's even in city driving, and some of the hybrids get in excess of fifty mpg.

The progress has been made. The reason the average fuel economy is on the decline again is not that progress hasn't been made, but that more and more people are choosing to buy trucks -- pickups, SUV's, vans, and minivans. The fault is not with the manufacturers who squeeze more and power power out of less and less displacement with less and less pollutants -- it's with the buyers who would rather drive a 500 horsepower pickup truck to the corner store and back than a Toyota Prius.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2295286 - 02/02/04 07:56 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Annapurna1 writes:

im fully aware that its not quite that simple..

Then why do you persist in making assertions like this? Save us both some time and get your facts straight before hitting the send button.

...but still true in principle nonetheless...

Not even close.

The following is an observation based on some reflection I've been doing over the last few days. It is not directed exclusively at Annapurna1:

It is painfully obvious to even a casual reader of this forum that the government-run schools today are failing to educate their captives in even the most fundamental of the basic laws of economics. A tremendous amount of the stuff I type here has nothing to do with politics per se and everything to do with explaining -- over and over again -- the most fundamental and self-evident facts of life regarding wealth and man's relationship to it.

How on earth did so many otherwise intelligent people end up being so badly cheated by their educators in such a crucial area? If one doesn't have at least a working knowledge of standard economics one is going to be in for a VERY rough time of it in the real world.

I am thinking quite seriously of asking the admins to rename this forum -- maybe to Politics, Activism, and Economics.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2295524 - 02/02/04 08:46 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

im fully aware that its not quite that simple..

Then why do you persist in making assertions like this? Save us both some time and get your facts straight before hitting the send button.

...but still true in principle nonetheless...

Not even close.



prolly much closer than you would have us believe...while i dont have a link to the actual numbers off the top of my head.. im still willing to bet that in this case the actual cost..taking all those factors into account..doesnt come anywhere close to $200...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2295565 - 02/02/04 08:58 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

I didn't want this to get off-topic which is why
I originally edited, but...

why can't I get an electric pickup?

where's my hybrid suv?

why did toyota shelve their 100mpg concept car?

it is not as if there is no demand for such things.

I'm sure half the soccermoms out there would have
a largely clearer conscience if they could get a hybrid
Excursion.

which brings us back to that historically unholy alliance
of the oil, tire and automobile manufacturers. The same
triumverate that purchased and dismantled metro
railways around the country and continue to work in
unison to hedge each other's bets.

...be damned the greater good.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: afoaf]
    #2295606 - 02/02/04 09:10 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

afoaf said:
why can't I get an electric pickup?


I've seen them before, but they're not very useful... (see next question)

Quote:

where's my hybrid suv?


These wouldn't work very well. The reason for this is simple and the same reason you don't see electric pickups, power to weight ratio.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Annapurna1]
    #2295625 - 02/02/04 09:18 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Annapurna1 writes:

prolly much closer than you would have us believe...while i dont have a link to the actual numbers off the top of my head.. im still willing to bet that in this case the actual cost..taking all those factors into account..doesnt come anywhere close to $200...

You're on. I'm ready and willing to make a sizeable wager here. Before you agree, though, let me advise you to first study a copy of Nike's last annual report. Pay particular attention to the Revenue line, the After Tax Profit line, and the CEO compensation line.

What is your definition of coming "anywhere close" to $200? If Nike's CEO pockets half the revenue that Nike shoes sold at retail generate? If he pockets a quarter of it?

Bear in mind that the Nikes you buy at Sport Check for $200 cost Sport Check perhaps $140 from their distributor, and that Nike may have charged the distributor only $110 or so. I am unsure what profit margins Sport Check runs on, so I presumed an unrealistically stingy thirty point margin for the retailer and a positively benevolent twenty point margin for the distributor. If those margins are higher (and the norm in the retail clothing industry runs forty to sixty points or more, so you can see the size of the break I am conceding here) then Nike receives even less than $110 for those $200 shoes.

Therefore on a per-pair of shoes basis, Nike's CEO pockets pennies per pair... perhaps even fractions of a cent per pair.

pinky


--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (02/02/04 09:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: afoaf]
    #2295921 - 02/02/04 11:11 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


why can't I get an electric pickup?

where's my hybrid suv?




Patience, patience. Next year:

http://www.toyota.com/about/news/product/2003/12/09-1-Hybrid-Highlander.html

I would engage more in this debate but I really tire of the PAL discussions on distribution of wealth. While it is 'not fair' that some people get more of their money taken from them in taxes than others, I also think its 'not fair' that some people get paid hugely more for the same job just because of the country they happen to live in. Nor do I think its fair that someone gets a lot more opportunities to produce wealth because of the who they were born to. nor do i think its fair for anyone to live lavishly off of the work of others because they either had a lot of money to invest or were good at playing the game of business. of course, you can't redistribute wealth too much or people will lose their incentive to keep working and investing. I believe social safety nets are essential, but where is the line that we draw? where do we stop giving welfare? Germany and France went a bit too far and had to reform their system. I believe over the next century we'll get a lot better at tweaking out the whole system and finding a better and better middleground.
Nothing about this whole system is 'fair'. but the government can try to make things less 'unfair'. whether you think that's the government's role is a matter of opinion.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Tao]
    #2295975 - 02/02/04 11:38 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
Patience, patience.  Next year:

http://www.toyota.com/about/news/product/2003/12/09-1-Hybrid-Highlander.html


Wow, I wonder how well that will do in a desert wash. :smirk:

Quote:

I also think its 'not fair' that some people get paid hugely more for the same job just because of the country they happen to live in.


Is it fair that the cost of living is higher in these countries as well?

Quote:

Nor do I think its fair that someone gets a lot more opportunities to produce wealth because of the who they were born to.


Take it up with God.

Quote:

nor do i think its fair for anyone to live lavishly off of the work of others because they either had a lot of money to invest...


Most people don't get money to invest from the lottery but by hard work and thrift.

Quote:

... or were good at playing the game of business.


It's not a game (contrary to fantasies of those who've never started or run a business), but hard work, proper decision making and risking of capital which people have saved.

Quote:

Nothing about this whole system is 'fair'.


Welcome to life.

Quote:

but the government can try to make things less 'unfair'.


Eternal optimism backed by the initiation of force to 'make the world a better place.'

Quote:

whether you think that's the government's role is a matter of opinion.


It's also a matter of morality, practicality and learning from history.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2297019 - 02/03/04 10:34 AM (20 years, 2 months ago)

"Then we are arguing for nothing. We are in agreement -- as least as far as the political and economic aspects of this discussion are concerned. If you wish to discuss the spiritual side of things -- i.e to bemoan the sorry state of the world where "greed" is the norm, may I suggest you take it up in the Spirituality and Philosophy forum?"

Unfortunately greed is very much a part of politics. YOu take what i say too literally about teh two years stockpile and miss the learning of skills, and working together to compensate for lack of ability.

Do you not think we are overpopulating/overconsuming our planet? Can we just keep making more pizzas without the dough? I believe we cannot keep going as we are. We are harvesting too much to support our imbalanced population...and for that we are all guilty. We'd be just as fucked if everyone tried to live self sufficently...i don't have an answer,,,,we must let nature balance it out..even with imbalance. I agree with you about letting the earth decide the order, but its seems to me nature might of made a fatal mistake with us. That is why i try to point out the imbalance....if you think we are doing fine, and can keep going as we have been, and the earth will balance us, then you will never understand my view.

Can you not see the spiral between the balance and imbalance? with nature allowing us to colonise so competely we will most likely ruin our eviornmetn and ourselfs, thus restoring balance through imbalance. In my earlier posts, i thought we may yet be able to do something about this.

Although reading your posts, i have changed my view somwhat. It helped me realise that no-one is more responsible for this imbalance than anyone else. We all contribute to imbalance, and the current situation is just how things worked out.....its sad really.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Azmodeus]
    #2297302 - 02/03/04 12:38 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Azmodeus writes:

Unfortunately greed is very much a part of politics.

"Greed" is very much a part of the human condition, period.

And "greed" is such a fuzzy word when used in debate, anyway. To some people, a "greedy" person is anyone who won't settle for bare subsistence living. To many others, to want a Honda Accord sedan or a Ford F150 pickup is not greedy, but to want a Mercedes sedan or a 500 horsepower Dodge Hemi pickup is.

To others, someone who wants enough money to look after their spouse, their offspring, and their siblings is "greedy".

The fact is that it is entirely normal for humans to wish to better their condition. To call this "greed" is to fail to recognize reality.

YOu take what i say too literally about teh two years stockpile...

Your statements were pretty clear on that. If what you mean to say is not what you actually write, don't be blaming me for my inability to read minds.

...and miss the learning of skills, and working together to compensate for lack of ability.

So we should work together in groups to satisfy our "greed" rather than on our own? How does that change anything? What is a corporation anyway if not a group?

And why do we expend all that effort to learn skills if not to better our condition?

Do you not think we are overpopulating/overconsuming our planet?

1) Who is "we"? Certainly not the Western world, where the birthrate has fallen below the replacement level over the last decade or so.

2) The doomsayers of the Seventies (Erdman, Ehrlich et al) have already been proven spectacularly wrong on their estimates of what the population would be by the turn of the century, as well as their predictions of mass plagues, mass famines, and worldwide nuclear conflict over diminishing resources that were an "inevitable" consequence of their predicted overcrowding. Excuse me if I need a bit more concrete proof of an overpopulation crisis before I panic.

And I ask again -- exactly what is it that we are "overconsuming"? Don't just cop out by saying "resources," give me five specific resources you believe we are running out of, and at least some supporting evidence that this is so.

Can we just keep making more pizzas without the dough?

Do you have any idea how big the technology industry is? I mean computers, telephones, consumer electronics etc. In essence, these things are made of glass and silicon (both obtained from sand -- not exactly a scarce resource), a pound or two of plastic, a few grams or ounces of copper and some aluminum. None of those things are scarce, all are recyclable.

Wood products are renewable. The farms in the Western world generate an unprecedented amount of calories per acre. It has been pointed out many many times in this forum that there is no need for famine in the world today -- production capacity is not the problem. So add two more industries in no danger of running out of dough -- agriculture and forestry.

Same with the automotive industry and shipbuilding. With each year that passes, more and more of the steel and copper and aluminum that goes into their manufacture comes from recycled metal from scrapyards. We're not going to run out of materials with which to build them.

I believe we cannot keep going as we are.

The point is, on what do you base your belief? On what some college professor has spoonfed you? On the rantings of the modern day Ehrlichs and Erdmans? These guys don't hold the copyright on facts. You would be well-served if you were to do some investigation of your own. The information is out there and the web makes the gathering of that information easier than ever.

Or check the market commodities reports. Look into the price of aluminum or copper or lumber or concrete or asphalt or nylon or iron or coal or pork bellies or grain futures. If this stuff is vanishing, why is it available for such a low price?

We are harvesting too much to support our imbalanced population...

How do you define "unbalanced"? Are you saying there are too many people (if so, see my reply above) or are you saying some people produce more than others? If so see my previous posts.

...and for that we are all guilty.

Speak for yourself, paleface. I am not guilty. I live very frugally. I don't own a car, a television, a stereo, a radio, or even a bicycle. My dressiest shoes are a pair of white Reebok "Tennis Classics" bought for $40.

I refuse to believe that my slinging drinks to tourists in a beach bar in the Caribbean contributes one iota to the "ruin" of the planet.

We'd be just as fucked if everyone tried to live self sufficently...

Correct. Doesn't that tell you something about the nature of humans and the nature of the universe in which they live?

The hard facts of reality are that in order to remain alive, living entities must expend effort. They must take from the environment. Humans are not exempt from this requirement, no matter how much some humans may wish it were so.

we must let nature balance it out..even with imbalance. I agree with you about letting the earth decide the order, but its seems to me nature might of made a fatal mistake with us.

Perhaps. If so, ultimately is Earth who decides. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed". If in fact it is impossible to sustain a human population of ten or fifteen or twenty billion at some point down the road, then we will not reach that number -- or we will reach it and then subside from it rather rapidly.

My problem with that speculation is that it is just that -- speculation. A hundred years ago few would have believed the Earth could support the number of people it does today in the unimagined relative luxury (compared to life in 1904) we experience today. What would the political implications have been if they (the folks of a century ago) had forcibly prevented people from striving for more on the rationale that it was futile and self-destructive? What draconian measures would have been needed to stop growth "just in case" that growth turned out to be disastrous?

That is why i try to point out the imbalance....if you think we are doing fine, and can keep going as we have been, and the earth will balance us, then you will never understand my view.

Why do you think I believe we will keep going "as we have been" even if we can? Things change all the time. New technologies are discovered. Societal mores and norms change -- see the reduction in birth rates in the Western world, for example. Natural factors which tend to limit population growth rear their heads -- new plagues (AIDS for one) appear and old ones (malaria for one) reappear.

The point is that to limit and stifle human freedom today on the off chance that some as yet unknown something may eventually go wrong somewhere down the road is absurd. "Let's not use ALAR to preserve our apples because maybe eventually two or three people may get cancer from it". Well, we all remember that the whole ALAR scare was nonsense. "But we don't know that. Maybe fifty years from now someone will actually die of ALAR-induced cancer!" Yeah, right.

Can you not see the spiral between the balance and imbalance?

I have a hard time commenting on nebulous terms. Define them. What is "balance" in this context? "Balance" between what? Between humans or between humanity and the polar bears or what? What is "imbalance"? What is "spiral"? Tell me specifically why it is okay to have three billion people on the earth but not six billion?

with nature allowing us to colonise so competely we will most likely ruin our eviornmetn and ourselfs, thus restoring balance through imbalance.

So what's the problem? If there are too many lemmings in an area, they start dying off until the area can support the remaining ones. If humans become too numerous -- through whatever manner -- enough will die off that the Earth can support the remaining ones.

Again, my problem from a political point of view is when humans start imposing force on other humans for any reason, including the rationale that if force is not used, some vague catastrophe might possibly occur at some vague and unspecified point in the distant future.

Read some history. Humans have been predicting imminent catastrophe -- "The End of the World" on a regular basis from the dawn of recorded history. We're still here.

And to get back to the original topic of this thread, even if there were some catastrophe looming somewhere in the future, seizing money from the successful won't avoid it.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2298358 - 02/03/04 05:34 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

very nice.  :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Evolving]
    #2298653 - 02/03/04 06:59 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

we can do it.

ford just doesn't cuz chevron has their
hand up their ass.

and yet again, the japanese auto
makers are going to leave the big
4 in the dust when the next wave
of fuel economy takes over the
market.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: afoaf]
    #2298786 - 02/03/04 08:08 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

afoaf said:
we can do it.


I hope so, but I'll believe it when I drive it and it rides well.

Quote:

ford just doesn't cuz chevron has their hand up their ass.


I think the auto makers have to be fairly confident that they're going to make a profit. So far, public response (where it counts, buying autos) has not been very enthusiastic towards things like electric cars and hybrids. As the technology improves, performance wise and cost wise, I think more auto makers will jump on the bandwagon.

On a side note, Chevron had their hand up my ass for 6 years (I worked at their El Segundo Refinery) and it didn't feel good at all.

Quote:

and yet again, the japanese auto makers are going to leave the big
4 in the dust when the next wave of fuel economy takes over the market.


The days of massive fossil fuel usage are numbered, the end just won't come as fast as many people would like, but it will come.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSnobrdr311
outdoorenthusiast
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/03/01
Posts: 1,468
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Vote Republican if you make over $250,000 a year [Re: Phred]
    #2299198 - 02/03/04 11:18 PM (20 years, 2 months ago)

Awesome post!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 250,000 bullets per insurgent
( 1 2 3 all )		 Alex213 2,881 42 09/27/05 12:38 PM
by Seuss
* that's it keep voting republican
( 1 2 all )		 KingOftheThing 1,693 23 06/12/05 01:33 AM
by KingOftheThing
* Protesters chase away military recruiters
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 RandalFlagg 4,534 60 05/04/05 06:42 AM
by 1stimer
* Votes Found on Machines in Philly Before Polls Open usefulidiot 702 2 11/02/04 11:04 AM
by usefulidiot
* Vote fraud? Say it isn't so! luvdemshrooms 914 7 08/25/04 03:24 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Are any of you voting for Badnarik?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Libertarian 3,372 40 09/03/04 03:11 AM
by fastfred
* article - Republican Presidents And War Crimes - Nothing New grib 1,122 4 05/20/04 05:50 PM
by silversoul7
* Why do you think the most wealthy states and cities voted democratic in the recent election?
( 1 2 all )		 Catalysis 3,654 32 11/12/04 12:36 PM
by Worf

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,497 topic views. 0 members, 7 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 13 queries.