Students in New York occupy Wall Street

Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Students in New York occupy Wall Street

In the heart of global finances there is a civil unrest of people, who demand justice and social security. People do not want to suffer anymore because of greed, corruption and selfishness, which are the base of the current economic system.

At the beginning of September, a group of young people gathered in New York through the Internet and social media. They decided to show their disagreement with the current situation of majority of USA citizens. They chose Wall Street as the place of their protest, because the majority of crises and problems of contemporary world originate there. They have had enough of the incessant worsening of social, economic and financial affairs of vast majority of Americans, while the real culprits among bankers and corporations are rewared for their mistakes. They do not hide their inspirations by similar actions in Spain or Egypt. They want to continue in protest actions, until they achieve change of this system. For the saturday of 17.9. they organized the protest gathering, right at the heart of the financial world, the Wall Street. Several thousand people arrived, mostly young and students. Although the police prevented them from marching in front of the main stock market buildings, their protest was heard far. One of the action's goals was for some of them to stop this financial machine, which is the source of corruption, poverty, greed and does not bring anything good to the common people. As one of the participants said, they also want to talk about the problems from where they originate, because the contemporary market system must be humanized.

 

 

 

 

 

They want an economic system, where people will decide for people and not rich for the rich.

People of various opinions and from various groups gathered at the demonstration, but also the common people, who are not content with the current crisis and its solution. We can just quote some slogans on the transparents:

"We want to disturb war, not peace"

"Stop dealing with our future"

"People, not profit" "New Yorkers say enough to the greed of Wall Street“ "Wall Street is our street" "Give people work, not war!" "Can't afford a lobbyist - I'm one of 99% of the people"  

They plan the protest as long-termed occupation of the area and they also call on other cities to join them. And really, some other cities underwent similar  actions. For example, in Boston people entered a branch of Bank of America and demanded, that the bank must return what received from the people through the state, start investing into the economy and stop cancelling job positions.    In New York meanwhile the protests continue the third day already. Hundreds of tired demonstrants sleep on sidewalks and in parks. During the day, the numbers of protesters grow to several thousand. 

 

Together with the thought of public protests, there is spontaneously organized New York general assembly, where people discuss about what they want and how to achieve it. It is an open, horizontally organized plattform, where people together want to become a force, that will counteract the current crises. To achieve that, mere thoughts are not enough. This is why they learn there how to lead a collective discussions, how to communicate with media, how to arrange a legal support for the actions, etc.
The protesters estabilished their HQ in a nearby park, which was renamed on the Freedom park. The organizers succesfully use the Internet since the beginning and they provide regular news on their website https://occupywallst.org, including videoreports, general assembly meeting notes, people's  suggestions, and also calls for further actions and links to allied websites. Sympathies of people from all the America and other countries show in such a way, that when they asked for food provision, the local pizzeria was just in a hour flooded with orders from all the continent and Europe. People readily give their raincoats or blankets, to help in the protest. The procession goes every day into the surrounding streets and is joined by many bystanders, so it often returns several times bigger than it started.   In comments to one of the videos from protest action there are mostly opinions of agreement. One cogent opinion says: "The history proves, that when students start to demonstrate peacefully and they have the right, WE all start too... that's close to the revolution, change. We need these young people to get us started! They are our future and they want their rights... What's wrong about that?"

  *************************************   My comment:   I found surprisingly few news about this. None in the media, very little on the Google. Weird. I hope this is not hoax. I really did not expect this kind of thing, so soon and in the heart of financial axis of evil.  The text is my hasty translation from Czech website prichod.cz (means arrival) which watches and reports on signs of hope and change in the world. So please, you who live nearby, can you tell me something more about this?  I want the people's voice grow stronger and stop Wall Street's systematic misuse of money, stop all worldwide financial speculation and stock market trade with resources. This looks like a significant step towards it. Remember, sharing will save the world. In other words, the resource-based economy, not the current global resource market, controlled by a handful of rich people. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1475
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
I do not think taxing the

I do not think taxing the rich is a solution, it never has been. Sure you can cover up some of the negative effects of the system by doing it but at the end of the day rich still will be rich and the poor will still be poor, its like charity in the Third world, it is not solving anything.

 

If you want a solution to the mess the world finds itself in the first thing to change is how people are elected to government. Political parties and interest groups must be abolished. They are the true vermin of the world. In the current system where on average in the USA it take 500 million in campaining to run for president (federal government pays half) people who are running are already in the pockets of there sponsers. They have been bought. It is the same world wide. Pretty much every leader in the world has been bought, it is how they get into power. Does anyone really believe that anyone sponsers millions for no reason?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 571
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:I do not think

Tapey wrote:

I do not think taxing the rich is a solution, it never has been. Sure you can cover up some of the negative effects of the system by doing it but at the end of the day rich still will be rich and the poor will still be poor, its like charity in the Third world, it is not solving anything.

 

If you want a solution to the mess the world finds itself in the first thing to change is how people are elected to government. Political parties and interest groups must be abolished. They are the true vermin of the world. In the current system where on average in the USA it take 500 million in campaining to run for president (federal government pays half) people who are running are already in the pockets of there sponsers. They have been bought. It is the same world wide. Pretty much every leader in the world has been bought, it is how they get into power. Does anyone really believe that anyone sponsers millions for no reason?

I agree with you.  The use of private money to influence elections needs to end.  With the technology available today it must be possible create a better system.  I know about one site that is already trying to do it.  

http://www.americanselect.org/about


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I've been saying that for

I've been saying that for years. I love seeing others saying it too. Gives me hope.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

 

 

 .40S&W has a 95% one shor drop rate. .357 has a 98% one shot drop rate. Both have serious overpenetration issues. Tiny hole going in, gigantic hole going out and still lethal after the facr. 

 How can some one who is smart as AIGS be so dumb about something so utterly mundane as wound ballistics ?   One shot drop rate ?   Yes I'm sure there are authors ( Marshall, Sanow ) who publish such crap and obviously you believed them. 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1475
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I've been

Vastet wrote:
I've been saying that for years. I love seeing others saying it too. Gives me hope.

There is still the inescapable problem is which party is going to bring an end to the party system? It won't happen. You could say well the people could just stop voting for them, once again, it cannot happen as parties are better suited to campaining then individuals, there are more hands to do the work. The only way it can happen is through something drastic, any change brought from them is going to still benefit them even if it is a system change. Even something less drastic like no corporate funding, they are going to need a big incentive to cut off their own funding. The way the system works prevents meaningful change in the desired direction. I really don't see any cause for hope on this front until there is a lot of mass support. If you ask someone if they like corporate funding most will likily say no but then they go vote for a corporate funded political party candidate anyway. They support this model by supporting the people who benefit from it. Those that don't vote because they dislike the system are not heard, the system is lobsided in that way. I truely believe that no amount of voting is going to change it. I spoil my vote every election day but really it is a meaningless gesture unless millions do it in protest. I don't see much cause for hope in light of the above.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I do not think taxing

Quote:
I do not think taxing the rich is a solution, it never has been

Um, you look at the tax rate AFTER WW2 and you will see it was much higher. It created the middle class.

You'd have a better time arguing, "Don't tax the crybabies, they'll just blackmail you".

But we have had a higher tax rate, and when we did the middle class was much stronger, the pay gap less lopsided and we had a lower unemployment rate.

I agree we cant tax the crybabies now, because they are too selfish. But there is a difference between cant and dont want to. They can afford it, they just dont want to.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1475
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I do not

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I do not think taxing the rich is a solution, it never has been

Um, you look at the tax rate AFTER WW2 and you will see it was much higher. It created the middle class.

You'd have a better time arguing, "Don't tax the crybabies, they'll just blackmail you".

But we have had a higher tax rate, and when we did the middle class was much stronger, the pay gap less lopsided and we had a lower unemployment rate.

I agree we cant tax the crybabies now, because they are too selfish. But there is a difference between cant and dont want to. They can afford it, they just dont want to.

 

Solution implies fixing a problem, what you are discribing is simply covering it up. Sure go for it, I would like a more permanant solution than tax the rich more. I cannot with good conscience accept a tax rate over 50% for anyone no matter how rich, I don't know Americas tax system but if it is less than 50% for the highest private individual bracket then I have no moral objection to raising it to 50% provided that you are also working on a way so that it is no longer necessary.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

 

 

 .40S&W has a 95% one shor drop rate. .357 has a 98% one shot drop rate. Both have serious overpenetration issues. Tiny hole going in, gigantic hole going out and still lethal after the facr. 

 How can some one who is smart as AIGS be so dumb about something so utterly mundane as wound ballistics ?   One shot drop rate ?   Yes I'm sure there are authors ( Marshall, Sanow ) who publish such crap and obviously you believed them. 

To be fair, I have yet to meet a single person here or elsewhere who can hold a candle to Answers in terms of sheer knowledge of how shit works. I certainly don't count, and if I were wise, I would have given up trying to best him in terms of library-esque knowledge before I even registered. Big things. Little things. Nuclear reactors. Nuclear bombs. Nuclear spaceship engines. Nuclear fusion inside stars. Nuclear Engineering. Nuclear tanks. Nuclear rifles. Cruise missile emp bombs. Psychiatry. "Why is a manhole cover round?". "Fuck you! I'm fully vested". Anything and everything. He's Monkish.

 

The one place he hasn't bested me yet is... me. Because there is only one person who understands me, and it isn't him. But he sometimes mistakenly thinks he understands me.

More to the point; he does occasionally slip up, in the same sense that all pubically-available software made in the last 20 years has bugs. Also, sometimes he acts a bit Monkish.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Brian37

Tapey wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I do not think taxing the rich is a solution, it never has been

Um, you look at the tax rate AFTER WW2 and you will see it was much higher. It created the middle class.

You'd have a better time arguing, "Don't tax the crybabies, they'll just blackmail you".

But we have had a higher tax rate, and when we did the middle class was much stronger, the pay gap less lopsided and we had a lower unemployment rate.

I agree we cant tax the crybabies now, because they are too selfish. But there is a difference between cant and dont want to. They can afford it, they just dont want to.

 

Solution implies fixing a problem, what you are discribing is simply covering it up. Sure go for it, I would like a more permanant solution than tax the rich more. I cannot with good conscience accept a tax rate over 50% for anyone no matter how rich, I don't know Americas tax system but if it is less than 50% for the highest private individual bracket then I have no moral objection to raising it to 50% provided that you are also working on a way so that it is no longer necessary.

Throwing money at problems doesn't create middle class. A willing, motivated, and informed populace might, but not a populace that has money thrown at them by strangers. Instead, you get a populace that expects their failures to be subsidized by strangers, and they tend to get lazy. I don't mean Beyond Saving lazy. I mean hood rich lazy, having kids to pay for booze money lazy, and taking money from a government that is on the verge of going bankrupt lazy.

I am beyond saving-lazy, because it resonates in a financially-challenged world that is pretty damned close to meltdown due to incompetence and "Fuck you! I'm fully vested" greed.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

 

 

 .40S&W has a 95% one shor drop rate. .357 has a 98% one shot drop rate. Both have serious overpenetration issues. Tiny hole going in, gigantic hole going out and still lethal after the facr. 

 How can some one who is smart as AIGS be so dumb about something so utterly mundane as wound ballistics ?   One shot drop rate ?   Yes I'm sure there are authors ( Marshall, Sanow ) who publish such crap and obviously you believed them. 

 

I take it that you are unaware that the FBI tracks that data based on actual field incidents then?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 571
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
My views have changed a lot

My views have changed a lot on this during the last few month.  Before I thought that all the current problems were caused by bad policies and greed, but now I think that there are deeper  issues.    It's more than just laziness and it's more than just greed.  Those things are part of the problem, but the deeper problem is the idea of limitless growth in a finite world.   There just isn't enough oil in the world for everyone to own a car, but everyone wants one.   People all over the world are working hard hoping for a better life believing in the promises of limitless growth, but all that growth is all based on a finite non renewable resource that will some day run out and is already struggling to meet demand.   The price of oil is high and with it the price of food and many other things and that isn't just because of speculation.  Everyone wants it, and not everyone can have it, but some one will.  So who is it going to be, or perhaps the better question is how will people decide?  Will we decide like rational creatures who care about each other and who try to help each other get through the coming problems, or are we going to turn on each other letting the strong deprive the weak?  I think that the people all over the world need to work together on solving this problem.   


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

I take it that you are unaware that the FBI tracks that data based on actual field incidents then?

 The  S&W40 caliber cartridge came into existence based upon the requirements of the FBI when the 10mm ( 10mm is also 40 caliber ) was found to exceed their requirements for ballistic performance ( over penetration )  The 10mm is basically a magnum cartridge.   The entire brouha was a response to the 1986 FBI Miami shoot out in which their FBI service weapons of that era were considered insufficient in bringing down two assailants, Matix and Platt, who were hit many times in what were potentially lethal shots but continued firing and killing FBI agents.   The S$W 40 caliber is the cartridge that the FBI settled upon due to it's more desirable performance when compared to the 9x19mm ( under penetration ) and the 10mm ( over penetration ).

 Massive exit wounds from .357 magnum might occur in some rare instances but not typically ( see Budd Dwyer suicide with .357 magnum whose head remained intact ).  Same for 40 caliber ( see death photo of gay serial killer Andrew Cunanan. Suicide with .40 caliber , lots of blood, head intact ) .44 magnums and larger caliber magnums, perhaps.  See "Deadly Effects, What Bullets Do To Bodies"

"One Shot" drop rates are gun writer bull shit, it is a myth that is frequently propagated in magazine articles, etc.  One shot kills are based upon correct shot placement, nothing else.  Any cartridge that sends a projectile with sufficient weight and velocity and that then hits a vital organ will produce a "one shot stop".  Using a .357 magnum and only making a peripheral hit on a determined perp could very well end up in your own death. 

Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement !!!

 

Anyway, I won't distract from this thread any further.

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: But you don't

EXC wrote:
 But you don't believe in making anything mandatory by force(except taking the wealth that I earn from me of course). So how you you make people see this and listen to you? Religious people already see the suffering in the world and it just makes them more religious.
I do believe in mandatory and forced actions, but wisely, only in certain issues that can not be solved otherwise in a better way. For example, when basic human rights are violated, like when one state attacks another. Or with taxes. I could quote Jesus on that issue, look who's head is on the coin. Not you, some other guy.

EXC wrote:
 If you say "fuck competition", you then lose to everyone that doesn't say this. It's the stated policy of our government to make schools, businesses and society more competitive. Why? The more wealth we generate means more taxes they can collect.
I wrote about that something earlier, RBE is a non-competitive system, so it can't resist competition. It must be estabilished either everyone at once, or protected by trade embargos.... 

But commercialization, i.e. charging money in still more areas of society is dangerous. In schools or hospitals we do not generate any wealth! No resources are coming from there. So why there must be money, the portable representation of resources? What's worse, where will people get the money for schools and hispitals? By employment? It's children and sick people, FFS. Trying to make money on them is immoral nonsense.
Actually, competition in schools just makes standards drop. "With us, you'll get through for sure!" Mine would not be the first school where this is common. 

EXC wrote:
 Why would a religion die out if it produces people with high birth rates? The culture that is going to die out is the one that produces low birth rates. Religion would innoculate themselves from the culture around them. Then use the welfare state to feed their kids. This is what has happened in Europe with the ongoing Muslim takeover. The Latino take over of culture America, same thing. This is why Catholicism keeps going despite the high numbers of people who quit the church.
What about mandatory education? It is after all one of basic human rights, undeniable. 

EXC wrote:
 The problem is that population grows until scarcity is the only limitation on further growth. So you can't have a scarcity free world without controls on breeding.
Maybe it's really necessary and inevitable, but as I have already explained, first you need a sufficiency, to bring some stability and to be able to apply controls on breeding. Or will you go into the middle of some African civil war with a basket of condoms?

EXC wrote:
 You forget the rich don't do the shooting, they can hire people to do the shooting and build the weapons. War is how we solve the problem of scarcity on an overpopulated planet.
The rich have dollar, or some derivate of dollar. Dollar is a bankrupt currency. Therefore it probably won't hire anyone for much longer.

EXC wrote:
 But genes are not going to do something that is detrimental to their propagation. So people are not going to voluntarily give up overpopulating the planet.
Yes? By the same logic, people wouldn't take contraception. And yet they do. What if genes aren't that powerful?

EXC wrote:
 But our brains are good at building technology, they are not so good at controlling our bad habits. That's why we can use our brains to invent technology to keep us from reproducing or getting fat. But we're not so good at voluntarily giving up over eating or not having sex when we can't afford children.
We'll see.

EXC wrote:
 So you ought to be opposed to taxation, because it's the government deciding how to spend your money.
Look at who's head is on the coin. Julius Caesar's. So give Caesar what's Caesars and... you get the idea, I hope. The money were never supposed to belong to anyone. They were given out by private banks or governments and one day they must return there. They were never meant to concentrate in the hands of few, but circulate. In the end of the game, all chips and cards must return into the box. Hopefully forever.

EXC wrote:
 They work hard because they get paid. If they don't produce something people want to buy, they get fired or the company goes out of business. Google saying it ain't this way don't make it so. They also say don't be evil.
You miss the point completely. Working hard is not the same thing as working creatively. And nobody can be ordered to work creatively. There must be a positive relationship for that.

EXC wrote:
 Well then if RBE is so great, Google will take over the world and we'll all work for them, right? Unfortunately, they only want to hire less than 1% of the population. So what about the 99% that could never qualify to work for them?
You miss the point again, Google is not RBE, Google employee policy is similar to what life in RBE may be like. Very voluntary, yet very creative. But you didn't notice this employee policy in the first place.

EXC wrote:
 No, I don't think I could get any money for them. And I don't see how you can solve problems since you go by faith and propaganda, not evidence and logic.
You better ask others around how much they think you understand evidence and logic. You wouldn't believe my version. 

And there is no faith and propaganda, I simply understand human nature better than you do. That requires some abstract thinking, which I can't explain to you, but which seems quite clear to people like NMCP. I must use this idealism and abstract concepts, because this is how most of people think, with your exception. 

EXC wrote:
 What great success? With voluntary birth control, the most responsible people have none or few children. The most irresponsible and most religious have the most children. They both pass this on the next generation. So what does your undamaged brain tell you will happen over time? 
There are other factors to it, than just responsibility. For example, life style, career possibilities, education, kind of job, social pressure, patriarchate, and so on. But the point is again, first you need stability, freedom from poverty, illiteracy, war and commercialism, to be able to apply any real solution to overpopulation. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Tapey

Kapkao wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I do not think taxing the rich is a solution, it never has been

Um, you look at the tax rate AFTER WW2 and you will see it was much higher. It created the middle class.

You'd have a better time arguing, "Don't tax the crybabies, they'll just blackmail you".

But we have had a higher tax rate, and when we did the middle class was much stronger, the pay gap less lopsided and we had a lower unemployment rate.

I agree we cant tax the crybabies now, because they are too selfish. But there is a difference between cant and dont want to. They can afford it, they just dont want to.

 

Solution implies fixing a problem, what you are discribing is simply covering it up. Sure go for it, I would like a more permanant solution than tax the rich more. I cannot with good conscience accept a tax rate over 50% for anyone no matter how rich, I don't know Americas tax system but if it is less than 50% for the highest private individual bracket then I have no moral objection to raising it to 50% provided that you are also working on a way so that it is no longer necessary.

Throwing money at problems doesn't create middle class. A willing, motivated, and informed populace might, but not a populace that has money thrown at them by strangers. Instead, you get a populace that expects their failures to be subsidized by strangers, and they tend to get lazy. I don't mean Beyond Saving lazy. I mean hood rich lazy, having kids to pay for booze money lazy, and taking money from a government that is on the verge of going bankrupt lazy.

I am beyond saving-lazy, because it resonates in a financially-challenged world that is pretty damned close to meltdown due to incompetence and "Fuck you! I'm fully vested" greed.

What the hell are you talking about. THE TAX RATE WAS HIGHER after WW2. It most certainly DID help.

We are willing and we are motivated. Just because some don't want or need more than others, doesn't mean we are lazy and don't want jobs. And if you are going to advocate a more educated populace, that would backfire for big business because more people wouldn't be pushed around. Keep em poor and divided and you have cheep labor.

I didn't ask for my hours to get cut back, that was done to me.

Quote:
Instead, you get a populace that expects their failures to be subsidized by strangers

I agree, WE bailed out the banks. We bailed out the car companies. WE paid for countless NFL stadiums. So don't talk to me about subsidizing failures.

THERE, that is the problem right there. To you, someone who remains in a low paying job their entire life is a "failure". WHO IS GOING TO DO IT if not you?

A pro baseball team can leave a city and the city can survive without it. But try having no trash collectors or janitors.

I just thought of something. Thats what we need. We need a nation wide strike by janitors and trash collectors. You'll see how quicky the "poor" are "failures". Who needs their trash taken away?

That is what makes me sick about the attitude of some. NO ONE is saying everyone should be poor. But if all you are going to do is look down on others, YOU are part of the problem.

Saying that there is a lopsided pay gap and exploding cost of living, is not a demand for Socialist Stalin like government. But if you think the poor are lazy, you don't know what you are talking about.

No one with an honest job is a failure. Treat others like trash and you'll get back what you spew.

Take a good look at the world and the amount of people protesting. This isn't just janitors or dish washers protesting. This is the middle class and poor protesting.

The robbery has come from the top. Not the bottom or middle. It is OUR government too. Let them eat cake and might makes right and money equals power, ain't going to fly anymore. So keep it up, eventually we will win at the voting booth.

And when we do win, we won't end the free market, we will just address the pay gap and monopoly of money on our politics.

I am poor, but I am not a failure. I have a job that society needs. I refuse to be put down or devalued or called "lazy".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Tapey

Kapkao wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I do not think taxing the rich is a solution, it never has been

Um, you look at the tax rate AFTER WW2 and you will see it was much higher. It created the middle class.

You'd have a better time arguing, "Don't tax the crybabies, they'll just blackmail you".

But we have had a higher tax rate, and when we did the middle class was much stronger, the pay gap less lopsided and we had a lower unemployment rate.

I agree we cant tax the crybabies now, because they are too selfish. But there is a difference between cant and dont want to. They can afford it, they just dont want to.

 

Solution implies fixing a problem, what you are discribing is simply covering it up. Sure go for it, I would like a more permanant solution than tax the rich more. I cannot with good conscience accept a tax rate over 50% for anyone no matter how rich, I don't know Americas tax system but if it is less than 50% for the highest private individual bracket then I have no moral objection to raising it to 50% provided that you are also working on a way so that it is no longer necessary.

Throwing money at problems doesn't create middle class. A willing, motivated, and informed populace might, but not a populace that has money thrown at them by strangers. Instead, you get a populace that expects their failures to be subsidized by strangers, and they tend to get lazy. I don't mean Beyond Saving lazy. I mean hood rich lazy, having kids to pay for booze money lazy, and taking money from a government that is on the verge of going bankrupt lazy.

I am beyond saving-lazy, because it resonates in a financially-challenged world that is pretty damned close to meltdown due to incompetence and "Fuck you! I'm fully vested" greed.

What the hell are you talking about. THE TAX RATE WAS HIGHER after WW2. It most certainly DID help.

We are willing and we are motivated. Just because some don't want or need more than others, doesn't mean we are lazy and don't want jobs. And if you are going to advocate a more educated populace, that would backfire for big business because more people wouldn't be pushed around. Keep em poor and divided and you have cheep labor.

I didn't ask for my hours to get cut back, that was done to me.

Quote:
Instead, you get a populace that expects their failures to be subsidized by strangers

I agree, WE bailed out the banks. We bailed out the car companies. WE paid for countless NFL stadiums. So don't talk to me about subsidizing failures.

THERE, that is the problem right there. To you, someone who remains in a low paying job their entire life is a "failure". WHO IS GOING TO DO IT if not you?

A pro baseball team can leave a city and the city can survive without it. But try having no trash collectors or janitors.

I just thought of something. Thats what we need. We need a nation wide strike by janitors and trash collectors. You'll see how quicky the "poor" are "failures". Who needs their trash taken away?

That is what makes me sick about the attitude of some. NO ONE is saying everyone should be poor. But if all you are going to do is look down on others, YOU are part of the problem.

Saying that there is a lopsided pay gap and exploding cost of living, is not a demand for Socialist Stalin like government. But if you think the poor are lazy, you don't know what you are talking about.

No one with an honest job is a failure. Treat others like trash and you'll get back what you spew.

Take a good look at the world and the amount of people protesting. This isn't just janitors or dish washers protesting. This is the middle class and poor protesting.

The robbery has come from the top. Not the bottom or middle. It is OUR government too. Let them eat cake and might makes right and money equals power, ain't going to fly anymore. So keep it up, eventually we will win at the voting booth.

And when we do win, we won't end the free market, we will just address the pay gap and monopoly of money on our politics.

I am poor, but I am not a failure. I have a job that society needs. I refuse to be put down or devalued or called "lazy".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: I do believe

Luminon wrote:

 I do believe in mandatory and forced actions, but wisely, only in certain issues that can not be solved otherwise in a better way.

 

The bottom line is you want to put a gun to my head and take the fruits of my labor for yourself and others that don't want to produce for nothing in return. Despite all your 'empathy', your politics is nothing more than armed robbery. At least the armed robber is not so deceptive about what he is doing.

Luminon wrote:

For example, when basic human rights are violated, like when one state attacks another.

A state needs living space for their growing population. What other solution is there since mandatory birth control is taboo subject? The 'right' to breed is in conflict with the 'right' to food and shelter. So what other solution is there?

 

 

Luminon wrote:

Or with taxes. I could quote Jesus on that issue, look who's head is on the coin. Not you, some other guy.

I don't use cash any more. Money is all digital now. Is this the same Jesus that could end all suffering if he wanted to at any time, but he just can't bring himself to do it yet. The same guy that is going to send me to suffer for all eternity?

Luminon wrote:

I wrote about that something earlier, RBE is a non-competitive system, so it can't resist competition. It must be estabilished either everyone at once, or protected by trade embargos.... 

Since we have genes that drive us to be competitive, how do we have economics that is not competitive.

So why doesn't the Venus project do this. Just have a commune isolated from the rest of the world except to show how wonderful everything is? A clinical trial to silence the skeptics?

Luminon wrote:

But commercialization, i.e. charging money in still more areas of society is dangerous. In schools or hospitals we do not generate any wealth! No resources are coming from there. So why there must be money, the portable representation of resources? What's worse, where will people get the money for schools and hispitals? By employment? It's children and sick people, FFS. Trying to make money on them is immoral nonsense.
Actually, competition in schools just makes standards drop. "With us, you'll get through for sure!" Mine would not be the first school where this is common. 

I think this would argue for a system of volunteer workers for hospitals and schools. I would be in favor of this as well as police and fire. The problem is people don't have time for this because they need to 'feed their families'. The cost of food and shelter is so high because of limited resources due to overpopulation.

Luminon wrote:

What about mandatory education? It is after all one of basic human rights, undeniable. 

I would say mandatory job training. In other words and education is not complete until the person can be self-sufficient in the economy.

The only thing mandatory about the current system is taxes are collected and teacher, school administrators and textbook publishers are paid.

Luminon wrote:

Maybe it's really necessary and inevitable, but as I have already explained, first you need a sufficiency, to bring some stability and to be able to apply controls on breeding.

OK, so if your theory is correct, mandatory controls need only be used temporarily until scarcity is no longer a problem. The mandatory birth control need only be applied if you are wrong(I know it's difficult to consider, but try) and birth rates do not stay low. Plan B if you would, in case you're wrong and people still like sex and having children. Since you can't possible be wrong, how could you be against my plan B?

Luminon wrote:

Or will you go into the middle of some African civil war with a basket of condoms?

Condoms don't work very well to control population because using them is voluntary. Responsible people use them, irresponsible one's don't.

Luminon wrote:

The rich have dollar, or some derivate of dollar. Dollar is a bankrupt currency. Therefore it probably won't hire anyone for much longer.

So the rich bought gold, that's why it's so high.

Luminon wrote:

Yes? By the same logic, people wouldn't take contraception. And yet they do. What if genes aren't that powerful?

Genes are powerful, that is why people can't break additions just because scientists tell them it's bad. So people can you reason to overcome additions if they are not to powerful.

It's a mixed bag. Responsible people that don't want to be poor or burden to society take it. Irresponsible people that don't think about being poor and a burden to society do take it. That is what we get with volutary birth control. It's like making traffic laws voluntary, you just end up with only irresponsible people driving on the roads.

If you think socially responsible behaviors like family planning can be voluntary, why not be in favor of paying taxes to be voluntary as well? This is the hypocrisy of the leftists, only certain socially responsible behaviors must be mandatory like paying taxing, other irresponsible behaviors we can just let slide in the name of individual freedom.

 

Luminon wrote:

Look at who's head is on the coin. Julius Caesar's. So give Caesar what's Caesars and... you get the idea, I hope. The money were never supposed to belong to anyone. They were given out by private banks or governments and one day they must return there. They were never meant to concentrate in the hands of few, but circulate. In the end of the game, all chips and cards must return into the box. Hopefully forever.

Caesar want to put his image on the coins because he wanted to get a cut of the action, to increase his power and fund his wars of conquest. If people had stuck to barter system, it would be very difficult to collect taxes. We have the technology to go back to a barter system and bypass taxation without reason, this is the way to go.

Luminon wrote:

You miss the point completely. Working hard is not the same thing as working creatively. And nobody can be ordered to work creatively. There must be a positive relationship for that.

But work must be geared toward creating products and services people need and want. So you need a system like money to reward productivity.

Luminon wrote:

You wouldn't believe my version. 

I'm not a person of faith, so it's showing not telling.

Luminon wrote:

There are other factors to it, than just responsibility. For example, life style, career possibilities, education, kind of job, social pressure, patriarchate, and so on. But the point is again, first you need stability, freedom from poverty, illiteracy, war and commercialism, to be able to apply any real solution to overpopulation. 

And we will never get to this point of stability because we'll always have more overpopulation pressures leading to more poverty and war. We already see how China has turned things in the right direction and will soon overtake the USA because of lower population pressures in the last 30 years, what more evidence do you need? What has the Venus project ever proven except that the founder is nuts?

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:My views have

RatDog wrote:

My views have changed a lot on this during the last few month.  Before I thought that all the current problems were caused by bad policies and greed, but now I think that there are deeper  issues.    It's more than just laziness and it's more than just greed.  Those things are part of the problem, but the deeper problem is the idea of limitless growth in a finite world.   There just isn't enough oil in the world for everyone to own a car, but everyone wants one.   People all over the world are working hard hoping for a better life believing in the promises of limitless growth, but all that growth is all based on a finite non renewable resource that will some day run out and is already struggling to meet demand.   The price of oil is high and with it the price of food and many other things and that isn't just because of speculation.  Everyone wants it, and not everyone can have it, but some one will.  So who is it going to be, or perhaps the better question is how will people decide?  Will we decide like rational creatures who care about each other and who try to help each other get through the coming problems, or are we going to turn on each other letting the strong deprive the weak?  I think that the people all over the world need to work together on solving this problem.   

Our problems are genetic in nature, so only genetic engineering or controls on the misery causing behaviors caused by our genes can solve the problems.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The bottom line is you

Quote:
The bottom line is you want to put a gun to my head and take the fruits of my labor for yourself and others that don't want to produce for nothing in return.

I have an honest job and I don't give a fuck what selfish assholes think. There ARE plenty of rich people who get it, just not enough.

You'd be right if you didn't have a right to vote. You'd be right if it was the middle and poor classes who set economic policies for the past 30 years. Since that is not the case, cry me a fucking river. Maybe your mindset should have thought about that before they robbed the rest of us and made us pay for it. The only welfare queens in our world are of the corporate class.

No, not going to fly anymore. I refuse to see my country be turned into a bunch of sweat shops merely for your profit.

Being cleaver as to convincing others to work for you, does NOT mean you by yourself are doing the bulk of the work. THE OWNER is one aspect of society, the workers are the ones who do the bulk of the work. Maybe if we were valued more it never would have gotten to this point.

Keep looking down on the "peasants". One lady did that a long time ago, and she lost her head.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Keep looking

Brian37 wrote:

 

Keep looking down on the "peasants". One lady did that a long time ago, and she lost her head.

A fine example from history, find a scapegoat, produce a sham charges and a sham trial with no evidence. She never even said "Let them eat cake". And what did they get after her, Napoleon. A real time of peace, he sent the peasants out to be slaughtered while promising them prosperity.

 

At least you prove my point this is all an angry mob and there is nothing rational about it. Plus I don't think these people would even know how to operate a guillotine, too technically complicated for them to deal with.

Please can I have the guy with the sign build it and the guy in the white hat operate it? I want to die laughing.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am poor, but

Brian37 wrote:

I am poor, but I am not a failure. I have a job that society needs. I refuse to be put down or devalued or called "lazy".

 

Apparently society doesn't need your job as much as you thought since your boss cut your hours. If the restaurant is still operating and making "record profits" as you claim, it seems obvious to me that those hours you were working before were neither necessary nor desired by society. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Keep looking down on the "peasants". One lady did that a long time ago, and she lost her head.

A fine example from history, find a scapegoat, produce a sham charges and a sham trial with no evidence. She never even said "Let them eat cake". And what did they get after her, Napoleon. A real time of peace, he sent the peasants out to be slaughtered while promising them prosperity.

 

At least you prove my point this is all an angry mob and there is nothing rational about it. Plus I don't think these people would even know how to operate a guillotine, too technically complicated for them to deal with.

Please can I have the guy with the sign build it and the guy in the white hat operate it? I want to die laughing.

 

 

Bring a gun to a protest, you are protecting your rights(tea party). Non-violent protesters are "mobs". Nice.

No "scapegoating" going on here. We were not the ones who set the policies for the past 30 years. We were not the ones who created bubble after bubble. We WERE the ones who bailed out the banks and car companies.

YOU are the one's scapegoating us.

Now you are crying sour grapes now that we are using the same free market and same free speech to combat the scams that crashed our economy. So is it competition only when you win?

Wanting an end to the rigged economy and monopoly of politics by one class, IS putting blame squarely where it belongs. Not wanting to starve to death does NOT make us a mob. It makes YOU delusional.\

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Kapkao

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I do not think taxing the rich is a solution, it never has been

Um, you look at the tax rate AFTER WW2 and you will see it was much higher. It created the middle class.

You'd have a better time arguing, "Don't tax the crybabies, they'll just blackmail you".

But we have had a higher tax rate, and when we did the middle class was much stronger, the pay gap less lopsided and we had a lower unemployment rate.

I agree we cant tax the crybabies now, because they are too selfish. But there is a difference between cant and dont want to. They can afford it, they just dont want to.

 

Solution implies fixing a problem, what you are discribing is simply covering it up. Sure go for it, I would like a more permanant solution than tax the rich more. I cannot with good conscience accept a tax rate over 50% for anyone no matter how rich, I don't know Americas tax system but if it is less than 50% for the highest private individual bracket then I have no moral objection to raising it to 50% provided that you are also working on a way so that it is no longer necessary.

Throwing money at problems doesn't create middle class. A willing, motivated, and informed populace might, but not a populace that has money thrown at them by strangers. Instead, you get a populace that expects their failures to be subsidized by strangers, and they tend to get lazy. I don't mean Beyond Saving lazy. I mean hood rich lazy, having kids to pay for booze money lazy, and taking money from a government that is on the verge of going bankrupt lazy.

I am beyond saving-lazy, because it resonates in a financially-challenged world that is pretty damned close to meltdown due to incompetence and "Fuck you! I'm fully vested" greed.

What the hell are you talking about. THE TAX RATE WAS HIGHER after WW2. It most certainly DID help.

We are willing and we are motivated. Just because some don't want or need more than others, doesn't mean we are lazy and don't want jobs. And if you are going to advocate a more educated populace, that would backfire for big business because more people wouldn't be pushed around. Keep em poor and divided and you have cheep labor.

I didn't ask for my hours to get cut back, that was done to me.

Quote:
Instead, you get a populace that expects their failures to be subsidized by strangers

I agree, WE bailed out the banks. We bailed out the car companies. WE paid for countless NFL stadiums. So don't talk to me about subsidizing failures.

THERE, that is the problem right there. To you, someone who remains in a low paying job their entire life is a "failure". WHO IS GOING TO DO IT if not you?

A pro baseball team can leave a city and the city can survive without it. But try having no trash collectors or janitors.

I just thought of something. Thats what we need. We need a nation wide strike by janitors and trash collectors. You'll see how quicky the "poor" are "failures". Who needs their trash taken away?

That is what makes me sick about the attitude of some. NO ONE is saying everyone should be poor. But if all you are going to do is look down on others, YOU are part of the problem.

Saying that there is a lopsided pay gap and exploding cost of living, is not a demand for Socialist Stalin like government. But if you think the poor are lazy, you don't know what you are talking about.

No one with an honest job is a failure. Treat others like trash and you'll get back what you spew.

Take a good look at the world and the amount of people protesting. This isn't just janitors or dish washers protesting. This is the middle class and poor protesting.

The robbery has come from the top. Not the bottom or middle. It is OUR government too. Let them eat cake and might makes right and money equals power, ain't going to fly anymore. So keep it up, eventually we will win at the voting booth.

And when we do win, we won't end the free market, we will just address the pay gap and monopoly of money on our politics.

I am poor, but I am not a failure. I have a job that society needs. I refuse to be put down or devalued or called "lazy".

Again, Brian... you're taking this very personally where you needn't do so. I agree with tapey in that taxing the rich covers up actual problems in our current formulation of government, ie rampant favoritism by politicians, a government that only serves special interests rather than the general interest, corporate welfare, and welfare of the lazy -which doesn't include you, lest you think it does.

 

Perhaps we did have higher taxes during the 50s. I'm neither willing to challenge that, nor research it to confirm this myself. But even if we did, we also had a more prominent work ethic, a more motivated populace, and a populace less willing (and needing) to rely on support services to prosper. 50s were good times to live, if you were (at least) a white American. We were #1, then. In some odd manner, I suppose after fighting Nazis for a few years, we were also much more willing to go to war if government called for it (read: non-drafted recruits into Vietnam, and Korean War vets saying military service helped them "grow into a man." My understanding is that many soldiers, grunts, and vets say the exact same thing today.)

In either case, there is more than one factor at work when considering the 'peak' of American civilization during the 50s. In my mind, the most likely factor would be the numerous warbonds and native industrial buildup before and during WWII. Then we went downhill again (during the 50s, at that), because companies realized they were paying native-born and bred Americans too much to manufacture goods and produce services, and that many other world populations could do so much more cheaply (and still attain the same relative value for their labors, though not equally so in all industries. Example: Soccer balls and child labor factories. Slave-made cocoa. Blood diamonds. Et cetera.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:My views have

RatDog wrote:

My views have changed a lot on this during the last few month.  Before I thought that all the current problems were caused by bad policies and greed, but now I think that there are deeper  issues.    It's more than just laziness and it's more than just greed.  Those things are part of the problem, but the deeper problem is the idea of limitless growth in a finite world.   There just isn't enough oil in the world for everyone to own a car, but everyone wants one.   People all over the world are working hard hoping for a better life believing in the promises of limitless growth, but all that growth is all based on a finite non renewable resource that will some day run out and is already struggling to meet demand.   The price of oil is high and with it the price of food and many other things and that isn't just because of speculation.  Everyone wants it, and not everyone can have it, but some one will.  So who is it going to be, or perhaps the better question is how will people decide?  Will we decide like rational creatures who care about each other and who try to help each other get through the coming problems, or are we going to turn on each other letting the strong deprive the weak?  I think that the people all over the world need to work together on solving this problem.   

Without nitpicking your post apart issue-by-issue, or being pedantic (both of which I tend to hate), you have quite a bit more mind-changing to do.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am poor, but I am not a failure. I have a job that society needs. I refuse to be put down or devalued or called "lazy".

 

Apparently society doesn't need your job as much as you thought since your boss cut your hours. If the restaurant is still operating and making "record profits" as you claim, it seems obvious to me that those hours you were working before were neither necessary nor desired by society. 

Perhaps he lost his job or had his hours cut because the boss found a Mexican who could work those hours at half his wage/salary. Perhaps Brian said something that pissed him off. Perhaps Brian proposed engagement to the boss's daughter. Laughing out loud

In all three cases, plus yours, it is hardly society that has any part in Brian's current ability to earn a living, and purely his employer that decided what his ability should be. And no, I don't think Brian should have a legal right to have a job, anymore than you or I should have that right. But since you used the word "society" in place of employer, you either believe that your choice of words will go over better with him, or you genuinely believe "society" has the final say on someone's employment. How many people, besides yourself, are happy or unhappy that there is a 10% unemployment rate here in the states? Either "society" has no fucking control over it's economic course or Brian's employment (very likely), or you define "society" along some pretty bizarre lines that conveniently agrees with your ideology (even more likely). Which is it?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: The bottom line

EXC wrote:
 The bottom line is you want to put a gun to my head and take the fruits of my labor for yourself and others that don't want to produce for nothing in return. Despite all your 'empathy', your politics is nothing more than armed robbery. At least the armed robber is not so deceptive about what he is doing.
Firstly, when you use money, you must count with the possibility of other people messing with your money, the people who actually printed them. They are the true owners of money and they tell how much it is worth at any time. Secondly, you think of money as something you make, but they are really just a treadmill. Do you get anywhere by running in a treadmill? You make money, you spend money, because they get them out of you. You need money to live, to escape the invisible cock of the market behind you, except that you can't run away in a treadmill. 
And you're not running alone, there are other runners too. Maybe they don't run that well, so the state basically plays a role of charity, gets your money and gives it more equally to others, so they don't get left away for a day longer. But still they are all ransomed by the scarcity and the need to postpone it daily by making money. 

The government as such is not your enemy, it only tries to help those in need. (except when the politicians aren't corrupted) The true enemy is the scarcity. 


EXC wrote:
 A state needs living space for their growing population. What other solution is there since mandatory birth control is taboo subject? The 'right' to breed is in conflict with the 'right' to food and shelter. So what other solution is there?
Control of the sex function is a necessity, we only differ on what means to use. In the end we'll have to use whatever will be proven to work.

EXC wrote:
 I don't use cash any more. Money is all digital now. Is this the same Jesus that could end all suffering if he wanted to at any time, but he just can't bring himself to do it yet. The same guy that is going to send me to suffer for all eternity?
The point is, money is not yours. You did not invent it, you didn't print it, you didn't pour it into economy, you don't set it value against other currencies. And yet you accepted it in exchange for your work, even if it doesn't really belong to you. Getting paid in money is a bad deal. It does not guarantee you social certainities. Specially in this bad money weather that is growing into money cataclysms.

EXC wrote:
 Since we have genes that drive us to be competitive, how do we have economics that is not competitive.
What? We have a competitive economy only very recently. Until a few centuries ago, it was rather a blindly expanding economy. There was a nature and other continents to expand to. The real competition started, when there was nowhere to expand. It is a game that took a life of it's own, not any kind of genetic behavior. It's more about memes, than genes.

EXC wrote:
 So why doesn't the Venus project do this. Just have a commune isolated from the rest of the world except to show how wonderful everything is? A clinical trial to silence the skeptics?
Sure, thanks to a new sponsor there seems to be some major Venus Project-related building.

The new organization supporting Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project are engaged in a multi billion dollar fund drive, and they have a president of an Asian nation Mongolia in full cooperating to build a series of “eco” policies including building Venus Project style houses in Asia called the “Mongolia Initiative”.

As I see now, there will be another RBE project in Iceland, by the same group. 
In USA you're unlikely to hear anything about it, because Jacque Fresco is not popular there for obvious reasons. 

EXC wrote:
 I think this would argue for a system of volunteer workers for hospitals and schools. I would be in favor of this as well as police and fire. The problem is people don't have time for this because they need to 'feed their families'. The cost of food and shelter is so high because of limited resources due to overpopulation.
You're sure about that? In USA, 50% of all food is wasted. In western Europe it's 33-50%. In the rest of developed world it's 33%. The food prices are high due to deliberate speculation with commodities, not supply and demand. The scarcity is artificial, to push the prices up, to make profit. This is why this monetary system must go down, because it makes many improvements impossible.

EXC wrote:
 I would say mandatory job training. In other words and education is not complete until the person can be self-sufficient in the economy.

The only thing mandatory about the current system is taxes are collected and teacher, school administrators and textbook publishers are paid.

It is nice to be self-sufficient, but in what economy, today's? Nobody who uses money can be self-sufficient, except of the 1%. Only in RBE there is true freedom, because apartments will be quickly extruded from a machine and food will be grown in large amounts in vertical hydroponic farms. 

As an immediate solution, job training is necessary. In my country there are crowds of bankers, financial advisors and phone call operators, who produce absolutely nothing. A good artisan, like plumber or builder is worth his weight in gold. Everyone want a graduation exam and some lower academic title, to have prestige and more money. Education became just a way of getting more money for no productive work. But when building a house, they will lay down tiles on floor before laying down sewerage pipes. 

EXC wrote:
 OK, so if your theory is correct, mandatory controls need only be used temporarily until scarcity is no longer a problem. The mandatory birth control need only be applied if you are wrong(I know it's difficult to consider, but try) and birth rates do not stay low. Plan B if you would, in case you're wrong and people still like sex and having children. Since you can't possible be wrong, how could you be against my plan B?
If that turns out to be necessary, then mandatory precautions will have to be applied. But still, I like prevention more than force. If people enjoy sex, then I'd start with free contraception everywhere and cheap long-term contraception (implants etc) and maybe free abortions until 4-5 weeks since conception. That together with media brain massage (and fidelity propaganda because of STDs) should reduce birth rate and also make people accept the mandatory precautions. 

I don't like to get my hands too dirty, you see there is my theist badge and I don't want to reincarnate with some kind of bad karma on my head and other parts of body. And I know about a scientific research which shows that reincarnation is real, down to biologic repercussions from past lives. But if you want, let's just think that I consider force and violence as a sign of failure.

EXC wrote:
 Condoms don't work very well to control population because using them is voluntary. Responsible people use them, irresponsible one's don't.
Yes, here science must help. Currently there are sub-dermal hormonal and vaginal implants, both good solutions, but science should keep working on that, to make it all cheaper, simplier, more efficient. 

EXC wrote:
 So the rich bought gold, that's why it's so high.
The price of gold is pretty much subject to manipulation as well. It will never be used as a currency again anyway. Its usefulness as a resource is limited and so is its demand among common people. 

EXC wrote:
 Genes are powerful, that is why people can't break additions just because scientists tell them it's bad. So people can you reason to overcome additions if they are not to powerful.

It's a mixed bag. Responsible people that don't want to be poor or burden to society take it. Irresponsible people that don't think about being poor and a burden to society do take it. That is what we get with volutary birth control. It's like making traffic laws voluntary, you just end up with only irresponsible people driving on the roads.

If you think socially responsible behaviors like family planning can be voluntary, why not be in favor of paying taxes to be voluntary as well? This is the hypocrisy of the leftists, only certain socially responsible behaviors must be mandatory like paying taxing, other irresponsible behaviors we can just let slide in the name of individual freedom.

Maybe my head is stuck here, because I can't imagine enforced family planning. What happens to the "criminals"? A financial fine? Prison? Taking the newborn child away? (that could actually work) Forced sterilization? That could get very ugly. I remember how a doctor here sterilized one gypsy woman after her 4th birth (it was a standard procedure or something) and there was a huge problem out of that. All over in media, human rights court in Haag, and her marriage went apart because a gypsy husband wants to have many children. It is very likely that any politician who will want to do something about that will be forced to step down.

 

EXC wrote:
 Caesar want to put his image on the coins because he wanted to get a cut of the action, to increase his power and fund his wars of conquest. If people had stuck to barter system, it would be very difficult to collect taxes. We have the technology to go back to a barter system and bypass taxation without reason, this is the way to go.
You see, people used his money and he profited out of it. So do those who give out money today.
The existence of money itself makes that problem. And this is exactly what the RBE is about, including other people's notions, like Ben Creme's international sharing. A transparent, fair system of international barter of resources. 
In Greece people already partially use a barter system and keep track of it online. Shopping in these folk markets will get you vouchers, discounts or even free services in the community. So yes, we definitely have that kind of technology.

 

EXC wrote:
 But work must be geared toward creating products and services people need and want. So you need a system like money to reward productivity.
Rewarding productivity or any kind of good deed is a very bad idea. You do good, you get a reward. So without reward you don't do good? Good things should be done for their own sake, they are a reward in themselves. We must not be calculative like that.

Most of products and services that people need and want can be easily cybernated. Machines can do that, all boring and repetitive work that we do for money, machines can do. (maybe except of a haircut) We don't need money, we need a computer network to keep track of demand and supply. We can sidestep the money. Our logistics is good enough for that. Today, money is an obstacle between the supply and demand. It already was in early 20th century, when there were hungry people, lots of food in shops, but not enough money to buy them.

We don't need productivity at all costs. (I recommend the excellent short film called Story of Stuff) We need sufficiency. People today eat 4 times more than they need. 3 meals a day are enough. What we really need is creativity. And creativity can not be bought, it either is allowed to come from within, or isn't. When you've got no inspiration, no amount of money will force you to be creative. But if you've got a place to live and something to eat, you will do creative work even for free, because you like it.

 

EXC wrote:
 And we will never get to this point of stability because we'll always have more overpopulation pressures leading to more poverty and war. We already see how China has turned things in the right direction and will soon overtake the USA because of lower population pressures in the last 30 years, what more evidence do you need? What has the Venus project ever proven except that the founder is nuts? 
What population pressure? That pressure is just ignored. Nobody does anything about it. What gets through the closed borders is just a trickle. The poverty and war remains out there. So where is the problem? Chinese population stays in China. Africans stay in Africa. 

The true problem is of economic nature. We are under economic warfare. China undervalues its currency, so it can sell and overtake foreign markets. The Chinese will NEVER sell you resources, only products made of these resources, which destroys your home producers. Economic manipulation can put whole states into turmoil in a moment, as it happened with Mozambique. As long as this economic system exists, nothing can be done about population pressure.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Perhaps he lost

Kapkao wrote:

Perhaps he lost his job or had his hours cut because the boss found a Mexican who could work those hours at half his wage/salary. Perhaps Brian said something that pissed him off. Perhaps Brian proposed engagement to the boss's daughter. Laughing out loud

In all three cases, plus yours, it is hardly society that has any part in Brian's current ability to earn a living, and purely his employer that decided what his ability should be. And no, I don't think Brian should have a legal right to have a job, anymore than you or I should have that right. But since you used the word "society" in place of employer, you either believe that your choice of words will go over better with him, or you genuinely believe "society" has the final say on someone's employment. How many people, besides yourself, are happy or unhappy that there is a 10% unemployment rate here in the states? Either "society" has no fucking control over it's economic course or Brian's employment (very likely), or you define "society" along some pretty bizarre lines that conveniently agrees with your ideology (even more likely). Which is it?

 

What I meant by "society" is basically the people living around the restaurant. The potential customers that go into the restaurant and eat or decide not to. Brian said in an earlier thread that his boss used the excuse of slow demand to cut hours. That implies that if more people in society at large made the decision to go eat at that restaurant there would be more demand and therefore Brian (or someone else) would be needed to work more hours at that job. Brian's boss apparently determined there was a lack of demand for that job to be done. Since the boss is also making record profits according to Brian, that tells me that the boss was probably correct in his assessment. For whatever reason, there are not enough people eating at the restaurant to require that job to be performed for x number of hours. I am simply using the term "society" as a broad term describing all the potential people who choose to eat or not to eat at the restaurant. 

 

I define demand as what society wants, ie what the people living/traveling through the area decide to spend their money on. And yeah, demand created by people does have a say in your employment if you work for a private company. If there is no/low demand, sooner or later your job won't be attracting enough money to continue to exist. The employer is simply attempting to predict and/or manipulate the demand and hire employees to make meeting that demand efficient and profitable. The employer isn't the source of demand, the source is the pool of potential customers which I think "society" is a fairly useful label for. And consistent with Brian's use of the term when he claimed that his job was one that "society needs" which I find rather arrogant considering that the vast majority of people wouldn't notice if the restaurant shut down completely let alone notice that Brian's hours have been cut.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Firstly, when

Luminon wrote:

Firstly, when you use money, you must count with the possibility of other people messing with your money, the people who actually printed them. They are the true owners of money and they tell how much it is worth at any time.

OK, so let get rid of the Fed and Department of Treasury. Go back to something like the gold standard. What would make most sense now would be digital credits representing barrels of oil or Kilowatt hours of electricity, since energy is the most necessary commodity in the global economy.

 

Luminon wrote:

Secondly, you think of money as something you make, but they are really just a treadmill. Do you get anywhere by running in a treadmill? You make money, you spend money, because they get them out of you. You need money to live, to escape the invisible cock of the market behind you, except that you can't run away in a treadmill. 

Money is something you trade. Unfortunately I have to eat everyday and growing enough food is still not an easy thing on an overcrowded planet. So someone's got to work their ass off to make it happen.

Luminon wrote:

And you're not running alone, there are other runners too. Maybe they don't run that well,so the state basically plays a role of charity,

Or maybe they don't want to run that well. The school and welfare system doesn't do anything fix the problem, but they still take my money regardless. Why not educate everyone to at least take care of their own necessities? If they can do more, let them have children and luxuries.

Luminon wrote:

Maybe they don't run that well,so the state basically plays a role of charity,

The state should play the role of job trainer instead. Leave charity to all the people like yourself with so much empathy.

Luminon wrote:

But still they are all ransomed by the scarcity and the need to postpone it daily by making money. 

Scarcity is going to exist in any economic system without population control, just as Malthus predicted. Technology is invented to grow more food, so the populuation of the planet grows. We've had relative prosperity and low birth rate in the USA, but then we had high immigration and we didn't control illegal immigration. So now we have poverty and high unemployment. It's just a numbers game.

We're living out the fruit-fly experiment. Now we've eaten all the honey and we're choking our our own shit, because we still breed like fruit-flies.

Luminon wrote:

The government as such is not your enemy, it only tries to help those in need. (except when the politicians aren't corrupted)

No it doesn't. The system is set up so taxes are collected without a service being delivered. So the tax money is just a slush fund for politicians to use for political payoff.

Luminon wrote:

Control of the sex function is a necessity, we only differ on what means to use. In the end we'll have to use whatever will be proven to work.

No control of the breeding function is a necessity if your going to expect society to take care of people's offspring. Since we have birth control technology there is no need to control 'the sex function'.

So then you agree that mandatory birth control is necessary in case other means fail to work?

Luminon wrote:

The point is, money is not yours. You did not invent it, you didn't print it, you didn't pour it into economy, you don't set it value against other currencies. And yet you accepted it in exchange for your work, even if it doesn't really belong to you. Getting paid in money is a bad deal. It does not guarantee you social certainities. Specially in this bad money weather that is growing into money cataclysms.

I agree. The what the Fed does is a hidden illegal tax. We should all trade commodities instead of money.

Luminon wrote:

 We have a competitive economy only very recently. Until a few centuries ago, it was rather a blindly expanding economy.

There was a nature and other continents to expand to. The real competition started, when there was nowhere to expand. It is a game that took a life of it's own, not any kind of genetic behavior.

What? A competitive economy was invented millions of years ago when the first ape-woman accepted food in exchange for sex. That's why it's called the oldest profession. Ape-Men soon learned they had to compete and wage war. It's so old that our ape cousins still have this competitive economy. Please wake up to the facts of life, Luminon.

Luminon wrote:

It's more about memes, than genes.

Memes have their basis in genes. Like a higher layer of software.

Luminon wrote:

Sure, thanks to a new sponsor there seems to be some major Venus Project-related building.

And are they inviting poor families there yet and telling them we'll take care of all your needs and let you have as many kids as they wish? No. So your theory isn't proven yet.

 

Luminon wrote:

The scarcity is artificial, to push the prices up, to make profit.

The scarcity is because there is no more available land and water to grow.

Luminon wrote:

It is nice to be self-sufficient, but in what economy, today's? Nobody who uses money can be self-sufficient, except of the 1%.

I would disagree. Anyone trained to be an IT profession or nurse can be making a 6 figure salary a few years after graduation.

Luminon wrote:

Only in RBE there is true freedom, because apartments will be quickly extruded from a machine and food will be grown in large amounts in vertical hydroponic farms. 

But the population would grow to use all available resources and then you have scarcity again. You can't get away from Malthus with voluntary breeding.

Luminon wrote:

As an immediate solution, job training is necessary. In my country there are crowds of bankers, financial advisors and phone call operators, who produce absolutely nothing.

In some cases they do in deciding what enterprises are worthy of investment. The problem is a lot of this is just taking advantage of the poor's lack of money(i.e. payday advance loans). If the poor had a program to get them into job we wouldn't need these types of businesses.

 

A good artisan, like plumber or builder is worth his weight in gold. Everyone want a graduation exam and some lower academic title, to have prestige and more money. Education became just a way of getting more money for no productive work. But when building a house, they will lay down tiles on floor before laying down sewerage pipes. 

Luminon wrote:

If that turns out to be necessary, then mandatory precautions will have to be applied.

OK. So the only thing we disagree on is whether RBE will cause everyone to stop having lots of children. So RBE could be plan A, if it still has scarcity go to plan B, mandatory birth control, mandatory job training and mandatory work. I could support that. And you support it because plan A can't possible be wrong. So we really agree, that was easy.

Luminon wrote:

But if you want, let's just think that I consider force and violence as a sign of failure.

So then taking the fruits of my labor by deadly force to give to people that don't want to work, get job training or use family planning would also be failure?

 

Luminon wrote:

Maybe my head is stuck here, because I can't imagine enforced family planning. What happens to the "criminals"? A financial fine? Prison? Taking the newborn child away? (that could actually work) Forced sterilization? That could get very ugly.

I thought poverty and war were so ugly, is this any worse?

I think it pretty easy. You trade welfare benefits for agreeing to birth control. Forced sterilization would only be necessary when someone broke their agreement. I think with the rich, imposing fines for unauthorized births/pregnancies(another way for the government to get income without taxes).

 

Luminon wrote:

The poverty and war remains out there. So where is the problem? Chinese population stays in China. Africans stay in Africa. 

The true problem is of economic nature. We are under economic warfare. China undervalues its currency, so it can sell and overtake foreign markets. The Chinese will NEVER sell you resources, only products made of these resources, which destroys your home producers. Economic manipulation can put whole states into turmoil in a moment, as it happened with Mozambique. As long as this economic system exists, nothing can be done about population pressure.

China doesn't have famine anymore and they own our asses now. So the proof is in the pudding. The implementation wasn't very good, but you must admit the one child policy is better than just controlling the population as it was done under Mao(forced famines) or going to war in a nuclear age. It took the great Chinese famine(~40 million dead) for them to accept this policy. I just hope the USA doesn't have to go down the same path to accept what ought to be obvious to any thinking person.

U.S. hunger problems worse than China

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Luminon

EXC wrote:

Luminon wrote:

Firstly, when you use money, you must count with the possibility of other people messing with your money, the people who actually printed them. They are the true owners of money and they tell how much it is worth at any time.

OK, so let get rid of the Fed and Department of Treasury. Go back to something like the gold standard. What would make most sense now would be digital credits representing barrels of oil or Kilowatt hours of electricity, since energy is the most necessary commodity in the global economy.

 

What is the US going to buy the gold and oil with?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Kapkao wrote:
Perhaps we did have higher taxes during the 50s. I'm neither willing to challenge that, nor research it to confirm this myself. But even if we did, we also had a more prominent work ethic, a more motivated populace, and a populace less willing (and needing) to rely on support services to prosper. 50s were good times to live, if you were (at least) a white American. We were #1, then. In some odd manner, I suppose after fighting Nazis for a few years, we were also much more willing to go to war if government called for it (read: non-drafted recruits into Vietnam, and Korean War vets saying military service helped them "grow into a man." My understanding is that many soldiers, grunts, and vets say the exact same thing today.)

 

Yah, we did have higher taxes back then but not quite for the reason you have in mind.

 

What actually happened was that after the war, the federal government basically had no money left and they needed to get back in action fast. So takes went up. Not only on the rich but on everyone although the rich did get shafted harder.

 

Then too, there was no welfare at the time, so they were able to use that part of the money to help get the factories retooled for civilian production again. Add to that that we had had a massive investment in industrial infrastructure for the war and there were plenty of jobs to go around so taxes were less of a concern simply because there was plenty of work to be had.

 

Kapkao wrote:
In either case, there is more than one factor at work when considering the 'peak' of American civilization during the 50s. In my mind, the most likely factor would be the numerous warbonds and native industrial buildup before and during WWII. Then we went downhill again (during the 50s, at that), because companies realized they were paying native-born and bred Americans too much to manufacture goods and produce services, and that many other world populations could do so much more cheaply (and still attain the same relative value for their labors, though not equally so in all industries. Example: Soccer balls and child labor factories. Slave-made cocoa. Blood diamonds. Et cetera.)

 

You timing seems to be missing a couple of decades there.

 

By 1960, the government had got the country back to the way that it needed to be and it was time to lower taxes. Which, of course meant more cash for everyone to spend and another economic boom which not surprisingly led to more tax revenue as more money was flowing.

 

Now because the rich had been soaked harder, they got the bigger tax break. It was actually nearly identical to the plan that W had us go through when he was first elected. Hmm, which president did that? Oh! I remember, Saint John the democrat. But it is no doubt fine by Brian for a democrat to do exactly what the republicans did four decades later.

 

A bit later, we get the huge increase in oil prices when the Arabs decided that the drilling and pumping to the shore needed to be nationalized. That shocked the shit out of our economy and the Keynesian's tried to force adjust everything.

 

During the Carter administration, we had over 20% inflation, a shrinking job base and reduced overall demand for goods and services. The economy sucked far harder than today. Of course, in Brian's world view, this crashing mess must be ignored because we had a democrat in the white house and they can do nothing wrong. Ever. Hence his steadfast insistence on the 30 years thing. Clearly, all problems start the day that we elect a republican by one of the largest landslides in history who then comes in and cleans everything up and gets our house back in order by, once again, cutting taxes for the rich.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 571
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
EXCL wrote:Scarcity is going

EXCL wrote:

Scarcity is going to exist in any economic system without population control, just as Malthus predicted. Technology is invented to grow more food, so the population of the planet grows. We've had relative prosperity and low birth rate in the USA, but then we had high immigration and we didn't control illegal immigration. So now we have poverty and high unemployment. It's just a numbers game.

We're living out the fruit-fly experiment. Now we've eaten all the honey and we're choking our our own shit, because we still breed like fruit-flies. 

I agree with you that population control, if done correctly, would be a good thing.  There just aren't enough resources to support everyone in a lifestyle that they want, but that isn't the big problem.  The big problem is that without fossil fuels there aren't enough resources to support all of the people living today.  We are like a bunch of yeast in a jar filled with sugar water.  We are consuming the fossil fuels(sugar) while breeding like crazy, creating pollution that is killing us and using up the resources we need to stay alive.  If something isn't done bad things are going to happen, and I don't want that.  Not the least reason of which because I, who can't reasonably describe myself as one of the strong, would likely be one of the first to go.   Instead of resource wars, both economic and physical, I would life for people to come together and solve our problems rationally.  Maybe this is against our nature, and to much to ask for, but it is what I would like.  


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
To quote Joe Stack...

To quote Joe Stack... "Nothing Changes without a body count"


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: What is the

Gauche wrote:

 

What is the US going to buy the gold and oil with?

On second thought, maybe oil isn't such a good thing since supply can be manipulated by a few countries.

But I agree with the RBE premise that the FED just creates money from nothing and it exaserbates the debt and poverty problem. The solution however should be a barter system where money can't just be created from nothing as the FED does now.

I suppose in an ideal world, money would be tied to the market value of one's labor.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What I

Beyond Saving wrote:
What I meant by "society" is basically the people living around the restaurant. The potential customers that go into the restaurant and eat or decide not to. Brian said in an earlier thread that his boss used the excuse of slow demand to cut hours. That implies that if more people in society at large made the decision to go eat at that restaurant there would be more demand and therefore Brian (or someone else) would be needed to work more hours at that job. Brian's boss apparently determined there was a lack of demand for that job to be done. Since the boss is also making record profits according to Brian, that tells me that the boss was probably correct in his assessment. For whatever reason, there are not enough people eating at the restaurant to require that job to be performed for x number of hours. I am simply using the term "society" as a broad term describing all the potential people who choose to eat or not to eat at the restaurant. 

 

I define demand as what society wants, ie what the people living/traveling through the area decide to spend their money on. And yeah, demand created by people does have a say in your employment if you work for a private company. If there is no/low demand, sooner or later your job won't be attracting enough money to continue to exist. The employer is simply attempting to predict and/or manipulate the demand and hire employees to make meeting that demand efficient and profitable. The employer isn't the source of demand, the source is the pool of potential customers which I think "society" is a fairly useful label for. And consistent with Brian's use of the term when he claimed that his job was one that "society needs" which I find rather arrogant considering that the vast majority of people wouldn't notice if the restaurant shut down completely let alone notice that Brian's hours have been cut.

"I make a difference", a la The Infinite Wisdom of the Bumper-sticker.

Being serious for a moment, yeah... it is VERY arrogant to think society somehow needs you, or anyone else. This is true even in the example you gave of society being the restaurant's customers. Certainly, there are different things a person will notice about a restaurant. I always notice wait times and ditzy/overly taxed waiters and waitresses. If an establishment doesn't hire enough employees nor have enough furniture comfortably cope with "Primetime" eating periods (weekends, holidays, etc), I'm out of there and I go somewhere else.

What I don't do, or at least haven't since before reaching puberty, is notice who's employed there at a particular moment... unless it is a friend. If it's a friend, I'll eat there even if I hate the food and service. If nothing else, I'll take a few nibbles, then ask for a to-go box, and feed the leftovers to the birds and rats. I would boycott the finest and most cheaply priced of eating places if I thought a friend were unjustly pink slip'd. Because that is what friends do, according to my understanding. For better or for worse, I don't know any waiter or cook friends currently. Eye-wink

But this does give a basis. I'm not inclined to know who is employed where and for what span of time or even for how much money, unless I am on good terms with them first. I can't imagine anyone else feeling as much. What I can very much imagine, is that if Brian had the charisma and organizational skills of Teddy Roosevelt, and the... exploitative nature of any number of brutal 20th century dictators, he could likely have had the customers and employees of his former workplace boycott and go on strike until the restaurant owner is so deep in red ink he can't even breathe. He would have eventually got his full hours back. I don't necessarily see this as an acceptable course of action, but he could have gone that route if he had the level of social influence necessary.

Suddenly, "society" decides Brian is very much needed in terms of labor in this hypothetical. And yeah, whatever you have to say about labor unions; save it. Customers and suppliers are known to bargain collectively in comparable amounts.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I agree with you Kap. If the Taco Bell half a block from me got robbed in the middle of the night, then I could take a stray bullet for my nipping out late at night for a smoke. Those whose lives I have touched will shed a tear but the world will move on without me.

 

On how valuable one may be while alive, there are probably too many variables to track. With my decades of human services skills, one direction I am thinking of going is into sales at the mall. Don't even try to buy luggage from me. I will sell you the most expensive item in the store and have you thank me for the sweet deal. I am fairly sure that that is valuable to corporate.

 

As far as Brian goes, we don't really know what the deal is. What manner of restaurant does he work in?

 

We know that he is in his late 40's. If it is an upscale steak house and he knows his way around wine, then I don't get why someone else who was less valuable would not get cut first. On the other hand, if it is a $15 a plate Italian place, then the owner would rightly be positioned to decide to reduce hours for his wait staff in general.

 

If Brian did not get the cut, then someone else would have. Perhaps he had more hours than anyone else and the owner decided to split things up so that everyone got similar schedules. If that is the deal, well, sucks to be him.

 

The fact is that any business owner needs to do what brings customers into the place. How many restaurants and bars hire hot 20 year old chick to be out front? They put the old dudes in the back. If Brian does not have the skills to work the back end then again, it sucks to be him.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Kapkao wrote:
Perhaps we did have higher taxes during the 50s. I'm neither willing to challenge that, nor research it to confirm this myself. But even if we did, we also had a more prominent work ethic, a more motivated populace, and a populace less willing (and needing) to rely on support services to prosper. 50s were good times to live, if you were (at least) a white American. We were #1, then. In some odd manner, I suppose after fighting Nazis for a few years, we were also much more willing to go to war if government called for it (read: non-drafted recruits into Vietnam, and Korean War vets saying military service helped them "grow into a man." My understanding is that many soldiers, grunts, and vets say the exact same thing today.)

 

Yah, we did have higher taxes back then but not quite for the reason you have in mind.

Minor correction: I had no reason, period. Zero. Nil. Nothing. Now to go through the rest of your post and determine how much actually disagrees with anything I have said or thought.

 

 

Quote:
Then too, there was no welfare at the time, so they were able to use that part of the money to help get the factories retooled for civilian production again. Add to that that we had had a massive investment in industrial infrastructure for the war and there were plenty of jobs to go around so taxes were less of a concern simply because there was plenty of work to be had.

No shit sherlock #1.

 

   

Quote:
By 1960, the government had got the country back to the way that it needed to be and it was time to lower taxes. Which, of course meant more cash for everyone to spend and another economic boom which not surprisingly led to more tax revenue as more money was flowing.

Than LBJ passed medicare. Read: everything Beyond says about medicare and old people.

 Moving along...

Quote:
Now because the rich had been soaked harder, they got the bigger tax break. It was actually nearly identical to the plan that W had us go through when he was first elected.

No shit sherlock #2.

Quote:
Hmm, which president did that? Oh! I remember, Saint John the democrat. But it is no doubt fine by Brian for a democrat to do exactly what the republicans did four decades later.

 

 

Quote:
A bit later, we get the huge increase in oil prices when the Arabs decided that the drilling and pumping to the shore needed to be nationalized. That shocked the shit out of our economy and the Keynesian's tried to force adjust everything.

No shit sherlock #3 and #4.

 

Quote:
During the Carter administration, we had over 20% inflation, a shrinking job base and reduced overall demand for goods and services. The economy sucked far harder than today.

Slightly hard to imagine. But what little I have read or understood about this time period, supports this. It was fucked up, though not quite as much as a former millionaire selling apples on street corner during the Great Depression. The 70s brought about one of the coldest years on record (1979).

Nevertheless... millionaire. 1920s money. Selling apples in the 30s. Yeah, survival is the first order of business, and all that. This is still not an image that will leave my head for a long time.

Quote:
Of course, in Brian's world view, this crashing mess must be ignored because we had a democrat in the white house and they can do nothing wrong. Ever. Hence his steadfast insistence on the 30 years thing. Clearly, all problems start the day that we elect a republican by one of the largest landslides in history who then comes in and cleans everything up and gets our house back in order by, once again, cutting taxes for the rich.

Heh. Reagan's economic performance wasn't exactly glitch-free. Not even close. It was, however, a significant step up from Carter.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 571
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:To quote

Rich Woods wrote:

To quote Joe Stack... "Nothing Changes without a body count"

If that is true than it looks like we are heading towards a body count no matter what we do because our way of life is unsustainable.   It is only a question of when and where most of the changes will take place.  Maybe some of it will come from people angry at our corrupt politicians.  Maybe some of it will from the worlds poor in places like Libya.   Maybe some of it will come from somewhere else entirely.  

I'm still hoping for change without a body count.  It doesn't have to be a huge change like population control.  Anything that helps us deal with the different problems we are suffering from is a good start.  Maybe a Constitutional Convention is possible.  Lawrence Lessig is trying to organize one for the purpose of getting private money out of the election process.  If that happened it would be a good start.  His web site is.

http://www.callaconvention.org/

There is another page which deals with this same issue called root strike.  Rootstrikers is a network of activists fighting the corrupting influence of money in politics.

http://www.rootstrikers.org/

Edit:  I edited this post a few times for various reasons.  Sorry if that annoyed anyone. 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Kap, you completely missed my point.

 

I am agreeing with you. However, you said that you did not want to fish for the details. So I gave you some of the story. I also got a few digs in on Brian over the matter. JFK made an almost identical tax cut to what W did but he can do that because he was the leader of Brian's holy warrior party. Carter totally fucked the economy by bowing down to the Keynesian crowd. He gets an automatic pass because, again, he is a member of the holy warriors for free bread for everyone.

 

LBJ is also not without blame on this. He basically invented welfare while trying to run an unpopular war. Not having a crystal ball, I cannot say what would have happened if neither of those had gone down but I think that the smart money is on the world being fucked up differently than it is today.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:"I make a

Kapkao wrote:

"I make a difference", a la The Infinite Wisdom of the Bumper-sticker.

Being serious for a moment, yeah... it is VERY arrogant to think society somehow needs you, or anyone else. This is true even in the example you gave of society being the restaurant's customers. Certainly, there are different things a person will notice about a restaurant. I always notice wait times and ditzy/overly taxed waiters and waitresses. If an establishment doesn't hire enough employees nor have enough furniture comfortably cope with "Primetime" eating periods (weekends, holidays, etc), I'm out of there and I go somewhere else.

What I don't do, or at least haven't since before reaching puberty, is notice who's employed there at a particular moment... unless it is a friend. If it's a friend, I'll eat there even if I hate the food and service. If nothing else, I'll take a few nibbles, then ask for a to-go box, and feed the leftovers to the birds and rats. I would boycott the finest and most cheaply priced of eating places if I thought a friend were unjustly pink slip'd. Because that is what friends do, according to my understanding. For better or for worse, I don't know any waiter or cook friends currently. Eye-wink

But this does give a basis. I'm not inclined to know who is employed where and for what span of time or even for how much money, unless I am on good terms with them first. I can't imagine anyone else feeling as much. What I can very much imagine, is that if Brian had the charisma and organizational skills of Teddy Roosevelt, and the... exploitative nature of any number of brutal 20th century dictators, he could likely have had the customers and employees of his former workplace boycott and go on strike until the restaurant owner is so deep in red ink he can't even breathe. He would have eventually got his full hours back. I don't necessarily see this as an acceptable course of action, but he could have gone that route if he had the level of social influence necessary.

Suddenly, "society" decides Brian is very much needed in terms of labor in this hypothetical. And yeah, whatever you have to say about labor unions; save it. Customers and suppliers are known to bargain collectively in comparable amounts.

Exactly, you don't notice who works there but you do notice if the job isn't being performed by someone. If fewer man hours translates into slow service you might choose to eat elsewhere causing the owner to make a little less profit. If the service is so bad that very few people eat there the owner starts losing money and either changes or goes out of business. If that happens then the owner was clearly wrong in deciding that the job wasn't in demand. And it does happen fairly frequently that business owners are wrong. 

 

In your hypothetical the boss would most likely cut someone else's hours in which case it is irrelevant. In general, the customers don't care if Brian is making their food or if someone else is. They care about some combination of quality, speed and price. The central question to me is whether or not the job is in demand. 

 

Suppose part of Brian's ultimatum was that no one else's hours gets cut and the restaurant operates exactly as it did before. Assuming the profit margin was enough that it can continue to exist at a reduced profit, the restaurant will stay open and Brian is happy. That still doesn't make his job useful to the restaurant. Those hours are still not needed. Instead they are simply a drag on the owners profits and what you have is simply an example of inefficiency. That isn't really a big deal, many businesses operate just fine with inefficiencies but I can hardly blame the owner of any business for striving to make it more efficient. Capitalism tends to reward efficiently ran businesses while those ran with more inefficiencies tend to make smaller profits. Inefficiencies can be handled by paying workers less per hour, cutting expenses elsewhere or accepting a smaller profit. On the macro level, an economy with relatively few inefficiencies will create more wealth than an economy with many. 

 

As I stated before, I don't really care about the macro economy. I think serious efforts to force an economy to be productive become tyrannical more often than not. That is my big problem with the RBE. Ultimately, it has to force people to work with some level of efficiency. Without the personal incentive of more money the options available to get people to do needed jobs while limiting the useless jobs to a manageable level becomes problematic and the solution will most likely come in the form of physical force no matter how good the intentions of the people who form the system are.

 

As long as there are financial rewards for supplying demand, someone will supply it eventually. But if you are going to do something that doesn't have a market demand, why not do something you enjoy? If your not supplying something society wants, why not supply yourself something you want? I know he won't, but IMO Brian should be looking at his extra free time as an opportunity.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I agree with you Kap. If the Taco Bell half a block from me got robbed in the middle of the night, then I could take a stray bullet for my nipping out late at night for a smoke. Those whose lives I have touched will shed a tear but the world will move on without me.

 

On how valuable one may be while alive, there are probably too many variables to track. With my decades of human services skills, one direction I am thinking of going is into sales at the mall. Don't even try to buy luggage from me. I will sell you the most expensive item in the store and have you thank me for the sweet deal. I am fairly sure that that is valuable to corporate.

 

As far as Brian goes, we don't really know what the deal is. What manner of restaurant does he work in?

 

We know that he is in his late 40's. If it is an upscale steak house and he knows his way around wine, then I don't get why someone else who was less valuable would not get cut first. On the other hand, if it is a $15 a plate Italian place, then the owner would rightly be positioned to decide to reduce hours for his wait staff in general.

 

If Brian did not get the cut, then someone else would have. Perhaps he had more hours than anyone else and the owner decided to split things up so that everyone got similar schedules. If that is the deal, well, sucks to be him.

 

The fact is that any business owner needs to do what brings customers into the place. How many restaurants and bars hire hot 20 year old chick to be out front? They put the old dudes in the back. If Brian does not have the skills to work the back end then again, it sucks to be him.

 

First off I work at a breakfast place. Secondly, the owner is merely playing an ego game with me and is cutting my hours because he doesn't like what he pays me. He is trying to get me to quit so he doesn't have to pay unemployment. He is trying to get rid of all the employees who were given raises under the old owners. Boil the lobster slowly.

This is nothing but ego, control, and greed on his part.

And "skills" have nothing to do with it. My work ethic is fine and I work circles around everyone in that kitchen. He just doesn't like the way I do things and I refuse to change my ways. I busted my ass over the past 6 years to make that kitchen more efficient and clean, BECAUSE of the way I do things. I don't give a fuck about getting fired anymore and he is not going to get me to quit. I have backed down too much in my life trying to be what others want me to be. FUCK HIM. I have given him far more than he deserves and am worth way more than he is paying me.

This is nothing but a control issue and nothing but a way to maximize is profits. He has never lost money since he bought this place and his profits have gone up every year. He is merely cutting my hours for one reason, he doesn't like what he pays me.

There is not one job, OF ANY KIND, that does not require skills and to devalue anyone like that says you are merely looking down on someone getting paid less.

AND THIS ATTITUDE is exactly why there are protesters. You devalue those below you it makes it easy to not care how you get your profits and who you screw over to get them.

I am sick of people putting down others because of their paycheck or title. There is nothing wrong with having dignity or pride in any job you have.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, that sounds like a guy I worked for during the Reagan administration.

 

This was a lunch place and the guy was insane over efficiency. If I needed something from one of the refrigerators and I did not bring back something that I was done with, well, I was wasting valuable foot steps. When I am putting the chocolate chips on top of the brownies, if I am not throwing them, then I am too slow but if I throw them and one or two miss and hit the floor, he would call out “I hear my money hitting the ground”.

 

Despite that, he would frequently cause stop work conditions to show his superiority. Having been a grad from one of the top culinary schools in America, he had to lord his position by writing the work list out with French and Italian words. If I asked what one of them meant, he would say that he will tell me when I need to know.

 

Well bud, if the job requires something to happen before I get to that part of the list, then I need to know now, not when I get up to it. One example was a time that he wanted tomatoes peeled seeded and diced. But he used the Italian term and refused to tell me what it meant until I got to that part of the list. It was also near the end of the list. So he finally reveals the secret Italian word when there is hardly any work left on his plan. OK shit for brains, I could have put the water on to boil half an hour ago if you had told me. But no, your ego got in the way of your almighty efficiency standard.

 

Also, he had a corn cob up his ass about rich people somehow being special and privileged to rights that he would make up on the fly. I swear this is a true story! We had a radio in the kitchen and we would listen to an all news station. One time, there was a story about a bunch of adult adopted who were going to Washington D. C. to try for a law to open the records so they could find out who their birth parents were. Well, shit for brains said that that would be a really bad idea. When I asked him why he said “there might be rich people who dumped some kid early in life and they need to be specially protected from the kids finding out”.

 

I could go on for many pages about this guy but I think the point is made.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1475
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, that sounds like a guy I worked for during the Reagan administration.

 

This was a lunch place and the guy was insane over efficiency. If I needed something from one of the refrigerators and I did not bring back something that I was done with, well, I was wasting valuable foot steps. When I am putting the chocolate chips on top of the brownies, if I am not throwing them, then I am too slow but if I throw them and one or two miss and hit the floor, he would call out “I hear my money hitting the ground”.

 

Despite that, he would frequently cause stop work conditions to show his superiority. Having been a grad from one of the top culinary schools in America, he had to lord his position by writing the work list out with French and Italian words. If I asked what one of them meant, he would say that he will tell me when I need to know.

 

Well bud, if the job requires something to happen before I get to that part of the list, then I need to know now, not when I get up to it. One example was a time that he wanted tomatoes peeled seeded and diced. But he used the Italian term and refused to tell me what it meant until I got to that part of the list. It was also near the end of the list. So he finally reveals the secret Italian word when there is hardly any work left on his plan. OK shit for brains, I could have put the water on to boil half an hour ago if you had told me. But no, your ego got in the way of your almighty efficiency standard.

 

Also, he had a corn cob up his ass about rich people somehow being special and privileged to rights that he would make up on the fly. I swear this is a true story! We had a radio in the kitchen and we would listen to an all news station. One time, there was a story about a bunch of adult adopted who were going to Washington D. C. to try for a law to open the records so they could find out who their birth parents were. Well, shit for brains said that that would be a really bad idea. When I asked him why he said “there might be rich people who dumped some kid early in life and they need to be specially protected from the kids finding out”.

 

I could go on for many pages about this guy but I think the point is made.

 

We all have stories of bad bosses. But trust me, there is nothing more annoying than a bad employee. I spent 2 months with a company and my only responsibilty was firing people and doing random office work (I worked for an employment agency, we handled all employee misconduct at the request of the companys). The things the people I had to fire people over were just ridiculous, I can say there were only one or two cases where maybe the people were being a little to harsh. I really don't blame many of the bosses for going a little over board with the kind of shit these people I had to fire and give warnings to made them put up with untill they lost there patience. Sure its not right to take it out on people who do not pull crap but hey its stressful when people you pay do not play ball, it can be tough to remain fair, some people are just not good at dealing with shit. Them again you do just get some assholes.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Answers in

Brian37 wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I agree with you Kap. If the Taco Bell half a block from me got robbed in the middle of the night, then I could take a stray bullet for my nipping out late at night for a smoke. Those whose lives I have touched will shed a tear but the world will move on without me.

 

On how valuable one may be while alive, there are probably too many variables to track. With my decades of human services skills, one direction I am thinking of going is into sales at the mall. Don't even try to buy luggage from me. I will sell you the most expensive item in the store and have you thank me for the sweet deal. I am fairly sure that that is valuable to corporate.

 

As far as Brian goes, we don't really know what the deal is. What manner of restaurant does he work in?

 

We know that he is in his late 40's. If it is an upscale steak house and he knows his way around wine, then I don't get why someone else who was less valuable would not get cut first. On the other hand, if it is a $15 a plate Italian place, then the owner would rightly be positioned to decide to reduce hours for his wait staff in general.

 

If Brian did not get the cut, then someone else would have. Perhaps he had more hours than anyone else and the owner decided to split things up so that everyone got similar schedules. If that is the deal, well, sucks to be him.

 

The fact is that any business owner needs to do what brings customers into the place. How many restaurants and bars hire hot 20 year old chick to be out front? They put the old dudes in the back. If Brian does not have the skills to work the back end then again, it sucks to be him.

 

First off I work at a breakfast place. Secondly, the owner is merely playing an ego game with me and is cutting my hours because he doesn't like what he pays me. He is trying to get me to quit so he doesn't have to pay unemployment. He is trying to get rid of all the employees who were given raises under the old owners. Boil the lobster slowly.

This is nothing but ego, control, and greed on his part.

And "skills" have nothing to do with it. My work ethic is fine and I work circles around everyone in that kitchen. He just doesn't like the way I do things and I refuse to change my ways. I busted my ass over the past 6 years to make that kitchen more efficient and clean, BECAUSE of the way I do things. I don't give a fuck about getting fired anymore and he is not going to get me to quit. I have backed down too much in my life trying to be what others want me to be. FUCK HIM. I have given him far more than he deserves and am worth way more than he is paying me.

This is nothing but a control issue and nothing but a way to maximize is profits. He has never lost money since he bought this place and his profits have gone up every year. He is merely cutting my hours for one reason, he doesn't like what he pays me.

There is not one job, OF ANY KIND, that does not require skills and to devalue anyone like that says you are merely looking down on someone getting paid less.

AND THIS ATTITUDE is exactly why there are protesters. You devalue those below you it makes it easy to not care how you get your profits and who you screw over to get them.

I am sick of people putting down others because of their paycheck or title. There is nothing wrong with having dignity or pride in any job you have.

 

 

Then why spend your time working for him? Go elsewhere.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am sick of

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of people putting down others because of their paycheck or title. There is nothing wrong with having dignity or pride in any job you have.

Well then why are you so angry with wallstreet if you are happy with your paycheck and title? Why are all these people so angry with Wall Street if they are not extremely jeolous?

I'm angry at wall street not for their sucess but because they stole from be via the public bailouts. If your're angry about that, you should be angry about income tax because that was the means of theft.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Why I don't get about the

What I don't get about the protesters is why they aren't mad about all debt the governments(federal, state and local) has piled on their backs. Most of them are under 30, so their generation is expect to pay social security and medicare for the baby boomers, massive pensions for government employees plus all  the interest on the national debt.

 

Why isn't their any anger about what the older generations have done to them? Why is wall street the scapegoat for all this when it was mainly leftist and moderate politicians that did this to them, pressured by their parents and grandparents not Wall Street.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: EXC wrote:

Gauche wrote:

EXC wrote:

Luminon wrote:

Firstly, when you use money, you must count with the possibility of other people messing with your money, the people who actually printed them. They are the true owners of money and they tell how much it is worth at any time.

OK, so let get rid of the Fed and Department of Treasury. Go back to something like the gold standard. What would make most sense now would be digital credits representing barrels of oil or Kilowatt hours of electricity, since energy is the most necessary commodity in the global economy.

 

What is the US going to buy the gold and oil with?

Minor sidenote:Useful stuff, mined, harvested or pumped natively. It worked before there was fiat currency, at the same time, fiat currency was developed in response to the bartering system's failures. Namely, the fact that not everyone works with or owns a precious, rare resource and can not have access to some really basic things... like wheat grains, or wheat products. Bread. Biscuits. The occasional confection. All things we take for granted now.

Currency has problems, but there are only two choices for dealing with it; bartering, and removing the favoritist assholes in control of currency from their position of power. In the latter case, the value of currency becomes stable again, but this is only possible in a situation where the populace that is being screwed makes its anger known publicly and in a way that is immensely difficult to ignore.

Only in recent years has the general (American) public started tiring of Wall Street. They haven't yet tired of our Central Bank, but they're at least going down that direction. And if this crisis causes enough frustration at bald-faced corruption at the central banks, we might just have a desired outcome.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 571
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Our problems

EXC wrote:

Our problems are genetic in nature, so only genetic engineering or controls on the misery causing behaviors caused by our genes can solve the problems.

The genetic engineer part doesn't seem possible right now.  As for controls on our behavior, what kinds of controls are you suggesting?  


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 571
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Without

Kapkao wrote:

Without nitpicking your post apart issue-by-issue, or being pedantic (both of which I tend to hate), you have quite a bit more mind-changing to do.

If you aren't going to say anything meaningful about my comment why bother responding?  


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:The genetic

RatDog wrote:

The genetic engineer part doesn't seem possible right now.  As for controls on our behavior, what kinds of controls are you suggesting?  

I would say make family planning an obligation the same way we make paying income tax. Close off immigration to all but a small number of highly educated people.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Gauche wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Gauche wrote:

What is the US going to buy the gold and oil with?

Minor sidenote:Useful stuff, mined, harvested or pumped natively. It worked before there was fiat currency, at the same time, fiat currency was developed in response to the bartering system's failures. Namely, the fact that not everyone works with or owns a precious, rare resource and can not have access to some really basic things... like wheat grains, or wheat products. Bread. Biscuits. The occasional confection. All things we take for granted now.

Currency has problems, but there are only two choices for dealing with it; bartering, and removing the favoritist assholes in control of currency from their position of power. In the latter case, the value of currency becomes stable again, but this is only possible in a situation where the populace that is being screwed makes its anger known publicly and in a way that is immensely difficult to ignore.

Only in recent years has the general (American) public started tiring of Wall Street. They haven't yet tired of our Central Bank, but they're at least going down that direction. And if this crisis causes enough frustration at bald-faced corruption at the central banks, we might just have a desired outcome.

 

There's an enormous trade deficit in the US without trying to obtain the world's oil reserves or gold to use as a medium of exchange.

Even if those things could be obtained they'd have to be exported to resolve the debt. In addition to the problems of trade imbalance and debt you'd then also have nothing to use for money. 

You could borrow it back from China but then you would have a debt based monetary system again.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I agree with you Kap. If the Taco Bell half a block from me got robbed in the middle of the night, then I could take a stray bullet for my nipping out late at night for a smoke. Those whose lives I have touched will shed a tear but the world will move on without me.

 

On how valuable one may be while alive, there are probably too many variables to track. With my decades of human services skills, one direction I am thinking of going is into sales at the mall. Don't even try to buy luggage from me. I will sell you the most expensive item in the store and have you thank me for the sweet deal. I am fairly sure that that is valuable to corporate.

 

As far as Brian goes, we don't really know what the deal is. What manner of restaurant does he work in?

 

We know that he is in his late 40's. If it is an upscale steak house and he knows his way around wine, then I don't get why someone else who was less valuable would not get cut first. On the other hand, if it is a $15 a plate Italian place, then the owner would rightly be positioned to decide to reduce hours for his wait staff in general.

 

If Brian did not get the cut, then someone else would have. Perhaps he had more hours than anyone else and the owner decided to split things up so that everyone got similar schedules. If that is the deal, well, sucks to be him.

 

The fact is that any business owner needs to do what brings customers into the place. How many restaurants and bars hire hot 20 year old chick to be out front? They put the old dudes in the back. If Brian does not have the skills to work the back end then again, it sucks to be him.

 

First off I work at a breakfast place. Secondly, the owner is merely playing an ego game with me and is cutting my hours because he doesn't like what he pays me. He is trying to get me to quit so he doesn't have to pay unemployment. He is trying to get rid of all the employees who were given raises under the old owners. Boil the lobster slowly.

This is nothing but ego, control, and greed on his part.

And "skills" have nothing to do with it. My work ethic is fine and I work circles around everyone in that kitchen. He just doesn't like the way I do things and I refuse to change my ways. I busted my ass over the past 6 years to make that kitchen more efficient and clean, BECAUSE of the way I do things. I don't give a fuck about getting fired anymore and he is not going to get me to quit. I have backed down too much in my life trying to be what others want me to be. FUCK HIM. I have given him far more than he deserves and am worth way more than he is paying me.

This is nothing but a control issue and nothing but a way to maximize is profits. He has never lost money since he bought this place and his profits have gone up every year. He is merely cutting my hours for one reason, he doesn't like what he pays me.

There is not one job, OF ANY KIND, that does not require skills and to devalue anyone like that says you are merely looking down on someone getting paid less.

AND THIS ATTITUDE is exactly why there are protesters. You devalue those below you it makes it easy to not care how you get your profits and who you screw over to get them.

I am sick of people putting down others because of their paycheck or title. There is nothing wrong with having dignity or pride in any job you have.

 

 

Then why spend your time working for him? Go elsewhere.

You are such a fucking idiot. I point at the moon and you stare at my fingertip.

CLIMATE, is what I am addressing, not one individual.

Our climate has been one sold that class matters and getting rich matters and that is all that matters. That, and people like you who put politicians in office who are more concerned with protecting the rich than they are protecting main street.

You are so fucking self centered and delusional.

But I am not worried long term. I think the tide is changing and your mindset type will lose.

You are NOT special. And those below you who put you where you are at did far more work than you did. Stop being a prick thinking you are the hottest thing since sliced bread. You are NOTHING without those who work for you.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37