This needs polishing as an idea and I'm aware of that, so I'm posting it here among you free thinkers in order to get some feed back and holes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.
I've had thoughts like this in my head for the last few years, but never put any of them down, and this was written in an entirely different thread discussing a method of reducing the costs necessary to fund social security for the baby boomers.
So here it is, in all it's roughness.
what I mean by controlled deflation is this:
After whatever recovery from this recession we will have, the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's.. except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working. Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.
The Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply. The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise. This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.
Combine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.
There will be pain for some. That cannot be discounted. but the alternative is to continue to push off a real recovery on the next generation, when recession after recession, it becomes clear that they get worse and worse without addressing the fundamental problems in the money supply as it relates to real wages and savings rates.
We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down. The only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them. If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.
The concept of "Standard of Living" is based on the inflation in the system, since there's no longer a rational basis for the value of the dollar other than the collective delusion of the people using it. Use this to everyones' advantage and bring our "price to wage" ration back to normal levels.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
This. But a helpful hint. Problem 1: People living beyond their means make up a large portion of the population. What do you tihnk is going to happen to them in your system?
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
Thnx for contributing to the discussion Kai.
you're a credit to you're university.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:03:54 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
This. But a helpful hint. Problem 1: People living beyond their means make up a large portion of the population. What do you tihnk is going to happen to them in your system?
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
Thnx for contributing to the discussion Kai.
you're a credit to you're university.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:03:54 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
This. But a helpful hint. Problem 1: People living beyond their means make up a large portion of the population. What do you tihnk is going to happen to them in your system?
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
oh, and in a reality where you have to actually have collateral to live beyond your means, or risk loosing it, it's more and more not an option.
our grandparents lived this way. 10% down on a house before you could buy it.
we've strayed from reality, where you can buy a house with nothing but a promise.
that era is dead. and thankfully.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:09:45 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
oh, and in a reality where you have to actually have collateral to live beyond your means, or risk loosing it, it's more and more not an option.
our grandparents lived this way. 10% down on a house before you could buy it.
we've strayed from reality, where you can buy a house with nothing but a promise.
that era is dead. and thankfully.
THIS is why I love Libertarian economics. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
:lulz:
LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.
I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.
that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all.. because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.
anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
:lulz:
LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.
I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.
that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all.. because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.
anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.
:roll:
What you are suggesting will cause as much pain and suffering as full on descent into absolute anarchy, only all at once. If you can't see the flaws in your own argument, then there is really no point in having us point them out to you, since you will do what you just did a second ago.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
:lulz:
LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.
I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.
that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all.. because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.
anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.
:roll:
What you are suggesting will cause as much pain and suffering as full on descent into absolute anarchy, only all at once. If you can't see the flaws in your own argument, then there is really no point in having us point them out to you, since you will do what you just did a second ago.
and that jives with your sense of discord.. how?
at least my proposal, while admittedly rough, aprovides a reboot of sorts, allowing for and even *gasp* encouraging self education on all things finance.
you've still offered nothing to this thread, except ridicule with no ideas.
maybe I really am on the wrong board.
I clearly asked for
Quoteholes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.
Maybe you're just lazy fucks who aren;t actually interested in answers.. maybe you're "REAL DISCORDIANS"
I expect much lulz out of that last one.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
:lulz:
LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.
I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.
that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all.. because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.
anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.
Too busy to comment right now, but
Im not an anarchist, please don't suggest I am
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
:lulz:
LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.
I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.
that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all.. because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.
anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.
:roll:
What you are suggesting will cause as much pain and suffering as full on descent into absolute anarchy, only all at once. If you can't see the flaws in your own argument, then there is really no point in having us point them out to you, since you will do what you just did a second ago.
and that jives with your sense of discord.. how?
at least my proposal, while admittedly rough, aprovides a reboot of sorts, allowing for and even *gasp* encouraging self education on all things finance.
you've still offered nothing to this thread, except ridicule with no ideas.
maybe I really am on the wrong board.
I clearly asked for Quoteholes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.
Maybe you're just lazy fucks who aren;t actually interested in answers.. maybe you're "REAL DISCORDIANS"
I expect much lulz out of that last one.
I am beginning to suspect you are just trolling. Your entire concept is a hole.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
:lulz:
LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.
I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.
that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all.. because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.
anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.
:roll:
What you are suggesting will cause as much pain and suffering as full on descent into absolute anarchy, only all at once. If you can't see the flaws in your own argument, then there is really no point in having us point them out to you, since you will do what you just did a second ago.
and that jives with your sense of discord.. how?
at least my proposal, while admittedly rough, aprovides a reboot of sorts, allowing for and even *gasp* encouraging self education on all things finance.
you've still offered nothing to this thread, except ridicule with no ideas.
maybe I really am on the wrong board.
I clearly asked for Quoteholes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.
Maybe you're just lazy fucks who aren;t actually interested in answers.. maybe you're "REAL DISCORDIANS"
I expect much lulz out of that last one.
You want an alternative answer? Free-market capitalism has to go. A new economic model replaces it. It works as well as your suggestion, and is just as easy to implement. And much less wordy.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 08:29:05 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
:lulz:
LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.
I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.
that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all.. because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.
anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.
Too busy to comment right now, but
Im not an anarchist, please don't suggest I am
didn't mean you. sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:34:53 PM
didn't mean you. sorry for the confusion.
If you are talking about me, I've stated elsewhere that I'm a Hobbesian.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:38:23 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:34:53 PM
didn't mean you. sorry for the confusion.
If you are talking about me, I've stated elsewhere that I'm a Hobbesian.
that's right, I did read that on another thread.
allow me time to devour it, as I've heard it, but it passed me by..
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:33:01 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:18:59 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
:lulz:
LAWL questions I answer while providing no rational rebuttal.
I am slowly starting to realize that this board is not actually interested in discussing issues, only ridiculing ones they think they do not agree with, while providing nothing in the way or rational response to ones they do not agree with.
that wouldn't jive with discordianism, after all.. because chaos can exist without the order that's already inherent in the world in which we already live and have to function.
anarchy is nice in theory, until you have to live in it.
:roll:
What you are suggesting will cause as much pain and suffering as full on descent into absolute anarchy, only all at once. If you can't see the flaws in your own argument, then there is really no point in having us point them out to you, since you will do what you just did a second ago.
and that jives with your sense of discord.. how?
at least my proposal, while admittedly rough, aprovides a reboot of sorts, allowing for and even *gasp* encouraging self education on all things finance.
you've still offered nothing to this thread, except ridicule with no ideas.
maybe I really am on the wrong board.
I clearly asked for Quoteholes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.
Maybe you're just lazy fucks who aren;t actually interested in answers.. maybe you're "REAL DISCORDIANS"
I expect much lulz out of that last one.
You want an alternative answer? Free-market capitalism has to go. A new economic model replaces it. It works as well as your suggestion, and is just as easy to implement. And much less wordy.
does free market capitalism, in it's death throws, allow for whatever system you have in mind to take over smoothly, with minimal loss everyone? do you have a system to replace it with?
(I'll research Hobbesian and get back with you on that.. I am curious.)
Any system will do, since I was making a facetious suggestion that compared to yours. But why not good ol' fashioned Communism, since you asked?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
This needs polishing as an idea and I'm aware of that, so I'm posting it here among you free thinkers in order to get some feed back and holes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.
I've had thoughts like this in my head for the last few years, but never put any of them down, and this was written in an entirely different thread discussing a method of reducing the costs necessary to fund social security for the baby boomers.
So here it is, in all it's roughness.
what I mean by controlled deflation is this:
After whatever recovery from this recession we will have, the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's.. except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working. Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.
The Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply. The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise. This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.
Combine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.
There will be pain for some. That cannot be discounted. but the alternative is to continue to push off a real recovery on the next generation, when recession after recession, it becomes clear that they get worse and worse without addressing the fundamental problems in the money supply as it relates to real wages and savings rates.
We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down. The only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them. If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.
The concept of "Standard of Living" is based on the inflation in the system, since there's no longer a rational basis for the value of the dollar other than the collective delusion of the people using it. Use this to everyones' advantage and bring our "price to wage" ration back to normal levels.
I will rebut.
Paragraph 1.
Pure speculation. Since we're not really real Discordians we insist you back drivel up with some form of realistic facts.
Paragraph 2.
Seriously? The '80's is the last example of the Fed raising the prime? Also you honestly expect wages and costs to go down? :cn:
Paragraph 3.
:lulz:
Paragraph 4.
Study Economics. Upturns and downturns are necessary evils, they will always be with us.
Paragraph 5.
Good gods. I get it now, you are a magik user with special powers. There will be no other way to drop wages and costs of products as you suggest. I am glad this one was paragraph 5.
Paragraph 6.
At least you almost admitted money doesn't exist. But the rest is repetitive nonsense.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 08:50:05 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
This needs polishing as an idea and I'm aware of that, so I'm posting it here among you free thinkers in order to get some feed back and holes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.
I've had thoughts like this in my head for the last few years, but never put any of them down, and this was written in an entirely different thread discussing a method of reducing the costs necessary to fund social security for the baby boomers.
So here it is, in all it's roughness.
what I mean by controlled deflation is this:
After whatever recovery from this recession we will have, the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's.. except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working. Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.
The Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply. The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise. This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.
Combine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.
There will be pain for some. That cannot be discounted. but the alternative is to continue to push off a real recovery on the next generation, when recession after recession, it becomes clear that they get worse and worse without addressing the fundamental problems in the money supply as it relates to real wages and savings rates.
We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down. The only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them. If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.
The concept of "Standard of Living" is based on the inflation in the system, since there's no longer a rational basis for the value of the dollar other than the collective delusion of the people using it. Use this to everyones' advantage and bring our "price to wage" ration back to normal levels.
I will rebut.
Paragraph 1.
Pure speculation. Since we're not really real Discordians we insist you back drivel up with some form of realistic facts.
Paragraph 2.
Seriously? The '80's is the last example of the Fed raising the prime? Also you honestly expect wages and costs to go down? :cn:
Paragraph 3.
:lulz:
Paragraph 4.
Study Economics. Upturns and downturns are necessary evils, they will always be with us.
Paragraph 5.
Good gods. I get it now, you are a magik user with special powers. There will be no other way to drop wages and costs of products as you suggest. I am glad this one was paragraph 5.
Paragraph 6.
At least you almost admitted money doesn't exist. But the rest is repetitive nonsense.
To put it more simply:
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:47:26 PM
Any system will do, since I was making a facetious suggestion that compared to yours. But why not good ol' fashioned Communism, since you asked?
alright, ideas I can discuss.
Every instance of communism I've read about (never experienced, so that fact is out there) has seemed to point to it being completely workable in small communities, as long as there's no descent.
Israeli Kibbutz, the sometimes workable french system of very small, semi autonomous groups of people.
I admit freely a fair amount of ignorance of seeing it work on a large scale, over the span of a country say.. the size of the USSR..
I also admit bias in believing that the system that is SUPPOSED to eliminate a class society, at least from what I have read, actually creates two classes: the haves and the have nots.
Romania comes to mind.
My conclusions on communism is that if it's centrally managed, as you have to do on a land mass as large as ours, with a centralized government, the possibility for corruption and suppressing of dissent is far greater than you have in our present, democratic republic.
how this ties into money, and capital being controlled centrally, and profits doled out to to the people.. I admit I should do more reading.
that does not mean that my previous arguments have never been manifest in communism, and I've heard no rebuttals to those inherent problems, where since, you do not elect you leaders, you create an oligarchy that controls your military, and to survive, will suppress any dissenting ideas.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
This needs polishing as an idea and I'm aware of that, so I'm posting it here among you free thinkers in order to get some feed back and holes blown in it, so I can do more research and patch them where I can.
Thinking isn't free. Or was that "freedom isn't thinking"?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
I've had thoughts like this in my head for the last few years, but never put any of them down,
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ;)
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
and this was written in an entirely different thread discussing a method of reducing the costs necessary to fund social security for the baby boomers.
Cap and trade Viagra?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
So here it is, in all it's roughness.
Ugh. Soften us up first. Everything is better with lube.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
what I mean by controlled deflation is this:
THIS. Controlled deflation is I mean what.
See? interwebbing your language provides a gentler, more youth-friendly introduction to your plan to euthanize Grandma.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
After whatever recovery from this recession we will have,
So, you're speaking in the past-tense?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's..
I TOLD YOU DISCO WASN'T DEAD!
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working.
Hooray! Let's stop reading Ayn rand and start reading Bob Black! That'll fix everything!
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.
Risk!? I thought it was a feature?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
The Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply. The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise. This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.
Are you sure we want to take our economic policy from the 1980s?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
Combine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.
I doubt they'll allow that. Part of their prosperity is having us in their debt. <b>They own us.</b> Any attempt to financially liberate ourselves will be seen as an act of economic war. They will stop shipping goods and parts to us and we will end up standing in line for toilet paper.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
There will be pain for some. That cannot be discounted.
Oh please. This and the roughness crack earlier. Why is it that everyone sexualizes economics? Is it because we keep economizing sex? I say we need a performance model of economic policy. "Buy, buy, oh god buy!" means buy, anything else means "no sale!"
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
but the alternative is to continue to push off a real recovery on the next generation, when recession after recession, it becomes clear that they get worse and worse without addressing the fundamental problems in the money supply as it relates to real wages and savings rates.
Eh, this too shall pass. I'm pretty sure deep space nine can handle it. Those Bajorans kick ass.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down.
My daddy told me, if you ain't a union man, you ain't crossing this line.
Why not remove competition through legislation? Tariffs or whatever.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
The only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them. If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.
Damn liberals, taking all our hard-earned money just because some damn immigrants get paid less than us.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
The concept of "Standard of Living" is based on the inflation in the system, since there's no longer a rational basis for the value of the dollar other than the collective delusion of the people using it.
If the delusion is collective, is it still a delusion?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
Use this to everyones' advantage and bring our "price to wage" ration back to normal levels.
And then never ask for a raise or give yourself a Christmas bonus ever again, because raises are terrorism. Will all these single mothers please stop destroying our great nation with your hungry mouths and diapered masses?
-toa,
people behaving rationally is like a fish riding a bicycle
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
Thnx for contributing to the discussion Kai.
you're a credit to you're university.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:03:54 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
This. But a helpful hint. Problem 1: People living beyond their means make up a large portion of the population. What do you tihnk is going to happen to them in your system?
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
Any plan that depends upon rational human actors WILL fail. I don't mean, might fail but looks really good after a while, I don't mean fails just a little for some unfortunate people, I mean, will completely and utterly fail.
And that is why I am laughing. :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
alright, ideas I can discuss.
Every instance of communism I've read about (never experienced, so that fact is out there) has seemed to point to it being completely workable in small communities, as long as there's no descent.
True.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
Israeli Kibbutz, the sometimes workable french system of very small, semi autonomous groups of people.
:lol:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
I admit freely a fair amount of ignorance of seeing it work on a large scale, over the span of a country say.. the size of the USSR..
Objection. USSR was not communist, technically speaking.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
I also admit bias in believing that the system that is SUPPOSED to eliminate a class society, at least from what I have read, actually creates two classes: the haves and the have nots.
Objection. False Assumption.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
Romania comes to mind.
Objection. Irrelevant.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
My conclusions on communism is that if it's centrally managed, as you have to do on a land mass as large as ours, with a centralized government, the possibility for corruption and suppressing of dissent is far greater than you have in our present, democratic republic.
Objection. Speculation.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
how this ties into money, and capital being controlled centrally, and profits doled out to to the people.. I admit I should do more reading.
All your previous arguments are hereby negated.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
that does not mean that my previous arguments have never been manifest in communism, and I've heard no rebuttals to those inherent problems, where since, you do not elect you leaders, you create an oligarchy that controls your military, and to survive, will suppress any dissenting ideas.
Objection. Speculation again.
The few problems I have so far; as far as I know (and I maybe wrong, but probably not) the government has done nothing to regulate derivative trading as well as break up the US bank monopolies. So even if there is going to be a little recovery without something unforeseen in the end it will all collapse again. Your back at square one, in fact for most people their in worse position.
Also I think your confusing doing whats best for your country and whats best for the people of your country. They aren't the same.
I know you admit there would be pain for some, but unless your willing to share that pain it's easy to say - and yes I do mean complete financial destruction of your homestead.
Now having said that in the 90's the Canadian government's basic economic policy was to deflating the dollar ie. keep the Canadian dollar weak. This worked at the time cause we're such a resource based economy that much of our GDP relies on raw exports. Also our biggest trade partner had a strong dollar at the time.
I don't think deflation would be wise in a service based economy, especially in the US where resources to population is lower and manufacturing has all but left the country
Jesus, TOA, shut the ever-loving fuck up and go back to wherever you were when you weren't here. you're honestly my least favorite poster at PD ever, including Eldora and Hugh.
as for the OP, my grasp of economic theory is feeble at best, so I can neither confirm nor deny the plausibility of your idea.
That said, I totally agree that we shouldn't be hampered by what will happen to people who live beyond their means. I also realize that this is easy for me to say since:
1) I don't know the full scope of what the consequences would be
and
2) My job and pay rate are secure no matter what, since the government will never stop spending obscene sums of money on mad science.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
alright, ideas I can discuss.
Admitting you lack the skill to discuss any and all ideas is the first step to DISCOvery.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
Every instance of communism I've read about (never experienced, so that fact is out there) has seemed to point to it being completely workable in small communities, as long as there's no descent.
What good is letting the government have full control over production if you can't produce a decent dissent?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
Israeli Kibbutz, the sometimes workable french system of very small, semi autonomous groups of people.
There's a sometimes-workable French system? How'd they manage that!?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
I admit freely a fair amount of ignorance of seeing it work on a large scale, over the span of a country say.. the size of the USSR..
Mostly snow, booze, and porn; and not a country anymore.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
I also admit bias in believing that the system that is SUPPOSED to eliminate a class society, at least from what I have read, actually creates two classes: the haves and the have nots.
Who was supposed to eliminate class? Was it class mobility? Because you can't have class mobility without classes.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
Romania comes to mind.
Ah, Romania. Sweet home to the summers of my youth. Yes, I concur. Romania always comes to mind.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
My conclusions on communism is that if it's centrally managed, as you have to do on a land mass as large as ours, with a centralized government, the possibility for corruption and suppressing of dissent is far greater than you have in our present, democratic republic.
We have a democratic republic? I thought we had a corporatist plutocracy?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
how this ties into money, and capital being controlled centrally, and profits doled out to to the people.. I admit I should do more reading.
Yes, and this time, read something that wasn't written by H.J. Herpaderp.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:59:07 PM
that does not mean that my previous arguments have never been manifest in communism, and I've heard no rebuttals to those inherent problems, where since, you do not elect you leaders, you create an oligarchy that controls your military, and to survive, will suppress any dissenting ideas.
What's wrong with suppressing dissent, if that's what you want to do?
-toa,
dangerously misquoting Eris
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:44:21 PM
(I'll research Hobbesian and get back with you on that.. I am curious.)
Anybody else think this statement might be a reason to not take what he says on political theory seriously?
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:15:58 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:44:21 PM
(I'll research Hobbesian and get back with you on that.. I am curious.)
Anybody else think this statement might be a reason to not take what he says on political theory seriously?
Present. But I was going to let the lulz ride.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 06, 2010, 09:12:01 PM
Jesus, TOA, shut the ever-loving fuck up and go back to wherever you were when you weren't here. you're honestly my least favorite poster at PD ever, including Eldora and Hugh.
as for the OP, my grasp of economic theory is feeble at best, so I can neither confirm nor deny the plausibility of your idea.
That said, I totally agree that we shouldn't be hampered by what will happen to people who live beyond their means. I also realize that this is easy for me to say since:
1) I don't know the full scope of what the consequences would be
and
2) My job and pay rate are secure no matter what, since the government will never stop spending obscene sums of money on mad science.
Keep holding back like this and you're going to get ulcers.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:15:58 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:44:21 PM
(I'll research Hobbesian and get back with you on that.. I am curious.)
Anybody else think this statement might be a reason to not take what he says on political theory seriously?
Present. But I was going to let the lulz ride.
Fair enough then. :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
You/we are the dregs of society and we have brought it on ourselves and we deserve it. Now STFU and starve quietly please, Idol is on.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 09:22:04 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
You/we are the dregs of society and we have brought it on ourselves and we deserve it. Now STFU and starve quietly please, Idol is on.
Now, now, Charlie. I just entered the debate and want to hear what he has to say.
I'm hoping it isn't going to be a wall o' text that essentially says nothing, but I'll deal if it is.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:24:36 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 09:22:04 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
You/we are the dregs of society and we have brought it on ourselves and we deserve it. Now STFU and starve quietly please, Idol is on.
Now, now, Charlie. I just entered the debate and want to hear what he has to say.
I'm hoping it isn't going to be a wall o' text that essentially says nothing, but I'll deal if it is.
Fair enough.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
As the token Friendly Chick of PD, I have to, in fairness, give this guy a chance before I jump down his throat.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:26:21 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
As the token Friendly Chick of PD, I have to, in fairness, give this guy a chance before I jump down his throat.
Fair enough, but I was just guessing to his answer based on his content in the rest of the thread and in the SS thread.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:26:21 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
As the token Friendly Chick of PD, I have to, in fairness, give this guy a chance before I jump down his throat.
Fair enough, but I was just guessing to his answer based on his content in the rest of the thread and in the SS thread.
Oh yeah, I totally get that. But I just wanted to make sure
he's a shit that's his stance before I go off on him.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:29:44 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:26:21 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
As the token Friendly Chick of PD, I have to, in fairness, give this guy a chance before I jump down his throat.
Fair enough, but I was just guessing to his answer based on his content in the rest of the thread and in the SS thread.
Oh yeah, I totally get that. But I just wanted to make sure he's a shit that's his stance before I go off on him.
Ok then. We will see what he has to say.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:29:44 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:26:21 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
As the token Friendly Chick of PD, I have to, in fairness, give this guy a chance before I jump down his throat.
Fair enough, but I was just guessing to his answer based on his content in the rest of the thread and in the SS thread.
Oh yeah, I totally get that. But I just wanted to make sure he's a shit that's his stance before I go off on him.
You skeered our toy away.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:29:44 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:26:21 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
As the token Friendly Chick of PD, I have to, in fairness, give this guy a chance before I jump down his throat.
Fair enough, but I was just guessing to his answer based on his content in the rest of the thread and in the SS thread.
Oh yeah, I totally get that. But I just wanted to make sure he's a shit that's his stance before I go off on him.
You skeered our toy away.
:lulz: What? It was an honest question! I wanted to play too, but I needed to get my teeth sunk in before I started thrashing around, yanno?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:29:44 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:27:48 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:26:21 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
As the token Friendly Chick of PD, I have to, in fairness, give this guy a chance before I jump down his throat.
Fair enough, but I was just guessing to his answer based on his content in the rest of the thread and in the SS thread.
Oh yeah, I totally get that. But I just wanted to make sure he's a shit that's his stance before I go off on him.
You skeered our toy away.
:lulz: What? It was an honest question! I wanted to play too, but I needed to get my teeth sunk in before I started thrashing around, yanno?
:lulz:
After whatever recovery from this recession we will have, the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's.. except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working. Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.
QuoteParagraph 1.
Pure speculation. Since we're not really real Discordians we insist you back drivel up with some form of realistic facts.
The data is out there. There's arguments on both sides for the possibility of high inflation.. Usually from the sorts of economists who got the hell out of paper and dumped everything into commodities. I'll dig up links if this is necessary, though I am not trying to change opinion, I am trying to get new ideas that change my own. you fucks keep forgetting that.
QuoteThe Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply. The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise. This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.
Quote:cn:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund10.html
(may be discounted out of hand because it appeard on lewrockwell's site, him being all libertard and all.)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/09/ES0930.pdf
I can post more cites for my conclusion if you like.
QuoteCombine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.
not sure what you're :lulz: means, but with lack of real response, I'll take to mean it sounds funny.. without being able to understand the effect it would have.
QuoteParagraph 4.
Study Economics. Upturns and downturns are necessary evils, they will always be with us.
upturns and downturns are evils "in the system we have" that is highly inflationary, with no push to rationalize wages in relation.
YOU should read more and get back to me on a solution that fixes this.
QuoteWe cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down. The only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them. If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.
yeah, it's fucking MAGIC.. like you do with computers.. when you increase a balance sheet from nothing.
you offer nothing to the discussion with this answer.
QuoteParagraph 6.
At least you almost admitted money doesn't exist. But the rest is repetitive nonsense.
That is the basis of all of the previous arguments and the basis for my argument in general.
sorry, I had to do some things, and this is posted after any idea's I've yet to read and digest since I have posted it... now.
Dear Pickle. Oh, dear Pickle.
What ever posses you to actually think people won't demand higher wages? I am sure all the college grads entering the workforce with student loans to pay off, etc, will be happy to jump on your rat filled sinking ship. Won't they?
Are we discussing cities or a national economy? I am on a lot of meds so you have to go easy with me, I tend to lose track of conversations.
Honestly, do you think the 80's was the last time the Fed raised the prime? Also the return on savings is so minimal that no one uses it anymore hardly.
As far as Paragraph 3...well...where do we get this magical money to buy all of that? Borrow it? :? What makes you think they want us to buy it back, or even if they would let us?
I should get back to you with a solution for this? Why? My job is to protect it from the likes of you. You want it changed then get back on the ground and get reasonable.
So, if I am reading this correctly, you desire to lower wages to 3rd world status so we can compete? :?
And what is rational about lowering prices and wages? Do you completely understand what you are suggesting? This would require federal control on both, substantially increasing the size of the government, or is that what you are proposing? Force us to all rely on the State? There is a word for that...it's right on the tip of my tongue....
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Well then, down to name calling.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 10:16:40 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Well then, down to name calling.
nooo.. I'm 2 drinks in from my initial post.. emotions run high, you know?
Still digesting some of this and modifying my positions.. digesting your last one in particular CB..
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Funny thing about Hobbes. His theories are such that you either agree or disagree. There is no "Hobbes is partly right", because of what he is arguing. So, if you need time to articulate your views you either don't know what he said, or you don't realize he has an absolute viewpoint, which is even worse. I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I am well-versed in a great deal of political theories, because that used to be my choice of study, before I got all philosophical and switched over. But even now I study the philosophy of politics and law, and political theories and philosophies when given the chance.
:lulz:
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
as an expansion on this, I think the net should be there, and would gladly accept it with certain modifications:
drug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab. The family unit stays the same, but education is ramped up on what happens to their children when they just can't seem to quit. This is personal to me, as my parents couldn't maintain their own life, much less raise two childred, while they snorted and smoked cocaine.
I raised myself, and so did my sister. we came from nothing and are doing awesome considering our hurdles. anyone who wants to argue against this as being unrealistic and a burden on the addicted, how it's not their fault they're addicted.. fuck you. I present myself and my sister as examples in which to follow.
If you have not the means, through reasons other than addiction to some fucking chemical, then fuck yeah, I'll gladly contribute.. you're doing it right, and your children will actually have a family, however tenuous.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Funny thing about Hobbes. His theories are such that you either agree or disagree. There is no "Hobbes is partly right", because of what he is arguing. So, if you need time to articulate your views you either don't know what he said, or you don't realize he has an absolute viewpoint, which is even worse. I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I am well-versed in a great deal of political theories, because that used to be my choice of study, before I got all philosophical and switched over. But even now I study the philosophy of politics and law, and political theories and philosophies when given the chance.
:lulz:
ONE MAN, ONE IDEA!
I'm going to still have to reread everything I read about him.. I read fast, and I'll get back to you. I can't have remembered everything over the years. Hell, part of the reason I even signed up here was to be reminded of ideas I may have forgotten.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
as an expansion on this, I think the net should be there, and would gladly accept it with certain modifications:
drug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab. The family unit stays the same, but education is ramped up on what happens to their children when they just can't seem to quit. This is personal to me, as my parents couldn't maintain their own life, much less raise two childred, while they snorted and smoked cocaine.
I raised myself, and so did my sister. we came from nothing and are doing awesome considering our hurdles. anyone who wants to argue against this as being unrealistic and a burden on the addicted, how it's not their fault they're addicted.. fuck you. I present myself and my sister as examples in which to follow.
If you have not the means, through reasons other than addiction to some fucking chemical, then fuck yeah, I'll gladly contribute.. you're doing it right, and your children will actually have a family, however tenuous.
I'm going to let Freeky take the rest of this one, but with cutting social services just who is going to pay for all of those drug tests and education?
Charley, everyone knows that drug tests and education are free. Hell, we're forced into school for years and the police /always/ have drug tests on hand, so they MUST be free!
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 10:36:36 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
as an expansion on this, I think the net should be there, and would gladly accept it with certain modifications:
drug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab. The family unit stays the same, but education is ramped up on what happens to their children when they just can't seem to quit. This is personal to me, as my parents couldn't maintain their own life, much less raise two childred, while they snorted and smoked cocaine.
I raised myself, and so did my sister. we came from nothing and are doing awesome considering our hurdles. anyone who wants to argue against this as being unrealistic and a burden on the addicted, how it's not their fault they're addicted.. fuck you. I present myself and my sister as examples in which to follow.
If you have not the means, through reasons other than addiction to some fucking chemical, then fuck yeah, I'll gladly contribute.. you're doing it right, and your children will actually have a family, however tenuous.
I'm going to let Freeky take the rest of this one, but with cutting social services just who is going to pay for all of those drug tests and education?
This argument relies on the likely hood that drug prohibition will remain in place and allow a black market to flourish, addicting more and more people through proliferation.. I'm not saying there are not problems to be addressed in the current system. I completely shoot of on a tangent when I say that education of everyone in the country should be a social issue that demands much more money and resources, more acutely placed and researched in order to put them to their best use.
from where that money should come?
For the record, I'm offering this off the cuff, without further research, but why not from legalizing certain drugs.. non-opiate based or cocaine based drugs, and taxing the hell out of them?
then regulating the pharmaceutical industry where it's just not so damn easy to get your Oxycontin??
for the record, the more I enjoy my day off, the more I'm imbibing, and the more I may not have the most thought out opinions.. but I'm still trying.
Shit.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25822.0
Have we been had?
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 10:44:40 PM
Charley, everyone knows that drug tests and education are free. Hell, we're forced into school for years and the police /always/ have drug tests on hand, so they MUST be free!
We know what drug tests cost. business and municipal police pay these costs to private companies. Funny thing, the cost of drug testing has gone down with competition in the market.
that stupid, stupid market.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:51:37 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 10:44:40 PM
Charley, everyone knows that drug tests and education are free. Hell, we're forced into school for years and the police /always/ have drug tests on hand, so they MUST be free!
We know what drug tests cost. business and municipal police pay these costs to private companies. Funny thing, the cost of drug testing has gone down with competition in the market.
that stupid, stupid market.
Oh for fucks sake.
PC's would be a better example if you need one. But it's still a strawman.
who is arguing against the market?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 10:55:42 PM
who is arguing against the market?
My case is the market is not willingly going to lower prices. Pickles bring up a relatively new market with no competition, then cites it as supporting his stand when competition suddenly shows up.
Wait....pickles?
PKLS? :lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 10:57:45 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 10:55:42 PM
who is arguing against the market?
My case is the market is not willingly going to lower prices. Pickles bring up a relatively new market with no competition, then cites it as supporting his stand when competition suddenly shows up.
Quoterelatively new market with no competition
I challenge this. Drug testing for corporations began to grow in the 80's under Regan.
Competition showed up when the technology began to proliferate and become cheaper, much as medical technology SHOULD have, but is propped up by subsidizing it socially.
If a company is guaranteed a price by a government entity, then they have no competition inherent in the system other than competing contracts..
under our current system, it's apparent that such things as military "cost plus" contracts are going to benefit the friends of governement.. why would it not happen the same in the medical field, and in drug testing?
I should refine my position on this. The only thing that may have MADE prices go down for drug testing is that businesses require them for saftey standards, and to have no black marks on your safety record with regard to ISO and and any other safety orginazation, means you can and will be able to bid on contracts from all sorts of public and private entities.
should governement have required them for the last few decades to supply public assistance, I'm not sure I can argue that prices would have necesarily gone up or down.. I only know what the current trend is.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 11:03:29 PM
Wait....pickles?
PKLS? :lulz:
You will now be beaten for bringing up that which should never be spoken, besides, no way in hell was she smart enough for an intelligent troll.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:08:28 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 10:57:45 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 10:55:42 PM
who is arguing against the market?
My case is the market is not willingly going to lower prices. Pickles bring up a relatively new market with no competition, then cites it as supporting his stand when competition suddenly shows up.
Quoterelatively new market with no competition
I challenge this. Drug testing for corporations began to grow in the 80's under Regan.
Competition showed up when the technology began to proliferate and become cheaper, much as medical technology SHOULD have, but is propped up by subsidizing it socially.
If a company is guaranteed a price by a government entity, then they have no competition inherent in the system other than competing contracts..
under our current system, it's apparent that such things as military "cost plus" contracts are going to benefit the friends of governement.. why would it not happen the same in the medical field, and in drug testing?
I should refine my position on this. The only thing that may have MADE prices go down for drug testing is that businesses require them for saftey standards, and to have no black marks on your safety record with regard to ISO and and any other safety orginazation, means you can and will be able to bid on contracts from all sorts of public and private entities.
should governement have required them for the last few decades to supply public assistance, I'm not sure I can argue that prices would have necesarily gone up or down.. I only know what the current trend is.
While you are at it also challenge the advent of the PC and phone companies after the monopoly was busted.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?
As long as your not on drugs?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:17:53 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?
As long as your not on drugs?
Of course, starve the children for the sins of the parent. FFS, read the bible.
:lulz:
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?
ok, my response to this will likely elicit several emotions. I'm willing to accept all the hate you have for them. so here goes:
your situation exists, and hindsight is always 20/20, so I'm guessing you would have made more prudent decisions, even though at the time, he seemed like a good enough guy. maybe. everyone has made less than thoughtful decisions regarding the people we let in our lives emotionally and sexually. Not knowing you, but knowing intimately, many people in your situation, my position has always been that they should have given their relationship much more time before children came along.
I know, this discounts an entire range of human enteraction and emotion, promises and hopes.. there is no sound answer for this that I have found, except that it seems to be getting worse, and that more and more, I see my friends and future generations of this country seem to find monogamy to be less and less an option.
we walk away.
Your options in the courts seem to be pretty solid. The courts will ensure he pays a percentage of his wage to support your child. Also, unless I am mistaken on my reading, you have options as a single mother, that I do not have, even being a single father of a son in another country, that will allow you to get grants to send you to school and learn.. whatever it is you want to learn.
Hawk,
steps out of the blast zone.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 11:28:14 PM
Hawk,
steps out of the blast zone.
want some dark goggles?
@TDP
Ya um....I shall be joining CB in a bunker.
Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"
And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.
Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.
And you didn't answer my question, shit head.
I SEE YOUR POINT
TOO MANY HUMANS
NOT NOUGH SQUIRRELS
/
/
:bomber:
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:30:54 PM
Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"
And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.
Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.
And you didn't answer my question, shit head.
Actually he did... in my reading the answer is "no" and you "should seek it out in court"
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 11:19:24 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:17:53 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?
As long as your not on drugs?
Of course, starve the children for the sins of the parent. FFS, read the bible.
good god, I love yo CB, but as a writer, I'm beginning to think you don't read.. maybe you're not interested enough in the subject..
here:
Quotedrug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab. The family unit stays the same, but education is ramped up on what happens to their children when they just can't seem to quit. This is personal to me, as my parents couldn't maintain their own life, much less raise two childred, while they snorted and smoked cocaine.
I believe that any rational interpretation of what I said would conclude that the sins of the parents should be put on the shoulders of the parents, while educating their children on what not to do..
but hey, wtf do I know, I only brought myself out of poverty riding on the backs of two chronically addicted parents..
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:24:52 PM
I know, this discounts an entire range of human enteraction and emotion, promises and hopes..
and this in 1/2 a sentence is why libertarian philosophy and economics will never ever work
Also, what did I fucking say about no babysitter?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:32:16 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:30:54 PM
Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"
And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.
Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.
And you didn't answer my question, shit head.
Actually he did... in my reading the answer is "no" and you "should seek it out in court"
Oh, right. I have trouble finding answers when people waffle on and on, trying to skirt the issue at hand.
Goddammit.
HEY PICKLE, GUESS WHAT!
:this:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:31:05 PM
I SEE YOUR POINT
TOO MANY HUMANS
NOT NOUGH SQUIRRELS
/
/
:bomber:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:24:52 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?
ok, my response to this will likely elicit several emotions. I'm willing to accept all the hate you have for them. so here goes:
your situation exists, and hindsight is always 20/20, so I'm guessing you would have made more prudent decisions, even though at the time, he seemed like a good enough guy. maybe. everyone has made less than thoughtful decisions regarding the people we let in our lives emotionally and sexually. Not knowing you, but knowing intimately, many people in your situation, my position has always been that they should have given their relationship much more time before children came along.
I know, this discounts an entire range of human enteraction and emotion, promises and hopes.. there is no sound answer for this that I have found, except that it seems to be getting worse, and that more and more, I see my friends and future generations of this country seem to find monogamy to be less and less an option.
we walk away.
Your options in the courts seem to be pretty solid. The courts will ensure he pays a percentage of his wage to support your child. Also, unless I am mistaken on my reading, you have options as a single mother, that I do not have, even being a single father of a son in another country, that will allow you to get grants to send you to school and learn.. whatever it is you want to learn.
I gave Freeky first shot here. My turn. How completely fucking arrogant of you. Who are you to pontificate so? Do you seriously think you are the only person on this board to have had to deal with shit as a kid?
How can you be so damn judgmental? Has your life been so incredibly perfect that we should sit at your feet like children and let you show us the way?
PS,
shitting on people I like is never a good idea.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:32:16 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:30:54 PM
Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"
And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.
Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.
And you didn't answer my question, shit head.
Actually he did... in my reading the answer is "no" and you "should seek it out in court"
this was my point.
Freeky, you may have misread what I meant. I am currently on the sidelines with my best friend, regarding visitaion rights, and he's a stand up guy who is having the child used as a fulcrum for her lever.. I may be sounding biased here. I'm doing my best not to be.
He's broke, and has very few private lawyer options.
He's options outside of hiring a private lawyer.
He's a stand up guy, and without possibly imagining what your situation must be, I will say that he takes care of his daughter, and she has a father despite the differences of them both.
I'm getting out of my scope here, as I support a child outside of the US and have NO options regarding his well being..
I never meant this discussion to get this far diverted.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:39:26 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:32:16 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:30:54 PM
Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"
And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.
Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.
And you didn't answer my question, shit head.
Actually he did... in my reading the answer is "no" and you "should seek it out in court"
this was my point.
Freeky, you may have misread what I meant. I am currently on the sidelines with my best friend, regarding visitaion rights, and he's a stand up guy who is having the child used as a fulcrum for her lever.. I may be sounding biased here. I'm doing my best not to be.
He's broke, and has very few private lawyer options.
He's options outside of hiring a private lawyer.
He's a stand up guy, and without possibly imagining what your situation must be, I will say that he takes care of his daughter, and she has a father despite the differences of them both.
I'm getting out of my scope here, as I support a child outside of the US and have NO options regarding his well being..
I never meant this discussion to get this far diverted.
So you have a reason to to completely disregard the sanctity of human life, because you support a kid and your friend is a "stand-up guy"?
:lulz:
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 11:50:22 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:39:26 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:32:16 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:30:54 PM
Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"
And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.
Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.
And you didn't answer my question, shit head.
Actually he did... in my reading the answer is "no" and you "should seek it out in court"
this was my point.
Freeky, you may have misread what I meant. I am currently on the sidelines with my best friend, regarding visitaion rights, and he's a stand up guy who is having the child used as a fulcrum for her lever.. I may be sounding biased here. I'm doing my best not to be.
He's broke, and has very few private lawyer options.
He's options outside of hiring a private lawyer.
He's a stand up guy, and without possibly imagining what your situation must be, I will say that he takes care of his daughter, and she has a father despite the differences of them both.
I'm getting out of my scope here, as I support a child outside of the US and have NO options regarding his well being..
I never meant this discussion to get this far diverted.
So you have a reason to to completely disregard the sanctity of human life, because you support a kid and your friend is a "stand-up guy"?
:lulz:
wait..
what?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:39:26 PM
this was my point.
That you are incapable of an coherent answer?
Quote
Freeky, you may have misread what I meant.
Maybe if you didn't try to sound fucking smarter than the rest of us, it wouldn't be a problem.
QuoteI am currently on the sidelines with my best friend, regarding visitaion rights,
Not my fucking problem, and not the situation at hand. Dick.
Quoteand he's a stand up guy who is having the child used as a fulcrum for her lever..
BECAUSE ALL WIMMINZ IS CONNIVING THEIVES WHO ONLY WANT MOAR MONEYS! TOTALLY TRUE! Fuck off and DIE. :evilmad:
QuoteI may be sounding biased here. I'm doing my best not to be.
You've failed, congratulations.
Quote
He's broke, and has very few private lawyer options.
LOL CUZ I TOTALLY HAVE A LAWYER, WE SINGLE MOMS AT THE "GET MOAR MONEYS WE DON'T DESERVE" CLUB GET THEM FOR FREE LIKE CANDIES!
QuoteHe's options outside of hiring a private lawyer.
How about making sense?
QuoteHe's a stand up guy,
You've mentioned it. I don't really care.
Quoteand without possibly imagining what your situation must be,
Then why even bother answering my post?
QuoteI will say that he takes care of his daughter, and she has a father despite the differences of them both.
:asplode:
QuoteI'm getting out of my scope here, as I support a child outside of the US and have NO options regarding his well being..
What are you babbling about?
Quote
I never meant this discussion to get this far diverted.
Welcome to Angry PD.COM, have a nice day.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:39:26 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:32:16 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:30:54 PM
Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"
And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.
Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.
And you didn't answer my question, shit head.
Actually he did... in my reading the answer is "no" and you "should seek it out in court"
this was my point.
Freeky, you may have misread what I meant. I am currently on the sidelines with my best friend, regarding visitaion rights, and he's a stand up guy who is having the child used as a fulcrum for her lever.. I may be sounding biased here. I'm doing my best not to be.
He's broke, and has very few private lawyer options.
He's options outside of hiring a private lawyer.
He's a stand up guy, and without possibly imagining what your situation must be, I will say that he takes care of his daughter, and she has a father despite the differences of them both.
I'm getting out of my scope here, as I support a child outside of the US and have NO options regarding his well being..
I never meant this discussion to get this far diverted.
It's how we roll. I still somehow suspect you are trolling us.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:51:32 PM
wait..
what?
So you admit you were just trying to divert attention away from the argument, then? Because either you were saying your views are justified BECAUSE, or you are trying to deflect us from the fact that you can't justify your views. Which is it Pickles?
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 11:10:30 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
My prediction: Against. :evil:
no means at all is pretty vague. are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.
still reading the rest of these replies, even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void... like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER.. I mean, right?
Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?
ok, I'll try this again, in the interest of not pissing off EVERYONE on this board.. even though that's not a goal in and of itself.
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
If he's unable to meet these needs, I'm admittedly ignorant on the next steps. They do not concern me as I take care of my child's needs. Your insinuation that I said that all women are whores-golddiggers-whatever-the-fuck-you-said is insulting and completely ignores the fact that you're discussing this with a man who obviously does not think that way, in that he supports his child and his child's mother because people are supposed to take responsibility for their own family's and raising a child is a family responsibility, even when they're separated by an international border.
If I were the sort to be offended by words, you're insinuation that I think of women this way would have offended me.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM.
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:00:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:51:32 PM
wait..
what?
So you admit you were just trying to divert attention away from the argument, then? Because either you were saying your views are justified BECAUSE, or you are trying to deflect us from the fact that you can't justify your views. Which is it Pickles?
No, dick.
If you reread what was read, you should clearly take from the post that I support a system that takes care of the least of us, while encouraging education about issues regarding finances and drug use in lower income and disadvantaged families.
WTF is it with you guys jumping from one idea to a conclusion that does not resemble the idea in the least?
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:08:18 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM.
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
So you have intimate knowledge of the system:
please, I would love to know your indepth, personal knowledge of the system.
I know, state by state the law is different, but please.. tell me all about your personal experience with child support law in your state.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:08:18 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM.
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
This guy is a maroon, isn't he. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:12:28 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:08:18 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM.
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
So you have intimate knowledge of the system:
please, I would love to know your indepth, personal knowledge of the system.
I know, state by state the law is different, but please.. tell me all about your personal experience with child support law in your state.
Hey here's an idea. Don't spout off shit that you know nothing about and have obviously not even looked into. And then we won't laugh quite so hard at you. Deal?
coming back into this thread after page 2, I gotta say I think several of you are being quite unreasonable, and/or looking for offense or reading things into Pickles' replies that simply aren't there.
I'm not going to defend his economic theories since I have no working grasp of what's being discussed, but I utterly fail to see where he said anything that deserved some of the vitriolic responses he's gotten.
For the record, I am in complete support of mandatory drug-testing for anyone receiving state or federal aid of any sort. I am also in favor of social safety nets and increasing services to people who want to elevate their own socioeconomic status. I am also going out to the bar, so I won't be here for anyone to shit on, though I imagine that somehow my tenure here would render me immune from that even though I don't think I've said anything essentially different on the subject than the new guy did.
We'll see, I guess.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:10:05 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:00:03 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:51:32 PM
wait..
what?
So you admit you were just trying to divert attention away from the argument, then? Because either you were saying your views are justified BECAUSE, or you are trying to deflect us from the fact that you can't justify your views. Which is it Pickles?
No, dick.
If you reread what was read, you should clearly take from the post that I support a system that takes care of the least of us, while encouraging education about issues regarding finances and drug use in lower income and disadvantaged families.
WTF is it with you guys jumping from one idea to a conclusion that does not resemble the idea in the least?
That's not at all the way the exchange I quoted read, no matter which way you read it.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:12:28 AM
So you have intimate knowledge of the system:
please, I would love to know your indepth, personal knowledge of the system.
I know, state by state the law is different, but please.. tell me all about your personal experience with child support law in your state.
Why should I? You will just say that I made a bad judgement, and that it's my fault.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 07, 2010, 12:17:25 AM
For the record, I am in complete support of mandatory drug-testing for anyone receiving state or federal aid of any sort. I am also in favor of social safety nets and increasing services to people who want to elevate their own socioeconomic status. I am also going out to the bar, so I won't be here for anyone to shit on, though I imagine that somehow my tenure here would render me immune from that even though I don't think I've said anything essentially different on the subject than the new guy did.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the part we're disagreeing with him on.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 07, 2010, 12:17:25 AM
coming back into this thread after page 2, I gotta say I think several of you are being quite unreasonable, and/or looking for offense or reading things into Pickles' replies that simply aren't there.
I'm not going to defend his economic theories since I have no working grasp of what's being discussed, but I utterly fail to see where he said anything that deserved some of the vitriolic responses he's gotten.
For the record, I am in complete support of mandatory drug-testing for anyone receiving state or federal aid of any sort. I am also in favor of social safety nets and increasing services to people who want to elevate their own socioeconomic status. I am also going out to the bar, so I won't be here for anyone to shit on, though I imagine that somehow my tenure here would render me immune from that even though I don't think I've said anything essentially different on the subject than the new guy did.
We'll see, I guess.
Ah, shit. Tenure Shenmure.
Well we are friends, but this is PD.
And who is to pay for those tests? Social services are being cut right and left. Are we to say to some, no food for you, and let the children of idiots go without? Or do we place the children in an already overworked system with no hope? I am on unemployment waiting for disability. Should I go get tested? Are we to add another cost burden to the system? What of those who have no transportation to get tested? I see a hell of a lot of issues with this.
I'd agree with making people get tested for drugs, but I'm biased because I don't do them.
"sorry you don't get any bread and cheese because you just pissed hot for pot."
"But I haven't eaten for a week"
"Sorry but that is rule."
"But I'll starve to death and so will my children"
"should have thought of that before you uncrossed your legs and before you toked up on your bong"
'but I don't even smoke pot."
'GUARDS please remove this vagrant from the food bank"
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:24:54 AM
Ah, shit. Tenure Shenmure.
Well we are friends, but this is PD.
And who is to pay for those tests? Social services are being cut right and left. Are we to say to some, no food for you, and let the children of idiots go without? Or do we place the children in an already overworked system with no hope? I am on unemployment waiting for disability. Should I go get tested? Are we to add another cost burden to the system? What of those who have no transportation to get tested? I see a hell of a lot of issues with this.
I stand corrected. Though I don't disagree with drug testing, either.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:28:36 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:24:54 AM
Ah, shit. Tenure Shenmure.
Well we are friends, but this is PD.
And who is to pay for those tests? Social services are being cut right and left. Are we to say to some, no food for you, and let the children of idiots go without? Or do we place the children in an already overworked system with no hope? I am on unemployment waiting for disability. Should I go get tested? Are we to add another cost burden to the system? What of those who have no transportation to get tested? I see a hell of a lot of issues with this.
I stand corrected. Though I don't disagree with drug testing, either.
I have no issue with drug testing by companies or law enforcement. I just don't think the SS system needs another hoop for people to jump through.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 07, 2010, 12:26:40 AM
I'd agree with making people get tested for drugs, but I'm biased because I don't do them.
I haven't since used since 1972.
I've got to make an hour long call to Mexico guys..
doesn't mean I wont get back to all of this, as I appreciate your opinions, no matter how smarmy and sarcastic..
but I may not get back to it this evening. I've some other responsibilities to handle before work tomorrow.
I'll reread it all in the morning, and get back with you.
Maybe you're right Charley. But then again, I'm in favor of legalizing most drugs because of the cost of enforcing the laws related to them.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:34:49 AM
Maybe you're right Charley. But then again, I'm in favor of legalizing most drugs because of the cost of enforcing the laws related to them.
To a point. If my ass depended on the nut next to me (see swamp stories) then I don't want that fucker all fucked up. There has to be some limits. Overall, I agree with pot being legalized, but I also believe that companies should have the right to say "not at work"
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:34:10 AM
I've got to make an hour long call to Mexico guys..
doesn't mean I wont get back to all of this, as I appreciate your opinions, no matter how smarmy and sarcastic..
but I may not get back to it this evening. I've some other responsibilities to handle before work tomorrow.
I'll reread it all in the morning, and get back with you.
Okay, it has been.......interesting.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 07, 2010, 12:26:40 AM
I'd agree with making people get tested for drugs, but I'm biased because I don't do them.
I don't. But I have never taken offense to someone who used the little support they get to buy drugs (if indeed they can). When I go to Toronto every now and then I would be willing to bet most of the ppl who approach me for a few bucks use it for those means. I can't explain my position beyond that.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 07, 2010, 12:39:19 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 07, 2010, 12:26:40 AM
I'd agree with making people get tested for drugs, but I'm biased because I don't do them.
I don't. But I have never taken offense to someone who used the little support they get to buy drugs (if indeed they can). When I go to Toronto every now and then I would be willing to bet most of the ppl who approach me for a few bucks use it for those means. I can't explain my position beyond that.
I guess. I don't really care, not a whole bunch anyway.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:37:37 AM
To a point. If my ass depended on the nut next to me (see swamp stories) then I don't want that fucker all fucked up. There has to be some limits. Overall, I agree with pot being legalized, but I also believe that companies should have the right to say "not at work"
I agree with you there. I also believe that certain harder drugs should be legalized to A) take lot of power away from drug-dealers, B) regulate the hell out of it so there are fewer OD's, C)generate more revenue from vice taxes.This will also reduce the number of federal prisoners by a large margin, reducing costs in that area.
I do feel that employers should have the right to say "only on your own time", because of situations like you described.
That is also my list for why I feel prostitution should be legal as well, except replace a certain O with ST.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:46:28 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 07, 2010, 12:37:37 AM
To a point. If my ass depended on the nut next to me (see swamp stories) then I don't want that fucker all fucked up. There has to be some limits. Overall, I agree with pot being legalized, but I also believe that companies should have the right to say "not at work"
I agree with you there. I also believe that certain harder drugs should be legalized to A) take lot of power away from drug-dealers, B) regulate the hell out of it so there are fewer OD's, C)generate more revenue from vice taxes.This will also reduce the number of federal prisoners by a large margin, reducing costs in that area.
I do feel that employers should have the right to say "only on your own time", because of situations like you described.
That is also my list for why I feel prostitution should be legal as well, except replace a certain O with ST.
Except for known STD and HIV carriers still working, prostitution is meh.
My philosophy has always been hat it makes no sense for it to be illegal, since it can be made safer and grant an economic boost with proper government involvement. Plus, it helps take away the power of violent criminals.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:22:38 AM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 07, 2010, 12:17:25 AM
For the record, I am in complete support of mandatory drug-testing for anyone receiving state or federal aid of any sort. I am also in favor of social safety nets and increasing services to people who want to elevate their own socioeconomic status. I am also going out to the bar, so I won't be here for anyone to shit on, though I imagine that somehow my tenure here would render me immune from that even though I don't think I've said anything essentially different on the subject than the new guy did.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the part we're disagreeing with him on.
and I'm pretty sure that he posted an idea, explained that it was half-formed and that he was looking for constructive feedback/criticism and for people to pick apart the flaws in his idea logically and that what he got was a bunch of "MONKEYS LOL!" and willful misinterpretation in the search for offense where none was intended.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 07, 2010, 03:06:54 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 07, 2010, 12:22:38 AM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 07, 2010, 12:17:25 AM
For the record, I am in complete support of mandatory drug-testing for anyone receiving state or federal aid of any sort. I am also in favor of social safety nets and increasing services to people who want to elevate their own socioeconomic status. I am also going out to the bar, so I won't be here for anyone to shit on, though I imagine that somehow my tenure here would render me immune from that even though I don't think I've said anything essentially different on the subject than the new guy did.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the part we're disagreeing with him on.
and I'm pretty sure that he posted an idea, explained that it was half-formed and that he was looking for constructive feedback/criticism and for people to pick apart the flaws in his idea logically and that what he got was a bunch of "MONKEYS LOL!" and willful misinterpretation in the search for offense where none was intended.
Hey, I carried on a non insulting conversation. I called BS when I thought it was correct to do so.
yeah, wasn't really directed at you. I thought you made the most sense of anyone ITT so far. And upon further review, I agree with your assessment of the flaws with drug-testing for state aid.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:47:26 PM
Any system will do, since I was making a facetious suggestion that compared to yours. But why not good ol' fashioned Communism, since you asked?
alright, I'm comming back to this after a day or so..
can you point out even one country functioning under this system today?
I would love to read about a functioning communist system.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:28:38 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:47:26 PM
Any system will do, since I was making a facetious suggestion that compared to yours. But why not good ol' fashioned Communism, since you asked?
alright, I'm comming back to this after a day or so..
can you point out even one country functioning under this system today?
I would love to read about a functioning communist system.
Well, there isn't one. But then, there isn't one under your proposed system either, so should that matter?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:24:52 PM
your situation exists, and hindsight is always 20/20, so I'm guessing you would have made more prudent decisions, even though at the time, he seemed like a good enough guy. maybe. everyone has made less than thoughtful decisions regarding the people we let in our lives emotionally and sexually. Not knowing you, but knowing intimately, many people in your situation, my position has always been that they should have given their relationship much more time before children came along.
RIGHT. SO DROP THE LITTLE TYKE IN AN ACID VAT AND START OVER.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:24:52 PM
I know, this discounts an entire range of human enteraction and emotion, promises and hopes..
and this in 1/2 a sentence is why libertarian philosophy and economics will never ever work
THIS.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 03:29:46 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:28:38 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 06, 2010, 08:47:26 PM
Any system will do, since I was making a facetious suggestion that compared to yours. But why not good ol' fashioned Communism, since you asked?
alright, I'm comming back to this after a day or so..
can you point out even one country functioning under this system today?
I would love to read about a functioning communist system.
Well, there isn't one. But then, there isn't one under your proposed system either, so should that matter?
my proposed system exists, it's simply inflationary rather than deflationary.
central banks have a stated goal to for "price stability" and yeah, that's been working great.
"encourage high employment" they're doing a stand up job.
You'll never hear me advocating for a central bank, but if we have to live with one, I'd advocate for policies that don't fuck the poor while bankrolling the rich.
what sort of banking system exists in your "good ol fashioned communism"??
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
I :lulz: when I read that. I'll be paying my shit off for another 4 years.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
so what ARE the costs?
I know at least one person who is taking advantage of the social court system in order to fight against denying him visitation, even though he pays child support.
this is not something for which he pays out of pocket.
He is filing papers and being supplied with an attorney.
Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, if you're saying anything at all.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
my proposed system exists, it's simply inflationary rather than deflationary.
My Proposed system exists too, it just works in the opposite way it's supposed to. Just like yours, as you have just stated.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
central banks have a stated goal to for "price stability" and yeah, that's been working great.
"encourage high employment" they're doing a stand up job.
You'll never hear me advocating for a central bank, but if we have to live with one, I'd advocate for policies that don't fuck the poor while bankrolling the rich.
Okay. I'm not sure what your point is with that.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
what sort of banking system exists in your "good ol fashioned communism"??
well, in true communism, there wouldn't need to be a banking system, because there wouldn't be currency. So, none whatsoever.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:33:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:24:52 PM
your situation exists, and hindsight is always 20/20, so I'm guessing you would have made more prudent decisions, even though at the time, he seemed like a good enough guy. maybe. everyone has made less than thoughtful decisions regarding the people we let in our lives emotionally and sexually. Not knowing you, but knowing intimately, many people in your situation, my position has always been that they should have given their relationship much more time before children came along.
RIGHT. SO DROP THE LITTLE TYKE IN AN ACID VAT AND START OVER.
that's just antagonistic.. and bears no relation to the reality of the post.
I expect nothing less from you Dok.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:35:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
I :lulz: when I read that. I'll be paying my shit off for another 4 years.
This is what makes Libertarians so much fun to have around.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:40:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:33:41 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 11:24:52 PM
your situation exists, and hindsight is always 20/20, so I'm guessing you would have made more prudent decisions, even though at the time, he seemed like a good enough guy. maybe. everyone has made less than thoughtful decisions regarding the people we let in our lives emotionally and sexually. Not knowing you, but knowing intimately, many people in your situation, my position has always been that they should have given their relationship much more time before children came along.
RIGHT. SO DROP THE LITTLE TYKE IN AN ACID VAT AND START OVER.
that's just antagonistic.. and bears no relation to the reality of the post.
I expect nothing less from you Dok.
Well, your solution was "you shouldn't have gotten into that predicament in the first place", which is exactly the moralistic fucking twaddle I expect from Libertarians. I couldn't resist.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:39:03 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
so what ARE the costs?
I know at least one person who is taking advantage of the social court system in order to fight against denying him visitation, even though he pays child support.
this is not something for which he pays out of pocket.
He is filing papers and being supplied with an attorney.
Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, if you're saying anything at all.
Cost #1: Filing fees. Deferred, in my case.
Cost #2: Having my ex served by the Sheriff (possibly twice).
Cost #3: Some class we both have to go to.
Cost #4: Copies of EVERYTHING @ fifty cents a page. Hundreds of pages = lots of money.
Cost #5: Gas money to get to the courthouse, which is now 40 minutes away from where I live and a quarter tank of gas, round trip.
Cost #6: TIME.
ETA Cost #7: The packets of forms themselves, which I can't get unless I have the money on me when I go.
Notice I didn't mention anything about an attorney. That's because I don't have one, and neither does he, and we won't get them because he's always broke from buying shit he doesn't need and I'm dirt poor.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:39:03 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
so what ARE the costs?
I know at least one person who is taking advantage of the social court system in order to fight against denying him visitation, even though he pays child support.
this is not something for which he pays out of pocket.
He is filing papers and being supplied with an attorney.
Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, if you're saying anything at all.
Where do you live? Fantasyland? Even with fee waivers and the like, there's still court costs out the ass.
And if the court denies visitation, there's usually a pretty fucking good reason for it.
And no state I know of provides an attorney for custody unless it's a paternity issue (for the mother only, she gets a DA, as it's "quasi-legal", meaning the state is stepping in, in the interests of a minor).
I think you're full of shit, and now you've backed yourself into a corner. But by all means, do continue to dig your heels in and screech.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:41:45 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:35:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
I :lulz: when I read that. I'll be paying my shit off for another 4 years.
This is what makes Libertarians so much fun to have around.
so let me get this straight.. you have no income, yet the state is requiring you to pay court costs in order to get money from the guy who owes you money?
as I stated earlier, child support laws vary state to state, I may be referencing some pretty cut throat laws that flordia has on the books that has no relevance to your own state.
they dont fuck around in florida with child support, and we have some of the most serious laws on the books.. you also have access to public attorneys that will fight for your right to compensation at costs reflecting your ability to pay.
we may be arguing apples and oranges with regard to state laws.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:47:33 AM
so let me get this straight.. you have no income, yet the state is requiring you to pay court costs in order to get money from the guy who owes you money?
Yes.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:47:33 AM
as I stated earlier, child support laws vary state to state, I may be referencing some pretty cut throat laws that flordia has on the books that has no relevance to your own state.
they dont fuck around in florida with child support, and we have some of the most serious laws on the books..
Don't know for Florida but....
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:47:33 AM
you also have access to public attorneys that will fight for your right to compensation at costs reflecting your ability to pay.
NO.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:47:33 AM
we may be arguing apples and oranges with regard to state laws.
Yes.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:47:33 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:41:45 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:35:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
I :lulz: when I read that. I'll be paying my shit off for another 4 years.
This is what makes Libertarians so much fun to have around.
so let me get this straight.. you have no income, yet the state is requiring you to pay court costs in order to get money from the guy who owes you money?
as I stated earlier, child support laws vary state to state, I may be referencing some pretty cut throat laws that flordia has on the books that has no relevance to your own state.
they dont fuck around in florida with child support, and we have some of the most serious laws on the books.. you also have access to public attorneys that will fight for your right to compensation at costs reflecting your ability to pay.
we may be arguing apples and oranges with regard to state laws.
Possibly, but we have some of the most efficient courts down here. AZ doesn't fuck around with child support either, nor does it waste time with minutiae. You're expected to have your shit done when you arrive, and gtfo when you're done.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 03:45:02 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:39:03 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 07, 2010, 12:05:36 AM
As I understand it, you can use the court system, at no cost to you, to get child support from the guy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Just saying.
so what ARE the costs?
I know at least one person who is taking advantage of the social court system in order to fight against denying him visitation, even though he pays child support.
this is not something for which he pays out of pocket.
He is filing papers and being supplied with an attorney.
Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, if you're saying anything at all.
Cost #1: Filing fees. Deferred, in my case.
Cost #2: Having my ex served by the Sheriff (possibly twice).
Cost #3: Some class we both have to go to.
Cost #4: Copies of EVERYTHING @ fifty cents a page. Hundreds of pages = lots of money.
Cost #5: Gas money to get to the courthouse, which is now 40 minutes away from where I live and a quarter tank of gas, round trip.
Cost #6: TIME.
ETA Cost #7: The packets of forms themselves, which I can't get unless I have the money on me when I go.
Notice I didn't mention anything about an attorney. That's because I don't have one, and neither does he, and we won't get them because he's always broke from buying shit he doesn't need and I'm dirt poor.
cannot argue incidental costs. They exist. not even mentioning the sort of hoops you have to jump through if you're full time employed.
Admittedly, I'm imagining you have some support structure out side of just supporting yourself. family, friends, people willing to help you, that love you and would go out of their way.
I'm naked against the argument if you truly find yourself alone. (not that you do, I don't know your situation) You deserve all the help the state can provide for you and your family.
No one should find themselves alone, with no resources to use.
I concede that argument with no retort if this is what we're discussing. I agree completely.
It falls out of the scope of what I WAS discussing, and I should have clarified.
FUCKING TOOLBOXES, HOW DO THEY WORK?
We're finding out ITT.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:47:33 AM
so let me get this straight.. you have no income, yet the state is requiring you to pay court costs in order to get money from the guy who owes you money?
Welcome to Arizona. Please to wear a hat.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:55:29 AM
Admittedly, I'm imagining you have some support structure out side of just supporting yourself. family, friends, people willing to help you, that love you and would go out of their way.
ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES?
When you make your posts clear and succinct in what you're trying to say, communication gets a lot easier, don't you agree?
I have nothing more to argue, since I understand better where you are coming from.
Carry on.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 08, 2010, 04:00:01 AM
FUCKING TOOLBOXES, HOW DO THEY WORK?
Arguably, I can't be held responsible for my actions. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:55:29 AM
Admittedly, I'm imagining you have some support structure out side of just supporting yourself. family, friends, people willing to help you, that love you and would go out of their way.
ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES?
I :lulz: 'd.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 03:40:05 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
my proposed system exists, it's simply inflationary rather than deflationary.
My Proposed system exists too, it just works in the opposite way it's supposed to. Just like yours, as you have just stated.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
central banks have a stated goal to for "price stability" and yeah, that's been working great.
"encourage high employment" they're doing a stand up job.
You'll never hear me advocating for a central bank, but if we have to live with one, I'd advocate for policies that don't fuck the poor while bankrolling the rich.
Okay. I'm not sure what your point is with that.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
what sort of banking system exists in your "good ol fashioned communism"??
well, in true communism, there wouldn't need to be a banking system, because there wouldn't be currency. So, none whatsoever.
To bring us back from the side-track....
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 04:01:34 AM
When you make your posts clear and succinct in what you're trying to say, communication gets a lot easier, don't you agree?
I have nothing more to argue, since I understand better where you are coming from.
Carry on.
I'll work on how I communicate my ideas. I'm just getting back in to putting them in writing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:55:29 AM
Admittedly, I'm imagining you have some support structure out side of just supporting yourself. family, friends, people willing to help you, that love you and would go out of their way.
ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES?
I'm not clear on your meaning.
elaborate for me.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:06:41 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 04:01:34 AM
When you make your posts clear and succinct in what you're trying to say, communication gets a lot easier, don't you agree?
I have nothing more to argue, since I understand better where you are coming from.
Carry on.
I'll work on how I communicate my ideas. I'm just getting back in to putting them in writing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:55:29 AM
Admittedly, I'm imagining you have some support structure out side of just supporting yourself. family, friends, people willing to help you, that love you and would go out of their way.
ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES?
I'm not clear on your meaning.
elaborate for me.
It was Ebeneezer Scrooge's reply to his assistant, when upbraided for not giving a pauper alms on Christmas Eve.
In short, I was being a jackass.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:03:52 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 03:40:05 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
my proposed system exists, it's simply inflationary rather than deflationary.
My Proposed system exists too, it just works in the opposite way it's supposed to. Just like yours, as you have just stated.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
central banks have a stated goal to for "price stability" and yeah, that's been working great.
"encourage high employment" they're doing a stand up job.
You'll never hear me advocating for a central bank, but if we have to live with one, I'd advocate for policies that don't fuck the poor while bankrolling the rich.
Okay. I'm not sure what your point is with that.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:35:34 AM
what sort of banking system exists in your "good ol fashioned communism"??
well, in true communism, there wouldn't need to be a banking system, because there wouldn't be currency. So, none whatsoever.
To bring us back from the side-track....
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:08:21 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:06:41 AM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 08, 2010, 04:01:34 AM
When you make your posts clear and succinct in what you're trying to say, communication gets a lot easier, don't you agree?
I have nothing more to argue, since I understand better where you are coming from.
Carry on.
I'll work on how I communicate my ideas. I'm just getting back in to putting them in writing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 03:55:29 AM
Admittedly, I'm imagining you have some support structure out side of just supporting yourself. family, friends, people willing to help you, that love you and would go out of their way.
ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES?
I'm not clear on your meaning.
elaborate for me.
It was Ebeneezer Scrooge's reply to his assistant, when upbraided for not giving a pauper alms on Christmas Eve.
In short, I was being a jackass.
ah. I'm getting used to your style. give me a month or so more. I'll have it down to where I either enjoy it, rage against it, or ignore it.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
No. Completely unnecessary. Everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Yes. Equal shares of everything mean equal shares of labor as well. However, there is some degree of freedom in what sort of labor you do on a given day, but.. that's a different discussion.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
ah. I'm getting used to your style. give me a month or so more. I'll have it down to where I either enjoy it, rage against it, or ignore it.
Well, by then we'll have either cured you of your ism or you'll have exploded.
I'm guessing all three, but if you play your cards right, you enjoy it more than anything.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
No. Completely unnecessary. Everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Yes. Equal shares of everything mean equal shares of labor as well. However, there is some degree of freedom in what sort of labor you do on a given day, but.. that's a different discussion.
(I'm going to use a personal real life example here) what about the guy who has to spend 10 hours a day say.. producing engineering drawings for a company that manufactures electrical switchgear that helps distribute power for the rest of the country.. he gets his "equal share" while putting in 50 hour weeks to provide for new demand.. that's on balance with the guy who puts in 40 hours doing something mundane that requires no functional knowledge other than how to push a broom?
-edited for massive grammar errors-
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:21:34 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
No. Completely unnecessary. Everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Yes. Equal shares of everything mean equal shares of labor as well. However, there is some degree of freedom in what sort of labor you do on a given day, but.. that's a different discussion.
(I'm going to use a personal real life example here) what about the guy who has to spend 10 hours a day say.. producing engineering drawings so that the company that manufactures electrical switchgear that helps distribute power for the rest of the country.. he gets his "equal share" while putting in 50 hour weeks to provide for new demand.. that's on balance with the guy who puts in 40 hours doing some mundane that requires no functional knowledge other than how to push a broom?
A person drawing engineering plans chose to draw engineering plans. Somebody has to draw them, or not, but let's keep away from the technological argument for now. So, they chose to do that. They would do it for the amount of time they did it, and get their equal share, just like the person pushing the broom, or curing cancer, or clerking at the gas station. Everybody is equal, and everyone's job is of equal importance. In true communism, there is no government to make you do your job, you do it because you want to help the community by producing (or servicing) such an amount that makes up for your share. No more, no less.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:32:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:21:34 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
No. Completely unnecessary. Everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Yes. Equal shares of everything mean equal shares of labor as well. However, there is some degree of freedom in what sort of labor you do on a given day, but.. that's a different discussion.
(I'm going to use a personal real life example here) what about the guy who has to spend 10 hours a day say.. producing engineering drawings so that the company that manufactures electrical switchgear that helps distribute power for the rest of the country.. he gets his "equal share" while putting in 50 hour weeks to provide for new demand.. that's on balance with the guy who puts in 40 hours doing some mundane that requires no functional knowledge other than how to push a broom?
A person drawing engineering plans chose to draw engineering plans. Somebody has to draw them, or not, but let's keep away from the technological argument for now. So, they chose to do that. They would do it for the amount of time they did it, and get their equal share, just like the person pushing the broom, or curing cancer, or clerking at the gas station. Everybody is equal, and everyone's job is of equal importance. In true communism, there is no government to make you do your job, you do it because you want to help the community by producing (or servicing) such an amount that makes up for your share. No more, no less.
technology plays a part in the advancement of any society.
I choose to do it because it's a satisfying field to me, and I take pride in creating something that benefits others. I'm a fucking anomaly in your system.
how do you account for the measure of time it takes to actually produce something, and the inevitable HUMAN animosity when people begin to realize that you can have your needs met just like "that guy who only works 40 hours" by just doing the bare minimum?
and I thought libertarians believed in a utopia.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:32:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:21:34 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
No. Completely unnecessary. Everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Yes. Equal shares of everything mean equal shares of labor as well. However, there is some degree of freedom in what sort of labor you do on a given day, but.. that's a different discussion.
(I'm going to use a personal real life example here) what about the guy who has to spend 10 hours a day say.. producing engineering drawings so that the company that manufactures electrical switchgear that helps distribute power for the rest of the country.. he gets his "equal share" while putting in 50 hour weeks to provide for new demand.. that's on balance with the guy who puts in 40 hours doing some mundane that requires no functional knowledge other than how to push a broom?
A person drawing engineering plans chose to draw engineering plans. Somebody has to draw them, or not, but let's keep away from the technological argument for now. So, they chose to do that. They would do it for the amount of time they did it, and get their equal share, just like the person pushing the broom, or curing cancer, or clerking at the gas station. Everybody is equal, and everyone's job is of equal importance. In true communism, there is no government to make you do your job, you do it because you want to help the community by producing (or servicing) such an amount that makes up for your share. No more, no less.
I forgot to address this..
what's to keep people from doing NOTHING and still receiving their "fair share" under this system?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:41:32 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:32:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:21:34 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
No. Completely unnecessary. Everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Yes. Equal shares of everything mean equal shares of labor as well. However, there is some degree of freedom in what sort of labor you do on a given day, but.. that's a different discussion.
(I'm going to use a personal real life example here) what about the guy who has to spend 10 hours a day say.. producing engineering drawings so that the company that manufactures electrical switchgear that helps distribute power for the rest of the country.. he gets his "equal share" while putting in 50 hour weeks to provide for new demand.. that's on balance with the guy who puts in 40 hours doing some mundane that requires no functional knowledge other than how to push a broom?
A person drawing engineering plans chose to draw engineering plans. Somebody has to draw them, or not, but let's keep away from the technological argument for now. So, they chose to do that. They would do it for the amount of time they did it, and get their equal share, just like the person pushing the broom, or curing cancer, or clerking at the gas station. Everybody is equal, and everyone's job is of equal importance. In true communism, there is no government to make you do your job, you do it because you want to help the community by producing (or servicing) such an amount that makes up for your share. No more, no less.
I forgot to address this..
what's to keep people from doing NOTHING and still receiving their "fair share" under this system?
NOTHING. That's why it doesn't work.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:42:32 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:41:32 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:32:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:21:34 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
No. Completely unnecessary. Everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Yes. Equal shares of everything mean equal shares of labor as well. However, there is some degree of freedom in what sort of labor you do on a given day, but.. that's a different discussion.
(I'm going to use a personal real life example here) what about the guy who has to spend 10 hours a day say.. producing engineering drawings so that the company that manufactures electrical switchgear that helps distribute power for the rest of the country.. he gets his "equal share" while putting in 50 hour weeks to provide for new demand.. that's on balance with the guy who puts in 40 hours doing some mundane that requires no functional knowledge other than how to push a broom?
A person drawing engineering plans chose to draw engineering plans. Somebody has to draw them, or not, but let's keep away from the technological argument for now. So, they chose to do that. They would do it for the amount of time they did it, and get their equal share, just like the person pushing the broom, or curing cancer, or clerking at the gas station. Everybody is equal, and everyone's job is of equal importance. In true communism, there is no government to make you do your job, you do it because you want to help the community by producing (or servicing) such an amount that makes up for your share. No more, no less.
I forgot to address this..
what's to keep people from doing NOTHING and still receiving their "fair share" under this system?
NOTHING. That's why it doesn't work.
that's what I was likely getting to, but I wanted to hear his answer.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:41:32 AM
I forgot to address this..
what's to keep people from doing NOTHING and still receiving their "fair share" under this system?
Because humans are innately good and want to help each other, of course. No one WANTS to free-load.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
technology plays a part in the advancement of any society.
Sure, but that's only if you want to advance.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
I choose to do it because it's a satisfying field to me, and I take pride in creating something that benefits others. I'm a fucking anomaly in your system.
Hey, that's great. You are the reason communism doesn't work. Non-point.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
how do you account for the measure of time it takes to actually produce something, and the inevitable HUMAN animosity when people begin to realize that you can have your needs met just like "that guy who only works 40 hours" by just doing the bare minimum?
You assume that time matters too much. "I work 50-hours a week". Okay. if you choose to do a job, you don't have the right to complain that someone doing a different job doesn't have to work as long hours as you. What about the person doing backbreaking labor in the coal mine? What about the person who is doing medical research? What about the person who is transporting goods cross-country? These people exist, because they must. They get the same share you do, yet you just draw all day.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
and I thought libertarians believed in a utopia.
I'm not sure if this is lol worthy, or if it shows that your grasp of political theory isn't quite as strong as you suggest.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:42:32 AM
NOTHING. That's why it doesn't work.
Quiet, you. :argh!:
:lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:44:14 AM
that's what I was likely getting to, but I wanted to hear her answer.
Fixed.
Eris fucking Discordia, that's getting annoying.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:52:38 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:41:32 AM
I forgot to address this..
what's to keep people from doing NOTHING and still receiving their "fair share" under this system?
Because humans are innately good and want to help each other, of course. No one WANTS to free-load.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
technology plays a part in the advancement of any society.
Sure, but that's only if you want to advance.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
I choose to do it because it's a satisfying field to me, and I take pride in creating something that benefits others. I'm a fucking anomaly in your system.
Hey, that's great. You are the reason communism doesn't work. Non-point.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
how do you account for the measure of time it takes to actually produce something, and the inevitable HUMAN animosity when people begin to realize that you can have your needs met just like "that guy who only works 40 hours" by just doing the bare minimum?
You assume that time matters too much. "I work 50-hours a week". Okay. if you choose to do a job, you don't have the right to complain that someone doing a different job doesn't have to work as long hours as you. What about the person doing backbreaking labor in the coal mine? What about the person who is doing medical research? What about the person who is transporting goods cross-country? These people exist, because they must. They get the same share you do, yet you just draw all day.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
and I thought libertarians believed in a utopia.
I'm not sure if this is lol worthy, or if it shows that your grasp of political theory isn't quite as strong as you suggest.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:42:32 AM
NOTHING. That's why it doesn't work.
Quiet, you. :argh!:
:lulz:
oh good god. I have to work at 7.. just doing drawings.. (so worthless) and will gladly answer all of this reply if I can keep myself from falling out of my chair laughing.
but it's going to have to be tomorrow, as it's past my bed time here.
but I'll preface my reply with this:
:lulz:
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:55:20 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:44:14 AM
that's what I was likely getting to, but I wanted to hear her answer.
Fixed.
Eris fucking Discordia, that's getting annoying.
sorry, honest mistake. it's not like you're advertising the fact.
wont happen again.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:58:24 AM
oh good god. I have to work at 7.. just doing drawings.. (so worthless) and will gladly answer all of this reply if I can keep myself from falling out of my chair laughing.
but it's going to have to be tomorrow, as it's past my bed time here.
but I'll preface my reply with this:
:lulz:
Yes, and now you know how I felt when I read your proposal.
If you've done your research into Hobbes, then you probably should have been getting lulz the whole time.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:58:24 AM
sorry, honest mistake. it's not like you're advertising the fact.
wont happen again.
I understand that, it's just nobody EVER asks (though it's the first time you have done it). It was done about 900 times in the insult thread, so that's why it's getting annoying. And why I felt the need to finally correct it.
There are no women on the internet, dude. Get used to it.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:55:20 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:44:14 AM
that's what I was likely getting to, but I wanted to hear her answer.
Fixed.
Eris fucking Discordia, that's getting annoying.
Wear a skirt, show your bewbs or STFU. :D
Ignoring everyting else ITT, as policies go, a purposefully followed deflationary one is probably the least damaging out of the conventional solutions for the current economic crisis.
However, it probably wont happen, as the mainstream economic consensus, both Neo-liberal/Chicago School and neo-Keynesian are set against it. Also, if you believe the Minksy Instability Hypothesis is the most accurate model of the current economic situation, as I do, then you should be preparing for both intense and uncontrollable inflationary and deflationary periods, one after the other.
There is another solution to the current economic crisis, one which will never be put into practice, but would work wonderfully. Working on the rant for this after lunch, see OKM for more.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:44:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:42:32 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:41:32 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:32:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:21:34 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:13:27 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
I need more information here.
so there would be no trading of goods?
No. Completely unnecessary. Everyone gets an equal share of everything.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
labor would be equal no matter how much time it took to produce a product?
Yes. Equal shares of everything mean equal shares of labor as well. However, there is some degree of freedom in what sort of labor you do on a given day, but.. that's a different discussion.
(I'm going to use a personal real life example here) what about the guy who has to spend 10 hours a day say.. producing engineering drawings so that the company that manufactures electrical switchgear that helps distribute power for the rest of the country.. he gets his "equal share" while putting in 50 hour weeks to provide for new demand.. that's on balance with the guy who puts in 40 hours doing some mundane that requires no functional knowledge other than how to push a broom?
A person drawing engineering plans chose to draw engineering plans. Somebody has to draw them, or not, but let's keep away from the technological argument for now. So, they chose to do that. They would do it for the amount of time they did it, and get their equal share, just like the person pushing the broom, or curing cancer, or clerking at the gas station. Everybody is equal, and everyone's job is of equal importance. In true communism, there is no government to make you do your job, you do it because you want to help the community by producing (or servicing) such an amount that makes up for your share. No more, no less.
I forgot to address this..
what's to keep people from doing NOTHING and still receiving their "fair share" under this system?
NOTHING. That's why it doesn't work.
that's what I was likely getting to, but I wanted to hear his answer.
It's also shares the root cause of why free market economics doesn't work.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/
You know, for a magazine calling itself The American Conservative and having guest writers such as Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell and Tom Tancredo, it publishes some incredibly right-on articles sometimes.
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2010, 09:08:17 PM
Any plan that depends upon rational human actors WILL fail. I don't mean, might fail but looks really good after a while, I don't mean fails just a little for some unfortunate people, I mean, will completely and utterly fail.
And that is why I am laughing. :lulz:
Skipping a bunch of pages to say: This. This forever and eternity, until humans become something other than what they are. Or die off.
I can't read this whole thread because it's too full of herp derp.
I can't tell if Pickles is naive, stupid, or trolling.
Quote from: Nigel on September 08, 2010, 03:50:16 PM
I can't read this whole thread because it's too full of herp derp.
I can't tell if Pickles is naive, stupid, or trolling.
He's badly infected with the Libertarianism meme.
But we can cure that. With SCIENCE!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:34:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 08, 2010, 03:50:16 PM
I can't read this whole thread because it's too full of herp derp.
I can't tell if Pickles is naive, stupid, or trolling.
He's badly infected with the Libertarianism meme.
But we can cure that. With SCIENCE!
Wait, you can fire the Stunner through the internet now?
:aaaah:
Quote from: Cainad on September 08, 2010, 04:51:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:34:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 08, 2010, 03:50:16 PM
I can't read this whole thread because it's too full of herp derp.
I can't tell if Pickles is naive, stupid, or trolling.
He's badly infected with the Libertarianism meme.
But we can cure that. With SCIENCE!
Wait, you can fire the Stunner through the internet now?
:aaaah:
Yes, but that would be illegal, and I would get caught. Besides, my boss finally made us dismantle it.
No, this has to be handled the hard way. The way Ronald Reagan would have wanted it.
We have to beat the demons out of him.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:56:09 PM
Quote from: Cainad on September 08, 2010, 04:51:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:34:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 08, 2010, 03:50:16 PM
I can't read this whole thread because it's too full of herp derp.
I can't tell if Pickles is naive, stupid, or trolling.
He's badly infected with the Libertarianism meme.
But we can cure that. With SCIENCE!
Wait, you can fire the Stunner through the internet now?
:aaaah:
Yes, but that would be illegal, and I would get caught. Besides, my boss finally made us dismantle it.
No, this has to be handled the hard way. The way Ronald Reagan would have wanted it.
We have to beat the demons out of him.
DAMMIT. I was just putting a pinch of Cope in. Now it's all over the monitor.
The AmCon link is a good start. It's by a conservative who explicity states Libertarianism is the Marxism of the Right. Also, PM of goodies for you coming in, Dok.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 08, 2010, 04:57:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:56:09 PM
Quote from: Cainad on September 08, 2010, 04:51:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:34:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 08, 2010, 03:50:16 PM
I can't read this whole thread because it's too full of herp derp.
I can't tell if Pickles is naive, stupid, or trolling.
He's badly infected with the Libertarianism meme.
But we can cure that. With SCIENCE!
Wait, you can fire the Stunner through the internet now?
:aaaah:
Yes, but that would be illegal, and I would get caught. Besides, my boss finally made us dismantle it.
No, this has to be handled the hard way. The way Ronald Reagan would have wanted it.
We have to beat the demons out of him.
DAMMIT. I was just putting a pinch of Cope in. Now it's all over the monitor.
8)
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 04:57:32 PM
The AmCon link is a good start. It's by a conservative who explicity states Libertarianism is the Marxism of the Right. Also, PM of goodies for you coming in, Dok.
Woot! Thanks.
But I don't think Pickle thinks of himself as a conservative.
But AmCon is right, for a multitude of reasons, starting with the inherent brutality of both systems, and ending with the fact that neither system actually works.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:00:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 04:57:32 PM
The AmCon link is a good start. It's by a conservative who explicity states Libertarianism is the Marxism of the Right. Also, PM of goodies for you coming in, Dok.
Woot! Thanks.
But I don't think Pickle thinks of himself as a conservative.
But AmCon is right, for a multitude of reasons, starting with the inherent brutality of both systems, and ending with the fact that neither system actually works.
No system actually works short of planetary suicide (which is covered by a political party as well).
Well, I don't either, but American Conservative has some exceptionally good writers, and generally accepts writers who don't toe to any ideological line very well. They have people of pretty much all stripes write for them, but especially "misfits" who don't fit easily into any ideological camp, which of course means they are often very good at seeing the hilarious inconsistencies and, as you say, "inherent brutality of both systems".
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:00:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 04:57:32 PM
The AmCon link is a good start. It's by a conservative who explicity states Libertarianism is the Marxism of the Right. Also, PM of goodies for you coming in, Dok.
Woot! Thanks.
But I don't think Pickle thinks of himself as a conservative.
But AmCon is right, for a multitude of reasons, starting with the inherent brutality of both systems, and ending with the fact that neither system actually works.
No system actually works short of planetary suicide (which is covered by a political party as well).
Well, then, I guess we'd all better just kill ourselves, because only "impure" systems function well enough to improve human living standards.
Right?
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:00:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 04:57:32 PM
The AmCon link is a good start. It's by a conservative who explicity states Libertarianism is the Marxism of the Right. Also, PM of goodies for you coming in, Dok.
Woot! Thanks.
But I don't think Pickle thinks of himself as a conservative.
But AmCon is right, for a multitude of reasons, starting with the inherent brutality of both systems, and ending with the fact that neither system actually works.
No system actually works short of planetary suicide (which is covered by a political party as well).
Even with that, I'd bet at least two people of the opposite sex would defect at the last minute.
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 05:10:48 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:00:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 04:57:32 PM
The AmCon link is a good start. It's by a conservative who explicity states Libertarianism is the Marxism of the Right. Also, PM of goodies for you coming in, Dok.
Woot! Thanks.
But I don't think Pickle thinks of himself as a conservative.
But AmCon is right, for a multitude of reasons, starting with the inherent brutality of both systems, and ending with the fact that neither system actually works.
No system actually works short of planetary suicide (which is covered by a political party as well).
Even with that, I'd bet at least two people of the opposite sex would defect at the last minute.
A very good point :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on September 08, 2010, 03:50:16 PM
I can't read this whole thread because it's too full of herp derp.
I can't tell if Pickles is naive, stupid, or trolling.
The topic of this thread derailed pretty quickly, but on the subjects discussed, I think I made clear my positions.
Howl, I haven't advocated the Free Murrket once in this thread, and actually the subject was how we might best deal with the real issues that exist within our current regulated market, by deflating the currency in a controlled manner, rather than inflating it out of proportion to global and domestic realities. I'm not disagreeing with you, and I've only ever bounced questions about a free(er) market in order to get feedback on what other people here think. The libertopia doesn't exist, and the article Cain posted does a damn fine job of laying out why it would not.
I'm currently brushing up on some Hobbes and should have The Leviathan finished late this evening or tomorrow morning, depending on my work load.
To address PoD's post from last night,
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:52:38 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:41:32 AM
I forgot to address this..
what's to keep people from doing NOTHING and still receiving their "fair share" under this system?
Because humans are innately good and want to help each other, of course. No one WANTS to free-load.
There's an entire prison system full of con-artists and thieves that would, if they were being honest, tell you that this is not true.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:52:38 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
technology plays a part in the advancement of any society.
Sure, but that's only if you want to advance.
I'm not sure I've heard anyone advocate for a static society that doesn't advance technologically.. except maybe the Amish.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:52:38 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
I choose to do it because it's a satisfying field to me, and I take pride in creating something that benefits others. I'm a fucking anomaly in your system.
Hey, that's great. You are the reason communism doesn't work. Non-point.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
how do you account for the measure of time it takes to actually produce something, and the inevitable HUMAN animosity when people begin to realize that you can have your needs met just like "that guy who only works 40 hours" by just doing the bare minimum?
You assume that time matters too much. "I work 50-hours a week". Okay. if you choose to do a job, you don't have the right to complain that someone doing a different job doesn't have to work as long hours as you. What about the person doing backbreaking labor in the coal mine? What about the person who is doing medical research? What about the person who is transporting goods cross-country? These people exist, because they must. They get the same share you do, yet you just draw all day.
Time, a persons time, has the value we agree to place on it with regard to it being used for labor. This is usually settled between a worker and employer in our current system by a wage. In the system you advocate, where currency does not exist and labor and thus, a person's time is all seen to be equal across the board, where you receive nothing more or less for doing only the bare minimum expected of you, there wouldn't actually BE anyone going above and beyond when everyone realized their needs would be met by doing just enough to get by without pissing everyone else off.
QuoteOne of the fundamental objectives of Marxism is to remove interest, the factor of individual interest, and gain, from people's psychological motivations. Marx was preoccupied both with economic factors and with their repercussions on the spirit. If communism isn't interested in this too, it may be a method of distributing goods, but it will never be a revolutionary way of life."
— Che Guevara
Doesn't this system require the forceable removal of the rulers (bourgeois) from power, usually (at least, historically) executing them and their families? How does that jive with your sense of humanism?
Assuming that this COULD ever be implemented successfully, you'd be willing to live under a police state while it was enforced for several generations, suppressing inevitable dissent and nostalgia for the old way of life, until the memory of that old way was bred out of the population and they no longer rose up against the state?
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 08, 2010, 04:52:38 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 04:37:39 AM
and I thought libertarians believed in a utopia.
I'm not sure if this is lol worthy, or if it shows that your grasp of political theory isn't quite as strong as you suggest.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:42:32 AM
NOTHING. That's why it doesn't work.
Quiet, you. :argh!:
:lulz:
Also, for a Hobbesian, you'd make a crappy discordian. Unless it's cognitive dissonance. Wasn't his idea for government a way to remove or minimize discord and rebellion against the current order imposed by the state through collective consent, and punishment of those who fostered discord?
nested quote fail all over that post. I'll fix it after lunch.. must eat.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:20:39 PM
nested quote fail all over that post. I'll fix it after lunch.. must eat.
Did you EARN that lunch?
I didn't I hung out on PD.com and wasted my company's time ... just like every day :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:26:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:20:39 PM
nested quote fail all over that post. I'll fix it after lunch.. must eat.
Did you EARN that lunch?
:lulz:
Got my chew in before clicking this time.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 08, 2010, 05:28:12 PM
I didn't I hung out on PD.com and wasted my company's time ... just like every day :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Same here. I am a living example of why many "logical" systems fail.
I got you beat, Dok. I'm doing it on the tax payer's dime!
Quote from: Iptuous on September 08, 2010, 05:44:01 PM
I got you beat, Dok. I'm doing it on the tax payer's dime!
I work for Big Oil. I'm doing it
directly on the tax payer's dime. :)
We bill you, then we bill the government for billing you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:26:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:20:39 PM
nested quote fail all over that post. I'll fix it after lunch.. must eat.
Did you EARN that lunch?
at first I was like :argh!:
but then I was all :?
now I'm just :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 06:41:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:26:47 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:20:39 PM
nested quote fail all over that post. I'll fix it after lunch.. must eat.
Did you EARN that lunch?
at first I was like :argh!:
but then I was all :?
now I'm just :lulz:
Good, good.
"Don't you worry about Little Billy. He's even learning to talk again,
our way."
Now, you can take what I have done so far as the ravings of a horrible cunt (this would be accurate), or someone who recognizes that you've been infected by a meme and is trying to get your frontal lobes to realize that (which is also accurate), or just some shithead that likes to laugh at peoples' beliefs (again, also accurate).
He is after all a Doktor
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 06:48:27 PM
Now, you can take what I have done so far as the ravings of a horrible cunt (this would be accurate), or someone who recognizes that you've been infected by a meme and is trying to get your frontal lobes to realize that (which is also accurate), or just some shithead that likes to laugh at peoples' beliefs (again, also accurate).
And this is why you are Doktor Howl, The Beloved.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 08, 2010, 06:50:27 PM
He is after all a Doktor
And, having looked around, I think that people operating via bad memes seems to be the number one problem with the country, and probably the world.
ETA: Horrorology idea.
Memes, yeah. I call them narratives. We seem to have little stories about how things work. They are the wrong stories.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 08, 2010, 07:00:16 PM
Memes, yeah. I call them narratives. We seem to have little stories about how things work. They are the wrong stories.
Same thing, different name.
The thread is up in Horrorology.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:44:58 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 08, 2010, 05:44:01 PM
I got you beat, Dok. I'm doing it on the tax payer's dime!
I work for Big Oil. I'm doing it directly on the tax payer's dime. :)
We bill you, then we bill the government for billing you.
I find it quite amusing how many of us have ended up in similar positions.
I'll never vote against wasteful government spending again.
:lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 08, 2010, 07:00:16 PM
Memes, yeah. I call them narratives. We seem to have little stories about how things work. They are the wrong stories.
Its funny, but lately I've noticed Yudowsky, Terry Pratchett and Doloras (of the Chaos Marxism blog) all have almost the exactly the same take on stories:
Stories don't tell us how the world work, but they tell us how people think the world should work. You can use that to tell people better stories.
Of course, with Pratchett, this (along with "headology") is how the witches win practically all their battles.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 08, 2010, 07:30:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 05:44:58 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on September 08, 2010, 05:44:01 PM
I got you beat, Dok. I'm doing it on the tax payer's dime!
I work for Big Oil. I'm doing it directly on the tax payer's dime. :)
We bill you, then we bill the government for billing you.
I find it quite amusing how many of us have ended up in similar positions.
I'll never vote against wasteful government spending again.
:lulz:
It's the natural state for a certain type of Discordian (ie, the ones that have read Stang's stuff).
And yeah, we need more of that.
Hmmm? Someone been talking about me?
LMNO
-Ripping off Big Insurance.
My last paying gig was free market all the way. Boo-yah!
Keep working asshats. My unemployment check is due today.
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 08, 2010, 07:00:16 PM
Memes, yeah. I call them narratives. We seem to have little stories about how things work. They are the wrong stories.
Its funny, but lately I've noticed Yudowsky, Terry Pratchett and Doloras (of the Chaos Marxism blog) all have almost the exactly the same take on stories:
Stories don't tell us how the world work, but they tell us how people think the world should work. You can use that to tell people better stories.
Of course, with Pratchett, this (along with "headology") is how the witches win practically all their battles.
You read Science of Discworld? He did a whole book of his thoughts on the matter.
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 08, 2010, 07:49:51 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on September 08, 2010, 07:00:16 PM
Memes, yeah. I call them narratives. We seem to have little stories about how things work. They are the wrong stories.
Its funny, but lately I've noticed Yudowsky, Terry Pratchett and Doloras (of the Chaos Marxism blog) all have almost the exactly the same take on stories:
Stories don't tell us how the world work, but they tell us how people think the world should work. You can use that to tell people better stories.
Of course, with Pratchett, this (along with "headology") is how the witches win practically all their battles.
You read Science of Discworld? He did a whole book of his thoughts on the matter.
I have the first two Science of the Discworld books, but it's been a while since I've read them. At least five years or so. But yeah, I do remember that being a rather major theme.
Yeah. Really interesting ideas. Probably more substantial than a comedy/fantasy novel has any right to be.
Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen seem to merit more investigation as well. I know Stewart narrated some physics documentaries which were far more interesting than usual.
As far as Jack goes, here's a brief summary of his writings:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/bib/nf/c/jackcohn.htm
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 06:55:03 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 08, 2010, 06:50:27 PM
He is after all a Doktor
And, having looked around, I think that people operating via bad memes seems to be the number one problem with the country, and probably the world.
ETA: Horrorology idea.
Eric Berne called them scripts when they become a way of life for a person, and games were extensions of those scripts that people put into their interactions with other humans in order elicit a certain wanted response from the other people.
I think we call that trolling now. Even when it's not deliberate.
This would make an interesting subject to update for the internet age. Transactional Analysis in the Internet age. I'll give it some thought.
I'm with you Dok.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 06:55:03 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 08, 2010, 06:50:27 PM
He is after all a Doktor
And, having looked around, I think that people operating via bad memes seems to be the number one problem with the country, and probably the world.
ETA: Horrorology idea.
Eric Berne called them scripts when they become a way of life for a person, and games were extensions of those scripts that people put into their interactions with other humans in order elicit a certain wanted response from the other people.
I think we call that trolling now. Even when it's not deliberate.
This would make an interesting subject to update for the internet age. Transactional Analysis in the Internet age. I'll give it some thought.
I'm with you Dok.
I've moved that part of the conversation down to Horrorology.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:15:06 PM
To address PoD's post from last night,
Pho. Or Dawn. Please do not call me PoD. It annoys me to no end.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:15:06 PM
There's an entire prison system full of con-artists and thieves that would, if they were being honest, tell you that this is not true.
:lulz: See the end.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:15:06 PM
I'm not sure I've heard anyone advocate for a static society that doesn't advance technologically.. except maybe the Amish.
Not quite. Communism works best in a pre-industrial society. Non-essential (read: necessary to sustain life) goods are a complete waste of time and resources.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:15:06 PM
Time, a persons time, has the value we agree to place on it with regard to it being used for labor. This is usually settled between a worker and employer in our current system by a wage. In the system you advocate, where currency does not exist and labor and thus, a person's time is all seen to be equal across the board, where you receive nothing more or less for doing only the bare minimum expected of you, there wouldn't actually BE anyone going above and beyond when everyone realized their needs would be met by doing just enough to get by without pissing everyone else off.
QuoteOne of the fundamental objectives of Marxism is to remove interest, the factor of individual interest, and gain, from people's psychological motivations. Marx was preoccupied both with economic factors and with their repercussions on the spirit. If communism isn't interested in this too, it may be a method of distributing goods, but it will never be a revolutionary way of life."
— Che Guevara
Wrong, time is only as valuable as society makes it. In our current system, we are socialized into believing that "time=$". Why does anyone "need" more than enough to get by? Because we live in a materialistic culture. If we lived in a true communism, enough would be *gasp* enough.
Side note: Don't quote El Che if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion about Communism. El Che was far worse for Cuba than Castro ever was. :lulz:
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:15:06 PM
Doesn't this system require the forceable removal of the rulers (bourgeois) from power, usually (at least, historically) executing them and their families? How does that jive with your sense of humanism?
Historically yes, theoretically no. And even if it is, sacrifices must be the greater good. At least I'm not whipping out Plato's
Republic and advocating that everyone over the age of 10 be killed so that we can instill the young 'uns with our propaganda.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:15:06 PM
Assuming that this COULD ever be implemented successfully, you'd be willing to live under a police state while it was enforced for several generations, suppressing inevitable dissent and nostalgia for the old way of life, until the memory of that old way was bred out of the population and they no longer rose up against the state?
Where's this police state BS coming from? Who said that?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 08, 2010, 05:15:06 PM
Also, for a Hobbesian, you'd make a crappy discordian. Unless it's cognitive dissonance. Wasn't his idea for government a way to remove or minimize discord and rebellion against the current order imposed by the state through collective consent, and punishment of those who fostered discord?
No, on both accounts. I think you REALLY need to go read Hobbes again.
Gah, this is like my PoliSci 101 seminars, except I can't doodle pictures of my lecturer in Mussolini style poses in the corner of my notebook then go hit on the cute chick three seats to the left and one forward in the coffee shop afterwards.
Quote from: Cain on September 09, 2010, 02:48:49 AM
Gah, this is like my PoliSci 101 seminars, except I can't doodle pictures of my lecturer in Mussolini style poses in the corner of my notebook then go hit on the cute chick three seats to the left and one forward in the coffee shop afterwards.
This is precisely the reason I got out of Poli Sci. :lulz:
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 09, 2010, 02:50:37 AM
Quote from: Cain on September 09, 2010, 02:48:49 AM
Gah, this is like my PoliSci 101 seminars, except I can't doodle pictures of my lecturer in Mussolini style poses in the corner of my notebook then go hit on the cute chick three seats to the left and one forward in the coffee shop afterwards.
This is precisely the reason I got out of Poli Sci. :lulz:
Your lecturers looked liek Mussolini? Or the lack of cute girls to ask out?
Quote from: Cudgel on September 09, 2010, 03:39:02 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 09, 2010, 02:50:37 AM
Quote from: Cain on September 09, 2010, 02:48:49 AM
Gah, this is like my PoliSci 101 seminars, except I can't doodle pictures of my lecturer in Mussolini style poses in the corner of my notebook then go hit on the cute chick three seats to the left and one forward in the coffee shop afterwards.
This is precisely the reason I got out of Poli Sci. :lulz:
Your lecturers looked liek Mussolini? Or the lack of cute girls to ask out?
Both. ;)
Quote from: Cain on September 08, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Its funny, but lately I've noticed Yudowsky, Terry Pratchett and Doloras (of the Chaos Marxism blog) all have almost the exactly the same take on stories:
Stories don't tell us how the world work, but they tell us how people think the world should work. You can use that to tell people better stories.
Of course, with Pratchett, this (along with "headology") is how the witches win practically all their battles.
I actually
was Magrat Garlick as a teenager, but now I think I'm Esme Weatherwax forty years early. ;)
Where is Pickles? I miss him in this thread. :cry:
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 11, 2010, 06:41:25 PM
Where is Pickles? I miss him in this thread. :cry:
I'm coming back. Still finishing up The Leviathan.
I'll be back. Just want to do some more reading on Hobbes.
I still think communism is a dream that will never work anywhere but in very small communities, never in a centralized government.
here, this should keep you busy and laughing until I come back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhV5RgcNJjE
the part where he pauses.. and then says "Masters in Communication!" made me almost piss myself.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 11, 2010, 06:59:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhV5RgcNJjE
the part where he pauses.. and then says "Masters in Communication!" made me almost piss myself.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
That's great.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 11, 2010, 07:05:03 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 11, 2010, 06:59:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhV5RgcNJjE
the part where he pauses.. and then says "Masters in Communication!" made me almost piss myself.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
That's great.
yeah, this video is almost worth it's own thread.
all he needs is a wheel chair and he could be Joe from Family Guy
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 11, 2010, 07:14:19 PM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 11, 2010, 07:05:03 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 11, 2010, 06:59:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhV5RgcNJjE
the part where he pauses.. and then says "Masters in Communication!" made me almost piss myself.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
That's great.
yeah, this video is almost worth it's own thread.
all he needs is a wheel chair and he could be Joe from Family Guy
I also noticed he sounded like Patrick Warburton.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:56:09 PM
Yes, but that would be illegal, and I would get caught. Besides, my boss finally made us dismantle it.
Whaaaaaat but we never got to saw pics :(
"We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs,"
How does guest worker program factor into this?
"Why not remove competition through legislation? Tariffs or whatever."
Wto lawsuits, governments are limited in the help they can give to companies if they want to trade internationally. Which is why a lot of places are playing for healthcare as its a loophole to reduce costs for companies under their borders
Eta this is also something the jackasses are starting to finally point out. One of america's loophole is they pay taxes of companies operating over seas. Which does lower their costs but it encourages them to have only their hq in america with everything being made else where.
"it's simply inflationary rather than deflationary."
Fiat money vs debt? Not sure what you mean here
Quote from: Pēleus on September 12, 2010, 09:29:07 AM
"We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and Mexico providing much lower labor costs,"
How does guest worker program factor into this?
guest worker programs are old brain drain mentality, without actually offering asylum status. At least, that's what it SHOULD be. Guest workers, highly educated, should be encouraged to come here and work, provided their being paid the prevailing wage. Yes, a lot of this money will be sent back to their family, and that's to be expected. The problem with the guest worker program is it's being used to bring in cheaper hard labor, when this country has an abundance of people capable of doing that work. The advantage to businesses is they get cheaper labor than they would have to pay for an american, and as long as inflation in the currency keeps prices and wages at their current levels, there's no incentive for them to hire an american workers, who's going to demand a wage based on the cost of living they face because of the inflation in the currency. This ties directly in to an argument for controlled deflation of the currency, reducing the cost of living relative to the prevailing wage, and returning the incentive to hire workers here rather than import them.
Quote from: Pēleus on September 12, 2010, 09:44:11 AM
"Why not remove competition through legislation? Tariffs or whatever."
Wto lawsuits, governments are limited in the help they can give to companies if they want to trade internationally. Which is why a lot of places are playing for healthcare as its a loophole to reduce costs for companies under their borders
Eta this is also something the jackasses are starting to finally point out. One of america's loophole is they pay taxes of companies operating over seas. Which does lower their costs but it encourages them to have only their hq in america with everything being made else where.
state managed trade, by giving advantage to companies that import from certain other countries, is a big problem in my opinion. It's another form of priveliged law, that stifles domestic competition that would seek to employ domestic workers to provide the same service at a competitive price. Competition goes out the window when the state shows favoritism in favor of the few who own the companies able to secure trade internationally. This allows coorporations to gain a foothold on an industry and choke out any competitors.
In regard to your second statement, my biggest problem with defense spending is not, in fact, that it's so large (it's my second problem with it) it's that the companies, while based here, are outsourcing their production of everything from microchips in warheads, to actual DoD secure missile parts. This shit is being made in other countries and brought back here for assembly. The money being spent no longer stays here, as it did since before WWI. There's no cost to wage incentive here to NOT outsource this manufacturing base to countries with cheaper labor. If the Military Industrial system is destined to stay as large as it is, and I've found no evidence that it will shrink, only hope, then there should be a controlled effort to reduce the price to wage ratio so that the incentive returns to hire people here to build the war machines.
Quote from: Pēleus on September 12, 2010, 10:42:47 AM
"it's simply inflationary rather than deflationary."
Fiat money vs debt? Not sure what you mean here
Not sure what YOU mean here. Fiat money (government mandated money) in this country no longer has a backing that helps control it's value. You might say that Fiat=Debt, as the only way we've been able to grow our GDP since Bretton Woods broke down and Nixon refused to pay international debt in gold, was to increase our countries debt to the world and trick everyone into accepting our dollars as the reserve currency of the world. The value of the dollar is based on the ability of our population to repay the collective debt we take out. The only reason any other government still buys treasuries, is that for generations, we've worked our asses off and been able to show an ability to pay the debts we take. This is becoming less and less a reality, as we just keep printing more in order to cover our debt, driving up prices all out of proportion to demand and wages.
All of these things are linked, and I may not be doing a good job of tying them together, but these were my initial thoughts on a sunday afternoon..
Still working on The Leviathan PoD (shouldn't have told me you hated that btw) it's just that I got hooked on another book too.
"The problem with the guest worker program is it's being used to bring in cheaper hard labor, when this country has an abundance of people capable of doing that work."
:cn:
The union glenn always rants about has a contest for some of the farms, basicly they invited anyone to work the fields. Think cnn even sent a news team. Last time I checked only the reporters took em up on it. Organic and local farmer markets are ideal but cost usually has people choosing the less healthly option
After a year at fastfood, I never took a job less then ten an hour, I'm sure a lot of urban dwellers do like wise
Also microsoft always goes on about needing more work visas, as they are having trouble filling some roles otherwise.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 12, 2010, 10:15:11 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 12, 2010, 07:05:43 PM
PoD
:evilmad:
*stabbity stab stab stab hadoken stab*
:nuke:
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d55/deadjuggalo666/Random%20Stuff/fighterdoken.jpg)
Quote from: Pēleus on September 12, 2010, 09:52:50 PM
"The problem with the guest worker program is it's being used to bring in cheaper hard labor, when this country has an abundance of people capable of doing that work."
:cn:
The union glenn always rants about has a contest for some of the farms, basicly they invited anyone to work the fields. Think cnn even sent a news team. Last time I checked only the reporters took em up on it. Organic and local farmer markets are ideal but cost usually has people choosing the less healthly option
After a year at fastfood, I never took a job less then ten an hour, I'm sure a lot of urban dwellers do like wise
This is the same argument the anti Mexican fuckwads use. And it's still a false assumption.
"The only reason any other government still buys treasuries"
You talking about the dollar peak-oil era? Since for the longest time oil was only sold in dollars
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 11, 2010, 08:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:56:09 PM
Yes, but that would be illegal, and I would get caught. Besides, my boss finally made us dismantle it.
Whaaaaaat but we never got to saw pics :(
That's okay, I'll post pics of the warhammer he's having made for me whenever it gets done.
FUCKING WARHAMMER!
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 13, 2010, 01:04:34 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 11, 2010, 08:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 08, 2010, 04:56:09 PM
Yes, but that would be illegal, and I would get caught. Besides, my boss finally made us dismantle it.
Whaaaaaat but we never got to saw pics :(
That's okay, I'll post pics of the warhammer he's having made for me whenever it gets done.
FUCKING WARHAMMER!
:fap:
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
you're a credit to you're university.
My irony meter needs calibrating. I just now started giggling at this.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:09:45 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
Have you gotten over this foolishness yet? Because I have to say, this one still pisses me off.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:09:45 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
Have you gotten over this foolishness yet? Because I have to say, this one still pisses me off.
The only way it even makes sense is if he was talking about banks and other large corporations, but he wasn't.
PD.COM: Coming back to haunt you, years later. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 06:03:13 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:09:45 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
Have you gotten over this foolishness yet? Because I have to say, this one still pisses me off.
The only way it even makes sense is if he was talking about banks and other large corporations, but he wasn't.
Yeah, I remember that. I nearly flipped my shit reading this again, almost a full year after the fact, but I'm pretty sure I already went off on him for this, and I wouldn't want to do it again unless he still believes it.
Freeky,
"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
hey, wow. this was a year ago.
I still fail pretty hard at my own proof reading.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:09:45 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
Have you gotten over this foolishness yet? Because I have to say, this one still pisses me off.
I'll have to go back and read what I wrote exactly.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 06:05:02 PM
PD.COM: Coming back to haunt you, years later. :lulz:
:lulz: :argh!:
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:10:16 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:09:45 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
Have you gotten over this foolishness yet? Because I have to say, this one still pisses me off.
I'll have to go back and read what I wrote exactly.
What you wrote was essentially summed up in this sentence.
Well, I still think that a good bout of deflation is inevitable and necessary to allow a stronger recovery.
Quote"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
I don't understand, you eat on credit? using credit or loans to fund an education is a valid use of it, so long as you're prepared for the costs once the loans come due.
I was referring to people who are sitting on $10,000 in unsecured debt and have a house full of shit they don't need to show for it. Not people struggling to even put food in their stomach.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:20:27 PM
Well, I still think that a good bout of deflation is inevitable and necessary to allow a stronger recovery.
Quote"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
I don't understand, you eat on credit? using credit or loans to fund an education is a valid use of it, so long as you're prepared for the costs once the loans come due.
I was referring to people who are sitting on $10,000 in unsecured debt and have a house full of shit they don't need to show for it. Not people struggling to even put food in their stomach.
Explain the difference.
One person eats on food stamps. That is not living within their means.
The other compulsively buys shit they don't need. This is also not living within their means.
The economy cannot funtion without that phenomena, by the way.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:20:27 PM
Well, I still think that a good bout of deflation is inevitable and necessary to allow a stronger recovery.
Quote"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
I don't understand, you eat on credit? using credit or loans to fund an education is a valid use of it, so long as you're prepared for the costs once the loans come due.
I was referring to people who are sitting on $10,000 in unsecured debt and have a house full of shit they don't need to show for it. Not people struggling to even put food in their stomach.
Oh, so what you SAID wasn't actually what you MEANT.
And we should all know that, and judge you by what you MEANT and not what you SAID.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:20:27 PM
Well, I still think that a good bout of deflation is inevitable and necessary to allow a stronger recovery.
Quote"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
I don't understand, you eat on credit? using credit or loans to fund an education is a valid use of it, so long as you're prepared for the costs once the loans come due.
I was referring to people who are sitting on $10,000 in unsecured debt and have a house full of shit they don't need to show for it. Not people struggling to even put food in their stomach.
Explain the difference.
One person eats on food stamps. That is not living within their means.
The other compulsively buys shit they don't need. This is also not living within their means.
The economy cannot funtion without that phenomena, by the way.
:lulz: Yeah, it's kind of awesome that our entire economic system
requires people to spend frivolously beyond their actual income in order to stay afloat. Debt! Debt! We need more debt, or our economy crashes!
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 06:25:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:20:27 PM
Well, I still think that a good bout of deflation is inevitable and necessary to allow a stronger recovery.
Quote"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
I don't understand, you eat on credit? using credit or loans to fund an education is a valid use of it, so long as you're prepared for the costs once the loans come due.
I was referring to people who are sitting on $10,000 in unsecured debt and have a house full of shit they don't need to show for it. Not people struggling to even put food in their stomach.
Explain the difference.
One person eats on food stamps. That is not living within their means.
The other compulsively buys shit they don't need. This is also not living within their means.
The economy cannot funtion without that phenomena, by the way.
:lulz: Yeah, it's kind of awesome that our entire economic system requires people to spend frivolously beyond their actual income in order to stay afloat. Debt! Debt! We need more debt, or our economy crashes!
Reliance on stupid, wasteful consumerism defines capitalism. If people stop buying useless shit, then the makers of that useless shit are out of jobs, meaning they aren't buying anything without assistance. That assistance comes out of the infrastructure that makes the manufacture and transportation of goods possible.
It's a sweet little trap we built for ourselves, and somehow I don't think the free market is going to save us from the free market.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:20:27 PM
Well, I still think that a good bout of deflation is inevitable and necessary to allow a stronger recovery.
Quote"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
I don't understand, you eat on credit? using credit or loans to fund an education is a valid use of it, so long as you're prepared for the costs once the loans come due.
I was referring to people who are sitting on $10,000 in unsecured debt and have a house full of shit they don't need to show for it. Not people struggling to even put food in their stomach.
Because that totally didn't dig your hole any deeper.
What about the unpaid debts I have because I had to get some teeth pulled, and others are from ER visits because at the time neither I nor monkey had health insurance? What about the car that I have, MUST MUST MUST HAVE CANNOT DO WITHOUT IT, because doing without that means I'm stranded and useless? What about all the other teeth that pretty much will just need t be pulled (which is all of them)? And then replacements of some sort after that? Do you even think? I mean, seriously?
What is it with people being so damnable STUPID today? Christ.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 06:33:56 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:20:27 PM
Well, I still think that a good bout of deflation is inevitable and necessary to allow a stronger recovery.
Quote"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
I don't understand, you eat on credit? using credit or loans to fund an education is a valid use of it, so long as you're prepared for the costs once the loans come due.
I was referring to people who are sitting on $10,000 in unsecured debt and have a house full of shit they don't need to show for it. Not people struggling to even put food in their stomach.
Because that totally didn't dig your hole any deeper.
What about the unpaid debts I have because I had to get some teeth pulled, and others are from ER visits because at the time neither I nor monkey had health insurance? What about the car that I have, MUST MUST MUST HAVE CANNOT DO WITHOUT IT, because doing without that means I'm stranded and useless? Do you even think? I mean, seriously?
What is it with people being so damnable STUPID today? Christ.
You've been snorting TGRR's ashes again, haven't you? :lulz:
Good times.... :lulz:
I'm equal parts upset at the sentiment, and equal parts upset that Pickle thinks in a how things SHOULD be way, not in a how things ARE way. Even if his idea ever got implemented, that doesn't account for the fact that the destitute will always always always be living outside their means. Homeless shelter? Paid for by taxes and donations. Food stamps? Paid for by taxes. Public transportation? Paid for by other people who feel bad and have given the asker change.
Pickle needs a swift kick in the balls so he can wake the fuck up, and I only say that because he's so smart but I don't think he actually understands where people like me are sitting.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 06:33:56 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:20:27 PM
Well, I still think that a good bout of deflation is inevitable and necessary to allow a stronger recovery.
Quote"living beyond my means" still means "getting enough to eat and building up a personal future."
I don't understand, you eat on credit? using credit or loans to fund an education is a valid use of it, so long as you're prepared for the costs once the loans come due.
I was referring to people who are sitting on $10,000 in unsecured debt and have a house full of shit they don't need to show for it. Not people struggling to even put food in their stomach.
Because that totally didn't dig your hole any deeper.
What about the unpaid debts I have because I had to get some teeth pulled, and others are from ER visits because at the time neither I nor monkey had health insurance? What about the car that I have, MUST MUST MUST HAVE CANNOT DO WITHOUT IT, because doing without that means I'm stranded and useless? What about all the other teeth that pretty much will just need t be pulled (which is all of them)? And then replacements of some sort after that? Do you even think? I mean, seriously?
What is it with people being so damnable STUPID today? Christ.
What about them? You're doing what you have to do, which is what everyone does. You're taking this personal and it isn't. The idea of living beyond our means using a revolving balance on a corporate bank card has only been around for 50 years. Before that you had to pay off the balance at the end of the month in total. I think it's been a detriment overall and has encouraged impulse buying and other bad money habits. That's the crux of my argument.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:46:10 PM
What about them? You're doing what you have to do, which is what everyone does. You're taking this personal and it isn't.
It always comes down to personal, one way or another.
Incidentally, where are your family and friends in all of this? No one (or very few) can be an island and survive. I tried my very hardest to never ask for help when I was still struggling, but without my family and close friends (mostly friends as my parents could barely take care of themselves much less two children), it's highly likely I'd still find myself in a bad situation.
Pickle, you can't make exceptions because some dude just needed to get their broken arm fixed or whatever. What you want to happen to people with poor self-control, this same thing would have to happen to everyone else. And you know, I'm not talking about myself here, because I don't even qualify for credit, and my income is still low enough that I receive state help. Anyone who works twenty hours a week at minimum wage no longer qualifies, but they got rent and utilities, gas, food, all that stuff to pay, and what are they going to pay it with? They don't have enough money, so credit cards it is.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:53:34 PM
Incidentally, where are your family and friends in all of this?
:wave:
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:53:34 PM
Incidentally, where are your family and friends in all of this? No one (or very few) can be an island and survive. I tried my very hardest to never ask for help when I was still struggling, but without my family and close friends (mostly friends as my parents could barely take care of themselves much less two children), it's highly likely I'd still find myself in a bad situation.
I'm living with Dok, basically for free. My parents are paying for y car, though they frequently wish that i could help pay for it (so do I). The medical bills I just skipped out on, and hopefully I'll be able to find the collectors who have it when I get income.
FFS, I'm using child support to pay for my classes. I am basically an example of the world's biggest piece of shit, okay? So do me a favor and don't tell ME that I have help, because I'm already using all that shit up.
Has anyone else noticed that, rage & hate-wise, Freeky is turning into me?
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 06:59:17 PM
Has anyone else noticed that, rage & hate-wise, Freeky is turning into me?
:lulz:
I think it's because there's a void of vengeful WRATH, and I am a natural at filling parts and roles that need filling.
Oh baby. :fap:
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 07:00:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 06:59:17 PM
Has anyone else noticed that, rage & hate-wise, Freeky is turning into me?
:lulz:
I think it's because there's a void of vengeful WRATH, and I am a natural at filling parts and roles that need filling.
Oh baby. :fap:
Yep.
If I can just get you to indulge in cheap cigars and cheaper bourbon, I could retire.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 07:00:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 06:59:17 PM
Has anyone else noticed that, rage & hate-wise, Freeky is turning into me?
:lulz:
I think it's because there's a void of vengeful WRATH, and I am a natural at filling parts and roles that need filling.
Oh baby. :fap:
Yep.
If I can just get you to indulge in cheap cigars and cheaper bourbon, I could retire.
No can has bourbon, doctor orders.
I might try a cigar though, if you'll let me bum one.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:53:34 PM
Incidentally, where are your family and friends in all of this? No one (or very few) can be an island and survive. I tried my very hardest to never ask for help when I was still struggling, but without my family and close friends (mostly friends as my parents could barely take care of themselves much less two children), it's highly likely I'd still find myself in a bad situation.
Welcome to my world. I am only able to live like I do because of my financial aid checks. They keep getting smaller and smaller. The fact remains that I am unemployed (and to most places unemployable), and unless I secure an alternate means of income, I will be in a pretty bad situation by May. And the thing is, Pickles, my friends can't help, because they're doing well as it is to make ends meet. My parents... hahahaha, well, we leave them out of this. It's not for lack of trying, nor pride, nor any personal failing.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 05, 2011, 07:07:18 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:53:34 PM
Incidentally, where are your family and friends in all of this? No one (or very few) can be an island and survive. I tried my very hardest to never ask for help when I was still struggling, but without my family and close friends (mostly friends as my parents could barely take care of themselves much less two children), it's highly likely I'd still find myself in a bad situation.
Welcome to my world. I am only able to live like I do because of my financial aid checks. They keep getting smaller and smaller. The fact remains that I am unemployed (and to most places unemployable), and unless I secure an alternate means of income, I will be in a pretty bad situation by May. And the thing is, Pickles, my friends can't help, because they're doing well as it is to make ends meet. My parents... hahahaha, well, we leave them out of this. It's not for lack of trying, nor pride, nor any personal failing.
The system is broken, so the obvious thing to do, of course, is blame the people that have precisely zero control over it.
So, it's just like my job.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 07:08:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 05, 2011, 07:07:18 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:53:34 PM
Incidentally, where are your family and friends in all of this? No one (or very few) can be an island and survive. I tried my very hardest to never ask for help when I was still struggling, but without my family and close friends (mostly friends as my parents could barely take care of themselves much less two children), it's highly likely I'd still find myself in a bad situation.
Welcome to my world. I am only able to live like I do because of my financial aid checks. They keep getting smaller and smaller. The fact remains that I am unemployed (and to most places unemployable), and unless I secure an alternate means of income, I will be in a pretty bad situation by May. And the thing is, Pickles, my friends can't help, because they're doing well as it is to make ends meet. My parents... hahahaha, well, we leave them out of this. It's not for lack of trying, nor pride, nor any personal failing.
The system is broken, so the obvious thing to do, of course, is blame the people that have precisely zero control over it.
So, it's just like my job.
Yup, the system's fucked. But, Dok, fixing the system is easy. All you have to do is make it deflationary! That way my checks will get bigger and bigger, rent will go down, my friends will be able to lend me a hand, and oh yes, my parents will still totally hate me, but they will be much better off. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 05, 2011, 07:13:31 PM
[Yup, the system's fucked. But, Dok, fixing the system is easy. All you have to do is make it deflationary! That way my checks will get bigger and bigger, rent will go down,
:bankster:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 06:55:50 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 06:53:34 PM
Incidentally, where are your family and friends in all of this?
:wave:
For some reason forgot you guys know each other.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 06:55:42 PM
Pickle, you can't make exceptions because some dude just needed to get their broken arm fixed or whatever. What you want to happen to people with poor self-control, this same thing would have to happen to everyone else. And you know, I'm not talking about myself here, because I don't even qualify for credit, and my income is still low enough that I receive state help. Anyone who works twenty hours a week at minimum wage no longer qualifies, but they got rent and utilities, gas, food, all that stuff to pay, and what are they going to pay it with? They don't have enough money, so credit cards it is.
Freeky, my opinions are colored by my own personal experience. I'm frequently wrong about things, or at least believe things that some people would say is cruel or "inhuman" because they appear to lack compassion. I grew up in a hard home with little food and lots of drugs. My sister and I both were looking at a possibility of continuing that family tradition unless we got out of there and ended our childhood early in favor of a better future. We started with nothing, no support network, no family to speak of, we've both worked some of the shittiest jobs you can imagine just to stay fed, and now, after 15 years of struggling, she's a manager at a bank making more money than me, and I'm working in a technical field I never even went to college to study. I have a healthy streak of "If we can do it, other people can" and that'll probably rub people the wrong way but it's what I believe.
But we all know I have the wrong values.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 06:58:38 PM
I'm living with Dok, basically for free. My parents are paying for y car, though they frequently wish that i could help pay for it (so do I). The medical bills I just skipped out on, and hopefully I'll be able to find the collectors who have it when I get income.
FFS, I'm using child support to pay for my classes. I am basically an example of the world's biggest piece of shit, okay? So do me a favor and don't tell ME that I have help, because I'm already using all that shit up.
That's the kind of guy I imagined Dok is. The type of guy I try and be as well. If any of my friends gets knocked down, my door is always open and there's always enough food to share.
No, you're not. You're on hard times. That doesn't make you a piece of shit, a bad person, any of that. That's a horrible thing to say and think about yourself. You're awesome and that awesomeness doesn't change because you're not making much money.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Freeky, my opinions are colored by my own personal experience. I'm frequently wrong about things, or at least believe things that some people would say is cruel or "inhuman" because they appear to lack compassion. I grew up in a hard home with little food and lots of drugs.
Unnecessary to state the above. It is a well-documented fact that all Libertarians grew up in a cardboard box, fighting rats for the scraps of filth that came down the sluice, and worked their way up to living in a castle made out of the tanned hides of their unsuccessful competition.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Freeky, my opinions are colored by my own personal experience. I'm frequently wrong about things, or at least believe things that some people would say is cruel or "inhuman" because they appear to lack compassion. I grew up in a hard home with little food and lots of drugs.
Unnecessary to state the above. It is a well-documented fact that all Libertarians grew up in a cardboard box, fighting rats for the scraps of filth that came down the sluice, and worked their way up to living in a castle made out of the tanned hides of their unsuccessful competition.
:lulz:
Yeah, I know it's cliche as hell. Doesn't change the facts.
Pickle, honey darling. Listen here to me a minute, okay?
Even if is true, you are very. Very. Lucky. Perhaps a handful of people in the world can achieve a rags-to-riches story. For the rest of us, we have to deal with MOTHER FUCKING REALITY WHICH IS COLD AND HEARTLESS AND ACTIVELY SEEKS TO CRUSH THE POOR AND DESTITUTE BENEATH ITS MONSTROUS HEEL. Please to keep this in mind when you are basing your opinions on your happy shiny good good experiences.
Thanks.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 07:36:10 PM
Pickle, honey darling. Listen here to me a minute, okay?
Even if is true, you are very. Very. Lucky. Perhaps a handful of people in the world can achieve a rags-to-riches story. For the rest of us, we have to deal with MOTHER FUCKING REALITY WHICH IS COLD AND HEARTLESS AND ACTIVELY SEEKS TO CRUSH THE POOR AND DESTITUTE BENEATH ITS MONSTROUS HEEL. Please to keep this in mind when you are basing your opinions on your happy shiny good good experiences.
Thanks.
You just made Horatio Alger cry.
I hope you're happy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 07:36:10 PM
Pickle, honey darling. Listen here to me a minute, okay?
Even if is true, you are very. Very. Lucky. Perhaps a handful of people in the world can achieve a rags-to-riches story. For the rest of us, we have to deal with MOTHER FUCKING REALITY WHICH IS COLD AND HEARTLESS AND ACTIVELY SEEKS TO CRUSH THE POOR AND DESTITUTE BENEATH ITS MONSTROUS HEEL. Please to keep this in mind when you are basing your opinions on your happy shiny good good experiences.
Thanks.
You just made Horatio Alger cry.
I hope you're happy.
Fuck that guy in the eye socket. :evilmad:
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:29:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Freeky, my opinions are colored by my own personal experience. I'm frequently wrong about things, or at least believe things that some people would say is cruel or "inhuman" because they appear to lack compassion. I grew up in a hard home with little food and lots of drugs.
Unnecessary to state the above. It is a well-documented fact that all Libertarians grew up in a cardboard box, fighting rats for the scraps of filth that came down the sluice, and worked their way up to living in a castle made out of the tanned hides of their unsuccessful competition.
:lulz:
Yeah, I know it's cliche as hell. Doesn't change the facts.
I think you need a perspective shift. For everyone who DOES make it out of a bad situation OK, there are nine more who don't. A huge part of what means you make it out OK is simple luck; in my case, the luck was that my parents are highly intelligent and come from educated families. What does that have to do with it, you might ask? I was raised with the expectation that people read for pleasure. I was poor, sometimes hungry, didn't go to school, and at times was perilously close to homeless, but I was highly literate and I had a library card.
So, you might use that as an area of judgement upon people who don't have that advantage... "Anyone has that opportunity!", you might say.
Except that isn't true. Anyone COULD have that opportunity, if they only knew it existed and understood what it could mean for them. Some kids happen upon it by chance, and they usually do well for themselves. But kids from families who aren't highly literate usually do not, themselves, go on to be highly literate.
So, what if you hadn't been one of the ones who made it? I bet you can think back and remember some close calls, some critical turning points where if something had gone differently, it could have been disastrous. What if you hadn't been born with a relatively high potential for intelligence? That is luck.
On some level, Pickle, you didn't make it because you're
better. You made it because you're
lucky.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 07:36:10 PM
Pickle, honey darling. Listen here to me a minute, okay?
Even if is true, you are very. Very. Lucky. Perhaps a handful of people in the world can achieve a rags-to-riches story. For the rest of us, we have to deal with MOTHER FUCKING REALITY WHICH IS COLD AND HEARTLESS AND ACTIVELY SEEKS TO CRUSH THE POOR AND DESTITUTE BENEATH ITS MONSTROUS HEEL. Please to keep this in mind when you are basing your opinions on your happy shiny good good experiences.
Thanks.
Noted. I don't mean to seem insensitive to your situation. I'm still learning and plan to for the rest of my life. This is just one more lesson.
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 07:47:57 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:29:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:21:23 PM
Freeky, my opinions are colored by my own personal experience. I'm frequently wrong about things, or at least believe things that some people would say is cruel or "inhuman" because they appear to lack compassion. I grew up in a hard home with little food and lots of drugs.
Unnecessary to state the above. It is a well-documented fact that all Libertarians grew up in a cardboard box, fighting rats for the scraps of filth that came down the sluice, and worked their way up to living in a castle made out of the tanned hides of their unsuccessful competition.
:lulz:
Yeah, I know it's cliche as hell. Doesn't change the facts.
I think you need a perspective shift. For everyone who DOES make it out of a bad situation OK, there are nine more who don't. A huge part of what means you make it out OK is simple luck; in my case, the luck was that my parents are highly intelligent and come from educated families. What does that have to do with it, you might ask? I was raised with the expectation that people read for pleasure. I was poor, sometimes hungry, didn't go to school, and at times was perilously close to homeless, but I was highly literate and I had a library card.
So, you might use that as an area of judgement upon people who don't have that advantage... "Anyone has that opportunity!", you might say.
Except that isn't true. Anyone COULD have that opportunity, if they only knew it existed and understood what it could mean for them. Some kids happen upon it by chance, and they usually do well for themselves. But kids from families who aren't highly literate usually do not, themselves, go on to be highly literate.
So, what if you hadn't been one of the ones who made it? I bet you can think back and remember some close calls, some critical turning points where if something had gone differently, it could have been disastrous. What if you hadn't been born with a relatively high potential for intelligence? That is luck.
On some level, Pickle, you didn't make it because you're better. You made it because you're lucky.
Oh, plenty of times when a bad decision or some chance happening would have fucked me. That actually never goes away in my experience and so I've become pretty good at planning, and then having a backup plan and a backup for the backup.
Still, you can't plan for everything and I'm no more than one really bad accident or stupid decision away from being really set back. I take a lot fewer risks in everything now that I have a spawn to care for. I recognize there's luck involved, but it's never been primarily luck. It's been learning and learning and making contacts and doing whatever I do as best I can possibly do it.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:50:46 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 07:36:10 PM
Pickle, honey darling. Listen here to me a minute, okay?
Even if is true, you are very. Very. Lucky. Perhaps a handful of people in the world can achieve a rags-to-riches story. For the rest of us, we have to deal with MOTHER FUCKING REALITY WHICH IS COLD AND HEARTLESS AND ACTIVELY SEEKS TO CRUSH THE POOR AND DESTITUTE BENEATH ITS MONSTROUS HEEL. Please to keep this in mind when you are basing your opinions on your happy shiny good good experiences.
Thanks.
Noted. I don't mean to seem insensitive to your situation. I'm still learning and plan to for the rest of my life. This is just one more lesson.
A hint that your thinking is flawed, at least here, at least most of the time, is that you will be told that a thing you said is stupid. That doesn't mean, for some people who say it, that they mean YOU are stupid, it means that the thinking you used to get to that idea was stupid (or just flawed).
You can't count on that though, since breaking people's balls is just funny sometimes.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:56:22 PM
Oh, plenty of times when a bad decision or some chance happening would have fucked me. That actually never goes away in my experience and so I've become pretty good at planning, and then having a backup plan and a backup for the backup.
Still, you can't plan for everything and I'm no more than one really bad accident or stupid decision away from being really set back. I take a lot fewer risks in everything now that I have a spawn to care for. I recognize there's luck involved, but it's never been primarily luck. It's been learning and learning and making contacts and doing whatever I do as best I can possibly do it.
No no no no no. See, you are dismissing the luck argument again in favor of "If I can do it anyone can" again. You won't get anywhere in learning about this particular subject, and thus you won't evolve as a human being, unless you do. Planning may have had something to do with your success, but making contacts is luck, and making the right decision the first time was luck, and your success is due in large part to luck.
I'd also like to point out that it's not like the library was down the street, like it is where I live now. From 11-18 I lived in the middle of nowhere and had to ride my bike (once I had begged, borrowed, or more likely stolen enough to buy one... it cost $12 and I'm not sure where I got the money because I don't think I was working yet) several miles in inclement weather to visit the incredibly tiny library. I'd read books by candlelight on a mattress on the floor of the trailer we lived in... I placed my mattress over the hole in the floor where it had rotted through from the previous occupants pissing in the corner.
If I hadn't already been addicted to books, the odds that I would have even known where the library was are slim to none, let alone that I'd go to that level of effort to get there. Not that there was anyfuckingthing else to do.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:56:22 PM
Oh, plenty of times when a bad decision or some chance happening would have fucked me. That actually never goes away in my experience and so I've become pretty good at planning, and then having a backup plan and a backup for the backup.
Still, you can't plan for everything and I'm no more than one really bad accident or stupid decision away from being really set back. I take a lot fewer risks in everything now that I have a spawn to care for. I recognize there's luck involved, but it's never been primarily luck. It's been learning and learning and making contacts and doing whatever I do as best I can possibly do it.
Balls. You were BORN a winner, by virtue of being born here instead of in Darfur, etc.
Pickle, I just want to make sure you know what I'm stressing here in my argument. Not everybody can do what you've done. Not everybody is as smart as you, and you are smart becaus you've said that you learned from mistakes. Learning is hard, and a large portion of our species is not capable of learning. Not everyone can make contacts, either because there are none to be had or they are never in the right place or the right time. Very few people, especially nowadays, have the opportunity to get a low ranking position anywhere near what they want to be doing for any length of time, let alone ten or fifteen years, because those sorts of jobs don't exist to people who don't have the right contacts AND the right qualifications.
I am not saying that you didn't work for what you have, but you need to realize right the fuck now that you are one lucky motherfucker, and you have more luck than the average fifty people. So I don't want to hear any more about how it was all down to you, because, and again I'm not saying you didn't work hard, but it wasn't down to you, it was down to luck.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 08:03:55 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:56:22 PM
Oh, plenty of times when a bad decision or some chance happening would have fucked me. That actually never goes away in my experience and so I've become pretty good at planning, and then having a backup plan and a backup for the backup.
Still, you can't plan for everything and I'm no more than one really bad accident or stupid decision away from being really set back. I take a lot fewer risks in everything now that I have a spawn to care for. I recognize there's luck involved, but it's never been primarily luck. It's been learning and learning and making contacts and doing whatever I do as best I can possibly do it.
Balls. You were BORN a winner, by virtue of being born here instead of in Darfur, etc.
Yeah, and I'm not even counting the rest of the world in my argument, I'm saying that even for an American he's should be thanking his lucky stars.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:01:15 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:56:22 PM
Oh, plenty of times when a bad decision or some chance happening would have fucked me. That actually never goes away in my experience and so I've become pretty good at planning, and then having a backup plan and a backup for the backup.
Still, you can't plan for everything and I'm no more than one really bad accident or stupid decision away from being really set back. I take a lot fewer risks in everything now that I have a spawn to care for. I recognize there's luck involved, but it's never been primarily luck. It's been learning and learning and making contacts and doing whatever I do as best I can possibly do it.
No no no no no. See, you are dismissing the luck argument again in favor of "If I can do it anyone can" again. You won't get anywhere in learning about this particular subject, and thus you won't evolve as a human being, unless you do. Planning may have had something to do with your success, but making contacts is luck, and making the right decision the first time was luck, and your success is due in large part to luck.
Being born smarter than some of the other monkeys is luck, too. I know it's not popular when I say this, but if you consider that most people are "average" and then examine what that means, well, after the vomiting and shaking stops you had damn well better thank your FUCKING LUCKY-ASS stars that you're a little bit smarter. Because I can guarantee you that every monkey on this board is smarter than average, probably by a fair bit, and that means that our ability to find patterns, make associations, plan for contingencies, solve problems in creative ways, and to learn in general is, through no real doing of our own, significantly better than the average monkey.
It might sound like elitism, but the bottom line for me is that when I realized that, rather than looking down on the poor fucks who didn't win the brain lottery, I feel holy shit lucky as hell. Because if I'm struggling, they would be doomed, and I've seen people go down in flames - losing their home, job, losing custody of their kids - simply from making decisions I could clearly see from the outset were strategically very very flawed.
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:11:51 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:01:15 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 07:56:22 PM
Oh, plenty of times when a bad decision or some chance happening would have fucked me. That actually never goes away in my experience and so I've become pretty good at planning, and then having a backup plan and a backup for the backup.
Still, you can't plan for everything and I'm no more than one really bad accident or stupid decision away from being really set back. I take a lot fewer risks in everything now that I have a spawn to care for. I recognize there's luck involved, but it's never been primarily luck. It's been learning and learning and making contacts and doing whatever I do as best I can possibly do it.
No no no no no. See, you are dismissing the luck argument again in favor of "If I can do it anyone can" again. You won't get anywhere in learning about this particular subject, and thus you won't evolve as a human being, unless you do. Planning may have had something to do with your success, but making contacts is luck, and making the right decision the first time was luck, and your success is due in large part to luck.
Being born smarter than some of the other monkeys is luck, too. I know it's not popular when I say this, but if you consider that most people are "average" and then examine what that means, well, after the vomiting and shaking stops you had damn well better thank your FUCKING LUCKY-ASS stars that you're a little bit smarter. Because I can guarantee you that every monkey on this board is smarter than average, probably by a fair bit, and that means that our ability to find patterns, make associations, plan for contingencies, solve problems in creative ways, and to learn in general is, through no real doing of our own, significantly better than the average monkey.
It might sound like elitism, but the bottom line for me is that when I realized that, rather than looking down on the poor fucks who didn't win the brain lottery, I feel holy shit lucky as hell. Because if I'm struggling, they would be doomed, and I've seen people go down in flames - losing their home, job, losing custody of their kids - simply from making decisions I could clearly see from the outset were strategically very very flawed.
Like voting for the good of oligarchs, ie, the tea party, instead of in their own interest.
:lulz:
Best part about idiots, is they can drag us down with them. They're generous, that way.
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:11:51 PM
Being born smarter than some of the other monkeys is luck, too. I know it's not popular when I say this, but if you consider that most people are "average" and then examine what that means, well, after the vomiting and shaking stops you had damn well better thank your FUCKING LUCKY-ASS stars that you're a little bit smarter. Because I can guarantee you that every monkey on this board is smarter than average, probably by a fair bit, and that means that our ability to find patterns, make associations, plan for contingencies, solve problems in creative ways, and to learn in general is, through no real doing of our own, significantly better than the average monkey.
It might sound like elitism, but the bottom line for me is that when I realized that, rather than looking down on the poor fucks who didn't win the brain lottery, I feel holy shit lucky as hell. Because if I'm struggling, they would be doomed, and I've seen people go down in flames - losing their home, job, losing custody of their kids - simply from making decisions I could clearly see from the outset were strategically very very flawed.
Yeah, no, I totally agree smartness is luck. And I feel lucky, but I see Pickle saying that his success is all down to him working hard, and that is what is most offensive to me, really, is that he doesn't get it at all.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 08:13:36 PM
Like voting for the good of oligarchs, ie, the tea party, instead of in their own interest.
:lulz:
Best part about idiots, is they can drag us down with them. They're generous, that way.
I am favoring Nigel's theory that we're in the middle of an evolutionary split, myself. It won't help us, but at least I can say that I'm not actually one of them.
I realize that despite the deficit handed to me by my parents, I am extremely fortunate that despite making really bad choices they were still very intelligent people and encouraged me to read everything I could get my hands on. I'd be a lot worse off had that not been the case. In fact, I'd probably either be in prison or dead.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:16:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:11:51 PM
Being born smarter than some of the other monkeys is luck, too. I know it's not popular when I say this, but if you consider that most people are "average" and then examine what that means, well, after the vomiting and shaking stops you had damn well better thank your FUCKING LUCKY-ASS stars that you're a little bit smarter. Because I can guarantee you that every monkey on this board is smarter than average, probably by a fair bit, and that means that our ability to find patterns, make associations, plan for contingencies, solve problems in creative ways, and to learn in general is, through no real doing of our own, significantly better than the average monkey.
It might sound like elitism, but the bottom line for me is that when I realized that, rather than looking down on the poor fucks who didn't win the brain lottery, I feel holy shit lucky as hell. Because if I'm struggling, they would be doomed, and I've seen people go down in flames - losing their home, job, losing custody of their kids - simply from making decisions I could clearly see from the outset were strategically very very flawed.
Yeah, no, I totally agree smartness is luck. And I feel lucky, but I see Pickle saying that his success is all down to him working hard, and that is what is most offensive to me, really, is that he doesn't get it at all.
I agree with you completely.
He thinks that if he did it, anyone can. He no doubt sees himself as starting "with nothing", but isn't acknowledging that he actually had some pretty major advantages. Starting with brains, which are not distributed equally. Basic nutrition and early childhood nurturing have an affect on intelligence, so he probably wasn't starved or neglected as an infant or toddler. He's male and white, which are fairly significant advantages.
In short, he's not accurately representative of "anyone". Or even of "any American".
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:17:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 08:13:36 PM
Like voting for the good of oligarchs, ie, the tea party, instead of in their own interest.
:lulz:
Best part about idiots, is they can drag us down with them. They're generous, that way.
I am favoring Nigel's theory that we're in the middle of an evolutionary split, myself. It won't help us, but at least I can say that I'm not actually one of them.
There are three kinds of people that vote for the Tea Party:
1. Very rich people ($350,000/year and up). This makes sense for them, as they are voting their interest.
2. The "pre-rich". Translation: Dupes. They are legion, and they march under the banner of HERPADERP.
3. Racists who literally froth at the mouth because a Black dude got into the oval office.
There no exceptions to this.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 08:20:15 PM
I realize that despite the deficit handed to me by my parents, I am extremely fortunate that despite making really bad choices they were still very intelligent people and encouraged me to read everything I could get my hands on. I'd be a lot worse off had that not been the case. In fact, I'd probably either be in prison or dead.
I doubt it would be anything so dramatic as that. You'd just be where the rest of us who are living in debt are.
And don't be all like "MY PARENTS GAVE ME THEIR DEBT" either, that is whinging of the highest order compared to everything else you have. From what you have said about your job, I expect you'll pull yourself out of that hole someday, won't you? Do you think everyone else can, too?
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:24:53 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 08:20:15 PM
I realize that despite the deficit handed to me by my parents, I am extremely fortunate that despite making really bad choices they were still very intelligent people and encouraged me to read everything I could get my hands on. I'd be a lot worse off had that not been the case. In fact, I'd probably either be in prison or dead.
I doubt it would be anything so dramatic as that. You'd just be where the rest of us who are living in debt are.
And don't be all like "MY PARENTS GAVE ME THEIR DEBT" either, that is whinging of the highest order compared to everything else you have. From what you have said about your job, I expect you'll pull yourself out of that hole someday, won't you? Do you think everyone else can, too?
Debt isn't hereditary.
Yet. Give the right wing some time.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 08:20:15 PM
I realize that despite the deficit handed to me by my parents, I am extremely fortunate that despite making really bad choices they were still very intelligent people and encouraged me to read everything I could get my hands on. I'd be a lot worse off had that not been the case. In fact, I'd probably either be in prison or dead.
Bingo.
That was my ace in the hole, too, and it took me a long time to understand and appreciate my pure good luck in being handed that card at birth. It's the answer to "why did I make it, when so many other girls ended up on the streets, on drugs, dead, or with five kids in a trailer?"
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:22:23 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:16:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:11:51 PM
Being born smarter than some of the other monkeys is luck, too. I know it's not popular when I say this, but if you consider that most people are "average" and then examine what that means, well, after the vomiting and shaking stops you had damn well better thank your FUCKING LUCKY-ASS stars that you're a little bit smarter. Because I can guarantee you that every monkey on this board is smarter than average, probably by a fair bit, and that means that our ability to find patterns, make associations, plan for contingencies, solve problems in creative ways, and to learn in general is, through no real doing of our own, significantly better than the average monkey.
It might sound like elitism, but the bottom line for me is that when I realized that, rather than looking down on the poor fucks who didn't win the brain lottery, I feel holy shit lucky as hell. Because if I'm struggling, they would be doomed, and I've seen people go down in flames - losing their home, job, losing custody of their kids - simply from making decisions I could clearly see from the outset were strategically very very flawed.
Yeah, no, I totally agree smartness is luck. And I feel lucky, but I see Pickle saying that his success is all down to him working hard, and that is what is most offensive to me, really, is that he doesn't get it at all.
I agree with you completely.
He thinks that if he did it, anyone can. He no doubt sees himself as starting "with nothing", but isn't acknowledging that he actually had some pretty major advantages. Starting with brains, which are not distributed equally. Basic nutrition and early childhood nurturing have an affect on intelligence, so he probably wasn't starved or neglected as an infant or toddler. He's male and white, which are fairly significant advantages.
In short, he's not accurately representative of "anyone". Or even of "any American".
I think Pickle could work his way past the whole rags-to-riches for everyone thing, see where his thinking is flawed. I really think he can do it. Obviously, it'll take time and help, but still, he's smart enough.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:28:28 PM
I think Pickle could work his way past the whole rags-to-riches for everyone thing, see where his thinking is flawed. I really think he can do it. Obviously, it'll take time and help, but still, he's smart enough.
Smart has nothing to do with it. It's a primate thing, it's not connected to cognitive thinking at all. He's found his religion, and odds are overwhelmingly in favor of him sticking to it no matter what.
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:22:23 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:16:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:11:51 PM
Being born smarter than some of the other monkeys is luck, too. I know it's not popular when I say this, but if you consider that most people are "average" and then examine what that means, well, after the vomiting and shaking stops you had damn well better thank your FUCKING LUCKY-ASS stars that you're a little bit smarter. Because I can guarantee you that every monkey on this board is smarter than average, probably by a fair bit, and that means that our ability to find patterns, make associations, plan for contingencies, solve problems in creative ways, and to learn in general is, through no real doing of our own, significantly better than the average monkey.
It might sound like elitism, but the bottom line for me is that when I realized that, rather than looking down on the poor fucks who didn't win the brain lottery, I feel holy shit lucky as hell. Because if I'm struggling, they would be doomed, and I've seen people go down in flames - losing their home, job, losing custody of their kids - simply from making decisions I could clearly see from the outset were strategically very very flawed.
Yeah, no, I totally agree smartness is luck. And I feel lucky, but I see Pickle saying that his success is all down to him working hard, and that is what is most offensive to me, really, is that he doesn't get it at all.
I agree with you completely.
He thinks that if he did it, anyone can. He no doubt sees himself as starting "with nothing", but isn't acknowledging that he actually had some pretty major advantages. Starting with brains, which are not distributed equally. Basic nutrition and early childhood nurturing have an affect on intelligence, so he probably wasn't starved or neglected as an infant or toddler. He's male and white, which are fairly significant advantages.
In short, he's not accurately representative of "anyone". Or even of "any American".
I'm also dashingly handsome, charming, and modest to boot. That helps. :wink:
But yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm ignoring the advantages of the genetic lottery.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:28:28 PM
I think Pickle could work his way past the whole rags-to-riches for everyone thing, see where his thinking is flawed. I really think he can do it. Obviously, it'll take time and help, but still, he's smart enough.
Smart has nothing to do with it. It's a primate thing, it's not connected to cognitive thinking at all. He's found his religion, and odds are overwhelmingly in favor of him sticking to it no matter what.
But he is here, and this board if nothing else is good at tearing sweet and merciful illusions away.
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:31:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:28:28 PM
I think Pickle could work his way past the whole rags-to-riches for everyone thing, see where his thinking is flawed. I really think he can do it. Obviously, it'll take time and help, but still, he's smart enough.
Smart has nothing to do with it. It's a primate thing, it's not connected to cognitive thinking at all. He's found his religion, and odds are overwhelmingly in favor of him sticking to it no matter what.
But he is here, and this board if nothing else is good at tearing sweet and merciful illusions away.
It is at that.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 08:31:09 PM
I'm also dashingly handsome, charming, and modest to boot. That helps. :wink:
But yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm ignoring the advantages of the genetic lottery.
That may be what she's saying, but not what all of us are saying. You didn't just win the genetic lottery, you won the cosmic one too.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 05, 2011, 08:31:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:22:23 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:16:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 05, 2011, 08:11:51 PM
Being born smarter than some of the other monkeys is luck, too. I know it's not popular when I say this, but if you consider that most people are "average" and then examine what that means, well, after the vomiting and shaking stops you had damn well better thank your FUCKING LUCKY-ASS stars that you're a little bit smarter. Because I can guarantee you that every monkey on this board is smarter than average, probably by a fair bit, and that means that our ability to find patterns, make associations, plan for contingencies, solve problems in creative ways, and to learn in general is, through no real doing of our own, significantly better than the average monkey.
It might sound like elitism, but the bottom line for me is that when I realized that, rather than looking down on the poor fucks who didn't win the brain lottery, I feel holy shit lucky as hell. Because if I'm struggling, they would be doomed, and I've seen people go down in flames - losing their home, job, losing custody of their kids - simply from making decisions I could clearly see from the outset were strategically very very flawed.
Yeah, no, I totally agree smartness is luck. And I feel lucky, but I see Pickle saying that his success is all down to him working hard, and that is what is most offensive to me, really, is that he doesn't get it at all.
I agree with you completely.
He thinks that if he did it, anyone can. He no doubt sees himself as starting "with nothing", but isn't acknowledging that he actually had some pretty major advantages. Starting with brains, which are not distributed equally. Basic nutrition and early childhood nurturing have an affect on intelligence, so he probably wasn't starved or neglected as an infant or toddler. He's male and white, which are fairly significant advantages.
In short, he's not accurately representative of "anyone". Or even of "any American".
I'm also dashingly handsome, charming, and modest to boot. That helps. :wink:
But yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm ignoring the advantages of the genetic lottery.
That, and more. Unless you honestly think that regardless of nature or nurture, you are exactly representative of all kids in America, I am saying that you are ignoring myriad advantages which supported your success in changing your situation. Literacy, innate intelligence, a lack of brain damage caused by abuse or neglect... right down to your mother not drinking heavily while she was pregnant with you.
Mind you, I can't stand my mother and it's her fault I was in a shitty situation to begin with. However, I have to recognize that she's also responsible for giving me most of the tools I've used to improve my life. She was a drunk, but she didn't drink while she was pregnant. She's got a shitty personality, but she questions authority. She fed me decent food for the first few years of my life, and she read all the time. Had she been an even worse mother (and there are a lot of even worse mothers out there) I wouldn't have had those tools. That's luck.
On the subject of luck, has anyone read Malcolm Gladwell? This weekend, a friend was telling me about one of Gladwell's books he'd recently read (I think The Tipping Point, but possibly Outliers) that included several chapters about instances of luck that nobody recognized as luck.
The one I remember details of is about Canadian hockey. Most of the best players are born early in the year (January-March). As it turns out, this because the cut-off date for starting school is in early January. Kids born after that date don't start until the following year. These kids can be up to a year older than their classmates, and that extra growth and development makes them appear more athletic, especially when they're young. As a result, they're groomed and encouraged to practice, which makes them improve even farther beyond other kids of the same age.
There was one about how Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and most of the other innovators in computer technology were born in a very narrow timeframe, but I don't remember the specifics. The gist was that they had to be old enough to have the access and background to screw around with computers, but young enough that they didn't have families to support and could invest the time and money needed to develop their ideas.
Anyway, I think I need to add Gladwell to my reading list, and it seemed kind of pertinent (if only tangentially) to the thread.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:28:28 PM
I think Pickle could work his way past the whole rags-to-riches for everyone thing, see where his thinking is flawed. I really think he can do it. Obviously, it'll take time and help, but still, he's smart enough.
Smart has nothing to do with it. It's a primate thing, it's not connected to cognitive thinking at all. He's found his religion, and odds are overwhelmingly in favor of him sticking to it no matter what.
I'm not so sure about that. I once shared that belief -- I once completely bought into the Horatio Alger myth -- but I overcame it, and if I can do that, then anyone can.
And it would appear that I just killed Steve Jobs.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on October 06, 2011, 12:53:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 05, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on October 05, 2011, 08:28:28 PM
I think Pickle could work his way past the whole rags-to-riches for everyone thing, see where his thinking is flawed. I really think he can do it. Obviously, it'll take time and help, but still, he's smart enough.
Smart has nothing to do with it. It's a primate thing, it's not connected to cognitive thinking at all. He's found his religion, and odds are overwhelmingly in favor of him sticking to it no matter what.
I'm not so sure about that. I once shared that belief -- I once completely bought into the Horatio Alger myth -- but I overcame it, and if I can do that, then anyone can.
:lulz: Masterful.
Quote from: kingyak on October 06, 2011, 12:39:25 AM
On the subject of luck, has anyone read Malcolm Gladwell? This weekend, a friend was telling me about one of Gladwell's books he'd recently read (I think The Tipping Point, but possibly Outliers) that included several chapters about instances of luck that nobody recognized as luck.
The one I remember details of is about Canadian hockey. Most of the best players are born early in the year (January-March). As it turns out, this because the cut-off date for starting school is in early January. Kids born after that date don't start until the following year. These kids can be up to a year older than their classmates, and that extra growth and development makes them appear more athletic, especially when they're young. As a result, they're groomed and encouraged to practice, which makes them improve even farther beyond other kids of the same age.
There was one about how Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and most of the other innovators in computer technology were born in a very narrow timeframe, but I don't remember the specifics. The gist was that they had to be old enough to have the access and background to screw around with computers, but young enough that they didn't have families to support and could invest the time and money needed to develop their ideas.
Anyway, I think I need to add Gladwell to my reading list, and it seemed kind of pertinent (if only tangentially) to the thread.
That sounds like a really, really interesting book.
Quote from: kingyak on October 06, 2011, 01:06:26 AM
And it would appear that I just killed Steve Jobs.
You're cancer? :eek:
I haven't read Gladwell, but those anecdotes make sense. I know that kids today can't do what I did in the early 90's because university tuition and a dorm room can no longer be afforded on a dishwasher's salary.
Gladwell is a purveyor of trendy, pointdexter pop-sociology in easy to understand terms for New York Times readers.
Which is not to say he is wrong in the particular context of the thread, only that he's an annoying, overgeneralizing and massively overrated writer.
Basically, Malcolm Gladwell is the Thomas Friedman of...whatever the fuck he decides to write about. Or Thomas Friedman is the Malcom Gladwell of geopolitics, take your pick. Whichever way it is put, uncomfortable images emerge.
I've read nothing of them and that just reminds me that my conclusion are based on insufficient knowledge. I'm ok with that. I don't expect the have read everything, but I'm damn well going to try.
I came here for the cheap drinks, I stayed for the extremely uncomfortable barstools.
Back to the OP that seemed to piss a few off, my reasoning for a hefty bout of deflation in the value of the dollar is that is benefits everyone EXCEPT the people sitting on an ass load of collateral they've leveraged against, and will also bring prices like housing and energy down to levels the rest of us can afford.
The propping up of the housing market through monetary inflation of the value is the worst idea I've ever hear of. It didn't work in the 70's and 80's recession and there's nothing to suggest it will ever work in this one.
The boom and bust cycle is part and parcel to Keynesian economics, and we're all effected by that school of economics whether we want to be or not. His theories have been the driving force behind every bull and bear market for almost the last 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle
This isn't offering any new information to a few here who read about these things, but I sincerely contend that it's not information that anyone cannot learn. What you take from it is.. what you take from it.
To anyone paying attention, it should by now be clear that I think Keynes was wrong on the long view.
QuoteA central aspect of the Keynesian revolution was a change in theory concerning the factors determining employment levels in the overall economy. The revolution was set against the orthodox classical economic framework, and its successor, neoclassical economics, which based on Say's Law argued that unless special conditions prevailed the free market would naturally establish full employment equilibrium with no need for government intervention. This view held that employers will be able to make a profit by employing all available workers as long as workers drop their wages below the value of the total output they are able to produce – and classical economics assumed that in a free market workers would be willing to lower their wage demands accordingly, because they are rational agents who would rather work for less than face unemployment.
Keynes argued that both Say's Law and the assumption that economic actors always behave rationally are misleading simplifications, and that the classical economics was only reliable at describing a special case. The Keynesian Revolution replaced the classical understanding of employment with Keynes's view that employment is a function of demand, not supply.[3]
[edit]
That part in particular I have to posit is flawed, given the inflation created by a central banking system, inflation that has to continue to grow in order to give the illusion of wealth creation. It was most famously proved during the stagflation era in the late 70's/early 80's, when prices outpaced wages enough to force Paul Volker to make the highly unpopular political decision to raise interest rates to somewhere near 20%. This made borrowing money a really bad idea and drove down monetarily inflated prices, and within 3 years there was a robust recovery because prices returned to a level the average person could afford. Following that, the interest rate to borrow fell as well. Yes, there will be people willing to lower their wage in order to find employment. They are the exception, not the rule.
I will always hold, baring exceptional evidence to the contrary, that cyclical recessions like we experienced in the 70s and are experiencing now, are monetary problems, not problems in government or policy (read: regulation).
I'm open to ideas that change my mind on this.
QuoteI will always hold, baring exceptional evidence to the contrary, that cyclical recessions like we experienced in the 70s and are experiencing now, are monetary problems, not problems in government or policy (read: regulation).
Okay, just so I'm clear, you are in favor of regulation, and think that is mostly just stupid inflation and whatever going wrong now? If is true, I can get behind that I guess. I'm just confused or something.
After a few discussions on here like this, I've been rereading A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.
It is a fantastic book. He's written others which are worth reading, but this one is what stands out for me. It picked up a lot of traction amongst certain circles, but since his fundamental argument is to try and reorder society so that the circumstances of your birth are minimized as much as possible, including your intelligence as well as your physical capabilities and social status, it has fallen out of favour with most mainstream politicians.
Just mentioning this because Nigel's argument, in particular, meshes very well with Rawls... and he puts forward a convincing argument about things we could try to do to make society more just, and more fair, in order to make life better for people.
It won't happen, because it seems like it is much easier to convince people that they should accept the status quo than try to change it, because of the 1 in a million* shot of being in the Winning Team. But as far as political philosophy goes, I think Rawls is the best I've found.
*odds are actually far far far worse.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 03:22:47 AM
I will always hold, baring exceptional evidence to the contrary, that cyclical recessions like we experienced in the 70s and are experiencing now, are monetary problems, not problems in government or policy (read: regulation).
I'm open to ideas that change my mind on this.
1. these two paragraphs are contradictory.
2. you are STUPID. as Dok said, is this your religion or something?
how the fuck is the rampant fraud and the not-quite-fraudulent carelessness and the politicians that are bought and owned by wall street to do nothing about it, how is that a monetary problem and not a regulatory one??
this is EXACTLY analogous to (just an example) the problem we have in NL with cattle and antibiotics in their food, there's stringent rules, but the people that are supposed to check on it are paid off (with both money and power) and look the other way. is this a cattle-ary problem then?? you stupid fuck.
you are always like "oh you're so smart and if I just bounce my dumbass ideas against you guys long enough, you see, I CAN change my mind! I'm not so bad!" EXCEPT THAT YOUR DUMBASS IDEAS DONT REALLY REQUIRE ANY SMARTNESS TO REFUTE WHICH IS GETTING REALLY TEDIOUS BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF REALITY-CHECKING REALLY DUMBASS IDEAS BY YOURSELF WHICH CAN ONLY LEAD US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE REALLY
REALLY REALLY DUMBEXCEPT MAYBE NOT BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU SEEM KINDA SMART AND CAPABLE OF LOGICAL THOUGHT WHICH MEANS THAT YOU ARE IN FACT AN OBNOXIOUS STUBBORN SHITFUCKER THAT SHOULD DIE IN A FIRE
PICK ONE
ALSO, HAVE A NICE DAY
(NO I DID NOT MEAN THAT, I REALLY WISH YOU A SLIGHTLY AVERAGE BORING DAY WITH AT LEAST ONE REALLY SHITTY THING HAPPENING IN IT AND NO FUN AT ALL)
May you live in tedious times?
Say what you want about Paul Krugman's (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) politics, his economic arguments are pretty persuasive. DP, I'd suggest you go to that link and do some reading.
I read Krugman. I don't mind his politics, I'm sure he has his reasons for them. I do not often agree with his economics.
But I still read what he writes, because he is a smart guy, and there should be room for disagreement on economic theory.
Hey Trip, your reply goes a long way toward confirming my belief that PD has more dicks than a 70's gang bang porno. Probably more hair too.
I'm having a fucking fantastic day, btw. Most of them are.
What criteria would you need an argument to satisfy before you would change your mind on this, Pickle?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
I read Krugman. I don't mind his politics, I'm sure he has his reasons for them. I do not often agree with his economics.
But I still read what he writes, because he is a smart guy, and there should be room for disagreement on economic theory.
So, when he states his theory, then goes and looks at historical evidence, and both of them match, that's somehow an error on his part?
Quote from: Net on October 06, 2011, 02:48:04 PM
What criteria would you need an argument to satisfy before you would change your mind on this Pickle?
On what, how we're going to pull the nose up on this thing the fastest? Historical evidence showing artificial liquidity and price inflation ever turning a bear market back to a bull market would go a long way. The problem with that is it doesn't exist.
This thing wont recover until the Fed jacks up the interest rate and makes it actually painful to borrow for a few years. Prices will come down out of necessity, people will be able to begin to actually afford to buy a home again without risking bankruptcy because their monthly payments are too high, and interest rates will come down again.
I understand Bernanke's reasons. He's a student of the Great Depression, which was a liquidity problem. A monetary problem. But by over liquidating the market on top of the over liquidation that's occurred the last 2 decades, he's preventing a short depression and quick recovery and helping ensure a protracted recession with a tepid recovery.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: Net on October 06, 2011, 02:48:04 PM
What criteria would you need an argument to satisfy before you would change your mind on this Pickle?
On what, how we're going to pull the nose up on this thing the fastest? Historical evidence showing artificial liquidity and price inflation ever turning a bear market back to a bull market would go a long way. The problem with that is it doesn't exist.
So if someone showed you irrefutable evidence of this, you'd have to abandon your current position?
Everything rides on that one criterion?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 06, 2011, 02:53:19 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
I read Krugman. I don't mind his politics, I'm sure he has his reasons for them. I do not often agree with his economics.
But I still read what he writes, because he is a smart guy, and there should be room for disagreement on economic theory.
So, when he states his theory, then goes and looks at historical evidence, and both of them match, that's somehow an error on his part?
I don't disagree with him on everything. Economics have different schools of thought, and he happens to have the advantage that his school has been the dominant one used for most of recent history.
When he says things like "the size of the monetary base really doesn't matter" I take issue with that. If that's the case, where's the M3? Why stop publishing it?
Quote from: Net on October 06, 2011, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: Net on October 06, 2011, 02:48:04 PM
What criteria would you need an argument to satisfy before you would change your mind on this Pickle?
On what, how we're going to pull the nose up on this thing the fastest? Historical evidence showing artificial liquidity and price inflation ever turning a bear market back to a bull market would go a long way. The problem with that is it doesn't exist.
So if someone showed you irrefutable evidence of this, you'd have to abandon your current position?
Everything rides on that one criterion?
That's the crux. I've read a lot (lot) about this and have never seen anything suggesting it's ever worked and sustained a real recovery. That could be because I just haven't found the correct evidence. I can only read so much, or have things recommended to me. I could be wrong because I don't have all of the information.
You can tell economics is a real science because, just like science, it has different schools of thought which agree or disagree on basic conceptual approaches. It's like how some scientists don't accept causality, or believe in the principle of non-contradiction.
All these adjustments.
Seems to me that if capitalism were a car, it would be a Fiat.
:lulz:
I've actually always thought of it more as an art than a science.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 03:38:40 PM
:lulz:
I've actually always thought of it more as an art than a science.
Ah. So that makes you Andres Serrano, right? :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 03:33:25 PM
All these adjustments.
Seems to me that if capitalism were a car, it would be a Fiat.
a Fiat Currency?
Quote from: Doktor Phox on October 06, 2011, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 03:38:40 PM
:lulz:
I've actually always thought of it more as an art than a science.
Ah. So that makes you Andres Serrano, right? :lulz:
:lulz:
The walls just aren't quite the shade of brown I like yet.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
I read Krugman. I don't mind his politics, I'm sure he has his reasons for them. I do not often agree with his economics.
But I still read what he writes, because he is a smart guy, and there should be room for disagreement on economic theory.
Hey Trip, your reply goes a long way toward confirming my belief that PD has more dicks than a 70's gang bang porno. Probably more hair too.
I'm having a fucking fantastic day, btw. Most of them are.
I wash my hands of you, you obnoxious scumbag. Go die in a fire and roast in hell.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 06, 2011, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 03:33:25 PM
All these adjustments.
Seems to me that if capitalism were a car, it would be a Fiat.
a Fiat Currency?
OH, THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE LIMIT! :crankey:
Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 06, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
Probably more hair too.
I was gonna argue that, but then I thought of my entire body below the neck.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 06, 2011, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 03:33:25 PM
All these adjustments.
Seems to me that if capitalism were a car, it would be a Fiat.
a Fiat Currency?
OH, THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE LIMIT! :crankey:
Wait.... that wasn't intended?!
:eek:
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 06, 2011, 11:18:10 AM
how the fuck is the rampant fraud and the not-quite-fraudulent carelessness and the politicians that are bought and owned by wall street to do nothing about it, how is that a monetary problem and not a regulatory one??
Our government has always been as crooked as Ron Jeremy's dick. The problem isn't the crooks. The problem isn't production.
The problem is that our method of counting production is utterly upside down.
Let me say that in a different way: The problem is entirely in our heads. Our money is based on the idea that it's worth something. We've come to trust that idea to the point where a pack of fat bastards can manipulate numbers - not reality, but numbers - to the point where they get all the benefits of production, and the rest of us swirl around the toilet bowl.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 06, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 06, 2011, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 03:33:25 PM
All these adjustments.
Seems to me that if capitalism were a car, it would be a Fiat.
a Fiat Currency?
OH, THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE LIMIT! :crankey:
Wait.... that wasn't intended?!
:eek:
No.
Ever known someone who owned a Fiat? Not the happiest fuckers in the world, are they?
BUT THEN I GOT OWNED BY A BELGIAN. :madbanana:
So how would you stop this thing where they wrap complicated stock option asset financial constructions in even more complicated things to evade regulations? They just make it complex enough until the risks are obfuscated enough and preferably won't come crashing down before the stockmonkey that invented it gets to retire.
If you don't regulate those things and let supply and demand flow its course, then people are completely free to run the most complex scams as they like, and these are not scams for suckers because they can really wrap them up until nobody (sometimes not even themselves) can fully comprehend the risk any more, in a very similar way that a skilled evil hacker with a 0-day exploit is dangerous to everybody and not just the suckers.
Right?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 04:44:54 PM
BUT THEN I GOT OWNED BY A BELGIAN. :madbanana:
Heeheehee :)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 06, 2011, 11:18:10 AM
how the fuck is the rampant fraud and the not-quite-fraudulent carelessness and the politicians that are bought and owned by wall street to do nothing about it, how is that a monetary problem and not a regulatory one??
Our government has always been as crooked as Ron Jeremy's dick. The problem isn't the crooks. The problem isn't production.
The problem is that our method of counting production is utterly upside down.
Let me say that in a different way: The problem is entirely in our heads. Our money is based on the idea that it's worth something. We've come to trust that idea to the point where a pack of fat bastards can manipulate numbers - not reality, but numbers - to the point where they get all the benefits of production, and the rest of us swirl around the toilet bowl.
^
Yes. This.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 06, 2011, 05:18:45 PM
So how would you stop this thing where they wrap complicated stock option asset financial constructions in even more complicated things to evade regulations? They just make it complex enough until the risks are obfuscated enough and preferably won't come crashing down before the stockmonkey that invented it gets to retire.
If you don't regulate those things and let supply and demand flow its course, then people are completely free to run the most complex scams as they like, and these are not scams for suckers because they can really wrap them up until nobody (sometimes not even themselves) can fully comprehend the risk any more, in a very similar way that a skilled evil hacker with a 0-day exploit is dangerous to everybody and not just the suckers.
Right?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 06, 2011, 04:44:54 PM
BUT THEN I GOT OWNED BY A BELGIAN. :madbanana:
Heeheehee :)
Well, the truly libertarian option would be for the government to stop printing money entirely...
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
you're a credit to you're university.
I just wanted to point out the above.
Because I'm a complete penis.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on September 06, 2010, 08:00:48 PM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz:
In retrospect, this was the best and only necessary response to the OP.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2011, 08:37:08 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
you're a credit to you're university.
I just wanted to point out the above.
Because I'm a complete penis.
:lulz: Made me giggle like a maniac.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
as an expansion on this, I think the net should be there, and would gladly accept it with certain modifications:
drug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab.
Oh, I love this...How did I miss it?
Leaving aside the obvious implication that poor people are suspected drug users by default, let's just add $600/month/person to the UA/welfare tab. That'll fix everything.
But of course, you get to rub poor peoples' noses in the dirt, which is the point of the entire exercise.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 27, 2012, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
as an expansion on this, I think the net should be there, and would gladly accept it with certain modifications:
drug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab.
Oh, I love this...How did I miss it?
Leaving aside the obvious implication that poor people are suspected drug users by default, let's just add $600/month/person to the UA/welfare tab. That'll fix everything.
But of course, you get to rub poor peoples' noses in the dirt, which is the point of the entire exercise.
in your mind it was.
my own experience might have been different had my parents been forced to choose between feeding their children with state assistance or maintaining their cocaine addiction.
and if my uncle had been born with a vagina he'd have been my aunt. i'm aware i'm seeing this through a damaged childhood with cloudy hindsight.
and it's not like they didn't think ahead. i have clear memories of peeing in a cup for my father to help him pass a drug test.
i think our pm convo could be inserted here somehow to offset how inhuman you're intent on painting me, which i do care about, but not enough to change the opinions of people who've clearly made up their mind about me and won't consider the origins of these positions, or that I've changed some of them, in part because of this board.
i'm just a self hating poor person in your mind.
oh, did i give you the impression i was well off? i'm not. i live modestly, have cultivated a barrette in something i love that pays me modestly, save as much as i can and, with some hope and education, ensure my soon does not start at the bottom, as i did.
i don't expect to pull completely out of poverty in my generation, but ill do the work to help make sure my parents mistakes are not repeated. it's no guarantee, but then there are no guarantees ever.
please forgive any misspellings. im using phone pd.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 27, 2012, 11:38:48 PM
my own experience might have been different had my parents been forced to choose between feeding their children with state assistance or maintaining their cocaine addiction.
Interesting. I was unaware that you could use a DES card for drug transactions. Could you shoot me a link to this being possible anywhere?
Quote
i think our pm convo could be inserted here somehow to offset how inhuman you're intent on painting me, which i do care about, but not enough to change the opinions of people who've clearly made up their mind about me and won't consider the origins of these positions, or that I've changed some of them, in part because of this board.
I haven't seen any change.
Quotei'm just a self hating poor person in your mind.
No, you're a libertarian fuckwad in my mind, at least at the moment. It all goes back to those "if parents can't work 2 jobs each and still homeschool their kids, then the kids deserve everything they get", but I'm sure you already know that. It has caused me to be unable to view you as a functioning human being, again, at least as things stand.
Quoteoh, did i give you the impression i was well off? i'm not. i live modestly, have cultivated a barrette in something i love that pays me modestly, save as much as i can and, with some hope and education, ensure my soon does not start at the bottom, as i did.
Not sure why I should care about this. It was the statement made, not your own circumstances. In fact, it would be more understandable (but not more excusable, mind you) if you WERE rich.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 27, 2012, 11:38:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 27, 2012, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
as an expansion on this, I think the net should be there, and would gladly accept it with certain modifications:
drug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab.
Oh, I love this...How did I miss it?
Leaving aside the obvious implication that poor people are suspected drug users by default, let's just add $600/month/person to the UA/welfare tab. That'll fix everything.
But of course, you get to rub poor peoples' noses in the dirt, which is the point of the entire exercise.
in your mind it was.
my own experience might have been different had my parents been forced to choose between feeding their children with state assistance or maintaining their cocaine addiction.
and if my uncle had been born with a vagina he'd have been my aunt. i'm aware i'm seeing this through a damaged childhood with cloudy hindsight.
and it's not like they didn't think ahead. i have clear memories of peeing in a cup for my father to help him pass a drug test.
i think our pm convo could be inserted here somehow to offset how inhuman you're intent on painting me, which i do care about, but not enough to change the opinions of people who've clearly made up their mind about me and won't consider the origins of these positions, or that I've changed some of them, in part because of this board.
i'm just a self hating poor person in your mind.
oh, did i give you the impression i was well off? i'm not. i live modestly, have cultivated a barrette in something i love that pays me modestly, save as much as i can and, with some hope and education, ensure my soon does not start at the bottom, as i did.
i don't expect to pull completely out of poverty in my generation, but ill do the work to help make sure my parents mistakes are not repeated. it's no guarantee, but then there are no guarantees ever.
please forgive any misspellings. im using phone pd.
Hey.
You can't just march in here and feel picked on after a year. It's
my turn to feel picked on this week, buddy, so you just check that shit at the door.
As for your positions, knowing what little I do of them and knowing none of your reasoning behind them, I can only say that the potential benefits of subjecting an entire class of people to state intrusion and scrutiny are far, far outnumbered by the
known drawbacks.
Whatever your personal experiences are and whatever anger and resentment you hold toward your parents for failing you, yours is but one case among literally tens of millions - the vast majority of which are nothing like yours. Your shitty experience, however improved it may have been by the authoritarian hand of an overbearing state, doesn't justify condemning those tens of millions of people to a life bereft of dignity and privacy, things which ought to be rights and are only ever denied as
punishment. It is not a crime to be poor, and being poor deserves no punishment - much less the indignity of government surveillance.
Quote from: v3x on August 27, 2012, 11:50:19 PM
Hey.
You can't just march in here and feel picked on after a year. It's my turn to feel picked on this week, buddy, so you just check that shit at the door.
As for your positions, knowing what little I do of them and knowing none of your reasoning behind them, I can only say that the potential benefits of subjecting an entire class of people to state intrusion and scrutiny are far, far outnumbered by the known drawbacks.
Whatever your personal experiences are and whatever anger and resentment you hold toward your parents for failing you, yours is but one case among literally tens of millions - the vast majority of which are nothing like yours. Your shitty experience, however improved it may have been by the authoritarian hand of an overbearing state, doesn't justify condemning those tens of millions of people to a life bereft of dignity and privacy, things which ought to be rights and are only ever denied as punishment. It is not a crime to be poor, and being poor deserves no punishment - much less the indignity of government surveillance.
But how's he supposed to feel good about crawling out of squalor if he can't shit back into it on the people who didn't manage?
Seriously. This is about Disco's revenge, and I think it's kind of shitty of you to bring up things like basic human decency.
i didn't say home school. where the fuck did I say home school? i said teach your children not to repeat your mistakes.
something, btw, that is the only fucking reason we were able to stay up right and not have to run back to the trees.
but you know, keep writing that what i said was not what i said. eventually itll be true because you'll be the only one in the conversation.
and i said drug test, not what the drug test was for, or that hurrr you could by duuurugs with a wellfare card. in the 80s.
jesus christ the stupidest thing I've done this week is even reply to this and thereby legitimize it as a thought out response.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 27, 2012, 11:58:29 PM
i didn't say home school. where the fuck did I say home school? i said teach your children not to repeat your mistakes.
Actually, no you didn't.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 27, 2012, 11:58:29 PMsomething, btw, that is the only fucking reason we were able to stay up right and not have to run back to the trees.
but you know, keep writing that what i said was not what i said. eventually itll be true because you'll be the only one in the conversation.
and i said drug test, not what the drug test was for, or that hurrr you could by duuurugs with a wellfare card. in the 80s.
jesus christ the stupidest thing I've done this week is even reply to this and thereby legitimize it as a thought out response.
Whatever, Spanky. You just go back to shitting on the poor. You've earned it, right?
No, Dickhead Pissweed, you didn't say homeschool. But you did not in any way reference teaching your kids about your mistakes so they wouldn't make them again, in context it was clear to mean parents who don't make time to help their children academically, their children deserve everything they get.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 28, 2012, 12:12:12 AM
No, Dickhead Pissweed, you didn't say homeschool. But you did not in any way reference teaching your kids about your mistakes so they wouldn't make them again, in context it was clear to mean parents who don't make time to help their children academically, their children deserve everything they get.
Half a dozen of one, six of the other.
Biggest thing is, he blames the son for the sins of the father...IE, the kids deserve everything they get, because of the actions of the parents.
Short version: Shit back on the poor, to show that you've made it.
Quote from: v3x on August 27, 2012, 11:50:19 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 27, 2012, 11:38:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 27, 2012, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 06, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 06, 2010, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 08:05:52 PM
They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail. as they should. Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.
And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?
as an expansion on this, I think the net should be there, and would gladly accept it with certain modifications:
drug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab.
Oh, I love this...How did I miss it?
Leaving aside the obvious implication that poor people are suspected drug users by default, let's just add $600/month/person to the UA/welfare tab. That'll fix everything.
But of course, you get to rub poor peoples' noses in the dirt, which is the point of the entire exercise.
in your mind it was.
my own experience might have been different had my parents been forced to choose between feeding their children with state assistance or maintaining their cocaine addiction.
and if my uncle had been born with a vagina he'd have been my aunt. i'm aware i'm seeing this through a damaged childhood with cloudy hindsight.
and it's not like they didn't think ahead. i have clear memories of peeing in a cup for my father to help him pass a drug test.
i think our pm convo could be inserted here somehow to offset how inhuman you're intent on painting me, which i do care about, but not enough to change the opinions of people who've clearly made up their mind about me and won't consider the origins of these positions, or that I've changed some of them, in part because of this board.
i'm just a self hating poor person in your mind.
oh, did i give you the impression i was well off? i'm not. i live modestly, have cultivated a barrette in something i love that pays me modestly, save as much as i can and, with some hope and education, ensure my soon does not start at the bottom, as i did.
i don't expect to pull completely out of poverty in my generation, but ill do the work to help make sure my parents mistakes are not repeated. it's no guarantee, but then there are no guarantees ever.
please forgive any misspellings. im using phone pd.
Hey.
You can't just march in here and feel picked on after a year. It's my turn to feel picked on this week, buddy, so you just check that shit at the door.
As for your positions, knowing what little I do of them and knowing none of your reasoning behind them, I can only say that the potential benefits of subjecting an entire class of people to state intrusion and scrutiny are far, far outnumbered by the known drawbacks.
Whatever your personal experiences are and whatever anger and resentment you hold toward your parents for failing you, yours is but one case among literally tens of millions - the vast majority of which are nothing like yours. Your shitty experience, however improved it may have been by the authoritarian hand of an overbearing state, doesn't justify condemning those tens of millions of people to a life bereft of dignity and privacy, things which ought to be rights and are only ever denied as punishment. It is not a crime to be poor, and being poor deserves no punishment - much less the indignity of government surveillance.
I have to back off of this position considering the privacy angle, something I consider sacrosanct and abused by the state on far too many levels.
You're correct and my belief that drug testing anyone at the behest of the state conflicts with my principals. I reject it out of hand. It's dissonant on a fucked up level. I was wrong.
How can we address institutionalized poverty that results from state assistance without invading personal privacy? Is it possible?
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 28, 2012, 12:12:12 AM
No, Dickhead Pissweed, you didn't say homeschool. But you did not in any way reference teaching your kids about your mistakes so they wouldn't make them again, in context it was clear to mean parents who don't make time to help their children academically, their children deserve everything they get.
Hey, go fuck yourself. Here's what I said, and you should probably get in the habit of actually quoting people before you lie about what they said. It'll make you look even funnier.
QuoteYou know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
And I still wholeheartedly believe that. It's one of the only things that's kept the species from getting eaten by predators, only now the only natural predator we have outside of camping in the wilderness is other humans. Teaching your children about what NOT to do should your biggest contribution to their lives.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
Hey, go fuck yourself. Here's what I said, and you should probably get in the habit of actually quoting people before you lie about what they said. It'll make you look even funnier.
QuoteYou know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
And I still wholeheartedly believe that.
This is why you aren't actually a human being. You're more of a thin smear of shit with an Iphone.
See, most guys, I'd assume they were arguing from butthurt at this point.
But I don't think that's what you're doing. I think you really believe this garbage that the children deserve what they get.
You're a sad example of a primate.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 28, 2012, 12:43:43 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
Hey, go fuck yourself. Here's what I said, and you should probably get in the habit of actually quoting people before you lie about what they said. It'll make you look even funnier.
QuoteYou know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
And I still wholeheartedly believe that.
This is why you aren't actually a human being. You're more of a thin smear of shit with an Iphone.
lol iphone. i can't afford an iPhone. im using a 4 year old samsung phone I bought second hand, driving a 21 year old vehicle, (which I love, btw. 91 wrangler, straight 6, you'd probably like it despite despising me) and i'm too busy saving money so that my child doesn't have to start at the bottom.
and by your view, that's just too much to ask people to do. and inhuman to boot. they're so fragile, humans.
[EDIT]edit for math fail. 12 is 21 backwards.
I have no excuse.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 01:00:54 AM
lol iphone. i can't afford an iPhone. im using a 4 year old samsung phone I bought second hand, driving a 12 year old vehicle, (which I love, btw. 91 wrangler, straight 6, you'd probably like it despite despising me)
I don't care.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 01:00:54 AMand i'm too busy saving money so that my child doesn't have to start at the bottom.
You're taking a few things for granted, here...
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 01:00:54 AM
and by your view, that's just too much to ask people to do. and inhuman to boot. they're so fragile, humans.
How would you know?
of course you don't care. it doesn't fit your narrative.
i do take a few things for granted. i do it often. i likely don't do it any more than anyone else in this country, over any given timeframe. i welcome being reminded of when i do. it's grounding and reminds me from where i came when i loose sight of it.
and i wouldn't know any more about what you truly believe based on a few short sentences than you would about mine, but i thought that was the name of the game we were playing.
i know nothing substansive about your beliefs or thoughts, because i don't know you outside of the things you write here. it was wrong of me to say otherwise.
[edit] sorry for the capitalization as well. difficult to type on this thing.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 01:27:05 AM
of course you don't care. it doesn't fit your narrative.
Look, it doesn't do much good to say shit like that. It's like being insulted by the toaster. I'm just not
feeling it.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
QuoteYou know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
And I still wholeheartedly believe that. It's one of the only things that's kept the species from getting eaten by predators, only now the only natural predator we have outside of camping in the wilderness is other humans. Teaching your children about what NOT to do should your biggest contribution to their lives.
If a parent fails in their duties as a parent, the children deserve what's coming to them.I'm trying to understand how this could make any sense without you looking like a monster. I'll try to paraphrase it another way:
If a parent neglects their children, the children deserve whatever happens to them.Hmm...it still sounds sociopathic, morally repugnant, and just downright inhuman. I'll try again:
If a parent doesn't teach their children important lessons, the children deserve everything that happens to them as a result of the parent's failure.Yeah, that's a horrendous sentiment, no matter how you slice it. Perhaps you could clarify some of the specific kinds of misfortune children deserve if their parents fail to teach their kids properly?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
How can we address institutionalized poverty that results from state assistance without invading personal privacy? Is it possible?
Yeah. This is... well, I guess the best way to say it is, "coming from an erroneous position."
In a capitalist society, poverty will always exist. There will never be a 0% unemployment rate, and the way the system is structured will always ensure that there will be inequality.
Various social systems have been put in place to try to alleviate this misery, and to ensure some kind of dignity that the free market doesn't have time for. What's interesting is that some people have put the cart before the horse, and instead of seeing state assistance as a corrective to the system's amorality, they see it as it's cause.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 28, 2012, 01:28:36 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
How can we address institutionalized poverty that results from state assistance without invading personal privacy? Is it possible?
Yeah. This is... well, I guess the best way to say it is, "coming from an erroneous position."
In a capitalist society, poverty will always exist. There will never be a 0% unemployment rate, and the way the system is structured will always ensure that there will be inequality.
Various social systems have been put in place to try to alleviate this misery, and to ensure some kind of dignity that the free market doesn't have time for. What's interesting is that some people have put the cart before the horse, and instead of seeing state assistance as a corrective to the system's amorality, they see it as it's cause.
Post of the year.
Quote from: Net on August 28, 2012, 02:05:10 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
QuoteYou know what, if you're too tired to teach your children how to do things better than you did?
FUCK YOU
Your family and your children will get everything that's coming to them.
And I still wholeheartedly believe that. It's one of the only things that's kept the species from getting eaten by predators, only now the only natural predator we have outside of camping in the wilderness is other humans. Teaching your children about what NOT to do should your biggest contribution to their lives.
If a parent fails in their duties as a parent, the children deserve what's coming to them.
I'm trying to understand how this could make any sense without you looking like a monster. I'll try to paraphrase it another way:
If a parent neglects their children, the children deserve whatever happens to them.
Hmm...it still sounds sociopathic, morally repugnant, and just downright inhuman. I'll try again:
If a parent doesn't teach their children important lessons, the children deserve everything that happens to them as a result of the parent's failure.
Yeah, that's a horrendous sentiment, no matter how you slice it. Perhaps you could clarify some of the specific kinds of misfortune children deserve if their parents fail to teach their kids properly?
Yep, there's pretty much nothing redeemable there.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 28, 2012, 01:28:36 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
How can we address institutionalized poverty that results from state assistance without invading personal privacy? Is it possible?
Yeah. This is... well, I guess the best way to say it is, "coming from an erroneous position."
In a capitalist society, poverty will always exist. There will never be a 0% unemployment rate, and the way the system is structured will always ensure that there will be inequality.
Various social systems have been put in place to try to alleviate this misery, and to ensure some kind of dignity that the free market doesn't have time for. What's interesting is that some people have put the cart before the horse, and instead of seeing state assistance as a corrective to the system's amorality, they see it as it's cause.
Yep.
It's probably easier and more comforting than recognizing the failures of a capitalist economy.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 28, 2012, 01:28:36 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 28, 2012, 12:40:59 AM
How can we address institutionalized poverty that results from state assistance without invading personal privacy? Is it possible?
Yeah. This is... well, I guess the best way to say it is, "coming from an erroneous position."
In a capitalist society, poverty will always exist. There will never be a 0% unemployment rate, and the way the system is structured will always ensure that there will be inequality.
Various social systems have been put in place to try to alleviate this misery, and to ensure some kind of dignity that the free market doesn't have time for. What's interesting is that some people have put the cart before the horse, and instead of seeing state assistance as a corrective to the system's amorality, they see it as it's cause.
Fucking Brilliant!
Every so often, the neurons and synapses combine.
However, I will admit that economics is not my forte, and the above is most likely highly generalized.
If children are to be born into the ultracapitalist environment at a distinct disadvantage to others then I implore you not to go half way.
These children should be entitled to the american dream and the only way to do so is without any socialist interference such as laws or regulation.
Disadvantaged children should be entitled to rite of conquest. If the universe gets to fuck you at the start then its your right to kill whomever you wish to rise to the top.
BLOODSPORT PRESCHOOL.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 28, 2012, 04:33:43 PM
BLOODSPORT PRESCHOOL.
You know, it's only a matter of time.
(http://tansyrr.com/tansywp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/hunger-games.jpg)
Vote for your favorite district!
"Watch 23 children get brutally murdered" was my preferred tagline, but sadly was considered a "bad PR move".
Quote from: Cain on August 28, 2012, 04:48:34 PM
"Watch 23 children get brutally murdered" was my preferred tagline, but sadly was considered a "bad PR move".
It's paving the way for a Bright New Tomorrow!
I saw a link the other day about a daycare that got shut down for making the kids fight. :x