First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Answer to American Economic Crisis
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/2/10

DomFortress wrote:

What do you think? When I've already provided you my evidences in the form of hyper-links. While it's not my responsibility to do your thinking for you, otherwise you should just listen and do what you were told from authority, that includes the corporate executives as well as the government. Because you don't even know just what exactly is your own personal responsibility, under your social contract towards the human society. While you're just all too eager to surrender your own power to think, reason, organize, and rationalize for yourself.

Furthermore, what I've demonstrated here is perhaps the very problem that's been plaguing the American economics; its bureaucratic institution based on both Republican and corporation policies, had become both too big and costly for it to failed. When it did exactly just that, because of how powerful it became without any form of social contract towards the good of humanity.


Your topic was all about how people are addicted to material possessions and making money. Instead of doing things like helping the community I guess. And how its degraded society.

So your probably talking about how the opportunity to make lots of money has motivated people to care about making money more than to say help out the community.

But you misunderstand something, simply because you are human you are not obligated by any social contract to do anything for anyone or your community. You don't have to help anyone out if you don't want to. You can if you see fit to pursue personal gain all you want. That's how it works at the moment. Don't like it all you want, but its here to stay.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/2/10

Allhailodin wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

Even after the Revolution, the French were still drowning in debt, even if those were the left over of the Sun King. France owed money as a state, not individually, and no amount of Republicanism and Revolution can changed that. Hell, if anything, their crazy schemes (Cult of Reason, Republican Calender, Guillotine, &c.) brought them even further into debt. Then Napoleon came and conquered/looted most of Europe.

Thus, if we applied that lesson, and went around looting Museums and Mansions, we would all be as rich as Croesus.


Or a second idea, we could stop electing stupid irresponsible people into office and elect smart responsible people instead ?


One man's sense is another's tomfoolery- no matter who we elect, they will always be irresponsible cretins. In addition, there is no certainly of success with politics and reform, but there is a guarantee that if we emerge victorious, we would receive the spoils of war.
Posted 7/2/10
Wouldn't that cause like...a war?
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/2/10 , edited 7/3/10
Yes, it would cause a war. Play dumb dose not suit your to bright for that. This were peace before war, would be a good answer.
Posted 7/2/10

Allhailodin wrote:



Your topic was all about how people are addicted to material possessions and making money. Instead of doing things like helping the community I guess. And how its degraded society.

So your probably talking about how the opportunity to make lots of money has motivated people to care about making money more than to say help out the community.

But you misunderstand something, simply because you are human you are not obligated by any social contract to do anything for anyone or your community. You don't have to help anyone out if you don't want to. You can if you see fit to pursue personal gain all you want. That's how it works at the moment. Don't like it all you want, but its here to stay.
Stupid, when it's you who's still getting the nature of humanity all wrong. Because according to your logic, there's no reason why your next-door neighbor shouldn't break into your house and raid all your valuables just because he can. And nobody is obligated to help you, not even the laws.

Furthermore, for the exact same reason, you're under no obligation to protect yourself. So tell me, is this the reality of what it is within your own community? When you're only living off the good grace of social contract from your own community, so you can prove me wrong simply by you start raiding and plundering your own community. And then we'll see if your theory is indeed correct or not.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/3/10
Attn this a sarcastic comment I do not want or believe the crap i am putting. you should not either or you are a nut job -------------------------------------- Well now, we need resources money to grow. It would be far easier to wipe out place in Africa were there killing off each other for pennies. We could nail the area we want run everyone out and make it a Provence of the USA. Plenty of untapped resources hell we take most of it within weeks just a whole lot of bomb designed to shred land. Populations zero no body to fight. Not much fighting and few American lives lost.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/4/10

Allhailodin wrote:
Could also reduce spending in other areas.


True, but many states including mine have already cut a ton of money from education programs in order to fund other things, which has led to the current situation of teachers getting laid off everywhere.



Well first off, most small business owners that I know of pay their employees more than min wage.

Second the businesses profits don't have to benefit anyone. Its the owners money to do what he wants with. He can donate it or hoard it, its his money. He can't tell you want to do with your money, and you can't tell him what to do with his money.


So how does that help the economy more than if we gave it to the government or some corporation?



It doesn't all go to military contractors, its not 663 billion of profits for military contractors, a lot of it gets spent on stuff leik missiles, and tanks and attack helicopters any stuff, only a small % of that 663 billion is profit for the contractors. The rest of it goes to stuff like development of new weapons and tanks and guns and missiles and stuff. Some of it is profit yes, otherwise why the hell would the contractor do it, but not all of it.


True, but the majority of it goes to defense contractors, which includes all of the companies that make weapons and vehicles, conduct weapon research, etc. The majority of those are private companies, so it's essentially no different than if the government was handing our tax money to Wal Mart. Based on the article I posted earlier about the U.S military budget, roughly $316 billion is being spent on things that defense contractors produce, which is about 47% of the budget. That is not a very small percentage.

I've been using the term "military contractor" this whole time thinking it was interchangeable with "defense contractor," even though it isn't. So any time I said military contractor (which provides mercenaries) I meant to say defense contractor, which is a more broad term that includes companies who provide mercenaries, weapons, vehicles, construction, etc.




Deregulation of smaller businesses lol, I keep saying this, but it keeps getting ignored.

I keep ignoring it because you can't name any specific regulations that you consider to be unnecessarily draining profits, so I can't address them. Although I do know of a small business owner who wouldn't mind having his taxes raised in order to fund certain programs and reduce the national deficit. So this is another example of where opinions differ too much in order to make an accurate decision. Too much regulation for one person may be too little regulation to another.


Isn't the government supposed to break them up or something ? I thought that they were ?


If they were a responsible government and actually did what their citizens elected them to do then they should have done it. But they can't do it now because:

1. Banks are too powerful and control too many politicians.
2. If anyone even tried to break them up then conservatives would call them socialist/communist (and they would actually be telling the truth since government interference in business is a form of socialism) and blame it all on Obama whether or not he was involved with it. 3. It is a form of regulation, and there are too many wealthy people who are ideologically opposed to any and all regulations no matter what.


Some democrats have been pushing for their 'social justice' bs for a long time. I don't want nothing leik that getting sneaked into the bill(leik how private sector student loans banishment was sneaked into the health care bill).


Social justice is not directly related to socialism, unless you consider things like civil rights and equal treatment in the eyes of the law, things that Democrats have fought for in the past and are still fighting for today, to be socialist.

I don't get why anything about student loans would be part of the health care bill. Although I find it interesting how that bill went from being moderately socialist to being extremely conservative in an attempt to appease Republicans, and they still didn't vote for it.


Small business owners are being put out of business because of new regulations and restrictions, they are clearly over regulated, if regulations are putting you out of business / costing you a fortune, there are too many.


Are you sure they're being put out of business because of taxes and not because they fail at selling their product? If regulations were that tight then there wouldn't be any small businesses, because they would all fail before they started.


And there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. No matter where you go, people all want to make money. Its the same everywhere, its pretty human.


There isn't anything wrong with making money, but their is something wrong with hurting people (physically or financially) in order to make money, which is what banks and corporations are doing.

Although it's not true that all people want to make money, there are people who choose to live an ascetic lifestyle. I've heard from multiple people that there have been studies conducted which show that indigenous peoples live happier and healthier lives, and all they do for a living is hunting, gathering, and subsistence farming. I've only heard of those studies through word-of-mouth, so I don't know if they are true or how accurate they are, but I can see how people would be happier if they aren't always concerned with making more money.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't that cause like...a war?


Yes, that is essentially the point-

while many people assume that War is a bad thing, there are visionaries who see the benefits of martial affairs.

1-Economically- When America entered the Second World War, we were in a recession, over 10% of the population were out of work, and, in general, life sucked. But the government had then conscripted all males between the ages of 18-30 or so, thus employing them. Likewise, for war, we needed the tools and the instruments of war, and so those closed factories were up and running again, producing weapons to sell to Uncle Sam, making money, then paying their workers (formerly housewives) , who, as most housewives, seeing that eggs are half priced, begin to shop, regenerating the economy and pulling us out of the recession.

2- Ecologically- less people= less competition for resources and less pollution.

3- Looting, as I mentioned above.
Posted 7/5/10

orangeflute wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't that cause like...a war?


Yes, that is essentially the point-

while many people assume that War is a bad thing, there are visionaries who see the benefits of martial affairs.

1-Economically- When America entered the Second World War, we were in a recession, over 10% of the population were out of work, and, in general, life sucked. But the government had then conscripted all males between the ages of 18-30 or so, thus employing them. Likewise, for war, we needed the tools and the instruments of war, and so those closed factories were up and running again, producing weapons to sell to Uncle Sam, making money, then paying their workers (formerly housewives) , who, as most housewives, seeing that eggs are half priced, begin to shop, regenerating the economy and pulling us out of the recession.

2- Ecologically- less people= less competition for resources and less pollution.

3- Looting, as I mentioned above.


Wouldn't a lot of people be killed over something so pointless? The US needs to clean up their own mess, not take it from another country.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/10

LosingOrbit wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't that cause like...a war?


Yes, that is essentially the point-

while many people assume that War is a bad thing, there are visionaries who see the benefits of martial affairs.

1-Economically- When America entered the Second World War, we were in a recession, over 10% of the population were out of work, and, in general, life sucked. But the government had then conscripted all males between the ages of 18-30 or so, thus employing them. Likewise, for war, we needed the tools and the instruments of war, and so those closed factories were up and running again, producing weapons to sell to Uncle Sam, making money, then paying their workers (formerly housewives) , who, as most housewives, seeing that eggs are half priced, begin to shop, regenerating the economy and pulling us out of the recession.

2- Ecologically- less people= less competition for resources and less pollution.

3- Looting, as I mentioned above.


Wouldn't a lot of people be killed over something so pointless? The US needs to clean up their own mess, not take it from another country.


I am a firm believer in Population control via Population reduction.
75434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 7/5/10

orangeflute wrote:



I am a firm believer in Population control via Population reduction.

Fair enough, but only if you volunteer. We do have a population problem, anyone who advocates the sacrifice of humans to solve should be willing to make it self-sacrifice.


10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/5/10

orangeflute wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:


orangeflute wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

Wouldn't that cause like...a war?


Yes, that is essentially the point-

while many people assume that War is a bad thing, there are visionaries who see the benefits of martial affairs.

1-Economically- When America entered the Second World War, we were in a recession, over 10% of the population were out of work, and, in general, life sucked. But the government had then conscripted all males between the ages of 18-30 or so, thus employing them. Likewise, for war, we needed the tools and the instruments of war, and so those closed factories were up and running again, producing weapons to sell to Uncle Sam, making money, then paying their workers (formerly housewives) , who, as most housewives, seeing that eggs are half priced, begin to shop, regenerating the economy and pulling us out of the recession.

2- Ecologically- less people= less competition for resources and less pollution.

3- Looting, as I mentioned above.


Wouldn't a lot of people be killed over something so pointless? The US needs to clean up their own mess, not take it from another country.


I am a firm believer in Population control via Population reduction.


How do you reduce the population without killing 500 million to 3 billion people ?

1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/5/10 , edited 7/5/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


orangeflute wrote:



I am a firm believer in Population control via Population reduction.


Fair enough, but only if you volunteer. We do have a population problem, anyone who advocates the sacrifice of humans to solve should be willing to make it self-sacrifice.




War is already a composite of voluntary self-sacrifice and murdering, combining both freewill and the lack thereof, thus, satisfying both parties. Of course, being the yellow hypocrite that I am, I probably will leave the enlisting to those who are willing.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/6/10 , edited 7/7/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

True, but many states including mine have already cut a ton of money from education programs in order to fund other things, which has led to the current situation of teachers getting laid off everywhere.


Education is the last thing that should be cut, education in this country is bad enough already.


So how does that help the economy more than if we gave it to the government or some corporation?


More monies in the pockets of the people, and it would create much needed jobs in the private sector.


True, but the majority of it goes to defense contractors, which includes all of the companies that make weapons and vehicles, conduct weapon research, etc. The majority of those are private companies, so it's essentially no different than if the government was handing our tax money to Wal Mart. Based on the article I posted earlier about the U.S military budget, roughly $316 billion is being spent on things that defense contractors produce, which is about 47% of the budget. That is not a very small percentage.

I've been using the term "military contractor" this whole time thinking it was interchangeable with "defense contractor," even though it isn't. So any time I said military contractor (which provides mercenaries) I meant to say defense contractor, which is a more broad term that includes companies who provide mercenaries, weapons, vehicles, construction, etc.


Well a lot of that money goes into research and development for new weapons leik particle beams and high power uv nitrogen tea lasers for pre ionization so you can use the particle beam within the atmosphere(otherwise the particles would collide with air molecules and lose energy), or something like missile defense systems(anti ballistic missile missiles, like the Patriot PAC-3 or the Arrow missile) and stuff. So its not necessarily being wasted on unnecessary things. Those things cost money to develop, lots of money. So its not all profit, its mostly going to research and development of new military technology.


I keep ignoring it because you can't name any specific regulations that you consider to be unnecessarily draining profits, so I can't address them. Although I do know of a small business owner who wouldn't mind having his taxes raised in order to fund certain programs and reduce the national deficit. So this is another example of where opinions differ too much in order to make an accurate decision. Too much regulation for one person may be too little regulation to another.


Well I can give you an indirect example of how regulation kills businesses profit.

All the new building regulations that require 'green' materials, very expensive green materials, so consequently the cost of the building materials goes up, and it becomes out of peoples budgets. So less buildings are build and the cost per square foot is much higher so to break even the rent / price is higher. So less people rent / buy because its more expensive and if the contractor don't break even, they lose money.


If they were a responsible government and actually did what their citizens elected them to do then they should have done it. But they can't do it now because:

1. Banks are too powerful and control too many politicians.
2. If anyone even tried to break them up then conservatives would call them socialist/communist (and they would actually be telling the truth since government interference in business is a form of socialism) and blame it all on Obama whether or not he was involved with it. 3. It is a form of regulation, and there are too many wealthy people who are ideologically opposed to any and all regulations no matter what.


Well that just simply sounds biased against conservatives. You can't just group all conservatives as a single entity, there are many types of conservatives, just like their are many types of liberals. That sounds completely biased and ignorant. Not all conservatives would do that. Some would but not all.


Social justice is not directly related to socialism, unless you consider things like civil rights and equal treatment in the eyes of the law, things that Democrats have fought for in the past and are still fighting for today, to be socialist.


Social justice means higher taxes on hard working small business owners, confiscation of personal wealth and property from those hard working small business owners and higher taxes in general, those things are not welcome here. Taxes are already high enough on poor hard working small business owners.

It means confiscation and redistribution of personal wealth and property through taxation and government. That's socialism.


I don't get why anything about student loans would be part of the health care bill. Although I find it interesting how that bill went from being moderately socialist to being extremely conservative in an attempt to appease Republicans, and they still didn't vote for it.


The health care bill itself is socialist, universal health care is a socialist concept. Its not wanted here, but it was forced through against the peoples will anyway. It was nothing close to conservative and it was unconstitutional at the same time.


Are you sure they're being put out of business because of taxes and not because they fail at selling their product? If regulations were that tight then there wouldn't be any small businesses, because they would all fail before they started.


Yes taxes on business owners are at 40- 50% in some states, that's 1 of every 2 dollars you make. That's almost all your profit already. Add that with a high sales tax, and other taxes and that's simply outrageous. Puts people out of business because taxes take so much of their money they can't afford to operate.


There isn't anything wrong with making money, but their is something wrong with hurting people (physically or financially) in order to make money, which is what banks and corporations are doing.


Are you being forced to buy their products(corps) and invest in them(banks && corps) at gunpoint ?


Although it's not true that all people want to make money, there are people who choose to live an ascetic lifestyle. I've heard from multiple people that there have been studies conducted which show that indigenous peoples live happier and healthier lives, and all they do for a living is hunting, gathering, and subsistence farming. I've only heard of those studies through word-of-mouth, so I don't know if they are true or how accurate they are, but I can see how people would be happier if they aren't always concerned with making more money.


Almost everyone wants to make money. As seeing how you cant live without it.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/7/10 , edited 7/7/10

Allhailodin wrote: Well a lot of that money goes into research and development for new weapons leik particle beams and high power uv nitrogen tea lasers for pre ionization so you can use the particle beam within the atmosphere(otherwise the particles would collide with air molecules and lose energy), or something like missile defense systems(anti ballistic missile missiles, like the Patriot PAC-3 or the Arrow missile) and stuff. So its not necessarily being wasted on unnecessary things. Those things cost money to develop, lots of money. So its not all profit, its mostly going to research and development of new military technology.


So the fact that not all of it is going into corporate profits justifies the fact that almost 50% of it is going into their pockets? If that's the case, then it's perfectly reasonable to tax people and businesses 50% of their income because they aren't taxing all of it.


All the new building regulations that require 'green' materials, very expensive green materials, so consequently the cost of the building materials goes up, and it becomes out of peoples budgets. So less buildings are build and the cost per square foot is much higher so to break even the rent / price is higher. So less people rent / buy because its more expensive and if the contractor don't break even, they lose money.


That's the kind of example I've been waiting for. But I'd have to know exactly what those "green" materials are before I can give my opinion. If it's something that prevents pollution and/or saves energy then I think it's reasonable, but if it's something that's being marketed as a "green" material when it doesn't really do anything, then it's an unfair regulation.


Well that just simply sounds biased against conservatives. You can't just group all conservatives as a single entity, there are many types of conservatives, just like their are many types of liberals. That sounds completely biased and ignorant. Not all conservatives would do that. Some would but not all.


Who are the ones calling Obama a communist? Republicans. What ideology do they claim to follow? Conservatism. Of course I know that not all Republicans/conservatives are hindering progress, but the majority of people who are hindering progress are Republicans/conservatives. The conservative principle of deregulation is what caused the banks to become "too big to fail," and they fact that many of them are still pushing for further deregulation of companies that aren't already regulated enough (like BP) is part of what is currently getting us into further trouble. When liberal ideologies start driving our country downhill then I'll bash them too.

I'm biased against anyone who identifies themselves with a single political ideology. Anyone who thinks they can apply the same solution to every problem is unable to think with an open mind. You can't only use a wrench to fix everything and you can't only use a hammer to fix everything, you have to use both in the appropriate situations.


Social justice means higher taxes on hard working small business owners, confiscation of personal wealth and property from those hard working small business owners and higher taxes in general, those things are not welcome here. Taxes are already high enough on poor hard working small business owners.


Social justice overall has nothing to do with taxation. It involves human rights and civil liberties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

People were/are using the concept to justify why health care should be an individual right, but in general it doesn't involve redistribution of wealth. Unless, like I said earlier, you believe that giving women and minorities the right to vote to be socialist. Even if it is, is giving people individual rights a bad thing just because it's a socialist ideal?


The health care bill itself is socialist, universal health care is a socialist concept. Its not wanted here, but it was forced through against the peoples will anyway. It was nothing close to conservative and it was unconstitutional at the same time.


Do you keep up with current events at all? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Provisions

The public option was dropped from the health care bill a long time ago, along with many other "socialist" policies. The main thing it does now is give the handful of drug companies in the U.S a monopoly by outlawing imported medicine, which reduces competition significantly and allows them to charge us however much they want. It will also force everyone to buy health insurance from private companies, and anyone who doesn't will be fined by the IRS, which is an example of the government and corporations working together to screw us over. The only "socialist" part of the bill is that they've expanded Medicaid to cover more people, and insurance companies now have to publicly reveal the administrative and executive expenditure, which is mainly to ensure that they aren't over-charging us just so they can stay on vacation most of the year.

Some good things came from the bill, it even created some jobs, but overall the recent health care reform has just put more money into the pockets of private drug and health insurance companies, which is exactly what Republicans/conservatives want: more money in the pockets of business owners. The fact that you still think it is a socialist and unconstitutional (I don't get how you came to that conclusion) bill is an example of how well the media has deceived you and other Americans. They even gave you the misconception that poor Americans would be heavily taxed if the public option passed, when in reality taxes would have risen significantly only for wealthy people, which is why they started calling Obama a socialist trying to steal everyone's money when the only ones who would have had any significant losses are the rich people who run this country. Even with those losses they still would have been rich and still would have been in control.



Yes taxes on business owners are at 40- 50% in some states, that's 1 of every 2 dollars you make. That's almost all your profit already. Add that with a high sales tax, and other taxes and that's simply outrageous. Puts people out of business because taxes take so much of their money they can't afford to operate.


That is pretty high, but where I live it doesn't seem to be stopping people, I see land being developed and new businesses popping up all the time. So I guess my state isn't one of the ones that heavily taxes businesses, or people here just don't care that taxes are that high. But if most of those taxes are imposed by the state then you can't blame the federal government for that.


Are you being forced to buy their products(corps) and invest in them(banks && corps) at gunpoint ?


No, but both you and I are being forced to pay taxes that go towards bailing out banks when they fail. They are making high-risk bets with the money that people invest into them, and everyone else, including people who don't invest in them, have to pay them every time they lose to make up for their losses so they can keep gambling. So basically yes we are being forced to invest in them because we have to fix their mistakes with our tax money.


Almost everyone wants to make money. As seeing how you cant live without it.


It is very possible to live without it, as I described earlier. It's just that we've become too accustomed to a lifestyle that requires money, so we've been conditioned to think that we can't live without it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.