Actually, it's capitalism that takes people's money away, and hands it over to the owners of the means of production. Like most right-wingers, you have no idea what socialism actually is.
Games all have terrible stories and laughable characters. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. I know someone will come up with a list of games with supposedly good plots, but bear in mind that as a gamer you're biased towards games, and probably haven't read a lot of good stories so don't have a good perspective. I expect replies to this post telling me about all these JRPGs with amazingly 'deep' storylines and characterisation: save your breath.
Thank fuck Microsoft won the battle for the desktop. Apple get a good reputation because they're the underdog, but shit like this makes Gates the much lesser of two evils.
By politics, you actually mean 'economics'. The rich buy all the food, eat way more than they need and waste loads of it, whilst people in the third-world can't afford any.
Is it not because Asian immigrants to the US are usually drawn from a particular demographic, of above-average wealth and education, and don't represent the average Asian?
However, it is in fact how all communisms implemented in the real world have ended up.
Communism has been tried in less than a dozen countries, and Marxism in zero. Capitalism has been tried in thousands of countries throughout history and most of them have caused nothing but misery for the vast majority of the population. In fact, it was the threat of Communism that forced capitalists into improving the living standards of the workers.
The reason is because communism does not take real people in to account. Real people are lazy and greedy.
Ironically, that's also why capitalism doesn't work. Capitalists greedily suck up all the wealth, then lazily sit around watching that capital grow by itself whilst everyone else does the work. It's no wonder that every capitalist country needs vast amounts of regulations, redistribution, welfare, public services, economic stimulus and bailouts. If capitalism worked, none of these things would be necessary.
People say that about the 'free market' too. Apparently every time capitalists screw someone over, it's the fault of government regulating them too much. Or not enough, or something. And I'm not sure that socialism has ever been tried. The people in the Soviet union had very little control over their means of production, which is what socialism is about.
So am I the only one noticing the growing trend to vilify capitalism and individualism in this country? Last I checked self-determination and free market capitalism were some of the founding principles of this country, yet I'm increasingly seeing these traits being blamed for all of society's problems. I find this highly disturbing, along with the disappearance of a major political party interested in smaller, less pervasive government.
The whole point of colonising America is that it was an almost uninhabited continent with vast untapped natural resources, guaranteeing prosperity no matter what economic or political system was used. Capitalism wasn't a founding principle of the US, I'm not sure it's even mentioned in the constitution, the country was founded because rich American landowners didn't want to be run by rich British landowners, there was little individualism involved for the average American who couldn't vote and owned no means or production, nor for the slaves who actually did all the work.
So am I the only one noticing the growing trend to vilify capitalism and individualism in this country?
I see a lot of vilifying of unrestricted, unregulated capitalism, with good reason. How many banks have to collapse, how many recessions are needed, and how many oil disasters do there have to be before people realise that capitalism is a dangerous tool which has to be very carefully managed?
I find this highly disturbing, along with the disappearance of a major political party interested in smaller, less pervasive government.
People generally go into politics to control other people's lives, so you won't see many mainstream parties offering a less pervasive government. Anyway, that free market you love so much depends heavily on big government to support it. Without the bailouts, subsidies, counter-cyclical stimulus, government employment and so on, capitalism would just be a series of bubbles, crashes and depressions. Very few businesses operate with government help, whether it be monopolies over land and resources, intellectual properties, trade deals, navies protecting shipping routes, investment in new technologies, as well as employing millions of the state sector so more people can afford the products.
There have been a high number of burglaries in this area - two involving a homeowner being shot, one of those a deadly shooting.
Interesting that burglars would come armed when they assume householders are armed and willing to shoot them. Personally I'd rather not get involved in an arms race with criminals.
If you hear a knock at your door and see a guy with a 12-gauge and ski mask on your porch, the cops may be 20 minutes away.
Yes, because that's how burglars operate. It's not like they normally strike when the residents are absent, or asleep...
Everybody daydreams about a Star-trek utopia, where all races without a need for money hold hands and dance around the replicator without a care in the world.
Actually they don't. Most people, especially in the more capitalist countries, dream not just of having stuff, but specifically of having more stuff than everyone else. They won't be happy unless their car's bigger and faster than the neighbour's, when their banker's bonus is bigger than all the other bankers, when their house has more bedrooms and a bigger pool etc. In a Star Trek utopia they'd probably kill themselves, or just run the replicator 24/7 to keep ahead of everyone else.
Why else would people go to Wall Street and work every hour god gives just to increase their already bloated bank accounts with money they're never going to enjoy? Some squirrels want every nut in the woods.
Actually I'd bet their dirty water is compounded into all sorts of horrible chemicals. But then neither of us have any actual proof either way. Considering the nature of corporations, I'd assume the former.
It's called an 'acquired taste'. It's what happens when we get older and grow out of baby food: your tastes change to appreciate stronger and more sophisticated flavours. Some people never grow up and spend their adult lives eating children's foods such as milkshake.
How exactly is a state's natural resources being faired distributed to the people who own it less productive than giving it to a random private individual who lucked into owning the land above it? When constructing your answer, bear in mind that capitalism relies on the consumer spending power of the masses.
I'd also like to know how the Wall Street casino productively distributes wealth. From an outside perspective, they use their connections, their supercomputers wired right into the exchanges, and their market-influencing size to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
Economic history? The last time so much of the wealth was distributed into the hands of so few was 1929.
Considering how much money the Guardian is losing, they don't appear to have made the transition very successfully. It seems that the economic illiteracy famous in the columns in manifesting itself in the actual running of the business.
A day-long limit on trades basically just forces EVERYONE to lose. There's no upside to it. In contrast second-to-second trading lets some people to escape early and limit their losses.
You mean, it allows them to pass on their losses to someone else. That comment doesn't do much to refute the claim that most trading is merely zero-sum gambling.
Wouldn't it be more economical to simply directly use the energy that otherwise would have been used to raise the cattle in the first place, i.e. growing, harvesting and transporting the feed?
Slashdot Mirror
At any time I'll have half a dozen pages open and will switch between after after reading just a few lines. I have no attention span whatsoever.
No they haven't. They were perfectly free not to buy an electronic gizmo they had no need or use for before it was announced.
Actually, it's capitalism that takes people's money away, and hands it over to the owners of the means of production. Like most right-wingers, you have no idea what socialism actually is.
Games all have terrible stories and laughable characters. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. I know someone will come up with a list of games with supposedly good plots, but bear in mind that as a gamer you're biased towards games, and probably haven't read a lot of good stories so don't have a good perspective. I expect replies to this post telling me about all these JRPGs with amazingly 'deep' storylines and characterisation: save your breath.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
They wouldn't spend less though, they'd drive more to make up the difference.
Improve efficiency and people will just drive more.
Thank fuck Microsoft won the battle for the desktop. Apple get a good reputation because they're the underdog, but shit like this makes Gates the much lesser of two evils.
By politics, you actually mean 'economics'. The rich buy all the food, eat way more than they need and waste loads of it, whilst people in the third-world can't afford any.
Is it not because Asian immigrants to the US are usually drawn from a particular demographic, of above-average wealth and education, and don't represent the average Asian?
Communism has been tried in less than a dozen countries, and Marxism in zero. Capitalism has been tried in thousands of countries throughout history and most of them have caused nothing but misery for the vast majority of the population. In fact, it was the threat of Communism that forced capitalists into improving the living standards of the workers.
Ironically, that's also why capitalism doesn't work. Capitalists greedily suck up all the wealth, then lazily sit around watching that capital grow by itself whilst everyone else does the work. It's no wonder that every capitalist country needs vast amounts of regulations, redistribution, welfare, public services, economic stimulus and bailouts. If capitalism worked, none of these things would be necessary.
People say that about the 'free market' too. Apparently every time capitalists screw someone over, it's the fault of government regulating them too much. Or not enough, or something. And I'm not sure that socialism has ever been tried. The people in the Soviet union had very little control over their means of production, which is what socialism is about.
Exploiting third-world workers by allowing them to get better jobs than slaving in the fields, and allowing them to build an economy...
The whole point of colonising America is that it was an almost uninhabited continent with vast untapped natural resources, guaranteeing prosperity no matter what economic or political system was used. Capitalism wasn't a founding principle of the US, I'm not sure it's even mentioned in the constitution, the country was founded because rich American landowners didn't want to be run by rich British landowners, there was little individualism involved for the average American who couldn't vote and owned no means or production, nor for the slaves who actually did all the work.
I see a lot of vilifying of unrestricted, unregulated capitalism, with good reason. How many banks have to collapse, how many recessions are needed, and how many oil disasters do there have to be before people realise that capitalism is a dangerous tool which has to be very carefully managed?
People generally go into politics to control other people's lives, so you won't see many mainstream parties offering a less pervasive government. Anyway, that free market you love so much depends heavily on big government to support it. Without the bailouts, subsidies, counter-cyclical stimulus, government employment and so on, capitalism would just be a series of bubbles, crashes and depressions. Very few businesses operate with government help, whether it be monopolies over land and resources, intellectual properties, trade deals, navies protecting shipping routes, investment in new technologies, as well as employing millions of the state sector so more people can afford the products.
Interesting that burglars would come armed when they assume householders are armed and willing to shoot them. Personally I'd rather not get involved in an arms race with criminals.
Yes, because that's how burglars operate. It's not like they normally strike when the residents are absent, or asleep...
Actually they don't. Most people, especially in the more capitalist countries, dream not just of having stuff, but specifically of having more stuff than everyone else. They won't be happy unless their car's bigger and faster than the neighbour's, when their banker's bonus is bigger than all the other bankers, when their house has more bedrooms and a bigger pool etc. In a Star Trek utopia they'd probably kill themselves, or just run the replicator 24/7 to keep ahead of everyone else.
Why else would people go to Wall Street and work every hour god gives just to increase their already bloated bank accounts with money they're never going to enjoy? Some squirrels want every nut in the woods.
Actually I'd bet their dirty water is compounded into all sorts of horrible chemicals. But then neither of us have any actual proof either way. Considering the nature of corporations, I'd assume the former.
It's called an 'acquired taste'. It's what happens when we get older and grow out of baby food: your tastes change to appreciate stronger and more sophisticated flavours. Some people never grow up and spend their adult lives eating children's foods such as milkshake.
More yes, but with less? Most definitely not. Technological progress and economic growth goes hand in hand with greater use of resources.
How exactly is a state's natural resources being faired distributed to the people who own it less productive than giving it to a random private individual who lucked into owning the land above it? When constructing your answer, bear in mind that capitalism relies on the consumer spending power of the masses.
I'd also like to know how the Wall Street casino productively distributes wealth. From an outside perspective, they use their connections, their supercomputers wired right into the exchanges, and their market-influencing size to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
Economic history? The last time so much of the wealth was distributed into the hands of so few was 1929.
Considering how much money the Guardian is losing, they don't appear to have made the transition very successfully. It seems that the economic illiteracy famous in the columns in manifesting itself in the actual running of the business.
Perhaps they feed themselves by realising there's no money to be made in giving the product away for free?
But containers soak up heat, it'd be like a greenhouse after a day in the sun.
You mean, it allows them to pass on their losses to someone else. That comment doesn't do much to refute the claim that most trading is merely zero-sum gambling.
Wouldn't it be more economical to simply directly use the energy that otherwise would have been used to raise the cattle in the first place, i.e. growing, harvesting and transporting the feed?