I offer my sincerest apologies to all who had to listen to the vulgarity.
Re:You almost made some sense, there!
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
While I would certainly agree that the U.S. is heading toward bankruptcy (so are several nations who are called "successful"), it isn't because of our lack of educated people it is because we have a dipshit president who decided to go to war and cause civil distress throughout the country -- this is bad for the economy. Bush didn't cause the recession, but he did nothing to help it out either.
"Maybe, just maybe, the welfare-systems have developed from the same basis of a well-educated public, that is also fueling the ecomomic responsibility?"
I'm quite certain the welfare-system dates back to Otto von Bismarck. I'm also quite certain it was developed as a national unifier against rising Communism.
"Well, you seem to be making most of your judgements based on stereotypes, stereotypes that are based on hearsay rather than going out in the world and acquire experience. That is not uncommon, but when you fail to appreciate the beauty of our women, that's just too much!:-)"
Nah, but if he was generalizing and saying "scandinavian women are most beautiful" (or however he said it) then it is quite fine for me to say I don't find the stereotypical scandinavian woman attractive.
To be honest, I do find some of them attractive, just like anywhere else...
"That said, I have travelled a lot around the world, and found there are certain traits that are just very beautiful in most people. In Europe, Bulgarian women are very beautiful. In South America, the Inca-Spanish mix high in the Andes has resulted in many astoningshly beautiful women. Also, I suspect that there are really a lot of beautiful women in Iran and Afghanistan, too bad they're covered up like that. I shall admit, however, that I do find those who are not too different from myself most appealing."
I'll easily agree to that, I think there are beautiful women in all groups, no matter how you break them down (ethnic, racial, etc).
Re:You almost made some sense, there!
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
"We finally figured out how to get out of that loop by injecting some wealth redistribution to slow down the accumulation of wealth by the few."
Socialism was in direct response to monarchy.
The Feudal system overruled a much more free society in preMiddle-Age Ireland. It took the Britons hundreds of years for them to conquer such a decentralized nation.
(I can't recall the name of the book, but some economist's book has an entire chapter on it. Search kuro5hin for "midieval ireland libertarian" or something like that.)
Re:Concede a point or two, at least!
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
"The population of Norway has been rising steadily since after WW2. If I recall correctly, it hasn't dipped once. This is partly due to immigration, yes, but Norway also has a fairly high birth rate. (I really can't be bothered to dig up English documentation right now, sorry ppl:)"
Just speaking of Europe in general...
"As for Islamic immigrants raping Scandinavian women... You must have picked up that from some far-right idiot arsehole. That is rubbish (and I wonder what sites you frequent to piuck up crap like that). Immigrants of Islamic faith aren't bigger rapists than non-Islamic immigrants. Or native Norwegians, for that matter..."
It wasn't a site I frequent, which is why I couldn't find it...
"Oh, I forgot to mention: I'm Norwegian."
Hello, Norwegian.
Re:Concede a point or two, at least!
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
"I only spent a month travelling around Scandinavia, - and both women and men are more attractive."
Of course I'll admit that many of the scandinavian people are attractive... I just simply don't think they're anymore attractive any any other "group" of people.
"There is actually already a large number of immigrants working in Scandinavian countries, and despite some friction, they deal with it better than us in the US."
Well, as I said, they kind of need new labor to keep the system afloat.
Though the numbers are still nowhere near immigrants into the U.S. At least I can't imagine the numbers being anywhere near it...
I've also read something along the way about Islamic immigrants raping scandinavian women... I can't seem to find the article. But I don't know if it's a large trend...
"And aren't we going to have major problems in the future with our aging population, even with a less generous Social Security system?"
Yes we are. It is a problem of all government ran social security systems. Not only are you paying for people to retire, you're also paying for the extra bureaucracy... and all the other issues with it.
"They don't create jobs-- they leverage labor to create profit. There is a difference."
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1362 http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1466 http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-019es.h tm l http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4525
I/think/ those were the articles I had in mind that respond to that...
"If they could make the same profit with zero employees, they would do it in a heartbeat."
If you could make a profit without employees, would you still hire employees? Assuming, of course, that the workload wasn't very heavy...
Even small businessmen will fire people if they have to pay out more than they can afford [minimum wage laws cause unemployment by putting small businesses in a position where they cannot necessarily afford to pay others for labor].
"Perhaps they're a little smarter and more productive than we are, but that doesn't mean they deserve 1000 times the income."
If they're not coming by their wealth by coercion, then they do deserve it.
"What could possibly make their effort worth that much more than ours?"
How many nonwealthy people are willing to take the risks?
"I'm an educated, middle-class, white-collar professional. I shouldn't have to scrape by, but that's what I'm doing."
Indeed, you shouldn't. I might suggest a different line of work, a different way of living, a different location, or something.
"Oh yes.. they take on the "risk." What risk? The risk of *not* being super-rich? That must be hard to bear!"
The risk of losing money. Your sarcasm is almost appreciated. Business ventures cost money. Not all entrepreneurs are rich. The wealthy either take the risks, or they decrease the amount of risk [say, an entrepreneur gets investment from several differente places...].
"The simple truth is that the owners dupe hordes of people into believing they're getting a fair wage, when in fact they are donating the better part of the value of their labor to The Man."
The simple truth is, if those employees do not like they're wage, they're free to find employment elsewhere.
Wages do not have to increase significantly well cost of living is reduced. There are more factors involved with income, cost of living, standard of living, etc than just what your boss makes compared to you.
"Haven't you considered the idea that "being the House" is something that"
Being the house? As in a Casino? Interaction in a free market is not a zero-sum game.
[And if you're going to say it is because resources are limited, then you might want to rearrange your thinking on the origin of wealth: the human mind. The human mind along with the creation of new technology means that the creation of wealth is unlimited. No zero-sum game.]
"If you want to know how to beat the house, look at what is happening in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, France, etc. The way to beat the house is to decrease the amount of leverage the powerful (the rich, the business owners, the corporations, etc) have over the populace."
They basically replaced corporations with the state. That's even more dangerous.
"You advocate raw Nature, red of tooth and claw. But why live as an animal?"
Of course not. Nobody here advocates that. You're just being a bit too dramatic, trying to play on people's emotions.
Why do you constantly start new threads? You keep saying the same things, and rarely respond to people who challenge you.
I'm not even just talking about my responses either. It rings just as true with other people's responses to you.
You ignore people, then start a new thread and say the same things.
Some kind of karma whore, I presume?
Re:You almost made some sense, there!
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
" Sorry, I can't let this one go. You are so full of shit it's amazing."
Don't apologize for not letting something go, but if you're going to respond, make sure you understand what the argument is.
I'm not trying to deny that life in Scandinavian countries is good right now. I'm suggesting that it is not sustainable.
Aging population. Low rates of population increase, or even population decrease. More and more expensive welfare state.
Their solutions so far seem to be: 1. Privatize or outsource accounts [even infrastructure]. (Think of how this is even done in the U.S., from state to state.) 2. Increase immigration (increasing work force to pay for an aging population). 3. European tax cartel. The "Savings Tax Directive" is a plan put forth by European Commission members to the United States for the U.S. Lower tax havens attract foreign capital. If Europe can get the U.S. into a position where we seem less appealing to European investors and businessmen, then they can stop the flow of money out of Europe (it seems not all Europeans want their money stuck in their systems).... Here's the article on 3: http://www.ascotadvisory.com/NewsArticleGBBG.html
"Plus the chicks there are totally hot. Not that you would or will ever know."
Actually, I find the stereotypical "Scandinavian" woman unattractive. Blondes aren't my thing, especially 6'2" broad shouldered ones.
"Thankfully, your idiotic way of thinking is fading into history, although not quickly enough, my clueless friend. Good luck with the education."
Actually, my "way of thinking" is on the increase, although apparently not quickly enough.
Re:You almost made some sense, there!
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Now go over to Sweden, Finland, Norway, or Denmark (or study them over the Net), and tell me if you think that also applies to the same degee with those countries..."
What is that suppose to prove? They don't have as much wealth, nor as many wealthy people (on our scale). Over there, everybody is equally unwealthy [except politicos]. And over there, they're slowly going bankrupt as their welfare states are costing more and more, including healthcare and education, while GDP is not keeping pace (surprise, surprise).
"No, it leaves a vacuum of power that only ONE group can fill--the Rich and Powerful. Nice going! (please see Russia for an example)."
Complete misinterpretation of the facts.
Russia HARDLY has limited government. Russia never had limited government. Russia also never had a free market, either. For you to say that is proof of your lack of understanding. The Russian government sold off businesses to friends and old communists -- the Russian government created oligopolies and monopolies. This is not a free market. It is not a failure of "capitalism", but rather of government.
It was the same way in Chile, where the "free market" supposedly failed. Government created oligopoly is not the free market.
"Please read Howard Zinn's _A People's History of the United States!"
I read most of that Marxist nonsense. Zinn basically took the ideals he thought would improve the world, and skewed history to give the perception that his ideals are correct. Fortunately for us, most of the million or so copies of his book that were sold were forced on readers by professors [as one can imagine, most copies were purchased in university book stores or in major Liberal college towns...].
Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You completely neglected to mention the FACT that the wealthy use government to deter competition and maintain their control.
Limited government and free markets undermine that entire system.
(And seriously... if you're going to say that we should use tools to get back at the wealthy, why stop at government? Why not expand into physical coercion with guns, like government seems to?)
Actually, if it is an emergency, by law you cannot be turned down in America.
Millions of Americans are not without health care, there are just alot of Americans without health INSURANCE. If you do not have insurance, and have an emergency, hospitals have to treat you. They have to agree on a payment plan with you, even if it is just two dollars a month for the rest of your life.
Furthermore, the reports stating that "40 million Americans were without health care this year" are misleading twofold.
1. They're not without health care, they're without health insurance. 2. It is not "for the whole year". If I switch medical coverage and am without health care for a couple of days, then I am added to that list. As you might imagine, the number is a whole lot lower than advertised. +1. Forgot to mention, most of the Americans working without health care are YOUNG people who refuse to get health care, simply because they find that they do not need it.
"to afford their citizens a standard of living that most Americans can dream of, such as 30 or more days off a year"
Ever been to Europe? With the exception of Socialized innercities, and backwoods rural areas, the standard of living in America is much higher.
Oh yeah, and the vacation thing. The average number of vacation days per year in America is brought down by part time elderly and young workers who do not need or get vacation time. Stop distorting reality.
"and healthcare paid for by taxes (so that even the poorest person can walk in and get healthcare)"
As said, if you have an emergency, you will be treated. If you think you deserve to get treated at the doctor's office for the slightest of annoyances on my dollar, you're a lowly human being. Such a system immediately leads to abuse. Socialized systems, like your prized welfare states of Europe and Canada, end up resorting to rationing and waiting lists --- waiting lists going into the months.
"These are the real issues that are never addressed on shows such as Crossfire. And does Stewart address these issues on Crossfire? Does he talk about how all Canadians have healthcare, but not all Americans?"
They're always addressed on t.v. and distorted by Liberals. The fact of the matter is, they use bullshit arguments and distort reality to usurp power. Apparently you are incapable or intentionally unwilling of recognizing this.
"Does he talk about how America is run like some kind of captive consumer livestock ranch for the benefit of corporate investors? No."
More intentional distortion. I would rather our "consumer culture" instead of peasant democracy like Europe.
I think I might have responded to a similar message from somebody else...
" Maybe all those people were there in case of an...emergency? I think that if you went to a firestation, you might see all those firemen sitting around wasting time. Watch what happens when the alarm goes off."
Ah, but when a fire occurs, all of those people are put into action. They're paid to fight a fire.
The non dispatchers were clerks, secretaries, phone answerers, or other paper pushers. I was merely saying that there's no need for as many people who don't respond to emergencies and don't do anything in the case of emergencies.
"Maybe the dozen or so matching telephones weren't doing anything either."
Of course, I wouldn't complain about the dispatchers not answering telephones. My brother actually is one of the dispatchers. When they have a boring day, that means that the county has a good day. I would never think to hope for emergency.
"I would hope so. Usually, the only person we have a right to blame for anything is the one in the mirror. In other words, "Please, don't feed the bears."
Of course. Most everything boils down to individuals, and too often, the one at fault is us.
I'm not getting the "please, don't feed the bears." comment though? Probably just missing some obvious connection...
Compare my responses to other people and compare my responses to his. Other slashdotters are making good points all over the spectrum, and I show respect for them. Not him though, he's just spitting bile.
I send it back at him... People of that sort of vile consistency do not deserve to be talked to with respect.
You define me by my [admittingly sometimes] overly caustic responses to him, or you can define me as part of the whole bit of me -- in other words, by how I treat other slashdotters than don't constantly say, "Wealth people are snakes!", "They leach off us!".
The most violent criminals and murderers in history started off like that...
All people have to operate under constraints. All people have to respect the Natural Rights of others.
You apparently call the successful rattlesnakes for feeding off of those less successful. You promote hatred and probably even violence (like your hero, Chomsky) towards those more successful, which makes you a hypocrite, since you're essentially trying to fight that which you claim to resent with the same methods.
Oh, except they're smarter and more productive, and thus they deserve to be where they're at.
(Of course, I think anyone who uses government or physical force to inflict their own will on others is a vile human beings. That being said, I think you're just an unsuccessful old fucking loon who has yet to come close to proving that wealthy people are, on the whole, more wretched than anyone else.
Aside from ignoring the jobs and wealth that your hated enemies -the economic "elite"- create, you also ignore how much they give to charity. None of which your touted "welfare-states" are good for.
No, I'm not filled with hate and rage. The only person who is on the receiving end of my acrimony is you. However, you seem to attack anyone who disagrees with you, and anyone who has more money than you. Do us all a favor and hang yourself.
I have yet to listen or watch a Rush Limbaugh show. Do not call me a 'poor baby' you fugly old cunt. I'm not the one whining all day about the rich and the successful. What a trolling sack of shit you are...
You can't act like a vile old man and then try to play morally superior by switching it around when you're called on it, you insipid old cunt.
You're a fucking whiny-ass old bum who looks like a whacko. It is not the elite that is keeping you down. It is you. You're just a sad excuse for a human being. A hate-filled, jealous, ignorant human being who adds nothing to society.
The response to your pathetic little webpage is coming shortly. In the interim, feel free to hang yourself.
So essentially, you're saying we should all be equal?
I have news for you, Milton. We're not all equal. To paraphrase a once famous economist: "No man is equal to himself on different days."
You're complaining about the elite staying on top by making connections, yet you want to usurp their power (by what method, I'm uncertain, but it is likely to be coercive, which makes you even worse).
It seems you favor an anarcho-socialist society, where everyone is equal in wealth and possession (equally poor, of course).
The reason there cannot be an anarcho-socialist society is because the model requires people not be allowed to engage in free trade, including the acknowledgement of private property.
The famous example: If a man takes a piece of land universally ignored and abandoned by his community, which is traditionally his, and grows apples on it and then turns around and harvests them, cans them, and offers them in exchange for favors from other people in the community, that is capitalism.
People like you, and apparently your hero Chomsky, say he cannot do that. Anarcho-socialists say he cannot do this.
[The real crux being that if an anarcho-socialist society allows trade, its best members will tend to engage in it, and eventually the society will become largely capitalistic, because capitalism simply works better.]
Anarcho-socialists try to say that such a man who plans ahead and maintains responsibility of himself, becomes coercive if he does not share what he produces. The insipid morality of this should be obvious to any reasonable minded individual.Such a man is not coercing, he is not dominating anyone. He has planned ahead.
(You apparently think the man is evil because he planned ahead, or he had someone else who also planned ahead to help him.)
If anarcho-socialists deem it immoral for a man to not give up his apples, or share them, he is no more guilty than any woman on the street.
To wit:
By the anarcho-socialist definition, private property rights must exist, but they do not use that term. A woman does not have to 'put out' because she owns her own body. Anarcho-socialists say she does, but they do not use the term 'private property' despite using virtually the exact same definition and conditions. A woman's ownership over her body is quite analogous to the apple grower. Neither have to give up their property, but they can choose to do so if they want to.
If a man does not own his apples, the fruit of his labor, then a man does not really own his being, including his mind, which is the initial source of resource for those apples.
To further illustrate what I am saying, consider what anarcho-socialists say about what people earn and what people inherit or are giving by birth.
They constantly criticize people who own what they did not manually labor for. The apple grower actually did something proactive to earn them. The woman was just born with her... apples.
By anarcho-socialist logic, the man has to give up his apples and the woman has to give up... hers, as well, if they are going to maintain consistency. That, or they have to accept private property rights and extend them. Of course, if they do that, they accept capitalism's superiority and cease to be anarcho-socialists.
In the end, as demonstrated in nature, those who are faster, win races. Those who are stronger, win strength competitions. Those who are more productive, are higher up in society.
We are not equal by birth, and we are not all equal by productivity or achievement. We only have the opportunity to try to make ourselves ascend in society.
You seem to be angered by this, for fear of competition or due to your own personal failures.
I think you're just a 44 year old, hate-filled tosser, not totally unlike your buddy Chomsky.
You're both political scamsters, only he's not old, chunky, and bumlike. He's a Linguistics Professor. (How do you suppose he got to such a position? By exploiting non Professors, or by ascending on his own merits?)
(The first copy of the above post was written by me here: http://www.haveyoursay.org/about277-0-asc-45.html
It is derived from the work of von Mises, Ayn Rand, and a few lesser known people...)
"These little reminders are all around us--they tell us to OBEY, ACCEPT AUTHORITY, CONFORM, etc."
This is not coercion. You cannot blame owners of businesses and the wealthy for people buying their products.
"This biologist notes that the elite of this animal society work together; they even seek each other out."
So do the non-elites. The non-elites even rise up in the heirarchy when it is their turn, or when they earn it. Or they sleep with the right elite-mate.
"The members of this elite already have power, and they give each other more power through their interactions with each other."
Are those elites forcing the other animals into the group? Would they eat the lower members if the lower members decided to leave? They're not being coerced. They're rallying around those stronger or more productive.
Stop being a whiny old bitch.
"Of course, in this animal society, one way they maintain their rule is being making those at the bottom of the pack antagonist to any who seek to expose this Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites."
Or those sub-members are just jealous failures like you, who want to usurp control of the pack for their own right.
Luckily for you, we're not the same thing as a wolf pack or something... We acknowledge Natural Rights. Well, some of us do. You apparently don't...
You yet again fail to understand upward movement of societies. Free markets undermine class distinction, and you ignore it.
You try to refer to people with more money than you as parasites, or rattlesnakes.
Are you going to take risks by starting a business or putting up one hundred thousand dollars or more on a new business venture? No, you're not. Very few unwealthy people are willing to take those risks. When those risks succeed, the wealthy get wealthier, but other people end up with jobs as well. New wealth is created. Society as a whole moves upwards. Occasionally, someone who does not normally make a whole bunch of money comes up with a great idea, and those with money invest in that idea, and you have upward mobility.
They're not feeding off of you, Milton, you ignored old socialist prick. They're being productive. They're making money, and they're creating wealth. Society, as a whole, is getting more productive, wealthier, and healthier. The only time the wealthy do harm those below them is when they use government to deter competition.
http://cryonics.meetup.com/13/members/?memberId=47 5398 http://www.lostandfrowned.com/miltoncd.gif He probably blames the wealthy for not having his own red Swingline stapler... Since Lumberg is a is just a fictional character and all...
(Did you see his webpage? He's a 44 year old moron... he's nothing in life and he's trying to manipulate a younger audience to make himself feel better...)
http://cryonics.meetup.com/13/members/?memberId=47 5398 http://www.lostandfrowned.com/miltoncd.gif He probably blames the wealthy for not having his own red Swingline stapler... Since Lumberg is a is just a fictional character and all...
Look, Milton, or, Randy, or whatever the hell. http://www.lostandfrowned.com/miltoncd.gif http://cryonics.meetup.com/13/members/?memberId=4 7 5398
You're the one always starting with Personal Attacks. Calling the wealthy evil, or rattlesnakes.
You keep throwing out bullshit arguments to make yourself feel better because you're a 44 year old reject. You are the one who fails to admit your own shortcomings. Go hang yourself you ol' sod, you offer the world nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Feudal systems were just mini monarchies. There was the rich 1% and the serf 99%."
What?
Monarchy, by definition, is about inherited power (or lack of).
Fiefs are not always inherited.
So I suppose a Fiefdom could be a minimonarchy, it is not a guaruntee.
"Unless you inject socialism into it all capitalistic states will end up the same way."
See:
Failure of Democracy vs Failure of Capitalism.
You're right. I let anger get the best of me.
I offer my sincerest apologies to all who had to listen to the vulgarity.
While I would certainly agree that the U.S. is heading toward bankruptcy (so are several nations who are called "successful"), it isn't because of our lack of educated people it is because we have a dipshit president who decided to go to war and cause civil distress throughout the country -- this is bad for the economy. Bush didn't cause the recession, but he did nothing to help it out either.
"Maybe, just maybe, the welfare-systems have developed from the same basis of a well-educated public, that is also fueling the ecomomic responsibility?"
I'm quite certain the welfare-system dates back to Otto von Bismarck. I'm also quite certain it was developed as a national unifier against rising Communism.
"Well, you seem to be making most of your judgements based on stereotypes, stereotypes that are based on hearsay rather than going out in the world and acquire experience. That is not uncommon, but when you fail to appreciate the beauty of our women, that's just too much! :-)"
Nah, but if he was generalizing and saying "scandinavian women are most beautiful" (or however he said it) then it is quite fine for me to say I don't find the stereotypical scandinavian woman attractive.
To be honest, I do find some of them attractive, just like anywhere else...
"That said, I have travelled a lot around the world, and found there are certain traits that are just very beautiful in most people. In Europe, Bulgarian women are very beautiful. In South America, the Inca-Spanish mix high in the Andes has resulted in many astoningshly beautiful women. Also, I suspect that there are really a lot of beautiful women in Iran and Afghanistan, too bad they're covered up like that. I shall admit, however, that I do find those who are not too different from myself most appealing."
I'll easily agree to that, I think there are beautiful women in all groups, no matter how you break them down (ethnic, racial, etc).
"We finally figured out how to get out of that loop by injecting some wealth redistribution to slow down the accumulation of wealth by the few."
Socialism was in direct response to monarchy.
The Feudal system overruled a much more free society in preMiddle-Age Ireland. It took the Britons hundreds of years for them to conquer such a decentralized nation.
(I can't recall the name of the book, but some economist's book has an entire chapter on it. Search kuro5hin for "midieval ireland libertarian" or something like that.)
"The population of Norway has been rising steadily since after WW2. If I recall correctly, it hasn't dipped once. This is partly due to immigration, yes, but Norway also has a fairly high birth rate. (I really can't be bothered to dig up English documentation right now, sorry ppl:)"
... You must have picked up that from some far-right idiot arsehole. That is rubbish (and I wonder what sites you frequent to piuck up crap like that). Immigrants of Islamic faith aren't bigger rapists than non-Islamic immigrants. Or native Norwegians, for that matter ..."
Just speaking of Europe in general...
"As for Islamic immigrants raping Scandinavian women
It wasn't a site I frequent, which is why I couldn't find it...
"Oh, I forgot to mention: I'm Norwegian."
Hello, Norwegian.
"I only spent a month travelling around Scandinavia, - and both women and men are more attractive."
Of course I'll admit that many of the scandinavian people are attractive... I just simply don't think they're anymore attractive any any other "group" of people.
"There is actually already a large number of immigrants working in Scandinavian countries, and despite some friction, they deal with it better than us in the US."
Well, as I said, they kind of need new labor to keep the system afloat.
Though the numbers are still nowhere near immigrants into the U.S. At least I can't imagine the numbers being anywhere near it...
I've also read something along the way about Islamic immigrants raping scandinavian women... I can't seem to find the article. But I don't know if it's a large trend...
"And aren't we going to have major problems in the future with our aging population, even with a less generous Social Security system?"
Yes we are. It is a problem of all government ran social security systems. Not only are you paying for people to retire, you're also paying for the extra bureaucracy... and all the other issues with it.
"They don't create jobs-- they leverage labor to create profit. There is a difference."
2 6 h tm l
/think/ those were the articles I had in mind that respond to that...
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=136
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=146
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-019es.
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4525
I
"If they could make the same profit with zero employees, they would do it in a heartbeat."
If you could make a profit without employees, would you still hire employees? Assuming, of course, that the workload wasn't very heavy...
Even small businessmen will fire people if they have to pay out more than they can afford [minimum wage laws cause unemployment by putting small businesses in a position where they cannot necessarily afford to pay others for labor].
"Perhaps they're a little smarter and more productive than we are, but that doesn't mean they deserve 1000 times the income."
If they're not coming by their wealth by coercion, then they do deserve it.
"What could possibly make their effort worth that much more than ours?"
How many nonwealthy people are willing to take the risks?
"I'm an educated, middle-class, white-collar professional. I shouldn't have to scrape by, but that's what I'm doing."
Indeed, you shouldn't. I might suggest a different line of work, a different way of living, a different location, or something.
"Oh yes.. they take on the "risk." What risk? The risk of *not* being super-rich? That must be hard to bear!"
The risk of losing money. Your sarcasm is almost appreciated. Business ventures cost money. Not all entrepreneurs are rich. The wealthy either take the risks, or they decrease the amount of risk [say, an entrepreneur gets investment from several differente places...].
"The simple truth is that the owners dupe hordes of people into believing they're getting a fair wage, when in fact they are donating the better part of the value of their labor to The Man."
The simple truth is, if those employees do not like they're wage, they're free to find employment elsewhere.
Wages do not have to increase significantly well cost of living is reduced. There are more factors involved with income, cost of living, standard of living, etc than just what your boss makes compared to you.
"Haven't you considered the idea that "being the House" is something that"
Being the house? As in a Casino? Interaction in a free market is not a zero-sum game.
[And if you're going to say it is because resources are limited, then you might want to rearrange your thinking on the origin of wealth: the human mind. The human mind along with the creation of new technology means that the creation of wealth is unlimited. No zero-sum game.]
"If you want to know how to beat the house, look at what is happening in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, France, etc. The way to beat the house is to decrease the amount of leverage the powerful (the rich, the business owners, the corporations, etc) have over the populace."
They basically replaced corporations with the state. That's even more dangerous.
"You advocate raw Nature, red of tooth and claw. But why live as an animal?"
Of course not. Nobody here advocates that. You're just being a bit too dramatic, trying to play on people's emotions.
Why do you constantly start new threads? You keep saying the same things, and rarely respond to people who challenge you.
I'm not even just talking about my responses either. It rings just as true with other people's responses to you.
You ignore people, then start a new thread and say the same things.
Some kind of karma whore, I presume?
" Sorry, I can't let this one go. You are so full of shit it's amazing."
... Here's the article on 3: http://www.ascotadvisory.com/NewsArticleGBBG.html
Don't apologize for not letting something go, but if you're going to respond, make sure you understand what the argument is.
I'm not trying to deny that life in Scandinavian countries is good right now. I'm suggesting that it is not sustainable.
Aging population.
Low rates of population increase, or even population decrease.
More and more expensive welfare state.
Their solutions so far seem to be:
1. Privatize or outsource accounts [even infrastructure].
(Think of how this is even done in the U.S., from state to state.)
2. Increase immigration (increasing work force
to pay for an aging population).
3. European tax cartel. The "Savings Tax Directive" is a plan put forth by European Commission members to the United States for the U.S. Lower tax havens attract foreign capital. If Europe can get the U.S. into a position where we seem less appealing to European investors and businessmen, then they can stop the flow of money out of Europe (it seems not all Europeans want their money stuck in their systems).
"Plus the chicks there are totally hot. Not that you would or will ever know."
Actually, I find the stereotypical "Scandinavian" woman unattractive. Blondes aren't my thing, especially 6'2" broad shouldered ones.
"Thankfully, your idiotic way of thinking is fading into history, although not quickly enough, my clueless friend. Good luck with the education."
Actually, my "way of thinking" is on the increase, although apparently not quickly enough.
"Now go over to Sweden, Finland, Norway, or Denmark (or study them over the Net), and tell me if you think that also applies to the same degee with those countries..."
What is that suppose to prove? They don't have as much wealth, nor as many wealthy people (on our scale). Over there, everybody is equally unwealthy [except politicos]. And over there, they're slowly going bankrupt as their welfare states are costing more and more, including healthcare and education, while GDP is not keeping pace (surprise, surprise).
"No, it leaves a vacuum of power that only ONE group can fill--the Rich and Powerful. Nice going! (please see Russia for an example)."
Complete misinterpretation of the facts.
Russia HARDLY has limited government. Russia never had limited government. Russia also never had a free market, either. For you to say that is proof of your lack of understanding. The Russian government sold off businesses to friends and old communists -- the Russian government created oligopolies and monopolies. This is not a free market. It is not a failure of "capitalism", but rather of government.
It was the same way in Chile, where the "free market" supposedly failed. Government created oligopoly is not the free market.
"Please read Howard Zinn's _A People's History of the United States!"
I read most of that Marxist nonsense. Zinn basically took the ideals he thought would improve the world, and skewed history to give the perception that his ideals are correct. Fortunately for us, most of the million or so copies of his book that were sold were forced on readers by professors [as one can imagine, most copies were purchased in university book stores or in major Liberal college towns...].
You completely neglected to mention the FACT that the wealthy use government to deter competition and maintain their control.
Limited government and free markets undermine that entire system.
(And seriously... if you're going to say that we should use tools to get back at the wealthy, why stop at government? Why not expand into physical coercion with guns, like government seems to?)
Such a shame I didn't pick up on that...
My aunt would be so disappointed with me...
Actually, if it is an emergency, by law you cannot be turned down in America.
Millions of Americans are not without health care, there are just alot of Americans without health INSURANCE. If you do not have insurance, and have an emergency, hospitals have to treat you. They have to agree on a payment plan with you, even if it is just two dollars a month for the rest of your life.
Furthermore, the reports stating that "40 million Americans were without health care this year" are misleading twofold.
1. They're not without health care, they're without health insurance.
2. It is not "for the whole year". If I switch medical coverage and am without health care for a couple of days, then I am added to that list. As you might imagine, the number is a whole lot lower than advertised.
+1. Forgot to mention, most of the Americans working without health care are YOUNG people who refuse to get health care, simply because they find that they do not need it.
"to afford their citizens a standard of living that most Americans can dream of, such as 30 or more days off a year"
Ever been to Europe? With the exception of Socialized innercities, and backwoods rural areas, the standard of living in America is much higher.
Oh yeah, and the vacation thing. The average number of vacation days per year in America is brought down by part time elderly and young workers who do not need or get vacation time. Stop distorting reality.
"and healthcare paid for by taxes (so that even the poorest person can walk in and get healthcare)"
As said, if you have an emergency, you will be treated. If you think you deserve to get treated at the doctor's office for the slightest of annoyances on my dollar, you're a lowly human being. Such a system immediately leads to abuse.
Socialized systems, like your prized welfare states of Europe and Canada, end up resorting to rationing and waiting lists --- waiting lists going into the months.
"These are the real issues that are never addressed on shows such as Crossfire. And does Stewart address these issues on Crossfire? Does he talk about how all Canadians have healthcare, but not all Americans?"
They're always addressed on t.v. and distorted by Liberals. The fact of the matter is, they use bullshit arguments and distort reality to usurp power. Apparently you are incapable or intentionally unwilling of recognizing this.
"Does he talk about how America is run like some kind of captive consumer livestock ranch for the benefit of corporate investors? No."
More intentional distortion. I would rather our "consumer culture" instead of peasant democracy like Europe.
I think I might have responded to a similar message from somebody else...
" Maybe all those people were there in case of an...emergency? I think that if you went to a firestation, you might see all those firemen sitting around wasting time. Watch what happens when the alarm goes off."
Ah, but when a fire occurs, all of those people are put into action. They're paid to fight a fire.
The non dispatchers were clerks, secretaries, phone answerers, or other paper pushers. I was merely saying that there's no need for as many people who don't respond to emergencies and don't do anything in the case of emergencies.
"Maybe the dozen or so matching telephones weren't doing anything either."
Of course, I wouldn't complain about the dispatchers not answering telephones. My brother actually is one of the dispatchers. When they have a boring day, that means that the county has a good day. I would never think to hope for emergency.
"I would hope so. Usually, the only person we have a right to blame for anything is the one in the mirror. In other words, "Please, don't feed the bears."
Of course. Most everything boils down to individuals, and too often, the one at fault is us.
I'm not getting the "please, don't feed the bears." comment though? Probably just missing some obvious connection...
Compare my responses to other people and compare my responses to his. Other slashdotters are making good points all over the spectrum, and I show respect for them. Not him though, he's just spitting bile.
I send it back at him... People of that sort of vile consistency do not deserve to be talked to with respect.
You define me by my [admittingly sometimes] overly caustic responses to him, or you can define me as part of the whole bit of me -- in other words, by how I treat other slashdotters than don't constantly say, "Wealth people are snakes!", "They leach off us!".
The most violent criminals and murderers in history started off like that...
"Huxley? Why would I want a future based on the Cosby show?"
LoL. I wish I had mod points.
All people have to operate under constraints. All people have to respect the Natural Rights of others.
You apparently call the successful rattlesnakes for feeding off of those less successful. You promote hatred and probably even violence (like your hero, Chomsky) towards those more successful, which makes you a hypocrite, since you're essentially trying to fight that which you claim to resent with the same methods.
Oh, except they're smarter and more productive, and thus they deserve to be where they're at.
(Of course, I think anyone who uses government or physical force to inflict their own will on others is a vile human beings. That being said, I think you're just an unsuccessful old fucking loon who has yet to come close to proving that wealthy people are, on the whole, more wretched than anyone else.
Aside from ignoring the jobs and wealth that your hated enemies -the economic "elite"- create, you also ignore how much they give to charity. None of which your touted "welfare-states" are good for.
Do us all a favor and hang yourself, Milton.
No, I'm not filled with hate and rage. The only person who is on the receiving end of my acrimony is you. However, you seem to attack anyone who disagrees with you, and anyone who has more money than you. Do us all a favor and hang yourself.
I have yet to listen or watch a Rush Limbaugh show. Do not call me a 'poor baby' you fugly old cunt. I'm not the one whining all day about the rich and the successful. What a trolling sack of shit you are...
You can't act like a vile old man and then try to play morally superior by switching it around when you're called on it, you insipid old cunt.
You're a fucking whiny-ass old bum who looks like a whacko. It is not the elite that is keeping you down. It is you. You're just a sad excuse for a human being. A hate-filled, jealous, ignorant human being who adds nothing to society.
The response to your pathetic little webpage is coming shortly. In the interim, feel free to hang yourself.
So essentially, you're saying we should all be equal?
I have news for you, Milton. We're not all equal. To paraphrase a once famous economist: "No man is equal to himself on different days."
You're complaining about the elite staying on top by making connections, yet you want to usurp their power (by what method, I'm uncertain, but it is likely to be coercive, which makes you even worse).
It seems you favor an anarcho-socialist society, where everyone is equal in wealth and possession (equally poor, of course).
The reason there cannot be an anarcho-socialist society is because the model requires people not be allowed to engage in free trade, including the acknowledgement of private property.
The famous example:
If a man takes a piece of land universally ignored and abandoned by his community, which is traditionally his, and grows apples on it and then turns around and harvests them, cans them, and offers them in exchange for favors from other people in the community, that is capitalism.
People like you, and apparently your hero Chomsky, say he cannot do that. Anarcho-socialists say he cannot do this.
[The real crux being that if an anarcho-socialist society allows trade, its best members will tend to engage in it, and eventually the society will become largely capitalistic, because capitalism simply works better.]
Anarcho-socialists try to say that such a man who plans ahead and maintains responsibility of himself, becomes coercive if he does not share what he produces. The insipid morality of this should be obvious to any reasonable minded individual.Such a man is not coercing, he is not dominating anyone. He has planned ahead.
(You apparently think the man is evil because he planned ahead, or he had someone else who also planned ahead to help him.)
If anarcho-socialists deem it immoral for a man to not give up his apples, or share them, he is no more guilty than any woman on the street.
To wit:
By the anarcho-socialist definition, private property rights must exist, but they do not use that term. A woman does not have to 'put out' because she owns her own body. Anarcho-socialists say she does, but they do not use the term 'private property' despite using virtually the exact same definition and conditions. A woman's ownership over her body is quite analogous to the apple grower. Neither have to give up their property, but they can choose to do so if they want to.
If a man does not own his apples, the fruit of his labor, then a man does not really own his being, including his mind, which is the initial source of resource for those apples.
To further illustrate what I am saying, consider what anarcho-socialists say about what people earn and what people inherit or are giving by birth.
They constantly criticize people who own what they did not manually labor for. The apple grower actually did something proactive to earn them. The woman was just born with her... apples.
By anarcho-socialist logic, the man has to give up his apples and the woman has to give up... hers, as well, if they are going to maintain consistency. That, or they have to accept private property rights and extend them. Of course, if they do that, they accept capitalism's superiority
and cease to be anarcho-socialists.
In the end, as demonstrated in nature, those who are faster, win races. Those who are stronger, win strength competitions. Those who are more productive, are higher up in society.
We are not equal by birth, and we are not all equal by productivity or achievement. We only have the opportunity to try to make ourselves ascend in society.
You seem to be angered by this, for fear of competition or due to your own personal failures.
I think you're just a 44 year old, hate-filled tosser, not totally unlike your buddy Chomsky.
You're both political scamsters, only he's not old, chunky, and bumlike. He's a Linguistics Professor. (How do you suppose he got to such a position? By exploiting non Professors, or by ascending on his own merits?)
(The first copy of the above post was written by me here: http://www.haveyoursay.org/about277-0-asc-45.html
It is derived from the work of von Mises, Ayn Rand, and a few lesser known people...)
"These little reminders are all around us--they tell us to OBEY, ACCEPT AUTHORITY, CONFORM, etc."
This is not coercion. You cannot blame owners of businesses and the wealthy for people buying their products.
"This biologist notes that the elite of this animal society work together; they even seek each other out."
So do the non-elites. The non-elites even rise up in the heirarchy when it is their turn, or when they earn it. Or they sleep with the right elite-mate.
"The members of this elite already have power, and they give each other more power through their interactions with each other."
Are those elites forcing the other animals into the group? Would they eat the lower members if the lower members decided to leave? They're not being coerced. They're rallying around those stronger or more productive.
Stop being a whiny old bitch.
"Of course, in this animal society, one way they maintain their rule is being making those at the bottom of the pack antagonist to any who seek to expose this Parasitic Sub-Society of The Elites."
Or those sub-members are just jealous failures like you, who want to usurp control of the pack for their own right.
Luckily for you, we're not the same thing as a wolf pack or something... We acknowledge Natural Rights. Well, some of us do. You apparently don't...
You yet again fail to understand upward movement of societies. Free markets undermine class distinction, and you ignore it.
You try to refer to people with more money than you as parasites, or rattlesnakes.
Are you going to take risks by starting a business or putting up one hundred thousand dollars or more on a new business venture? No, you're not. Very few unwealthy people are willing to take those risks. When those risks succeed, the wealthy get wealthier, but other people end up with jobs as well. New wealth is created. Society as a whole moves upwards. Occasionally, someone who does not normally make a whole bunch of money comes up with a great idea, and those with money invest in that idea, and you have upward mobility.
They're not feeding off of you, Milton, you ignored old socialist prick. They're being productive. They're making money, and they're creating wealth. Society, as a whole, is getting more productive, wealthier, and healthier. The only time the wealthy do harm those below them is when they use government to deter competition.
http://cryonics.meetup.com/13/members/?memberId=47 5398
http://www.lostandfrowned.com/miltoncd.gif
He probably blames the wealthy for not having his own red Swingline stapler... Since Lumberg is a
is just a fictional character and all...
(Did you see his webpage? He's a 44 year old moron... he's nothing in life and he's trying to manipulate a younger audience to make himself feel better...)
http://cryonics.meetup.com/13/members/?memberId=47 5398
http://www.lostandfrowned.com/miltoncd.gif
He probably blames the wealthy for not having his own red Swingline stapler... Since Lumberg is a
is just a fictional character and all...
Look, Milton, or, Randy, or whatever the hell. 4 7 5398
http://www.lostandfrowned.com/miltoncd.gif
http://cryonics.meetup.com/13/members/?memberId=
You're the one always starting with Personal Attacks. Calling the wealthy evil, or rattlesnakes.
You keep throwing out bullshit arguments to make yourself feel better because you're a 44 year old reject. You are the one who fails to admit your own shortcomings. Go hang yourself you ol' sod, you offer the world nothing.