Someone asked, so here are my thoughts on occupy wall street.

[Defeatist Elitist]

have you seen those "I am the 99%" signs?

When they say they failed to complete high school, thats a sign of failure on their part. They didnt get good grades. Very few say they have had to drop out to suppor themselves or their family. Its not my fault most of the protesters look uneducated or apathetic.

Okay, seriously, what the fuck? First of all, most of the fucking signs don't say anything about not completing high school so your argument is based entirely on you just making shit up. Secondly, even when they are they're not going to fucking say everything that needs to be said. High school is not a matter of effort anyway, in general anybody who can pass, will. It's not somehow a sign of failure if somebody doesn't end up completing high school.

And honestly, what is it that makes the protesters look uneducated and apathetic to you, because I really don't see it?

And yeah im not in a _Good_ position. Just, average.

So what you're saying is that you're just an average failure, as opposed to a total failure?

[Phoenix Wright]

Now first off i think social classes should be divided like this:

The top 1% who got lucky and are now set for 3 generations without doing shit.

The Next 19% that tried really hard in school and got into a good college and are now making enough money to support their lives for a bit.

The Middle class: 40% are people that have gotten pretty much what we in oak park and thousand oaks to be average. We have a lot of what we want but cant have everything.

The low 20%: These are like the people living in smaller houses or apartments. They have an OK life but still struggle.

The bottem 20%. THe people with the crappy lives.

The bottem 20% are the real problem in this society. These are the assholes at occupy wall street. They didn't give a fuck in high school about thier grades, They didn't care about college until it was too late. They didn't prepare for their futures. They are butthurt that people who actually tried in high school have better lives than them, though they had their fun when they were in school and now need to work to survive. I think that its perfectly justified that the top 1% makes all that money, but my only quirk with them is that they should be doing whats best for the country with their companies, not doing what makes the most profit. I mean, those should be hand in hand though. The best should make the most money.

Those are my thoughts anyways.

A physicist (physics requires much more from a person compared to something like business) arguably works the absolute hardest in high school (AP Physics is probably the most difficult class in any high school. However, a student only works hard if he/she wants to go to an Ivy League or something similar) as well as college (on top of it being one of the most difficult subjects in the world, it is also extremely competitive). I'm assuming the professional life is fairly stressful as well. Yet, how many physicists are in the top 20%, let alone the top 1%? I'm willing to bet the answer is zero for the top 1%, and less than a single percent in the top 20%.

So why, then? Is hard work not equivalent to the amount of money they'll make? And the answer is "of course not." Opportunity is not equal anywhere. Our nation's policies are not fair. Our culture is skewed. There are many factors going into this that that you overlook.

Your entire theory on this is way too simple.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Raven]

I don't care any more because my Rattata is in the top percentage of Rattatas.

[Ring Wraith]

I haven't done too much research on OWS, and I don't believe in equal opportunity. However, I think there is a lot of people who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. There IS opportunity out there.

Taking the physicist example, every physicist chooses to be a physicist. Yeah, you might get screwed if you are one, and you may have worked really hard to be one, but you made that choice. That may suck, but so does a lot of things we put ourselves through. If you're in that situation, you have nothing to complain about, since you put yourself in that situation. You probably should have gone into something else, like nursing. Takes less work, has more opportunities, makes more money.

Ultimately, I don't believe the top 80% of people have anything to complain about. As Anouleth said, I'm pretty sure it's not the 20% at the OWS protests.

This coming from a guy going into music and probably going to end up in (at least) the bottom 40%.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Ring Wraith

[Lord Raven]

Anouleth said it really well.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that most of the bottom 20% aren't the ones at the OWS protests.

Moreover, you seem to engage in a complete misunderstanding of how an economy works. Not everyone can go to High School, not everyone can go to College and get a degree. The US cannot consist entirely of investment brokers, lawyers, and doctors, and it's naive to believe that could happen. It's also disgusting to suggest that somehow, their poverty is their own fault. The implication is that the reason that they are losing their jobs is because they're simply lazy or stupid.

And for your information, I will most likely (hopefully) become a physicist, and I'm sure the fact that only like 30 people graduate every year in physics in my university (and we supposedly have a somewhat large physics department) show you that it's ridiculously hard to become a physicist and you're not exactly slacking off once it happens either.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Ring Wraith]

And for your information, I will most likely (hopefully) become a physicist, and I'm sure the fact that only like 30 people graduate every year in physics in my university (and we supposedly have a somewhat large physics department) show you that it's ridiculously hard to become a physicist and you're not exactly slacking off once it happens either.

Then I hope you won't be one who finds themselves without a job and blames somebody else.

[Lord Raven]

Physicists can easily get a job, I'm not sure where people seem to be convinced of the contrary.

Besides, you are still not countering the point. The point is that not everyone has the ability or means to become rich and successful for many reasons. And if everyone became a doctor, engineer, or whatever then that would completely kill the value of said jobs too. And it would put people through years and years of hell (because they don't even necessarily *want* to do those jobs) simply because they "want to make money." Life is about more than just money, you know, and Darwinism within our own race does not a civilized society make.

[Ring Wraith]

Physicists can easily get a job, I'm not sure where people seem to be convinced of the contrary.

I was going off of what Phoenix said in relation to OWS.

Besides, you are still not countering the point. The point is that not everyone has the ability or means to become rich and successful for many reasons.

Rich and successful are subjective (I love that word for debates). In truth, the "99%" (which is actually a MUCH smaller percentage from a more objective view) are found in third world countries. Americans are rich. Some of the homeless have things to complain about, but those are the bottom 20% of America, and I'm talking about the top 80%.

And if everyone became a doctor, engineer, or whatever then that would completely kill the value of said jobs too.

I'm not saying everybody should do one thing. Besides, there are always us hipsters who hate the mainstream and won't follow that. It's stupid to go for a job where the chances are you won't get one. Sure, go for your dreams, but if you fail it's your fault. As I said, I'm going into music, but if I end up working at a McDonalds, I'm going to blame myself and take the penalties of my choices.

And it would put people through years and years of hell (because they don't even necessarily *want* to do those jobs) simply because they "want to make money." Life is about more than just money, you know, and Darwinism within our own race does not a civilized society make.

Money is what opens the doors to those opportunities to live life the way you want to. I may love playing Fire Emblem, but no way can I make a living off of it. So I do something else and play it in my free time. If I don't want to do something that I can make a living off of, I'm going to blame myself and except the consequences.

[Lord Raven]

Rich and successful are subjective (I love that word for debates). In truth, the "99%" (which is actually a MUCH smaller percentage from a more objective view) are found in third world countries. Americans are rich. Some of the homeless have things to complain about, but those are the bottom 20% of America, and I'm talking about the top 80%.

If Americans are so rich why are we in a recession? Our economy's in the shitter and you're calling us rich? People who are poor are often times poor for reasons out of their control- one reason is that scholarship money is low so college is a bitch to afford (and financial aid sucks). And then they have to pay for health insurance if they want to get any degree of affordable care, car insurance which one accident can cause to skyrocket (my family was paying 1100 and 1200/month to both, and we are not only careful drivers but my dad got cancer a solid 6 years after he quit smoking). We may be "rich" but we work like dogs and have little to show for it, a phrase which *I* love using.

I'm not saying everybody should do one thing. Besides, there are always us hipsters who hate the mainstream and won't follow that. It's stupid to go for a job where the chances are you won't get one. Sure, go for your dreams, but if you fail it's your fault. As I said, I'm going into music, but if I end up working at a McDonalds, I'm going to blame myself and take the penalties of my choices.

That's stupid. "Nobody to blame but themselves" except that sometimes the only thing people are capable of doing aren't the affordable jobs and that's once again not something in their control. You keep suggesting that people should be punished for not choosing the most profitable jobs, which is just wrong.

Money is what opens the doors to those opportunities to live life the way you want to. I may love playing Fire Emblem, but no way can I make a living off of it. So I do something else and play it in my free time. If I don't want to do something that I can make a living off of, I'm going to blame myself and except the consequences.

I don't think asking for some help for the lower class is out of the question. Especially because the upper class have enough money to afford to live the way they want even if they had some high tax rate on their bracket, and often times they also tax evade so none of that money makes it to the government. And clearly this capitalistic mentality of yours isn't working considering the financial hole the United States are in, with your mentality of "no one to blame but themselves."

[Phoenix Wright]

Wring Wraith, your example in nursing is the exact point that I'm trying to make (the analogy is the complete opposite, though).

I never said anything about jobs, all I was trying to point out was that the OP's theory on OWS is much too simple. Physicists should be some of the richest people on the planet, according to the OP's logic, yet they aren't even near the top 20%.

My opinion is that physicists should make much more money, but I also don't think money should be the incentive to why people flock to it. +/-40% of what would have been future physicists change majors in college because they realize that they won't make enough money--despite being interested in the field (although for many it is too hard).

I understand that they make this choice. I have made this choice--for I want to be an astrophysicist. But the choice is irrelevant when considering the OP's logic. It's not an accurate theory because it's not based on reality.

EDIT: Also, good luck in your musical endeavors!

Edited November 17, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Ring Wraith]

If Americans are so rich why are we in a recession? Our economy's in the shitter and you're calling us rich? People who are poor are often times poor for reasons out of their control- one reason is that scholarship money is low so college is a bitch to afford (and financial aid sucks). And then they have to pay for health insurance if they want to get any degree of affordable care, car insurance which one accident can cause to skyrocket (my family was paying 1100 and 1200/month to both, and we are not only careful drivers but my dad got cancer a solid 6 years after he quit smoking). We may be "rich" but we work like dogs and have little to show for it, a phrase which *I* love using.

We're in a recession for America. We certainly aren't as bad off as most countries, even in a recession.

As for getting money, you can get free college credit while in high school. I'm not sure if it's just a state thing, but I got 52 credits completed while in highschool. Worked for 3 years at a fast food chain while in high school to help pay for college once I got out. Going to a community college right now to finish my general education, and I was easily able to pay for it without a loan. Anybody who isn't in the bottom 20% can do that. So long as the parents can afford having an apartment and paying for food, a kid shouldn't have to help pay off bills. If the parents can't afford that, they shouldn't have had kids.

That's stupid. "Nobody to blame but themselves" except that sometimes the only thing people are capable of doing aren't the affordable jobs and that's once again not something in their control. You keep suggesting that people should be punished for not choosing the most profitable jobs, which is just wrong.

How is that wrong? If you're complaining about not making enough, you should have gone into an occupation where you'd make more. If you complain that you don't like that, then stop complaining you don't make enough. You can't always have both. Life's not fair, and f you want to fly around the world but you work at a fast food chain, tough. Deal with it. Life isn't fair. Welcome to the school of hard knocks. I guarantee you not everybody in the top 20% love what they do. Many probably didn't love what they did at first, but they adapted to it and learned to like it.

I don't think asking for some help for the lower class is out of the question. Especially because the upper class have enough money to afford to live the way they want even if they had some high tax rate on their bracket, and often times they also tax evade so none of that money makes it to the government. And clearly this capitalistic mentality of yours isn't working considering the financial hole the United States are in, with your mentality of "no one to blame but themselves."

I'm cool with the bottom 20% getting help. Problem is, unless you propose everybody makes the same amount, somebody at the bottom will feel unjustly there. Also, it would need to be on a situation-by-situation basis, since it doesn't seem fair to somebody to not work or try at all and get help just like the people who are unjustly down there.

The US does have themselves to blame for the hole they're in. Furthermore, with the financial hole the US is in, they certainly shouldn't be dishing out money to everybody in the bottom "99%".

Edited November 17, 2011 by Ring Wraith

[Lord Raven]

Some people are genuinely/morbidly interested in physics but they know they can do engineering in grad school. That used to be me but I'll just get by on being a university professor myself, research/teaching all in one.

By the way, the economy's gotten so crazy ridiculous that not all PhD programs are even funded (since many Physicists will want to get their PhD). That's actually a really legitimate concern because normally PhDs are meant to be funded.

We're in a recession for America. We certainly aren't as bad off as most countries, even in a recession.

As for getting money, you can get free college credit while in high school. I'm not sure if it's just a state thing, but I got 52 credits completed while in highschool. Worked for 3 years at a fast food chain while in high school to help pay for college once I got out. Going to a community college right now to finish my general education, and I was easily able to pay for it without a loan. Anybody who isn't in the bottom 20% can do that. So long as the parents can afford having an apartment and paying for food, a kid shouldn't have to help pay off bills. If the parents can't afford that, they shouldn't have had kids.

No, but it's still pretty bad over here.

I didn't do that much shit in high school. It's all about luck. I got a full ride to my university and sometimes my heart pounds and I hyperventilate when I just think about where I would be right now if I hadn't gotten that scholarship. I'm driven as hell now and I actually have goals, hence it's everything to do with luck and not very much relevant to what work path you choose.

And furthermore, the rest of your argument is ignorant; not everyone has the time or ability to work while getting AP credit. AP credits are too much for certain students. Even 52 credits can be too much cause students could not afford it and their parents are unable to afford it; that's paying for roughly 8 AP tests (amounts to ~680ish dollars, which is a lot). And even then, parents cut their kids loose after high school too (according to what I've heard) which is something neither you nor I can control but is also a cold fact of life; that once again ties into it being all about luck. It's nothing to do with skill, and your situation is more of a demonstration as to why hard work barely pays off simply because of the profession you choose.

How is that wrong? If you're complaining about not making enough, you should have gone into an occupation where you'd make more. If you complain that you don't like that, then stop complaining you don't make enough. You can't always have both. Life's not fair, and f you want to fly around the world but you work at a fast food chain, tough. Deal with it. Life isn't fair. Welcome to the school of hard knocks. I guarantee you not everybody in the top 20% love what they do. Many probably didn't love what they did at first, but they adapted to it and learned to like it.

Strawmanning the argument with capitalism drivel. So once again you are fully in favor of punishing people who work hard to get a job they want and they're not able to make much off it?

I think the concept of "luck" once again applies, since it's entirely possible that what you are getting into is profitable when you start studying, and then 3 years down the line when you're ready to graduate it's in the slumps. A Master's Degree is slowly becoming worthless if you're a scientist for example, meaning a simple undergraduate degree isn't enough and you need to spend more money for your Master's Degree. If not, then be prepared for almost zero sleep because you're working and... well, in the end it amounts to punishing someone for their hard work because you enjoy trivializing hard work.

I'm cool with the bottom 20% getting help. Problem is, unless you propose everybody makes the same amount, somebody at the bottom will feel unjustly there. Also, it would need to be on a situation-by-situation basis, since it doesn't seem fair to somebody to not work or try at all and get help just like the people who are unjustly down there.

The US does have themselves to blame for the hole they're in. Furthermore, with the financial hole the US is in, they certainly shouldn't be dishing out money to everybody in the bottom "99%".

Who the fuck is proposing that everyone gets the same amount? You are strawmanning the argument to something communistic in theory- which while I agree with accept that it will not work because of people such as yourself who think everyone who isn't a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or politician should be punished for not being that.

And there aren't very many instances of benefit fraud at all; the ones that do occur tend to make headlines because of some crazy conservative pro-capitalist agenda that attempts to bring the hard-working lower class down. Nowhere is anyone suggesting dishing money to the bottom 99%; we are suggesting higher tax rates so the lower class can at least have a little leeway to get their shit together (because it is extremely difficult and out of reach for many to get it all together).

Edited November 17, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Ring Wraith]

Wring Wraith, your example in nursing is the exact point that I'm trying to make (the analogy is the complete opposite, though).

I never said anything about jobs, all I was trying to point out was that the OP's theory on OWS is much too simple. Physicists should be some of the richest people on the planet, according to the OP's logic, yet they aren't even near the top 20%.

My opinion is that physicists should make much more money, but I also don't think money should be the incentive to why people flock to it. +/-40% of what would have been future physicists change majors in college because they realize that they won't make enough money--despite being interested in the field (although for many it is too hard).

I understand that they make this choice. I have made this choice--for I want to be an astrophysicist. But the choice is irrelevant when considering the OP's logic. It's not an accurate theory because it's not based on reality.

EDIT: Also, good luck in your musical endeavors!

Ahh. I guess I was totally ignoring the OP and addressing OWS in general. I can't believe that I actually agree with one of your posts. I don't think that's ever happened before. Cool.

I didn't do that much shit in high school. It's all about luck. I got a full ride to my university and sometimes my heart pounds and I hyperventilate when I just think about where I would be right now if I hadn't gotten that scholarship. I'm driven as hell now and I actually have goals, hence it's everything to do with luck and not very much relevant to what work path you choose.

It's not all about luck. You got lucky. Don't apply your experience to everything.

And furthermore, the rest of your argument is ignorant; not everyone has the time or ability to work while getting AP credit. AP credits are too much for certain students. Even 52 credits can be too much cause students could not afford it and their parents are unable to afford it; that's paying for roughly 8 AP tests (amounts to ~680ish dollars, which is a lot). And even then, parents cut their kids loose after high school too (according to what I've heard) which is something neither you nor I can control but is also a cold fact of life; that once again ties into it being all about luck. It's nothing to do with skill, and your situation is more of a demonstration as to why hard work barely pays off simply because of the profession you choose.

I did post secondary. Super easy free college credit that takes no time at all. Not sure if it's available in every state, but it worked great for me.

My parents haven't kicked me out of the house yet, but I pay for my own gas, schooling, etc. Food and shelter is nice though, you're right. Next year I'll be on my own. I truly believe I could have done it this year, but my parents are okay so long as I have plans to leave and I'm actively doing something.

Strawmanning the argument with capitalism drivel. So once again you are fully in favor of punishing people who work hard to get a job they want and they're not able to make much off it?

I don't see it as punishing them. I see it as them choosing to do what they enjoy instead of making money. I guess you could say everything is luck if you just happen to be lucky enough to like doing something that makes a ton of money.

I think the concept of "luck" once again applies, since it's entirely possible that what you are getting into is profitable when you start studying, and then 3 years down the line when you're ready to graduate it's in the slumps. A Master's Degree is slowly becoming worthless if you're a scientist for example, meaning a simple undergraduate degree isn't enough and you need to spend more money for your Master's Degree. If not, then be prepared for almost zero sleep because you're working and... well, in the end it amounts to punishing someone for their hard work because you enjoy trivializing hard work.

True. My dad worked a full time job while going for his masters and still found time to spend with us kids.

Luck determines what family you're born in. There are some things you just need to accept.

Who the fuck is proposing that everyone gets the same amount? You are strawmanning the argument to something communistic in theory- which while I agree with accept that it will not work because of people such as yourself who think everyone who isn't a doctor, lawyer, engineer, or politician should be punished for not being that.

You're right about the strawman, but you are doing the same to me at the same time. Again, it's not punishing, it's a matter of choice. Murderers chose to kill people. They deserve punishment. That's even too extreme of an example. This isn't even punishment really, it's just getting stuck with what you already have.

And there aren't very many instances of benefit fraud at all; the ones that do occur tend to make headlines because of some crazy conservative pro-capitalist agenda that attempts to bring the hard-working lower class down. Nowhere is anyone suggesting dishing money to the bottom 99%; we are suggesting higher tax rates so the lower class can at least have a little leeway to get their shit together (because it is extremely difficult and out of reach for many to get it all together).

Not fraud, laziness.

[Life]

Just so you know, SOWD is the same kid that said that it was OK death on a person because that person wasn't a nice guy on the internet and stole someone's code or web page or something like that? Whatever, the point is that this kid is a complete retard and this is another one of his inane topics where nobody cares about his opinion because it's flat out wrong and uneducated.

What grinds my gears about OWS is that nobody from that supposed "99%" has offered up a solution how to fix the problem. They just sit there bitching about how the "1%" gets all the money because they trade stock commodities and make a shitton from it. I just can't help but think "well, if you studied economics in grade school and maybe decided to pursue it, you'd be on the opposite side of the glass".

Edited November 17, 2011 by Kefka

[Ring Wraith]

Just so you know, SOWD is the same kid that said that it was OK death on a person because that person wasn't a nice guy on the internet and stole someone's code or web page or something like that? Whatever, the point is that this kid is a complete retard and this is another one of his inane topics where nobody cares about his opinion because it's flat out wrong and uneducated.

And I'm the same kid who is going to eat Slayer X and thinks the mentally handicapped should be killed.

Don't take the intarwebz so seriously. Some of us like to throw out seemingly ridiculous topics and see if any good conversation comes from it. I think that, based on the impact OWS has had, it's worth discussing, and obviously there is conflict.. Discussion is good. Especially since I know nothing about OWS.

[Ring Wraith]

Just so you know, SOWD is the same kid that said that it was OK death on a person because that person wasn't a nice guy on the internet and stole someone's code or web page or something like that? Whatever, the point is that this kid is a complete retard and this is another one of his inane topics where nobody cares about his opinion because it's flat out wrong and uneducated.

And I'm the same kid who is going to eat Slayer X and thinks the mentally handicapped should be killed.

Don't take the intarwebz so seriously. Some of us like to throw out seemingly ridiculous topics and see if any good conversation comes from it. I think that, based on the impact OWS has had, it's worth discussing, and obviously there is conflict.. Discussion is good. Especially since I know nothing about OWS.

[Original Alear]

My opinion is that physicists should make much more money, but I also don't think money should be the incentive to why people flock to it. +/-40% of what would have been future physicists change majors in college because they realize that they won't make enough money--despite being interested in the field (although for many it is too hard).

Just want to jump in for a second and argue that if we are talking about what SHOULD happen, then I would argue that people should receive according to their needs and wants and work according to their abilities. But getting that to happen isn't easy, and probably contradicts human nature. It requires constant attention and effort.

If we are talking about a capitalist system, then physicists, and other people, aren't paid according to their efforts, they are paid according to their contributions - if you can find something people can and will - that can is a biggie - pay money for, then you get rewarded if someone doesn't steal your idea first. But here's the rub: you have to be able to finance your ideas. If someone else is financing your ideas, then according to capitalism, because they took the risk, they deserve a reward (interest). Good luck getting the rich to go along with anything if they're not getting anything out of it. I take selfless action regularly, but it's an irrational impulse and I don't expect anyone to emulate me. Also I'm only able to do so because my parents finance my commuting costs. And I'm pretty sure I'm not actually doing much to help.

So long as the parents can afford having an apartment and paying for food, a kid shouldn't have to help pay off bills. If the parents can't afford that, they shouldn't have had kids.

Maybe. But that's living in the past. What are you going to do to the kids, tell them "you are a mistake on the books, live with it?"

The US does have themselves to blame for the hole they're in. Furthermore, with the financial hole the US is in, they certainly shouldn't be dishing out money to everybody in the bottom "99%".

The government doesn't have to go into debt to dish out money. Ever heard of the fed? We print our own currency. But doing so would cause inflation, which would harm the savings of those in the higher rungs...and it just so happens that those are the people in charge of the fed.

And there aren't very many instances of benefit fraud at all; the ones that do occur tend to make headlines because of some crazy conservative pro-capitalist agenda that attempts to bring the hard-working lower class down. Nowhere is anyone suggesting dishing money to the bottom 99%; we are suggesting higher tax rates so the lower class can at least have a little leeway to get their shit together (because it is extremely difficult and out of reach for many to get it all together).

How would higher tax rates without dishing out money to the lower classes help the lower classes?

Not fraud, laziness.

Unemployment is 9.1%, and that's of the people looking for work. There isn't enough growth in America's industries to allow everyone to work. So how could it be laziness? Are you suggesting that, when the economy is in a recession, people start employing themselves to do shit? Somehow, I don't think that's going to work that well - they need capital to start businesses, and without some sort of evidence that the business is going to get demand, they probably aren't going to have the drive to start it.

I just can't help but think "well, if you studied economics in grade school and maybe decided to pursue it, you'd be on the opposite side of the glass".

You probably mean finance, not economics...anyway, I read some reports from a company looking at new hires in brokerage firms and it looks like only 60% of new hires this year on wall street actually get to stick it out past a certain duration, can't remember what that duration was though (maybe 6 months). It's too early to say yet but unless the economy recovers, things could get worse for new employment in that sector of the economy.

Edited November 17, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Life]

And I'm the same kid who is going to eat Slayer X and thinks the mentally handicapped should be killed.

Don't take the intarwebz so seriously. Some of us like to throw out seemingly ridiculous topics and see if any good conversation comes from it. I think that, based on the impact OWS has had, it's worth discussing, and obviously there is conflict.. Discussion is good. Especially since I know nothing about OWS.

You don't get it.

I know a troll when I see one and this kid isn't a troll. He actually believes the garbage he spews. Which is a problem.

[Original Alear]

You don't get it.

I know a troll when I see one and this kid isn't a troll. He actually believes the garbage he spews. Which is a problem.

Is crash a troll?

[Zanarkin]

Why am i being eaten now?

[Original Alear]

Why am i being eaten now?

I won't let it happen. But I am helpless. So I will let it happen.

[Ring Wraith]

If we are talking about a capitalist system, then physicists, and other people, aren't paid according to their efforts, they are paid according to their contributions - if you can find something people can and will - that can is a biggie - pay money for, then you get rewarded if someone doesn't steal your idea first. But here's the rub: you have to be able to finance your ideas. If someone else is financing your ideas, then according to capitalism, because they took the risk, they deserve a reward (interest). Good luck getting the rich to go along with anything if they're not getting anything out of it. I take selfless action regularly, but it's an irrational impulse and I don't expect anyone to emulate me. Also I'm only able to do so because my parents finance my commuting costs. And I'm pretty sure I'm not actually doing much to help.

Personally, if somebody gave me money to finance research, and it succeeded and I started making money, I would be more than happy to give some of that back. Who are the selfish ones here, the rich, who finance the projects, or those who want to keep everything for themselves?

Maybe. But that's living in the past. What are you going to do to the kids, tell them "you are a mistake on the books, live with it?"

Yeah. Kids don't choose to be born where they are. People have to live with who they are, which includes initial location.

The government doesn't have to go into debt to dish out money. Ever heard of the fed? We print our own currency. But doing so would cause inflation, which would harm the savings of those in the higher rungs...and it just so happens that those are the people in charge of the fed.

So you're actually supporting inflation. Lolwut? Inflation hurts the poor much more than the rich. Granted, the rich lose more money, but they have more to lose. They'll live just fine, and the poor are the ones going to struggle to stay alive as the little money they're already making is now worth even less.

Unemployment is 9.1%, and that's of the people looking for work. There isn't enough growth in America's industries to allow everyone to work. So how could it be laziness? Are you suggesting that, when the economy is in a recession, people start employing themselves to do shit? Somehow, I don't think that's going to work that well - they need capital to start businesses, and without some sort of evidence that the business is going to get demand, they probably aren't going to have the drive to start it.

I'm not saying it's all laziness. I'm saying that this Robin Hood crusade would result in laziness. People are always looking to cut corners, and I just can't imagine how this could simply work without a loophole. As far as the simply goes, you yourself talked about the ideal and how unrealistic it is.

Why am i being eaten now?

Whoops. I guess it was Vino that I was going to eat. Referring to this thread.

[Original Alear]

So you're actually supporting inflation. Lolwut? Inflation hurts the poor much more than the rich. Granted, the rich lose more money, but they have more to lose. They'll live just fine, and the poor are the ones going to struggle to stay alive as the little money they're already making is now worth even less.

That's a facile argument. If the money is all going into the bottom rungs, then the net balance of inflation, even presuming a rise in prices, is going to help the people who get the money and hurt the people who don't - not that we want to hurt the rich, it's just that in my view, helping the poorer is perhaps a higher priority to a certain extent, unless the rise in prices is over-reactive - in that case, the prices will probably go back down as demand might end up too small to sustain purchases. Now, if you were going to argue that people at the margins - like say, whoever is really close to getting money but doesn't get it - would get hurt, I'd believe you.

Moreover, inflation of the dollar doesn't necessarily translate to inflation of all prices. It's not an identity, and if you think it is, I'm not sure why. When inflation of the dollar does lead to rising commodity prices, that's the result of greed, of people pumping up per unit cost for excess profits - it's a natural, but not uninhabitable, response. It's also only maintainable if there's collective action on the part of sellers to keep prices up, otherwise competition may serve to drive prices back down to the cost of production. Rising prices in the face of dollar inflation is a secondary action, not the immediate, necessary result of more money flowing into the economy. Now, if you were to ask me if I think that price controls etc should be imposed, I would point out that, on a national level, it doesn't really seem to be an issue of needing more labor that's holding back the economy, in fact we have a surplus of labor in the general sense and in many sectors, and say that perhaps, if keeping the generalized standard of living high is our aim, centralization could be the answer. If we're actually smart/organized enough and more importantly uncorrupt enough to manage it, and the latter if is definitely significantly glaring.

Edited November 17, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Ansem]

They got kicked out of Zuccotti park and now they're making they're way to Union Square. I saw them marching around that area today.

[Ring Wraith]

That's a facile argument. If the money is all going into the bottom rungs, then the net balance of inflation, even presuming a rise in prices, is going to help the people who get the money and hurt the people who don't - not that we want to hurt the rich, it's just that in my view, helping the poorer is perhaps a higher priority to a certain extent, unless the rise in prices is over-reactive - in that case, the prices will probably go back down as demand might end up too small to sustain purchases. Now, if you were going to argue that people at the margins - like say, whoever is really close to getting money but doesn't get it - would get hurt, I'd believe you.

I'm not sure how practical this plan is in the long run. So you make money and give it to the poor people, creating inflation. What happens when that money runs out? Print more money and keep giving it? That'll just sink you into a hole you can't get out of.

Moreover, inflation of the dollar doesn't necessarily translate to inflation of all prices. It's not an identity, and if you think it is, I'm not sure why. When inflation of the dollar does lead to rising commodity prices, that's the result of greed, of people pumping up per unit cost for excess profits - it's a natural, but not uninhabitable, response. It's also only maintainable if there's collective action on the part of sellers to keep prices up, otherwise competition may serve to drive prices back down to the cost of production. Rising prices in the face of dollar inflation is a secondary action, not the immediate, necessary result of more money flowing into the economy. Now, if you were to ask me if I think that price controls etc should be imposed, I would point out that, on a national level, it doesn't really seem to be an issue of needing more labor that's holding back the economy, in fact we have a surplus of labor in the general sense and in many sectors, and say that perhaps, if keeping the generalized standard of living high is our aim, centralization could be the answer. If we're actually smart/organized enough and more importantly uncorrupt enough to manage it, and the latter if is definitely significantly glaring.

Again with the ideal. Few people are going to listen to that. If people were uncorrupt, communism would be great. There's just no way you're going to get everybody to be unselfish. Additionally, inflation will slaughter the small business owners. It falls down to where you draw the line again, and the most practical answer is just to not draw a line in the first place.