These Socialists suck!..........

[Moops]

The Greece spectacle has shown the fallacy of a European union.

Um ... when a country more prominent than Greece falters, you might have something. But again, your entire basis is money.

Essentially, your argument is akin to saying California's debt crisis shows the fallacy of America ... but only if California was Utah.

 

[T.M.P.]

ll this assumes that someone else in the world is doing it a lot better.

When we fall the world falls with us.. Rome didn't fall to a more powerful empire, it fell to a bunch drunken Germanics who didn't know how to wipe their asses. It was their internal machinations that helped it. Britain didn't fall to a greater Empire, it collapsed under it's own weight. It at least didn't fall completely but only became a smaller player.

No other country can take over because they just don't have the resource. Which is the very thing that makes and made this country great. Nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with God's blessing. that's a bunch of 1st century BS belief. And, it has nothing to do with our people, Americans are no more exceptional than any other nationality. We just have resources and tons of it. Plus we are teh consumer. It's what we do, better than anything, we consume.

What's truly fk'd is that if it does fall, it will most likely be caused by a collapse of a false economy based on stupid ideas created in the 1600.s It's not science it's a damn game. And, a sucker's game at that.

We are without doubt the Galactic retard bus of the Milky Way, that's why our planet is blue. The greatest chance of strife and suffering is based on a more than stupid game, and the greatest chance of the world ending is based on the names of myths created thousands of years ago. RETARDS!



.

 

[burnthemallralphie]

The fall is occurring now, and has been since the mid-1970s. Everyone assumes a fall will be a quick, cataclysmic event. My kid was born into a country and world less stable or clean than the one I was born into. I'm guessing her kids or grandkids will be fighting wars of natural resources like water, instead of oil.

 

[T.M.P.]

The fall is occurring now, and has been since the mid-1970s. Everyone assumes a fall will be a quick, cataclysmic event. My kid was born into a country and world less stable or clean than the one I was born into. I'm guessing her kids or grandkids will be fighting wars of natural resources like water, instead of oil.

The only thing stopping us from having all the potable water we will ever need is cost. Which is another man made concept that has no real scientific value. When pretend ideas can cause this much damage, it's time to re-access everything, and start fking fix it. This is doubly true with energy. The only thing stopping us from having an energy source that is sustainable and not so detrimental to the planet is cost, profit and greed. We truly are a stupid and selfish species.

 

[burnthemallralphie]

The only thing stopping us from having all the potable water we will ever need is cost. Which is another man made concept that has no real scientific value. When pretend ideas can cause this much damage, it's time to re-access everything, and start fking fix it. This is doubly true with energy. The only thing stopping us from having an energy source that is sustainable and not so detrimental to the planet is cost, profit and greed. We truly are a stupid and selfish species.

I think our species is completely doomed.

 

[Moops]

re-assess

cost. Which is another man made concept

I like it when you reiterate this. However it is complicated. People just have to do the work but then they also need to get paid ... something. The pyramids never would have been built if cost was an issue.

I don't wanna think too much about this right now. It involves a different mindset though: perhaps a United Federation of Planets mindset. That's all I have time to say now.

We truly are a stupid and selfish species.

 

[Zizkov]

No, that's not the answer, because the premise of the reduced work week and more free time scenario is that the worker produces the same amount, just under different circumstances.

So, something like 60 hour work weeks x 40% productivity = 40 hour work weeks x 60% productivity. That's simplistic, and just to illustrate what I'm saying, which is that the total output is the same per worker.

My real question is how do the European Union member countries afford to have the programs that Ziz and the article mentioned? Under my assumption of economic productivity - the EU country workers aren't producing in total more than 'merican workers. But, they get 14 weeks of maternity leave (I like that) and two pension funds (I like that too) and free health care (I like that, too). I'm just suggesting then that the difference is something else, and I want to know what that is.

My guess is that they pay value added taxes on what they buy, but, again, I'm too lazy to look it up. Oh, and they probably have a health care system that makes sense. Someone else mentioned the defense budget, and I think there's merit to that argument - what percentage of 'murican GDP is taken up by defense spending? Just think if even half of that was available for social programs and entitlements, like taking care of our citizenry....and in Zizkovville they aren't paying that, nor are the Swiss, because they don't have too - 'murica picks up that tab.

I went to my favorite bar and am too tired to answer this completely. You left off free education through university (if you qualify) or another (for lack of a better term) trade school.

VAT is big, but 5% on things like food and medicine. Salaries are lower, but when you factor in all that you don't have to pay for, it's goes a lot farther. The Czech Rep is still lowered paid then Western Europe (and also cheaper) but people here are always travelling all over the world. They get 4-8 weeks vacation and travel like crazy, ski in the alps, own a cottage in the country. It's crazy, although they save money by rarely eating out, using public transportation and wasting nothing (food, electricity, water, space).

There are too many factor to consider for there to be an easy comparison or answer. I have lived here for 11+ years total and it has taken me this whole time to see how it works and I still have a lot to learn. It's a different way of living/seeing the world. I prefer it for sure, but people like C-$ would bitch a lot. It's not for everyone, but once you settle in, you realize that they know how to enjoy a comfortable life.

My 37.5 hour work week is great. I love my job, it's fun. Some of the monotonous tasks aren't fun, but the office atmosphere is friendly, a lot of joking around and enjoying yourself.

I have to deal with stupid corporate BS everyday and the head of the department is an ass, but I talk to him maybe once a month. Everybody focuses on their work, works hard and does a good job. The company expects it and rewards the employees with great benefits.

You wouldn't believe some of the perks they give us. Nothing crazy, but very nice to have.

 

[T.M.P.]

but people like C-$ would bitch a lot. It's not for everyone, but once you settle in, you realize that they know how to enjoy a comfortable life.

As we've often talked about, it's the speed in which we live here and our readily available conveniences that many would have a problem with. And, Money would have some problem with language.

 

[T.M.P.]

I like it when you reiterate this. However it is complicated. People just have to do the work but then they also need to get paid ... something. The pyramids never would have been built if cost was an issue.

I don't wanna think too much about this right now. It involves a different mindset though: perhaps a United Federation of Planets mindset. That's all I have time to say now.

I have no answers, I'm not smart enough, I hope there's people who are but it doesn't take a genius to see that none of this is sustainable. The world is soon going to enter another technological era. Robotics, computers and printers can and will eventually, replace much of what we do. What are all the people going to do when there's no need for them. If people are bothered by welfare now, just wait.

The most logical thing, but not in any way moral, would be to exterminate a majority of the race and never let it get this big again. That's a sick thought though. The times, and what is truly important are a changin', and we can no longer be strapped to the concept of false economy, or cost, or any of that nonsense and still survive.

The planet is sick, and it's obvious and all we're doing is arguing and making the most infinitesimal steps. That disappoints me so much. I expected better of us.

 

[C-$]

I went to my favorite bar and am too tired to answer this completely. You left off free education through university (if you qualify) or another (for lack of a better term) trade school.

VAT is big, but 5% on things like food and medicine. Salaries are lower, but when you factor in all that you don't have to pay for, it's goes a lot farther. The Czech Rep is still lowered paid then Western Europe (and also cheaper) but people here are always travelling all over the world. They get 4-8 weeks vacation and travel like crazy, ski in the alps, own a cottage in the country. It's crazy, although they save money by rarely eating out, using public transportation and wasting nothing (food, electricity, water, space).

There are too many factor to consider for there to be an easy comparison or answer. I have lived here for 11+ years total and it has taken me this whole time to see how it works and I still have a lot to learn. It's a different way of living/seeing the world. I prefer it for sure, but people like C-$ would bitch a lot. It's not for everyone, but once you settle in, you realize that they know how to enjoy a comfortable life.

My 37.5 hour work week is great. I love my job, it's fun. Some of the monotonous tasks aren't fun, but the office atmosphere is friendly, a lot of joking around and enjoying yourself.

I have to deal with stupid corporate BS everyday and the head of the department is an ass, but I talk to him maybe once a month. Everybody focuses on their work, works hard and does a good job. The company expects it and rewards the employees with great benefits.

You wouldn't believe some of the perks they give us. Nothing crazy, but very nice to have.

If we wouldn't believe it, wouldn't it have to be "crazy"?

 

[IUhottie]

That's kind of misleading when presented as a percentage of GDP. Better to show it as which portion of our taxes per year go into defense. Which is around 15 to 20% of the budget. Which is ridiculous. We have more weapons than all of europe (sans Russian Fed) combined. For what? What do we need F-22's for? Terrorists don't have jets. Why do we send tanks to current war zones to start their engines once a day and do nothing else? Why do we need troops garrisoned in over 150 countries? Why are tax payers arming a military that's being used as a corporate arm? We could spend half of that and still be the most powerful (by far) military in the world.

We have so much surplus that our Police is probably the 2nd most well armed military in the world. (Not really, but I bet they are top ten.)

Our defense budget should be cut in half. Period.

I've honestly had it with the military and the spending.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have no answers, I'm not smart enough, I hope there's people who are but it doesn't take a genius to see that none of this is sustainable. The world is soon going to enter another technological era. Robotics, computers and printers can and will eventually, replace much of what we do. What are all the people going to do when there's no need for them. If people are bothered by welfare now, just wait.

The most logical thing, but not in any way moral, would be to exterminate a majority of the race and never let it get this big again. That's a sick thought though. The times, and what is truly important are a changin', and we can no longer be strapped to the concept of false economy, or cost, or any of that nonsense and still survive.

The planet is sick, and it's obvious and all we're doing is arguing and making the most infinitesimal steps. That disappoints me so much. I expected better of us.

The easy solution is this: burn it all down. The only reason we have jobs which earn money so we can buy toys is, essentially, because we don't want to be bothered to grow our own food. We want the 2% of the population that works on a farm to grow all our food for us, so we come up with other things we want, and insert ourselves into the economy some way in order to attain those things. If we simply went back to a subsistence lifestyle, all these problems would go away.

However, a ton of people would die. The current population of the earth is only sustainable because of the integrated economy. Japanese ranchers buy feed from California for their livestock. Middle-easterners have to import a significant amount of their water intake, either through bottled drinks or imported fruit. If the Coca-Cola company disappeared overnight, a bunch of people in desert countries would die of thirst within days. Much of Africa, even on a vegetarian diet, can't grow enough food to feed everyone.

Then, of course, there are all the people who couldn't make the transition. I know I could. If the government passed another Homestead Act, I'd be on that shit like ants on honey. But a lot of people would starve within a year when they couldn't figure out how to provide food long term.

So, if we don't want to kill everyone, I think the solution is obvious: we need to put whatever it takes in terms of effort and money to convert our economy to entirely solar power. Once we learn how to do it efficiently, we can start putting solar collectors in space and beaming energy back to earth in the form of microwaves.

I suspect our species will probably kill itself before we accomplish this.

 

[C-$]

The easy solution is this: burn it all down. The only reason we have jobs which earn money so we can buy toys is, essentially, because we don't want to be bothered to grow our own food. We want the 2% of the population that works on a farm to grow all our food for us, so we come up with other things we want, and insert ourselves into the economy some way in order to attain those things. If we simply went back to a subsistence lifestyle, all these problems would go away.

However, a ton of people would die. The current population of the earth is only sustainable because of the integrated economy. Japanese ranchers buy feed from California for their livestock. Middle-easterners have to import a significant amount of their water intake, either through bottled drinks or imported fruit. If the Coca-Cola company disappeared overnight, a bunch of people in desert countries would die of thirst within days. Much of Africa, even on a vegetarian diet, can't grow enough food to feed everyone.

Then, of course, there are all the people who couldn't make the transition. I know I could. If the government passed another Homestead Act, I'd be on that shit like ants on honey. But a lot of people would starve within a year when they couldn't figure out how to provide food long term.

So, if we don't want to kill everyone, I think the solution is obvious: we need to put whatever it takes in terms of effort and money to convert our economy to entirely solar power. Once we learn how to do it efficiently, we can start putting solar collectors in space and beaming energy back to earth in the form of microwaves.

I suspect our species will probably kill itself before we accomplish this.

On a scale of 1-10, how high are you right now?

 

[T.M.P.]

On a scale of 1-10, how high are you right now?

This is why I give you fart sites to entertain you.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

On a scale of 1-10, how high are you right now?

I don't get high. I did just crack open my third beer.

 

[T.M.P.]

The easy solution is this: burn it all down. The only reason we have jobs which earn money so we can buy toys is, essentially, because we don't want to be bothered to grow our own food. We want the 2% of the population that works on a farm to grow all our food for us, so we come up with other things we want, and insert ourselves into the economy some way in order to attain those things. If we simply went back to a subsistence lifestyle, all these problems would go away.

However, a ton of people would die. The current population of the earth is only sustainable because of the integrated economy. Japanese ranchers buy feed from California for their livestock. Middle-easterners have to import a significant amount of their water intake, either through bottled drinks or imported fruit. If the Coca-Cola company disappeared overnight, a bunch of people in desert countries would die of thirst within days. Much of Africa, even on a vegetarian diet, can't grow enough food to feed everyone.

Then, of course, there are all the people who couldn't make the transition. I know I could. If the government passed another Homestead Act, I'd be on that shit like ants on honey. But a lot of people would starve within a year when they couldn't figure out how to provide food long term.

So, if we don't want to kill everyone, I think the solution is obvious: we need to put whatever it takes in terms of effort and money to convert our economy to entirely solar power. Once we learn how to do it efficiently, we can start putting solar collectors in space and beaming energy back to earth in the form of microwaves.

I suspect our species will probably kill itself before we accomplish this.

Here's a question to ponder. Is utopia possible without some form of totalitarianism? The obvious problem is what the vision of utopia is to different people.

And, what I said above about technology growth. We're entering an era where many jobs could (and will eventually) be done by machine. It's the next step in our evolution. This will happen as the population grows by 2 billion or more. There will relatively soon (50 years or less) be huge job shortages.

This whole dynamic we've created of having a majority of the population go to work to earn chips to buy food and other necessities, is soon going to be obsolete and outdated. Sure there will be programming, tech creation and maintenance jobs, but much of that will also then be replaced by machine. What do we do with all the jobless people? What are the Pelkowski's of the world gonna do then?

 

[T.M.P.]

I don't get high. I did just crack open my third beer.

Same thing different drug.

*sigh*

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Here's a question to ponder. Is utopia possible without some form of totalitarianism? The obvious problem is what the vision of utopia is to different people.

And, what I said above about technology growth. We're entering an era where many jobs could (and will eventually) be done by machine. It's the next step in our evolution. This will happen as the population grows by 2 billion or more. There will relatively soon (50 years or less) be huge job shortages.

This whole dynamic we've created of having a majority of the population go to work to earn chips to buy food and other necessities, is soon going to be obsolete and outdated. Sure there will be programming, tech creation and maintenance jobs, but much of that will also then be replaced by machine. What do we do with all the jobless people? What are the Pelkowski's of the world gonna do then?

Do you remember your Asimov? "The Evitable Conflict," 1950. In it, Susan Calvin discovers that the machines used to organize the economy have generalized the first law of robotics to the command that they must do what is best for humanity as a whole. They have determined that the best thing for humanity is for the machines to take total control of everything. Calvin thinks this is wonderful. Her conversation partner, Stephen Byerley (who is himself a robot, ironically) is appalled. But Calvin explains that the machines make the perfect benevolent dictator. By their very nature, they will only make the decisions that benefit humanity as a whole, and humans can now have the incredible burden of policy-making lifted entirely from their shoulders.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Same thing different drug.

*sigh*

Yeah, but I think C-$ was talking about pot specifically.

 

[T.M.P.]

Do you remember your Asimov? "The Evitable Conflict," 1950. In it, Susan Calvin discovers that the machines used to organize the economy have generalized the first law of robotics to the command that they must do what is best for humanity as a whole. They have determined that the best thing for humanity is for the machines to take total control of everything. Calvin thinks this is wonderful. Her conversation partner, Stephen Byerley (who is himself a robot, ironically) is appalled. But Calvin explains that the machines make the perfect benevolent dictator. By their very nature, they will only make the decisions that benefit humanity as a whole, and humans can now have the incredible burden of policy-making lifted entirely from their shoulders.

This post is a great example of why science fiction and fantasy are important and are great mediums for entertainment or reflection. It allows us to explore different concepts, sometimes things we have yet to experience, and other times from a differing, generally simplified, perspective.

Moops mention of Star Trek and your's of Asimov ... Are you paying attention Phish? Kraft Dick Cheese? Imagination may somehow (or may not) save the human race from itself.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This post is a great example of why science fiction and fantasy are important and are great mediums for entertainment or reflection. It allows us to explore different concepts, sometimes things we have yet to experience, and other times from a differing, generally simplified, perspective.

Moops mention of Star Trek and your's of Asimov ... Are you paying attention Phish? Kraft Dick Cheese? Imagination may somehow (or may not) save the human race from itself.

Another good example of a sci-fi examination of Utopia is Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed. It examines a society set up on purely anarchistic principles.

Personal hijack. My recreational writing the past couple of years has been almost entirely science-fiction. Just this week I got the best rejection letter I've ever received. The editor of Lightspeed magazine declined a story I submitted, but instead of the form letter rejection about 99% of submissions get within two days, he sat on my story for well over a week before sending me a personal rejection, making it clear the story was good but just not quite right for his magazine. I'll be giving it a short revision before sending it somewhere else, but it's good to know I'm on the right track. Even when the editor says, "No," it's still nice to hear that he thinks I have talent.

 

[T.M.P.]

Another good example of a sci-fi examination of Utopia is Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed. It examines a society set up on purely anarchistic principles.

Personal hijack. My recreational writing the past couple of years has been almost entirely science-fiction. Just this week I got the best rejection letter I've ever received. The editor of Lightspeed magazine declined a story I submitted, but instead of the form letter rejection about 99% of submissions get within two days, he sat on my story for well over a week before sending me a personal rejection, making it clear the story was good but just not quite right for his magazine. I'll be giving it a short revision before sending it somewhere else, but it's good to know I'm on the right track. Even when the editor says, "No," it's still nice to hear that he thinks I have talent.

Keep writing. If I could, I would.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Keep writing. If I could, I would.

It's not as hard as you might think. You studied screenwriting, right? Prose is very similar. Good writing is good writing, no matter the format.

Most people who think they can write are godawful, because they think it's all inspiration, and don't realize it's actually a tiny bit of inspiration and mostly craft. I bet your first short story would be better than 90% of what's out there.