Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

Kibiyama wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology?

As I was saying...

"Psychological"

it never ceases to amaze me how opinionated people can be when they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about

And that's why I love these forums.

DarkNemesis wrote:Last edited by DarkNemesis on Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

As you were saying...

"Physiological"

Kibiyama wrote:

• We no longer have a free market. We have a tangled web of rules -- contradictory, outdated, sometimes outright screwing the "Average Joe" in favor of big business.
• We're dead scared we are of letting any business die. Businesses are supposed to come and go, evolve or get replaced by a new company.
• Everything is owned by a very small number (about 6) of big businesses.
• We spend money like it's nothing, we print money like it's nothing, and as a result it has become nothing.

Elreth wrote:it never ceases to amaze me how opinionated people can be when they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about

I think that covers it.

Elreth wrote:it never ceases to amaze me how opinionated people can be when they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about

Uh, except this is a poll, not a discussion board.

There really isn't any thing to talk about, you just vote.

No, you vote and discuss your vote and the topic. If there isn't anything to talk about, why do you reply every 3-4 messages with your opinions?

jamn455 wrote:No, you vote and discuss your vote and the topic. If there isn't anything to talk about, why do you reply every 3-4 messages with your opinions?

Because there's a huge difference between a "reply" and a "discussion" to something.

And that's the point, isn't it? That's exactly what a my reply's were....reply's, not discussions and/or arguments, at least for the most part.

DarkNemesis wrote:

jamn455 wrote:No, you vote and discuss your vote and the topic. If there isn't anything to talk about, why do you reply every 3-4 messages with your opinions?

Because there's a huge difference between a "reply" and a "discussion" to something.

And that's the point, isn't it? That's exactly what a my reply's were....reply's, not discussions and/or arguments, at least for the most part.

well how about you stop "replying" and just give up then.

I need a "less than 1 year" option in the poll for Germany.

Storamin wrote:...

Elreth wrote:it never ceases to amaze me how opinionated people can be when they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about

I think that covers it.

Prove me wrong. The only thing I can see you disputing is the 6 companies thing. My source for that is Zeitgeist, though, so honestly I sort of dispute it too.

Storamin wrote:

DarkNemesis wrote:

jamn455 wrote:No, you vote and discuss your vote and the topic. If there isn't anything to talk about, why do you reply every 3-4 messages with your opinions?

Because there's a huge difference between a "reply" and a "discussion" to something.

And that's the point, isn't it? That's exactly what a my reply's were....reply's, not discussions and/or arguments, at least for the most part.

well how about you stop "replying" and just give up then.

Why don't you remind Jamn and Tehwootz while your at it.

Oh yeah, that's because your in on the troll fest.

Kibiyama wrote:

Storamin wrote:...

Elreth wrote:it never ceases to amaze me how opinionated people can be when they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about

I think that covers it.

Prove me wrong. The only thing I can see you disputing is the 6 companies thing. My source for that is Zeitgeist, though, so honestly I sort of dispute it too.

i think you proved yourself wrong there.

DarkNemesis wrote:Why don't you remind Jamn and Tehwootz while your at it.

Oh yeah, that's because your in on the troll fest.

We no longer have a free market. We have a tangled web of rules -- contradictory, outdated, sometimes outright screwing the "Average Joe" in favor of big business.

Phrased in an alarmist way, yet nevertheless has a decent amount of truth in it. To say the market isn't still mostly free is wrong, and it still operates pretty damn well, but its absolutely not completely free.

We're dead scared we are of letting any business die. Businesses are supposed to come and go, evolve or get replaced by a new company.

Absolutely true. Bad business decisions should lead to the company dying, not having taxpaye dollars to fund even more bad decisions. One of the best quotes i read during the auto bailout pointed out that bankruptcy IS a bailout, a releasing or delaying payment of debt.

To be fair, most of the 'bailout' money is suppose to be just a loan, which we'd recover on eventually, so calling it a bailout is somewhat misleading. Still the point is true, we do have some sort of concept that nothing can ever go away.

Everything is owned by a very small number (about 6) of big businesses.

Bullshit, especially now that i know its from zeitgeist ;P

We spend money like it's nothing, we print money like it's nothing, and as a result it has become nothing.

Again accurate, the highest deficit was set a few years ago at around $300b, now Obama's (Mr Hope of all people) talking about trillions lost per year as far as we can see. And there's no denying the dollar has lost alot of buying power in the past 8 years (although it has shown signs of recovering since around july). I will dispute that we print money like its nothing though...if that were the case, we'd be seeing insane inflation, not this moderate rise. Certainly we print more then we should, but its not like we're printing it to pay off the national debt over a year.

Storamin, I suggest you say more against what people say instead of just accusing them to not know what the fuck they're talking about, because at the moment that person looks like you.

DarnYak

DarnYak wrote:Bullshit, especially now that i know its from zeitgeist ;P

Yeah, I'll retract that. I was being intentionally extremist because this thread was all "Let's echo what we hear on the news and pretend we're actually discussing something so we feel intellectual."

But if we're going to be serious, there is a grain of truth to that "fact", which is why zeitgeist can sell it so easily: A really big part of the entire US market belongs to a really small number of organizations. Like, an unreasonable amount. Like, so big that it's impossible to believe that they can deliver these goods and services as efficiently as an organization that focuses exclusively on one thing.

DarnYak wrote:To say the market isn't still mostly free is wrong, and it still operates pretty damn well, but its absolutely not completely free.

It's either free or it's not. As long as we've got enough choices to satisfy most people, consumers will think it's "free enough." But small businesses are fucked, and big businesses are more often co-conspirators than competitors.

Text messages, for example -- the first company that had the idea to make people pay for those should've been ridiculed and the rest should've provided it for free. But instead they all hopped onboard and made tons of money off of something that costs them virtually nothing.

But that's just the climate, that's saying nothing of how the government is screwing over the little guy. I won't pretend to know the specifics there, I just know that that's how it is. As long as there've been politicians, there've been corrupt politicians.

(Totally off-track, by the way. My original point with that quote was that politicians keep suggesting new rules to fix everything, which just takes us further and further from a free market.)

It's either free or it's not.

One anti free law doesn't make the entire thing non-free, its far more of a sliding scale.

Text messages, for example -- the first company that had the idea to make people pay for those should've been ridiculed and the rest should've provided it for free. But instead they all hopped onboard and made tons of money off of something that costs them virtually nothing.

Uh, this IS the free market. Not necessarily a healthy one, but the government didn't mandate that text messages cost money or anything. Bad example, its more of one of how too free of a market sucks when there's not sufficient competition.

Not that I dissagree with your overall points.

DarnYak

This seems hilarious.

"Let's echo what we hear on the news and pretend we're actually discussing something so we feel intellectual."

"But that's just the climate, that's saying nothing of how the government is screwing over the little guy. I won't pretend to know the specifics there, I just know that that's how it is. As long as there've been politicians, there've been corrupt politicians."

I hope you weren't excluding yourself.

It's either free or it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

You don't need wiki to baby you for every source and it's not scientific gospel, but you can sift through the bs and get a general picture of why that statement is completely false through that link.

Text messages, for example -- the first company that had the idea to make people pay for those should've been ridiculed and the rest should've provided it for free. But instead they all hopped onboard and made tons of money off of something that costs them virtually nothing.

Do you have another way of doing it? You claim to want a 'free market', yet you seem willing to put restrictions on certain things that you feel should be resources to everyone and to prevent people from exploiting opportunities to make money out of them that would result in a lot of people getting hurt. Regardless of flutters to the good or evil side of your moral compass, that's basically what the United States and many other major-world economies do, except it doesn't involve itself in the frivolous 10-cent market of texting (because a) that doesn't really hurt anyone, b) they have to deal with scarier shit every year).

We no longer have a free market. We have a tangled web of rules -- contradictory, outdated, sometimes outright screwing the "Average Joe" in favor of big business.

It's probably better to explain those rules and go over the specific ones you disagree with, because some of those rules save small business' lives yearly. The United States is one of the most hospitable places for small business in the entire world, and every "big business" corporation was generally at some point, a small business. Is it perfect? No. But really you can't generalize like that without providing a little more evidence as to what you mean and why it is you mean and why you think it sucks.

Prove me wrong. The only thing I can see you disputing is the 6 companies thing. My source for that is Zeitgeist, though, so honestly I sort of dispute it too.

There are few things worth sourcing from Zeitgeist and that certainly was not one of them.

DarkNemesis wrote:

Elreth wrote:it never ceases to amaze me how opinionated people can be when they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about

Uh, except this is a poll, not a discussion board.

There really isn't any thing to talk about, you just vote.

So you just want us to vote, but not actually discuss the matter?

For the most part, yes. That's why its a poll. Though comments/reasons for the answers you put are fine.

This isn't suppose to be a huge, complex argument here, although certain members of this forum are clearly trying to do so.

If, at the very least, to start a trolling fest.

Trolling requires intent to provoke. In which case I don't think that's their intentions for this thread. Well a few posts are, but most aren't. Though flame and trolling can go hand to hand, regardless there's a sizable contrast. Someone who'd be a troller but not really a flamer, myself. Someone who'd be a flamer but not so much a troller would be Jamn455.

Perhaps wrote:Trolling requires intent to provoke. In which case I don't think that's their intentions for this thread. Well a few posts are, but most aren't. Though flame and trolling can go hand to hand, regardless there's a sizable contrast. Someone who'd be a troller but not really a flamer, myself. Someone who'd be a flamer but not so much a troller would be Jamn455.

No it doesn't.

Moving on...

What I find funny and ironic is Obama bitching about Bush and his deficit, yet he want's to spend three times as much, or more, (800 billion-1 trillion) to so called "boost" the economy. There is no doubt Bush spent way too much, that's a no-brainer, but at least, for the most part, his spending went to stuff like defense and the army. Obama, however, wants to give all little kids in Arkansas high-speed internet access and hire government workers to screw in light bulbs in public buildings, as if it requires so much arduous labor.

Oh and I never disrupt "on-topic" discussion, because by the time I get there someone has posted to derail the thread first.

DarnYak wrote:Storamin, I suggest you say more against what people say instead of just accusing them to not know what the fuck they're talking about, because at the moment that person looks like you.

got my MBA from a top b school 25 school and CPA license and stopped unless somebody was paying for my opinion

DarkNemesis wrote: Moving on...

What I find funny and ironic is Obama bitching about Bush and his deficit, yet he want's to spend three times as much, or more, (800 billion-1 trillion) to so called "boost" the economy. There is no doubt Bush spent way too much, that's a no-brainer, but at least, for the most part, his spending went to stuff like defense and the army. Obama, however, wants to give all little kids in Arkansas high-speed internet access and hire government workers to screw in light bulbs in public buildings, as if it requires so much arduous labor.

You're certainly trivializing what Obama wants to do. I guess I don't understand -- paying for the army is somehow better spending than giving students access to the internet?

Uknow the Library of Congress? Do you know how much information is in there? "It contains some 18 million books, 2.5 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.5 million maps, and more than 54 million manuscripts." Lot of stuff? Literally, a Library of Congress worth of information is created every 15 minutes on the internet. Hell, the time it took me to read this thread & reply another one was created. By providing internet access, you allow someone to access that information, and increasing their education. The relationship between education and the economy is well documented.

There are 2 major ways the government can influence the economy. Supply side & Demand side. Supply side is the Fed and controlling the dollar, and they're doing a pretty damn good job. Demand side is the government spending. As it is, government spending is ~35% of GDP. ANY increase in government spending has significant effects on GDP, and the economy. Then the trickle down theory kicks in...

Think of it this way: Go to any restauraunt. Look around you and what do you see: mass consumption. EVERYTHING in there is consumption, the chairs you sat on, the plate you ate off of, the food. Our economy has been built on this. For years other people have been willing to lend us the money so that we could spend it. People from China, Japan, all over the world. They saved money, which we borrowed and spent. This paradigm is over, and has significant impacts. Imagine what would happen if that shit just stopped.


And I agree with you, DarnYak, that we're afraid of letting companies fail. A lot of my former classmates are out there on the street... so I'm quite biased. It's much different when you get calls from friends who are on the street and want a bailout than if you think of them as stupid, rich fat cats with $$$$$

we blamed this crisis on the harvard MBAs. they dont know jack shit.