this should speed up healthcare reform???
- Thread starter SkaarjMaster
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
- Status
Lizard Of Oz
Demented Avenger
I don't feel it's was his right. In fact, I support term limits.
I was pointing out how incredibly dense it was to point out that "THE PEOPLE" took his Senate seat away. I pretty sure his dying had something to do with it.
I was also pointing out how ludicrous it was to assume that "THE PEOPLE" had started some of revolution and booted the dead man out. Were he alive and he was up for reelection, he would have won it handily.
What logic!
Lizard Of Oz
Demented Avenger
That said. I'm happy a republican won the seat. I think it will kill the healthcare reform bill, which I don't care for (I prefer a balls-out single-payer INSURANCE system), and it will, probably also mean the death of "Cap & Trade" (I prefer a reward system for carbon/pollution control rather than a penalty based system).
Sadly then his winning was the worst for you. In the end what will happen is they will stay behind closed doors to figure out what to do next leaving out you and everyone else. Probably cut back the healthcare bill to where its just simple things. It won't include a public option or universal care most likely. Thank god for that. I really don't like thieves being allowed by law. Or they will do the total asshole thing and do the nuclear option or figure out a way to avoid the senate. Regardless it will probably appear at some later time in some other bill one way or the other.
And you calling yourself a independent is just wrong. I fail to see how you aren't far left? Is it perhaps the democrats aren't left enough? What gives being independent?
And you calling yourself a independent is just wrong. I fail to see how you aren't far left? Is it perhaps the democrats aren't left enough? What gives being independent?
Last edited:
Larkin, you are an idiot. Perhaps if you had finished reading the book you are quoting to us you would realize that all the disappeared industrialists have retreated to a valley that is utopia because they all just love hard work. This is what Ayn Rand believes will happen if such people banded together. Utopia. She's not even joking, even though it's hilarious.
You say such idiotic things as "People that do not add anything to society clearly do not add value to society." Are you kidding me? In the book, all people that believe in any sort of socialist behavior (such as breaking up monopolies) are stupid, cowardly fools who don't know their butt from their face; but that doesn't make it so. In fact, most people who work hard and who produce things believe in various degrees of socialist practices.
You would like to hear the reasoning? Okay. Money is a representational object. It represents value and that value can be traded. No object is inherently good or evil, though it can be used for either. To say that money is literally the root of all evil is absolutely stupid and no one possessing more than thirty brain cells believes it.
My favorite is "capitalism is about the understanding that production and property is what is going to make men greater then they are." Aside from the fantastic grammar, that sentence is still one of the stupidest things you've ever said. It's not only wrong, it is ignorant of capitalism is and what socialism is (and that really, they're a political system vs an economic one). Capitalism is a system that says that the best scenario is to let the market decide and the best will be bought and those behind it will make money but that competition will regulate the marketplace and in the end, everyone will end up getting some because with stiff competition everyone will be raised up. Wheee. Socialism says, hey, that's a cute idea in theory, but power and resources are hogged unfairly at the top and resources should be allocated depending on the amount of work (ie: how is it possible that the CEO is doing 350x the amount of work as the factory worker doing extremely tough work?), with a degree of social intervention for those that have been displaced.
As for the Greed is good bit, you're having trouble understanding extremes. Consumption is good, because it fuels production. Desire is good because it fuels consumption. Greed, however, is an extreme of desire and it seeks to horde. Greed is bad because it seeks an arbitrary and unattainable goal (essentially: more) and has no limits on what will be sacrificed in order to attain what is unattainable. Greed is a destructive extreme.
My favorite part in this section is how you call me wrong and then summarize what I said about how Greed is not the same thing as money. That's good, I like that. But let's start agreeing. Money isn't evil. Greed != money. Money does not create greed and greed does not create money. In fact, I will go further and say that money is great. It allows for the exchange of goods and services in an expedient and helpful way. Money is just a tool. Here's the thing. NO ONE DISAGREES WITH THIS. Rand, in the passage you have quoted, is treating such banal facts as somehow being revelations. They aren't.
That being said, money is the tool of choice for manifesting greed, and greed leads to counterproductive things such as the Standard Oil monopoly which not only put thousands of hardworking people out of jobs, it RAISED the price of oil for the consumers. The reason this happened was because of Greed. Rockefeller wasn't simply in love with working (as Ayn Rand would have suggested), he was greedy and wanted more market share for the sake of more, he wanted more money for the sake of money, he wanted more power and he wanted more prestige. He wanted more at the expense of everything else, resorted to shady and illegal means in order to procure it and without acts of government he would not have stopped or slowed.
So when someone says that money is the root of all evil, they are speaking metaphorically. They are referring to money being a powerful tool for power and that the blind pursuit of it has been one of the more destructive forces throughout history (most wars are fought for greed, for example).
And that concludes my feeding of the troll for today.
~Jason
I cannot agree with this statement enough. Cap and trade is possibly the worst piece of legislation to pass through Congress (although the healthcare bill is a top contender, as is the 2009 Stimulus Package).
I will admit I'm not done with the book yet. I'm only on page 535 so I have probably 600 pages left. I never said I agree with the premise of the book or her and I want to make it clear that is not why I posted that.
Do they? Last I checked a guy that sits at home only adds piss, ****, snot and garbage. Oh and his dead body whenever he dies. Is any of that valuable?
Again, I don't care about the book.
Why thank you for sharing.
Internet grammar attacks always adds to debates.
Yes, I realize their differences.
I never claimed it was perfect. Stop assuming I did.
Why shouldn't the people at the top not get most of the resources? Isn't it only right? Payment is not weighted on the amount of work but by how much skill it takes and how much responsibility it wields. IE: A CEO has 350 times the amount of responsibility of a factory worker. Regardless I assure you the higher up the responsibility the harder the job.
If you weigh it on the amount of work I would think instinctive would be in danger.
I think your logic is failing. Consumption fuels production, but greed and desire makes production possible.
That part was for everyone. Still, its nice we agree.
For some I think its something they refuse to accept.
I understand what you are saying here and again I never meant to claim I agree with this kind of behavior. I think you are taking the source of the quote alittle to seriously.
I think they mean more then that, but I won't bother pointing it out.
Btw, its a novel, so you know, it doesn't have to be perfect. Just pointing that out.
Last edited:
Critical thinking in its fullest right thar.
"Hai gais, the politicians told me that they won't spend too much of other people's monies while they give them to me. There's no reason to believe that anything even tangentially related to the federal or state governments would go catastrophically over budget, right?!"
That does sound nicer and all, but do you know what that would be called? Subsidies en masse. Those would produce market distortions the likes of which would surpass even the farming industry.
dragonfliet said:
Breaking up monopolies would be a very free market thing to do. Remember, under classic liberalism/economics, one of government's purposes is to create a free economic environment, which is ideally conducive to perfect competition. This isn't really possible in the real world, so we end up with monopolistic competition (which is not bad). So....breaking up monopolies/oligopolies is NOT socialistic. It's a tenet of classical economics.
dragonfliet said:
Sorry, fail. The CEO is doing many times more VALUABLE work than the factory worker. It has nothing to do with the quantity of work. If he fails, the whole company fails (as so amply demonstrated by our current predicament). Therefore, he is more highly valued. And that incentive is the basis for people's efforts to rise through the ranks. Very basic economic stuff here.
Last edited:
While I was simply sketching out a very basic idea of a socialist system, I do want to address this. The wage gap has been widening even while companies have not been seeing the astronomical sales needed to warrant such hikes. It is a a result of a cabal of elite people doing a circle jerk and has nothing to do with the best economic strategy. This is one of the things that socialism is frustrated with and many socialist models certainly account for education/experiance/stress/etc., but they also limit the extent that all the lovely rich folk can keep jacking up their salaries. Capitalism gathers the power and the money at the top and those at this summit will do what is in their power to keep things the way they are. It is an inherent flaw in the system.
As for the free market thing--no. A free market is, by definition, free of intervention. It says that a monopoly only happens because there isn't good enough competition and that it will be moderated by itself. The government imposing limits in order to keep the free market in check is entirely a socialist idea that has been grafted onto capitalism. I'm all for hybrid systems so I think this is the very best thing, but to argue that it is the free market is just silly.
~Jason
Stress? Why stress? How do you measure that anyway? I'm pretty sure the big dogs would still win this out using such a ridiculous measuring tool.
Also, I see no justifiable reason that anyone should have their payment limited regardless if the amount is justified or not. It stinks of nothing but jealousy and government control.
Also, I see no justifiable reason that anyone should have their payment limited regardless if the amount is justified or not. It stinks of nothing but jealousy and government control.
Last edited:
pretty much. classic class envy politics.
Class Envy and CEO Pay... and if you disagree then you're a racist!
Festering Anus
Cheeto Hans
Not really. It's often profitable, but it's one of those investments where the state has to prove it is so. It fills the gap between car and plane, considering the 200-250 miles/hour, no check-in hassles, comfort, safety ...Sir_Brizz said:
It's often required to have passenger + cargo on the same line though. Cargo mostly at night of course.
Last edited:
I'm not a big fan of the totally free market as we now know it didn't work so well. I'm not a big fan of cap and trade either. As far as the stimulus package, the first one was fine but after that they should have just let it ride. Of course, by now you guys know my stance on healthcare........something needs to be done and done now!!!
Larkin said:
Some don't want to work, but you aren't enthusiastic about seeing them well paid if they do
In fact it's even good, but it depends on what one may consider greed. Does it mean that it's almost an obsession to struggle everyday to increase our income and property? I was like that once, I managed to have a small business and created jobs before failing miserably.
But if greed is doing so without regarding if it's ethical, without caring if it's at the expense of others, without being proportional to one's effort and competence, then it's not really acceptable.
It always depends on what one is willing to do to get there.
Some don't want to work, but you aren't enthusiastic about seeing them well paid if they do
If people don't want to work they need to be shown the errors of their ways, not rewarded.
Everyone should get paid well, but the basic way it works and the things that are measured on are the most feasible measuring tools that can be found. Education is great and should be used, but it raises problems at certain levels of advancement so it shouldn't be considered a absolute measuring tool, but an abstract one.
If we measure on things like stress, amount of work, how the hard the job is, you get into unmeasurable territory. If you use tools that decide payment they need to be easily determined and defined, not abstract and depend on opinion.
What I'm trying to say here is that desire and greed go hand in hand. You can't have large amount desire without large amount of greed. The question is not if greed on great levels is bad or good, but the understanding that it exists and if you fight it to readily and successfully you kill desire by mistake. If you only put into effect the socialist idea of fighting monopolies and safety regulations and no other socialist idea I believe you do plenty on fighting it. Even when used to stop monopolies you must realize that the act by itself even if its results have the potential to be good, destroy rights. If it is a safety regulation I see no harm, but don't fool safety for control as so many people do. Regulations like all other parts of socialism is something that needs to be understood as first a tool of destruction and control and second a tool for caring of the people. Socialism essence is to help to control the people, their property, their liberty, their rights, and their production. This is why regulations must be done, if done, carefully. Socialism is not a toy that you play with. I assure you of one thing if you go to far you will destroy business, industry, and any hope or desire to create a better life.
I find the term "ethical" to be part of the problem. Who is deciding what is ethical? A term like this needs to be defined and unchanging for it have any meaning.
The amount of effort as a factor is not only not greed, but unmeasurable and unfair to be considered greed. One should not have to be discriminated against and be called greedy because you made it with less effort then your fellow man. You are not greedy or at all unfit to your wealth from such things. If you consider this greed then I must ask you if you even understand what greed is.
Without a doubt.
Last edited:
now that's funny.
socialism and production go together just fine, actually.
the only difference is who owns the means. socialism and production are not mutually exclusive.
Last edited:
- Status