Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Eating in the Britainlands.; What?
Topic Started: Mar 23 2012, 01:36 PM (6,949 Views)
DawnofRoxas
Member Avatar

I live in California I know my race
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grey
Member Avatar

Dantos4
Mar 28 2012, 05:09 PM
Also, we have those celebrity freak programmes like Jersey Shore. People famous for being famous:
"Geordie Shore" > Instead of Jersey Shore
"Desperate Scousewives" > Instead of Desperate Housewives
"The only way is Essex" & "Made in Chelsea" are London versions.
That is just.... wow....

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grey
Member Avatar

Kagurodraven
Mar 28 2012, 05:20 PM
Here is the way New Yorkers see it Random.
Jersey is full of morons.
Pennsilvania and Jersey are smog covered hellholes.
The south is full of inbred morons
The West coast is full of pompus jackasses.
Mid-west is biblethumpers
We are just assholes,to everyone, esspecially each other.
I can vouch for the south and the mid-west in saying that you are completely correct.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Greysoul
Mar 28 2012, 06:40 PM
Dantos4
Mar 28 2012, 05:09 PM
Also, we have those celebrity freak programmes like Jersey Shore. People famous for being famous:
"Geordie Shore" > Instead of Jersey Shore
"Desperate Scousewives" > Instead of Desperate Housewives
"The only way is Essex" & "Made in Chelsea" are London versions.
That is just.... wow....

It honestly makes me sympathise with serial killers. Well, those who kill airhead, moronic, fame hungry, self obsessed, vain idiots. I can sympathise with those.

Also... deep question here, why is America so anti-socialist? (E.g. against Obama making healthcare free. Or that's what we were told over here, anyway) A quick Google search gave me a Yahoo answers with phrases like "do you want your Government to tell you what job you should have? Or how much you should get paid?"... Is this what Americans are fed about socialism?
Edited by Dantos4, Mar 28 2012, 06:45 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

Dantos4
Mar 28 2012, 06:45 PM
Greysoul
Mar 28 2012, 06:40 PM
Dantos4
Mar 28 2012, 05:09 PM
Also, we have those celebrity freak programmes like Jersey Shore. People famous for being famous:
"Geordie Shore" > Instead of Jersey Shore
"Desperate Scousewives" > Instead of Desperate Housewives
"The only way is Essex" & "Made in Chelsea" are London versions.
That is just.... wow....

It honestly makes me sympathise with serial killers. Well, those who kill airhead, moronic, fame hungry, self obsessed, vain idiots. I can sympathise with those.

Also... deep question here, why is America so anti-socialist? (E.g. against Obama making healthcare free. Or that's what we were told over here, anyway) A quick Google search gave me a Yahoo answers with phrases like "do you want your Government to tell you what job you should have? Or how much you should get paid?"... Is this what Americans are fed about socialism?
In a sense yes. Think about it. This country (America) was founded because the common man did not want a "glass ceiling" over his head. Socialism uses money taken from the rich and given to the poor. Meaning that, if you rise too high, the government will tear you down again. This looks good on paper, but not in practice. I mean, if you have everyone on equal ground, economically, you'll most likely end up with a whole bunch of impoverished people and a rich, elite government.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kagurodraven
Member Avatar

Dantos4
Mar 28 2012, 06:45 PM
Greysoul
Mar 28 2012, 06:40 PM
Dantos4
Mar 28 2012, 05:09 PM
Also, we have those celebrity freak programmes like Jersey Shore. People famous for being famous:
"Geordie Shore" > Instead of Jersey Shore
"Desperate Scousewives" > Instead of Desperate Housewives
"The only way is Essex" & "Made in Chelsea" are London versions.
That is just.... wow....

It honestly makes me sympathise with serial killers. Well, those who kill airhead, moronic, fame hungry, self obsessed, vain idiots. I can sympathise with those.

Also... deep question here, why is America so anti-socialist? (E.g. against Obama making healthcare free. Or that's what we were told over here, anyway) A quick Google search gave me a Yahoo answers with phrases like "do you want your Government to tell you what job you should have? Or how much you should get paid?"... Is this what Americans are fed about socialism?
I have NO idea. I've spent the last few years asking people if I suddenly got teleported to the 50s whenever this comes up.
Edited by Kagurodraven, Mar 28 2012, 06:51 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

RandomMan1
Mar 28 2012, 06:49 PM
In a sense yes. Think about it. This country (America) was founded because the common man did not want a "glass ceiling" over his head. Socialism uses money taken from the rich and given to the poor. Meaning that, if you rise too high, the government will tear you down again. This looks good on paper, but not in practice. I mean, if you have everyone on equal ground, economically, you'll most likely end up with a whole bunch of impoverished people and a rich, elite government.
Very true, but with the current system, do you not end up with the same thing? Yet instead of the Government it is the 1% of upper classes that Greysoul mentioned?

To me it looks like this (I could be wrong, obviously :P):
Everybody has that "American Dream" of being in that 1%, so they figure that "When I make it into that 1%, I don't want to have to share."

But what they don't realise is that 99% of them are never going to be in that 1%. So it would be better for the quality of life overall for the wealth to be shared. I just read in this article that this 1% of earners pay almost 1/3 of the country's tax income. If you spread it around, you would end up with that income spread amongst everybody ideally.

Personally, I think they both have their major flaws in practice, but look good on paper. Between them both though, I'd take socialism. At least there everybody is guaranteed a decent quality of life. Not one guy with an amazing quality and 500,000 with a bad quality.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

I will never argue that capitalism has it's own flaws, but I'd still take it over socialism. After all, what capitalism does is it at least allows you to rise up into the 1%. Socialism sets up everyone in the same position, which they can never climb out of. It's either everyone has the same, which, most of the examples in history have shown, is usally below the poverty line.

The problem is, all the 1% can do in regards to running the country is sending in lobbyists to get the job done. Lobbyists aren't always succesful. When you spread the wealth, the government is going to come ot with more money than everyone else. If a tyrant ever steps in, they can destroy the entire system by taking everything for themselves.

Also, I have my own qeuestion. Are the terms 1% and 99% acurate? Lat time I checked, they only came up when the Occupy Wall Street movement came up, and it was their motto. Also, that's only a statistic. Please remeber the government would need to collect some of that money to pay off debts (and looking at our debt, that still probably wouldn't be enough :) ), so the people will not get the entire bulk of the collected wealth.

Here's an examaple, let's say you are a shoe-maker (it's hyothetical, don't get all nip-picky here), and you create shoes for $12, and sell them for $14. Then, your socialist government comes in and tells you to sell the shoes for $8 each, so you are now losing money. The reason? It's so your neighbor can afford to buy your shoes. Now, that looks good, everyone gets shoes, and you get buissness... however, you will end up going out of buissness, because you can no longer to afford to make the shoes you sell. So, now you're out of work, because of socialism. The same will happen to all buisness owners lke you, and the government will then buy the companies, and use taxpayer funds to keep them running. When they have complete control of the commerical world, they'll have control of the country.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Dantos4
Member Avatar

Not necessarily unable to climb out of. Let's take an educational example:
Guy A in capitalist country is born into a rich family, isn't extremely bright, goes to a rich school, gets best education, gets a disease but can pay major money to have it cured and becomes a high paid-job-guy living a luxury life.
Guy B in capitalist society is naturally very intelligent, can't afford a good education, is surrounded by poverty and crime, poor education, can only get a terrible job, ends up in prison because of crime (petty crime and poverty are usually linked heavily), can't get a job when released, gets a disease & can't pay to have it cured.

By all accounts, let's say Guy B had more potential. Whereas in the socialist society, ideally they would both sit exams to test their intelligence and potential, then be assigned to schools which suit their potential.

Think of it less like "when you try to climb up, everybody else pulls you down" and more like "when you're down, everybody else picks you up".

And the tyrant argument is also true for the capitalist system. Even more so, I would say. The rich can essentially create a glass ceiling of their own using the old "you gotta spend money to make money" philosophy. It also doesn't help that the "upper class" can actually further their own profits by creating a product deficit for the lower classes. Less supply = more demand = higher prices = higher profit margin per unit. Under socialism, everybody would get a fair share. None of this excess hoarding of goods (greed), because there would already be an abundance.

That is true, it could cause problems there. But you have to remember there are many types of market-socialism. There are so many debates as to how a proper socialist government should run it's market economy (or even if it should be a market economy at all!). I would assume that there would end up being a base price for the product. I.E. Everybody produces leather for $3, laces for $2 and the soles for 7$. So everybody must charge at least $13 to make a profit. If people could not afford that, then obviously the poorer are not receiving enough of the share of money.

The important point is that it would be redistributed until the poorest in society could afford shoes. It is all about making sure everybody has the basics (clothes, shelter, healthcare, etc etc etc) then building up from there. Marxist socialism/communism encourages individuality to an extent, however, with the abolition of 'luxury' goods (no longer luxury as anybody can afford them), then people are less inclined to identify themselves as "how much I earn, what materials I bought" and more inclined to identify themselves as people with personalities, hobbies, friends and roles within society.

On the 1% thing, I have no idea. I remember Obama saying a similar thing in a speech I saw, but he didn't quote any figures. Just stuff about "the majority being in poverty whilst a minority was in wealth".
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RandomMan1
Member Avatar

Dantos4
Mar 28 2012, 07:48 PM
Not necessarily unable to climb out of. Let's take an educational example:
Guy A in capitalist country is born into a rich family, isn't extremely bright, goes to a rich school, gets best education, gets a disease but can pay major money to have it cured and becomes a high paid-job-guy living a luxury life.
Guy B in capitalist society is naturally very intelligent, can't afford a good education, is surrounded by poverty and crime, poor education, can only get a terrible job, ends up in prison because of crime (petty crime and poverty are usually linked heavily), can't get a job when released, gets a disease & can't pay to have it cured.

By all accounts, let's say Guy B had more potential. Whereas in the socialist society, ideally they would both sit exams to test their intelligence and potential, then be assigned to schools which suit their potential.

Think of it less like "when you try to climb up, everybody else pulls you down" and more like "when you're down, everybody else picks you up".

And the tyrant argument is also true for the capitalist system. Even more so, I would say. The rich can essentially create a glass ceiling of their own using the old "you gotta spend money to make money" philosophy. It also doesn't help that the "upper class" can actually further their own profits by creating a product deficit for the lower classes. Less supply = more demand = higher prices = higher profit margin per unit. Under socialism, everybody would get a fair share. None of this excess hoarding of goods (greed), because there would already be an abundance.

That is true, it could cause problems there. But you have to remember there are many types of market-socialism. There are so many debates as to how a proper socialist government should run it's market economy (or even if it should be a market economy at all!). I would assume that there would end up being a base price for the product. I.E. Everybody produces leather for $3, laces for $2 and the soles for 7$. So everybody must charge at least $13 to make a profit. If people could not afford that, then obviously the poorer are not receiving enough of the share of money.

The important point is that it would be redistributed until the poorest in society could afford shoes. It is all about making sure everybody has the basics (clothes, shelter, healthcare, etc etc etc) then building up from there. Marxist socialism/communism encourages individuality to an extent, however, with the abolition of 'luxury' goods (no longer luxury as anybody can afford them), then people are less inclined to identify themselves as "how much I earn, what materials I bought" and more inclined to identify themselves as people with personalities, hobbies, friends and roles within society.

On the 1% thing, I have no idea. I remember Obama saying a similar thing in a speech I saw, but he didn't quote any figures. Just stuff about "the majority being in poverty whilst a minority was in wealth".
Okay, how about another example:
Guy A in a socialist society is a factry worker. He is a hard worker, is very intelligent, wants to move on to a better life, and is just barley scraping together emough money to feed him and his family. He has to resort to crime to get the amount of food his family needs.
Guy B in a socialist society is lazy, stupid, and has little to no ambition, and he is making the same amount of money as Guy A. He even has the same position as Guy A.

Now, by all accounts, Guy A deserves better than what Gut B has, as he has better qualites. However, the socialist system is putting him down. So now, he has to scrape by with the same amount Guy B gets, even though he's the better employ, why? Because everyone has to be on equal ground

That is not the type of tyrant system I was talking about. If a government has control of all the buissnesses, they have almost complete influence of the people. When you have complete influence over people, you can make them do things. Buissnesses can do what you said, but there are still other places, like schools, which they don't control. Influencing the market is a lot diffrent than influencing the thoughts of the people. You assume the government would make sure everyone made a profit, or could they make sure buisnesses couldn't, take control of the buissnesses, then have all the money they could need. Not to mention the could easily lower prices to beat independent sellers. It would be affordabel, sure, but at the expense at an individual's right to own a buissness. It could cause talatarianism. It happened under Stalin in the Soviet Union (http://www.historydoctor.net/Advanced%20Placement%20European%20History/Notes/soviet_union_under_stalin.htm )

Great, everyone has the basis, though it wiuld be easy to provide these without going so extreme (charities, free clinics, etc, etc, etc). Also, this can sacrafice people's rights. How can you speak out against the government, if you know pissing them off will cut off what little you have. You can no longer own a buissness, doing so would be extrenous, the government will simply beat you out. How can you be sure people will indetify themselves with roles, hobbies, etc. Humans will always find something to make themselves seem better than the other guy. If it isn't money, it will be something else. Not to mention even if everyone can have the basics, the government will still have the luxuries. The money they don't have to distribute can go right into their pockets.

The problem with the 1% and 99%, is it completley ignores the middle class. The people who have money, but aren't wealthy. If socialism takes effect, they'll suffer worst. The poor will get more, the rich will be punished for their greed. The middle class? Everything they worked hard for will be tossed down the drain. That's the problem with socialism. It's black and white. Rich or poor. Meanwhile, there are people in between that will get it even harder.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.