SamuelRSmith said:
You mean... like income tax? |
by "paying" i mean a net loss. Income Tax is not going to put the average worker into net debt.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
badgenome said:
Move on to, or move back to? It'll be different this time, I'm sure. |
It will be. A convergence of a few technologies will diminish the importance of capital ownership, which we can see in its infancy on the internet with the advent of shareware and piracy, but with the rise of renewable energy, crowdsourcing, and the industrial version of crowdsourcing in the form of 3D printers, we'll move down to a society where only a few services (natural resources and natural commodities like food) need to be mass-produced, and even food is trending away from big-industrial farming, long-run.
The major problem of the Soviet era was that it was in the heart of the industrial-capitalist era, when everything needed to be made large scale, and therefore the free market component was important becasue it was impossible to effectively, predictively, gauge the needs of consumers, which was largely where the Soviet Union failed (excellent heavy industry, hideously lacking light industry and end-consumer living standards)
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
badgenome said:
Cover it, by all means. But some sense of proportion would be nice. The country is on an unsustainable fiscal path, the world is burning down around our ears, and all the media ever fixates on is Romney's latest real or imagined gaffe. Vetting a would be president is important and all, but there is a guy who has that job right now and he's never held to account for anything. As for what Romney said, it's hard to imagine why it's even controversial in light of things like Julia. The whole DNC was one big ode to free abortions, for crying out loud. The Democrats seem pretty comfortable with their strategy of encouraging dependency, so why get bent out of shape if someone points it out? |
I'm not sure how an Ode to abortion = dependency...can someone explain that?
The only picture this paints to me is the hypocricy of the GOP. We want to let corporations run rampant and do whatever they want, despite the obvious consequences; however, they want to regulate the indivudal because the government should play the role of decency police? What's more costly to the American public...forcing insitutions to provide birth control for women, or tuting that same Grand Ol' Party song...women should marry and have 10.8 kids they can't afford and subsequently end up on more costly forms of welfare...
-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.
Mr Khan said:
It will be. A convergence of a few technologies will diminish the importance of capital ownership, which we can see in its infancy on the internet with the advent of shareware and piracy, but with the rise of renewable energy, crowdsourcing, and the industrial version of crowdsourcing in the form of 3D printers, we'll move down to a society where only a few services (natural resources and natural commodities like food) need to be mass-produced, and even food is trending away from big-industrial farming, long-run. The major problem of the Soviet era was that it was in the heart of the industrial-capitalist era, when everything needed to be made large scale, and therefore the free market component was important becasue it was impossible to effectively, predictively, gauge the needs of consumers, which was largely where the Soviet Union failed (excellent heavy industry, hideously lacking light industry and end-consumer living standards) |
Yeah let's gloss over the abusive government authority on this one...
-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.
| kaneada said: I'm not sure how an Ode to abortion = dependency...can someone explain that? |
Because it was all about how someone else should pay for your right to choose, otherwise war on women blargh!
Mr Khan said:
What young college graduates deserve is a separate argument, and has to do with the fact that employers have no fucking clue what they're doing, and that hiring managers and recruiters are the absolute scum of the earth |
Stalin is strong in this one xD
Using television, here is an analogy of various political-economic systems:
Communism: One broadcaster controlled by the state that limits the information you receive to control you
Socialism: A handful of broadcasters which are controlled by the state or heavily regulated that only allow you to watch shows that are "good for you" and prevents you from watching too much TV for your own good.
Corporatism: A handful of broadcasters which are allowed to dominate the airways with limited competition in exchange for political favours.
Libertarianism/democracy: Limited restrictions placed on the introduction of new television stations and the content they show; the market/popularity decides what shows are produced.
Anarchy: Television infastructure is destroyed because the spoiled children of the upper middle class believe that their failure to become successful with their degree in post-modern acrobatic basket weaving is due to the influence of consumerism within society that is driven by television.
kaneada said:
Yeah let's gloss over the abusive government authority on this one... |
Well, yes, the hierarchy of the Soviet Union had glaring cultural problems, but the nature of the system itself was flawed against the economic realities of the day.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
badgenome said:
Because it was all about how someone else should pay for your right to choose, otherwise war on women blargh! |
Once again, what is worse...paying for the unwanted children that are born into this world as the result of limiting or removing forms of birth control, or just providing birth control...this goes beyond the fiscal implications, you and I both know this. This has much more to do with the political rights idealism than it does with the cash flow. We've been providing life support for corporations that don't need it for a good long while, but considering solutions that allow a person to choose when or if they have children is ideologically abhorrent. We both know that this market is capable of creating a low cost market for birth control pills that would be profitiable to insurance companies...but due to corporatist principles, we treat corporations as people giving them a say in what is ideolohically correct and therefore do not have these solutions because corporate America is inherrently conservative...
In short sex sells so we know there is a profitable market there...
-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.
| kaneada said:
Once again, what is worse...paying for the unwanted children that are born into this world as the result of limiting or removing forms of birth control, or just providing birth control...this goes beyond the fiscal implications, you and I both know this. This has much more to do with the political rights idealism than it does with the cash flow. We've been providing life support for corporations that don't need it for a good long while, but considering solutions that allow a person to choose when or if they have children is ideologically abhorrent. We both know that this market is capable of creating a low cost market for birth control pills that would be profitiable to insurance companies...but due to corporatist principles, we treat corporations as people giving them a say in what is ideolohically correct and therefore do not have these solutions because corporate America is inherrently conservative... In short sex sells so we know there is a profitable market there...
|
You're right, we do know that the market is capable of creating low cost birth control pills because you can get a month's supply for about $10.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
