|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Top 25 People to Blame for the Economic Crisis

Default Top 25 People to Blame for the Economic Crisis

February 19th, 2009, 16:30
Originally Posted by GothicGothicness View Post
Owning as many things as possible is also a way of consuming, if I buy 100 pair of wrist watches I do not need, it needs material and power to produce them, and probably I would just throw them away later, not all parts could be recycled and even the parts that could be recycled would cost power and resources to recycle them. Private persons who own a lot, will use what they own to consume in different ways, and if a private person do not consume, the wheels of the capitalism system comes to a stop as we have seen??? so society is now trying to make people to start spending again to get the wheels spinning ? Yes we could think as you are, we have to consume now so the system can start spinning and we could by research make it possible to keep consuming without our earth going under. Did I get your right on that??? that is how I understood your writing.
Kinda, sorta, but not really. What we need to do is start *producing* again — i.e., working. Unless, of course, we can find some way to deal with mass unemployment in a way that everybody's happy, including the unemployed and those who provide the resources they use to stay alive and happy, which IMO is a bit of a tall order. Thing is, to produce, we need to consume. Which brings us back to the big question — consume *what,* exactly. Nobody says that we have to consume wristwatches, four-wheel-drives, tanks, big-screen TV's, or gasoline. We could just as well consume massages, haircuts, computer games, tailormade clothes, or ecologically, locally grown fresh produce. But either way, we have to produce and consume.

The problem is that shifting to an ecologically sustainable mode of consumption and production takes time and resources. If the economy is in a slump, we're short on resources. So the first thing we need to do is get the economy out of the slump. That means temporarily restarting our consumption patterns, and then immediately getting to work to get them on an ecologically sustainable basis. Fortunately, these two goals aren't necessarily at odds: even if consumers don't change their consumption patterns much to start with, the government stimulus we need can be used, for example, to build 'green' infrastructure that will kick in about when the economy starts up again.

If we raise the tax on gas, and the companies is out to earn money, they will find another less obvious way ( producing ethanol from corn, which is worse than driving on gas for example ) which destorys the environment, since their goal is to earn money to benefit the private person ( the individual ), not to preserve the environment.
But that's the government's job (unless better mechanisms are found): to price in the externalities. Private enterprise isn't going to corn ethanol by itself; it's going to corn ethanol because government has given corn ethanol a totally wrong-headed tax break while raising taxes on gasoline. Private enterprise and profit maximization isn't at fault here; the problem is perverse incentives.

What we need to do is (1) figure out which of the technologies currently available are ecologically the most sustainable, (2) create incentives for people and private enterprises to prefer these technologies over less ecological ones, e.g. by taxing the less eco-friendly things more, (3) figure out which future technologies are the likeliest candidates for even greater sustainability, and (4) create incentives (or directly research) them.

I think you will argue that the fault is that the tax is on gas, rather CO2 emmitans? but another thing like cutting down the rain forest to produce sugar cane's you cannot directly say it is CO2 emmitans, but it still has a great affect.
IOW, the government of Brazil should put a price on every acre of rain forest cut down, based on the calculated long-term cost to Brazil and the world, and then charge the plantation owners that tax. If this was done, I'm fairly certain they'd find creative ways to use the land they've already cleared more effectively.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#41

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 19th, 2009, 22:39
Kinda, sorta, but not really. What we need to do is start *producing* again — i.e., working. Unless, of course, we can find some way to deal with mass unemployment in a way that everybody's happy, including the unemployed and those who provide the resources they use to stay alive and happy, which IMO is a bit of a tall order. Thing is, to produce, we need to consume. Which brings us back to the big question — consume *what,* exactly. Nobody says that we have to consume wristwatches, four-wheel-drives, tanks, big-screen TV's, or gasoline. We could just as well consume massages, haircuts, computer games, tailormade clothes, or ecologically, locally grown fresh produce. But either way, we have to produce and consume.
This is kinda sorta a misunderstanding, caused by what we are taught?

I am all for consuming favors such as massage, it is Eco friendly and gives people something to do, and if the massage or health care improve the health of many other people who for example produce food ( it is a big surplus of resources in every way )

What do a normal person need to live a happy life, according to me, we need food, we need water, we need some form of entertainment, a place to live do we need anything more? as long as we produce the food, water and entertainment we need I do not think it is necesarry to produce just for the art of producing. To clarify so I will not get the live in the shack again ( A place to live of decent standard as of today, entertainment such as TV / computers / sports / transportation / You name your favourite )

This is a complicated question and to solve it I think we have to ask ourselves what happen if we produce less ?

100% man labour as health care, massage, story telling, theatre, singing, etc etc: People might be more depressed, resort to destructive behavoir. I do not see a problem in increasing this sector.

Food and water: More people will starve to death?? ( if we use a lot of fertilizer , manipulations, cut down native ancient forests, to produce foods ) we also cause environmental problems to the earth, so we should find a good way to produce food, and why??? transport for example water to sweden !?!? from italy?? when sweden have a big surplus of water, that is just a waste of resources in every way.

Material objects ( based on none renewable source ): If we produce less? we get more natural resources left!?!? money is just paper, its worth is determined by what resources could be offered for the money?

100% renewable objects: We are not there yet, and I am not sure if we will ever get, but they just need to be friendly enough, like if you go to your yard and cut down a tree, this tree should last until a new tree of the same size could grow up ( which obviously is a long time ) if we produce less, we get an increase of natural resources? since trees keeps growing all over the earth. ( trees is used as example, yes there are other resoruces and yes not all of them will work in the same way, but no resource becomes less if we do not use it for anything )

So what is the result of producing less??? we get more natural resources? and our money is a measurement of our resources?

What if a person is unemployed, why not force ( by forcing I mean saying either you do this or we will not provide you with food, a house, and money for entertainment ) him to clean the street / or clear garbage people thew away ( of course the optimal is people were not stupid enoguh to throw it in the first place )? and give him the money from gouverment, instead of having him be unemployed? the net cost for society is the same, but we can earn by recycling things and get better looking streets ?

If people have nothing to do, make them
* do a 100% man labour thing, can we get enough of that?
* produce food
* clean the streets and put the garbage for recycling
* Replace machines which consumes gas or power with human labour ( if we have a surplus of labour why not? )
* if he is an intellectual put him on gouverment research projects, for examply on developing eco friendly products.

Is this cruel to unemployed people? I do not think so, first of all it is proven a disaster for the human to have nothing to do. Second of all they just get to work the same hours, as the people who had a 100% free choice of what they wanted to do.

I really think the entire system is a huge fail, even the concept of money and the way it works is a fail in some ways in my opinion.

It was good system in earlier days, when none ever though it could be possible to produce too much, and producing too much CO2 could be a problem for our earth?

I do not think anyone could stand in front of a huge forest in ancient times, and imagine that they would cut down all of it, and it would run out ? ( just an example, right now we do not have a tree shortage I know )

However in Sweden we thought long term, and planted new trees ( yes, most other countries did not consider this even ) the result was the swedish forest increased, while some other countries ran out of wood.


On another note which might appear strange, I am all for increased development of space ships, and space research, after all even if it is far far far into the future, for the ultimate survival of the human race we need to move to other places and be present all over space. What if there was a massive collision between earth and another heavenly body? that would mean BAM end of humanity, so in order to survive in the long term, more planet, space stations etc etc. Yes I am talking loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong term. ( No need to write I played too much Civ. ? , but if you think long enough about this you'll come to agree in one way or another, in fact when the sun is out, we have to have developed so far we could go to another system, or live in empty space without the support of a sun )
Last edited by GothicGothicness; February 19th, 2009 at 23:10.
GothicGothicness is online now

GothicGothicness

GothicGothicness's Avatar
SasqWatch

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,295

Default 

February 19th, 2009, 23:49
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Actually, no. You're not entitled to your own facts, and some opinions are and will always remain hooey. We should not accord equal time or attention to creationists, flat-earthers, moon mission conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, believers in ancient astronauts, Scientologists, nor wingnuts. And there most definitely are some bad guys around.

Thank you, by the way, for demonstrating in your previous postings the way you value the diversity and richness of opinions that differ from your own.
No problem!!!!! Hate, opinion-facts, and Truth-cleansed-facts will be the rule of the day for ideologues.

And I have few opinions; I will almost always take the side under represented. My goal, for everything besides rpg discussion, is to prove the other side wrong, not myself right. If I were to believe my opinions were right, and if I was the type of person that regurgitated the cult-speak of their betters, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror. There is always a valid opposite opinion in any matter open for discussion. People might not like my methods of proving the other side wrong, but it can never be said that I am an ideologue. I currently am raising two children, letís compare and contrast what they would learn if I were an ideologue vs. being an open and fair minded person:

Ideologue:
The other side is always wrong.
There is only one way correct way to think and view the world.
If you want to be good you must think as I do.
If you want to be right believe as I believe.
I should help my people force our mindset and way of life on otherís through law and any other measn at our disposal.

Open and fair minded person:
Respect other peopleís opinions.
When it comes to opinions remember that everyone has a right to their own, and if it disagrees with your sensibilities it doesnít make your opinion the correct one, just a different one.
Be skeptical of what people claim to be facts. Facts from ideologues or those with an agenda are usually anything but.
Take everyone moment of a debate as an experience to learn and grow.
A sword that doesnít bend will break. Learn to bend.
Donít force your opinions on other peopleís way of life.
The best outcome for all groups is collaboration. The worst outcome for most groups is to have only one group win.
Diversity is beautiful, and the diversity that truly matters is diversity of the mind.
Be tolerant of the differences diversity brings.
Never trust an ideologue to do the right thing; they will always do the thing that benefits their side the most.
Be strong enough to always look for the actual truth, not the truth that your mindset wants to believe is true.


What are better lessons to learn for children? What are the lessons I should teach my children? Maybe I have not mastered these lessons, but I also came from the absolute bottom rungs of American Society and pulled myself by the boot-straps. If would be no wonder that I could use a little refinement. Again, the first step towards recovery and a freedom is admittance to being an ideologue. I guess the video I linked was a fake made by the Gestapo to confuse people on if this mortgage crisis snuck up on us out of nowhere?
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#43

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 06:55
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
And I have few opinions; I will almost always take the side under represented. My goal, for everything besides rpg discussion, is to prove the other side wrong, not myself right.
Ah, I see. You see yourself as the modern equivalent of the medieval devil's advocate? Someone with a mission to punch holes in established truths and thereby help other people think through their positions and get closer to the truth, whatever that may be? I can respect that.

You do need to practice a bit, though — thus far, you haven't demonstrated any great ability to argue a point; passive-aggressive ranting about 'ideologues,' making outlandish assertions without argument or evidence other than going 'watch this if you dare' and posting links to Internet video isn't all that impressive.

I salute your efforts at teaching your children to have open and inquiring minds. It wouldn't hurt, though, if you also taught them techniques of arriving at solid conclusions — ratiocination, source criticism, ways to examine if the assertions you're examining have a factual basis, ways to figure out how complete the facts you're looking at are, and where the holes in them may be, inductive and deductive logic, that sort of thing.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 07:06
Originally Posted by GothicGothicness View Post
This is kinda sorta a misunderstanding, caused by what we are taught?
Or not taught. Or the simple fact that many of the central concepts of economic thinking are hard to grasp and somewhat counterintuitive — things like 'growth' for example. Your rather long post is fundamentally flawed because of your misunderstanding of this concept. About 80% of economic activity is already in what you call "massages" and "man-labor" — i.e., services. Most economic growth over the past decades have come from that sector, and there's no reason I can see why that would change.

It's a common mistake to think that only concrete objects — TV's, watches, cars, moon rockets, what have you — "count" for economic growth. That's not true at all. Most of what we produce and consume are services. Yesterday, for example, I took the metro twice (transportation service), had lunch at a Nepalese restaurant (service), and then went out to dinner with my wife (again a service). Sure, these services involve material components as well, but most of the money I spent for these services went to pay the people operating them — the cooks, waiters, metro engineers, cleaners, guards, etc. that made them happen. The cost of the material inputs consumed in producing these services was quite small. Those services are every bit as much parts of the "real" economy as the netbook I'm typing this on. They provide value to me: my life is better with them the same way my life is better with a computer or wristwatch.

And if we manage to improve our efficiency in using these material inputs, we can retain the same service level *and* be ecologically sustainable.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#45

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 12:18
Or not taught. Or the simple fact that many of the central concepts of economic thinking are hard to grasp and somewhat counterintuitive — things like 'growth' for example. Your rather long post is fundamentally flawed because of your misunderstanding of this concept. About 80% of economic activity is already in what you call "massages" and "man-labor" — i.e., services. Most economic growth over the past decades have come from that sector, and there's no reason I can see why that would change.
Did I say a % for each sector in my post? ( yes man labour is also a resource for a country, and so is educationed people and money also represent these kind of resources, but you still failed to see the point ) If you have an educated cook, his services are useless without the food, if you have a subway engineer his services are useless without resources to build a subway.

I am not sure if you produce massage? I guess I misunderstood your meaning of the word produce. You could say the serving lady produce a service for you when she deliver the food to your table. Indeed as I had written, nothing wrong with this kind of service.

What if I go to the the store and buy a new candle holder ( of course produced in china ) I might already have 1000 candle holders. The candle holder was produced in china transported to sweden, and does it really make my life better? to have a new candle holder in my home? ( It is good for the global economy, in sweden we have a surplus of food, and many other resources we need, I transfer these resources to china where they have a surplus of man labour, but not enough food or other resources we have in sweden. ) so far so good?

But the candle holder, the production of it, and the transportation of it to sweden, and the natural resources required for it. Is a needless waste of the resources of our earth which none benefit from in the long term. The company to make candle holder is privately owned, I buy the candle holder privately, but this transaction is of no gain to the earth, and in the long term no gain to the humans either. The reason it takes place is because the person in China want to benefit from the fact that the private person in sweden has a surplus, which he does not know how to use for anytihng useful. Therefore we tore down our earth by a lot of useless transactions. I am saying we need to think of a new way which could get rid of these.
GothicGothicness is online now

GothicGothicness

GothicGothicness's Avatar
SasqWatch

#46

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,295

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 12:35
Have you read any Marx lately?!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#47

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,557
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 13:35
Originally Posted by GothicGothicness View Post
Did I say a % for each sector in my post? ( yes man labour is also a resource for a country, and so is educationed people and money also represent these kind of resources, but you still failed to see the point ) If you have an educated cook, his services are useless without the food, if you have a subway engineer his services are useless without resources to build a subway.
True, those are the material inputs for the services. You'll always have those. Even the masseur needs somewhere to work, a bench, and lotion.

I am not sure if you produce massage? I guess I misunderstood your meaning of the word produce. You could say the serving lady produce a service for you when she deliver the food to your table. Indeed as I had written, nothing wrong with this kind of service.
From a macro point of view, it doesn't matter whether you're producing (and consuming) massages or battleships; both contribute to economic growth the same way. Normally you do make a distinction between (industrial) production and services.

What if I go to the the store and buy a new candle holder ( of course produced in china ) I might already have 1000 candle holders. The candle holder was produced in china transported to sweden, and does it really make my life better? to have a new candle holder in my home? ( It is good for the global economy, in sweden we have a surplus of food, and many other resources we need, I transfer these resources to china where they have a surplus of man labour, but not enough food or other resources we have in sweden. ) so far so good?

But the candle holder, the production of it, and the transportation of it to sweden, and the natural resources required for it. Is a needless waste of the resources of our earth which none benefit from in the long term. The company to make candle holder is privately owned, I buy the candle holder privately, but this transaction is of no gain to the earth, and in the long term no gain to the humans either. The reason it takes place is because the person in China want to benefit from the fact that the private person in sweden has a surplus, which he does not know how to use for anytihng useful. Therefore we tore down our earth by a lot of useless transactions. I am saying we need to think of a new way which could get rid of these.
And I'm saying you're barking up the wrong tree. What we need to do is to figure out how to cut down the *inputs* we're using to produce whatever it is we want to consume, candlesticks or massages. You, however, are focusing on the *outputs.* That's far more complicated, murkier, and less easy to understand. Suppose you *want* to fill your house with candlesticks you don't actually need. That's only a problem if the candlesticks are made from ivory, tropical wood, or some other scarce resources used in non-sustainable ways. However, if they're made from, say, recycled paper, compacted garbage, or mud, which are not scarce resources, there's no problem.

Focus on the inputs, GG, not the outputs.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#48

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 14:20
And I'm saying you're barking up the wrong tree. What we need to do is to figure out how to cut down the *inputs* we're using to produce whatever it is we want to consume, candlesticks or massages. You, however, are focusing on the *outputs.* That's far more complicated, murkier, and less easy to understand. Suppose you *want* to fill your house with candlesticks you don't actually need. That's only a problem if the candlesticks are made from ivory, tropical wood, or some other scarce resources used in non-sustainable ways. However, if they're made from, say, recycled paper, compacted garbage, or mud, which are not scarce resources, there's no problem.

Focus on the inputs, GG, not the outputs.
No matter what they are made of? we still have the transportation problem? I think it uses more resources than the actual production of the candle holder.

On top of that if the private person ( the customer ) want a candle stick made of a none renewable resources, they will make him one of the none renewable resources, the input to the process is determined by what the end user wants as output ?

If I order food from cow ( since I think it is the most delicious ) the cook will make me food from cow, even if they are a CO2 disaster.

You cannot consider input without considering output.

However I partly agree with you, input is also very important to consider.

Just raising the price of the resource is not a good solution, like cow is bad for the environment we have to raise the tax so much that none wants to eat it ?

What would happen? would people stop?

What if we check sweden we have very high tax on alcohol and cigarettes, we also drink much and smoke much? These who cannot afford drinking or smoking, will get it by illegal means ( which means for example not paying tax since they aquirred it by illegal means ) or produce it themselves secretly without paying tax. Can the gouverment stop all of this ? no way. If too many individual persons do something it cannot be stopped by gouverment.
GothicGothicness is online now

GothicGothicness

GothicGothicness's Avatar
SasqWatch

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,295

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 14:25
Originally Posted by GothicGothicness View Post
No matter what they are made of? we still have the transportation problem? I think it uses more resources than the actual production of the candle holder.
"What they're made of" and "the transportation problem" *are* the inputs. Think of them, not the candlesticks.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#50

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 15:09
Did you read the rest of my post ? to explain how input and output are connected?

you have to look at the entire chain:

Request -> input -> production -> output

Each part is connected to the other. To just consider one part is not enough. That is why your reasoning to just look at input is flawed.
GothicGothicness is online now

GothicGothicness

GothicGothicness's Avatar
SasqWatch

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,295

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 15:59
Originally Posted by GothicGothicness View Post
Did you read the rest of my post ? to explain how input and output are connected?

you have to look at the entire chain:

Request -> input -> production -> output

Each part is connected to the other. To just consider one part is not enough. That is why your reasoning to just look at input is flawed.
But the outputs don't matter. The inputs do. Therefore, focusing on the outputs is barking up the wrong tree.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#52

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 16:32
Unless I've missed a change of terminology, I would say the outputs do matter, PJ.

Request = transport to work
Input = steel, plastic, energy, etc
Production = manufacturing plant of your choice
Output = International CXT OR The Solar Phantom 2 (that there's a flashback…)

I'd say you could have very different outputs when the rest of the chain is remarkably similar. (yeah, yeah, I know there's an input difference for the photovoltaics; forgive a little exaggeration and insert the Euro crackerbox-on-wheels of your choice)

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#53

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,341

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 16:53
Arg, I'm getting that sinking feeling again when I'm talking at cross-purposes with someone.

The point I'm making is real simple. It's this.

The stuff we buy — consume, whatever — is completely irrelevant from an ecological point of view.

What matters are the natural resources used up to produce that stuff.

IOW, the CXT or Solar Phantom is *still* about inputs — namely, using the CXT will cause us to use more inputs than using the Solar Phantom. What GG appears to be saying is that we have to fundamentally change so that we no longer want either of them — i.e., we have to stop wanting stuff. What I'm saying is that wanting stuff is not a problem, if we can produce that stuff in a sustainable way. The problem with the CXT is that it's totally useless if you don't feed it with massive amounts of gasoline. If we can replace that gasoline with a renewable fuel source, that problem goes away. If we can't, but we can replace the CXT with something that runs on a renewable fuel source, the problem goes away too. But people wanting the functional equivalent of the CXT is, in and of itself, not the problem — and, more to the point, wanting to change people fundamentally enough that they no longer want it is very difficult, possibly entirely unworkable, and very likely fundamentally undemocratic and dangerous.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#54

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 20th, 2009, 17:13
You're playing to the cyclical nature of the, errr, cycle. The vehicles would certainly be inputs, but only to a subsequent problem, or, by the structure you seem to be favoring, a different portion of the ring.

I wouldn't say that structure is any less valid, but perhaps that's leading to some of the disconnect you're having with GG. Your "output is nothing but the input to the next phase" ring structure isn't compatible with GG's linear "throw nature's bounty in the box, turn the crank, and out comes a worthless piece of capitalistic decadence." (just playin, GG) Both structures are fine, but crossing between them is going to be challenging.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#55

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,341

Default 

February 21st, 2009, 00:45
Thus my simplistic reference to Marx.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#56

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,557
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

February 21st, 2009, 03:25
Ah, I see. You see yourself as the modern equivalent of the medieval devil's advocate? Someone with a mission to punch holes in established truths and thereby help other people think through their positions and get closer to the truth, whatever that may be? I can respect that.
Somewhat. But instead of helping people get closer to the truth, I'd like to help them see that opinions aren't true or false, and their position is only one point of view.

You do need to practice a bit, though — thus far, you haven't demonstrated any great ability to argue a point; passive-aggressive ranting about 'ideologues,' making outlandish assertions without argument or evidence other than going 'watch this if you dare' and posting links to Internet video isn't all that impressive.
Outlandish like what? You want me to go deeper into the issue? What use is discussing anything with an ideologue? You always end up where you started. Ideologues never believe anything, including facts, that disagrees with their Truth. But, I'll make an attempt at being "impressive" for you. And I'll do it without linking to horrible videos that lie.

Actually, I just deleted it all. I was at eight paragraphs and wasn't even near the end, and I would still have a whole other section after it for your last paragraph. The short version is I have a degree in finance and have worked in finance for years and years. I have a good amount of experience with mortgage loans (as well as business and consumer loans). I know, first hand, about what I stated. You can claim its "hooey" all day, you can call it outlandish all day, but a fact is a fact is a fact. And the Truth might be the Truth, but it isn't the truth.

In the house banking hearing a little while ago, as Frank and his ilk were grilling bankers for not making loans, he looked quit silly when he was told banks are making loans and in record numbers, and all the loans are doing well. Because banks, for the moment at least, are allowed to lend to only qualified applicants if they so choose. And since there are no more kickbacks for not lending to unqualified applicants (temporarily Iím sure), banks have chosen to be sane and lend to qualified applicants.

I salute your efforts at teaching your children to have open and inquiring minds. It wouldn't hurt, though, if you also taught them techniques of arriving at solid conclusions — ratiocination, source criticism, ways to examine if the assertions you're examining have a factual basis, ways to figure out how complete the facts you're looking at are, and where the holes in them may be, inductive and deductive logic, that sort of thing.
I salute you for saluting my efforts. And I'd salute you with both hands if you decided to apply those methods to your side as well. Itís funny how both sides can use the same methods, but still manages to dismiss the evidence of the other side as bunk. And irrefutable proof is just ignored. Facts never stand in the way of an agenda.

My first lesson to my kid's will to not be bias, and to never be an ideologue, and to always be skeptical of all information coming from every source with an agenda.

Have you ever met a happy ideologue? Think of the true-believers on the other side of the spectrum as you. Are they happy? No. They are angry because small-minded stupid people dare have the audacity to not think as they think, live as they live, value what they vale, and even question The Truth. Its a life of constant anger and unhappiness. It is membership in a cult large enough to not be considered one due to shear volume. And unlike smaller cults, it has more interaction with non-believers, increasing stress, distress, and anger levels of the members.

What value is there in being an extremist for a person or the world? Ideologues are impractical. Imagine if all scientists were ideologues. Imagine if they ignored all data, evidence, or tests results that didn't fit their theory, and twisted data to fit their theory, or ignored data that proved explicitly that proved their theory wrong. Would that be healthy for science or the scientist?

GothicGoodness,

You should look into Natural Capitalism. It is a theory that creates a sustainable and stable society by only taxing waste. thats the short of it, but it seems like it could accomplish what you were explaining.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#57

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

February 21st, 2009, 07:15
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
Somewhat. But instead of helping people get closer to the truth, I'd like to help them see that opinions aren't true or false, and their position is only one point of view.
You do realize that that's an ideological position, and a rather extreme one at that? Known as "post-modernism." "There is no objective reality; there is only discourse, and all discourse is equally valid;" that sort of thing.

Outlandish like what? You want me to go deeper into the issue? What use is discussing anything with an ideologue? You always end up where you started. Ideologues never believe anything, including facts, that disagrees with their Truth.
I agree. Discussions with committed ideologues never go anywhere, because the premises are inflexible and fundamentally incompatible. For example, a postmodernist and an empirical rationalist will never be able to agree about anything, since their epistemological bases are irreconcilably different.

But, I'll make an attempt at being "impressive" for you. And I'll do it without linking to horrible videos that lie.

Actually, I just deleted it all. I was at eight paragraphs and wasn't even near the end, and I would still have a whole other section after it for your last paragraph. The short version is I have a degree in finance and have worked in finance for years and years. I have a good amount of experience with mortgage loans (as well as business and consumer loans). I know, first hand, about what I stated. You can claim its "hooey" all day, you can call it outlandish all day, but a fact is a fact is a fact. And the Truth might be the Truth, but it isn't the truth.
Wow, that was impressive: "I have huge credentials and experience and just wrote eight paragraphs that would impress the shit out of you if only I hadn't deleted them. Take that, you ideologue."

Have you ever met a happy ideologue? Think of the true-believers on the other side of the spectrum as you. Are they happy? No. They are angry because small-minded stupid people dare have the audacity to not think as they think, live as they live, value what they vale, and even question The Truth.
What about you? In this conversation at least, you don't strike me as particularly happy. I'm picking up a strong affect from you, and it's one that's strongly passive-aggressive, filled with anxiety and hostility, decided that everyone out there is a determined "ideologue" who wants to silence your voice, and so on.

Its a life of constant anger and unhappiness. It is membership in a cult large enough to not be considered one due to shear volume. And unlike smaller cults, it has more interaction with non-believers, increasing stress, distress, and anger levels of the members.

What value is there in being an extremist for a person or the world? Ideologues are impractical. Imagine if all scientists were ideologues. Imagine if they ignored all data, evidence, or tests results that didn't fit their theory, and twisted data to fit their theory, or ignored data that proved explicitly that proved their theory wrong. Would that be healthy for science or the scientist?
Are you familiar with the psychological phenomenon of transference, by any chance?
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#58

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 21st, 2009, 11:10
GothicGoodness,

You should look into Natural Capitalism. It is a theory that creates a sustainable and stable society by only taxing waste. thats the short of it, but it seems like it could accomplish what you were explaining.
Sounds intressing I will look into that, however as I have said before taxing is not always a workable solution. But I Will definatly look into it.

I looked into it, isn't it great when someone else is saying exactly the same thing, even they have never heard of each other? The first webpage summarize more or less the problems I described with the current system. In the first two paragraphs. Even if they missed some problems I already described.

http://www.natcap.org/ I did not look at their solution looks like you have to buy a fat book for that

Arg, I'm getting that sinking feeling again when I'm talking at cross-purposes with someone.

The point I'm making is real simple. It's this.

The stuff we buy — consume, whatever — is completely irrelevant from an ecological point of view.

What matters are the natural resources used up to produce that stuff.
I have to say, you are way off on this. In sweden we told people to consider the output, and it is a big success, buy ECO friendly food, because it is better for our earth, better for our animals and better for us. It worked, by making people CHANGE the output they want we got a more ECO friendly country.

It might be I have better education on processes than you do, since I am in this line of work, whatever we are doing a business analysis or a computer system, you have to consider the entire process chain.

For example if we were to just consider the input when we are constructing a computer system, and not relate it to output. For example the customer says they want a program like google earth only they want to zoom into street to see each individual stone, and give us 2000 million euro, ( but we only have 20 employees to do it ) we have to tell them "The resources we have are not enough to make the project, however if you can be satisfied with seeing sattelite pictures we can do it for you", if there is no other people with this competence the company will say "Ok we will settle for the sattelite version" . It is exactly the same with our earth, with our current technology we cannot produce the output everyone wants.

So we have to approach it on two fronts, "the output" that people want, and the input we give to produce it. I am happy most countries has realised this and is aiming at both output and input, your input only focused technology is immature and points to a lack of knowledge of processes and systems, but I think it is normal for your level of education to not understand, these concepts. It is very complex.

Wow, that was impressive: "I have huge credentials and experience and just wrote eight paragraphs that would impress the shit out of you if only I hadn't deleted them. Take that, you ideologue."
LOL, that was pure ownage
Last edited by GothicGothicness; February 21st, 2009 at 13:21.
GothicGothicness is online now

GothicGothicness

GothicGothicness's Avatar
SasqWatch

#59

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,295

Default 

February 21st, 2009, 16:00
LOL, that was pure ownage
Like watching Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel of debate.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
Last edited by magerette; February 21st, 2009 at 16:05. Reason: added vital smilie
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch

#60

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Top 25 People to Blame for the Economic Crisis
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:18.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch