Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Ok, your linking the irish famine, with 'the current system'? Land ownership laws have radically changed. I think we should remove that from the list!
Then starting with the great depression onwards we can't really say if something is a symptoym or a cause. The analogy I would give is complaining that the woolly sweater doesn't keep you warm because you burnt a hole in it. The question is why did you lean over a naked flame, rather than the jumper not been fireproof.
Its akin to saying airplanes are "broken" because sometimes that fail, yes the system isn't remotely perfect, but lets have constructive suggestions to make it better.
I would instead suggest you look at something like Tulip Mania, and ask yourself is this just a failure of the system or the participants?
I also find it odd that the depressions had little to do with a wealth distribution, and also only caused pain and suffering because of the decline in standards, those higher standards had been a result of the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Mmm, an appeal to authority and a 'lolustoopie', nice. That capitalism solves some economic problems doesn't absolve the fact that it keeps failing spectacularly regardless of how much tinkering is applied to it.
The difference is, I don't pretend I could do it better, and also, in hindsight I can suggest that a lot of the failings are in fact entirely due to the tinkerings! Take the current euro hickup, its due to someone giving a nation which can't be trusted, the germanic credit card in simple terms. Its hard to bring in unity in these scenarios, given the complexity of the problems, we're not doing *too* badly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Well, here's a crazy idea, why not base an economic system on, resources, and maybe, the needs of the people. There's a start.
Please, read something like The Undercover Economist what do you think capitalisim is, its about resources, alocations vs demand. It is however naturally de-centralised, as a engineer that design pleases me, it also has managed to out perform any heavy top down management system ever seen. This is why I don't understand what these peoples goals are!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Now I know you're fine with software which blows up in people's faces, but you can't have people's food supply and shelter being snatched out from under them to service the insatiable greed of the top 1%.
Now this is where you drift oft in to something else, I'm guessing your not a software developer, because all software developers I know who are worth anything know software is always going to be failing, there are just too many variables, thats why the more complex flight control systems have ludicrious redundancies and sometimes democratic decision making. The problem is you seem to think there is a perfect solution obtainable, that to me just demonstraites you either don't understand software, or the problems been solved. I think that metaphore translates over in to the world, this is not, lolustoopie, this is lol, you really don't understand anything.
Now peoples food supply and shelter been snatched out, I really find that bit interesting. Do you know what us europians (who lets not forget make up the richest quartile of the world, even dole dwellers!) create intresting (i mean that in the sickest possible way!) problems for so many with the CAP? We could so easily solve a lot of world hunger, but alas we don't give a ****.
But that is the rub for me, how do you say stop someone from spending their money on ciggies, which ultimately just kill them in a resource in efficent manner, when they could have spent that money on helping provide clean water to those who have none.
I think the 99 v 1 percent thing is a curious political driver, because of what it is appealling too, that is the greed and selfishness off the 99%, by saying they feel they should have more of the world, which is ironic, because if we had a truely fair on a global basis of allocation system, they would almost certainly have less than they already do. Obviously they are not asking for fair for all, only fair for them.
That is ultimately, why I have no time for these people, and will go back to laughing as people throw mcd applications at them.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
That is ultimately, why I have no time for these people, and will go back to laughing as people throw mcd applications at them.
There are more applicants per position for McDonalds than Harvard. Giving someone a McDonalds application really isn't going to get them earning an income.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Ok, your linking the irish famine, with 'the current system'? Land ownership laws have radically changed. I think we should remove that from the list!
Not at all. Stupid land ownership wasn't responsible for 1 million deaths, shameless capitalistic greed was. That hasn't changed. Oh, Irish people can't afford foreign rates for food? Then they don't need food, lets ship it off to a far away land! That's capitalism. Whatever can give you the biggest buck for your bang goes.
But I can understand why you want to handwave away one of the blackest spots on Capitalism's soul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Then starting with the great depression onwards we can't really say if something is a symptoym or a cause. The analogy I would give is complaining that the woolly sweater doesn't keep you warm because you burnt a hole in it. The question is why did you lean over a naked flame, rather than the jumper not been fireproof.
Its akin to saying airplanes are "broken" because sometimes that fail, yes the system isn't remotely perfect, but lets have constructive suggestions to make it better.
Such critical system failures on aircraft are exceedingly rare. And all the people of the planet don't depend on one aircraft for its survival.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
I would instead suggest you look at something like Tulip Mania, and ask yourself is this just a failure of the system or the participants?
The system. Any sane system would operate on fixed cost and on a first in, first out basis. Speculative bubbling is a property of capitalism which encourages this kind of stupid manic/panicy behaviour in the systematic scramble to get 'on top'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
I also find it odd that the depressions had little to do with a wealth distribution, and also only caused pain and suffering because of the decline in standards, those higher standards had been a result of the system.The difference is, I don't pretend I could do it better
The big depression caused pain and suffering because people went without shelter, heat, and food. Which is pretty shocking because food literally sprouts out of the ground, any caveman can start a camp fire, and shelter building skills came shortly thereafter. If your artificial system is doing worse than nature, then it's broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
and also, in hindsight I can suggest that a lot of the failings are in fact entirely due to the tinkerings! Take the current euro hickup, its due to someone giving a nation which can't be trusted, the germanic credit card in simple terms. Its hard to bring in unity in these scenarios, given the complexity of the problems, we're not doing *too* badly.
Sure, tinkering causes problems, like the brain damaged deregulation of finances which allowed the subprime bubble to form in the first place. And if the Eurozone didn't appear to be so tenuous as a result of this stupidity, Europe could have simply cut Greece loose. As it stands, they have little option but to keep throwing debt at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Please, read something like The Undercover Economist what do you think capitalisim is, its about resources, alocations vs demand.
No, economics is about resources, allocations v.s. demand. Capitalism is a game where the goal is to accumulate more wealth than everyone else. Except this game is IRL, and it kills people as well as any other genocidal mechanism, through disgusting indifference and inaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
It is however naturally de-centralised, as a engineer that design pleases me, it also has managed to out perform any heavy top down management system ever seen. This is why I don't understand what these peoples goals are!
Because you're assuming they want heavy top down management systems to replace it. Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on decentralised economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Now this is where you drift oft in to something else, I'm guessing your not a software developer, because all software developers I know who are worth anything know software is always going to be failing, there are just too many variables, thats why the more complex flight control systems have ludicrious redundancies and sometimes democratic decision making. The problem is you seem to think there is a perfect solution obtainable, that to me just demonstraites you either don't understand software, or the problems been solved.
There's a difference between acknowledging flaws are possible, and relishing in them. If you engineered a flight control system which is inherently designed to dive the plane nose first into the ground when it crashes and sold it off to boeing, you are wilfully negligent and party to manslaughter. If you keep selling this koolaid to more manufacturers after it fails again and again, with no effort made to address the critical design flaw, then you're a mass murderer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
I think that metaphore translates over in to the world, this is not, lolustoopie, this is lol, you really don't understand anything.
And again, classy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Now peoples food supply and shelter been snatched out, I really find that bit interesting. Do you know what us europians (who lets not forget make up the richest quartile of the world, even dole dwellers!) create intresting (i mean that in the sickest possible way!) problems for so many with the CAP? We could so easily solve a lot of world hunger, but alas we don't give a ****.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
But that is the rub for me, how do you say stop someone from spending their money on ciggies, which ultimately just kill them in a resource in efficent manner, when they could have spent that money on helping provide clean water to those who have none.
By not manufacturing them, or using reality distorting trade mechanisms to begin with. Most tobacco crops could give way to food crops, or hemp, which are way more useful to us practically. They'll be super pissy for the first month or so, but they'll get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
I think the 99 v 1 percent thing is a curious political driver, because of what it is appealling too, that is the greed and selfishness off the 99%, by saying they feel they should have more of the world, which is ironic, because if we had a truely fair on a global basis of allocation system, they would almost certainly have less than they already do. Obviously they are not asking for fair for all, only fair for them.
Yes, because a 1% share for 1% of all the people less than the current 40% share for 1% of select people, if you got beat over the head with an anvil for math study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
That is ultimately, why I have no time for these people, and will go back to laughing as people throw mcd applications at them.
I.e. being malevolently indifferent. Carry on starving the people there, landlord.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Not at all. Stupid land ownership wasn't responsible for 1 million deaths, shameless capitalistic greed was. That hasn't changed. Oh, Irish people can't afford foreign rates for food? Then they don't need food, lets ship it off to a far away land! That's capitalism. Whatever can give you the biggest buck for your bang goes.
I'm saying its a bad example because there were a large collections of interests going on, which are no representative of the current state. Your trying to do some micro economics on a very complex macro issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
But I can understand why you want to handwave away one of the blackest spots on Capitalism's soul.
Because its akin to blaming the video games someone was playing before they went on a shooting rampage, your ignoring so many of the issues at the time, it also is not really the same kind of capitalism we have now, this is why I dismiss it so casually!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Such critical system failures on aircraft are exceedingly rare. And all the people of the planet don't depend on one aircraft for its survival.
Not all people depend on capitalism! But these failures are very rare, when you consider all the exchanges that are happening, the sheer number of them which go OK, vs the ones which end badly. Really we've only had two global recessions, and hell try telling those in the BRICs that this is any issue for them, its frankly not. The only issue we have in the UK is the previous governments heavy spending, without any saving for the rainy days. Lets not blame the planes for the pilot error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
The system. Any sane system would operate on fixed cost and on a first in, first out basis. Speculative bubbling is a property of capitalism which encourages this kind of stupid manic/panicy behaviour in the systematic scramble to get 'on top'.
Ok so I'll let you in on something, I'm constantly in awe of the tulip mania. It is just fascinating, amazing, and if you were reading it in a sci fi novel you wouldn't believe it EVER happened. I also think of it as a great example of the failure of capitalisim, speculation and all the current systems we use. Hence why I suggested it, its much simpler to talk about there are no major external political influences (such as the potato famine) its a great insight. But not an insight in to capitalisim, its an insight in to human heard behaviour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
The big depression caused pain and suffering because people went without shelter, heat, and food. Which is pretty shocking because food literally sprouts out of the ground, any caveman can start a camp fire, and shelter building skills came shortly thereafter. If your artificial system is doing worse than nature, then it's broken.
But its clearly not doing worse than nature, I think thats where you and I differ, no one is starving, people are living longer than ever, we have more nice luxuries! Without our intensive farming, nitrates n all there is no way we could have half as many people alive! Any citizen in the UK has to have made a series of bad choices to be starving, our definition of poverty is on a global scale envyable. Sure its not perfect, but it's better than any other system we've ever seen anywhere, surely you agree with taht?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Sure, tinkering causes problems, like the brain damaged deregulation of finances which allowed the subprime bubble to form in the first place. And if the Eurozone didn't appear to be so tenuous as a result of this stupidity, Europe could have simply cut Greece loose. As it stands, they have little option but to keep throwing debt at them.
Indeed, but this doesn't mean the system is broken does it? If people had given up on commercial jets because the brits put too larger windows in, we'd be in a sorry state (appologies if you've no idea on the history of commercial air, just roll with the metaphor!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
No, economics is about resources, allocations v.s. demand. Capitalism is a game where the goal is to accumulate more wealth than everyone else. Except this game is IRL, and it kills people as well as any other genocidal mechanism, through disgusting indifference and inaction.
No capitalism isn't about to accumulate more than anyone else, its about having what you want. For most people that might be to accumulate, but not everyone. Capitalism allows people to put values on things a lot of people would miss price, it creates incentives for people to fix pressure points which often otherwise get neglected. It is a mechanisim for de-centralised control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Because you're assuming they want heavy top down management systems to replace it. Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on decentralised economics.
But to fix the current issues with capitalisim and fairness we'd have to infringe on peoples free will. For instance to a truely benevelent outsider, it is just insaine that we have drink n cigs, yet so many people are starving. We damage ourselves, for our own decadent pleasure whilst others are suffering terribly. As such we have rules to our society taxation and the like which strike a balance between forced helping others and free will, its a good compromise and by far the fairest! But right now, these protestors aren't talking coheriently about any of this, they are in fact just making a lot of noise, taking a lot of drugs and as I saw first hand the other night pissing against the door of st. pauls, whilst making a lot of noise about it (amazed the rozzers didn't have him for public indecency)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
There's a difference between acknowledging flaws are possible, and relishing in them. If you engineered a flight control system which is inherently designed to dive the plane nose first into the ground when it crashes and sold it off to boeing, you are wilfully negligent and party to manslaughter. If you keep selling this koolaid to more manufacturers after it fails again and again, with no effort made to address the critical design flaw, then you're a mass murderer.
True but what if you know about these flaws, document them and have it open to suggestions to fix, but instead people just say ban air travel?
If you go back to my first post, I was really trying to get some insight in to the protestors specific complaints, firstly they where complaining about the fed, I for instance think its better to have it outside of direct governmental control. I would go as far to say as putting it under it would be a step back. Its not brilliant, but the alternative is clearly worse!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Exactly.
By not manufacturing them, or using reality distorting trade mechanisms to begin with. Most tobacco crops could give way to food crops, or hemp, which are way more useful to us practically. They'll be super pissy for the first month or so, but they'll get over it.
But people don't want that. Are you morally right to assert your views over them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Yes, because a 1% share for 1% of all the people less than the current 40% share for 1% of select people, if you got beat over the head with an anvil for math study.
Your confusing my complaint about global resource allocation with that of just a select few! Globally anyone in england would almost certainly be worse off if we fairly allocated things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
I.e. being malevolently indifferent. Carry on starving the people there, landlord.
I'm sorry what have you done to help those who are starving? I know I've done a lot more than 'average' not that its a fair excuse morally.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
I'm saying its a bad example because there were a large collections of interests going on, which are no representative of the current state. Your trying to do some micro economics on a very complex macro issue.
The only interests in Ireland during the famine was profit interests. The (your) government did *nothing* to alter market behaviour. As a result, millions died or fled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Because its akin to blaming the video games someone was playing before they went on a shooting rampage, your ignoring so many of the issues at the time, it also is not really the same kind of capitalism we have now, this is why I dismiss it so casually!
Not the same kind of capitalism we have now, because the government is glossing over it's most ugly core aspects with socialism. But you can't make a pig pretty with makeup, it's still a pig under the mask.
Can't be bothered replying to the rest, it's a run-together mess. I suspect we'd be wasting our time continuing this discussion, anyway.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
The only interests in Ireland during the famine was profit interests. The (your) government did *nothing* to alter market behaviour. As a result, millions died or fled.
Don't you think your middle sentence contradicts your first?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Not the same kind of capitalism we have now, because the government is glossing over it's most ugly core aspects with socialism. But you can't make a pig pretty with makeup, it's still a pig under the mask.
Firstly I disagree I'd say we have so many things in place that the example is completely irrelevent, we use capitalisim food methods in the world and they just work consistantly better than the alternatives. How did Vietnam go from been a net importer to a net exporter in 10 years! We also have protection mechanisims that prevent such things happening today. So what is the alternative you propose? Capitalisim is very efficient compared to all the alternatives we've EVER seen. You've addressed none of those facts, none of those differences!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Can't be bothered replying to the rest, it's a run-together mess. I suspect we'd be wasting our time continuing this discussion, anyway.
Fair enough, I thought on re-reading whilst a lot of the points blur together there are still some valid outcomes; 1) what are you actually doing about the mess? 2) how do you preserve free will? 3) we've got it much better than with any other system we've used before
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Don't you think your middle sentence contradicts your first?
On the contrary, it qualifies it. Capitalism was given a free hand to operate purely, free from state interference, and as a result, it produced one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Firstly I disagree I'd say we have so many things in place that the example is completely irrelevent, we use capitalisim food methods in the world and they just work consistantly better than the alternatives.
A food market with some of the most stringent government regulations and subsidise of all the industries. I.e. socialism. I.e. lipstick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
How did Vietnam go from been a net importer to a net exporter in 10 years!
With socialist reform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
We also have protection mechanisims that prevent such things happening today.
Yes, socialism. As I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
So what is the alternative you propose?
I already said. Resource-based economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Capitalisim is very efficient compared to all the alternatives we've EVER seen.
Capitalism is very efficent at persisting, because it transfers more power towards the already wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
You've addressed none of those facts, none of those differences!
And you've ignored that clear evidence exists showing capitalism to be a blight upon the species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
1) what are you actually doing about the mess?
The real important question is why isn't people who actually are in a position to do something about the mess doing anything about it? The answer is obvious, the status quo is in their best interests, and they've no interest in making things fair for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
2) how do you preserve free will?
By not carrying on this complete fantasy. Philosophical debate about free will aside, human wants are unlimited, and we don't have infinite resources to serve infinite wants. But what we can do, is provide for everyone's needs. And before we start getting into servicing everyone's wants, we need to provide for everyone's needs first. While people are still dying of starvation, exposure, disease, and so forth, still, in the 21st century, then the system has failed on providing for everyone's basic needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
3) we've got it much better than with any other system we've used before
We've used nothing but capitalism since the first page of history. And then we recently squirted a dollop of socialism on top of it. Tada!
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
And before we start getting into servicing everyone's wants, we need to provide for everyone's needs first. While people are still dying of starvation, exposure, disease, and so forth, still, in the 21st century, then the system has failed on providing for everyone's basic needs.
But, there arent really enough resources, either material or human, to provide for everyones basic needs.
Humanity is on a rapid decline because we have tried to break the "natural" order of things and allow the weakest to die off.
With no predators, other than internal conflict, and an increasing about of socialism, we have brought the problem on ourselves.
It isnt capitalism thats necessarily at fault or to blame, but the ever increasing strain put on systems that just cant adapt, adjust or otherwise sustain the burdens being placed on them.
It also doesnt help that people confused "want" and "need" quite indiscriminately, like people ranting about how something is their "right", when its actually a luxury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
We've used nothing but capitalism since the first page of history. And then we recently squirted a dollop of socialism on top of it. Tada!
Yea, Tada, its all gone a bit tits up.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BobF64
But, there arent really enough resources, either material or human, to provide for everyones basic needs.
Nonsense. There's plenty of resources to provide for everyone's needs, but we don't allocate resources according to everyone's needs, we allocate them based on what the wealthiest people deem to allocate them on, primarily themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BobF64
Humanity is on a rapid decline because we have tried to break the "natural" order of things and allow the weakest to die off.
No, humanity is on a rapid decline because of greed. Capitalistic greed isn't 'natural', it's an artificial human vice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BobF64
Yea, Tada, its all gone a bit tits up.
Yeah, nuclear energy, jet technology, modern agricultural techniques, man on the moon, solar energy, the internet. Damn useless socialism.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Yeah, nuclear energy, jet technology, modern agricultural techniques, man on the moon, solar energy, the internet. Damn useless socialism.
Not been able to give this much time, but hang on a second.
Nuclear Energy was the result of war, a quite brutal result too.
Jet engine, war.
Man on the Moon, cold war.
We need more war obviously!
(Also, nuclear energy, jet, moon were all carried out via a capitalist system)
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
(Also, nuclear energy, jet, moon were all carried out via a capitalist system)
False, false, and false. All of those technologies were financed, researched, and directed, by government.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
False, false, and false. All of those technologies were financed, researched, and directed, by government.
Erm true, ture and true!
Also notice the war thing, kinda an important point!
Try finding a technological innovation that has come out of a non-capitalist society? The only one I can think of is greater starvation of the people.
Russia Failed
China Failed
Vietnam Failed
PolPot Failed
The list just goes on and on, yet you seem to take the opposite view point, asserting that somehow there is plenty of food to go round without actually knowing anything about it. Capitalisim by de-centralising such control really helps matters. Try reading something like the undercover economist (second time in this thread I've recomended it) it shows us how it works.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Yeah, nuclear energy, jet technology, modern agricultural techniques, man on the moon, solar energy, the internet. Damn useless socialism.
But almost all of those are wants, not needs.
We didnt need nuclear energy, jets, moon landings, solar energy or the internet.
And I never said socialism was useless, its just like a huge millstone that burdens the more capable with the inability of the rest.
Any system which tries to promote equality is flawed because it fails to acknowledge that people are not equal.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Erm true, ture and true!
You badly need to brush up on your history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine#History
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Also notice the war thing, kinda an important point!
Yes? What about it? Wars encourage government spending which funded the research programmes to develop and apply new military technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Try finding a technological innovation that has come out of a non-capitalist society? The only one I can think of is greater starvation of the people.
Russia Failed
China Failed
Vietnam Failed
PolPot Failed
The list just goes on and on, yet you seem to take the opposite view point
And where did I say a fascist society is ideal? Oh that's right, I didn't. It's more interesting that you swing between this false dichotomy of capitalism/{stalin,mao}ism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
asserting that somehow there is plenty of food to go round without actually knowing anything about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
There's plenty of resources to provide for everyone's needs, but we don't allocate resources according to everyone's needs, we allocate them based on what the wealthiest people deem to allocate them on, primarily themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Capitalisim by de-centralising such control really helps matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
Capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on decentralised economics.
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BobF64
But almost all of those are wants, not needs.
We didnt need nuclear energy, jets, moon landings, solar energy or the internet.
Energy is a need, jet propulsion technology connected people together, as does the internet, the moon landings required several very important technologies which make meeting needs much easier to satisfy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BobF64
And I never said socialism was useless, its just like a huge millstone that burdens the more capable with the inability of the rest.
Any system which tries to promote equality is flawed because it fails to acknowledge that people are not equal.
Yes, lets go kill off all the poor people. That'll guarantee there'll never be poor people under capitalism again, right? Because it's all down to ability, not who commands the most wealth, right?
Re: Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?
aidanjt, I recommend you read Atlas Shrugged. It's not the perfect book, and objectivism has it's failings, but it would certainly help with providing more of a basis to your arguments.