News Strikes

[Scouse]

You're a fool if you think that'd actually work.

You're a fool because you think I'm advocating that, despite my assertions otherwise in this thread.

I'm done with this thread. It's going nowhere.

 

[Himse]

You live in some sort of fantasy land where everyone should be equally rich?

I have no doubt in my mind if somebody come and took your belongings away from you and spread them around your community because they are 'poor' compared to you, you'd be up in arms.

Face it, if you want stuff, work for it. That's how it should be, not lay about and get given everything.

P.S Why would everyone being equal reduce crime? People would still steal things from people to have more than the other, people are greedy naturally, they can't help it.

 

[Zenith]

Something a friend of mine sent me today, which I'll use to stir some shit up

View attachment 7344

When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Is this man truly a genius? Checked out and this is true...it DID happen!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.

Dumbed down, borderline propaganda. No root in how ambition and drive is actually scientifically understood.

This is a neat, short video that shows something different.

RSA Animate: Drive.

 

[Gumbo]

You're too angry to have a sensible discussion with - if you can't even concede that increasing inequalities of wealth equals increasing crime then I can't see any point continuing...

I'm sorry are you suggesting that in effect we should pay people not to commit crimes?

That when we catch a burglar we should ask him what he wants, wonder down to currys with him and pick it up for him?

Oh no, wait, that would make the boss of Curry's richer. The burglar should just be allowed to take it, because he can't be arsed to work for it, and that's not his fault, it's capitalisms?

You're right there is no point in continuing this. Neither of our ideal systems are ever going to happen and we're both condemned to live in a society on a downward spiral.

Mind you, we both work for a living, and both work hard at it. So whilst I have nothing but contempt for those that don't work, and sponge off me, and you have nothing but sympathy for them because they are victims of our system, we can at least maintain our own self respect.

 

[Zenith]

You live in some sort of fantasy land where everyone should be equally rich?

I have no doubt in my mind if somebody come and took your belongings away from you and spread them around your community because they are 'poor' compared to you, you'd be up in arms.

Face it, if you want stuff, work for it. That's how it should be, not lay about and get given everything.

P.S Why would everyone being equal reduce crime? People would still steal things from people to have more than the other, people are greedy naturally, they can't help it.

Ah come on, how do you know people are "naturally greedy"? Do you know something the whole field of psychology doesnt?

 

[Raven]

People generally are greedy, self absorbed pricks. On the whole.

 

[Access Denied]

I'm sure you can all remember the teacher that everyone bullied because they had no control.

Of course, I felt sorry all but one of them. The one I didn't feel sorry for asked for it tbh. Total cock. But then he pushed me into the wall and got a punch in return so I might be biased =P

 

[Himse]

Ah come on, how do you know people are "naturally greedy"? Do you know something the whole field of psychology doesnt?

It's proven, people always want more money, more of this, what other people have.

It's not a bad thing, except people think they deserve it rather than having to work for it.

 

[Nate]

I'm sorry are you suggesting that in effect we should pay people not to commit crimes?

We already do that with benefits.

 

[Tom]

People want more things because they're programmed by the system we live in to believe that doing so will make them happier people.

The sad thing is, to an extent, having more things does make us happier. The answer isn't to allow everyone to have lots of things.

 

[DaGaffer]

No Scouse, it makes sense. The anecdote itself is probably not true, but it does go some way to illustrate the point. If you get something for nothing, you will do nothing. At some point, people with work ethics, and a conscience like me might just go, oh fuck it, why bother.

Once again, you're shooting the theory illustrated above down, but like Tom has been banging on at you about, you haven't advanced any suggestion of your own.

What is this magical 3rd way of which you speak, but haven't expanded on?

This is demonstrably fallacious. There are plenty of examples of people with inherited wealth who've still worked hard and achieved plenty (in all kinds of areas). Sure, you've also got Paris Hilton, but the idea that if you're given stuff you immediately become a lazy fuck who doesn't do anything is laughable.

The desire to achieve is not linked to material wealth, or at least, not after a certain point, but wealth has become pretty much the only global benchmark we have for measuring the "worth" of a person.

As for the teaching example; fucking laughable. The hardest of hardcore commies never denied the differences between people (its a classic piece of capitalist counter-propaganda), in fact Marxism makes it quite clear that people have different abilities, and should contribute to society on the basis of that; its the division of the rewards for one's contribution to society that differs from Capitalism, the idea being that beyond a certain point you don't need more "stuff" but there are other values apart from "stuff". Nowhere does Marxism (or any other form of socialism except total nutbags like Pol Phot, but that was like North Korea, a kind of fuedal state) claim that everyone should be treated is interchangable units of equal utility, so equally giving everyone a "D" or whatever doesn't make any sense, other than demonstrating the teacher is a douchebag.

For the record, I don't think Marxism works, but not for the ridiculous reasons outlined by that idiot teacher. But that doesn't mean I think the social Darwinism espoused by unfettered capitalism works either (because it clearly doesn't).

 

[Aoami]

socialism and communism both look fantastic on paper but history shows that both do not work in reality. capitalism is useless but it's the best we've got.

 

[Embattle]

Again it is easy to try and rub away the line between peoples wants and greed, when people think of greed now it is probably in the form of unscrupulous greed with the most common being bonuses in the banking sector even when they've failed badly.

As for systems, they are all open to being corrupted and so far all have been rather badly at times.

 

[Scouse]

Dumbed down, borderline propaganda. No root in how ambition and drive is actually scientifically understood.

This is a neat, short video that shows something different.

RSA Animate: Drive.

That's too good an animation for me to stay out of this thread tbfh.

Fits in well with the US of A being a much more productive economic powerhouse before the fed took over and capitalism became global.

Shit jobs, no motivation to do well, just earning cash every day. Fits my experience exactly.

 

[Scouse]

People want more things because they're programmed by the system we live in to believe that doing so will make them happier people.

The sad thing is, to an extent, having more things does make us happier. The answer isn't to allow everyone to have lots of things.

This is true. Shopping makes people happy in the short term.

Contentment, however, is dangerous in this economy. If everyone was content* then people would have even less motivation to do their shit jobs.


]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_VbImuG71M[/youtube]


*which, IMO, is why weed's illegal. It makes you content (at least in the medium term).

 

[Raven]

I'm content and still very motivated to do my job, because I know if I didn't work then I would no longer be content. I work hard and aim for progression so I can buy more shit. I don't think I am entitled to that shit without working for it. While I don't really need to plan for the future due to family income and inheritance, I am doing so. I don't ask for anything and earn my own money and want to be in the position that when the day comes that I do get an inheritance, I don't need it. In an ideal world I will just be leaving it alone and leaving it to my kids.

 

[Scouse]

I wonder if the fact that you know you don't have to slave for the future gives you enough independence and freedom of choice to have that contentment?

 

[Raven]

I have to slave for now though. If I want something I have to pay for it myself. Obviously I have the safety net of knowing if it really does go tits up, I have a safety net (My family wouldn't see me on the street etc) but that doesn't really come into it.

 

[Scouse]

I have to slave for now though. If I want something I have to pay for it myself. Obviously I have the safety net of knowing if it really does go tits up, I have a safety net (My family wouldn't see me on the street etc) but that doesn't really come into it.

Furry muff. I'm happy for ya

I don't really want anything other than time with my mates tbfh. Even the PC could go if it came down to it...

 

[Jeros]

At least its not as bad as in some parts of the America, yet.

Large homes (3-4) bed left over from forclosures going for $60,000-70,000 and no one buying them.

 

[rynnor]

At least its not as bad as in some parts of the America, yet.

Large homes (3-4) bed left over from forclosures going for $60,000-70,000 and no one buying them.

Isnt there a program next week about the million empty homes in the UK?

 

[Jeros]

Isnt there a program next week about the million empty homes in the UK?

Don't know I don't watch TV much, would be surprising if that's the case......

Heh funny, dad was telling me about his first home he brought in the 70s for £10,250, about £97,500 in today's money, that house is now worth probs about 115,000-135,000 based on prices in that road.....no wonder the older generation keeping telling me how hard it is.

 

[rynnor]

Here it is:

http://www.channel4.com/news/scandal-of-empty-homes-highlighted

 

[Scouse]

Everything's "landlords from hell" and shite. In my experience it's the whining, inconsiderate, house-trashing tenants that are the problem.

If there's a million unused homes and the government is serious then it should provide zero-interest loans to owners to do the homes up, put it housing association types in the houses (which would guarantee the landlord rent) and then claw back the loan money as part of the deal.

If you're homeless or need council housing you shouldn't get a choice about where you get homed (within reason - same city will do). The empty houses would get filled, people would get homes, landlords would get rents (which is better than nothing) and workmen would get more work.

We're spending the money anyway - so why not put it to good use?

 

[Zenith]

It's proven, people always want more money, more of this, what other people have.

It's not a bad thing, except people think they deserve it rather than having to work for it.

No, it's the social norm to think everyone always want more money, what other people have. To an extent it have been proven in experiments, but not at all under all circumstances. There is multiple experiments that show that ambition and drive /= monetary reward, and that altruism (helping behaviour) may just as well override greed. It's not at all so black and white as most people want it to be.