Quote from xaotik :

I gave several current era examples of why I believe that the statement "most people become rich not by keeping others down, but by expanding on an idea that makes people's lives better" is not true - if you want more, history books are full of them.

Well, whole globalisation works that way - you have an idea to sell something globally and you have people that manufacture that globally, and for them this means greater income than when they dont manufacture that.

Quote from flymike91 :

I can't say enough that I don't have blind faith in corporations. Some corporations do horrible things. There is no alternative to businesses, no one will ever do anything for free for very long, but we can shape their actions by either supporting them or not. If you don't like Wal-Mart, buy from an organic market.

Chomsky starts right out criticizing the nanny state hegemony, bailouts, and subsidies which I have always felt are barriers to free thinking, free markets, and personal responsibility. Chomky's problem has always lied in transforming free market theory into reality. While I support the rich in that they are as human as you or me and have equally complex emotions and aspirations, I don't believe in "too big to fail." This current economy has only strengthened that view. Everyone from the poorest to the richest should be equally able to fail, but there is a feeling from the Left that the rich should fail and the poor must succeed.

Solution is "not to have to big to fall", instead of "not letting them fall" because at least banking sector is very vulnerable to loosing of confidence - people have their money in banks only on base of confidence they will get them out with interest rate.

Quote :

@xaotic
I have to go broader because your ideology of powerlessness is what has created a global attitude of dependence and made it possible for the governments to become the nanny state. The corruption lies in the government, which exists in part to protect the people from the evils of corporation you have described. If it cannot or will not we pride ourselves in employing democracy to elect those who can. It is possible to become rich without being corrupt. I know this because the top philanthropists in the world are the richest people in the world. They are what we should strive to be if we strive to become wealthy, which not all of us do. We can all strive to be incorruptible.

Specifically to your statement, though. The same human nature that drives companies to poach fish in undeveloped nations also drove companies to make it possible to fly to the moon and back. That human nature can be guided towards goodness with the power of good people, but not towards fairness because there is no fairness to guide it towards.

Balancing cost with quality.
And the same human nature that creates nanny state drives people to get the biggest chunk from nanny, ie. making everything as expensive as possible.

Quote from JJ72 :

not in hong kong mate, it had never fell since 4 years ago. And is only going to get higher. Even if you just buy it with mortgage and rent it out, you are still making quite a cut, the demand outweighs supply by a long shot and it's because they are holding it back to boost the price.

Earning money is very easy when you have some, but really hard when you have none.

Maybe I should immigrate to this Land of Opportunity?

Quote from JJ72 :

Sorry but that's just not the case, some people are better at earning from this particularly system more than others, the system does not reward in direct proportion to ability and hard work, there are fasttracks.

If I have 1 million now, i can buy a flat, and increase that just by 50% by selling it a year later, it involves no skill and no insight, you just need to sign some papers. If I try to earn that amount by designing I will have to work tirelessly for at least 2 years.

really no skill and insight??
I know several people stuck here with some real estate for many years - and yes, they have to work hard for them because they thought they would sell it high. It is called - risk.

I just want to remind you that beneath some level of taxation there are not rich people and poor people that pay taxes more or less but those who pay taxes and those who dont (in gray and black zones).


and about your rioters - it seems like they are organized and steered as our rioters here but they look like pretty dumb looting and making fire.

As I told I live in a country of Marsists majority. You can loose everything to Marsists: from sport equipment (because Marsists always prevail and win even if they cant) to cars (that could be damaged or wrecked) or company - we have a long list of companies that were lost by their owners due to illegal administrative decision (overruled after many many years) with the best known here owner of PC assembly company with several hundreds millions € of turnover whose problems were gone after he sold his company cheap and went herding lambs. Literally.

What about rioters? They are the same Marsists - when they riot they do not loot, they make internet riot flooding forums with shit of propaganda. And they overruled rule of law.

It seems like you have your own Marsists, those little scums from Mars Attacks! (Tim Burton's)
Well, I live in a country of Marsists. Here you can loose not a shop but hundreds € revenue company by illegal actions supported by some levels of administration



Yodel them! Their brains will blow up

Last edited by AndRand, Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:01.

Quote from Becky Rose :

So the argument being put forward by the right wing here (although the political map is an over simplification blah blah blah): Poor people don't have values like rich people do? Well... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44084236/ns/health-behavior/

They're clearly right.

Becky, where did you find that?

It is strictly cultural thing - like value of property. Some poor communities value individual property, same wealthy dont.
ie. here we have in minority individual culture of prioprietors with property as way to maintain wealth while hedonistic prioperty - to express personality by having things is rarely individual because in majority it comes with postcommies twist: it is strictly the sign of status. You in fact do not possess things because they can always be stolen or damaged, so in fact you dont have things but community decides what is appriopriate with your status. It could be shells if they value them. Sad but true. Thats why I hatem

Last edited by AndRand, Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:46.

Quote from AtomAnt :

A little revelation is a good thing..it can change a society, this isn't being done to change a social program, our news tells us this started with a black youth with a gun..in England...with a gun...that's a heavy jail sentence..so the family says the cops planted the gun..what..and now..what's his name without goggling it.

You Fail

in what?

Quote from 5haz :

So we should let ourselves be held to ransom and extorted every time the markets take a nosedive? I can never understand how people are so quick to criticise individual people when they need some financial help, yet be so willing to give huge sums of 'free money' to organisations who then rub it in our face with huge bonuses in the face of austerity. I reckon we'd only have to go through letting the banks fail once. We'd certainly come out with a dramatically altered economy, but perhaps we need to build a more balanced economy that isn't at the mercy of the whims of these irresponsible and greedy bastards.

It seems I am more greedy than them - I take as a bonus 10% of first margin of every amount of money I brought in company

Quote from menantoll :

Many people have been saying for years that our youth are going to one day be out of control because they are pandered to the whole time. Police are left powerless, school teachers can't even raise their voice any more. Coupled with the reasons you give,yes I agree it's part of it. The only surprise is that it took till now to happen.

So how about some workable solutions that don't involve bankrupting our country?

I just asked about because there are communities in UK that do not get involved in riots. Probably with some own authority existing and not isolated from UK society.

Well, most of them...
I wonder what you will find as underlaying reason of some communities NOT getting involved in riots?

Last edited by AndRand, Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:03.

Quote from 5haz :

Also you need to distinguish between trying to justify the riots and explaining their cause, they are two different things although again much of the right wing media would rather you only thought in black and white, either for or against the riots.

Well, I just dont believe riots is the way of changing status-quo.
I dont believe giving for free is way of changing status-quo.

The way is always individualistic, where individual can be proud of his gain, especially on known fair enough terms.
And the way is to sweep scums that block that.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Demonstrating that they are employable I suppose.

or if they would want they could.

but if you get their finance folders I think you could get rid of them. All of them. At least FREE BERRIES



...well... I would

Quote from Electrik Kar :

An aged reader in the Guardian comments section writes:

"How can these poverty stricken disenfranchised 'children' actually afford these smart phones ?"

Quote from Intrepid :

State neglect? A lot of these kids get free education, free healthcare, free welfare, & free housing.

I just heard they are using BlackBerries to get themself together for looting... another thing for free and never enough.

I think BBerries IS ENOUGH.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

In other words, "the political spectrum is outdated because I don't like where other people think I fall on it."

Nope,

because nearly all fall in nearly one place (as prooved here for instance), and there is a really big problem if they shut up all the others views and by chance... of course... find themselves wrong.

You say impossible.. well... turn the news on

I was hoping I could see how right wing are you:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=75560

Quote from skstibi :

http://carphotos.cardomain.com ... 2221/5578610001_large.jpg

yay! it hurts!

Quote from jrd.racer :

Ahh Klutch, technicalities technicalities


@Jakg's pic, beetches just sit there calm and collected like it didn't happen. LOL.

Paparazzi time!!!

it would be fuuny to compare all LFS results with that example with celebrities on politicalcompass.org
Seems like two different surveys

Quick valuation

Damn.. I felt looking at that:



Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85


I missed "no matter" answer

Last edited by AndRand, Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:23.

what do you know about aerodynamics?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Once again you're ignoring the fact that "white people" in the USA are inherently a multicultural group.

Therefore they were not bothered with rethinking of problem of multiculturality. In fact they were in a way - first pilgrims fled from religious wars and their wish was to create a country for religious people that wouldnt have religious wars. Thus the strictly liberal state with big attention to all religions - they were christian religions dealing with minor differences in practice not on base values so consent was easier to achieve.

With different cultures from all around world it is very hard and complex. There is a hindu approach - let it all be: ie. peaceful HareKrishnas with Kali murderers and Shiva meditating observers.
Marxist approach is quite similar: lets decompose every group into minority with no majority opressing other (and then we, marxists, will be telling what is good or bad).

In modern, western world there are other ways: in South Africa, Philippines people want to preserve organizational solutions of the west - there is conception of arch of values (greetz to dr J.J.S in Sydney) as constitutional values of given society. But...
I think in Texas nowadays spanish language could be outvoted as main language of the state I dont think Texans would approve that

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Yes, the citizenship test requires knowledge of the constitution and the English language. It doesn't require you to give up your beliefs or customs. I'm not sure what relevance it has.

That some want to live under their law. Which is part of their custom and belief.

Quote :

I don't agree with forbidding people from wearing traditional dress. I understand the tension between the host culture's idea of women's rights and the immigrant culture's idea of modest dress as a religious practice. However, I don't think you can enforce women's rights on people; you can only suggest it as a better alternative.

Wearing burka is against several laws - from security (you cant hide your face in public, many types of services, demonstrations) to road traffic. Although there was an exception in UK law for Pakis allowing them to wear a turban on motorcycle (originating from WW2 as privilege for Gurkhs) - well... today was a blast in Kandahar with bomb hidden in turban :/

Would you make such exception also for under-age poly-marriages? Also in their law, custom and belief.

We had interesting case in Poland: a woman was convinced that she can not be accused of corruption although she described in magazines it as a custom in her business. She got accusations (not persecution) presented and she killed herself when being seized. We have big martyrology here about that, I treat it as suicidal attack.

Last edited by AndRand, Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:46.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

As others have said, the USA is a country built on multiculturalism. Our "monoculture" is essentially a group of disparate subcultures that have been squashed together through time.

Really???
I thought that to be USA citizen you have pass exam on constitution and English... you opress poor immigrants with your dominant law and language...

France lately forbade burkas. What would you say if a woman killed herself for being punished for wearing burka?

Last edited by AndRand, Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:45.