patrick.net

Neither party will get rid of patriot act. Once a law like that is on the books whoever is in power will want access to the toy, i mean weapon.

Peter P says

Blaming your failure on things that are not in your control is not the best way to escape the predicament.

Belief is nothing but a tool. Why not adopt a belief system that is more compatible with your success?

The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging its existence.

Let's apply your philosophy to the 9/11 attacks. We can't blame Al Qaeda for them; we'd have to blame ourselves. Therefore, we would have left Al Qaeda get away with their crimes and they would have attacked again.

Now let's apply my philosophy. We blame Al Qaeda and we take away their capacity to commit harm.

We can apply our two philosophies in various situations including murder, rape, burglary, pollution, and malevolent economic policies. The result is consistent. If you eliminate the cause of the problem, the problem goes away.

To argue that 100% of the cause of poverty is the laziness of the poor is just plain asinine. Poverty fluctuates too much over even a few short years. Human nature does not fluctuate that much and that quickly. A person isn't lazy as shit one year and hard-working the next only to suddenly become lazy again a few years later. That alone demonstrates the stupid the premise of this thread is.

dublin hillz says

Neither party will get rid of patriot act.

Likely, but that does not mitigate my point. Democrats are still, by far, the lesser of the two evils.

As I said, I'll vote against the Democrats when every last Republican is dead.

Dan8267 says

To argue that 100% of the cause of poverty is the laziness of the poor is just plain asinine.

Did I ever say that? Laziness is almost a virtue in my book. However, the belief that hard work must automatically be rewarded is a bad one.

Many conservatives blame laziness and I do not agree. Many poor people work way too hard. Some even question why. But they rarely come to the conclusion that their belief system has flaws. Ever fewer of them realize this is good news because they can fix it.

Fighting terrorists is not about blame. It is about a civilized people defending itself against the savages.

Peter P says

Did I ever say that?

Yes, this is the entire premise of your thread that any blame placed upon the rich for rigging the system is invalid.

No one has ever argued that there are no lazy people in the world who are poor. But when unemployment skyrockets, it's not the fault of lazy poor people.

The counter-arguments presented to you have been that the wealthy rig the system with unjust laws that prevent others from achieving wealth, most of the 0.1% got their wealth not by being productive, but rather by exploiting others, and that the typical middle class person can be thrusted into poverty because of zero-sum games played by the owner class. All three of these points are indisputable.

I would go on to say that the only way to become filthy rich in our country is by abandoning any activity that is good for society and pursuing only zero-sum games. A lot of people agree with me and have devoted their lives to zero-sum games. Of course, the greater the percentage of the population that does this, the less the real GDP of the country is. The more people playing zero-sum games, the fewer people left to perform productive work.

Peter P says

Fighting terrorists is not about blame. It is about a civilized people defending itself against the savages.

I don't give a crap what word you use. The first step in fighting terrorism is knowing who attacked you. This is by definition blame, but if prefer the work splunking, then we have to splunk the people responsible for the problem, whether the problem is a terrorist attack or a failed economic system.

I'm not going to get into a stupid nomenclature debate with you.

Peter P says

the belief that hard work must automatically be rewarded is a bad one.

Another Straw Man argument. No one has ever stated that hard-work is what should be rewarded. People on my side said that productivity is what should be rewarded instead of bargaining power, which is all that capitalism rewards. People on your side have argued that the poor and middle class are morally inferior and lazy compared to the rich and that is why the rich are rich. Your statement is laughably false.

Dan8267 says

trategist says

You have already started blaming others. Billionaire Ma was right.

1. Blaming the responsible is the right thing to do. Do you blame yourself for the 9/11 attacks?

If you can't identify the responsible party you will still end up blaming the wrong guys.
I only blame Islam for 911 and every single atrocity committed by a Muslim in the name of religion.

Dan8267 says

2. Ma was talking about the poor. I pretty damn sure I make a lot more each year than you do.

I'm glad for you. I hope you make twice as much next year. When I visit Florida and we go for lunch, you can pick up the tab. :)

Dan8267 says

3. Nothing you said undermines my statements.

Your statements in post #1 was gibberish.

Dan8267 says

Yes, this is the entire premise of your thread that any blame placed upon the rich for rigging the system is invalid.

No. Laziness is not a bad thing. Making excuses for your failure is.

There is a difference between adopting a belief system and arguing that it is the truth. I do not give a shit about the latter.

Truth is meaningless unless it has something to do with you personally. It is a matter of choice.

Here peter, I think this is what you are getting at:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nlD9JYP8u5E

In musical chairs, you could blame the people without chairs. Maybe they were slow, handicapped, old or distracted. Maybe they misunderstood and thought they had a right to a chair too.

Me? I'd try to ensure there are enough chairs for everyone.

If there are 15 jobs and 150 applicants, you can't blame the also-rans.

CL says

In musical chairs, you could blame the people without chairs. Maybe they were slow, handicapped, old or distracted. Maybe they misunderstood and thought they had a right to a chair too.

Or, there is no need for blaming. Winners are winners.

CL says

Me? I'd try to ensure there are enough chairs for everyone.

That is a good alternative in some cases. But you cannot change the game.

CL says

If there are 15 jobs and 150 applicants, you can't blame the also-rans.

No, you should not blame them. You should not even think about them. To you, they are out of the picture and they do not even exist.

They, on the other hand, can "blame" themselves and improve their strategy for the next round.

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=23536317556137

How does he explain his failure to maintain shareholder value?

John Bailo says

How does he explain his failure to maintain shareholder value?

Why does he have to explain anything? The insiders have control over the board. Stockholders who bought shares did so willingly.

Peter P says

John Bailo says

How does he explain his failure to maintain shareholder value?

Why does he have to explain anything? The insiders have control over the board. Stockholders who bought shares did so willingly.

He failed to maintain investor integrity.

Ma laundered inflated Yuan for Dollars.

He has to explain his failure.

Losing 14% of the value of one of the world's most heavily capitalized companies -- in three days -- is more than 1000x the average debt of the average "failed" poor person combined across the whole globe!

Ma is thus a bigger loser, times 1000, than all the poor on Earth!

John Bailo says

He has to explain his failure.

Again, why does he owe anyone any explanations?

Great man do not explain themselves. They shrug and move on.

Peter P says

Great man do not explain themselves. They shrug and move on.

He stole money.
His IPO failed.
Billions are missing.

And you defend this?

John Bailo says

And you defend this?

Who cares?

Peter P says

John Bailo says

And you defend this?

Who cares?

BAAAABBBBBAAAA LOOOOWWWWWW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAV3bOJaQuY

Peter P says

They, on the other hand, can "blame" themselves and improve their strategy for the next round.

But, if even at "full employment", we had 4% by design unemployed, that is 6 and a half million people! There are many guaranteed losers.

What is the point of THAT game? To prevent wage pressure on the owners?

CL says

What is the point of THAT game? To prevent wage pressure on the owners?

It is simply a result of all the dynamics at play, projected as arbitrary numeric measures.

CL says

What is the point of THAT game? To prevent wage pressure on the owners?

Yes.

Consider the explosion of efficiency and technology - invented by people like Berners-Lee and funded mostly by the Government - and how little of that has trickled down to a better standard of living.

Since the Golden Age 50s and 60s when the tax rate was confiscatory on the rich, we've had Faxes, Beepers, Cell Phones, Computers, the Internet and now Smart Phones. Yet Joe Schmoe's basic standard of living hasn't changed much since the late 1970s, maybe it's worse because two-income families were rare even as late as the 70s. Yet the top .1% are substantially richer. Yet the country could not survive, much less thrive, one day without the World Reserve Currency.

Very bizarre!

Peter P says

CL says

What is the point of THAT game? To prevent wage pressure on the owners?

It is simply a result of all the dynamics at play, projected as arbitrary numeric measures.

Yes. So if the game were "I am King, and therefore have all the riches. You are not, therefore you do not", then everyone who was not King would not be so due to their own lack of ambition?

Peter P says

Great man do not explain themselves. They shrug and move on.

and go to prison...

CL says

Yes. So if the game were "I am King, and therefore have all the riches. You are not, therefore you do not", then everyone who was not King would not be so due to their own lack of ambition?

But that is not capitalism, is it? ;-)

They can also be "kings" in their domain. Or even kingmakers. Labels only go so far.

Criminals are also quite good at explaining their success. For example, do you think Hank Paulson would admit to his wealth coming from securities fraud? It goes both ways.

or Bill Gates from stealing ideas from Xerox Parc.
or Jobs from both Xerox AND ripping off Wozniak (and countless others, don't forget to backdate the stocks!) from day one.
or Rothschild and the battle of Waterloo...

Perhaps life is about what you can get away with? :-)

But the hilarity comes when nobody escapes death in the end. Either you die without accomplishing anything, or you die DESPITE accomplishing everything. A tragedy nonetheless.

Looks like having an eye-catching profile image does have a huge effect on traffic.

Call it Crazy says

Peter P says

Looks like having an eye-catching profile image does have a huge effect on traffic.

What image??

The blue fish.

Peter P says

Perhaps life is about what you can get away with? :-)

But the hilarity comes when nobody escapes death in the end. Either you die without accomplishing anything, or you die DESPITE accomplishing everything. A tragedy nonetheless.

Who cares. I just wanna have fun.

It's next to my threads and comments.

Peter P says

It's next to my threads and comments.

It's the wine. He just reminded me that "dogs bark"

Shop bitch is still awake, but still mopping up the thunderbird freezer at the 7/11....he'll be online soon..

Call it Crazy says

Wine?? You're think about sbh..

Ha Ha... I was just checking to see if he was awake!

Dan8267 says

To argue that 100% of the cause of poverty is the laziness of the poor is just plain asinine.

OK, just 99%. Happy now?

Self-limiting beliefs are much worse than laziness. Good news: belief systems can be adjusted.

Peter P says

CL says

Yes. So if the game were "I am King, and therefore have all the riches. You are not, therefore you do not", then everyone who was not King would not be so due to their own lack of ambition?

But that is not capitalism, is it? ;-)

They can also be "kings" in their domain. Or even kingmakers. Labels only go so far.

You believe that we live in a meritocracy? The point of the King analogy, is that there is limited capacity for jobs and goods. You can distribute them to one person, 1000 people, or to everyone to varying degrees. If you can acknowledge that one man having everything is wrong, then is 2 better? 200 Million? What does the scale look like in a good economic system?

What makes you think that where we are at on the scale is good enough? That somehow we landed on the right way to distribute goods?

Hardworking people can't afford to buy the goods they make. Others can't even afford basic shelter. Still others can't even get a job.

Try harder! There are chairs for you!

CL says

The point of the King analogy, is that there is limited capacity for jobs and goods.

But people all want different things.

CL says

Hardworking people can't afford to buy the goods they make.

We cannot expect Rolls Royces craftsmen and Gulfstream engineers to afford their own products. But they are proud of their work. :-)

Besides, we are in a period of adjustments. Some call it global wage arbitrage. It has been happening for many years now, and I am surprised that real wage did not drop much. When the labor costs of all productive countries are equalized, everybody will see real growth again.