Quote:
and Oak Ridge (TN?)
Yes, TN. I live right next to it. I have a glowing personality.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- To those who believe in the "American Dream"
To those who believe in the "American Dream"Follow
Yes, TN. I live right next to it. I have a glowing personality.
Mindwalker wrote:
It's simple... nukes used to be for rich countries - but no longer.
The U.S. government is currently working on a plan that would create a project for the manufacture of plutonium cores for nuclear weapons. The estimated cost of the program up to the point where the first certified plutonium core is constructed is estimated at $1.75-$2 billion dollars US. That's just the cost to get the program up and running and create one core.
There is a second proposal that is aimed at creating a plutonium core manufacturing facility to regularly produce cores. The estimated cost of this facility is $4 billion dollars US.
That's just the cost for the cores themselves, and that's in a technologically advanced nation that has an existing nuclear program as a foundation. Imagine the funds needed to create a nuclear weapons program from the ground up.
A much more practical argument against your point is this, if what you say is true, that nuclear weapons are no longer just for rich countries, then explain why Somalia doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, or Nepal, or Syria, or Cuba, or even Iraq, or why is it that terrorists don't attack with nuclear weapons?
I love it when people try to deconstruct my arguments and form erroneous conclusions about what I have or have not read and understood-- and then end their doctoral thesis with how could you ever possibly know what it is like to be a poor black chil' in da ghetto...
A boy is born in hard time Mississippi
Surrounded by four walls that ain’t so pretty
His parents give him love and affection
To keep him strong moving in the right direction
Living just enough, just enough for the city... ee ha!
His father works some days for fourteen hours
And you can bet he barely makes a dollar
His mother goes to scrub the floors for many
And you’d best believe she hardly gets a penny
Living just enough, just enough for the city... yeah!
His sister’s black but she is sho’nuff pretty
Her skirt is short but lord her legs are sturdy
To walk to school she’s got to get up early
Her clothes are old but never are they dirty
Living just enough, just enough for the city...um hum
Her brother’s smart he’s got more sense than many
His patience’s long but soon he won’t have any
To find a job is like a haystack needle
Cause where he lives they don’t use colored people
Living just enough, just enough for the city...
Living just enough...
For the city... ooh, ooh
His hair is long, his feet are hard and gritty
He spends his life walking the streets of new york city
He’s almost dead from breathing in air pollution
He tried to vote but to him there’s no solution
Living just enough, just enough for the city...
Yeah, yeah, yeah!
I hope you hear inside my voice of sorrow
And that it motivates you to make a better tomorrow
This place is cruel no where could be much colder
If we don’t change the world will soon be over
Living just enough, stop giving just enough for the city!
La, la, la, la, la, la,
Da ba da da da da da da
Da da da da da da
Da da da da da da da da da
Totem
A boy is born in hard time Mississippi
Surrounded by four walls that ain’t so pretty
His parents give him love and affection
To keep him strong moving in the right direction
Living just enough, just enough for the city... ee ha!
His father works some days for fourteen hours
And you can bet he barely makes a dollar
His mother goes to scrub the floors for many
And you’d best believe she hardly gets a penny
Living just enough, just enough for the city... yeah!
His sister’s black but she is sho’nuff pretty
Her skirt is short but lord her legs are sturdy
To walk to school she’s got to get up early
Her clothes are old but never are they dirty
Living just enough, just enough for the city...um hum
Her brother’s smart he’s got more sense than many
His patience’s long but soon he won’t have any
To find a job is like a haystack needle
Cause where he lives they don’t use colored people
Living just enough, just enough for the city...
Living just enough...
For the city... ooh, ooh
His hair is long, his feet are hard and gritty
He spends his life walking the streets of new york city
He’s almost dead from breathing in air pollution
He tried to vote but to him there’s no solution
Living just enough, just enough for the city...
Yeah, yeah, yeah!
I hope you hear inside my voice of sorrow
And that it motivates you to make a better tomorrow
This place is cruel no where could be much colder
If we don’t change the world will soon be over
Living just enough, stop giving just enough for the city!
La, la, la, la, la, la,
Da ba da da da da da da
Da da da da da da
Da da da da da da da da da
Totem
Totem wrote:
As the snow flies
On a cold and gray chicago mornin’
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto
And his mama cries
’cause if there’s one thing that she don’t need
It’s another hungry mouth to feed
In the ghetto
People, don’t you understand
The child needs a helping hand
Or he’ll grow to be an angry young man some day
Take a look at you and me,
Are we too blind to see,
Do we simply turn our heads
And look the other way
Well the world turns
And a hungry little boy with a runny nose
Plays in the street as the cold wind blows
In the ghetto
And his hunger burns
So he starts to roam the streets at night
And he learns how to steal
And he learns how to fight
In the ghetto
Then one night in desperation
A young man breaks away
He buys a gun, steals a car,
Tries to run, but he don’t get far
And his mama cries
As a crowd gathers ’round an angry young man
Face down on the street with a gun in his hand
In the ghetto
As her young man dies,
On a cold and gray chicago mornin’,
Another little baby child is born
In the ghetto
On a cold and gray chicago mornin’
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto
And his mama cries
’cause if there’s one thing that she don’t need
It’s another hungry mouth to feed
In the ghetto
People, don’t you understand
The child needs a helping hand
Or he’ll grow to be an angry young man some day
Take a look at you and me,
Are we too blind to see,
Do we simply turn our heads
And look the other way
Well the world turns
And a hungry little boy with a runny nose
Plays in the street as the cold wind blows
In the ghetto
And his hunger burns
So he starts to roam the streets at night
And he learns how to steal
And he learns how to fight
In the ghetto
Then one night in desperation
A young man breaks away
He buys a gun, steals a car,
Tries to run, but he don’t get far
And his mama cries
As a crowd gathers ’round an angry young man
Face down on the street with a gun in his hand
In the ghetto
As her young man dies,
On a cold and gray chicago mornin’,
Another little baby child is born
In the ghetto
FTFY my *****'.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Quote:
That's just the cost for the cores themselves, and that's in a technologically advanced nation that has an existing nuclear program as a foundation. Imagine the funds needed to create a nuclear weapons program from the ground up.
Your argument is self defeating. You're listing the costs for our government to do it, not some 3rd world pissant nation doing it on a shoestring.
Of course the US knows how to blow money on projects like this - we're good at that. Of course you need to consider that at least half the money is likely to be placed in an environmental cleanup fund, and that more of the money is likely going to be funneled off to a black project.
Your logic is lacking. I still say that a country like Korea that has no worries about the environmental or manpower consequences (they don't care one bit if people die doing it, we avoid deaths as they make for bad news, driving the cost up) could easily build a device for far less than the US could.
Why haven't they used one yet? Because they want it for the bargaining chip rights more than actually to use them. If Israel didn't have the stockpile they did, I guarantee that they would not exist today.
Besides... our borders are better patrolled than we are led to believe - with *cough* devices to detect nukes. If we didn't have them, I think an old Soviet briefcase bomb maybe would have been used instead of the airplanes on 9/11 - they are definitely available on the black market. Our government loves their secrets though, so even if we did intercept one at the border, why would we 'show our hands' to the bad guys that we could so easily find them. We're not stupid...
Edited, Wed Dec 22 15:33:06 2004 by Mindwalker
Werd, Dee. Have a toke on me, bro.
Totem
Totem
ANY nuclear weapons program is going to have massive safety precautions. In order to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons you have to have a highly skilled, highly educated work force. You don't get people like that to work in a situation where there aren't safety precautions, and if you do, it's because you pay them a TON of money to offset the dangers.
Also any leader of a nation is going to understand that a nuclear production workforce is a resource worth protecting. I know that it's just easier for us to believe that communist/socialist leaders are stupid bullies who don't understand anything about managing human resources, but it's just not true. For the most part even a dictator understands that there are workers who are worth protecting and taking care of.
Yes, I understand that any U.S. program is going to be subject to major riders, cost overruns, and other extraneous costs. HOWEVER, the U.S. already has an existing nuclear weapons program that makes manufacturing of weapons cheaper than it would be if you were starting from the ground up. Even if you cut the cost of the manufacturing to 1/3 of the U.S. figure, you're still talking about more than one billion dollars for just the first step in the manufacturing process, and then a third world nation has to develop thier program to the point where they can CREATE the facility.
So for a nation that doesn't have an existing nuclear weapons program, the cost of getting to the point where you can just create the plutonium cores could easily reach $4 billion U.S, if not a much higher cost.
And again, my final question stands. If nuclear weapons are so cheap to produce now, why is it that every third world nation out there doesn't have an existing nuclear weapons program? Especially since North Korea has proven that a nuclear weapons program is an open door to international acknowledgement.
Edited, Wed Dec 22 16:32:58 2004 by danreynolds
Also any leader of a nation is going to understand that a nuclear production workforce is a resource worth protecting. I know that it's just easier for us to believe that communist/socialist leaders are stupid bullies who don't understand anything about managing human resources, but it's just not true. For the most part even a dictator understands that there are workers who are worth protecting and taking care of.
Yes, I understand that any U.S. program is going to be subject to major riders, cost overruns, and other extraneous costs. HOWEVER, the U.S. already has an existing nuclear weapons program that makes manufacturing of weapons cheaper than it would be if you were starting from the ground up. Even if you cut the cost of the manufacturing to 1/3 of the U.S. figure, you're still talking about more than one billion dollars for just the first step in the manufacturing process, and then a third world nation has to develop thier program to the point where they can CREATE the facility.
So for a nation that doesn't have an existing nuclear weapons program, the cost of getting to the point where you can just create the plutonium cores could easily reach $4 billion U.S, if not a much higher cost.
And again, my final question stands. If nuclear weapons are so cheap to produce now, why is it that every third world nation out there doesn't have an existing nuclear weapons program? Especially since North Korea has proven that a nuclear weapons program is an open door to international acknowledgement.
Edited, Wed Dec 22 16:32:58 2004 by danreynolds
1 post
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html#Econ
Interesting North Korea info there. I really like the description of the economy. As military currently in South Korea I have something of a vested interest(namely me) in knowing about North Korea. Sorry to say Dan that it's not a stable place; the only reason it continues to exist is because of foreign aid, pull that and the country collapses fairly quickly. The Nuke program is on track because Kim Jong-Il sees it as his road to security. He thinks if he has a nuke we won't attack (he's probably right) but this nuke comes at the cost of the civilian world. Kim uses the money he has avaliable to pay for nuke research before feeding his people. So the people starve but Kim is secure and that's what matters to Kim. As for the paid and safe conditions thing, North Koreans work where and when their told to work or they get the option of a "re-education camp" or a nice 9mm hole in the head. 9mm be the quick and painless way to die. Sucks for North Koreans but that's the way life is. So Kim pays for his nuke program by not feeding his population. That's how it's done
Interesting North Korea info there. I really like the description of the economy. As military currently in South Korea I have something of a vested interest(namely me) in knowing about North Korea. Sorry to say Dan that it's not a stable place; the only reason it continues to exist is because of foreign aid, pull that and the country collapses fairly quickly. The Nuke program is on track because Kim Jong-Il sees it as his road to security. He thinks if he has a nuke we won't attack (he's probably right) but this nuke comes at the cost of the civilian world. Kim uses the money he has avaliable to pay for nuke research before feeding his people. So the people starve but Kim is secure and that's what matters to Kim. As for the paid and safe conditions thing, North Koreans work where and when their told to work or they get the option of a "re-education camp" or a nice 9mm hole in the head. 9mm be the quick and painless way to die. Sucks for North Koreans but that's the way life is. So Kim pays for his nuke program by not feeding his population. That's how it's done
Totem wrote:
Werd, Dee. Have a toke on me, bro.
Totem
Totem
BTW what was that song you quoted? I didn't recognize it, so I threw up one that I thoguht was relevant
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Yes, that's a very interesting website.
They give next to no hard information on the North Korean economy (if you look beyond the little blurb, at the actual data you see a LOT of N/A's), yet can conclude from this lack of information that North Korea is an impoverished nation with little or no economy. And of course we shouldn't look at any numbers, just read the blurb and blindly believe whatever our government tell us...
Sorry if I refuse to blindly follow my government when they don't give any hard data to back up their claims, I guess I'm just not a good american. But as our president would say, "fool me once, you can't be fooled again."
By the way, it's interesting that this impoverished nation, on the verge of collapse has been able to hold back not only a U.S. backed military in South Korea, but also China as well for decades now.
They give next to no hard information on the North Korean economy (if you look beyond the little blurb, at the actual data you see a LOT of N/A's), yet can conclude from this lack of information that North Korea is an impoverished nation with little or no economy. And of course we shouldn't look at any numbers, just read the blurb and blindly believe whatever our government tell us...
Sorry if I refuse to blindly follow my government when they don't give any hard data to back up their claims, I guess I'm just not a good american. But as our president would say, "fool me once, you can't be fooled again."
By the way, it's interesting that this impoverished nation, on the verge of collapse has been able to hold back not only a U.S. backed military in South Korea, but also China as well for decades now.
Debalic wrote:
BTW what was that song you quoted? I didn't recognize it, so I threw up one that I thoguht was relevant
It was Stevie Wonder's 1973 song Living for the city.
Danke'!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
danreynolds wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point I'm making is that if we put the lion's share of the pie into the hands of those who have shown an ability to make more efficient use out of it, then we improve things for everyone. As I pointed out earlier, we can see this to be true in the standard of living increases over time. We can't measure that economically since the relative costs of things increase as the pie gets bigger. But a bigger pie means that the "real" things are better. Not relative to the pie as a whole, but relative to the pie as it was X number of years earlier.
That would be a great system except for one problem, the people who recieve a lion's share of the pie don't redistribute the wealth the next year, they hoard it, then try to take an even larger share the next year. THAT is the way our system works now and that's just not the way it should be done.
The flaw in your argument is that you're assuming our better standard of living is directly tied to our economic system, when in point of fact it is more due to natural advances in science, medicine and technology.
You completely missed the point of what I was saying. Where do you think those "natural" advances in science, medicine, and technology come from? Do you think they were "free"? Nope. Someone had to pay money (expend resources) to make them. Did "the poor" do that? Did you and a few thousand of your friends pool your money together and do that? Nope. I was those hated "rich people" who did it.
You see them "hoarding" the lions share. Um... I hate to break it to you but wealthy people don't "hoard" money. They invest it. They spend it on things intended to make more money down the line. Those things inevitably *require* new developments in science, medicine, and technology. You can't sell a better widgit without creating one first, right? Think about it.
You keep droning on and on about how important it is to evenly distribute wealth. Let me ask you a question:
"What is the long term benefit of even distribution of wealth in a society? More importantly, how do things like bridges, roads, hospitals, and better TVs and cell phones get invented, developed, and produced if you do evenly distribute wealth?"
Answer that question with anything other then slogans and you *might* just start to understand what I'm talking about.
Quote:
If you look at the socio-economic breakdown of our country, the poor are actually worse off now than they were 50 years ago. It's not about the poor getting enough to survive, it's about everyone prospering together.
Yes. Because the *only* measure you seem to care about is relative dollars. That's not the measure that matters. What matters is how well that person lives. Not what they have in relation to someone else. You are waaaay too obsessed with how much you make in relation to others. The gap between rich and poor is growing!!! OMG! Why is that a problem? Sure. It sounds nice, and it implies this horrible unfairness in our society, but please explain to me mathmatically how that matters at all?
All that really matters is that someone at any given economic level in our society lives a better and more comfortable life today then they did 50 years ago. That is an absolute fact. Everything else is rhetoric.
Quote:
It's not controlled distribution of wealth, it's even distribution of resources. If you achieve that goal, guess what? Wealth, money, and value become meaningless concepts. Who needs money when everyone has enough to live comfortably?
I just explained this. If you divide everything up evenly, then no one will have the money to make new things. It's not just about dividing up what we have *today* evenly. It's about dividing things up so that we ensure we all have more tomorrow. Sure. We'll all live comfortably by todays standards, and theoretically can continue to live comfortably by todays standards. But how much better will our standards be in 50 years if we *don't* do that? You can't say. Howevever, we can look backwards in time and make guesses, right?
Let's pretend that 100 years ago, we decided to just divide all wealth evenly every year among all citizens. Where would we be today if we'd done that back then? Would anyone have invented TVs? Maybe. Would broadcast networks have appeared? Probably not. After all, those were commerce driven. If you get no larger of a share whether you build a new business or not, then who's going to bother? So say goodby to Lucy and the Honymooners, cause they would never have existed. Same for all of the films you've ever seen in your life. No profit for making them (except perhaps for propaganda and health films from the government). They wont be made. Only things on TV will be government programming. Same with film and radio. Yeah. Elvis is dead. You're welcome.
No real need for computers in this world either. So get rid of the internet and all home computers. After all, maybe some large government institutions will need them, but there's no value in making them smaller. Heck. No need to develop the integrated circut (no profit either). Certainly, silicone chips would never be built (Where's the competition needed to make computing devices smaller?). Guess we wouldn't even be having this conversation, would we? We'd have trains and transit in our cities. But probably very few cars (some would argue that's a good thing). No real need for better heat in homes, much less air conditioning. Who would develop them? Not the government. That's a waste of money on a pointless luxury. People only need to be able to obtain food, clothing, and shelter. Nothing more. Why on earth assume that by redistributing wealth, you'd get rid of the inequality, but somehow magically still have all the same products in the store windows for you to buy that you have today? Sorry. The fully stocked stores is the result of the inequality. Take it away, and you lose all those consumer products that make our lives better.
See what I'm getting at here? We can easily see how many things would never have been invented if it weren't for private industry and it's desire to find new things to sell to people. I think it's a pretty obvious statement to say that if we were to redistribute income with equality in mind, we *would* end up reducing our long term standard of living. It wouldn't drop from where it is now, but would be lower then it *could* have been if we hadn't made a point of taking that money away from the very institutions that make our lives better over time.
What good does it do to divide wealth equally if there's nothing available to use that wealth for? I for one do not want to live in a world where the best anyone can ever strive for is to continue to live in their drab grey government issue home with the exact same gear in it as everyone else, watching the same government produced programming on TV every night. How about we speed things up and just put a gun in my mouth right now?
I'm frankly amazed at how many people simply don't understand this. You can literally look around the world today and rate the level of socialism in a nation and see that the more socialist a nation is, the less it develops in terms of technology and science. The evidence is all around you if you'd just open your eyes and look.
Quote:
And if we're freed of the bonds of servitude to the almighty dollar, just think what advances the gifted in the society can achieve when they no longer have to work to accumulate wealth, but can rather work to further society.
See. That's where you are completely 100% wrong. The system we're using in the US right now uses the wealth of the nation to advance the entire nation. The system you seem to be espousing would do the oppposite. It would certainly make people equal economically. But it would stagnate us. There would be few to no advances in your system. Those "bonds of the almighty dollar" are what push us to make new things. Take them away and we will be complacent to just sit there and do nothing but live. While maybe that matters more to you. To me, that's a waste of the human species.
Edited, Wed Dec 22 18:26:31 2004 by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Dan, let me start out by saying that it really is true that you know not what you speak. Do a little research... then do some more. You will realize just how incorrect you are. Don't mean to be a ****, but you're talking to somebody 'just a bit more familiar with' nuclear arms technology than you seem to be.
You assume that every third world nation would be trying to produce nukes. It's not that simple.
Many (such as Somalia that you mentioned) are essentially nations of peasants, that have a very primitive scientific base to draw on (because purges killed what few there were to begin with). In addition, their leadership consists of various factions trying to dominate each other and their land. In other words, the thought hadn't even crossed their minds - they're too busy fighting their fellow countryman to even think about messing with the US. Trying to say that they need nukes is really similar to an old Chevy Chase movie where he was selling fighter jets to Bedouin - non sequitir.
North Korea on the other hand has been known to use slave labor, kidnapping of foreign nationals and gulags throughout their short history. Yes you are correct that the top scientists would be a highly valued asset, but the same does not in any way hold true from any of the random production plant employees. They would be completely expendable... in fact, they would perhaps be killed when their project was done anyways as a security precaution. Less CIA spooks can find out about your covert nuke plant if you ice all your workers before they can talk.
Of course many countries that otherwise may have the ambition to build their own stockpile have either been 'placed' in power by the US, or have been threatened through dimplomatic channels and have rolled over. The US has only let one little country ever dominate us in any way - and we were the ones to give them their impressive stockpile (with French help). Name that country anybody?
You don't at all seem to understand what motivates dictators either. It's the same thing that motivates bullies - 'me me me', 'gotta be on top', etc. They don't always think things through fully... and they don't understand that threatening the US with nukes is a really stupid idea. We are the only nation to have used them in an act of hostility after all.
Wanna get a good look at what goes on in the head of a 'dictator' (be it 3rd Reich or pissant 3rd world), go and read Mein Kampf. Scary book, but it lets you know just how wacko and sociopathic the dictator type is. Napoleon wrote similarly scary things. So did Caucescu. And Stalin...
Starting to see a trend here?
Quote:
And again, my final question stands. If nuclear weapons are so cheap to produce now, why is it that every third world nation out there doesn't have an existing nuclear weapons program? Especially since North Korea has proven that a nuclear weapons program is an open door to international acknowledgement.
You assume that every third world nation would be trying to produce nukes. It's not that simple.
Many (such as Somalia that you mentioned) are essentially nations of peasants, that have a very primitive scientific base to draw on (because purges killed what few there were to begin with). In addition, their leadership consists of various factions trying to dominate each other and their land. In other words, the thought hadn't even crossed their minds - they're too busy fighting their fellow countryman to even think about messing with the US. Trying to say that they need nukes is really similar to an old Chevy Chase movie where he was selling fighter jets to Bedouin - non sequitir.
North Korea on the other hand has been known to use slave labor, kidnapping of foreign nationals and gulags throughout their short history. Yes you are correct that the top scientists would be a highly valued asset, but the same does not in any way hold true from any of the random production plant employees. They would be completely expendable... in fact, they would perhaps be killed when their project was done anyways as a security precaution. Less CIA spooks can find out about your covert nuke plant if you ice all your workers before they can talk.
Of course many countries that otherwise may have the ambition to build their own stockpile have either been 'placed' in power by the US, or have been threatened through dimplomatic channels and have rolled over. The US has only let one little country ever dominate us in any way - and we were the ones to give them their impressive stockpile (with French help). Name that country anybody?
You don't at all seem to understand what motivates dictators either. It's the same thing that motivates bullies - 'me me me', 'gotta be on top', etc. They don't always think things through fully... and they don't understand that threatening the US with nukes is a really stupid idea. We are the only nation to have used them in an act of hostility after all.
Wanna get a good look at what goes on in the head of a 'dictator' (be it 3rd Reich or pissant 3rd world), go and read Mein Kampf. Scary book, but it lets you know just how wacko and sociopathic the dictator type is. Napoleon wrote similarly scary things. So did Caucescu. And Stalin...
Starting to see a trend here?
danreynolds wrote:
Hmmm, why not just have friggin' sharks with friggin' lasers on thier friggin' heads?
Seriously, how do you know that, Mr. CIA, FBI, LT. COLONEL, Who are you and how do YOU KNOW ?
Quote:
The U.S. government is currently working on a plan that would create a project for the manufacture of plutonium cores for nuclear weapons.
Hmmm, why not just have friggin' sharks with friggin' lasers on thier friggin' heads?
Seriously, how do you know that, Mr. CIA, FBI, LT. COLONEL, Who are you and how do YOU KNOW ?
Aside from eyewitness accounts of deprivation and famine*, yeah, I guess you're right, this whole "NK is a *************** teetering on the brink of collapse" is undoubtedly a massive US government conspiracy.
Totem
*Received from recent train blast disaster volunteers and a Army deserter from the Vietnam era.
Totem
*Received from recent train blast disaster volunteers and a Army deserter from the Vietnam era.
The Glorious Mlynn wrote:
Seriously, how do you know that, Mr. CIA, FBI, LT. COLONEL, Who are you and how do YOU KNOW ?
I'm a citizen of the United States who took advantage of the Freedom of Information Act of 1970.
Go to www.firstgov.gov and do a search for "modern pit facility" if you don't believe me. It's not like it's classified or anything.
You're right gbaji, in a capitalist society profit drives advancement.
The problem though is you're assuming that if you take away a person's need for wealth you also take away the need for discovery and advancement. That may well be true, however, my argument that people freed of the constraints placed on them by capitalism would continue to seek advancements, not out of personal greed but rather in a spirit of advancing society may also be right.
The only way we'll every find out is to do away with the market economy, and the chances of that ever happening(sadly enough for the multitude of poor in this country) are slim and none.
And as far as your argument about quality of life, I say again, shouldn't it not be about the poor being marginally better than they were in the past, but rather about lifting everyone up to a level of comfort and prosperity that our nation can support?
Edited, Wed Dec 22 18:44:29 2004 by danreynolds
The problem though is you're assuming that if you take away a person's need for wealth you also take away the need for discovery and advancement. That may well be true, however, my argument that people freed of the constraints placed on them by capitalism would continue to seek advancements, not out of personal greed but rather in a spirit of advancing society may also be right.
The only way we'll every find out is to do away with the market economy, and the chances of that ever happening(sadly enough for the multitude of poor in this country) are slim and none.
And as far as your argument about quality of life, I say again, shouldn't it not be about the poor being marginally better than they were in the past, but rather about lifting everyone up to a level of comfort and prosperity that our nation can support?
Edited, Wed Dec 22 18:44:29 2004 by danreynolds
Quote:
The problem though is you're assuming that if you take away a person's need for wealth you also take away the need for discovery and advancement. That may well be true, however, my argument that people freed of the constraints placed on them by capitalism would continue to seek advancements, not out of personal greed but rather in a spirit of advancing society may also be right.
Dan, it seems that you wish we lived in a Star Trek type society.
I wish we did too.
The problem is that we cannot jump from where we are now to where we can be then without all of the small steps in between.
We cannot distribute wealth evenly, as that will drive all ambition out of our society and cause it to stagnate. Unfortunately with our current system we are rewarded with 'money' as the way of getting ahead, because it is the form we use to easily perform transactions of this sometimes intangible property called 'value' or 'worth'.
We cannot let the rich **** on the poor though either. We must find the middle path. This middle path will require that people stand up and join in - those who wish to leech off society must starve. They are a cancer that (combined with greed) create almost all of the disharmony that exists in this country.
There are also smaller factors that help allow the big corporations (who essentially own our government, by the way) to keep us under their thumb. They use the media to play on all our fears and misunderstandings about people from other ethnic backgrounds... to keep us afraid. Fear is power to them, as is civic ignorance.
Let's admit the fact that many American blacks have failed to realize that they won their civil rights, and therefore have failed to act like they have them in the first place. I have many times heard stories about how 'they were being held down'. This is partially true, but only because they allowed it to happen to themselves, and we stood by and allowed the media to tell us it was right. Although racial profiling does work statistically, it's also a scary scary concept.
Most of the racial inequality these days is simply due to the fact that statistics haven't had time to see the 20-30 group as much as the group before it. I think the trends are improving, but they need to improve further. To any inner city ghetto gang banger wondering why they aren't going anywhere in life, the simple answer is 'stop hanging out with those gangsta punks smoking weed all day long and go educate yourself'.
Let's also admit the fact that many Hispanic migrants come to the country and don't bother to acclimate. I personally know many who have lived here for decades, yet can only manage a few short phrases in broken English. Most of them are very good individuals, but honestly I think they need to be deported - not due to racial feelings, but because they haven't earned the right to stay. They didn't learn the language at all, but sound more like a detuned parrot. Send us your poor, your huddled masses was a sentiment from a different time. Send us good honest people who will do the same as our ancestors did when they first came here is a more appropriate modern one. And they can't expect to earn a lot until they've proven they deserve it, just like everybody else.
In Minnesota we also have a large Mhong population. Since they helped us out during the Vietnam War, our government allowed them to basically all pack up and come here. Problem is they think they're still in Asia. Don't get me wrong, I fully encourage people to practice their native culture, but not when you completely forsake learning about the culture of the new place you live.
We have a lot of Somalis here too. Only a few have learned English so far, yet almost all cross the street without looking _either_ way. I'd think they could at least learn to look out for speeding cars. :D
Most of the other racial groups haven't had the same problems. They've had other ones.
There are a lot of ways that the media can pick out any group and use them to scare the rest. This will only work as long as there is some vast 'difference' between us. What the point of that whole rant was is that society is made of people with differences, and sometimes those differences could be erased over time. As we see the new generations roll by, eventually a cultural merger will happen and we will all share some common core 'I'm an American, and that's actually a good thing' feeling that many people don't currently have.
The media hype will only work if we let it. I am not afraid to go into the Ghetto by myself. I've done it before. Sure, gotten some really confused looks... but done it nonetheless. Not to 'stare', but to better understand. Sure, this was not South Central or Compton, but a lot of Chicago gang signs go flying in certain parts of MPLS these days.
Once the people learn that we already do share our common humanity if nothing else, people will start to be more respectful to each other and we will move closer to that Star Trek society, where they did have money (they apparently lied in IV) but it wasn't used for the essentials in life - those were able to be provided in some way that was never really explained. (hmm, I sense a problem with the whole Star Trek theory already) The crew members of the various Federation ships would be military and would get housing and food allotments from them. What of the rest? They had businesses still (the Picard Vineyards and the Sisko restaurant to name a few), but always seemed to be very profitable. Hmm again.
The real thing that keeps us away from a totally equitable society is a free energy device, and unlimited resources. Since we require energy and resources to make society work, we need a way to perform the transaction that recuperates those that give us the energy and resources. We call it money. We need to use this money for practically any goods or service.
If we somehow could set up a super egalitarian society people would really have only one reason to prosper - prestige. I wish prestige was important than money, but for now it's not to most. But we can still find another society... similar to ours but more equitable if we try.
It will take lots of small steps to get there... if we can - but if we don't at least try, we're doomed.
Edited, Wed Dec 22 19:45:51 2004 by Mindwalker
danreynolds wrote:
The problem though is you're assuming that if you take away a person's need for wealth you also take away the need for discovery and advancement. That may well be true, however, my argument that people freed of the constraints placed on them by capitalism would continue to seek advancements, not out of personal greed but rather in a spirit of advancing society may also be right.
You are correct. I'm making that assumption. But I make it based on a lifetime of observing and studying people. I am firmly of the belief that the day that humans as a species can act independantly as a large body (if you follow what I'm saying) in a way that actively promotes the good of all instead of the good of just themselves or some smaller group, I will reverse my position on this.
So far, I see nothing in humanity to make me believe that's going to happen anytime soon. Sure. Individuals will quite often take actions that are selfless. But when you have a large group of individuals they *never* do. The larger the group, the less likely that they will. If you ask one guy if he needs 100 bucks right now. He will likely accurately assess his need and only say yes if he *really* needs it. Ask a group of 10 people that question, and odds are very high that someone will say they need it, whether they do or not. Ask 100 million people, and it's guaranteed that someone will always say yes. In fact, almost *everyone* will say yes because they'll know that someone else will so if they don't speak up, they wont get anything.
The proof that we aren't where we need to be for your ideas to work is in the very facts you tout. You argue about the gap between rich and poor. You argue about how much wealth someone has in relation to someone else. Those things only matter to someone if they actively think in terms of relative wealth, but not necessarily in terms of relative need. As long as people as a group think that way, people as a group will take whatever they can get out of the communal pot. You'll never find a limit to that proclaimed need simply because in a large enough group, a goodly percentage of the people will always believe that if they don't take more someone else will first, and that wouldn't be "fair" now would it? It's the very obsession with relating our slice of the pie to other's that causes the problem. But it's a very basic part of human nature and it's not going away any time soon.
Have you ever played the red/green game? It's something I've run into many times in various schools. It's often touted as a demonstration for why capitalism is a bad idea, but I see it more as a demonsration that people are inherently greedy (which I see as the reason we need to use capitalism).
The game goes like this. You take a class of people (say 30ish), and divide them into 5 or 6 teams. Each team is given a red card and a green card. Each team also can choose/elect/whatever a representative for the team. The stated objective of the game is to get as many points as possible during the course of the game.
During each turn, the representative of the teams meet and decide on how to play the cards. Then they go back to their teams, and the teams vote on which card to play. All teams play their cards secretly with all cards revealed at once.
The points work this way:
If all teams play green cards, all teams gain one point.
If all teams play red cards, all teams lose 3 points.
If a team plays a green card and any other team plays a red card, that team loses one point.
If a team plays a red card and any other team plays a green card, that team gains 3 points.
A typical game goes about 10 rounds, but it rarely takes more then 5 before every single team plays a red card every single turn. I've yet to see a game where any team ends up with positive points.
What's interesting is that almost without fail, teams will measure their success in relative terms. "We got more points then the other teams, so we won". They miss the point that the objective was to get as many points as possible. The best way to do that is for all teams to play green, then all teams will end up with 10 points at the end of the game. Being the highest negative number is not really beneficial, but most will settle on that very quickly.
What's really interesting is that you will almost always get the exact same result regardless of what goals you set for the game. For example, if you say that the goal is for the teams as a group to accumulate as many total points as possible (not just any given team), teams will *still* backstab eachother and cheat. In that scenario, the best way to make the most points for everyone is for one team to "take the loss" of a point each round and play a green card, while all the others gain 3 points a turn an play a red card. But no one wants to be the team that ends up with negative points while everyone else gains. And usually, the team represesntatives don't come to the strategy until it's a bit too late and enough people are pissed off that nothing will make them cooperate anymore.
What you get out of this game is that humans are greedy and will almost always act in the best interest of the smallest group that they associate with. Teams arbitrarily made up of members of a class (who all know eachother) will still fight among eachother even though the teams were just created 5 minutes earlier. Certainly, in a larger scale where the whole group is made up of millions of people who do not know eachother, it's ridiculous to assume that they would all work for the greater good instead of the good of themselves and their friends.
Socialism/communism is a great idea. But due to plain old human nature it will simply not work by human desire alone. The desire of "the people" to make a better world for everyone never outweighs the human need to have more then the next guy, or his fear that the other guy is going to take more then his fair share. The only way they even work a little bit is by having a very strong authoritarian government to run the dividing. While that can work, it's at least as rife with potential for corruption as any free market system. You have to give huge power to your government and hope that it doesn't abuse it in order to overcome that human desire/fear for/of inequality. So far, us humans track record in that area ain't that great either. All you've really done is replace "rich" with "powerful". Since by definition, the people working in government are going to be a smaller number then the total population, the inequity moves from inequity of money to inequity of influence in government. You haven't really eliminated the problem, you've just changed it's name. I don't really see that as progress.
Quote:
The only way we'll every find out is to do away with the market economy, and the chances of that ever happening(sadly enough for the multitude of poor in this country) are slim and none.
Not sure why you conclude this. So far every government that has tried to eliminate the market economy has failed in direct proportion to the amount to which they succeeded in their initial goal. The more they remove the market economy, the more corrupt and authoritarian their government became. An extreme example of this was the USSR, but there are others.
Quote:
And as far as your argument about quality of life, I say again, shouldn't it not be about the poor being marginally better than they were in the past, but rather about lifting everyone up to a level of comfort and prosperity that our nation can support?
It all depends on the time frame you are looking at. Everything is about balance of need today versus long term goals. Every dollar we spend today directly on addressing need, we take away from tomorrow. It's kind of like a farmer with seed. If the farmer takes his entire crop and uses it to feed people with (including the seeds), he'll have nothing to grow next years crop with. He has to leave some portion of his crop yield aside for growing next year. And if he wants to increase the size of his crop over time, he needs to take out a larger percentage off the top. If a bunch of hungry people come to him and say: "Hey. You're hoarding that wheat unfairly when you could use it to make bread for us all today and feed us!". But if the farmer does that, then next year there will be *more* hungry people, including himself. Which is better for the whole over the long run? Filling more people's bellies today? Or making sure that as many bellies are filled as possible today, tomorrow, and next year?
Yeah. Not a perfect analogy since most food crops don't have edible seeds, but you get the idea. The only way to divide things evenly *and* still ensure enough is left over for next years growth is to have a very authoritarian system running things. As I pointed out above, this almost always fails pretty miserably over time.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Dude! just get on welfare and sell weed for whatever extra stuff u need.
Quote:
The american dream is something you work hard for not something that is given.
Right, if to you the american dream is a small late 80s mobile home in a trailer park, a 10 year old midsized sedan, and a stifling amount of debt then yes then almost any person can work hard to achieve that.
However, if the american dream to you is to live moderatly, have a low debt load, a car that goes more than a month between repairs, and a plan to retire while you can still walk and wipe your own as[/u]s, or better, then you had better hope you are born to an upper middle class family with a decent nest egg in an nice neighborhood with a great schoolsystem.
Do you honestly think that a kid who is never fed properly, suffers from preventable medical conditions due to inadaquate healthcare, and has to start work at 14, to help keep his household afloat has the same chance to get into an ivy league college as a kid in an affluent neighborhood who has his entire career path laid out for him from the fully paid yale education to a VP position at his dad's big company?
The rosy story about the janitor at the local metal fabrication factory rising to the top of the social ladder on hard work alone is bullsh[u]it. Spoon fed by the rich to kids to help pacify them and keep them working.
For every Vice President there are a thousand assembly line drones. This country wasn't built on 1000 codeline software tweaks, or fancy advertising jingles, or stratigic layoffs that save .00384% on the bottom line. It was built on millrights and farmers, and construction workers, and truck drivers. The same people that apparently we should be convinced are living in the trailerpark because they are just too damn lazy to do better.
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
I'm living the Danish Dream... Much better.
Free education, free health care, free money if you're educating yourself or between jobs.
You practically get money for doing nothing.
Free education, free health care, free money if you're educating yourself or between jobs.
You practically get money for doing nothing.
Lord Xythex wrote:
Not true.
My father was a coal miner, then my step father was a lineman and I grew up in a trailer.
I worked my *** off to get where I am today (with no help for either parent). I paid my way through school and I worked as many jobs as necessary to get done what had to be done.
I have since travelled the world doing International Logistics (my chosen profession) and have experienced great things in my life.
I have seen that this is THE ONE country in the world where it doesn't matter who or what my father was. I have learned that it is up to me to make my life what it can be.
If you think it's not possible, then it is not. This is only because you have already given up.
Quote:
However, if the american dream to you is to live moderatly, have a low debt load, a car that goes more than a month between repairs, and a plan to retire while you can still walk and wipe your own ***, or better, then you had better hope you are born to an upper middle class family with a decent nest egg in an nice neighborhood with a great schoolsystem.
Not true.
My father was a coal miner, then my step father was a lineman and I grew up in a trailer.
I worked my *** off to get where I am today (with no help for either parent). I paid my way through school and I worked as many jobs as necessary to get done what had to be done.
I have since travelled the world doing International Logistics (my chosen profession) and have experienced great things in my life.
I have seen that this is THE ONE country in the world where it doesn't matter who or what my father was. I have learned that it is up to me to make my life what it can be.
If you think it's not possible, then it is not. This is only because you have already given up.
Quote:
I have seen that this is THE ONE country in the world where it doesn't matter who or what my father was. I have learned that it is up to me to make my life what it can be.
Cough cough, so Bush made it this far by using his supreme diplomatic skills?
Or because his father knew the right people?
Recent Visitors: 303
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (303)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- To those who believe in the "American Dream"
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC