If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2657
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7422 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | » | Last
 
  2008-06-24 06:45:52 AM
That's fine Whidbey but these are still concepts that you brought up in this discussion.

If you support these concepts you should be able to explain them.

Ya see....

IF I brought up some abstract concept that I support I would be more than happy to explain them.

You for some reason don't want to explain what you support...

Why?

Oh that's right....

You think that somehow by explaining what you support you will be trapped.

Ultimately Whidbey this harms your credibility here. How many more concepts / ideas are you going to bring up that you won't explain or defend?

And trust me....

I'll keep track...

So... I'm still waiting...

"true equality"...
"no rich and no poor"...
"no class structure"...
"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...
"society change from a profit-driven one"...
 
  2008-06-24 08:05:25 AM
 
  2008-06-26 06:35:20 PM
So the second amendment actually means that a person has the right to keep and bear arms.

Go figure.....
 
  2008-06-30 03:18:30 PM
go figure indeed... The Constitution means what it says, what a concept! Now if only the rest of the Constitution were interpreted as faithfully, then maybe the Republic can be saved...
 
  2008-07-01 12:16:55 AM
dottedmint: So... I'm still waiting...

Well, since you obviously can't or won't find definitions for these concepts, I'll tell you what I think they mean.

"true equality"...

Equality is pretty self-explanatory. No bigotry, no racism, no sexism, regarding your fellow man (or woman) on common ground. Nobody "owns" anyone, slavery does not exist.

Right now, slavery does exist. It's called having to work your ass off for a living, spending most of your time behind a desk or in an office somewhere.

What's more, for many Americans, 40 hours a week isn't even cutting it. They spend most of their time doing work and their paychecks are usually going towards something they've bought or are making payments on. Many work 80 hours a week. Some even more. Many people are not happy. This society is more neurotic than ever, and all kinds of strange ailments and allergies have cropped up in the past 50 years as clear manifestations of modern living.

Sorry, but to me, it's a crazy way to live your life. I understand that some people end up figuring out their own business and that's fine. But that's not really the overall practical means for most people.

There is a system in place where a socially-structured group of people, the middle class, work their butts off to make someone else money. Ultimately, collectively, this class makes the lives of the very rich possible, the ones that own a third of the wealth.

What I'm describing is a caste system where a very few enjoy the cream of the crop. We have a society of workers and owners.

That's right. A rigidly imbalanced system that is comparable to feudalism. This is not equal.

Now, my question was "How can we achieve any kind of true equality if we have such a system?" I was pointing out that we live in a very UNEQUAL society. This is self-evident.

"no rich and no poor"...

It is possible to use resources wisely and allow everyone to share in them. People would have enough to eat, enough time to do what they really feel like doing without money being an obstacle or false promise of happiness, and likewise there would not be anyone who benefits too much from this system. But the idea is that if resources were shared equally that everyone would have what they want, and could pretty much do what they want. We would rely on our communities for what we need.

"no class structure"...

No billionaires, because everyone would enjoy a high quality of life. No people living in tin shacks. Everyone would be expected to do some kind of work to keep society running. Something that would be agreed-upon according to ability.

"turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit"...

It really makes sense to me. As the owner, you've reaped the benefits. You live comfortably. You have money pouring in from your investments besides your widget company. Turn over your operation to the community, and retire comfortably. It isn't stealing. It's an obligation and it should be treated honorably.

"society change from a profit-driven one"...

Resources are not unlimited. In the last hundred years alone, this country squandered its natural resources: oil, minerals, timber. Until 1968 we were the leading exporter of oil in the world, and until the 1950s we were the leaders in manufacturing.

And when we realized the sky wasn't the limit, we started importing. Right now 3rd world countries are our bread and butter, and places like Indonesia, Mexico and Brazil suffer environmentally, and overfishing in our oceans is a great concern. This false sense of prosperity is going to have to crash eventually. How could it possibly be sustainable with what we consume, and waste? And then imagine other countries like India and China striving to catch up.

If we do not find a way to put the brakes on a runaway global economy, we're probably not going to survive as a species, let alone as a democracy. This society has to change, and that means evolving from a selfishly-minded corporate capitalist country into a more social democratic system.

OK, dude, there you go. The concepts. Explained. Are you happy now?
 
  2008-07-01 05:41:26 PM
I'll give you credit Whidbey for at least trying to explain those concepts. Unfortunately you fall more than a bit short....

"No bigotry, no racism, no sexism, regarding your fellow man (or woman) on common ground. "

I agree with that.....

Unfortunately I don't know if we will ever get rid of those....

"Right now, slavery does exist. It's called having to work your ass off for a living, "

Yes... Real SLAVERY does exist. There are countries where people are held against their will and forced to work.

Getting paid to work 40hrs a week is not slavery.

Do not change the meanings of words to fit your goals....

If you think it is "crazy" to work 40 hrs a week to make a living fine.....

How are you going to make money to buy your new bike?

How are you going to make money to buy a house?

How are you going to make money to buy my widgets?

And again....

IF I work 70 hrs a week and you only work 20 hrs a week (if that) would there be "true equality" in how we live our lives?

No.... there wouldn't be.

"It is possible to use resources wisely and allow everyone to share in them. People would have enough to eat, enough time to do what they really feel like doing without money being an obstacle or false promise of happiness, and likewise there would not be anyone who benefits too much from this system".

Again..... If I work 70 hrs a week and you only work 20 hrs a week there would be a big difference in how we benefit from the system.

"No billionaires, because everyone would enjoy a high quality of life. No people living in tin shacks. Everyone would be expected to do some kind of work to keep society running. Something that would be agreed-upon according to ability."

So.....

The Dr. that saves lives would have the same class structure as a high school dropout who sweeps floors????

Would the Dr have a nicer house? A nicer car?

Would the Dr benefit more from the system????

If NO.... Why would anyone become a Dr?

"As the owner, you've reaped the benefits. You live comfortably. You have money pouring in from your investments besides your widget company. Turn over your operation to the community, and retire comfortably. It isn't stealing. It's an obligation and it should be treated honorably."

I've reaped the benefits because I worked hard to make it a success.

The worker that was just hired last week to sweep floors didn't do jack sh@t so why should he be handed my company?

And would that worker benefit as much as the worker who has been with me from the start?

You also haven't told me if I could sell my company to some US investor before I reached your magical limit...

And do the workers also reach some magical limit where the company is handed back to me or are they allowed to make as much profit as they can?

Also..... IF I took my money and started up another widget company, drove the worker owned company under would I have the same magical limit on this new widget company?

And finally.... IF you take something from me against my will and do not compensate me for it yes.... you are stealing....

"If we do not find a way to put the brakes on a runaway global economy, we're probably not going to survive as a species,"

So it would be better if those undeveloped countries stayed poor????

Right????

They shouldn't want what we have????

They should be happy in a mud hut????

"let alone as a democracy. This society has to change, and that means evolving from a selfishly-minded corporate capitalist country into a more social democratic system."

That doesn't really do anything to explain what you mean.....

So in a non-profit driven society I would make my widgets and what???? Give them away????

Let's start from scratch.....

We are in the world of Whidbey.... a non-profit driven society.... with true equality... with no class structure... and no rich and no poor....

How do I get a house?

How do I get food?

A car?

I only work 20 hrs a week (on a good week) because any more than that is slavery.

Would I have as much or as nice of stuff as a Dr who saves lives?

Of course would a Dr only work 20 hrs a week as well?

Would the farmers who grow the food only work 20 hrs a week?

Would there be money?

If so would I make as much money as the Dr does?

Yes Whidbey you fell far short of actually explaining these concepts....
 
  2008-07-04 01:05:56 PM
ccinsider.comedycentral.com
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!
 
  2008-07-04 02:31:36 PM
dottedmint:Getting paid to work 40hrs a week is not slavery.

Do not change the meanings of words to fit your goals....


Actually it is, if you're working those 40 hours and are still living in a hole. If you have no other recourse than to work a dead-end job YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO DO, it's slavery, pure and simple. Not my problem you can't see that. And no, people can't always just stop what they're doing and look for a "dream job." This is not how this society is set up. There's always going to be a sizable portion of the population slaving away to make someone rich. The average working man is a cog in a wheel, a slave to the money.

IF I work 70 hrs a week and you only work 20 hrs a week (if that) would there be "true equality" in how we live our lives?

You shouldn't have to work 70 hours a week. Nobody should have to.

The Dr. that saves lives would have the same class structure as a high school dropout who sweeps floors????

And maybe doctors wouldn't be making so much money, for that matter. Their profession would be to save lives, not rake in the cash.

The worker that was just hired last week to sweep floors didn't do jack sh@t so why should he be handed my company?

Who said anything about handing over your company to the janitor?

They shouldn't want what we have????

They should be happy in a mud hut????


See? Why explain these things if you're going to take them to some ridiculous conclusion?

No, developing countries like India and China CANNOT reach the level of waste and pollution that we are at now. But conversely, NO that doesn't mean "keep them where they are." It means this country is going to have to back off and learn some moderation, and we're going to have to pay for our excesses.

And finally.... IF you take something from me against my will and do not compensate me for it yes.... you are stealing....


Again, depends on what kind of businessman you are. If you're an asshole that treats workers like crap with no benefits and pay them crappy wages to make you rich, you probably deserve to have your company wrested away from you. I don't care how "hard" you worked, you missed the boat in terms of ethics.

If you behave wisely, benevolently, investing your resources in the community, we'll give you a break. But yes, you would be EXPECTED to make a transition where your workers take operational charge of the factory. You're not going to fire a bunch of workers and sell the business, no. Not without some kind of community input. That's what's going to change. You're not going to call the shots because you're Mr. Moneybags. Your power is in check thanks to the community.


So in a non-profit driven society I would make my widgets and what???? Give them away????


You asked me to elaborate about something we're not even close to reaching as a society. It's a CONCEPT. Stop fighting it like it's a REALITY you can't stomach.

No, you're not going to make a bunch of crap that people probably don't really need, just because you can, through advertising or whatever means you use to fool people into buying your stuff. If you are running a factory, it's going to serve real needs.

We are in the world of Whidbey.... a non-profit driven society.... with true equality... with no class structure... and no rich and no poor....

There you go again...mocking concepts you can't understand...

How do I get a house?

I don't know. WORK for one?

How do I get food?

From the market? Or you'd GROW it yourself? Why is this so hard for you to understand?

A car?

I'd like to think that public transportation would be the solution here, but people will always need some kind of personal vehicle. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to have one.

Would there be money?

I don't see the concept of "money" going away any time soon, so yes.

If so would I make as much money as the Dr does?

You would have what you need. Don't worry about "the doctor."

Yes Whidbey you fell far short of actually explaining these concepts....

I did fine. The trouble is on your end, trying to imagine things that don't even exist yet, while hypercritically defending your busted system that only ultimately benefits a small portion of this society.

The whole thing that started this ridiculous discussion was that I said I believe the working man should get the tax breaks, and the rich shouldn't. I tried to point out that this society is UNEQUAL, and you sent me on another one of your wild goose chases.

Things are going to change whether you're comfortable with those changes or not. People are sick of being slaves. People want to do more with their lives than work for peanuts. You conveniently ignore that, the status quo conveniently ignores that.

You insult people by insinuating you know what they need to do to improve their lives when you really don't have a clue. You think everyone fits into your game of musical chairs. Well, they don't.
 
  2008-07-04 08:04:10 PM
"Who said anything about handing over your company to the janitor?"

You said....

"such as the practice of turning over businesses to workers after a time the owner has made a certain amount in profit,"

The janitor that was just hired last week is one of my workers.

No... It is not being handed just to him but you said that my company should be handed over to the workers. He is one of the workers. He didn't do a dang thing to build my company but for some reason you think that my company should be handed over to him.

And would all the workers share equally in the profits or would some get more profits than others?

"Actually it is, if you're working those 40 hours and are still living in a hole."

Whidbey the word slavery actually means something.

It means being forced to work against your will and not getting any compensation for it.

Working 40 hrs a week and getting paid for that is not slavery.

Your notion that some people don't have any choices is bogus.

"You shouldn't have to work 70 hours a week. Nobody should have to."

And if I want to because I want a nice car and a nice house????

If I work 70 hrs a week and you only work 20 hrs a week will I be able to have a nicer house, car, etc?

"And maybe doctors wouldn't be making so much money, for that matter. Their profession would be to save lives, not rake in the cash."

Funny how you didn't actually answer the question.

Would the Dr. that saves lives be in the same class structure as the janitor sweeping the floors?

Would someone who went to school for several years to learn how to save lives have the same lifestyle as someone who dropped out of school and sweeps floors?

"If you behave wisely, benevolently, investing your resources in the community, we'll give you a break."

Does that mean I would or would not get paid what my company is worth?

"But yes, you would be EXPECTED to make a transition where your workers take operational charge of the factory. You're not going to fire a bunch of workers and sell the business, no. Not without some kind of community input."

So I couldn't sell my company without the city saying it was ok???

And under what situations could I sell my company and when could I not sell my company?

"That's what's going to change. You're not going to call the shots because you're Mr. Moneybags. Your power is in check thanks to the community."

The problem is that without my initial investment of money there would be no company for the community to take away from me.

And after a point....

Fewer and fewer people would take the risk of starting their own company.

And I don't think I have ever heard of a community creating a company that provides jobs.

"You asked me to elaborate about something we're not even close to reaching as a society. It's a CONCEPT. Stop fighting it like it's a REALITY you can't stomach."

As they say Whidbey the devil is in the details.

You bring up a concept and I simply ask you to get into the details.

Again....

So in a non-profit driven society I would make my widgets and what???? Give them away????

"No, you're not going to make a bunch of crap that people probably don't really need, just because you can, through advertising or whatever means you use to fool people into buying your stuff. If you are running a factory, it's going to serve real needs."

Wait.....

What.....

So if I decide to open a company the government should be able to decide what I can or cannot make????

"You would have what you need. Don't worry about "the doctor."

But you had said that there would be on class structures, no rich and poor, and true equality.

So if I only work 20 hrs a week would I have as much money as the Dr? WOuld my house be as nice? How about my car?

"You insult people by insinuating you know what they need to do to improve their lives when you really don't have a clue. "

Right....

And your answer is...

"true equality"
"no rich and no poor"
"no class structure"
"hand over company to workers"
"non-profit driven society"

Oh and your latest....

"let society decide what a company can or cannot make"

"you're not going to make a bunch of crap that people probably don't really need,"

I'd really love to see a list of items that you don't think should be made.

After all....

I can come up with a whole bunch of things that we "probably don't really need".

What's in your list?
 
  2008-07-05 03:40:19 PM
dottedmint:

And would all the workers share equally in the profits or would some get more profits than others?


Sharing the profit equally is the idea behind the whole venture.

Working 40 hrs a week and getting paid for that is not slavery.

Your opinion. I really fail to see the difference. So they throw you some crumbs for working your ass off? That's nice of them.

Your notion that some people don't have any choices is bogus.

Some don't. Many feel they're trapped in their jobs. You'd do well to acknowledge that. It's a fact.

And if I want to because I want a nice car and a nice house????
If I work 70 hrs a week and you only work 20 hrs a week will I be able to have a nicer house, car, etc?


I don't think that slaving away for 70 hours should be the criteria for having nice things.

Would someone who went to school for several years to learn how to save lives have the same lifestyle as someone who dropped out of school and sweeps floors?


My point is that the person who "sweeps floors" shouldn't have to live in a hovel. There should be a basic standard of living for everyone where they have their basic needs and don't feel hopeless about throwing away 8 hours of their day just to LIVE.

"If you behave wisely, benevolently, investing your resources in the community, we'll give you a break."
Does that mean I would or would not get paid what my company is worth?


Figure that one out for yourself. I've already told you TWICE that it depends on your attitude and deeds.

And under what situations could I sell my company and when could I not sell my company?


I've already answered this. See above. Don't make me repeat myself again.

The problem is that without my initial investment of money there would be no company for the community to take away from me.


Sorry, but I'm not understanding this one. Elaborate.

And after a point....
Fewer and fewer people would take the risk of starting their own company.


If there is a need for that particular company in a community, someone will take it upon themselves. Perhaps the capital would come from the people and not some entrepreneur who holds all the cards.

And I don't think I have ever heard of a community creating a company that provides jobs.


If the need is there, the community will build it. This already happens in our present society. Why would it change?

So if I decide to open a company the government should be able to decide what I can or cannot make????


It would be decided by the community if your business was needed or necessary, and since

we the people=the government=the community

Yes.

But you had said that there would be on class structures, no rich and poor, and true equality.
So if I only work 20 hrs a week would I have as much money as the Dr? WOuld my house be as nice? How about my car?


Now you're making me repeat myself. What was unclear about what I said earlier? It's really frustrating when you do this.

Right....
And your answer is...
"true equality"
"no rich and no poor"
"no class structure"
"hand over company to workers"
"non-profit driven society"


And with that smug dismissal, you've proven that you've gotten nothing out of this discussion, and I was right in my hesitation to "explain" any of this to you. Once again.

Everything you have asked me to elaborate on turns out to be some kind of joke to you, you never once intended to consider the points seriously.

I really don't know where you're coming from at all. All I can surmise is that such a radical change in our society scares you, and you refuse to consider it. It's just too "crazy," isn't it?
 
  2008-07-05 04:55:08 PM
"Sharing the profit equally is the idea behind the whole venture."

So the guy who has been with my company for almost 20 years and the guy who I just hired to sweep floors would share the profits equally????

WOW....

Sure would be nice to be the guy who was just hired....

Drop out of HS, get a job sweeping floors, and then share the profits equally with a guy who has been on the job for 20 years.

"Your opinion."

OH.... But you redefining SLAVERY isn't your "opinion"?

"I really fail to see the difference. So they throw you some crumbs for working your ass off?"

The "difference" is that everyone out there has a choice of what they will or will not do. Slaves do not have a choice and they don't even get thrown crumbs.

"Some don't. Many feel they're trapped in their jobs. You'd do well to acknowledge that. It's a fact."

I acknowledge that some people "feel they're trapped in their jobs" but the fact is that everyone of those people have choices.

Slaves don't.

"I don't think that slaving away for 70 hours should be the criteria for having nice things."

Funny how you still can't answer that question.

IF I work 70 hrs a week and you only work 20 hrs a week will I be able to have a nicer house, car, etc than you?

And IF I make the CHOICE to work 70 hrs a week that is my choice and it is NOT slavery.

"My point is that the person who "sweeps floors" shouldn't have to live in a hovel. There should be a basic standard of living for everyone where they have their basic needs and don't feel hopeless about throwing away 8 hours of their day just to LIVE."

There ya go again Whidbey another question you can't seem to bring yourself to answer.

I asked....

"Would someone who went to school for several years to learn how to save lives have the same lifestyle as someone who dropped out of school and sweeps floors?"

...not if the janitor should have to live in a hovel.

BTW.... some people take jobs as a second source of income to a family and so they do not need to make enough (on that one job) to support themselves.

So I ask again....

Does the Dr. who went to school for many many years to learn how to save lives have the same lifestyle as the person who dropped out of school and sweeps floors?

IF "yes" why would anyone want to become a Dr?

IF "no" would that not go against your ideas of "no class structure", "no rich - no poor", and "true equality"?

"Figure that one out for yourself. I've already told you TWICE that it depends on your attitude and deeds."

I think I've figured you out awhile ago Whidbey....

IF I do not pay my workers as much as YOU THINK I should you would steal my company from me.

IF I pay my workers as much as YOU THINK I should then I might get compensated (at least something) but maybe not what it is worth.

and...

IF I do not pay my workers as much as YOU THINK I should I would not be able to sell my company to another investor.

IF I pay my workers as much as YOU THINK I should I might be able to sell my company IF YOU THINK it is OK.

"If the need is there, the community will build it. This already happens in our present society."

When has a community every created a company that provides jobs?

"It would be decided by the community if your business was needed or necessary, and since

we the people=the government=the community

Yes."


WOW....

So what is or is not made/sold is decided by the community???

Let's say that I decide that I want to get out of widgets and start making fidgets.

How exactly would I know if I am allowed to make fidgets?

For each item that a company wants to make would you have some sort of "vote" or something?

How else would you know what the people think is "needed"?

And how far away would people have a say if I made fidgets or not?

And can you please list a few things that you don't think should be made and sold to the public.

See... what you don't get....

Just because something might not be "needed" does not mean that there is not a demand for that item.

If there is a demand for something people will buy it and companies will make it.... Even if you don't think there is a "need" for it.

"Now you're making me repeat myself. What was unclear about what I said earlier?"

The reason that is unclear is because you have never actually answered that question. As I have pointed out above.

"And with that smug dismissal, you've proven that you've gotten nothing out of this discussion, and I was right in my hesitation to "explain" any of this to you. "

Oh.... Would that be like this SMUG comment from you....

"You insult people by insinuating you know what they need to do to improve their lives when you really don't have a clue. "

============

"you never once intended to consider the points seriously."


Actually I take your points very seriously because I feel that they would be a disaster if ever implemented. This is why I have been trying to get you to focus on the details of your dream society.

"No rich - no poor" and "no class structure" sure sounds nice until you look at the details.

Why would anyone want to become a Dr. if someone who dropped out of school and sweeps floors has the same quality of life as they do?
 
  2008-07-05 05:33:38 PM
dottedmint:Sure would be nice to be the guy who was just hired....

Yes it would. And maybe if you offered a decent profit-sharing option from the get-go, you might not even have to turn your company over to the workers eventually. It's all in the way you TREAT them. I really wish you were willing to grasp that concept.

I acknowledge that some people "feel they're trapped in their jobs" but the fact is that everyone of those people have choices.

Slaves don't.


Like I said, I fail to see the difference. And yes, slaves sometimes get thrown crumbs. At dinnertime.

And I don't know what it would take for you to understand that many many of us do not feel we have the "choices" you insist we have.

IF I work 70 hrs a week and you only work 20 hrs a week will I be able to have a nicer house, car, etc than you?

You shouldn't have to work that many hours, period. Why is that not "answering the question?"

Everyone should have a decent place to live and basic amenities.

"Would someone who went to school for several years to learn how to save lives have the same lifestyle as someone who dropped out of school and sweeps floors?"

The person who sweeps floors and the doctor would have their basic needs met. That's what I'm concerned with. If there is some need to give a doctor more, I really don't know what it is. I believe that both should be able to live comfortably.


And IF I make the CHOICE to work 70 hrs a week that is my choice and it is NOT slavery.


For some it isn't a choice. That's my point. Thanks for making me repeat it again. And you should not have to work that many hours for any reason unless it's some kind of national crisis, in my opinion.

Does the Dr. who went to school for many many years to learn how to save lives have the same lifestyle as the person who dropped out of school and sweeps floors?
IF "yes" why would anyone want to become a Dr?


Because...doctors would be needed in every community? Are you pretending to be this dense?


IF I do not pay my workers as much as YOU THINK I should you would steal my company from me.


And I told you it isn't "stealing," it would be your obligation to hand that company over per the community's decision to do so. That would be the LAW.

Has nothing to do what what "I think." You have a community to answer to. You're not as powerful as you think are. Thanks to a strong community spirit, you can't just pack up shop and leave, not without consequences. The power is in the hands of the people, not some big corporation.

When has a community every created a company that provides jobs?

You misunderstand me. I said that if a need should arise, the proper company or business could be commissioned or businesses could be invited into a region based on that need. This happens now. Investors are always creating new jobs. Why should it be any different?

And can you please list a few things that you don't think should be made and sold to the public.

The actual details are irrelevant. What I'm saying is that the community would decide what is necessary. It would be up to them. It's inane to make a list of what "should" or "shouldn't" be sold.

If there is a demand for something people will buy it and companies will make it.... Even if you don't think there is a "need" for it.

We don't even know what "demand" is anymore, thanks to profit-motivation and the barrage of advertising we're inundated with.

Each community would decide what kind of businesses are necessary to the area. Why can't you grasp that concept?


"You insult people by insinuating you know what they need to do to improve their lives when you really don't have a clue. "


Yes I did say that, and I stand by it. You think everyone should straighten up, fly right, and get to work. And don't even think of spending money on anything nice, because you can't afford it. Not unless you really really work your ass off.

Very smug, very patronizing, almost Calvinistic. Can you imagine if the Secretary of Labor went on TV and said something like that? I can't even imagine the backlash.

Actually I take your points very seriously because I feel that they would be a disaster if ever implemented. This is why I have been trying to get you to focus on the details of your dream society.

Yes it would be a "disaster." For the ones in charge who stand to lose the wealth and control they've amassed in the last few hundred years.
 
  2008-07-05 07:31:39 PM
It is amazing how much you REALLY don't want to answer some basic questions Whidbey....

"I really wish you were willing to grasp that concept."

I grasp what you are saying just fine.

You said that the guy that dropped out of school and I just hired a week ago to sweep floors would share the profits of the company equally with someone who has been with my company for the last 10 or 20 years.

The guy who has a degree and has been working for this company for the last 10 or 20 years would get paid the same as the guy who dropped out of school and was just hired to sweep floors.

"And I don't know what it would take for you to understand that many many of us do not feel we have the "choices" you insist we have."

Maybe you need to read a bit closer... I said I realize that many people "do not feel [they] have the choices" that I talk about but the fact is that they all do have choices. Slaves don't.

"You shouldn't have to work that many hours, period. Why is that not "answering the question?""

Because that is not what I asked you.

If I asked you, "Is it sunny outside?" and your response was, "It is 72degrees outside." you would not be answering the question that I asked.

I didn't ask if anyone should have to work that much or not.

You are not answering the question that I asked.

"Everyone should have a decent place to live and basic amenities."

Again.... Not the question that I asked.

I asked if you only worked 20 hrs a week to get your "decent place to live and basic amenities" and I worked 70 hrs a week could I get more than a "decent place to live" ect.

"The person who sweeps floors and the doctor would have their basic needs met. That's what I'm concerned with. If there is some need to give a doctor more, I really don't know what it is."

Again.... Not the question that I asked.

I'm asking about more than the basic needs.

Would the person who spent years learning how to save lives have the same lifestyle as the person who dropped out of school and sweeps floors?

The answer is either yes or no....

"For some it isn't a choice. That's my point. Thanks for making me repeat it again. And you should not have to work that many hours for any reason unless it's some kind of national crisis, in my opinion."

And again... Not the question I asked.

I asked you iF I made the choice to work 70 hrs a week and you only worked 20 hrs a week will I be able to have a nicer house, car, etc than you?

I asked if I could work more to try to get myself a nicer house, or car because I am not happy with what you consider to be my "basic needs" .

I didn't ask if I should have to.

I asked if I made the choice to work more if I could get more than what you think is my "basic needs".

"Because...doctors would be needed in every community? Are you pretending to be this dense?"

Are you???

If a person can drop out of school and have all of their "basic needs" met do you actually think that they would make the choice to go through years of very hard education if they would not get anything more than their "basic needs"?

How many people would be willing to risk their lives doing a job if they wouldn't be able to have a better life than the person sweeping floors?

"And I told you it isn't "stealing," it would be your obligation to hand that company over per the community's decision to do so. That would be the LAW."

Fine.... Legal stealing.

In either case you would be taking my company away from me against my will.

Maybe compensating me for it and maybe not....

Of course I can't help but wonder if a law like that would even be Constitutional....

"Has nothing to do what what "I think." You have a community to answer to."

Since we don't have an actual community to use as an illustration I am saying that it is what you think.

"You misunderstand me. I said that if a need should arise, the proper company or business could be commissioned or businesses could be invited into a region based on that need. This happens now. Investors are always creating new jobs. Why should it be any different?"

So when you said,

"If the need is there, the community will build it."

You didn't actually mean that the community would build it. You meant that someone would step up and start a new company. Of course only to have it stolen from them after a certain amount of time.

Ya see Whidbey the reason it would be different is that now the government doesn't just take companies and hand them over to the workers.

There is a huge difference.

People don't like having what they worked hard to create simply taken from them.

After awhile fewer and fewer people will want to even bother.

"The actual details are irrelevant. What I'm saying is that the community would decide what is necessary. It would be up to them. It's inane to make a list of what "should" or "shouldn't" be sold."

No. The details are NEVER irrelevant.

IF you feel that companies should ONLY make and sell items that are really needed... Fine.

Give me some examples of things that you don't think are "needed" that are being made and sold today.

"Each community would decide what kind of businesses are necessary to the area. Why can't you grasp that concept?"

And again...

How exactly would they do that?

I asked before about me starting to make fidgets.

Would there need to be some kind of vote to decide if the community thinks my fidgets are needed?

If not how would it work?

How would an investor that you think would step up and create new businesses know if what they want to make is "really needed" by that community?

And how big of an "area" are we talking about here?

A city?

A county?

A state?

The nation?

Could one city say that a fidget company is not needed but a city a few miles down the road say that a fidget company is needed?

"You think everyone should straighten up, fly right, and get to work. And don't even think of spending money on anything nice, because you can't afford it. Not unless you really really work your ass off."

Yep....

What a truely horrible concept.

straighten up...
fly right...
get to work...
don't buy things you can't afford...


Whereas your message says that people who drop out of school and don't work hard would have the same life as someone who spent years getting an education and working hard.

Yep....

That's so much better.
 
  2008-07-05 08:19:12 PM
dottedmint:I asked if you only worked 20 hrs a week to get your "decent place to live and basic amenities" and I worked 70 hrs a week could I get more than a "decent place to live" ect.

Since you wouldn't be working 70 hours, no. You'd be doing whatever work it is that you'd be doing to keep society going. I don't know what it is, don't badger me with another irrelevant question.

You just can't envision that it's possible that everyone would
have a nice house, can you? You have to work "harder" in your rather Calvinistic outlook, that somehow qualifies one to have better things. That's a hard attitude to shake, and that's why this discussion is ridiculous. You can't even think of terms of "what if?" unless you're talking about Al Qaeda attacking the US.

I asked if I made the choice to work more if I could get more than what you think is my "basic needs".

I think there could incentives and rewards for people that do more for a community, but no, you would not have such an advantage as you might now. Maybe you could build your own house, or arrange to trade labor or goods. The goal is that people would not want more, they'd have pretty what they need. We would all live in some degree of affluence.


Since we don't have an actual community to use as an illustration I am saying that it is what you think.


Again, it's not just "what I think." You might not like the message, but I'm not alone in this.

You didn't actually mean that the community would build it. You meant that someone would step up and start a new company. Of course only to have it stolen from them after a certain amount of time.

As long as you have the notion that it's "theft," this is a hopeless discussion. I suppose you think taxation is theft, too?

Give me some examples of things that you don't think are "needed" that are being made and sold today.

You are so frustrating, man. All right. I have nothing better to do than blab here with you so let's discuss this. *pulls a tooth*

Look at any advertising you see on TV, hear on the radio, read in magazines or see online. How many of those things do you really think we need? Or are they just products being hawked to make someone money?

How is that a responsible use of resources? Manufacturing and selling goods that end up in the trash can when it comes time to "upgrade" to something else TV tells you to buy?

Do we really need all the cars sold? How many different brands of detergent should there be? Whatever. You name it.

Localizing economies would probably cut down on a lot of waste. There wouldn't be any need to "export" anything if it could be made locally. Cars should be made locally, and only a certain amount as determined by a community. You could apply this maxim to pretty much any "widget." And if there were something that needs to be imported, some kind of bartering system or trade could be arranged. It's really not that hard to make something like this work. The "global economy" is what stands in the way of it.

If a person can drop out of school and have all of their "basic needs" met do you actually think that they would make the choice to go through years of very hard education if they would not get anything more than their "basic needs"?

And who says they would "drop out of school?" Maybe they'd stay in school and actually learn something instead of how to become a cog in a wheel...just a thought.

People don't like having what they worked hard to create simply taken from them.
After awhile fewer and fewer people will want to even bother.


Good. Maybe then people who actually care about their communities will be the ones owning and operating essential businesses, then. Doesn't sound like such a bad thing.

Would there need to be some kind of vote to decide if the community thinks my fidgets are needed?

Maybe there would be. I don't have a problem with that. If it's something needed, production would begin.

And how big of an "area" are we talking about here?

I really don't see why we couldn't use the Jeffersonian Township system as an example. Or something similar. We're talking interconnected communities, and there would very likely still be a United States of America, or something along the same model. Federated states. It's a good idea. And there would be a body like the UN where the various federated states would have representation.

But the idea is to think locally, and use resources in a given range to sustain a population. This would include infrastructure like factories or other corporate-type operations.

Yep....

What a truely horrible concept.

straighten up...
fly right...
get to work...
don't buy things you can't afford...


In other words, submit. Never question. Never try to improve your society because it infringes on others who have the power who wouldn't like it. And never ever succumb to temptation because no one else ever does, at least the people who've "made" it.

Sounds like a very harsh, stern, anti-humanist philosophy. Which we very much need to rise above or we're screwed as a race. Just my opinion.


Whereas your message says that people who drop out of school and don't work hard would have the same life as someone who spent years getting an education and working hard.


Your skewed interpretation of it, maybe.
 
  2008-07-05 10:29:18 PM
"Since you wouldn't be working 70 hours, no. You'd be doing whatever work it is that you'd be doing to keep society going. I don't know what it is, don't badger me with another irrelevant question."

As I said before Whidbey there is nothing irrelevant about questioning the details.

Wouldn't it be my choice how much I worked? If I made the choice to work 70 hrs it is my choice. Or would I be banned from working extra???

"You just can't envision that it's possible that everyone would
have a nice house, can you?"


Not really... no. If there were examples of societies where everyone had a nice house I'd be more open to the idea.

"I think there could incentives and rewards for people that do more for a community, but no, you would not have such an advantage as you might now. Maybe you could build your own house, or arrange to trade labor or goods. The goal is that people would not want more, they'd have pretty what they need. We would all live in some degree of affluence."

So no matter how much harder I work I could never have a nicer than "nice house". We would all have the same basic house, the same basic car, the same basic life no matter how much we work.

"Look at any advertising you see on TV, hear on the radio, read in magazines or see online. How many of those things do you really think we need?"

So we should only have one choice of car, one deoderant, one toothpaste, and basic makeup.

I'm guessing we would not have stereos, video games, ipods, toys, fancy clothing, TVs, and other things that you don't think we need.

And you think that the government should determine what is or is not made.

"And who says they would "drop out of school?" Maybe they'd stay in school and actually learn something instead of how to become a cog in a wheel...just a thought."

There ya go again avoiding actually answering questions.

IF a person can drop out of school and have their "basic needs" provided for them why would they go through years of hard education if they would not get anything more than their "basic needs"?

"Good. Maybe then people who actually care about their communities will be the ones owning and operating essential businesses, then. Doesn't sound like such a bad thing."

Except that there is nothing stopping those who "actually care about their communities" from starting their own businesses now.

"Maybe there would be. I don't have a problem with that. If it's something needed, production would begin."

So each time a company wanted to make something new the community would have to vote to decide if they felt it was needed.

Ok....

And if the community voted that they wanted several types of cars or fancier deoderant or all the other things that are being advertised on TV these days that would be fine with you?

And would it only take a majority vote to decide "YES" or "NO" to a new product?

"Sounds like a very harsh, stern, anti-humanist philosophy. Which we very much need to rise above or we're screwed as a race. Just my opinion."

You actually think that encouraging people to be the best that they can be is more dangerous to our society and race than telling people that it doesn't matter what they do or don't do because they will be ensured their "basic needs"????

And if someone says screw it and they decide that they don't want to work at all because they think working even 20 hrs a week is slavery would they still get all of their "basic needs"?

"Your skewed interpretation of it, maybe."

How is that skewed?

You said that it would not matter how hard I worked. I could not get more than the "basic needs".

You said,

"The person who sweeps floors and the doctor would have their basic needs met."

You think that everyone should have the same quality of life no matter what they do and no matter how hard they work.

The firefighter who risks his life to save you from your burning house should have the same quality of life as the janitor who sweeps floors.

With that sort of situation fewer and fewer people would want to be firefighters.

After all it would be safer and easier to just be a janitor.
 
  2008-07-05 11:27:43 PM
dottedmint:
So no matter how much harder I work I could never have a nicer than "nice house". We would all have the same basic house, the same basic car, the same basic life no matter how much we work.

That's a nice trip, but it doesn't bear any relation to what I'm talking about.

Not really... no. If there were examples of societies where everyone had a nice house I'd be more open to the idea.

It's really not that hard to imagine.

So we should only have one choice of car, one deoderant, one toothpaste, and basic makeup.

Thank you again for mocking what you don't understand.

And if the community voted that they wanted several types of cars or fancier deoderant or all the other things that are being advertised on TV these days that would be fine with you?

I would hope by the time such a society were possible that advertising would be toned down and people decided for themselves what they needed.

IF a person can drop out of school and have their "basic needs" provided for them why would they go through years of hard education if they would not get anything more than their "basic needs"?

Where did I ever say that everyone would have "basic needs" and nothing else? That's your disconnect here. You're so unwilling to even imagine such a society that you play dumb all the way. It's annoying.


You actually think that encouraging people to be the best that they can be is more dangerous to our society and race than telling people that it doesn't matter what they do or don't do because they will be ensured their "basic needs"????


First of all, we don't "encourage people" period under the present system. It's "every man for himself" in your world. You don't encourage anything. To you, people are cogs in a wheel, bought and sold by someone with more financial power.

To you, going to school means readying future workers. Where do you find this "encouragement" you speak of?

You think that everyone should have the same quality of life no matter what they do and no matter how hard they work.

Again, you skew my viewpoint as if you're simply incapable of envisioning any other system outside your own.

I said that people should have their BASIC NEEDS MET. Why do you feel the need to twist it into something that it is not?

You're hopeless. You're disingenuous, unimaginative and hostile to anything that's different from your preconceived notions.

There ya go again avoiding actually answering questions.

Honestly? Maybe you shouldn't ask such stupid ones.
 
  2008-07-06 08:46:55 AM
"That's a nice trip, but it doesn't bear any relation to what I'm talking about."

Really?

Well you are doing a rather poor job of explaining your utopia.

I asked you if I could work 70 hrs a week to get a nicer than "nice house" and you said,

"I think there could incentives and rewards for people that do more for a community, but no, you would not have such an advantage as you might now. Maybe you could build your own house, or arrange to trade labor or goods. The goal is that people would not want more, they'd have pretty what they need. We would all live in some degree of affluence."

And when I saw "but no, you would not have such an advantage as you might now." it sure sounded to me like you were saying that we would all have basically the same house.

So I'll try to ask you again....

If I work twice as hard as you (actually over three times) 70hrs vs. 20hrs a week could I have a house that is over three times as big / nice as yours?

The answer is either a "yes" or a "no".

If you would give clear straight forward answers it would be easier for me to understand what you envision.

"Thank you again for mocking what you don't understand."

Well again I asked you to give me a couple of things that you don't think we "need" and instead your response was,

"Do we really need all the cars sold? How many different brands of detergent should there be? Whatever. You name it."

So maybe we would have more than one of everything but clearly you feel that consumers have too many choices.

"I would hope by the time such a society were possible that advertising would be toned down and people decided for themselves what they needed."

That's fine but as I said before if the community said that they wanted all the choices that they have now you would be fine with that?

And again would it only take over 50% of the vote to get a product made?

"Where did I ever say that everyone would have "basic needs" and nothing else? That's your disconnect here. You're so unwilling to even imagine such a society that you play dumb all the way. It's annoying."

Well Whidbey if you would clearly answer question it would be easier for me to understand what you are thinking.

So the guy who drops out of school and sweeps floors would or would not have as nice of "stuff" as the Dr. who went through years of hard schooling to learn how to save lives???

The janitor would have a "nice house" but you seem to say that the Dr. (no matter how hard he worked) would not be able to have a nicer than "nice house".

Would this be possible in your society....

The janitor has a 3 brm ranch house with 1 bathroom, a 1 and 1/2 car detached garage. Basically a "nice house".

The Dr. has a 4 brm two story house with 2 and 1/2 bathrooms, a 2 and 1/2 car attached garage, and a pool. A nicer than "nice house".

"To you, going to school means readying future workers. Where do you find this "encouragement" you speak of?"

Well Whidbey even in your society you would need educated people.

That Dr needs to go to years of school to learn how to save lives.

Also in your society you would need workers.

You would need people to build the roads and the mass transit systems.

That typically is hard physical work.

You would need highly educated people to design and run these complex systems.

Do you want someone who dropped out of school designing your highspeed mass transit system?

It is very unlikely that someone who drops out of school is going to come up with an alternative energy supply to run your society.

Even your society would need energy.

I encourage every child that I know to get as much education as they can because even your society would need educated people.

But you think that encouraging them to be the best that they can is somehow bad.

Our society would be so much better if everyone dropped out of school....

Actually Whidbey our society would be so much better if everyone stayed in school and got as much education as they could.

Our society would be so much better if EVERYONE tried to be the best that they could be.

"I said that people should have their BASIC NEEDS MET. Why do you feel the need to twist it into something that it is not?"

Right...

Everyone should have their basic needs met...

No matter how much or how little they do.

So the janitor should have his basic needs met.

Fine.

What about the Dr?

What about the person who works three times as much?

Can he get three times his basic needs?

"Honestly? Maybe you shouldn't ask such stupid ones."

My grandmother told me this years ago...

There is no such thing as stupid questions...

...only stupid answers.

You should try to remember that.
 
  2008-07-06 08:50:16 PM
dottedmint:If I work twice as hard as you (actually over three times) 70hrs vs. 20hrs a week could I have a house that is over three times as big / nice as yours?

The answer is either a "yes" or a "no".


What you're not getting is that PEOPLE in general could have the kind of houses they would like. Why does it matter how many hours you work for it?

I don't see why you couldn't have a house like you want. The idea is that it wouldn't matter. So your question is ridiculous.

That's fine but as I said before if the community said that they wanted all the choices that they have now you would be fine with that?

Depends on the choices. Choosing to have two grocery stores across the street from each other is a waste.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. The community would choose to have fifty car dealerships in a row? I would hope not.

Whatever a community does choose should be done wisely with regard to conserving resources. That should be #1.

And again would it only take over 50% of the vote to get a product made?

A majority vote seems fair enough. Can you think of a more fair way to decide an issue?

So the guy who drops out of school and sweeps floors would or would not have as nice of "stuff" as the Dr. who went through years of hard schooling to learn how to save lives???

I see both jobs as important, and BASIC needs should not depend on whether you go through years of training.

The simple fact is that doctors will probably not be making lots of cash in a future setting. Their purpose would be to save lives per their Hippocratic oath. Maybe they would have special consideration in some communities, like a nicer house or what have you. But since everyone's house would be "nice" and reflect their individual tastes, I think the question is somewhat irrelevant.

Communities would need doctors nonetheless. Saying that no one would become a doctor because they wouldn't be willing to do the work involved has no basis. I say the demand would be met.

I encourage every child that I know to get as much education as they can because even your society would need educated people.
But you think that encouraging them to be the best that they can is somehow bad.


I don't believe that going to school just to become a cog in a wheel is "education." Nor do I believe that badgering someone to go to school to become part of the labor machine is "encouragement." This country doesn't "encourage." It's every man for himself, that's a big problem. Thank you for making me repeat that again. It clearly didn't sink in the first time you asked me.

Also in your society you would need workers.
You would need people to build the roads and the mass transit systems.
That typically is hard physical work.


There is no shortage of labor, unless we're talking about a world where there are billions less because of war or disease.

You would need highly educated people to design and run these complex systems.
Do you want someone who dropped out of school designing your highspeed mass transit system?


So? Teach someone how to do it. What's the big deal? You seem to think that only one class of individual is cut out to build infrastructure. I don't see educating people as a problem. We have the possibility to have an incredible system of education.

Our society would be so much better if EVERYONE tried to be the best that they could be.

Yeah, it would be. But until we stop seeing schools as "job factories" there will always be stupid people out there who don't take education seriously. They only see it as a means to get a job and get rich.

What about the person who works three times as much?
Can he get three times his basic needs?


Again. You have this idea that working "harder" somehow qualifies you for more than the average person, or for that matter, the average person doesn't work as hard as your example does.

But you would not be WORKING that much in such a society, unless it was for your own personal ventures. You would not have to work your ass off to have what you need. No one should have to.

So you're not going to get a simple "yes" or "no" with that one, either. It's more complex than that. Deal with it.

My grandmother told me this years ago...
There is no such thing as stupid questions...
...only stupid answers.
You should try to remember that.


I've for the life of me never heard that. At least not that way.
I remember it as "there are only stupid people.."
 
  2008-07-07 11:23:04 PM
"What you're not getting is that PEOPLE in general could have the kind of houses they would like. Why does it matter how many hours you work for it?

I don't see why you couldn't have a house like you want. The idea is that it wouldn't matter."


================================================================

"Maybe they would have special consideration in some communities, like a nicer house or what have you. But since everyone's house would be "nice" and reflect their individual tastes, I think the question is somewhat irrelevant."

OK.....

So everyone would have as nice of a house as they would like and it would not matter how much they work or not work.

OK.....

I would like to have Al Gore's house and frankly I don't want to work for it.

Could I have Al Gore's house and not have to put in the 20hrs a week?

Actually that's not true..... I don't really want Gore's house... Too much cleaning....

I would rather have a nice cozy house with a couple hundred acres of woods around it.

Can I have that and not work the 20 hrs a week?

What you are not taking into consideration Whidbey is basic human nature.

When given a choice between two jobs where the compensation is the same most people will choose the easier job.

If a person could make $50,000 sweeping floors or $50,000 fighting fires most people would choose to sweep floors.

If a person could make $50,000 dropping out of school or $50,000 after MANY years of hard training most people would choose to drop out of school.

"Their purpose would be to save lives per their Hippocratic oath."

Except that fewer and fewer people would decide to become Drs. It would be easier to just sweep floors.

"The community would choose to have fifty car dealerships in a row? I would hope not. "

But if 51% said "yes" you would be fine with that?

"A majority vote seems fair enough. Can you think of a more fair way to decide an issue?"

I know it is silly but I always thought that the consumers should decide.

If people are willing to buy my widgets even if they really don't need them I think it should be up to them.

"I don't believe that going to school just to become a cog in a wheel is "education." Nor do I believe that badgering someone to go to school to become part of the labor machine is "encouragement." This country doesn't "encourage." It's every man for himself, that's a big problem."

As I said before...

Even in your society you would have cogs.

You would need people to become educated.

You would need people to be workers.

You however would not reward people for getting an education or working hard.

So why would they get an education or work hard?

"You seem to think that only one class of individual is cut out to build infrastructure."

Well.... The educated class.

"I don't see educating people as a problem. We have the possibility to have an incredible system of education."

But again you would remove any motivation for people to get an education so why would they?

For the fun of it?


Ya know...

I was thinking about your utopia and trying to figure out a way to describe it and it dawned on me.

Your society is basically a union.

In a union if one person works hard and always tries to do a good job and another person does the bare minimum to just get by they both would get paid the same.

In your society if one person worked 70 hrs a week and another person only worked 20 hrs a week they both would get "paid" the same.

At least in a union if someone works hard they could get promoted and get a better paying job.

In your society it doesn't matter how much harder a person works because they won't get anything extra.
 
  2008-07-08 01:16:19 AM
whidbey:Actually it is, if you're working those 40 hours and are still living in a hole. If you have no other recourse than to work a dead-end job YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO DO, it's slavery, pure and simple. Not my problem you can't see that. And no, people can't always just stop what they're doing and look for a "dream job." This is not how this society is set up. There's always going to be a sizable portion of the population slaving away to make someone rich. The average working man is a cog in a wheel, a slave to the money.

i think this is where people ould be discouraged to live beyond their means, that's what has truly made trhem slaves, they're owned by their own possesions, because they haven't paid for them yet.

i also see this as a difference between external and inernal solutions

any way i should have read more of your posts before commenting
 
  2008-07-08 01:34:54 AM
couple observations

whidbey, you're proposing a dole, or basic living allowance for folks? with stipends for housing, and possibly transportaion correct?

second of all, you and dotted mint, ya'll use the same words, but the concepts are entirely different. At the moment it's like 2 seperate languages.

slavery for dotted mint is forced labor
slavery for whidbey includes the above, + low wage employment, with little or no chance for growth

i tend to lean towards dotted mints defintion there, maybe it's because i've been the floor sweeper, and now am not.

also, whidbey, please remember, i don't have your mental concepts of your idea, that's why i'm asking you to explain.

i disagree on a lot, but i think i get what you're saying
 
  2008-07-08 01:49:59 AM
Because...doctors would be needed in every community?

what is the motivation to become a doctor besides an innate desire to help people?

other words, what are your incentives to draw people to this very important part of our current society

I said that if a need should arise, the proper company or business could be commissioned or businesses could be invited into a region based on that need. This happens now. Investors are always creating new jobs.

so, you're saying state mandated business vetures, or a regulated market similar to japan?

Depends on the choices. Choosing to have two grocery stores across the street from each other is a waste.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. The community would choose to have fifty car dealerships in a row? I would hope not.


i believe that falls under zoning restrictions, just no one's applying them in that way as of yet
 
  2008-07-08 11:03:32 AM
What's with the "Commie/Neutral/Fascist" political bias choices for Fark Politics submissions?
 
  2008-07-09 05:17:24 PM
dottedmint:What you are not taking into consideration Whidbey is basic human nature.

When given a choice between two jobs where the compensation is the same most people will choose the easier job.


Probably true. I don't consider that anything we've been discussing will come to pass in this country, at least for another couple hundred years. Or more. That is, if we don't blow ourselves up or succumb to some biological warfare. Or whatever negative impact of society.

It's highly idealistic, of course, and I only brought it up because you asked me to.

You however would not reward people for getting an education or working hard.
So why would they get an education or work hard?


People should get an education because they should be smart, not stupid. That's the biggest reason, and it supersedes "because you need to find a job."

"Working hard" is subjective. I can think of people I know that work very hard and are going nowhere. They're slaves to their jobs, their mortgages, their credit ratings.

As I said before...
Even in your society you would have cogs.


People would be expected to be part of a greater good, certainly, but I use the term "cogs" to decry the present system. We aren't part of some "greater good." We are merely tools of someone more powerful, whether they're good or bad, right or wrong. And it doesn't have to be that way, not if we don't want it. You seem to think it's the best thing we've got, and shouldn't try to change things.

In your society it doesn't matter how much harder a person works because they won't get anything extra.

I don't agree with that summation. Everything in a democratic society is subject to negotiation, and I don't know why someone's extra efforts shouldn't allow them more prestige. But I do know that there should be no concepts like "poverty." We have the power to eliminate it, even now. Everyone should have a basic standard of living where they're not worrying about whether they're going to eat tonight, or where they're going to sleep.

I just don't agree that working more hours, slaving away at some mundane job necessarily warrants that kind of special treatment.
 
  2008-07-10 10:33:55 AM
whidbey

been reading this, quick question. If I'm not rewarded for my creativity or my hard work, why should I be creative or work hard?
 
  2008-07-10 01:34:41 PM
Clonod:If I'm not rewarded for my creativity or my hard work, why should I be creative or work hard?

I don't understand why you would not be "rewarded" for either.

And people that are creative create. It's in our nature. So that question's equally loaded. I'm not always "rewarded" for my creativity, though somebody bought me TF. I guess you could say that's a "reward." ;)

And people work hard to get things done. Pretty simple, really.

So I don't get either question. It sounds like what you get out of the discussion is that neither would occur.
 
  2008-07-10 04:24:59 PM
Actually, it's not that simple.

I work in insurance. Nobody would ever CHOOSE to work in insurance without the prospect of increased monetary gain. All things being equal, I would probably be a basketweaver or something, but that doesn't pay my bills, and doesn't provide me a lifestyle I prefer.

If you don't create monetary incentive for people to take crappy jobs that require intelligence (like mine or countless others), nobody would do these necessary things. Everyone would pick something "fun" or near to their heart, and society can't function that way, because some tasks that help everybody aren't near to anybody's heart.
 
  2008-07-10 07:37:22 PM
Clonod:Everyone would pick something "fun" or near to their heart

People do anyway. Often their real selves take a back seat while working to pay the bills.

and society can't function that way, because some tasks that help everybody aren't near to anybody's heart.

Imagine working only to do something that is essential to society functioning, and having the extra time to do what's "near to your heart." Yeah, it might be dirty work. But it would be essential, and there would certainly be enough people to do the job, taking short shifts.

People would then have enough extra time to do what they really want. And I'm sure you could of something a little more substantial than "basket weaving." ;)

Yeah. It's real idealistic, I know. I'm getting plenty of crap for bringing it up. It's not a possibility right now, because too many people believe you have to slave away to earn your "daily leisure" and can't even picture anything else.

And I would hope at some point in the future the insurance industry would finally be regarded as the racket it is, and won't have as much power as it does now. So maybe that kind of job wouldn't even exist.
 
  2008-07-10 10:13:55 PM
whidbey:Clonod:Everyone would pick something "fun" or near to their heart

People do anyway. Often their real selves take a back seat while working to pay the bills.

and society can't function that way, because some tasks that help everybody aren't near to anybody's heart.

Imagine working only to do something that is essential to society functioning, and having the extra time to do what's "near to your heart." Yeah, it might be dirty work. But it would be essential, and there would certainly be enough people to do the job, taking short shifts.


What if I didn't want to do the dirty work, though? Or what if I saw other people not doing their share, and I got pissed off? Who picks who gets what jobs, anyway?

I get your idealistic intent, I really do. And I appreciate the plight of the "working poor". But nevertheless, there are a bunch of lazy ne'er-do-wells through every stratum of society, from Paris Hilton at the top to the dude that hangs out on the corner every day.

Plus, if the collective economic output of the world (and thereby, the goods we collectively get to enjoy) is to remain the same, people are going to have to work just as hard as they do now.
 
  2008-07-11 02:29:11 AM
Clonod:I get your idealistic intent, I really do. And I appreciate the plight of the "working poor". But nevertheless, there are a bunch of lazy ne'er-do-wells through every stratum of society, from Paris Hilton at the top to the dude that hangs out on the corner every day.

Like I said, man, I'm only riffing. dottedmint insisted I clarify these points, and I have. And we're in agreement that if they were to work, we'd have to change our attitudes as human beings substantially. We'd have to be more altruistic and think in terms of collectives. And I believe we'll eventually evolve into this IF we don't destroy ourselves in the next few hundred years either through fighting or using up our resources.

Otherwise, I'm content with the current system of capitalism, tempered with socialism, and corruption in either compliment has to be called out when necessary. That's really the problem: corruption. With a jigger of greed for good measure.

And all throughout history, "lazy ne'er do-wells" have been convinced to become productive people. So there's hope.

Plus, if the collective economic output of the world (and thereby, the goods we collectively get to enjoy) is to remain the same, people are going to have to work just as hard as they do now.

I'm into hard work, if it actually produces one's goals. I'm not into working fingers to the bone for naught. And this society gets a little too punishing at times for my liking.
 
  2008-07-11 07:01:03 AM
I think the problem that we are having Whidbey is that you are laying out a society that is not based on reality.

The only way that your society would work is if basic human nature were changed completely from what it is now.

You claim that in a couple hundred years human nature may change enough that your society would work and who knows maybe it would.

I personally do not think that human nature will ever change enough that people would be happy with a janitor and a Dr basically having the same lifestye.

All of my comments have been based on current human nature.

And NO...

Your society would not work with current human nature.
 
  2008-07-11 02:18:45 PM
whidbey:Like I said, man, I'm only riffing. dottedmint insisted I clarify these points, and I have. And we're in agreement that if they were to work, we'd have to change our attitudes as human beings substantially. We'd have to be more altruistic and think in terms of collectives. And I believe we'll eventually evolve into this IF we don't destroy ourselves in the next few hundred years either through fighting or using up our resources.

Otherwise, I'm content with the current system of capitalism, tempered with socialism, and corruption in either compliment has to be called out when necessary. That's really the problem: corruption. With a jigger of greed for good measure.


I think the operative word is "opportunity". If we give the children of the poor every opportunity to succeed, that's all I want (I know we are nowhere near that point yet). If they don't make the most of that oppourtunity, and are destined to work for a pittance at a dead-end job, I have no sympathy.
 
  2008-07-12 07:12:34 PM
Could a moderator linkify the image in 3730843 timestamp 2008-07-12 07:07:27 PM. Apologies.
 
  2008-07-15 06:45:27 PM
WHidbey...u support obama!?!?!

Don't be fooled!

he's a farking puppet!
 
  2008-07-17 02:49:06 AM
So, how long before the US supports the ICC?
 
  2008-07-19 09:03:46 AM
So Bush lifted the Presidential ban on off shore drilling and the Congressional ban on drilling is set to expire Sept 30th. I'm wondering if Obama will vote to keep the ban in place just days before the Presidential election or will he vote to allow off shore drilling. Or of course will he just not cast a vote?
 
  2008-07-21 12:41:04 PM
Ah yes, good segue to our next discussion...:)

Offshore drilling: obviously, I'm against it.

We need to cut down on consumption, not put a band-aid on the problem.

Rather than trying to assert ourselves as "independent" of oil from the Middle East, we should be putting our resources into solar and wind power to replace as many of the smaller things that take up the grid as possible. For example, I know people who use solar to power their computers at home.

Some of the larger windmills generate 8 megawatts.

We've painted ourselves into a corner with our dependence on gasoline.

Likewise, much as I'm not jazzed about nuclear power, it would behoove the industry to come up with a convincing PR campaign aimed at easing fears.

But as far as petroleum importing is concerned, we should stick with what we already have, and not fall victim to political maneuvers.

The myth is that we import most of our oil from the Middle East, and the fact is we don't. Onl
 
  2008-07-21 12:43:58 PM
Whoops. Hit the "add comment" button too soon, but you catch the gist of it.

The countries we do buy oil from are not our "enemies," and it's politically-driven hype to think that we suddenly need to start drilling for oil on our own shores.

We have options other than continuing to fatten the coffers of the big oil companies with needless domestic drilling.
 
  2008-07-21 07:42:50 PM
I agree with whibey for the most part. Drilling on our coastlines will not only be costly and time consuming, most companies don't even have the required hardware to do so.

I don't like the idea of solving our energy needs top-down, I believe it should be from the bottom-up. Starting with the homeowners. Obviously this is not possible for everyone, but for those that can become self-sufficient should be encouraged to do so.

I don't want to list what I think will work best, because every region is different. But I will say this, solar has been able to go from $3 a watt to 30 cents. [1]

Like the adaptation of cellphones, when a new technology is exposed it is expensive. Only the rich and experimental are able to afford it, luckily for the less fortunate this drives the initial cost down. Today cellphones are extremely cheap and widely available. You would be hard-pressed to find a house or family without one, and it was only two decades ago when the opposite was true.

I have a lot of faith in our engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs. I believe that nanotechnology will be the savior of our generation and will solve many of our woes. Not only in this country, but globally.

In a somewhat related note, when the Industrial Revolution started most factories were built alongside rivers, that would be used to power the building. I'm not up to my history on civil planning, but I am willing to bet most of the factories built within the last 30 years were built out of preference not sustainability.

Likewise, the oil companies are the ones that have the most to lose. As far as I know, they aren't investing in renewable energy.
 
  2008-07-21 10:07:12 PM
But will Obama vote to keep the ban?

Will Democrats simply allow the ban to expire so that Obama wouldn't have to vote?

I personally suspect that Democrats will simply allow it to expire because I don't think they want it to become an issue just before the election.

Now...

I'm all in favor of developing alternative energy supplies however that is no reason to not drill.

That's kinda some faulty logic to try to say that we can't do both.

Even if we do allow drilling, companies will continue to work on alternatives because there is money in it.

Either next year or 2010 a car that runs on compressed air will be available in the US.

Each year batteries for hybrids get better and better.

Each year car makers improve the fuel economy of cars.

At some point some really really smart person will come up with something that can take the place of oil.

Until then there is no reason not to drill.
 
  2008-07-21 10:45:59 PM
IMHO, I think our best bet in replacing fossil-fuel petroleum lies in genetically engineering a photosynthetic lifeform -- something very simple like algae-- to use the energy of the sun to make fatty acids to begin with (biodiesel) and perhaps later the other compounds that make up petroleum. Such a system would be fairly carbon neutral, as algae would use carbon dioxide as a raw material.

If we could find a way to reliably and safely use nuclear fusion, we would never have any energy problems. Until then, however, nuclear fission will have to take up a prominent role in power generation. Solar and wind power are nice as well. However, I don't see the need for us to do this RIGHT THIS SECOND HURRY HURRY HURRY. A fairly relaxed pace will probably be fine.
 
  2008-07-22 12:20:27 PM
dottedmint: I'm all in favor of developing alternative energy supplies however that is no reason to not drill.

Like I said, drilling is both needless and sends the message that we're not really serious about alternatives.


Even if we do allow drilling, companies will continue to work on alternatives because there is money in it.


But not nearly as much incentive. As long as oil is regarded as "king," alternatives will be regarded as something we can just put on the back burner for later.

Either next year or 2010 a car that runs on compressed air will be available in the US.

Do you have a link on this?

Each year batteries for hybrids get better and better.

Maybe so, but our dependency on oil gets more and more attention each year. And consumption is not going down, it's going up, as if there's no limit.

Each year car makers improve the fuel economy of cars.

Again, maybe so, but the fact is that there is enough of an oil supply right now to meet the demand and the reason this is even being considered is political.

At some point some really really smart person will come up with something that can take the place of oil.

They probably said that back in 1977. It's lip service. We had the chance to change things then and we didn't because the price of oil went back down again and we were lured into another sense of false security.

Until then there is no reason not to drill.

Drilling is environmentally irresponsible and unnecessary given the current supply and alternatives.

Oil shouldn't be cheap anymore. We've reached the point where we cannot sustain ourselves with our old 20th century methods. Drilling offshore is wasteful, environmentally degrading, and a short-term solution at best. We should be putting every ounce of our resources into alternatives like solar or wind power. That would relieve at least half the burden. We should also be cutting our consumption by making less cars, not more, and focus on building public transportation. I know you're going to love that.

I'd rather see those two things increase more than falling back on old unsustainable methods.
 
  2008-07-23 08:42:59 PM
Whidbey "Like I said, drilling is both needless and sends the message that we're not really serious about alternatives."

See now I totally disagree that it is simply "needless".

Also clearly with organizations like the X-Prize Foundation (new window) there are all sorts of people taking alternatives and other scientific advancements seriously.

And who exactly is being sent this faulty message that we are not serious about alternavites anyways?

"But not nearly as much incentive."

What exactly are you talking about Whidbey?

The company that can come up with an alternative fuel that is clean, easy to produce and can replace oil has millions - billions or even trillions of incentives out there.

"Do you have a link on this?" (compressed air car)

Link (new window)

And this car is one of the first cars entered to win the $10billion dollar prize from the X-Prize Foundation. That would be called "incentive".

"They probably said that back in 1977. It's lip service. We had the chance to change things then and we didn't because the price of oil went back down again and we were lured into another sense of false security."

Hello... Whidbey....

Back in 1977 there weren't hybred cars... There weren't electric cars... There weren't cars that ran on compressed air... There weren't normal cars that can get over 40 mpg... There weren't hydrogen cars... There wasn't ethanol fuel....

There has been alot of changes since 1977.... even with cheap gas prices.

"Drilling is environmentally irresponsible and unnecessary given the current supply and alternatives."

It is not as irresponsible as you want to suggest.

Also....

What "alternatives" are there that can currently replace oil?
 
  2008-07-24 01:43:26 PM
dottedmint: "But not nearly as much incentive."

What exactly are you talking about Whidbey?

The company that can come up with an alternative fuel that is clean, easy to produce and can replace oil has millions - billions or even trillions of incentives out there.


Just pointing out that the largest breaks are still being given to oil companies. Corporations that make billions in profits.

It's nice to know that there are private groups out there like your example, but they are not making the difference we need to see.

Hello... Whidbey....
Back in 1977 there weren't hybred cars... There weren't electric cars... There weren't cars that ran on compressed air... There weren't normal cars that can get over 40 mpg... There weren't hydrogen cars... There wasn't ethanol fuel....


There was an ethanol mix back then, actually. Remember "gasohol?"

But my point is that we could have taken steps to reduce consumption then, and we certainly could have put the brainwork of this country into producing automobiles that had better mileage. But we didn't.

As soon as the price of gasoline went back down, all the promises of "progress" faded away into the background and we started acting like gas hogs again. And this same kind of irresponsible behavior will repeat itself again if the price goes down like it did then.

And your statement
At some point some really really smart person will come up with something that can take the place of oil
sounds like the same excuse that was given then.

[Drilling] is not as irresponsible as you want to suggest.

Irresponsible enough that I don't support it. There was a reason why off-shore drilling was banned in California: the horrible spills that damage sensitive ecosystems along that incredibly beautiful coastline. Ever been to the Gulf of Mexico? Galveston? Much of the coast and the Mississippi estuary could be classified as a Superfund site. It's really nasty.

What "alternatives" are there that can currently replace oil?

As I've said, we need to take the billions in tax breaks and subsidies we're giving big oil companies and put that money directly into solar and wind power. It doesn't take the place of oil, but it would indeed offset usage, at least for the smaller things. As for automobiles, we need to stop making so damn many of them and start building more mass transit. Light rail, bullet trains and subway systems are not going to get any cheaper, so waiting and footdragging is a big mistake.

We don't need to drill, period. It's a politically-motivated fear as a result of the tensions this country has created with Middle-East OPEC nations, and also what we're seeing in Venezuela: manufactured "enemies" like Chavez or Ahmadinejad.
 
  2008-07-24 08:52:08 PM
Whidbey "Just pointing out that the largest breaks are still being given to oil companies. Corporations that make billions in profits."

From The Tax Foundation...


"...over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments-including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy."

So YES....

Oil companies have made a boatload of profits but for you to suggest that they have not paid enough in taxes or have somehow gotten breaks from the government lacks facts to back up your claims.

And let's not forget that ethanol gets billions of dollars of subsidies each year....


"It's nice to know that there are private groups out there like your example, but they are not making the difference we need to see."

Obviously they are if that compressed air car is an outcome...

"But my point is that we could have taken steps to reduce consumption then, and we certainly could have put the brainwork of this country into producing automobiles that had better mileage. But we didn't. "

But clearly we did because we have been seeing fuel mileage increase...

"And your statement
At some point some really really smart person will come up with something that can take the place of oil sounds like the same excuse that was given then."


I'm not making exuses Whidbey as is evident by the compressed air car that I mentioned. Others are working on electric cars, hydrogen cars and anything else that people can think of.

BTW Whidbey....

I'm starting to think that we should rename this forum The Whidbey/dottedmint Forum since we seem to be the only regulars here.

But then again....

dottedmint would come first alphabetically....
 
  2008-07-28 05:21:33 PM
dottedmint: I'm starting to think that we should rename this forum The Whidbey/dottedmint Forum since we seem to be the only regulars here.

But then again....

dottedmint would come first alphabetically....


I've tried to get other people to stop by. It's a damn shame. Maybe we could get FarkTV to do a YouTube kind of thing with Farkettes as dancers.

Oil companies have made a boatload of profits but for you to suggest that they have not paid enough in taxes or have somehow gotten breaks from the government lacks facts to back up your claims.

I'd be willing to give oil companies a break, even more of a profit margin if they agreed to stay out of new technology altogether, and whatever subsidies/tax breaks went into a focused national program like your example. Of course, it would effectively mean the end of their rule, unless a bunch of ex-oilmen started an alternatives company.

Otherwise, they've stood in the way of progress by doing some rather unscrupulous tactics like paying scientists to publish papers to downplay the environmental consequences of the oil business, or discourage any shift in the paradigm that would reduce our dependency on oil, most notably paying scientists $10K to "dispute" man-made global warming.

They're not in the business to be nice guys, and I would argue their power over society has made it difficult to embrace new technologies.

It's now or never.
 
  2008-07-29 10:58:31 PM
Nova had a great program about the next generation of cars. (hibreds, electric, hydrogen, etc.) They showed this one and all I can think of saying is....

I want.

www.teslamotors.com

www.teslamotors.com

www.teslamotors.com

It is the Tesla Motors "Roadster", their plug-in electric car. YES... electric.

0-60 in under 4 seconds....

125mph top speed....

220 mile range....

If anyone wants to know it would fit very nicely under my Christmas tree.

Tesla Motors (new window)
 
  2008-08-01 07:00:12 AM
Now back to your other comments Whidbey.....

"I'd be willing to give oil companies a break, even more of a profit margin"

But their profit margins (when looked at as a percentage) typically is not that big.

"if they agreed to stay out of new technology altogether,"

Why should oil companies not get into other technologies?

"and whatever subsidies/tax breaks went into a focused national program like your example."

Again....

I'm not sure paying three times your profits in taxes is what I would call a "break".

"Of course, it would effectively mean the end of their rule, unless a bunch of ex-oilmen started an alternatives company."

But didn't you just call for them to stay out of new technologies? And actually many oil companies are getting into alternative energy

"like paying scientists to publish papers to downplay the environmental consequences of the oil business,"

And what is wrong with oil companies promoting oil?

"or discourage any shift in the paradigm that would reduce our dependency on oil,"

Since most oil companies are getting into alternatives they clearly are working to be part of that shift.

"most notably paying scientists $10K to "dispute" man-made global warming."

Since there are plenty of scientists (not paid by oil companies) who question if global warming is man made there is nothing wrong with disputing man made global warming.

"They're not in the business to be nice guys,"

So?

Are the ethanol growers and refiners in the business to be nice guys? And do they not publish papers that dispute the negative effects of their product?


"and I would argue their power over society has made it difficult to embrace new technologies."

No. Not really.

What has made it difficult is the fact that the oil "complex" has evolved over many many years and now encompasses the entire country.

You can't just snap your fingers and expect everything to be replaced with some alternative.

It takes time to make that "shift" that you want and we are doing just that.

What is ironic is that on TV there was just an ad by BP that was talking about not only oil but also alternatives. Go figure, an oil company promoting alternative energy.
 
  2008-08-06 02:08:55 PM
dottedmint:
But their profit margins (when looked at as a percentage) typically is not that big.


Doesn't matter. The margin isn't the issue, it's the billions they're carting off to the bank, taking advantage of consumers, behaving basically like a monopoly...

Why should oil companies not get into other technologies?

Because they have too much of an advantage as it is. They have arguably stunted research because they own the game. They've kept us addicted to a non-renewable resource decades after we realized it was time to switch. They have not offered any tangible alternatives, only occasional attempts to assuage the public that they're "working towards the future." It's lip service.

It's like the fox guarding the henhouse.

I'm not sure paying three times your profits in taxes is what I would call a "break".

I'm proposing a tax break if they stay out of the new technology. Otherwise, the tax rate stays the same, or could possibly increase because of consumer outrage.

They'd have to change their game. Much like Kodak, who had to embrace digital technology instead of fighting it.

But didn't you just call for them to stay out of new technologies? And actually many oil companies are getting into alternative energy

They're not. They put a token billion or so to make it look like they're making advancements, but nothing has changed. They don't have to change anything as long as they keep milking the cash cow.

And what is wrong with oil companies promoting oil?

Because they're a dead-end business, ultimately. They'll use whatever influence they have to keep things the way they are, and maximize profit. You are aware that there is a very powerful oil lobby in this country? And this is why Congress hasn't really addressed our energy issues?

Since most oil companies are getting into alternatives they clearly are working to be part of that shift.

And I call BS on that.

Since there are plenty of scientists (not paid by oil companies) who question if global warming is man made there is nothing wrong with disputing man made global warming.

The credible scientists are on board with it. The oil companies pay unqualified "scientists" to dispute findings using flawed or easily-debunked evidence.

They don't want their cash cow to run dry, dottedmint. The same findings, same conclusions regarding the long-term viability and supply of oil were reached 30 years ago, and big oil has successfully manipulated people to keep them on top. They're very powerful.

Are the ethanol growers and refiners in the business to be nice guys? And do they not publish papers that dispute the negative effects of their product?

Ethanol could still be a short-term solution, especially if switchgrass becomes the number one component instead of food sources.

"and I would argue their power over society has made it difficult to embrace new technologies."

No. Not really.


You deny the power of the oil lobby? It is not in their interest to allow competitive technologies that would make them obsolete.

What has made it difficult is the fact that the oil "complex" has evolved over many many years and now encompasses the entire country.

You can't just snap your fingers and expect everything to be replaced with some alternative.


Yes we can. We aren't doing it because our government is more pro-oil than pro-green. It's slowly catching on, but not nearly fast enough.

It takes time to make that "shift" that you want and we are doing just that.

Not fast enough.

What is ironic is that on TV there was just an ad by BP that was talking about not only oil but also alternatives. Go figure, an oil company promoting alternative energy.

Propaganda. The right thing to do is strip the oil companies of their tax breaks and subsidies and put that money into a "Manhattan Project" style undertaking where our most brilliant minds, both domestic and internationally come up with the needed solution.

Again, big oil is out to protect their interests, and while it would be wise for them to switch over like Kodak did with film, they would no longer be making their tens of billions of dollars in profit. Without some kind of legal understanding, they are unscrupulous, Machiavellian and untrustworthy.
 
  2008-08-06 10:58:40 PM
Whidbey: "Doesn't matter. The margin isn't the issue, it's the billions they're carting off to the bank, taking advantage of consumers, behaving basically like a monopoly..."

Of course the margin matters...

A company that makes a profit of 1% is a heck of alot different than a company that makes a profit of 10%.

And don't forget that their profit affects the retirement of many many americans.

"Because they have too much of an advantage as it is. They have arguably stunted research because they own the game. They've kept us addicted to a non-renewable resource decades after we realized it was time to switch. They have not offered any tangible alternatives, only occasional attempts to assuage the public that they're "working towards the future." It's lip service."

So they should not be able to invest in alternative energy and supply us with hydrogen (for example) for our hydrogen cars basically because you don't like oil companies.

Makes perfect sense...

"I'm proposing a tax break if they stay out of the new technology. Otherwise, the tax rate stays the same, or could possibly increase because of consumer outrage.

They'd have to change their game. Much like Kodak, who had to embrace digital technology instead of fighting it."


You contradict yourself Whidbey....

First you say that they should stay out of new technology then you say they should be like Kodak and embrace new technology.

What do you want Whidbey?

Either you don't want oil companies to get into alternatives and stay only oil companies or you want them to embrace new technology and become more than just oil companies.

"They put a token billion or so to make it look like they're making advancements, but nothing has changed. They don't have to change anything as long as they keep milking the cash cow."

Seriously?????

"A token billion"????

And you think it is wrong that a company would invest a billion dollars working on alternative energy???

Gee... I think it would be a good thing if more companies (oil or whatever) would invest a billion dollars on alternative energy.

"Because they're a dead-end business, ultimately. They'll use whatever influence they have to keep things the way they are, and maximize profit. You are aware that there is a very powerful oil lobby in this country? And this is why Congress hasn't really addressed our energy issues?"

I don't doubt that at some point we will no longer need oil. But that time is not here yet. So at least for now it is not a dead-end.

"And I call BS on that."

That's right....

I forgot that to you a billion dollars is nothing but a token...

"The credible scientists are on board with it. The oil companies pay unqualified "scientists" to dispute findings using flawed or easily-debunked evidence."

Now I'm not a big fan of Wiki but.....

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (new window)

There are all sorts of "credible scientists" that question global warming.

"It is not in their interest to allow competitive technologies that would make them obsolete."

Whidbey oil companies are interested in making money. (how terrible) But what you don't get is that they would be just as happy selling you a tank full of hydrogen as they would be selling you a tank of gas. They don't care where they get their profits.

"Yes we can. We aren't doing it because our government is more pro-oil than pro-green. It's slowly catching on, but not nearly fast enough."

Sigh....

So if you were king around here how long would it take you to convert each and every car, truck, bus, plane, and train to a "green" alternative?

"and while it would be wise for them to switch over like Kodak did with film, they would no longer be making their tens of billions of dollars in profit. "

1. You say that you don't want them to get into alternatives.

2. IF they did get into alternatives and start supplying all of us with the fuels that we need (whatever that would be) they would (guess what) make a profit and most likely a large profit.
 
Displayed 50 of 2656 comments

First | « | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report