Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do think it's a bit immature to blame Bush or even Obama (ah crap, now I'm defending the guy) for the current economic situation. Iraq war did not help but this country has been declining economically since even before Bush Sr.

We are a country of disposables. For those who can afford it (or who can't) everything is disposable. Buy a new car and in 2 or 3 years when something goes wrong you buy another instead of fixing the old because nobody wants a 3yo car (facepalm). Buy new furniture and replace it in 2-3 years (or sooner depending on kids/pets). Buy new clothes and in 6-9 months Hollywood and fashion mags say they are out of style so buy new and throw out the old. Cell phones are for the most part a dime a dozen. I know people who go through 3 or 4 cell phones a year, either due to being careless or just wanting the next newest thing. My ex gf was like that. She went through 4 cell phones in 6 months.

So as much as it sickens me to do so I don't blame Obama for the economic situation. I do blame him for worrying about a socialist health care policy, war in Afghanistan and bank bailouts and making those priorities OVER helping the economy. The stimulus plan was a joke.

Ugh, now I think I'll go vomit in the corner.

We are a country of disposables. For those who can afford it (or who can't) everything is disposable. Buy a new car and in 2 or 3 years when something goes wrong you buy another instead of fixing the old because nobody wants a 3yo car (facepalm). Buy new furniture and replace it in 2-3 years (or sooner depending on kids/pets). Buy new clothes and in 6-9 months Hollywood and fashion mags say they are out of style so buy new and throw out the old. Cell phones are for the most part a dime a dozen. I know people who go through 3 or 4 cell phones a year, either due to being careless or just wanting the next newest thing. My ex gf was like that. She went through 4 cell phones in 6 months.

Yes, thats how the consumer economic model works. Thats what MAKES it work. You should probably take a few macro econ classes before you begin to tear down the concept of disposable consumption, you're sounding pretty damn communist right there.

So as much as it sickens me to do so I don't blame Obama for the economic situation. I do blame him for worrying about a socialist health care policy, war in Afghanistan and bank bailouts and making those priorities OVER helping the economy. The stimulus plan was a joke.

You do realize the bank bailouts were directly related to keeping the economy from totally collapsing right? Or do you think that the consumer economic model you hate so much would survive having peoples ATMs empty?

As for the rest of it, would you like to explain why? Why was the stimulous a joke? How can you blame him for paying attention to a resurgent taliban in afghanistan?




This is a perfect example of why the opinion polls are low. Americans by in large are undereducated, reactionary, and expect immediate results for longterm problems. Obama rode in on a high wave of enthusiasm, and while he's done a fairly good job so far he hasn't fixed the entire world yet in his first year. Did you ever see the video of the fat guy that had to wait to get his chicken sandwich in macdonalds? He started shouting, cussing, screaming, and repeatedly mentioning that he wanted his chicken. It was a funny video, he made quite a scene.

Thats America. The impatient, self entitled, fat dude. Except the video isn't as funny.

I'll accept Cynicism over Hyperbole.

Are Americans willing to work hard? I'm starting to question it more. We're really spoiled, and do look like the land of plenty relative to a *lot* of places.
I percieve that we're very reluctant to sacrifice on the short term for a long term gain. Immediate gratification is practically part of the cultural identity. Its nearly deified in out gadgets, music, and entertainment. Its a hard addiction to break.

I'll confess to the luxury of a perverse position in our economy - a highschool dropout earning more than the Maryland median household income performing a skilled white collar job function (telecommunications infrastructure). Dakkaites seem relatively affluent in general though. My co workers are like everyone else - they want more luxuries and to expend less to do so. They are also between ten and thirty years older than I am. (This says so much about phone companies!)

I am unconvinced that Management is the parent of our issues, as my union experience suggests that the Union is as intractable in its proclaimed defense of 'the proletariat'. I continue to suspect our people are still generally fat dumb and happy, and content to fight over the scraps of a few hours of work kept in their pocket rather than contributing to the society at large. (I'm also a fan of flat taxes, but that's neither here nor there.) The perception that a day's wage might go to someone else is anathema to us culturally when we do not see immediate returns. "What's in it for me?" compounds with a cultural distrust of government.

Our young have heard promises of wealth in x job for so long we've lost sight that some experience is critical to that goal. We want it all. Now. We want a 'pay curve' to reflect our self image rather than effort. I doubt anyone gets paid what they think they're worth.

Is Germany also an impatient, self entitled, fat dude?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes, thats how the consumer economic model works. Thats what MAKES it work. You should probably take a few macro econ classes before you begin to tear down the concept of disposable consumption, you're sounding pretty damn communist right there.

He's sounding like someone who thinks that the rubbish being made these days in the third world and China that lasts a couple of years (if lucky) then falls apart, so you can buy more rubbish quality replacements is pretty lame.

The loss of the ability to make something that works and lasts for ages is almost lost, however the fast pace of technological change, especially in electronics makes it not feasable.

No communism, just annoyance.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Is Germany also an impatient, self entitled, fat dude?

Apparently the U.S. is full of people that are fatter, more impatient, and more self entitled, than ANY OTHER NATION.

What a freaking crock; at what point does asking for a goddam well made meal, become unalterably evil?

This is fail, fething fething fail, laced with apathy and lack of patience. Fat man asks for a burger well done, and the U.S. is ending? Take your goddam medication.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Apparently the U.S. is full of people that are fatter, more impatient, and more self entitled, than ANY OTHER NATION.

We don't have to be the fattest, most impatient, and self-entitled nation to be a fat, impatient, and self-entitled nation.

I may not be particularly fat, but I'm certainly impatient, and frequently catch myself behaving in a way which indicates a sense of entitlement (its almost required by expectation when trying to crack an industry).

That said, this isn't a condition limited to those seeking employment. Most corporations that I have experience with tend to be exceedingly risk-averse with respect to hiring. That's why you get 'entry level' positions that require 5 years of industry experience, and internships that require the intern to pay for his time at the office.

We don't have to be the fattest, most impatient, and self-entitled nation to be a fat, impatient, and self-entitled nation.

To be considered substantially more than others... yes, yes we do indeed.

I may not be particularly fat, but I'm certainly impatient, and frequently catch myself behaving in a way which indicates a sense of entitlement (its almost required by expectation when trying to crack an industry).

Anecdotal, good times at Taco Bell though Eh? To be clear, we should separate the difference, clearly, from tacos, and recreated markets.

That said, this isn't a condition limited to those seeking employment. Most corporations that I have experience with tend to be exceedingly risk-averse with respect to hiring. That's why you get 'entry level' positions that require 5 years of industry experience, and internships that require the intern to pay for his time at the office.

So all corporate positions affiliated with perpetuating such a demeanor, as to present the obvious circumstances that can be directly attributed to the U.S.'s neck biting attitude, along with our burger snuggling sub-conscious? Sure... why not.

I am not a Vampire, I am a freaking Goliath, who happens to snack on your blood... occasionally. Just on occasion though. I concur too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

We are a country of disposables. For those who can afford it (or who can't) everything is disposable. Buy a new car and in 2 or 3 years when something goes wrong you buy another instead of fixing the old because nobody wants a 3yo car (facepalm). Buy new furniture and replace it in 2-3 years (or sooner depending on kids/pets). Buy new clothes and in 6-9 months Hollywood and fashion mags say they are out of style so buy new and throw out the old. Cell phones are for the most part a dime a dozen. I know people who go through 3 or 4 cell phones a year, either due to being careless or just wanting the next newest thing. My ex gf was like that. She went through 4 cell phones in 6 months.

Yes, thats how the consumer economic model works. Thats what MAKES it work. You should probably take a few macro econ classes before you begin to tear down the concept of disposable consumption, you're sounding pretty damn communist right there.

So as much as it sickens me to do so I don't blame Obama for the economic situation. I do blame him for worrying about a socialist health care policy, war in Afghanistan and bank bailouts and making those priorities OVER helping the economy. The stimulus plan was a joke.

You do realize the bank bailouts were directly related to keeping the economy from totally collapsing right? Or do you think that the consumer economic model you hate so much would survive having peoples ATMs empty?

As for the rest of it, would you like to explain why? Why was the stimulous a joke? How can you blame him for paying attention to a resurgent taliban in afghanistan?




This is a perfect example of why the opinion polls are low. Americans by in large are undereducated, reactionary, and expect immediate results for longterm problems. Obama rode in on a high wave of enthusiasm, and while he's done a fairly good job so far he hasn't fixed the entire world yet in his first year. Did you ever see the video of the fat guy that had to wait to get his chicken sandwich in macdonalds? He started shouting, cussing, screaming, and repeatedly mentioning that he wanted his chicken. It was a funny video, he made quite a scene.

Thats America. The impatient, self entitled, fat dude. Except the video isn't as funny.

Way to miss the fething point. The economic model is fethed up if it means waste. The rest of the world gets along just fine and I bet they are less wasteful than we are. It does not take someone buying 6 cell phones per year to make the economy grow. 20 years ago people hung onto luxuries for more than 3-4 months because they weren't easy to get and the economy did not suffer. The cell phone equivalent 20 years ago was probably the boom box. I don't recall any of my friends going through 6 boom boxes in one year.

I'm uneducated in the fact I don't get into economics or politics or ass kissing of immigrants and the organizations that do. My education lies in knowing how to fix a car, build a computer from the ground up and firearms and military tactics. My education may not be as glamorous as some of you soapbox speakers who think because you have an economics degree you somehow can justify that America being wasteful is alright.

As to saying that stuff made now lasts 2-3 years at most being the reason people replace it 2-3 years is putting words in my mouth. In no way, shape or form did I say gak lasts only 2-3 years so it is replaced that often. It is replaced that often because we as a society are wasteful and don't give a gak and just want the latest and newest technologies. My computer is 6 years old, my car is 11 years old, my stereo is 15 years old and you know what? They still work and I have no desire to replace them just yet. Well, computer is the first of those things to get replaced because for me a 6yo computer does not do what I want it to do but it's going to my father who CAN use it so it's not being entirely wasted.

So to some I may appear to be an uneducated dumbass Minnesota hick but if being smart means having a degree in economics or poli-science or some other such BS field of study than you go on thinking you are smarter than me. You might know the ins and outs of American spending habits but you are also the moron who has to pay some guy $80/hour to fix your car when I can do all the work myself and just have to pay for parts. You pay $500 in labor to replace a transmission. I pay $0. So who's the dumbass now? LOL.

For the last time nobody who is out of a job and being forced to live on welfare gives a damn about resurgence of taliban in Afghanistan. That is why Obama is unpopular. He is focusing on the wrong stuff. Fix the damn country first.

Follow along so I don't have to repeat myself. A PRESIDENT WHO ACTUALLY CARED MORE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY THAN PLEASING THE U.N OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN ENTITY WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM WITHIN OUR BORDERS, NOT WITHOUT. I capitalized it so you can read.

So again, nice attack on my character and painting me as a moron who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Wrexasaur wrote:
To be considered substantially more than others... yes, yes we do indeed.

Not even in that instance. We simply need to be fatter, more impatient, and more self-entitled than 51% of the nations on the planet.

Obviously the latter two categories are difficult to quantify, but we are demonstrably the fattest nation in the world.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Anecdotal, good times at Taco Bell though Eh? To be clear, we should separate the difference, clearly, from tacos, and recreated markets.

Of course its anecdotal, I'm not attempting to prove anything. I'm simply making an observation based on my lifelong interaction with US culture.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the 'recreated markets' part.

Wrexasaur wrote:
So all corporate positions affiliated with perpetuating such a demeanor, as to present the obvious circumstances that can be directly attributed to the U.S.'s neck biting attitude, along with our burger snuggling sub-conscious? Sure... why not.

I am not a Vampire, I am a freaking Goliath, who happens to snack on your blood... occasionally. Just on occasion though. I concur too.

You can't simply look at it as a matter of corporation vs. people though. It isn't as though people join an HR department and become Morlocks. They're still human, and they still interact with, and help to define, the culture in which they live.

Fateweaver wrote:Follow along so I don't have to repeat myself. A PRESIDENT WHO ACTUALLY CARED MORE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY THAN PLEASING THE U.N OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN ENTITY WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM WITHIN OUR BORDERS, NOT WITHOUT. I capitalized it so you can read.

Okay, the majority of the things you mentioned, are simply not wasted. In fact, we are in an age of recycling, that has never been seen before. You might be able to present some sort of fact, addressing that we are producing a larger portion of goods per capita, but that has little reflection the fact that we are also, recycling more than ever before.

Give Wrex a bulldozer, a crew, and a dump. You get stuff... now think about that in the perspective that you are approaching this from. I, and a considerably small crew, can create goods, and services out of refuse; beyond any rational rate expected in the last 50 years.

dogma wrote:

Not even in that instance. We simply need to be fatter, more impatient, and more self-entitled than 51% of the nations on the planet.

Obviously the latter two categories are difficult to quantify, but we are demonstrably the fattest nation in the world.

!/3 to Dogma, I win. I won't even go into disputing evidence.

Wrexasaur wrote:
So all corporate positions affiliated with perpetuating such a demeanor, as to present the obvious circumstances that can be directly attributed to the U.S.'s neck biting attitude, along with our burger snuggling sub-conscious? Sure... why not.

I am not a Vampire, I am a freaking Goliath, who happens to snack on your blood... occasionally. Just on occasion though. I concur too.

You can't simply look at it as a matter of corporation vs. people though. It isn't as though people join an HR department and become Morlocks. They're still human, and they still interact with, and help to define, the culture in which they live.

You are as human as I identify with you. No more, and no less. You are a rock, in a pile of rocks, and you mean diddly squat to me on a personal/moral level. Yeah anyway though. Large companies exist to drain from people, no more, and no more goddam less. If it happens to matter to me that I was not affected by strange and realistically moral decisions, but my neighbors, and family were... who gives a damn though, who really freaking cares?

Not that company, probably not that government, even they both try very hard to appear to do so. Very hard.

It is waste when you don't use something for it's full life. Just because you can recycle a cell phone (and think about how many people actually take an old cell phone in to get recycled, rather than just throwing it in the garbage) does not mean a person needs a new one just because they get bored with it or whatnot.

Waste is waste, it doesn't matter if it CAN be recycled. Question is, are people recycling? Some due but I'm sure most don't. What happens if you get pissed at your cell phone and throw it out your car window at 65? It's not going to get recycled laying in 100 pieces alongside the interstate or highway, now is it?

Fateweaver wrote:It is waste when you don't use something for it's full life. Just because you can recycle a cell phone (and think about how many people actually take an old cell phone in to get recycled, rather than just throwing it in the garbage) does not mean a person needs a new one just because they get bored with it or whatnot.

Waste is waste, it doesn't matter if it CAN be recycled. Question is, are people recycling? Some due but I'm sure most don't. What happens if you get pissed at your cell phone and throw it out your car window at 65? It's not going to get recycled laying in 100 pieces alongside the interstate or highway, now is it?

The answer is yes, they are, and we (along with the rest of the world) have created entirely new practical economies in china, due to that simple fact. If you do not recycle it, you are a minor contributor to the problem facing the entire planet, and they are the savior... I am seriously not going to have this conversation though...

Fateweaver wrote:
I'm uneducated in the fact I don't get into economics or politics or ass kissing of immigrants and the organizations that do. My education lies in knowing how to fix a car, build a computer from the ground up and firearms and military tactics. My education may not be as glamorous as some of you soapbox speakers who think because you have an economics degree you somehow can justify that America being wasteful is alright.

Its not because any given person might have an economics degree, its because that's how the economy works. If everyone buys less, then everyone also earns less. At least until the entire economy readjusts downwards in order to account for the upsurge in poverty. At which point everyone is still probably earning less in gross terms, but might be earning the same amount in terms of purchasing power (unlikely, due to global demand curves).

Fateweaver wrote:
For the last time nobody who is out of a job and being forced to live on welfare gives a damn about resurgence of taliban in Afghanistan. That is why Obama is unpopular. He is focusing on the wrong stuff. Fix the damn country first.

It doesn't work that way. Unless you want Obama to start spending more money on stimulus/tax cuts, there simply isn't anything to be done beyond wait.

Fateweaver wrote:
So again, nice attack on my character and painting me as a moron who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

He didn't say you're a moron, he said you don't know what you're talking about. These are distinctly different criticisms. In fact you admitted to the latter one earlier in that post. Its not the end of the world. It isn't like you can't do some research, and learn something.

It's not like you can't stop painting with me a broad paintbrush dogma. You like to attack my character as well. I have no desire to learn how economy works.

Again, America did fine 20 years ago being a lot less wasteful than it is now so tell me again how buying 15 cellphones a year helps America. All I see it doing is helping the Chinese or Taiwanese or Japanese economies.

By your logic I shouldn't learn how to fix my car because paying some grease monkey $500 for 6 hours of labor is beneficial to me in the long run. That's essentially what I'd do if I bought 6 cell phones a year. Giving someone a job?

Wrexasaur wrote:

dogma wrote:
Not even in that instance. We simply need to be fatter, more impatient, and more self-entitled than 51% of the nations on the planet.

Obviously the latter two categories are difficult to quantify, but we are demonstrably the fattest nation in the world.

!/3 to Dogma, I win. I won't even go into disputing evidence.

To be perfectly accurate the comparison to other nations isn't necessarily relevant. All that needs to be established is that people in the US exhibit the traits of impatient, and self-entitlement, and that those traits individually, or in combination, contribute to the issues faced by our country.

Wrexasaur wrote:
You are as human as I identify with you. No more, and no less. You are a rock, in a pile of rocks, and you mean diddly squat to me on a personal/moral level.

The morality, or personal judgment, of the matter is irrelevant. Even if you have no attachment to another human, they are still human and will behave as such. The fact that humans don't identify with those other humans who exist outside a certain perceptual radius is simply a trait exhibited by the species.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Yeah anyway though. Large companies exist to drain from people, no more, and no more goddam less.

They exist to make money. The government exists to restrain that instinct in those instances where it isn't held in check by internal forces.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Not that company, probably not that government, even they both try very hard to appear to do so. Very hard.

I mean, the government cares, at least to the extent that living conditions are relevant to national power and stability (which turns out to be quite a lot). They certainly don't care about any given person, but that's not their role.

Fateweaver wrote:It's not like you can't stop painting with me a broad paintbrush dogma. You like to attack my character as well. I have no desire to learn how economy works.

Regardless of the fact that this information should have been provided to you, via your eduational insititution, I agree on an even plane with you. Being able to exist in this plane, without having to submit to rather circumstantial evidence, is very relevant to both of our federal rights.

Again, America did fine 20 years ago being a lot less wasteful than it is now so tell me again how buying 15 cellphones a year helps America. All I see it doing is helping the Chinese or Taiwanese or Japanese economies.

Period, and exlamation point, because, it freaking is. SOME people waste, most do not. If we could actually understand on a universal level, the kind of impact these decisions were having on use, most of these decisions being made, would not be made. People may be selfish, and practically evil to me, bu that cannot change the fact that we are in this whole giant boat, together.

By your logic I shouldn't learn how to fix my car because paying some grease monkey $500 for 6 hours of labor is beneficial to me in the long run. That's essentially what I'd do if I bought 6 cell phones a year. Giving someone a job?

By your logic, we are simply contributing to natural selection. This is the main reason that I have a problem with that obtuse attack. I, and you, are both fighting through this together, and if you do not believe me (along with the large commodity of participants you have), I hope you have the nightmare I have... and soon.

Me... you... and a freaking asteroid... who the feth wins?

Being wasteful is generally not a good thing. If someone is wasting their money, it means someone has produced a good/service that is being wasted. It would have been better for the person wasting their money to have spent it on something else, or to have not spent it on anything.

If everyone decides not to spend much money, they won't work as much either, and thus won't get as much money. Naturally, this is because there's little sense in working hard to produce a bunch of things that people don't really want to buy. A bad thing if you want everyone to have a lot of stuff (that they would buy with money), but not necessarily a bad thing if they'd rather kick back and relax with less stuff.

Alternatively, people could purchase just as much as they always do, and work just as much as they always have, and simply put more thought into their purchases (keeping some older stuff that still has value, etc), thus getting more utility out of the money they're spending. That's pretty much an upward move in any sense, but then you have to ask yourself "why are people wasting their money on new phones, when they could be buying stuff that's more useful to them?" It could be for multiple reasons, but one of them may simply be "they're not wasting their money, new phones really are what they desire".

Fateweaver wrote:It's not like you can't stop painting with me a broad paintbrush dogma. You like to attack my character as well. I have no desire to learn how economy works.

I'm not attacking your character now. I may have in the past, but I certainly don't remember doing so. I think you're confusing character with comments.

Fateweaver wrote:
Again, America did fine 20 years ago being a lot less wasteful than it is now so tell me again how buying 15 cellphones a year helps America. All I see it doing is helping the Chinese or Taiwanese or Japanese economies.

The phones are made abroad, but sold here. Every single person that's involved in the sales chain from the coast to the local Verizon is part of the US economy, and every cell phone purchased ensures they have jobs.

Also, 15 cell phones is hyperbole. Most people do not buy 15 cell phones in a year. Most people do not buy 4 cell phones in a year.

Fateweaver wrote:
By your logic I shouldn't learn how to fix my car because paying some grease monkey $500 for 6 hours of labor is beneficial to me in the long run. That's essentially what I'd do if I bought 6 cell phones a year. Giving someone a job?

If learning to fix your car is economically beneficial to you, then you should learn to fix your car. It wouldn't be economically beneficial to me, because the time spent learning to fix a car could be spent studying to pass something like a CPA exam, which would net me more money in the long run than doing my own car repairs.

Since we're playing hyperbole: If what we're chasing is material efficiency (there's also temporal efficiency) we should all live in huts, and hunt our own food. Next to no waste! I guess the last 8,000 years of human history were a mistake.

dogma wrote:To be perfectly accurate the comparison to other nations isn't necessarily relevant. All that needs to be established is that people in the US exhibit the traits of impatient, and self-entitlement, and that those traits individually, or in combination, contribute to the issues faced by our country.

That is all mate .

Wrexasaur wrote:
You are as human as I identify with you. No more, and no less. You are a rock, in a pile of rocks, and you mean diddly squat to me on a personal/moral level.

The morality, or personal judgment, of the matter is irrelevant. Even if you have no attachment to another human, they are still human and will behave as such. The fact that humans don't identify with those other humans who exist outside a certain perceptual radius is simply a trait exhibited by the species.

(editing messed this post up...)So... Cat lady doesn't care about anything but cats? How is that irrelevant, in a time where mass scamming is taking place? I am not trying to hyperbolize this, just add a bit of balance into the mix.... FFS... .

Wrexasaur wrote:
Yeah anyway though. Large companies exist to drain from people, no more, and no more goddam less.

They exist to make money. The government exists to restrain that instinct in those instances where it isn't held in check by internal forces.

Blood... money, who the feth can tell the difference? The government exists for a lot of reasons, none of which maintain inherent monopoly on said restraint. To be sure though, you do have a literal response to this, I am sure.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Not that company, probably not that government, even they both try very hard to appear to do so. Very hard.

I mean, the government cares, at least to the extent that living conditions are relevant to national power and stability (which turns out to be quite a lot). They certainly don't care about any given person, but that's not their role.

The government cares as long as it behaves as it should. Recently however, I could heavily debate that, but... I frankly do not care about anything besides my personal life right now... Is this circumstance? Fething no, at all, in any division, in any reality, no. I could blame this on a lot of things; but mainly, I would blaim my personal situation, directly on the government, due to incompetence in both administrations.

You can call me a statistic, I would prefer, to be called a non-partisan observer.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Alternatively, people could purchase just as much as they always do, and work just as much as they always have, and simply put more thought into their purchases (keeping some older stuff that still has value, etc), thus getting more utility out of the money they're spending. That's pretty much an upward move in any sense, but then you have to ask yourself "why are people wasting their money on new phones, when they could be buying stuff that's more useful to them?" It could be for multiple reasons, but one of them may simply be "they're not wasting their money, new phones really are what they desire".

This.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
So... Cat lady doesn't care about anything but cats? How is that irrelevant, in a time where mass scamming is taking place? I am not trying to hyperbolize this, just add a bit of balance into the mix.... FFS... .

The fact that she only cares about cats doesn't change the fact that something she doesn't care about is still a human, nor does it eliminate her humanity. Its not relevant because we were talking about human behavior in the American economy. At least that's what I thought we were talking about?

dogma wrote:The fact that she only cares about cats doesn't change the fact that something she doesn't care about is still a human, nor does it eliminate her humanity. Its not relevant because we were talking about human behavior in the American economy. At least that's what I thought we were talking about?

Yes we are, indeed.

The fact remains that the definition of human slides quite a bit, given various perspectives, and contextual evidence. You call it a banana, I call it a dozen wasted lives, what exactly is the difference there? A border?

You see economic growth, I see waste. We won't change our views on that. Someone buying a new cell phone every time Apple or Samsung or someone else comes out with a better one JUST to have the better one might contribute to the economy but they are also creating more waste meaning more cost to dispose of waste.

Disposing of waste costs money. If we produced 1/5th the waste we do that would reduce cost to dispose of waste by an equal amount (in theory) thereby cutting spending.

I didn't actually get a degree in computer building OR car repair, I learned over a period of 20 years watching my dad and bro work on cars, learned computer repair and building from a buddy of mine who owns a computer repair/custom build shop. I am working on my accounting degree now so that I know how to do 3 things that can score me cash. If I wanted to get ASE certified it is a 9mo course and could then have 2 degrees in less than 4 years. It is just beneficial to me right now knowing how to do most simple car work (though transmission isn't exactly simple but I can do it).

Fateweaver wrote:You see economic growth, I see waste. We won't change our views on that. Someone buying a new cell phone every time Apple or Samsung or someone else comes out with a better one JUST to have the better one might contribute to the economy but they are also creating more waste meaning more cost to dispose of waste.

Disposing of waste does cost money, but overall it costs potential investment. You know who is winning this fight? China is, fething period.

Beyond this, and to cut through the minor hyperbole, I would be surprised if even 1/10 (rather 1/100) threw out their new phones multiple times a year. Some people do, most people do not. Give me a fething job, recycling this snap already...

I didn't actually get a degree in computer building OR car repair, I learned over a period of 20 years watching my dad and bro work on cars, learned computer repair and building from a buddy of mine who owns a computer repair/custom build shop. I am working on my accounting degree now so that I know how to do 3 things that can score me cash. If I wanted to get ASE certified it is a 9mo course and could then have 2 degrees in less than 4 years. It is just beneficial to me right now knowing how to do most simple car work (though transmission isn't exactly simple but I can do it).

You and those other thousands of people buddy, hundreds of thousands of people... but yes, we suck, and we should just suck it up.

But no, that is not how "free enterprise" works. If you fail, you fail hard, and enjoy your plummeting BTW.

Wrexasaur wrote:
The fact remains that the definition of human slides quite a bit, given various perspectives, and contextual evidence. You call it a banana, I call it a dozen wasted lives, what exactly is the difference there? A border?

Meaning. I'm using the word 'human' to indicate the species. The colloquial usage tends to be more akin to a moral imperative: ie. people who engage in activity X are not human simply means that humans should not engage in activity X. The colloquial meaning varies, but the technical meaning doesn't (except in really abstract discussion of genetics).

dogma wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
The fact remains that the definition of human slides quite a bit, given various perspectives, and contextual evidence. You call it a banana, I call it a dozen wasted lives, what exactly is the difference there? A border?

Meaning. I'm using the word 'human' to indicate the species. The colloquial usage tends to be more akin to a moral imperative: ie. people who engage in activity X are not human simply means that humans should not engage in activity X. The colloquial meaning varies, but the technical meaning doesn't (except in really abstract discussion of genetics).

Okay, two directions at once, let's do this...

Opt A.) Humans are humans, and humans are not but humans, when being viewed through the eyes of other humans.

Opt B.) Humans are just animals competing, through various means, to the exact same goals that other living being are; involving, of course, domination, and self-replication.

To be fair though, I do not blame the people responsible for any of the problems that I face (note that I did not mention a mountain, I mentioned people), I just replace the lack of proper relevance they place upon me, directly unto them. They are rocks, as I am a rock, in this pile of rocks, and the fact that they are higher in that pile of rock; speaks only to the assumption that they play a greater role in falling faster, and potentially farther.

But a rock to a rock, is not more than a human makes it.

To be clear, specify the specific type of human (unless you are directly inferring that all human is equal, disregarding common stereotypes) you are indicating, or are you referring the the species as that of a dog. I am. We are dogs, but you (not dogma) can react however you like to that statement. I am a goddam banana, and I have a fething apple pie grenade, welcome to hell... diggity dog.

Wrexasaur wrote:
But a rock to a rock, is not more than a human makes it.

Essentially, yeah. Humans play a lot of games to differentiate themselves from one another, and often that gets confused with the physical (and behavioral) similarities we all share.

dogma wrote:Essentially, yeah. Humans play a lot of games to differentiate themselves from one another, and often that gets confused with the physical (and behavioral) similarities we all share.

Humans do play a lot of games, and they exponentially succeed at no longer being human, reconciling the historical differences (contextual), of course.

We play so many games in fact, that it is hard to tell what is actually true. If we can define what we are directly through science, why is it so hard to implement the understanding "universally". Meh... I don't really want to know....

CHAAAAAARGE!!!

I'm uneducated in the fact I don't get into economics or politics or ass kissing of immigrants and the organizations that do. My education lies in knowing how to fix a car, build a computer from the ground up and firearms and military tactics. My education may not be as glamorous as some of you soapbox speakers who think because you have an economics degree you somehow can justify that America being wasteful is alright.

Don't worry, I read down the rest of the thread before posting this. I really just have one thing to say in this instance though. If you don't know what you're talking about. If you have no education in the field, and if you don't even want to because it's somehow offensive to you, despite you not knowing what it is thats offensive, then don't ever speak about it. Because you don't know anything about what you're saying. Do you want me telling you how to fix your car? No? Then stop posting about the economy, because you have no good advice to give. It's likely why half of your posts are hyperbole ridden rants when anything about obama or the economy shows up.

You see economic growth, I see waste. We won't change our views on that. Someone buying a new cell phone every time Apple or Samsung or someone else comes out with a better one JUST to have the better one might contribute to the economy but they are also creating more waste meaning more cost to dispose of waste.

Waste disposal is such a ludicrously small margin of of the economic issue that it's not even worth talking about. If you want to talk about waste as in the aggregate use of natural resources then fine. We're using up a lot of oil and lithium very quickly, but the cellphone market is hardly a commanding part of that, and it's hardly difficult to recycle and dispose of circuit boards and some metals.

I didn't actually get a degree in computer building OR car repair, I learned over a period of 20 years watching my dad and bro work on cars, learned computer repair and building from a buddy of mine who owns a computer repair/custom build shop. I am working on my accounting degree now so that I know how to do 3 things that can score me cash. If I wanted to get ASE certified it is a 9mo course and could then have 2 degrees in less than 4 years. It is just beneficial to me right now knowing how to do most simple car work (though transmission isn't exactly simple but I can do it).

I have a new media degree, meaning I can basically tell you the social ramifications of youtube and how it works. I'm going for a more advanced version of it so I can tell you how facebook works and how it will effect your ad campaigns. I'm getting a digital arts minor so I can make your website, your advertisement, shoot your video, and then know where on the internet to put it for maximum effect because It's good to have multiple interlacing skills.

I learned about economics by taking one class, reading an hour of the news every day, and reading a few books. Its not hard to learn things, economics are not particularly complicated, they are by in large a science of simple observation. Don't play ignorance if you want to shout your opinions from a pulpit, it's not hard to learn these things and they are valuable to know.

You can't deny that the US not only wastes more then any other country in the world, but that our economy is almost completely abstract. Our industrial capacity is pretty much done for, we don't export nearly as much as we should, and we are falling further and further in to debt. Basic economics indicates that this is not a wise road to take. You are right Shuma, we are in a consumerist model for our economy, but you are wrong in not pointing out that it is a poor model at best, or a dangerous one at worst.If you think that he was using the purchase of cellphones as the cause of waste then you are either willfully ignoring his use of one example in order to put him down or you are naive. He makes an excellent point about waste and how people don't save money or value what they have, and that should have been acknowledged....