Wanting to delete, but don't know how.

[Evil Eye]

...

 

[Crooked Crow]

Evil Eye, are you located in Alberta?

 

[Evil Eye]

Negativ e.

 

[Crooked Crow]

Sorry, I was just curious. The last time I checked, Yoshi was located in Calgary.

Anyways, I'm out.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well, as you know, having everything fair and equal is called socialism. As the U.S.S.R. taught us, that system isn't infallible.

The U.S.S.R. was not a socialist state in any real sense. Rather, it was a corrupt communist dictatorship. Furthermore, most of us aren't going for complete equality, but rather simply for a little more fairness. Socialism/Capitalism is not a binary scale.

 

[Lord Chair]

People still implying economical problems are caused by an inherently faulty system rather than the stupidity of mankind.

 

[-Jumpman-]

People still implying economical problems are caused by an inherently faulty system rather than the stupidity of mankind.

Would you argue stupidity of mandkind is not a result of the system?

 

[Flayl]

You have to keep stupidity in mind when designing a system. There's no method to a stupid-proof system, but it can be attenuated.

Much like how vendors don't (completely) screw you over for fear of being sued, instead of using an honor-bound system which would never work.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Dare to say that the system was a result of design?

 

[Flayl]

I don't understand what you're asking, are you asking if socialism/capitalism are results of design? If so I'd say yes, governments took the local anarchic or city-independent economy and designed their structure from there in the age of kings, with modifications over the ages from their successors of course.

Easiest example would be tributes to pay for roads

 

[-Jumpman-]

I don't understand what you're asking, are you asking if socialism/capitalism are results of design? If so I'd say yes, governments took the local anarchic or city-independent economy and designed their structure from there in the age of kings, with modifications over the ages from their successors of course.

Easiest example would be tributes to pay for roads

Thing is, adding some stuff to the system doesn't make the entire system designed, merely a result of additions. So saying the system is in itself designed by humans, and therefore a result a human stupidity is kinda bold.

 

[Flayl]

The systems weren't results of human stupidity, they're designed so that the leaders hope you don't do something stupid, to varying degrees of success.

If I take a mine which has nothing but independent resource-seekers with their own pickaxes and sacks, and hire them and build a mine cart system I'm designing and adding on to the mining system already in place. Designing doesn't mean you create something from nothing.

 

[-Jumpman-]

******, start reading. My point is that the systems weren't designed in the first place, they're a result of decisions taken in the past with centuries between them.

 

[Flayl]

I know what your point is even if you phrased it poorly. I disagreed.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I know what your point is even if you phrased it poorly. I disagreed.

I didn't phrase it poorly, plus you merely used a strawman. But that's nice.

 

[Flayl]

So saying the system is in itself designed by humans, and therefore a result a human stupidity is kinda bold.

Also, do you know what a strawman is? Because I didn't use any.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Left America.

Not going back.

Jumpman is right.

BTW, countries like Canada, Sweden, and Norway are not "socialist" at all, they are mixed market systems with elements of capitalism and socialism.

Americans don't understand how capitalism works well enough. I'm all for reaping the benefits of your own success but I don't believe in leaving everyone else behind as these few inhale every last remaining cent for themselves. Capitalism without certain regulations and checks will always, ultimately lead to this.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Also, do you know what a strawman is? Because I didn't use any.

I do, but the fact that can't recognize it is funny.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I do, but the fact that can't recognize it is funny.

O.o

Are you talking about the "taking human stupidity into account" comment, Jumpman?

That's not really a strawman.

Beyond that, I agree with you. Although you could say that those decisions made over the course of history are an improvement of an already established design.

Smooth Criminal

 

[FoxBlaze71]

The U.S.S.R. was not a socialist state in any real sense. Rather, it was a corrupt communist dictatorship. Furthermore, most of us aren't going for complete equality, but rather simply for a little more fairness. Socialism/Capitalism is not a binary scale.

Communism is a revolutionary, classless, corrupt ( I agree on this ) form of socialism.

And how do you personally define "fairness"?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Communism is a revolutionary, classless, corrupt ( I agree on this ) form of socialism.

And even that really barely describes the USSR.

And how do you personally define "fairness"?

Well, it's one of those things that are easy to give examples for, but hard to clearly define. Better income equality, better chances for those the system left behind, etc.

 

[FoxBlaze71]

Socialism in full form creates a 99 percent society ( the 1 percent is the government hierarchy ).

And " the system leaves people behind"?

In America, you go through tax payed public schools and can get full scholarships to colleges through good grades/athletics. Failing is just an option.

An idealistic society would have both capitalist and socialist concepts in its government to check and balance each other, so neither goes too extreme in capitalism ( America ) or too extreme in socialism ( several Euro countries. )

 

[Smooth Criminal]

In America, you go through tax payed public schools and can get full scholarships to colleges through good grades/athletics. Failing is just an option.

In bold.

PFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind

Oh, hey. Look at that! "Failure" is kind of a misnomer.

Let's try the option of "let's push these kids through the public education system so that our school doesn't receive demerits potentially decreasing our standings and our federal funding!" I think that's a little more fitting. True "failure" only comes from abstaining from school entirely, or from collegiate-level schools where ****ing up is going to cost you a lot of your money.

Also, what in the hell makes you think that schools aren't tax-paid elsewhere...?

Smooth Criminal

 

[FoxBlaze71]

With such low standards in our public schools, you have to be a ****** to end up on the streets.

Plus, its almost impossible to become piss poor in our welfare-fueled country.

And third world countries often don't have true schools, but most of them are too war-torn to be viable for school systems anyway.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

With such low standards in our public schools, you have to be a ****** to end up on the streets.

Or be a complete ****** getting pushed through the whole damn system, which is only marginally better.

Plus, its almost impossible to become piss poor in our welfare-fueled country.

I don't know why you even bothered to mention this. Not all people on welfare live like kings, bro. It is a luxury in the loosest sense of the word (as in, we're lucky that we even have such a program in place) but it's not at all as grand as it sounds.

Smooth Criminal

 

[FoxBlaze71]

People on welfare don't live like kings, but they're far from total poverty.

 

[Evil Eye]

I don't think you have an even vague grasp of the way the world works.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

People on welfare don't live like kings, but they're far from total poverty.

That is (kind of) true...but it's still not anywhere comparable to what the non-dependent middle-class can afford.

(So many ****ing edits.)

But I'm still wondering why you're harping on this. ._.

Edit: Was that directed at me, EE?



Smooth Criminal

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Socialism in full form creates a 99 percent society ( the 1 percent is the government hierarchy ).

Not in theory. In reality, sure. But keep in mind that we're talking about socialism in theory. In practice, pure socialism is doomed to horrible, horrible failure.

And " the system leaves people behind"?

In America, you go through tax payed public schools and can get full scholarships to colleges through good grades/athletics. Failing is just an option.

But... Now college degrees don't mean anything any more. They're virtually the basic requirement for anything upscale of a McJob (i.e. anything other than working at a fast food restaurant part-time). This is part of what the OWS movement is bickering about – they have their degrees, and now they're worthless and they can't get jobs with them. You can work your *** off and fail.

An idealistic society would have both capitalist and socialist concepts in its government to check and balance each other, so neither goes too extreme in capitalism ( America ) or too extreme in socialism ( several Euro countries. )

...Which ones?

 

[Evil Eye]

nah smoothie wasn't talkin to you

 

[FoxBlaze71]

But... Now college degrees don't mean anything any more. They're virtually the basic requirement for anything upscale of a McJob (i.e. anything other than working at a fast food restaurant part-time). This is part of what the OWS movement is bickering about – they have their degrees, and now they're worthless and they can't get jobs with them. You can work your *** off and fail.

Working more than one job can help, though. McJobs are often much more flexible than a degree mandating job.

We will always have work to be done, no matter how degrading/stupid it is.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Working more than one job can help, though. McJobs are often much more flexible than a degree mandating job.

...

*facepalms.*

You're completely missing the point of everything BPC just said.

No.

Just flatass no. Why should you have to commit to two (or more) underpaying, unsatisfactory jobs when you are qualified to do one job that more than likely pays more and is something you probably spent money from other McJobs to train for...? It's impractical.

Flexibility? Ha! Sure you can work two part-time McJobs that'll net you twenty hours a piece and maybe some sort of benefits package from one of them, but I will ****ing set my watch and warrant on the fact that you will not be making as much as somebody who wields a degree. Hell, if we're going to go off of where I live (Florida) and how much I make as a ****ing full-time cashier, I'll even go out on a limb and say that you won't even make more than me in a week working two part-time jobs. Nowhere near it.

Good luck trying to go full-time at two McJobs, too. Some places won't even allow you to moonlight similar jobs or even work at other jobs at all, expecting a full-fledged commitment out of you that'll be enforced contractually or verbally. Those that do manage to pull it off still have to contend with working so much to gain so little in comparison to those that have degree-backed careers.

So, yeah. No.

Smooth Criminal

 

[FoxBlaze71]

Probably because you can't FIND a degree mandating job thanks to the ****ty economy.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Probably because you can't FIND a degree mandating job thanks to the ****ty economy.

Positions are always available. If you look at a career site for any major bank and|or industry you can definitely see that there are openings. You may not necessarily be the best contender, but it's a competitive market and it depends on how you sell yourself. Ironically the best opportunities lie in the city where the occupy movements are taking place. I can attest that jobs are open. It's just that the openings are stiff and you need to be on top of things.

 

[FoxBlaze71]

The problem is, there will be probably a few other hundred douchebags fighting for the same job.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The problem is, there will be probably a few other hundred douchebags fighting for the same job.

Life is always competitive. You study in order to get better grades than your classmates. You do activities to indicate that you're more well rounded or have more specialized talents then your peers. In the end you graduate and you attempt to find employment among a pool of applicants. It is ridiculous to expect that there is a job that will specifically cater to you just because you want it. Much like it's ridiculous to assume that good grades will be given or you would receive prestige for simply being mediocre at a given sport or instrument. Jobs are earned and should not be mistaken for an intrinsic human right.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Positions are always available. If you look at a career site for any major bank and|or industry you can definitely see that there are openings. You may not necessarily be the best contender, but it's a competitive market and it depends on how you sell yourself. Ironically the best opportunities lie in the city where the occupy movements are taking place. I can attest that jobs are open. It's just that the openings are stiff and you need to be on top of things.

There's a difference between being unemployed and being under-employed.

I get what you're saying here, Acrostic, but there are a lot of people out there that have degrees (marketable ones, too) and they can't do anything with them. There are just too few openings to hand out, or there are no openings at all. "Keeping on top of things" will ensure your place in a seemingly infinite queue nowadays. It is better than nothing, I'll agree with you there.

High-end positions have always been cutthroat and exclusive to those who meet very specific qualifications, but what about the middling tiers and below? I don't think it's always been this stiff, man. I think there was a time when obtaining those kinds of jobs was markedly easier. That's all I'm saying.

I do not disagree with you on the merit of working hard and being better than the next guy in order to obtain a position, btw. (Quick edit.)

Smooth Criminal

 

[FoxBlaze71]

Life is always competitive. You study in order to get better grades than your classmates. You do activities to indicate that you're more well rounded or have more specialized talents then your peers. In the end you graduate and you attempt to find employment among a pool of applicants. It is ridiculous to expect that there is a job that will specifically cater to you just because you want it. Much like it's ridiculous to assume that good grades will be given or you would receive prestige for simply being mediocre at a given sport or instrument. Jobs are earned and should not be mistaken for an intrinsic human right.

I understand, but in a crappy economy you chances are far weaker and you have to show yourself as an intelligent, industrious person if you want to even come close to the job.

 

[Toronto Joe]

ive tried my best to follow the occupy movement, the amount of people on facebook/twitter etc that take part in it to gain status likes and cool hashtags i find is really annoying almost so much to the point where the message becomes so dilluted to **** that the whole thing seems like a waste of time,that pertains to nothing but i felt the need to vent about it haha

atleast something is being tried,there seems to be a genuine intent behind it so i support the informed participants in it.. though im sure we can all agree that nothing will come of it...i wish i had been born in ancient greece..

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

There's a difference between being unemployed and being under-employed.

I get what you're saying here, Acrostic, but there are a lot of people out there that have degrees (marketable ones, too) and they can't do anything with them. There are just too few openings to hand out, or there are no openings at all. "Keeping on top of things" will ensure your place in a seemingly infinite queue nowadays. It is better than nothing, I'll agree with you there.

High-end positions have always been cutthroat and exclusive to those who meet very specific qualifications, but what about the middling tiers and below? I don't think it's always been this stiff, man. I think there was a time when obtaining those kinds of jobs was markedly easier. That's all I'm saying.

I do not disagree with you on the merit of working hard and being better than the next guy in order to obtain a position, btw. (Quick edit.)

Smooth Criminal

IIRC, there's also a marked difference in the number of people successfully obtaining degrees.