The anthropic principle, evolution and economics.

LOL.

Words you should heed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, what do you know? You really aren't smart enough to know better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*sniffle*

You're no hater T. Keep saying it to yourself.

EDIT:

Do you think that if you're were actually as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you'd realize that being "smarter" doesn't correlate to being pertinent, right or a decent human.

Maybe I misread you. I'll give you a shot: Know better than what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Than to be a pretentious piece of shit seeking to start yet another cheap fight.

Given how upset you get when picking these fights with me, I just don't see why you would want to put yourself through it again.

 

So let me get this straight.

You, in a rant of self-important distraction from pertinence, tell gendanken to "get over herself, princess". I see you for the hypocritical, obvious retard that you are and shove your nose in it... and when shoved up your cunt that seems like "I picked a fight with you"... to you?

LOL. Man you are the most moronic potentially smart guy I've ever met.












You've got issues, son.

LOL.

You're so intelligent T, why don't you see it? Why don't you see that the idea of "putting myself through it" is secondary to allowing your verbal assaults to go unchallenged? You are a verbal bully and I don't like it, so when I encounter your sorry, skanky cunt of a self - I wait, watch and challenge your horseshit when you inevitably spew it.

I'm going on the theory that if I illustrate your hypocracy to you enough times, it'll soak in and like six month down the road you'll catch a clue. I realize it's an amazingly vivid web of lies you've created for yourself, so maybe with a complicated sample like yourself it'll take a bit longer, but spotting phony asshats like yourself is just sort of part of what I do so the effort or "putting myself through it" is pretty well second nature.

You can always ignore me.

 

And you can always drop your stupid obsession with me, Wes.

That only works if you're honest, Wes. And we already know what's wrong with that.

Your choice. Your obsession. Your problem.

Because time after time you pick arbitrary starting points designed to empower your standing grudge. Your pattern is quite clear, Wes. You're just a prick out looking for a fight.

But keep it up if you want, then. If you lie to yourself enough, who knows? Maybe six months down the road you'll catch a clue.

 

*smirk*

Obsession?

So you're gay?

LOL. Oh yeah I remember, you are kind of gay.

Yeah okay whatever dude.

You don't understand simple eh?

I'm as obsessed with you as I am a computer that is pissing me off. I kick you a couple of times and then forget you exist until the next time I get pissed off at you, you narcissistic moron.

LOL.

Fool.

 

I'll just recycle a prior quote for a new occasion:

• Well, what do you know? You really aren't smart enough to know better.

 

right, before I get really annoyed at the wasting of board space, a potentially decent topic, and the brain cells of you all, i'd like you say:

tiassa, if you think youve got the bit of economics that communism and capitalism have missed, please tell us. Then we'll rip it apart, and if it survives, then you can print it in a journal and get famous.

 

Twofold:

(1) Both demand untenable presumptions about human nature, relying on a benevolence not consistently evident.
(2) Both view the distribution of resources from a traditional standpoint that resource availability must necessarily trail demand. In both cases, this demand makes no consideration of the difference between necessity and desire.

The result is essentially that necessity and desire become equal, and those better-empowered can pursue their extraneous desires at the expense of human necessity, and also that, among the "winners and losers," the losers are presumed to be happy enough about their condition.

In Communism, presumptions about human nature are reflected in poor production quality. (The picture of the car in the dumpster was a national chuckle for Americans.) In Capitalism, the presumptions about human nature that make the system any more civilized than outright anarchy simply aren't reflected in reality. "Trickle-down," largely considered an innovative wealth-creation device, failed because Americans, like their Soviet counterparts, depended on the goodwill of people when money was at stake.

And before you go worrying about the journal publication, remember that I'd probably use critics who have a bit stronger reading capacity.

 

Here's the problem:

Capitalism is simply a 'once abstracted' regurgitation of the evolutionary idea of "survival of the fittest". We have moral systems which regulate (obviously only to the extent of providing deterents) the activities of the participants, e.g. "murder is bad". Those systems act as a control to avoid the morally offensive results we would experience (mass starvation, genocide, murder, all sorts of rapes and robberies) if those controlling morals removed from the system.

Socialism is simply a significant extension of moral imposition, kind of like a theocracy of sorts. It is a forcing of "what you think is fair" onto the populus. IMO, the moral component of an ordered society must be optimized to the point at which is allows the most personal liberty and accountability possible with as few rules as can be found tolerable by the majority of the populous.

How stupid to recognize the arrow of time and nature of locality when designing a distribution system.

Why should it? To satisfy your moral outrage I assume? I do not enjoy the idea of people starving in Africa, but lack of resources on the planetary scale is not the reason they don't have food, so I do not see that you have a point. Governments are responsible to determine the difference between necessity and desire when it comes to the distribution of resources, and it's obvious that some of them choose desire over necessity. Regardless, there will always be at least some people within any government with whom their problems with this issue will negatively impact the welfare of the people of their nation.

Oh? I have a desire to kick you in the nutz but it's certainly not economically feasible for me to undertake the endeavor. I also desire to have a gazillion bricks. Does my desire render that a necessary too?

Who determines what is necessary? The people do it through their respresentatives or dictators do it. What if someone thinks it's okay to murder the first born girl in the family because she's an economic drain on the family unit. What if that is a cultural aspect of an entire society? Does your bleeding heart trump theirs? I would think that for the most part, you and I might agree on "what is necessary".... maybe. Who are you to determine what is "extraneous" to the point that you impose your opinion on someone else?

You're certainly entitled to voice your opinion, lobby for whatever cause you deem worthy and use your ballot. However, I think getting into the business of determing the "necessity" of a vacuum or an automatic diswasher is something government should strive to avoid. I would agree that the consideration is necessary.. but only in making the determination as to the standard of living the safety net should provide. There should be a provision for mimimal welfare / sustenance (such that suffering is minimized and improvement of economic independence is encouraged. perhaps and the rest is free market wherein the legal system strives to be ethical and morally acceptable to the majority. I think that keeps the necessity of determining what consists of "necessity" to the minimal possible effect within the system.

It is common sense that if you are miserable and you want to stop being miserable, you figure out how to stop being miserable. Perhaps you even ask for help. Do you consider that presumption about "happiness"? Did it occur to you that some people choose not to be happy? Look at you for instance. You're not happy and you blame everyone but you.. no? You've been cheated? Perhaps you're angry because you don't "fit in". Are you owed something? If you are not happy about your condition, you should change your condition or be a fucking man and accept it. That whining hypocritical disfunctionals want their cake and my cake and they want to eat it, still have it and then have more at the same time as not having any, is their problem and if they can solve it, more power to them. Again, they could always ask for help. They could make friends, partnerships, etc. to accomplish their goals.

You are gaurenteed the right to pursue happiness. Actually finding it is your responsibility

Did you know that if you grow a plant in no breeze, it will die if the wind blows too hard? You're probably a germophobe too eh? Can you see the point?

They are reflected in the legal system of the society. Allowing private property is simply a matter of law. I would consider the adoption of "no private property" as a serious imposition on freedom and an 'increase in the level of control exerted by the system'. As I think evolution is a self-righting system, anarchy follows to be as such. I think it is wisest to interfere as little as possible with a self-righting system, while still satisfying the ethical / moral standards adopted by the populus. Shit I think I said that already. Meh.

Perhaps you could be a little more specific. "trickle down" is exactly correct for the general case. Maybe your example will clarify your point.

"trickle down" doesn't depend on the good will of people at all. It depends on their economic liberty and encouraging those with the most money to circulate it around the economy. Trickle down = spending. People spend money to make money. It can be sweet.

 

Which, incidentally, is part of why I find it countersocial. Leading human society in the present age considers itself more enlightened than Sparta. We reject eugenics. We are affected by compassion. Societal cooperation demands a reduction in the cutthroat nature of "survival of the fittest" endowed with both ambition and conscience. Attempting to enact a rational observation as a deliberate system among irrational creatures does not always suggest wisdom.

Some might disagree. Oscar Wilde, for instance:

I think your view of the moral imposition might be influenced by presumptions about the station of the individual.

Mayhaps. But any proper government receives the consent of the governed in some form, even if implicitly through an absence of revolt. Thus, the only way for a proper Socialism to come about is with conventional agreement among the people as to the rights and responsibilities of both the governed and the governments they endorse.

It's a very human outlook, and not one with which I wholly disagree. But it is one which seems to have little or no use beyond subjective desires.

The moral component must strike a balance 'twixt liberty and necessity. To what is one accountable? And why? If it's merely an arbitrary purpose, that liberty serves nothing but the moment, and while that idea seems very attractive to many people--myself included at times--it is not a condition that has brought humanity forward to this time and place wherein we might make such considerations.

In the long run, guarding against extinction is not a guarantee against extinction. But ... wandering adrift, waiting for God, and having the Best Party Ever while doing so means nothing if, in the end, humanity dies away.

Quite obviously, I disagree.

What are you going on about?

It's an odd transfer between the theoretic and the applicable, much like our discussion of scarcity. In this case, what I'm referring to can be demonstrated by answering a simple question:

• What happens when people's needs are met?

The answer, apparently, if you ask an economist, is that things fall apart. Currency values come apart, market incentive loses steam, wages and prices both come unhinged.

(Remember when you asked if I thought Socialism fixed things and I said, "No, else I would be a Socialist"? We're standing right on that threshold.)

If "poverty becomes impossible," it means that at any one point in the endeavor, there are enough resources utilized to accommodate basic human needs, and access and distribution is such that, literally, poverty becomes impossible. (Well, you can always choose to walk away and live in the desert or something.)

And that's the problem of an abstract theoretical scarcity being yanked into the applicable realm. It's not a graceful or even functional transition.

Think about it: Why can't people have enough? Because scarcity is so presumed to be a natural condition that the system is designed in such a manner that it will collapse if "people have enough."

That natural condition of scarcity you demand--that inapplicable scarcity of having to breathe, of existing in a differentiated Universe in the first place, is not functionally applicable.

And it is that gracelessly-transferred idea of scarcity that mucks up Communism, Capitalism, and the most part, at least, of Socialism. (It's a huge stumbling block along the route to Wilde's idyll.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At any rate, why should it? Because that bastardized "scarcity", that rape-child of an inapplicable abstraction, has the curious effect of reacting to plenty by invoking scarcity.

The scarcity of your or my Porsche should not be resolved by making food scarce for others. Such processes in society contribute to the corruption of cooperative processes that make the society function.

If you want to go from A to B by leaping first to M, I suppose that's fine. But I don't see how you're connecting the one to the other.

And yet you reject that scarcity is a myth?

Well, that's the thing. The scarcity of having to breathe (e.g. necessity) and the scarcity of my testicles for you to kick (e.g. desire) are lumped together in considerations of supply necessarily trailing demand.

Aren't you cutting your rails a little fine there?

Why worry about the scarcity of air that results from having to breathe? Nobody has decided that it is officially necessary. You can choose to not breathe. Of course, then you get into the scarcity of resources necessary to accomplish that--you might have to put some effort into tying the rope to the rafters or swallowing some pills.

Like I said ... I think you're cutting your rails a little fine there.

That can still be shown to be the result of human choices. The necessity threatened by the additional burden of a female child in say, China, is a result of cultural conditions as well as poor economic choices in the form of a Maoist revolution.

Who says it will be just me? Stay relevant.

We are talking about collectives and cooperatives here in terms of societies and cultures. Why focus on such an individual point just to obfuscate?

Given the two-billion people in the world who lack access to clean drinking water, I'm inclined to scoff at your flippancy.

Is it that you wouldn't want to improve your condition "a little bit" because you want "the whole package" instead?

There will be some obvious objective criteria. If the community feels a dishwasher and vacuum for every household will serve well the hygiene and health of the community, and if such a distribution can be pulled off, then sure, why not? But when a company can't afford to keep all its workers and lays off 10% of the workers and the execs who got sacked for making bad business decisions get severance to such a tune that could keep the laid-off employees working for at least another year (time enough for the numbers to change and not demand the layoffs) I think we run into a clear threshold. It may be that societal obligations to the individual will have to be anti-identified until the greater pattern of what suits people emerges.

Something about Wilde goes here. Oh, yes, I remember:

At any rate ....

I'm barely following you as you start to break down even further. I get what you're after, I think, but what the hell does it have to do with anything?

I'm talking about the notion that someone should be happy to be fired so that their boss can afford another vacation house.

I'm of the opinion that's most Americans. But by this point you seem to be talking about a different issue. Working sixty hours a week and not being able to meet basic needs? I'm a fan of pointing toward the moralists in the 90s throwing fits about domestic partnerships at Disney and other companies; people cohabit when they shouldn't quite often out of economic necessity in this country. Divorce rates? Have you read some of the prenuptial agreements inspired by divorce rates over time? A lawsuit-happy culture? An entertainment culture that thrives on suffering and depravity? Humor and politics that depend on the ignorance of the audience? People willing to seize anything for themselves in order to bolster their sense of security? These aren't signs of a culture dominated by happy people. And, you know, given that I'm the one who argues that scarcity is a myth according to the choices people make, I would think it very well should have occurred to me that many people choose unhappiness. I watch it in my household every damn day. Perhaps you're not paying attention?

Topic, Wes. Remember? You say you're not obsessed with me?

Yes. But from someone whose integrity is as crippled as yours, I can see why questions of honesty and decency escape you. Do I feel cheated? Sure, but who doesn't? Do I resent being lied to? Apparently I'm the only one. What do you know? I must be crazy.

But when you wake up one morning and realize that you're not paid enough to commit felonies on a regular basis, that you're not paid enough to piss off forty state attorneys general in one week, these things seem a little more vital to me than being pissed off that I had to put up with a two-bit punk who actually makes you look smart.

Yes. It's transcendent because it is empty, and therefore lighter than air.

In theory.

Agreed.

And there are those who assert that property is robbery. I tend to sympathize with them.

Humans are irrational creatures, Wes. We both know it; we both demonstrate it. (We all demonstrate it.) The idea of a self-righting system seems well and fine, but when we remove it from its sanitized theoretic state and consider that the invisible hands steadying the human irrationality demands its fee in death, the simple question, "Is the best we have the best that we can do?" takes on new urgency.

Furthermore, what is "interfering" with a self-righting system? How, exactly, does the system interfere with itself?

The failure of Communism is largely predicated on its lack of incentive for innovation and growth. The general argument goes quite simply, "Why should I work hard when Joe, who is asleep at the wheel, gets the same money I do?" Incredibly two-dimensional, and symptomatic of the American 1980s, I find a certain validity in it nonetheless. Essentially, Communism failed to account for the fact that the herd will attune itself to the least possible expenditure. What Joe gets away with, Steve and Bob want also. (Communism only works if everybody is adequately educated as to their role in society and is relatively comfortable with it. Flexibility, of course, comes with comfort, but the people must necessarily be educated about their role in society.)

The failure of trickle-down, while also invested in presumptions of human nature, depended on a slightly different sense of goodwill. Let's go ahead and look at your point:

The goodwill required of trickle-down is that the money be spent in certain ways. The theory sold to the people is that by coddling the rich, the benefits would pay off and trickle down through the normal course of commerce and economy. The reality is that the money was more often recycled into the playfield of the upper echelon of commerce and finance. Yes, some of that money and benefit trickled down, but not nearly the amount people were led to believe. The "wealth gap" widened. I'm trying to find a number, for instance, that might give us an idea of how much of that money left the country for illicit drugs. Not that I blame rich people exclusively for the drug problem, but the drug problem needs rich people at some point. More to the point, though, we see a lot of that money going out of the country in investments, drugs, and other expenditures that do not trickle down to the American people.

As oddly shallow as it sounds, all that had to happen was that people didn't need to be so damned selfish when they had money. I'm not talking about giving it away. But ... overseas million-dollar parties instead of supporting local poverty-relief? Hey, just skip one of the parties. But that's too much to ask. While we're at it, let's get some Italian or Asian specialty furniture and not put that money into American labor. Why? Because it's chic to have imported furniture.

Add up all the little things, Wes. After a while it starts to get staggering. That was the lack of goodwill. Not enough of the money trickled down into the economy like it should have.

Remember the phrase, "It takes money to make money"? (Of course you do; I see it right there in your post.) Even in the 1980s companies were having trouble with the idea that investing in their employees would pay off on the bottom line. By the end of the century, though, companies had largely taken to a new social welfare in the form of educational assistance outreach, vice treatment, health care, retirement investing, &c.

But getting the suits to acknowledge what's plain as day when it means a penny has to leave their hands for something they can't buy outright proved tougher than it should. How long did the, "Am I my brother's keeper?" argument continue? (It still goes on.)

Oh, and as to spending ... it was the middle of the 1990s and it occurred to me to ask: How did it come to be that a Democratic president holds office at a time when it is your patriotic duty to the economy to spend yourself into miserable debt?

It's just that reality doesn't seem like "goodwill" to me. And that's a huge part of what's happened. I read an article the other day that reminded, for instance, that Bush is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem.

In a similar light, take a look at the lying politicians and the incredible new magnitude of their deceptions--even "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman," seems tame--and take a look at the financial scandals wrenching corporate America. What about Enron, at any point in its existence, reflected the necessary goodwill? What about fixing the books to the tune of billions reflects any sense of goodwill?

At some point, in trickle down, you have to stop cutting throats for a few seconds in order to let the blood seep down to the roots. Otherwise you're left with nothing but a stupid bloody mess.

Trickle down depends on the goodwill of allowing the money and benefit to trickle down in the first place, and not using your advantages to siphon it off again before it reaches the bottom.

Which leaves the context as I see it such as to make your post irrelevant.

A pisser, since you went to such efforts to contrive a complaint that I was ignoring your posts earlier in this topic. Have you no decency?

Oh, wait. Of course you don't.

 

Tessie:

Yes, I think I have.

Wes also has a way of being loopy as you do but I gather the impasse is centered around you believing that (and I'll use your own word) scarcity is only a theoretical 'vanity' used by economists while Wes and others think otherwise, even going so far as nitpicking the semantics. However, in this post of yours a strange thing has happened- I actually understnad you and in the process no longer understand why he has problem with you since he's written this:

If you argue that the culprit is the ineffiecinecy we as people show* in allocating rescources then he is saying the same exact thing you are. Maybe I'm wrong maybe I'm not but fuck it- more on this later.

[* "Show" can be used interchangeably with "choose", again your argument. So why the man does not see a point ...I don't understand]

Yes, I would.

I would love to see, in plain English, what a Buddhist sage, financial purges during the 90's Clinton administration, Davy Crockett and moon rocks have to do with the premise of scarcity.

What I am going on about: your continuous labeling of scarcity as mythical. "Mythical" implies fairy tales and legends of pretty fairies with pixie dust in their hair, the stuff of imagination. An abstract.

Understand?

But never mind it now, I think I finally undertand what you've been going on about. That comes here:

and here:

Spefically here:

Reminds me of why I have failed economics not once but twice- its in all the abstracts they use to fit into their theories, the soft monies and 'phantom' profits of the business world is what I could never undertand because it stunk of politics.

A business sets up and automatically the accountants are throwing in linear depreciation formuals and debiting assets not yet there, as in nonexistent. I can put it even better, for example: Dee Snider of "Twisted Sister" commented once on what the stock market actually does, that it allows for

2 + 2= 5

and for person A to sell person B 100 cows when he only has 5. This is why business bullshit is my heel. I don't get it.

There are all kinds concepts and intangibles purposely thrown in for what? Why? To round out the portfolio. Ok, now what happens in the translation process? They narrow their possibilites, yes? Is this what you are getting at? The terseness in outdadeted models and practices such as these and the limitting habits that humans have for applying their formulas to problems that in doing so narrow the lanscape by purposely making things (like poverty) necessary only so that their ideas work? Work or make sense?

Completely understood- and I'm dumbfounded to say the least, I actually get you for once.

A world of resources would certainly be unleashed onto the populus if only our bureacrats step out of their formulas and desist from having to invoke abstracts into thier machines as something like lubrication.


BUT!

I dare you tell me that I'm wrong in saying that as we get economically richer the environment grows poorer.

I introduce you to to a non profit organization known as "Redifining Progress" where they calcute something called a Footprint for nations cross globablly. Think of each nation with its foot out and making a print on the world. The boundries of its foot mark the land area that that nation uses for its energy supplies. It calculates enery use and resources on both an individual and collective level.

Now!
If we are to assign all the nations in the world with a footprint that would be compatible with the world's resources, that with any given time the earth could tolerate with no drastic reductions in its bounty- REGARDLESS OF MANAGEMENT- then that footprint would on average measure some 4.6 acres per person.

The United states has the world largest with close to 30 acres per person compared to third world nations (Ethiopia, Haiti, Afghanistan) where the average is 1 acre. Unbeliavable. And combined with developing countires (Africa, Asia) the total footprint of Humanity- HUMANITY- shows an overuse of our planet's resources by 15%.

Now, with everyone in this globalized world dying to be just like us, dress like us, eat like us, trade like us, Be Us, this means that given the opportunity all these nations will with time have a footprint (or a land usage per person) of 9 acress............... where our little blue planet can only feasibly tolerate arornd 1 or 2 per person. There are some 6 billion of us running around on its surface like so many parasites. In a century or so there will be a billion more.

My point: a dog can only tolerate so many parasites sucking the blood from its body and as any vet knows he will either die from asphyxia or collapse from anemia. No medicine would 'cure' him unless you pluck the ticks from his body. And so with planet earth- no principle, no dispcipline, no politic or theory could replenish our resources unless you plucked all 6 billion of us off the planet before all resources have been exhausted. And yes, I do think its possible that resources will one day be exhausted. I'm a realist.

You know Tess, at the rate you're going twenty years from now your head will be way too big for a toupee.

 

Source:

Redifiningprogress.org/puglications/footprintnations2004.pdf

 

I'd agree, except that its not that the losers are presumed to be happy, its that its their own fault for not being happy, or not working hard enough to be happy.

Except that in actual communism (not what we've seen in the USSR and China), people would be working at what they wanted to. And most places ive worked, people like to do the job well, not just because they will get fired if they dont, but because its more satisfying to do it well than badly, at least if you arent pissed off at the job and dont want to be there.

Is that a childish jibe at us or something?

 

Posted by tiassas:
"(Communism only works if everybody is adequately educated as to their role in society and is relatively comfortable with it. Flexibility, of course, comes with comfort, but the people must necessarily be educated about their role in society.)"

Roughly speaking, I would say that is a predicate for both communism, and, say, libertarianism. Both require the entire populace to have swallowed the ideals. I am not certain it is possible to do that, so, i am not a communist. But im not a libertarian cos i wouldnt/ couldnt live in a world like that, whereas i think i could in a communist one.

 

Perhaps this will help Gendy.

Something is lost in translation when you politicize the issue, yes.

Supply trails demand. That is fact. It is not debatable. If I want to breath, it takes a split second for my nervous system to tell my lungs to do it.

That is simply the economic interpretation of two knowns from physics (or perhaps more directly from common sense):

• The arrow of time (entropy)(you can't turn back time, time moves forward, so doing anything takes some time)
• Locality (it takes time for anythign (including information) to change locations)

Scarcity has other meanings that if taken exactly literally are untrue in this context. The notion of something scarce implying that it's necessarily 'hard to come by" is not true in this context. It merely means that supply trails demand. It means "takes an effort to come by", even if that effort is so miniscule to seem automatic like breathing. The fact is that though it seems abundant (infinite, in economic terms (if an item is abundant it's cost falls to zero, meaning that there is no investment to ascertain it)), the atmosphere could only support x people, dependent on x and the rate of oxygen consumption. The investment in partaking of the supply of air is of minimal investement for sure, but it without that investment you'll suffocate. This is what the presumption of scarcity tells us to heed - the obvious.

Given this simple truth, I cannot see how arguments as to the mythical nature of scarcity are more than disgusting political stench, as can be expected from someone who wears an ass for a hat.

To argue that "scarcity is mythical" is to proclaim profusely "I don't understand scarcity as it is specified in this thread". The rest of the horseshit is politics and the apparent functional imperative of a disfunctional jackass to shove his smarmy, idealistic (unrealistic due to the fact that it demands that everyone adopt the same smarm, which is obviously never going to happen) morality down everyone's throats.

I'd guess there are a number of prominent economists / political figures / etc. that do not understand this point clearly and bastardize it for their political purposes (like our resident asshat). There is nothing here though to indicate anything mythical about the presumption of scarcity.

 

There is a middle way in all this scarcity argument. That is that supply trails demand because the suppliers cant have everything the customers want in stock. But then the productive capacity is there already waiting, so that the customers demands can be met within a very short space of time.
Or else think of it as contingent upon the item desired. Thousands of people want executive jets? Thatll be a year or two to ramp up production. Thousands of people want an extra loaf of bread? Thatll be in next day by delivery van.

 

But that isn't a middle way at all. You are just talking about inherent problems with supply, as are assumed by the term 'scarcity' exactly as I described it.

 

It also makes me chuckle when I read stuff like this. Envy and jealousy are such ugly emotions.

The is the same way of thinking that costs the U.S. jobs every year. Just look to your local industrial park for examples of plants where a bunch of union broke-dicks are picketing for a $2 raise in their already ridiculous pay-level, relative to their performance compared to non-union shops, and you'll see the same beer-gut lazy losers crying about "all our jobs are going overseas...". Guess what shitcock, you could have signed on at the Nissan plant up the road and you'd be making $22 per hour and getting overtime, but instead you stuck to your same-shit, different weak

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

>) mentality of bitching about having to actually do a little work, and United Technologies finally gave up and closed the damn plant. There are no jobs for lazy sacks-of-shit at Japanese plants. I guess the union broke-dicks know that, so those blood-suckers just squeeze the last few nickels out until there is nothing left, and then they go home and drink Milwaukee's Best and bitch about Jeff Gordon's new girlfriend. Losers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For those of you with a clue, here's a little nugget to throw out next time some jackass is crying about the job market. Toyota has created 22,000 jobs in the state of Kentucky alone . Put that in your pipe and smoke it mister save the world, but don't take my job. Now if you've never been to Kentucky, you may not appreciate the power of that number in that context, but trust me, Kentuckians needed those jobs. You think it sucks that Dell is outsourcing, maybe it does, but Denso is hiring, so go work on your resume.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!