thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.
you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.
you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?
think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?
how did those beds and houses come into existence?
that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.
And bringing it back to the OP, are these thriving economies based on crusty Austrian economic theory or Keynesian economics?
irrelevant to the intent and goal of my post. I was responding to someone who questioned the importance of the economy. Austrian and Keynesian economics (obviously by their very nature) exisit because they understand the incredible importance of the ecomomy. They both have as a goal economic progress and prosperity, and they both have mixed-to-positive results. Austrian school is (broadly) laissez-faire capitalism, Keynesian is private-sector driven with government intervention capitalism. But they're both capitalism.
the poster "ONCE DEVIDED" seemed to me to be taking the radical Occupy Wall Street position of "all corporations are evil" and "capitalism doesn't work".
thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.
you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.
you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?
think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?
how did those beds and houses come into existence?
that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.
And bringing it back to the OP, are these thriving economies based on crusty Austrian economic theory or Keynesian economics?
First, there's no bias in the use of the word "crusty". But, I'd say most economic growth occurred with adaptations to more of an Austrian perspective.
Unfortunately, I don't see many thriving economies now. But, I would say certain countries are moving away from government control and towards more market control, and are thriving (ie. China).
I'd say the US is an example of an economy, that until recent history, used (at least more of) an Austrian perspective. Now, of course, we've moved more and more to pure Keynesianism... with FDR forcing Americans to turn in their gold, to Nixon getting us off the Gold Standard and claiming "we're all Keynesians now"... to the Bush/Obama/Greenspan/Bernanke nonsense we've seen recently... we've slowly moved into a Keynesian nation.
North Korea, where those pictures were from, is without a doubt, based on more of a Keynesian perspective, than Austrian. If that answers your Q.
North Korea, where those pictures were from, is without a doubt, based on more of a Keynesian perspective, than Austrian.
let's be fair. TECHNICALLY North Korea is closer to Keynesian than Austrian, but that's like saying your kids pee-wee baseball team is closer to the Astros than the Phillies.
and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?
not according to wikipedia
"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
those are obvious Kenesyian successes. of course, it's a lot easier to get 5 to 10 million homogenous people to agree and help each other out, than it is for say, 300 million diverse people to...
north korea is a communist state ... how the heck is it based on keynesian economics?
edit: and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?
Agreed. But, he asked for comparison. If you're following along with the thread he quoted, it had photos of North Korea. He specifically asked about that.
I wouldn't classify North Korea as Keynesian at all. But, he asked between Keynesian and Austrian, and as such, I said Keynesian.... because it is closer to that.
North Korea, where those pictures were from, is without a doubt, based on more of a Keynesian perspective, than Austrian.
let's be fair. TECHNICALLY North Korea is closer to Keynesian than Austrian, but that's like saying your kids pee-wee baseball team is closer to the Astros than the Phillies.
Agreed. The guy asked for a comment on those photos (which were google images for "north korea"). I responded, the best I could under the conditions he requested.
I still don't understand what his point was. But, anywho...
north korea is a communist state ... how the heck is it based on keynesian economics?
edit: and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?
Agreed. But, he asked for comparison. If you're following along with the thread he quoted, it had photos of North Korea. He specifically asked about that.
I wouldn't classify North Korea as Keynesian. But, he asked between Keynesian and Austrian, and as such, I said Keynesian.... because it is closer to that.
and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?
not according to wikipedia
"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
those are obvious Kenesyian successes. of course, it's a lot easier to get 5 to 10 million homogenous people to agree and help each other out, than it is for say, 300 million diverse people to...
modern day socialism isn't an economic model ... it's a way of governance ...
edit: yes, agreed it's much easier to accomplish things when everyone agrees on core principles ...
and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?
not according to wikipedia
"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
those are obvious Kenesyian successes. of course, it's a lot easier to get 5 to 10 million homogenous people to agree and help each other out, than it is for say, 300 million diverse people to...
modern day socialism isn't an economic model ... it's a way of governance ...
edit: yes, agreed it's much easier to accomplish things when everyone agrees on core principles ...
but that's what were talking about...economic models.
I guess I'm curious as to your definition of "Modern day socialism" as it relates to governance?
(not trying to be Mr Wikipedia but it's just a convenient and efficient way to "cite")[/quote]
yes ... it wasn't meant to derail into a discussion on socialism ... rather - it was more a comment of why someone would use pictures of starving people in north korea to rail against social causes ...
thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.
you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.
you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?
think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?
how did those beds and houses come into existence?
that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.
And bringing it back to the OP, are these thriving economies based on crusty Austrian economic theory or Keynesian economics?
First, there's no bias in the use of the word "crusty". But, I'd say most economic growth occurred with adaptations to more of an Austrian perspective.
Unfortunately, I don't see many thriving economies now. But, I would say certain countries are moving away from government control and towards more market control, and are thriving (ie. China).
I'd say the US is an example of an economy, that until recent history, used (at least more of) an Austrian perspective. Now, of course, we've moved more and more to pure Keynesianism... with FDR forcing Americans to turn in their gold, to Nixon getting us off the Gold Standard and claiming "we're all Keynesians now"... to the Bush/Obama/Greenspan/Bernanke nonsense we've seen recently... we've slowly moved into a Keynesian nation.
North Korea, where those pictures were from, is without a doubt, based on more of a Keynesian perspective, than Austrian. If that answers your Q.
It seems like, the more you speak, you're really talking along a continuum, with gov. intervention and regulation at one end, and total free market at the other (although odd that you think China is moving toward market control, I guess in their own odd way they are, but not in the sense when you compare it to western nations).
I think the continuum model fits better, rather than trying to jam in the argument of Austrian economics vs. Keynesian.
But, back to correlations proving ones point in the economic world, if we've been Keynesian since FDR, isn't that working best?
the poster "ONCE DEVIDED" seemed to me to be taking the radical Occupy Wall Street position of "all corporations are evil" and "capitalism doesn't work".
actually Im not anti corporate
Im not occupy anything
I just see what I see
I see companies that make PROFIT ( good profit) lay off workers because they didnt make more profit than last year. this is how shareholding effects SOCIETIES. How greed effects society
How is this good
I noted how the poor seem so happy. because they have the some thing that should make us all happy. LOVE, family and community
our rich society has lost that in the drive to have more
I just dont understand why we need more
so we have soft beds, made from companies pollute. we wash the sheets in chemicals that pollute. we damage our planet doing so. slowly destroying our home. why is that good
oh thats right you have a soft bed. mate I can sleep anywhere. on that hard ground . on a seat. anywhere.
good hard honest work tends to drive a good sleep. you should try it
thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.
you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.
you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?
think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?
how did those beds and houses come into existence?
that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.
the poster "ONCE DEVIDED" seemed to me to be taking the radical Occupy Wall Street position of "all corporations are evil" and "capitalism doesn't work".
actually Im not anti corporate
Im not occupy anything
I just see what I see
I see companies that make PROFIT ( good profit) lay off workers because they didnt make more profit than last year. this is how shareholding effects SOCIETIES. How greed effects society
How is this good
I noted how the poor seem so happy. because they have the some thing that should make us all happy. LOVE, family and community
our rich society has lost that in the drive to have more
I just dont understand why we need more
so we have soft beds, made from companies pollute. we wash the sheets in chemicals that pollute. we damage our planet doing so. slowly destroying our home. why is that good
oh thats right you have a soft bed. mate I can sleep anywhere. on that hard ground . on a seat. anywhere.
good hard honest work tends to drive a good sleep. you should try it
OK buddy, make this into me vs you. you're a hard working tough guy, I'm a lazy softee?
you know nothing about me, and to insult my worth ethic is ridiculous.
it's a fact that humans have needs and wants, and economies fulfill those needs.
thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.
you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.
you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?
think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?
how did those beds and houses come into existence?
that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.
the poster "ONCE DEVIDED" seemed to me to be taking the radical Occupy Wall Street position of "all corporations are evil" and "capitalism doesn't work".
actually Im not anti corporate
Im not occupy anything
I just see what I see
I see companies that make PROFIT ( good profit) lay off workers because they didnt make more profit than last year. this is how shareholding effects SOCIETIES. How greed effects society
How is this good
I noted how the poor seem so happy. because they have the some thing that should make us all happy. LOVE, family and community
our rich society has lost that in the drive to have more
I just dont understand why we need more
so we have soft beds, made from companies pollute. we wash the sheets in chemicals that pollute. we damage our planet doing so. slowly destroying our home. why is that good
oh thats right you have a soft bed. mate I can sleep anywhere. on that hard ground . on a seat. anywhere.
good hard honest work tends to drive a good sleep. you should try it
OK buddy, make this into me vs you. you're a hard working tough guy, I'm a lazy softee?
you know nothing about me, and to insult my worth ethic is ridiculous.
it's a fact that humans have needs and wants, and economies fulfill those needs.
Yes I agree
one shouldnt make assumptions about others
try it
honestly, i would gladly have a beer with the majority of the conservatives who regularly post here ... we often don't agree but most of them aren't patronizing and we understand that for the most part we all kind of want the same thing ... most people that post here are active in other sections of the board as well ... and just because people "make fun" of this section of the board is their own thing ...
this forum IS very good at hearing viewpoints and engaging people ... unfortunately, i think you have a perception of the members of this board that simply isn't true ... no one here for a moment thinks their viewpoint is reflective of the "real world" - if you know of anyone who has said anything to suggest that ... feel free to prove me wrong ...
although i am very much a socialist ... i can appreciate other viewpoints ... i basically posted that everyone should vote for ron paul ... not because i agree with everything he believes in but he is the best choice ... and that is because of the postings of many people here ... minds can be changed or at the very least be opened ... but you have to have to be open to the possibility that you are wrong ...
that is as far as i got before i logged out and smashed my own face with a glowing red hot anvil for 33 minutes. who frickin talks that way? who lives that way as a rule? conservatives/liberals? what a bullshit deal. you people here are pretty fucking funny for a rigid cluster of comedians :lolno:
y'all are too fuckin much. jesus fucking christ.
unbelievable
honestly, i would gladly have a beer with the majority of the conservatives who regularly post here ... we often don't agree but most of them aren't patronizing and we understand that for the most part we all kind of want the same thing ... most people that post here are active in other sections of the board as well ... and just because people "make fun" of this section of the board is their own thing ...
this forum IS very good at hearing viewpoints and engaging people ... unfortunately, i think you have a perception of the members of this board that simply isn't true ... no one here for a moment thinks their viewpoint is reflective of the "real world" - if you know of anyone who has said anything to suggest that ... feel free to prove me wrong ...
although i am very much a socialist ... i can appreciate other viewpoints ... i basically posted that everyone should vote for ron paul ... not because i agree with everything he believes in but he is the best choice ... and that is because of the postings of many people here ... minds can be changed or at the very least be opened ... but you have to have to be open to the possibility that you are wrong ...
that is as far as i got before i logged out and smashed my own face with a glowing red hot anvil for 33 minutes. who frickin talks that way? who lives that way as a rule? conservatives/liberals? what a bullshit deal. you people here are pretty fucking funny for a rigid cluster of comedians :lolno:
y'all are too fuckin much. jesus fucking christ.
unbelievable
(you arent alone, polaris, so don't fret it none)
Fascinating, Chadwick. I haven't seen a post this angry and negative in quite a while and believe me, there are some really angry posts here from time to time. I've read polaris_x's post here carefully and for the life of me I can't see what's got you so riled up. Maybe a little poetry writing will help, shoot some pool, have a beer, take a walk in the woods. Seriously my friend, smahing your face with a hot anvil for 33 minutes? Isn't that a little.. over-reacting? It's just a forum. It's just a place to share ideas. People really do talk this way.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I made a logical inference from your direct quotes
you continue to try to make this about me vs you instead of debating my points
why?
So your logical inference on what I say is valid and mine not.
maybe you shouldnt infer somthing on somebody you dont know
Now you may be a hard working person you may not. but its only ok that you infer whatever you like about myself but i do not have that right. sorry i will take you to task.
and in that statement also wrote more than an inference on your hardwork ethic. but you make this about me and not the rest
cmon.
humans have needs
that is correct. food water and companionship
wants on the other hand are not so required.
lets have a look at wants
I want fresh strawberries all the time. in season they are cheap and plentyfull, in my garden and down at the local shop. however for a good part of the year they must be shipped here. costing the planet in fuels, freezing and packaging to withstand freight movements. all because I want.
I do not need them out of season.
but this is what the world has become. serving our wants when we want them
not sure of your age, but I do know that growing up Airconditioning was fairly rare
now everyone has it. chewing up much needed resources. people feel they need it. they sure want it.
but it was not neeeded. its selfish
im not against people having what they want. i just think many want too much.
our society of convenience is destroying our home
our economy of greed makes the few rich at the expence of so many
instead of what I want it should be what do we all need
Fascinating, Chadwick. I haven't seen a post this angry and negative in quite a while and believe me, there are some really angry posts here from time to time. I've read polaris_x's post here carefully and for the life of me I can't see what's got you so riled up. Maybe a little poetry writing will help, shoot some pool, have a beer, take a walk in the woods. Seriously my friend, smahing your face with a hot anvil for 33 minutes? Isn't that a little.. over-reacting? It's just a forum. It's just a place to share ideas. People really do talk this way.
i'm not even really riled up. more like fucking around type a thing.
i have never ran into a person who introduced themselves as a conservative or liberal. folks who think that way drive me nuts. what side to be on, R or L. unreal.
be a beautiful person inside and out, that is all they have to do. spread kindness, education, and work. but our nation here can't do that. they have to divide shit up with one another and fight it out for years, over and over and over.
my anger hasn't even came out in my posts here in quite some time. probably to back when the death penalty thread, and then i was making a point and having a good time doing so.
"hi i am a liberal, would you care to join me in a bong hit or 13? why can't we just get along and be human beings? which i do understand is asking alot
Seriously my friend, smahing your face with a hot anvil for 33 minutes? Isn't that a little.. over-reacting?
I don't mean to interfere, Mr. Lux, but you're acting as if you're above smashing your face with a hot anvil for at least 33 minutes. (as if you've never done it before ....:roll: )
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
Seriously my friend, smahing your face with a hot anvil for 33 minutes? Isn't that a little.. over-reacting?
I don't mean to interfere, Mr. Lux, but you're acting as if you're above smashing your face with a hot anvil for at least 33 minutes. (as if you've never done it before ....:roll: )
HA! I mean..well shoot... umm... yeoooow!! That hurts almost as much as getting hit with a gladiolus...
(OOPS, sorry- didn't mean to derail the thread! :shh: )
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
irrelevant to the intent and goal of my post. I was responding to someone who questioned the importance of the economy. Austrian and Keynesian economics (obviously by their very nature) exisit because they understand the incredible importance of the ecomomy. They both have as a goal economic progress and prosperity, and they both have mixed-to-positive results. Austrian school is (broadly) laissez-faire capitalism, Keynesian is private-sector driven with government intervention capitalism. But they're both capitalism.
the poster "ONCE DEVIDED" seemed to me to be taking the radical Occupy Wall Street position of "all corporations are evil" and "capitalism doesn't work".
First, there's no bias in the use of the word "crusty". But, I'd say most economic growth occurred with adaptations to more of an Austrian perspective.
Unfortunately, I don't see many thriving economies now. But, I would say certain countries are moving away from government control and towards more market control, and are thriving (ie. China).
I'd say the US is an example of an economy, that until recent history, used (at least more of) an Austrian perspective. Now, of course, we've moved more and more to pure Keynesianism... with FDR forcing Americans to turn in their gold, to Nixon getting us off the Gold Standard and claiming "we're all Keynesians now"... to the Bush/Obama/Greenspan/Bernanke nonsense we've seen recently... we've slowly moved into a Keynesian nation.
North Korea, where those pictures were from, is without a doubt, based on more of a Keynesian perspective, than Austrian. If that answers your Q.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
edit: and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?
let's be fair. TECHNICALLY North Korea is closer to Keynesian than Austrian, but that's like saying your kids pee-wee baseball team is closer to the Astros than the Phillies.
not according to wikipedia
"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy
"Sweden is an export-oriented mixed economy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Economy
those are obvious Kenesyian successes. of course, it's a lot easier to get 5 to 10 million homogenous people to agree and help each other out, than it is for say, 300 million diverse people to...
Agreed. But, he asked for comparison. If you're following along with the thread he quoted, it had photos of North Korea. He specifically asked about that.
I wouldn't classify North Korea as Keynesian at all. But, he asked between Keynesian and Austrian, and as such, I said Keynesian.... because it is closer to that.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Agreed. The guy asked for a comment on those photos (which were google images for "north korea"). I responded, the best I could under the conditions he requested.
I still don't understand what his point was. But, anywho...
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
oh ... ok ... i misinterpreted ...
modern day socialism isn't an economic model ... it's a way of governance ...
edit: yes, agreed it's much easier to accomplish things when everyone agrees on core principles ...
but that's what were talking about...economic models.
I guess I'm curious as to your definition of "Modern day socialism" as it relates to governance?
Again, wiki:
"Norway is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Politics
"Today, Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy of government"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
(not trying to be Mr Wikipedia but it's just a convenient and efficient way to "cite")
but that's what were talking about...economic models.
I guess I'm curious as to your definition of "Modern day socialism" as it relates to governance?
Again, wiki:
"Norway is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Politics
"Today, Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy of government"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
(not trying to be Mr Wikipedia but it's just a convenient and efficient way to "cite")[/quote]
yes ... it wasn't meant to derail into a discussion on socialism ... rather - it was more a comment of why someone would use pictures of starving people in north korea to rail against social causes ...
It seems like, the more you speak, you're really talking along a continuum, with gov. intervention and regulation at one end, and total free market at the other (although odd that you think China is moving toward market control, I guess in their own odd way they are, but not in the sense when you compare it to western nations).
I think the continuum model fits better, rather than trying to jam in the argument of Austrian economics vs. Keynesian.
But, back to correlations proving ones point in the economic world, if we've been Keynesian since FDR, isn't that working best?
actually Im not anti corporate
Im not occupy anything
I just see what I see
I see companies that make PROFIT ( good profit) lay off workers because they didnt make more profit than last year. this is how shareholding effects SOCIETIES. How greed effects society
How is this good
I noted how the poor seem so happy. because they have the some thing that should make us all happy. LOVE, family and community
our rich society has lost that in the drive to have more
I just dont understand why we need more
so we have soft beds, made from companies pollute. we wash the sheets in chemicals that pollute. we damage our planet doing so. slowly destroying our home. why is that good
oh thats right you have a soft bed. mate I can sleep anywhere. on that hard ground . on a seat. anywhere.
good hard honest work tends to drive a good sleep. you should try it
find it interesting that you eqate my happy society with north korea
a state driven failed economy
OK buddy, make this into me vs you. you're a hard working tough guy, I'm a lazy softee?
you know nothing about me, and to insult my worth ethic is ridiculous.
it's a fact that humans have needs and wants, and economies fulfill those needs.
you're the one who said poor = happy and questioned the importance of the economy
North Korea HAS NO ECONOMY
Yes I agree
one shouldnt make assumptions about others
try it
you continue to try to make this about me vs you instead of debating my points
why?
that is as far as i got before i logged out and smashed my own face with a glowing red hot anvil for 33 minutes. who frickin talks that way? who lives that way as a rule? conservatives/liberals? what a bullshit deal. you people here are pretty fucking funny for a rigid cluster of comedians :lolno:
y'all are too fuckin much. jesus fucking christ.
unbelievable
(you arent alone, polaris, so don't fret it none)
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
So your logical inference on what I say is valid and mine not.
maybe you shouldnt infer somthing on somebody you dont know
Now you may be a hard working person you may not. but its only ok that you infer whatever you like about myself but i do not have that right. sorry i will take you to task.
and in that statement also wrote more than an inference on your hardwork ethic. but you make this about me and not the rest
cmon.
that is correct. food water and companionship
wants on the other hand are not so required.
lets have a look at wants
I want fresh strawberries all the time. in season they are cheap and plentyfull, in my garden and down at the local shop. however for a good part of the year they must be shipped here. costing the planet in fuels, freezing and packaging to withstand freight movements. all because I want.
I do not need them out of season.
but this is what the world has become. serving our wants when we want them
not sure of your age, but I do know that growing up Airconditioning was fairly rare
now everyone has it. chewing up much needed resources. people feel they need it. they sure want it.
but it was not neeeded. its selfish
im not against people having what they want. i just think many want too much.
our society of convenience is destroying our home
our economy of greed makes the few rich at the expence of so many
instead of what I want it should be what do we all need
i have never ran into a person who introduced themselves as a conservative or liberal. folks who think that way drive me nuts. what side to be on, R or L. unreal.
be a beautiful person inside and out, that is all they have to do. spread kindness, education, and work. but our nation here can't do that. they have to divide shit up with one another and fight it out for years, over and over and over.
my anger hasn't even came out in my posts here in quite some time. probably to back when the death penalty thread, and then i was making a point and having a good time doing so.
"hi i am a liberal, would you care to join me in a bong hit or 13? why can't we just get along and be human beings? which i do understand is asking alot
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I don't mean to interfere, Mr. Lux, but you're acting as if you're above smashing your face with a hot anvil for at least 33 minutes. (as if you've never done it before ....:roll: )
HA! I mean..well shoot... umm... yeoooow!! That hurts almost as much as getting hit with a gladiolus...
(OOPS, sorry- didn't mean to derail the thread! :shh: )
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"