|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 30, 2008 09:03 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:09, 30 Sep 2008.
|
Poor people struggle to survive.
Its not strange that people in the richer countries (all nordic countries, england, united states etc) do more suicide.
And the United States and England etc doesnt have true democracy.
In the United State you can only vote on two sides, while in a real democravy there are lots of diffrent "factions/sides" and you can even make your own.
Maybe it doesnt belong here but I have a question for the americans here:
Why must your country be so compicated?
Why do you use "yards" and not "kilometer, centimeter" etc like everybody else?
Why do you use AM and PM when in other countries you just say 21.09 (okey that was a stupid question - its because your country is big, or?)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 09:15 PM |
|
|
We have a republic. Not a democracy. And England is strange because while it's a republic, it still has a monarchy.
Quote:
Maybe it doesnt belong here but I have a question for the americans here:
Why must your country be so compicated?
Why do you use "yards" and not "kilometer, centimeter" etc like everybody else?
Why do you use AM and PM when in other countries you just say 21.09 (okey that was a stupid question - its because your country is big, or?)
Every country is complicated. With the metric and time questions, people don't like drastic change, regardless of what they say. Implementing the metric system now would be a nightmare for Americans. The time switch wouldn't be too bad but people are set in their ways and why bother changing when it works?
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 09:26 PM |
|
|
Uhm... Is England a republic? 
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 10:25 PM |
|
|
UK is not a republic. And a republic can be a democracy.
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 11:26 PM |
|
|
Isn't the prime minister elected in England? And a republic is not a true democracy.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2008 11:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Isn't the prime minister elected in England?
No. They have elections for the parliament. And they have a queen, not a president.
Also, what do you mean by a "true democracy".
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2008 03:44 PM |
|
|
True Democravy = people votes for everything and anybody can create a political "side/faction" etc.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 02, 2008 02:34 PM |
|
|
Anyone can vote for anything in America. And anyone can start a party. Good luck getting attention, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted October 08, 2008 04:05 PM |
|
|
Like, Oh Em Gee 
Money as Debt
I was right! By instinct!
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 01:04 AM |
|
|
It's a bit long, could you summarize it? But, from the brief amount that I watched, I already can see several problems.
1. How can the bank create money from the borrower's promise to repay? Doesn't make any sense.
2. The value of money never came from the fact that it was backed by gold. Well, more specifically, it did, but the value of gold as medium of exchange didn't come from any inherent nature of gold, and simply came from the fact that everyone accepted it in exchange for a certain quantity of goods/services, so it became a medium of exchange. Silver was another alternative metal, as is practically any material that is relatively scarce, (nearly) imperishable, and easily subdividable. Paper money, too, has an advantage over gold - it is much easier to create. (Although that can also be a disadvantage.) Somebody actually has to dig gold up, and that's not free. Also, gold, unless carried in extremely small quantities (and, if you think that's a good idea, try using nothing but pennies), is not that easily subdividable - therefore, paper money has the advantage. Money has value because other people accept it - not for any other reason. So the statement in the video that "the only thing of value in a mortgage is the asset" is absolutely wrong - because the money does have value.
3. General taxation and inflation are not exactly equivalent. Inflation is, indeed, a flat tax on money. But "regular" taxes are taxes on the accumulation of value. That is, if you owned nothing but property, inflation itself wouldn't touch you one bit - but taxes on the accumulation of value would.
4. The government could, in theory, eliminate the debt by pulling the inflation rip cord. In practice, it can't, because that would drive the value of money down so much that the government would never be able to get any loans, and would also have to deal with an angry populace. Unless the government wants to turn to absolutely authoritarian measures, it won't do that.
5. There is no "international cartel of bankers". This is conspiracy theory nonsense, and is not to be taken seriously.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 11:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
True Democravy = people votes for everything and anybody can create a political "side/faction" etc.
This is true.
There is no example of a true democracy or a totally free market.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 11:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The disgusting thing is that you seem to think more money / matter = better life.
Maybe because it's true?
One Japanese suicide every 15 minutes
That's because suicide is part of the Japanese culture and psyche since ancient times.
Ignoring the fact that the suicide is more often than not related to the loss of money, suicide rates can't really be used as a measure of quality of life.
You don't see starving kids in Africa committing suicide but that doesn't mean that they are overjoyed or have a better quality of life than a resident of Tokyo.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 01:08 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 13:09, 09 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
It's a bit long, could you summarize it? But, from the brief amount that I watched, I already can see several problems.
I suck at summoning things up, you'd just have to watch it fully
Quote:
1. How can the bank create money from the borrower's promise to repay? Doesn't make any sense.
Of course it doesn't. Yet apparently that is how it happens. See the problem yet?
Quote:
Money has value because other people accept it - not for any other reason. So the statement in the video that "the only thing of value in a mortgage is the asset" is absolutely wrong - because the money does have value.
It does not have value. Gold has value because it is a relatively scarce metal and people considered it wealth. Paper isn't a scarce material, it is practicly worthless. Money = piece of paper with imprints on it. Yes, the sheer fact people trust in it gives it "value", but the question is, what is backing it up? Previously, the fact people could exchange the paper note for actual gold was what gave people trust in the fact that the piece of paper was actually worth something: namely gold. The gold standard was long abolished though. So in essence, money does not have any value anymore since you cannot exchange it for anything of value. It IS worthless paper.
Quote:
3. General taxation and inflation are not exactly equivalent. Inflation is, indeed, a flat tax on money. But "regular" taxes are taxes on the accumulation of value. That is, if you owned nothing but property, inflation itself wouldn't touch you one bit - but taxes on the accumulation of value would.
4. The government could, in theory, eliminate the debt by pulling the inflation rip cord. In practice, it can't, because that would drive the value of money down so much that the government would never be able to get any loans, and would also have to deal with an angry populace. Unless the government wants to turn to absolutely authoritarian measures, it won't do that.
I have no possibility of responding to this as I am not American nor is my native language English, so I don't really understand what you're saying Sorry.
Quote:
5. There is no "international cartel of bankers". This is conspiracy theory nonsense, and is not to be taken seriously.
How do you know for sure? What reason do YOU have to believe for certain bankers aren't corrupt and serve their own interest?
I suggest you take some time somewhere to watch the entire thing. As well Zeitgeist: Addendum
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 01:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ignoring the fact that the suicide is more often than not related to the loss of money, suicide rates can't really be used as a measure of quality of life.
Depending what YOU mean by quality of life. You might say they are better but who are you to judge how they feel like? If they suicide, it must probably mean they are depressed or something. You don't set the standards of what is quality and what's not in THEIR life.
Quote:
You don't see starving kids in Africa committing suicide but that doesn't mean that they are overjoyed or have a better quality of life than a resident of Tokyo.
It doesn't mean the reverse either. Mental depression is different than e.g: poverty or poorness. A psycho that has much money but is never happy because he's a psycho and always thinks about bad things has a bad quality of life, after all he's depressed etc... Probably starving children, while being poor, wouldn't necessarily be depressed, even if they suffer from hunger.
Who are you to say how they should feel like or what's quality in their life?
Of course not all suicides are signs of depression but you get the idea.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 02:47 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
Of course it doesn't. Yet apparently that is how it happens. See the problem yet?
No, because it's not how it happens.
Quote:
Gold has value because it is a relatively scarce metal and people considered it wealth. Paper isn't a scarce material, it is practicly worthless. Money = piece of paper with imprints on it. Yes, the sheer fact people trust in it gives it "value", but the question is, what is backing it up?
What's backing money up? Let me give you an example. In India, the Central Bank considers a stained, dirty, or torn rupee to be valid currency, as long as the serial number can be seen. Anyone can go to a bank and exchange a soiled rupee for a clean one. But no one else accepts soiled rupees. Why? Because no one else does. A cab driver will not accept payment in partially torn money, because he/she knows that no one else will accept that money. (Except for the bank, of course, so the money isn't 100% worthless, but is far less useful than non-soiled money.) So, despite what the central bank says, only clean money is used as currency. So what backs money up? Money was never backed by gold or silver - it was always, as it is today, backed by the fact that other people would accept it. It takes more than the Central Bank's saying so for something to become money. It also has to be accepted by everyone. And while paper isn't scarce, paper money is. It is imprinted with several anti-counterfeiting marks, and so on - which makes it scarce.
Money has no value outside of society. If people dropped you on a desert island with a million dollars, you would starve. If people dropped you on a desert island with a million dollars' worth of gold, you would still starve. It wouldn't make any difference. But if you were rescued, you would live quite well in both cases.
Quote:
I have no possibility of responding to this as I am not American nor is my native language English, so I don't really understand what you're saying
I'll rephrase it:
3. Regular taxes and inflation are not exactly the same. Inflation is a flat tax on money. Regular taxes are taxes on something increasing in value - stocks, etc. If you had no money, having invested it in a bunch of stuff, inflation couldn't touch you - but taxes still would.
4. The government could get rid of its debt by massively printing money. But that poses two problems: the country would stop being creditworthy, because the money with which it paid off its debts was made worthless, and it would also make the citizens' money nearly worthless, which could be a cause of unrest.
Quote:
What reason do YOU have to believe for certain bankers aren't corrupt and serve their own interest?
I know that bankers serve their own interest. I have no problem with this. But, when there is ample competition, banks do not become sources of corruption to any serious degree - because a bank that gives out loans preferentially will lose to banks that don't. There's a lot of competition between banks, which would not happen under a cartel.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Depending what YOU mean by quality of life. You might say they are better but who are you to judge how they feel like?
A Buddhist monk can feel equally happy living in the Congo and in America. I feel happier living in America. I would hardly say that anyone (except for special circumstances, such as family) would prefer living in the Congo. So living in a richer country is either equal or good. It's not worse.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A Buddhist monk can feel equally happy living in the Congo and in America. I feel happier living in America. I would hardly say that anyone (except for special circumstances, such as family) would prefer living in the Congo. So living in a richer country is either equal or good. It's not worse.
Yet that is only your opinion (as you can "Hardly" imagine) and think that usually people always want MORE. Even though you say, some guys have "more" than others, this does not mean they are less depressed. Just because they have more doesn't mean they're happy because people sometimes have different goals. You might be happy with money, while another person (even though it has money) might be depressed because, let's say, his gf left him. You may say he lives better than you (and envy him) but from his perspective it is not the case (let's say your gf didn't leave you).
This was a VERY simple example. Let's just say that people have different "philosophies" and quality of life is a direct relationship with that.
And few buddhist monks are happier than most people. Most "rich" people do not usually like to speak about their hard times, headaches, etc... but they do have moments of unhappiness.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 03:09 PM |
|
|
You completely missed the point of what I said. One guy is equally happy being rich or poor. The other guy is happier being rich than poor. So, people who "don't care about money" wouldn't be affected by being rich, and people who do would be affected positively. If one person is better off, and the other person is neither better nor worse off, then it's still better.
Quote:
Most "rich" people do not usually like to speak about their hard times, headaches, etc... but they do have moments of unhappiness.
Most people have moments of unhappiness, but, often, the rich are more capable of getting rid of the cause of their unhappiness.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 03:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You completely missed the point of what I said. One guy is equally happy being rich or poor. The other guy is happier being rich than poor. So, people who "don't care about money" wouldn't be affected by being rich, and people who do would be affected positively. If one person is better off, and the other person is neither better nor worse off, then it's still better.
Nope. You see, rich people have more ambitions, it's that humans always want MORE. This "desire" is hard to satisfy. A guy that has no money doesn't have the same desires. Imagine a game programmer and a poor guy. The programmer is always frustrated by the fact that he can't get the thing done. The poor guy doesn't even have that desire, let's say he is happy with just playing chess. The programmer, when playing chess, still doesn't share the same happiness, because he constantly thinks about getting the game and all the stuff associated with it, etc... In short, he has greater desires. Not to mention some people really have some philosophies regarding being "rich" and whatnot and the effects of it.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 04:03 PM |
|
|
Uhm of course rich people can be unhappy.
I think more teens suicide in Europe/United States then in Africa/The Middle East.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted October 09, 2008 06:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think more teens suicide in Europe/United States then in Africa/The Middle East.
Of course, the people in Middle-East, Africa (Not in everywhere, but most, especially in Africa, And in middle east religion is quite an affection) have to struggle for survival, I don't think they would want to throw all that away .
European and American people who want to do suicide should be taken to Africa and show how people struggle there, and only then look if their life is really "bad".
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
