|
| Thread: Survey on tax structure |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted April 03, 2009 12:09 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:12, 03 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Madness is, if someone turns the door knob, pulls and the door doesn't open, turns again, pulls again and it still doesn't open, turns a third time, pulls with no effect, TO TRY A FOURTH TIME TO PULL at the darn door instead of giving it a damn PUSH.
Madness?
THIS IS ECONOMICS
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 12:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus - and this is not a personal remark, it's one aimed for the issue at hand -, do you know the definition of madness?
Yeah, I'd say it's removing all incentive for a person to work hard, and then still expecting him to be productive.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 01:41 AM |
|
|
Money is an incentive. But saying it is ALL INCENTIVE is madness.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 01:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Madness is, if someone turns the door knob, pulls and the door doesn't open, turns again, pulls again and it still doesn't open, turns a third time, pulls with no effect, TO TRY A FOURTH TIME TO PULL at the darn door instead of giving it a damn PUSH.
I knew it! 
Madness is hope! 
Quote:
Yeah, I'd say it's removing all incentive for a person to work hard, and then still expecting him to be productive.
OMG am I an alien then? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 02:04 AM |
|
|
Either that or you're not being honest.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 02:11 AM |
|
|
Well, does giving free stuff on the net count? I used to give algorithms and got feedback. But you know, simpler example would be free software. Where does that fit?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 02:39 AM |
|
|
Clearly, you've entirely missed the point.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 02:47 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Which would actually be a good thing. Too much is done in too short time, things we don't have any idea about how the consequences will be; in fact it looks like most things will involve a big price to be paid - and it's always the next generation that pays.
Or, you know, we could actually think about the things we use - but still use them. Radical thought, I know.
Quote:
the risk is on us all
Wrong. They're the ones who invested the money - they're the ones who took the risk. Your point about CFCs is invalid, because that has nothing to do with their risk. Externalities =/= public risks.
Quote:
And the rest of your statement - you think it's good that things eventually get cheap? Until recentl things were easy because only a small part of the world's population participated. But now 3 billion people in Asia want the same. What do you think will happen, when those 3 billion people all drive a car? Have a pc. 2 cell phones. 5 TVs. Produce the same amounts of garbage and use up the same amount of resources?
That is a very good question. However, is the answer keeping them in poverty, or bringing ourselves down? It is neither. The answer is to use technology (and government) in creative ways - ways that encourage the reduction of energy and resource consumption without lowering our standard of living. The thing that solves our environmental problems will not be privation but technology.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 08:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
the risk is on us all
Wrong. They're the ones who invested the money - they're the ones who took the risk. Your point about CFCs is invalid, because that has nothing to do with their risk. Externalities =/= public risks.
What RISK, for heaven's sake? They CHOOSE to do it. Everyone takes a risk when doing something. What about the risk of an ordinary worker being pink-slipped? Getting some job desease (think of all the miners and those who worked with dangerous stuff). Think about the risk people take when marrying, getting children, maybe buying a house, maintaining society, based on the assumption that nothing untoward will happen?
So what risk is there? A broke, common guy who wants to lend money to follow-up on an idea - what do they get? 50.000, I think. That's the limit. It's called existance-founding loan or something like that. If you need more for your idea you need to find a sponsor, someone who sees the potential and is willing to give you the creds - not for nothing, of course. As a rule, if it's serious money, the price is a part of the company to be founded for the project.
Now THERE's the risk - the bank or private sponsor who happens to have the money, places a bet, but in case of the bank it's their JOB to do just that; they have people who make assessments and stuff.
So what darn RISK are you talking of? Oh, maybe you mean the risk that led to the current crisis? Isn't that called redistribution? UNTIL the breakdown there have been enough people earning a fortune, right?
The bottom line is, that with the speed things proceed and with all eyes firmly kept on PROFIT probability is 100% that part of the new stuff developed will have serious to deadly consequences. Radioactive waste and toxic sludge is an obvious one. I wait for the day when some bacteria will dissolute stuff that keep things together - rubber, for example - and mutate.
We have to be more careful with all the stuff being thrown at people - but obviously we are not. People are just too obsessed with making fast bucks.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 02:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We have to be more careful with all the stuff being thrown at people - but obviously we are not. People are just too obsessed with making fast bucks.
Right, the consumer has nothing to do with the pace of technology.  When corporations develop new products, of course it's driven by profit. But if there wasn't a demand for it by people, there would be no profit in it. So to blame it all on corporate greed is myopic and exonerates the role consumers play in driving product development.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 02:40 PM |
|
|
And of course you can back that claim with proof.
The consumer doesn't have the darn time to even CONSIDER what they would like to have, not to mention give a feedback to the production and r&d facilities - except with their wallet. And to make sure no customer is missing out on the latest and greatest new products they are flooded with advertisement.
What do you think why every smalltime chain of shops has their own cards for some time now, where you can collect points or some other rubbish to get one or another useless freebie or even money back after spending a certain amount. Because they want to know EXACTLY where you shop, what you shop and when you shop to make everything even more customer friendly.
Do you really think that the CUSTOMERS want the additioal stuff in the food, the artificial flavors and colours and the preserving addiditives? The tons of wrappings and styrofoam garbage and plastic?
The customers have been fed systematically with cunsummation propaganda and are junkies for a long time. Today, one of the most difficult things people face is to find out what really is important and what not, which is not that easy and all too often ends with the well know Queen song title. I suppose you know which one I mean.
But I'm rambling. So. Where is your proof. Or at least your evidence?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 02:50 PM |
|
|
JJ:
You're right, everything has a risk. But different things have different degrees of risk. Making investments in new technology is a relatively large risk.
And nobody forces the consumer to buy things he doesn't want.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 03:03 PM |
|
|
Nobody forces a junkie to shoot things either.
So what?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 10:47 PM |
|
|
And so drugs shouldn't be illegal, but junkies shouldn't get bailed out of the consequences of their decisions - same as investors.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 10:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Money is an incentive. But saying it is ALL INCENTIVE is madness.
Would you go to work, if it didn't give you any money? Money is the only incentive required. Fulfillment doesn't exist, because noone will go to a supermarket and take pride in saying:
"I wrapped up that piece of meat."
Monetary incentive is the only incentive of a labourer. It isn't the only incentive of someone who has a cultural profession, but I don't think everyone's a writer, painter, sculpter or MAD SCIENTIST!
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2009 11:49 PM |
|
|
I was referring to the productive issue, not if you would work at all. People do take pride in what they do, and they do it well if they enjoy working there. The only reason is not of you get 10,000 or 1,000,000 thousand for it.
The only reason for going to work is almost always money, but I was talking about productivity more.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 04, 2009 12:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And nobody forces the consumer to buy things he doesn't want.
I disagree with the world working that way. If would buy "better stuff" if i could get "better stuff" and its not overpriced to its alternativ. If you bring the better product the quality does not match the cost at all, its going down unless the competition is making worse stuff on that scale.
On the plastic wrapped idiocy. The company's are protecting their rights and trade deals the best they can. Aspartan? Not healthy but they did manage to get false rapports to ban most of the things that was sugar like.
Color-modifers? If i got the choice betwhen a product with or without i would pick the one without. If i got a choice betwhen a pure product or one filled with flavor modifiers i would go with the pure one unless the taste of the unpure one if alot better.
But the ones distrubing pure products without much crap is not big companys in that sense. Their either local or restricted to parts of their countries. Once they are pretty global they tend to sell quite well however, because alot of the "pure" juices tastes better than that modified crap.
Oh i'm ranting again? Crap 
If there was not money to earn on selling minor improvements company's would ship few models, each new model would mean a REAL improvement instead of shipping 20 different ones that are the same except 3 of them got a different amount of ram or similar.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 04, 2009 12:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you really think that the CUSTOMERS want the additioal stuff in the food, the artificial flavors and colours and the preserving addiditives? The tons of wrappings and styrofoam garbage and plastic?
Yes, they do. Or, rather, they want the benefits it provides. Otherwise, they wouldn't buy it.
Quote:
So. Where is your proof. Or at least your evidence?
Proof of what? That people buy what they want to buy? You actually need proof for that? What are you, blind?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2009 09:11 AM |
|
|
You can only buy what there is to buy, not what you want to buy.
I thought that was pretty obvious. Moreover I thought you'd be a scientist. As a scientist you should KNOW how things are done.
Question: 50 or so years earlier: did the people know what stuff was in food? Were producers required to print everything in it onto the wrapping? NOPE. Things would be developed SPECIFICALLY to make things more appealing: color for meat to keep a nice light red color; colors for sweets to look more appealing to children and so on. Producers COULD do it and DID do it - for the ONLY sake to sell more of their stuff. The same is true for artificial flavors and for everything else - you as a chemist should KNOW that, dammit.
Now did people know or care then? NOPE. And why SHOULD they? If something is
a) ALLOWED (LEGAL)
b) HAS NO IMMEDIATE OBVIOUS ILL EFFECTS
why shouldn't they buy things when they ARE appealing in some way? After all, they TRUSTED (note the past tense) to know what they are doing.
Or do you expect THE PEOPLE to go and say, hmm, my engine runs a lot smoother with the new fuel, but everything comes with a price, so maybe there will be ill-effects. It's allowed, ok, but I'll better be careful?
The thing to keep in mind is, that all the stuff that MAY cause ill-effects (and warn about it) like drugs - people think (naturally) that if you take a drug and you do NOT have any ill effects that you are off the hook forever, but that's only an assumption. It may well be (and IS definitely so with some things), that you simply have a tolerance for some things like with radiation: you can take only so much your whole life and when you had it you had it and the ill effects come.
Anyway. You asked me if I was blind. I won't ask you whether you are stupid - you are definitely not. But I ask you why you are not making use of your brain and start thinking. For example start from the point that not everyone has the education and intelligence you have - and you still have probably eaten crap your whole life until some things became obvious and got regulation from above.
People do what they are allowed to, if it's appealing. Producers to everything to make things appealing. What's so difficult not to understand?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2009 04:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Or do you expect THE PEOPLE to go and say, hmm, my engine runs a lot smoother with the new fuel, but everything comes with a price, so maybe there will be ill-effects. It's allowed, ok, but I'll better be careful?
If they're smart, then yes. If not, then natural selection will teach them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
