In 1948, unemployment was was 3.8%, in 1958 it was 6.8%, in 1968 it was 3.6%, in 1978 it was 6.1%, in 1988 it was 5.5%, in 1998 it was 4.5%, in 2008 it was 5.8%.
Unemployment is based off the current state of the economy (for the most part), which is why it's higher now then it was 4 years ago and how it's lower than it was in the early 1980s. Technology does not increase unemployment, it merely makes certain jobs obselete and creates new ones.
Technology is the main reason for unemployment. and jobs have been shifting into the service sector for decades and yes we created new waste of life jobs to try and mend the holes caused.
And our latest discovery is using goverment money to keep our citizens employed in order to maintain cyclical consumption to balance out the economy you noticed some intrest are at 0% ? even tho some economist stands around scatrching their head because they havent understood yet.
Haha, it's hilarious that you would link an arguement by Peter Schiff in this thread considering as an Austrian Economist he would be one of the most vehemet oppositionists to your plan.
And you're completely wrong. The government isn't propping people up with jobs because of technology, they're doing it because the economy is in the shitter. This has nothing to do with technology, it's based on the market. We've had similar occurnes in the 1930s and the 1970s/80s. Waste of life jobs? wtf? I don't even understand what you're saying. Should would be destroy all of our cars so that the horse and buggy companies can start hiring workers again?
you have yet to show that Jacque Fresco has any credibility. All you have done is post his videos that contain zero research or evidence
To me the content of what people speak of are more important then what school they went to. He has crediability not only as an engineer but also with what friends he had one of them being Albert einstein..
Einstein did research and shared it, Fresco has not. See the difference?
Jacue fresco has done tremedous amount of research and done even more sharing then einstein. obviously in a diffrent field and not as publicly acclaimed which is no suprise considerng what he lectures about. I have actually met him and talked to him and his wife personaly.
Where is his research listed on wikipedia? All I see are books and articles - not research. For example if I look up his article "Designing the Future" that appeared in The Futurist (and I did) it's just ideas and pictures - not research.
I offer what i can find
Scientific Research Laboratories
Through the late 1940s and early 1950s, Fresco was director of Scientific Research Laboratories[28] at two locations. First located near Elysian Park in Los Angeles, it was operated with associates Eli Catran and Henry Giaretto. It later moved to a location in Los Feliz, near Hollywood,[42] where Fresco lived, lectured, and taught technical design,[11] meanwhile researching[43] and working on inventions as a freelance inventor and scientific consultant.[23] As a freelance operation, Fresco asserts that many of his inventions were unconditionally sold to his clients, thereby excluding his name from many of the patents.[44] During these years, Fresco encountered setbacks due to financial difficulties, for instance, resulting in the repossession of his lab equipment.
And this bores me anyway to talk about what credential a person have i wouldent want you to base your opinion based on what "Credientials" he/she/it has.
I'm not looking for credentials nor am I looking for random research he has done. I want his research specific to the ideas of a Resource Based Economy.
Everyone here has pointed out time and again flaws in his logic and the logic of the free world charter. So far all you've done is counter with rhetoric. Real economists do studies and experiments all the time to provide evidence that models and ideas in fact work. So, I'll ask again, what studies has Fresco done to show that his ideas will work in real life?
In 1948, unemployment was was 3.8%, in 1958 it was 6.8%, in 1968 it was 3.6%, in 1978 it was 6.1%, in 1988 it was 5.5%, in 1998 it was 4.5%, in 2008 it was 5.8%.
Unemployment is based off the current state of the economy (for the most part), which is why it's higher now then it was 4 years ago and how it's lower than it was in the early 1980s. Technology does not increase unemployment, it merely makes certain jobs obselete and creates new ones.
Technology is the main reason for unemployment. and jobs have been shifting into the service sector for decades and yes we created new waste of life jobs to try and mend the holes caused.
And our latest discovery is using goverment money to keep our citizens employed in order to maintain cyclical consumption to balance out the economy you noticed some intrest are at 0% ? even tho some economist stands around scatrching their head because they havent understood yet.
It is not clear what the contribution of technology is to total unemployment, We don't even know whether to think of technological unemployement as structural (no jobs for everyone) or frictional (time delay between losing and finding a job), or both. We don't even know what part of unemployement is frictional, and what part is structural.
Increasing government spending in during the the depressed phase of cyclical movements is an outcome of keynesian theroy, and is not a recent discovery. Near 0 interest rates are understood.
On May 08 2012 07:26 Focuspants wrote: Technology does make some jobs obsolete, but like everyone else is saying, it creates new ones. Do you want us to trade in programmers, mechanical engineers, etc... for blacksmiths, fletchers, etc...? Should we stop progressing so people dont lose jobs that technology renders obsolete, or continue to allow ourselves to progress? Look at the unemployment rates, and look at the exponential growth in our technological advances. If technological progress and unemployment were directly linked, the exponential growth in technology rendering older jobs useless, should have exponentially decreased the workforce, and exponentially increased unemployment. This isnt true, so you are just wrong.
Our standard of living is higher, average income (taking inflation into account) is higher, our life expectancy is higher, our understanding of the world is higher, the list goes on. You have nothing to show for why we should make a MASSIVE overhaul of our system, when it has generally been leading us in the right direction. Sure its nowhere near perfect, but what youre proposing is a fairy tale not even worthy of consideration.
Edit* and again with your above post, you linked a book and said nothing else. Do you have any sort of an education? There is no way in hell you managed to get through even a single post secondary class. You have no concept of how to argue, debate, support or backup arguments.
It is impossible for me to win against you on a forum where you have up to ten diffrent barriers protecting your conciousness from new transforming information. Thus argueing and debating with you is pointless as it recquires domination. We could however discuss when you stop using the language of war.
In 1948, unemployment was was 3.8%, in 1958 it was 6.8%, in 1968 it was 3.6%, in 1978 it was 6.1%, in 1988 it was 5.5%, in 1998 it was 4.5%, in 2008 it was 5.8%.
Unemployment is based off the current state of the economy (for the most part), which is why it's higher now then it was 4 years ago and how it's lower than it was in the early 1980s. Technology does not increase unemployment, it merely makes certain jobs obselete and creates new ones.
Technology is the main reason for unemployment. and jobs have been shifting into the service sector for decades and yes we created new waste of life jobs to try and mend the holes caused.
And our latest discovery is using goverment money to keep our citizens employed in order to maintain cyclical consumption to balance out the economy you noticed some intrest are at 0% ? even tho some economist stands around scatrching their head because they havent understood yet.
Haha, it's hilarious that you would link an arguement by Peter Schiff in this thread considering as an Austrian Economist he would be one of the most vehemet oppositionists to your plan.
Waste of life jobs?
The talk was relevant to the point i was making, and the point was the he is an austrian economist that wonders why the intrest is 0% thank you.
You ever had a phone job? where your supposed to trick old people into buying beepers.
It is not clear what the contribution of technology is to total unemployment, We don't even know whether to think of technological unemployement as structural (no jobs for everyone) or frictional (time delay between losing and finding a job), or both. We don't even know what part of unemployement is frictional, and what part is structural.
I dont realy understand all of what you mean here. But mark my word and mark them well we will never recover from this "rescession" the last rescession didnt even realy end.
On May 08 2012 07:26 Focuspants wrote: Technology does make some jobs obsolete, but like everyone else is saying, it creates new ones. Do you want us to trade in programmers, mechanical engineers, etc... for blacksmiths, fletchers, etc...? Should we stop progressing so people dont lose jobs that technology renders obsolete, or continue to allow ourselves to progress? Look at the unemployment rates, and look at the exponential growth in our technological advances. If technological progress and unemployment were directly linked, the exponential growth in technology rendering older jobs useless, should have exponentially decreased the workforce, and exponentially increased unemployment. This isnt true, so you are just wrong.
Our standard of living is higher, average income (taking inflation into account) is higher, our life expectancy is higher, our understanding of the world is higher, the list goes on. You have nothing to show for why we should make a MASSIVE overhaul of our system, when it has generally been leading us in the right direction. Sure its nowhere near perfect, but what youre proposing is a fairy tale not even worthy of consideration.
Edit* and again with your above post, you linked a book and said nothing else. Do you have any sort of an education? There is no way in hell you managed to get through even a single post secondary class. You have no concept of how to argue, debate, support or backup arguments.
It is impossible for me to win against you on a forum where you have up to ten diffrent barriers protecting your conciousness from new transforming information. Thus argueing and debating with you is pointless as it recquires domination. We could however discuss when you stop using the language of war.
What the hell does this even mean? I am a very logical person. If there was proof that one of my beliefs are wrong, I would be more than open to reassessing it. You however, are expecting people to listen to some fantasy based rhetoric, and all of a sudden want to overhaul the world at risk of it collapsing around us.
Arguing and debate with me is pointless because I demand facts, whereas you are satisfied with a poem, or song, or dreams of a utopia. I will stick to my approach, thanks.
On May 08 2012 07:26 Focuspants wrote: Technology does make some jobs obsolete, but like everyone else is saying, it creates new ones. Do you want us to trade in programmers, mechanical engineers, etc... for blacksmiths, fletchers, etc...? Should we stop progressing so people dont lose jobs that technology renders obsolete, or continue to allow ourselves to progress? Look at the unemployment rates, and look at the exponential growth in our technological advances. If technological progress and unemployment were directly linked, the exponential growth in technology rendering older jobs useless, should have exponentially decreased the workforce, and exponentially increased unemployment. This isnt true, so you are just wrong.
Our standard of living is higher, average income (taking inflation into account) is higher, our life expectancy is higher, our understanding of the world is higher, the list goes on. You have nothing to show for why we should make a MASSIVE overhaul of our system, when it has generally been leading us in the right direction. Sure its nowhere near perfect, but what youre proposing is a fairy tale not even worthy of consideration.
Edit* and again with your above post, you linked a book and said nothing else. Do you have any sort of an education? There is no way in hell you managed to get through even a single post secondary class. You have no concept of how to argue, debate, support or backup arguments.
It is impossible for me to win against you on a forum where you have up to ten diffrent barriers protecting your conciousness from new transforming information. Thus argueing and debating with you is pointless as it recquires domination. We could however discuss when you stop using the language of war.
Translation: "I can't win an argument when people demand facts."
On May 08 2012 07:26 Focuspants wrote: Technology does make some jobs obsolete, but like everyone else is saying, it creates new ones. Do you want us to trade in programmers, mechanical engineers, etc... for blacksmiths, fletchers, etc...? Should we stop progressing so people dont lose jobs that technology renders obsolete, or continue to allow ourselves to progress? Look at the unemployment rates, and look at the exponential growth in our technological advances. If technological progress and unemployment were directly linked, the exponential growth in technology rendering older jobs useless, should have exponentially decreased the workforce, and exponentially increased unemployment. This isnt true, so you are just wrong.
Our standard of living is higher, average income (taking inflation into account) is higher, our life expectancy is higher, our understanding of the world is higher, the list goes on. You have nothing to show for why we should make a MASSIVE overhaul of our system, when it has generally been leading us in the right direction. Sure its nowhere near perfect, but what youre proposing is a fairy tale not even worthy of consideration.
Edit* and again with your above post, you linked a book and said nothing else. Do you have any sort of an education? There is no way in hell you managed to get through even a single post secondary class. You have no concept of how to argue, debate, support or backup arguments.
It is impossible for me to win against you on a forum where you have up to ten diffrent barriers protecting your conciousness from new transforming information. Thus argueing and debating with you is pointless as it recquires domination. We could however discuss when you stop using the language of war.
What the hell does this even mean? I am a very logical person. If there was proof that one of my beliefs are wrong, I would be more than open to reassessing it. You however, are expecting people to listen to some fantasy based rhetoric, and all of a sudden want to overhaul the world at risk of it collapsing around us.
Arguing and debate with me is pointless because I demand facts, whereas you are satisfied with a poem, or song, or dreams of a utopia. I will stick to my approach, thanks.
Ask a question>Get an answer>Demand sources if you dont belive it>Repeat.
In 1948, unemployment was was 3.8%, in 1958 it was 6.8%, in 1968 it was 3.6%, in 1978 it was 6.1%, in 1988 it was 5.5%, in 1998 it was 4.5%, in 2008 it was 5.8%.
Unemployment is based off the current state of the economy (for the most part), which is why it's higher now then it was 4 years ago and how it's lower than it was in the early 1980s. Technology does not increase unemployment, it merely makes certain jobs obselete and creates new ones.
Technology is the main reason for unemployment. and jobs have been shifting into the service sector for decades and yes we created new waste of life jobs to try and mend the holes caused.
And our latest discovery is using goverment money to keep our citizens employed in order to maintain cyclical consumption to balance out the economy you noticed some intrest are at 0% ? even tho some economist stands around scatrching their head because they havent understood yet.
Haha, it's hilarious that you would link an arguement by Peter Schiff in this thread considering as an Austrian Economist he would be one of the most vehemet oppositionists to your plan.
Waste of life jobs?
The talk was relevant to the point i was making, and the point was the he is an austrian economist that wonders why the intrest is 0% thank you.
You ever had a phone job? where your supposed to trick old people into buying beepers.
It is not clear what the contribution of technology is to total unemployment, We don't even know whether to think of technological unemployement as structural (no jobs for everyone) or frictional (time delay between losing and finding a job), or both. We don't even know what part of unemployement is frictional, and what part is structural.
I dont realy understand all of what you mean here. But mark my word and mark them well we will never recover from this "rescession" the last rescession didnt even realy end.
You'll have to explain to me how the government interefering in the market somehow leads to unemployment from technology. That is what you were talking about right? I can never tell, half your posts are construed sentences that don't make sense and the others are blind jargin backed by a zeal that most evangelicals would praise.
In 1948, unemployment was was 3.8%, in 1958 it was 6.8%, in 1968 it was 3.6%, in 1978 it was 6.1%, in 1988 it was 5.5%, in 1998 it was 4.5%, in 2008 it was 5.8%.
Unemployment is based off the current state of the economy (for the most part), which is why it's higher now then it was 4 years ago and how it's lower than it was in the early 1980s. Technology does not increase unemployment, it merely makes certain jobs obselete and creates new ones.
Technology is the main reason for unemployment. and jobs have been shifting into the service sector for decades and yes we created new waste of life jobs to try and mend the holes caused.
And our latest discovery is using goverment money to keep our citizens employed in order to maintain cyclical consumption to balance out the economy you noticed some intrest are at 0% ? even tho some economist stands around scatrching their head because they havent understood yet.
Haha, it's hilarious that you would link an arguement by Peter Schiff in this thread considering as an Austrian Economist he would be one of the most vehemet oppositionists to your plan.
Waste of life jobs?
The talk was relevant to the point i was making, and the point was the he is an austrian economist that wonders why the intrest is 0% thank you.
You ever had a phone job? where your supposed to trick old people into buying beepers.
It is not clear what the contribution of technology is to total unemployment, We don't even know whether to think of technological unemployement as structural (no jobs for everyone) or frictional (time delay between losing and finding a job), or both. We don't even know what part of unemployement is frictional, and what part is structural.
I dont realy understand all of what you mean here. But mark my word and mark them well we will never recover from this "rescession" the last rescession didnt even realy end.
The economies of most countries are currently experiencing growth and as such are technically not in recession.
On May 08 2012 03:56 DeliCiousVP wrote: Is it unreasonable to want peace Is it unreasonable to want to end starvation Is it unreasonable to want to end thrist Is it unreasonable to want equality Is it unreasonable to want freedom Is it unreasonable to want respect Is it unreasonable to assume that things change Is it unreasonable to assume that if we can destroy the world we can build it Is it unreasonable to assume that people are afraid of change Is it unreasonable to assume that if you treat people well, they treat you well back. Is it unreasonable to not accept people being treated poorly because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept people dying because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept technology being halted because you cant make money of it Is it unreasonable to not accept the world we live in as the last stage of our evoution
Is it unreasonable to try and find the most practical solutions to solve our problems? is it unreasonable to assume that if the majority of the population knew how to solve our problem it would not exist?
Having knowledge and believing in something are two very different things. There are plenty of educated economists that know this communist viewpoint, yet few support it, I wonder why?
On May 08 2012 07:26 Focuspants wrote: Technology does make some jobs obsolete, but like everyone else is saying, it creates new ones. Do you want us to trade in programmers, mechanical engineers, etc... for blacksmiths, fletchers, etc...? Should we stop progressing so people dont lose jobs that technology renders obsolete, or continue to allow ourselves to progress? Look at the unemployment rates, and look at the exponential growth in our technological advances. If technological progress and unemployment were directly linked, the exponential growth in technology rendering older jobs useless, should have exponentially decreased the workforce, and exponentially increased unemployment. This isnt true, so you are just wrong.
Our standard of living is higher, average income (taking inflation into account) is higher, our life expectancy is higher, our understanding of the world is higher, the list goes on. You have nothing to show for why we should make a MASSIVE overhaul of our system, when it has generally been leading us in the right direction. Sure its nowhere near perfect, but what youre proposing is a fairy tale not even worthy of consideration.
Edit* and again with your above post, you linked a book and said nothing else. Do you have any sort of an education? There is no way in hell you managed to get through even a single post secondary class. You have no concept of how to argue, debate, support or backup arguments.
It is impossible for me to win against you on a forum where you have up to ten diffrent barriers protecting your conciousness from new transforming information. Thus argueing and debating with you is pointless as it recquires domination. We could however discuss when you stop using the language of war.
What the hell does this even mean? I am a very logical person. If there was proof that one of my beliefs are wrong, I would be more than open to reassessing it. You however, are expecting people to listen to some fantasy based rhetoric, and all of a sudden want to overhaul the world at risk of it collapsing around us.
Arguing and debate with me is pointless because I demand facts, whereas you are satisfied with a poem, or song, or dreams of a utopia. I will stick to my approach, thanks.
Ask a question>Get an answer>Demand sources if you dont belive it>Repeat.
In 1948, unemployment was was 3.8%, in 1958 it was 6.8%, in 1968 it was 3.6%, in 1978 it was 6.1%, in 1988 it was 5.5%, in 1998 it was 4.5%, in 2008 it was 5.8%.
Unemployment is based off the current state of the economy (for the most part), which is why it's higher now then it was 4 years ago and how it's lower than it was in the early 1980s. Technology does not increase unemployment, it merely makes certain jobs obselete and creates new ones.
Technology is the main reason for unemployment. and jobs have been shifting into the service sector for decades and yes we created new waste of life jobs to try and mend the holes caused.
And our latest discovery is using goverment money to keep our citizens employed in order to maintain cyclical consumption to balance out the economy you noticed some intrest are at 0% ? even tho some economist stands around scatrching their head because they havent understood yet.
Haha, it's hilarious that you would link an arguement by Peter Schiff in this thread considering as an Austrian Economist he would be one of the most vehemet oppositionists to your plan.
Waste of life jobs?
The talk was relevant to the point i was making, and the point was the he is an austrian economist that wonders why the intrest is 0% thank you.
You ever had a phone job? where your supposed to trick old people into buying beepers.
It is not clear what the contribution of technology is to total unemployment, We don't even know whether to think of technological unemployement as structural (no jobs for everyone) or frictional (time delay between losing and finding a job), or both. We don't even know what part of unemployement is frictional, and what part is structural.
I dont realy understand all of what you mean here. But mark my word and mark them well we will never recover from this "rescession" the last rescession didnt even realy end.
You'll have to explain to me how the government interefering in the market somehow leads to unemployment from technology.
No, that is not what i mean.
Factory has workers>100>Company has investors>Investors demand profit>CEO Looks into option to increase profitability>CEO automate factory>80 workers obsolete>Productivity raised profit increased> Technological unemoployment creates 80 unemployed being.
Goverment reacts>To hinder unrest and discontent desperatly tries to stimulate job growth>Mild success> 10%> Social security hammering out money to squal disconent.
... and what is wrong with that?
Nothing so please do that, and if you already have please repeat.
On May 08 2012 03:56 DeliCiousVP wrote: Is it unreasonable to want peace Is it unreasonable to want to end starvation Is it unreasonable to want to end thrist Is it unreasonable to want equality Is it unreasonable to want freedom Is it unreasonable to want respect Is it unreasonable to assume that things change Is it unreasonable to assume that if we can destroy the world we can build it Is it unreasonable to assume that people are afraid of change Is it unreasonable to assume that if you treat people well, they treat you well back. Is it unreasonable to not accept people being treated poorly because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept people dying because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept technology being halted because you cant make money of it Is it unreasonable to not accept the world we live in as the last stage of our evoution
Is it unreasonable to try and find the most practical solutions to solve our problems? is it unreasonable to assume that if the majority of the population knew how to solve our problem it would not exist?
It is unreasonable to imply that people who disagree with your preferred solutions or critiques don't want those things or are not interested in bettering human life simply because they disagree with your preferred solutions or critiques.
On May 08 2012 07:26 Focuspants wrote: Technology does make some jobs obsolete, but like everyone else is saying, it creates new ones. Do you want us to trade in programmers, mechanical engineers, etc... for blacksmiths, fletchers, etc...? Should we stop progressing so people dont lose jobs that technology renders obsolete, or continue to allow ourselves to progress? Look at the unemployment rates, and look at the exponential growth in our technological advances. If technological progress and unemployment were directly linked, the exponential growth in technology rendering older jobs useless, should have exponentially decreased the workforce, and exponentially increased unemployment. This isnt true, so you are just wrong.
Our standard of living is higher, average income (taking inflation into account) is higher, our life expectancy is higher, our understanding of the world is higher, the list goes on. You have nothing to show for why we should make a MASSIVE overhaul of our system, when it has generally been leading us in the right direction. Sure its nowhere near perfect, but what youre proposing is a fairy tale not even worthy of consideration.
Edit* and again with your above post, you linked a book and said nothing else. Do you have any sort of an education? There is no way in hell you managed to get through even a single post secondary class. You have no concept of how to argue, debate, support or backup arguments.
It is impossible for me to win against you on a forum where you have up to ten diffrent barriers protecting your conciousness from new transforming information. Thus argueing and debating with you is pointless as it recquires domination. We could however discuss when you stop using the language of war.
What the hell does this even mean? I am a very logical person. If there was proof that one of my beliefs are wrong, I would be more than open to reassessing it. You however, are expecting people to listen to some fantasy based rhetoric, and all of a sudden want to overhaul the world at risk of it collapsing around us.
Arguing and debate with me is pointless because I demand facts, whereas you are satisfied with a poem, or song, or dreams of a utopia. I will stick to my approach, thanks.
Ask a question>Get an answer>Demand sources if you dont belive it>Repeat.
... and what is wrong with that?
You're supposed to be entranced by the videos and to mindlessly spout their rhetoric once they're finished.
Which leads me to another question. How many people actually support/follow this group?
On May 08 2012 07:26 Focuspants wrote: Technology does make some jobs obsolete, but like everyone else is saying, it creates new ones. Do you want us to trade in programmers, mechanical engineers, etc... for blacksmiths, fletchers, etc...? Should we stop progressing so people dont lose jobs that technology renders obsolete, or continue to allow ourselves to progress? Look at the unemployment rates, and look at the exponential growth in our technological advances. If technological progress and unemployment were directly linked, the exponential growth in technology rendering older jobs useless, should have exponentially decreased the workforce, and exponentially increased unemployment. This isnt true, so you are just wrong.
Our standard of living is higher, average income (taking inflation into account) is higher, our life expectancy is higher, our understanding of the world is higher, the list goes on. You have nothing to show for why we should make a MASSIVE overhaul of our system, when it has generally been leading us in the right direction. Sure its nowhere near perfect, but what youre proposing is a fairy tale not even worthy of consideration.
Edit* and again with your above post, you linked a book and said nothing else. Do you have any sort of an education? There is no way in hell you managed to get through even a single post secondary class. You have no concept of how to argue, debate, support or backup arguments.
It is impossible for me to win against you on a forum where you have up to ten diffrent barriers protecting your conciousness from new transforming information. Thus argueing and debating with you is pointless as it recquires domination. We could however discuss when you stop using the language of war.
What the hell does this even mean? I am a very logical person. If there was proof that one of my beliefs are wrong, I would be more than open to reassessing it. You however, are expecting people to listen to some fantasy based rhetoric, and all of a sudden want to overhaul the world at risk of it collapsing around us.
Arguing and debate with me is pointless because I demand facts, whereas you are satisfied with a poem, or song, or dreams of a utopia. I will stick to my approach, thanks.
Ask a question>Get an answer>Demand sources if you dont belive it>Repeat.
... and what is wrong with that?
Indeed, it seems pretty much exactly how a rational mind should operate.
On May 08 2012 03:56 DeliCiousVP wrote: Is it unreasonable to want peace Is it unreasonable to want to end starvation Is it unreasonable to want to end thrist Is it unreasonable to want equality Is it unreasonable to want freedom Is it unreasonable to want respect Is it unreasonable to assume that things change Is it unreasonable to assume that if we can destroy the world we can build it Is it unreasonable to assume that people are afraid of change Is it unreasonable to assume that if you treat people well, they treat you well back. Is it unreasonable to not accept people being treated poorly because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept people dying because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept technology being halted because you cant make money of it Is it unreasonable to not accept the world we live in as the last stage of our evoution
Is it unreasonable to try and find the most practical solutions to solve our problems? is it unreasonable to assume that if the majority of the population knew how to solve our problem it would not exist?
It is unreasonable to imply that people who disagree with your preferred solutions or critiques don't want those things or are not interested in bettering human life simply because they disagree with your preferred solutions or critiques.
No its not did i ever write that in there? i was simply implying why i offer the solution that i do and try to establish what is considered reasonable.
But mark my word and mark them well we will never recover from this "rescession" the last rescession didnt even realy end.
When we do fully recover from it, will you own up to that, or will you just assert that it never really ended like the "last recession" that never really ended according to you?
On May 08 2012 03:56 DeliCiousVP wrote: Is it unreasonable to want peace Is it unreasonable to want to end starvation Is it unreasonable to want to end thrist Is it unreasonable to want equality Is it unreasonable to want freedom Is it unreasonable to want respect Is it unreasonable to assume that things change Is it unreasonable to assume that if we can destroy the world we can build it Is it unreasonable to assume that people are afraid of change Is it unreasonable to assume that if you treat people well, they treat you well back. Is it unreasonable to not accept people being treated poorly because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept people dying because they dont have any money Is it unreasonable to not accept technology being halted because you cant make money of it Is it unreasonable to not accept the world we live in as the last stage of our evoution
Is it unreasonable to try and find the most practical solutions to solve our problems? is it unreasonable to assume that if the majority of the population knew how to solve our problem it would not exist?
It is unreasonable to imply that people who disagree with your preferred solutions or critiques don't want those things or are not interested in bettering human life simply because they disagree with your preferred solutions or critiques.
No its not that i ever write that in there? i was simply implying why i offer the solution that i do and try to establish what is considered reasonable.
No its not that i ever write that in there? i was simply implying why i offer the solution that i do and try to establish what is considered reasonable.
The implication is written all over that quote. By implication you place yourself on the side of all those right things and you asking people "is it unreasonable" implies that they are being unreasonable. You shouldn't have to ask "is it unreasonable" if you actually think they already believe those things are reasonable.
I disagree with someone, I start asking them "is it unreasonable to want [something desirable]?" The implication is that my position is the reasonable one that wants it, and theirs doesn't want it or doesn't care about it and is unreasonable.
On May 08 2012 07:26 Focuspants wrote: Technology does make some jobs obsolete, but like everyone else is saying, it creates new ones. Do you want us to trade in programmers, mechanical engineers, etc... for blacksmiths, fletchers, etc...? Should we stop progressing so people dont lose jobs that technology renders obsolete, or continue to allow ourselves to progress? Look at the unemployment rates, and look at the exponential growth in our technological advances. If technological progress and unemployment were directly linked, the exponential growth in technology rendering older jobs useless, should have exponentially decreased the workforce, and exponentially increased unemployment. This isnt true, so you are just wrong.
Our standard of living is higher, average income (taking inflation into account) is higher, our life expectancy is higher, our understanding of the world is higher, the list goes on. You have nothing to show for why we should make a MASSIVE overhaul of our system, when it has generally been leading us in the right direction. Sure its nowhere near perfect, but what youre proposing is a fairy tale not even worthy of consideration.
Edit* and again with your above post, you linked a book and said nothing else. Do you have any sort of an education? There is no way in hell you managed to get through even a single post secondary class. You have no concept of how to argue, debate, support or backup arguments.
It is impossible for me to win against you on a forum where you have up to ten diffrent barriers protecting your conciousness from new transforming information. Thus argueing and debating with you is pointless as it recquires domination. We could however discuss when you stop using the language of war.
What the hell does this even mean? I am a very logical person. If there was proof that one of my beliefs are wrong, I would be more than open to reassessing it. You however, are expecting people to listen to some fantasy based rhetoric, and all of a sudden want to overhaul the world at risk of it collapsing around us.
Arguing and debate with me is pointless because I demand facts, whereas you are satisfied with a poem, or song, or dreams of a utopia. I will stick to my approach, thanks.
Ask a question>Get an answer>Demand sources if you dont belive it>Repeat.
... and what is wrong with that?
Indeed, it seems pretty much exactly how a rational mind should operate.
Im glad you all think so feel free to start using this formula så we can all communicate faster and more efficent.
The implication is written all over that quote
i was responding to a question of what is considered reasonable. I cant be held responsible from what you feel is implied i can only express what i meant.
EPT
