|
On May 14 2012 09:46 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 08:46 v3chr0 wrote:
Since this tread has been going no where.. about that Pacific garbage patch;
If we know most of our waste is going there, doesn't that make it very convenient to clean up? Or do people just complain about this stuff and hope that more of it builds up so their talking points are better? The pacific garbage patch isn't a huge pile of floating garbage. It is actually a collection of extremely small particles that collect in one region due to ocean currents. The particles are so small you can't see them without magnification. Please do not think that it is a giant pile of plastic bags and other refuse. Cleaning it up would be a herculean endeavour. Filtering and straining billions of gallons of water is a lot of work.
I understand that, I didn't say otherwise. I'm pointing out that the ocean currents are making it damn convenient by collecting most of the plastic/garbage in one area. This definitely is worse for the occupants of that area in the Pacific, but wouldn't it be a much worse problem if said plastic/particles were littered randomly?
|
VP socialism has two different meaning.
The first that you are referring to is capitalism at its finest with great emphasis on SOCIAL values.
Socialism in communist states (Cuba, China, USSR and Easter EU pre1990) is the same BS you are trying to promote, social ownership, shared goods and centralised-planned economy. They only share name with the first one.
Cuba is not a success story.. With Castro dying they already started transitioning back to capitalism.
Where do you get these lies from? Open a book, attend college idc. Stop posting
|
VP socialism has two different meaning.
The first that you are referring to is capitalism at its finest with great emphasis on SOCIAL values.
Socialism in communist states (Cuba, China, USSR and Easter EU pre1990) is the same BS you are trying to promote, social ownership, shared goods and centralised-planned economy. They only share name with the first one.
Cuba is not a success story.. With Castro dying they already started transitioning back to capitalism.
I never promoted communism, neither am i promoting socialism. iam promoting a RBE. Im sorry that you have been lied too and you didnt know Sweden has been considered socialist country for around 40 years. There was a communist party aswel in Sweden btw still is.
If you realy wanna compare it tho look at haiti and then compare it to cuba and tell me which model proved more succesful.
Capitalism at its finest was also funny followed up later that i should read a book  the irony.
|
On May 14 2012 10:08 v3chr0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 09:46 SnipedSoul wrote:On May 14 2012 08:46 v3chr0 wrote:
Since this tread has been going no where.. about that Pacific garbage patch;
If we know most of our waste is going there, doesn't that make it very convenient to clean up? Or do people just complain about this stuff and hope that more of it builds up so their talking points are better? The pacific garbage patch isn't a huge pile of floating garbage. It is actually a collection of extremely small particles that collect in one region due to ocean currents. The particles are so small you can't see them without magnification. Please do not think that it is a giant pile of plastic bags and other refuse. Cleaning it up would be a herculean endeavour. Filtering and straining billions of gallons of water is a lot of work. I understand that, I didn't say otherwise. I'm pointing out that the ocean currents are making it damn convenient by collecting most of the plastic/garbage in one area. This definitely is worse for the occupants of that area in the Pacific, but wouldn't it be a much worse problem if said plastic/particles were littered randomly?
The area of garbage is estimated to be over 20,000 square miles. That's still pretty huge.
If the particles were distributed randomly then they would not be that concentrated and would have little effect. Think about carbon monoxide in the air. There is carbon monoxide everywhere, but it is present in such small concentrations that it's not dangerous. If a lot of carbon monoxide is concentrated in one area then it is extremely dangerous. The pacific garbage patch is bad because it is concentrated in one area.
|
On May 14 2012 10:30 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 10:08 v3chr0 wrote:On May 14 2012 09:46 SnipedSoul wrote:On May 14 2012 08:46 v3chr0 wrote:
Since this tread has been going no where.. about that Pacific garbage patch;
If we know most of our waste is going there, doesn't that make it very convenient to clean up? Or do people just complain about this stuff and hope that more of it builds up so their talking points are better? The pacific garbage patch isn't a huge pile of floating garbage. It is actually a collection of extremely small particles that collect in one region due to ocean currents. The particles are so small you can't see them without magnification. Please do not think that it is a giant pile of plastic bags and other refuse. Cleaning it up would be a herculean endeavour. Filtering and straining billions of gallons of water is a lot of work. I understand that, I didn't say otherwise. I'm pointing out that the ocean currents are making it damn convenient by collecting most of the plastic/garbage in one area. This definitely is worse for the occupants of that area in the Pacific, but wouldn't it be a much worse problem if said plastic/particles were littered randomly? The area of garbage is estimated to be over 20,000 square miles. That's still pretty huge. If the particles were distributed randomly then they would not be that concentrated and would have little effect. Think about carbon monoxide in the air. There is carbon monoxide everywhere, but it is present in such small concentrations that it's not dangerous. If a lot of carbon monoxide is concentrated in one area then it is extremely dangerous. The pacific garbage patch is bad because it is concentrated in one area.
It is not all concentrated in one area nor is it spread out perfectly with nothing but particle like the guy says. Its a mix of both there are acually patches of garbage that can stretch several fotball fields. combined with plastic particles it is one of the most disgusting things that exist.
![[image loading]](http://jpgreenword.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/albatross1.jpg)
|
On May 14 2012 10:34 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 10:30 SnipedSoul wrote:On May 14 2012 10:08 v3chr0 wrote:On May 14 2012 09:46 SnipedSoul wrote:On May 14 2012 08:46 v3chr0 wrote:
Since this tread has been going no where.. about that Pacific garbage patch;
If we know most of our waste is going there, doesn't that make it very convenient to clean up? Or do people just complain about this stuff and hope that more of it builds up so their talking points are better? The pacific garbage patch isn't a huge pile of floating garbage. It is actually a collection of extremely small particles that collect in one region due to ocean currents. The particles are so small you can't see them without magnification. Please do not think that it is a giant pile of plastic bags and other refuse. Cleaning it up would be a herculean endeavour. Filtering and straining billions of gallons of water is a lot of work. I understand that, I didn't say otherwise. I'm pointing out that the ocean currents are making it damn convenient by collecting most of the plastic/garbage in one area. This definitely is worse for the occupants of that area in the Pacific, but wouldn't it be a much worse problem if said plastic/particles were littered randomly? The area of garbage is estimated to be over 20,000 square miles. That's still pretty huge. If the particles were distributed randomly then they would not be that concentrated and would have little effect. Think about carbon monoxide in the air. There is carbon monoxide everywhere, but it is present in such small concentrations that it's not dangerous. If a lot of carbon monoxide is concentrated in one area then it is extremely dangerous. The pacific garbage patch is bad because it is concentrated in one area. It is not all concentrated in one area nor is it spread out perfectly with nothing but particle like the guy says. Its a mix of both there are acually patches of garbage that can stretch several fotball fields. combined with plastic particles it is one of the most disgusting things that exist.
I've never seen anything that suggests there is an actual floating landfill several football fields in size. The most I've seen is a few bags worth of garbage tangled together. The rest is minute particles.
That bird appears to be fully grown. How long has the garbage patch existed? That is likely several years worth of plastic that has accumulated in that bird. That picture is sad but so what? Gulls at landfills eat nothing but garbage and they seem to do alright.
|
You are a lost cause.
Social values are good but Socialism is not good. Sweden is capitalist. They promote social values like wellfare system, free education, but they have free market.
|
Is this thread still going on? Why haven't the mods banned this person yet -- or at the very least CLOSE THE THREAD.
It's obvious he's trolling, as I've said multiple times.
He claims that Sweden is socialist and then the next thing he posts is that he doesn't support communism/socialism -- and Sweden isn't socialist? Is this for real? What mod is trolling the forums right now? The level of moderation in this forum is pathetic. You ban Destiny for defending himself, but don't ban a blatant troll who's dragging countries names through the mud for his ideological standpoint?
You've yet to provide any substance, claiming you support RBE(whatever the hell that is) and think that it's anything different from what has been tested before. It's obvious you can't see through the most basic propaganda.
This person is either a major troll, a 13 year old child(which is what I think), or mentally ill.
EDIT: You'd be the kind of person who'd believe Hitlers propaganda in the 1930's. Most of the shit you cite it laughable! It's completely biased and twisted to try to prove their point. They manipulate the truth in order to make it seem like the facts actually fit when in fact they don't fit at all. If you'd do your own research(which it's obvious you won't/cant't) then you'd see how illogical and irrational you actually are. It's like the kid who told me the NWO is coming and that the information is out there if I just look! Or maybe I do look and i'm not going to take some Communist Hippies viewpoint on the world, and simply formulate my own opinion. It seems that you fall within the parameters of the first, simply taking what people tell you at face value and then saying, "Here look, this is the proof!"
|
On May 14 2012 10:28 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +VP socialism has two different meaning.
The first that you are referring to is capitalism at its finest with great emphasis on SOCIAL values.
Socialism in communist states (Cuba, China, USSR and Easter EU pre1990) is the same BS you are trying to promote, social ownership, shared goods and centralised-planned economy. They only share name with the first one.
Cuba is not a success story.. With Castro dying they already started transitioning back to capitalism.
I never promoted communism, neither am i promoting socialism. iam promoting a RBE. Im sorry that you have been lied too and you didnt know Sweden has been considered socialist country for around 40 years. There was a communist party aswel in Sweden btw still is. If you realy wanna compare it tho look at haiti and then compare it to cuba and tell me which model proved more succesful. Capitalism at its finest was also funny followed up later that i should read a book the irony.
what you call RBE isn't even THEORETICALLY possible... lol.
Just because there's a communist party in Sweden, doesn't mean that the country is Socialist or Communist. Sweden has as free market economy as it gets, period.
|
On May 14 2012 10:42 Ottoxlol wrote:
You are a lost cause.
Social values are good but Socialism is not good. Sweden is capitalist. They promote social values like wellfare system, free education, but they have free market.
This is my last response to this subject but no they are not captilist free market like america.
Just because there's a communist party in Sweden, doesn't mean that the country is Socialist or Communist. Sweden has as free market economy as it gets, period.
They have diffrent taxes diffrent labour laws diffrent levels of privitzation nothing about this is free market. Let it go.
what you call RBE isn't even THEORETICALLY possible... lol.
Why not?
For a more general description and discussion of actual socialism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism. Someone on the last page already showed you that Sweden is a capitalistic country. I agree with you that it's the country with the best mix of policies in relation to the people vs the economy (safety-nets, "free" education, etc), but it's still not socialist, sorry. Also, the "social" democrats don't actually seek to consolidate ownership to the state nor to the people.
Social democracy
Main article: Social democracy
Social democracy is not itself a socialist system. Rather, traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades.[59] This approach has been called the Nordic model.
Allright its fairer to call it a social democracy then socialism, But to call it free market is just absurd so problem solved.
basicly a democratic socialism obviously it isent capitlism because of the lack of privatized infrastructure and the fact that sweden is being represented inside the wiki of socialism. And ill rephrase back to my point then the Nordic model has proven the most succesful one in the monetary system.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
For a more general description and discussion of actual socialism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism.
Someone on the last page already showed you that Sweden is a capitalistic country. I agree with you that it's the country with the best mix of policies in relation to the people vs the economy (safety-nets, "free" education, etc), but it's still not socialist, sorry. Also, the "social" democrats don't actually seek to consolidate ownership to the state nor to the people.
I have no idea how you can be so clueless. I hope for your own sake that you are 12-14 years old and have a lot of schooling left to do.
|
On May 14 2012 10:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 10:42 Ottoxlol wrote:
You are a lost cause.
Social values are good but Socialism is not good. Sweden is capitalist. They promote social values like wellfare system, free education, but they have free market.
This is my last response to this subject but no they are not captilist free market like america. Show nested quote +Just because there's a communist party in Sweden, doesn't mean that the country is Socialist or Communist. Sweden has as free market economy as it gets, period. They have diffrent taxes diffrent labour laws diffrent levels of privitzation nothing about this is free market. Let it go. Why not? Show nested quote +For a more general description and discussion of actual socialism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism. Someone on the last page already showed you that Sweden is a capitalistic country. I agree with you that it's the country with the best mix of policies in relation to the people vs the economy (safety-nets, "free" education, etc), but it's still not socialist, sorry. Also, the "social" democrats don't actually seek to consolidate ownership to the state nor to the people. Social democracy Main article: Social democracy Social democracy is not itself a socialist system. Rather, traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades.[59] This approach has been called the Nordic model. Allright its fairer to call it a social democracy then socialism, But to call it free market is just absurd so problem solved. basicly a democratic socialism obviously it isent capitlism because of the lack of privatized infrastructure. And ill rephrase back to my point then the Nordic model has proven the most succesful one in the monetary system.
Even the source you cite proves you're wrong. Then you twist your idea of what capitalism and socialism are in order to prove your point? They're free-market capitalists, they believe in free-markets with government intervention when necessary. They don't have planned economies like you seem to think. Even people from Sweden are calling you idiotic. |
It seems that you've decided to simply ignore my posts because they don't suit your needs anymore. That or you can't argue with basic logic/common sense, so instead you prefer to ignore it.
|
they believe in free-markets with government intervention
Lol
User was warned for this post
|
On May 14 2012 12:14 DeliCiousVP wrote: Lol
What's funny is when your argument has broken down to the point of one liners! Good to know you've finally run out of useless bullshit.
EDIT: What's even funnier is the fact that you believe that Sweden isn't making the trend towards even more deregulation and the sale of state based industry. It's obvious that you were reading about the Sweden of the very distant past, but the Sweden of the last 30 years paints a completely different story.
Am I going to come out and say they're exactly like the United States? Of course not, but to assume that Sweden is a Socialist state is more insane(or trollish) then I can even comprehend.
EDIT2: One liner, "Lol" doesn't warrant at least a warning? I'm sure the mods have been following this hot topic closely. But then again, probably not. The troll is still getting away with possibly the largest troll thread ever in Team Liquid history.
|
|
|
You could make the same disparaging comments about any large group of people or profession.
Ex. Preventable medical errors cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of patients each year in the US. Clearly doctors just don't care. What do they teach them in medical school? How to play golf? How to drink too much? How many doctors take the easy way out and just prescribe a pill instead of taking the time to find a better cure with fewer side effects?
Pointing out flaws in humans is easy. Providing a workable alternative is another matter entirely.
|
On May 14 2012 09:10 DeliCiousVP wrote:Eleborate?
Elaborate?
I wrote a massive wall of text then my computer crashed, so I decided to write three lines instead.
The following post is somewhere in between three lines and a massive wall of text. Enjoy.
Money is a credit system. It replaced barter.. Instead of trading surplus items for someone elses surplus items, you trade your surplus items for money and buy exactly what you need or want.
Money = good.
Cost is a law of physics. If you pour a glass of free water the cost is the energy used to pick up the glass, turn the tap and fill it. This energy costs the food you consume to produce it. This food costs the energy it absorbs to grow, and also the nutrients it absorbs, which in turn have their own cost cycle. Everything does. Food does grow in the ground, but it has to be planted, grown, harvested, packaged and delivered. These all are cost cycles with many sub cycles which are all part of an infinite loop of cost cycles.
You cannot create energy, you cannot remove cost. Cost is a law of physics.
The video itself points out there is more than enough stuff in the world to look after everyone, and says "In todays society, if you don't have money, basically you die."
It states the reality and the solution but fails to acknowledge the words of wisdom it speaks.
Society is the problem, not money. Society distributes money unfairly, which is why we have inequality. The concept of a global society is a new one, and a firmly established, integrated and fair global society would be required for everyone to live in the kind of world the video describes. Give it time, we are getting there, maybe, but removing money will play absolutely no part in this global society. It's not even relevant, in fact it's ludicrous.
It doesn't matter if you remove "money" there will always be some form of credit system, one way or the other.
I am suprised at the amount of debate over something as conceptually flawed as the end of money.
As funny as it may be, until this pot smoking hippie's vision comes true we will never have an integrated and fair global society and the world the charter describes will never exist. Ok maybe he takes it a little too far with "no possessions" but you get the idea.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 15 2012 02:54 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 09:10 DeliCiousVP wrote:Money is a credit system.
Cost is a law of physics.
Society is the problem. Eleborate? Elaborate? I wrote a massive wall of text then my computer crashed, so I decided to write three lines instead. The following post is somewhere in between three lines and a massive wall of text. Enjoy. Money is a credit system. It replaced barter.. Instead of trading surplus items for someone elses surplus items, you trade your surplus items for money and buy exactly what you need or want. Money = good. Cost is a law of physics. If you pour a glass of free water the cost is the energy used to pick up the glass, turn the tap and fill it. This energy costs the food you consume to produce it. This food costs the energy it absorbs to grow, and also the nutrients it absorbs, which in turn have their own cost cycle. Everything does. Food does grow in the ground, but it has to be planted, grown, harvested, packaged and delivered. These all are cost cycles with many sub cycles which are all part of an infinite loop of cost cycles. You cannot create energy, you cannot remove cost. Cost is a law of physics. The video itself points out there is more than enough stuff in the world to look after everyone, and says "In todays society, if you don't have money, basically you die." It states the reality and the solution but fails to acknowledge the words of wisdom it speaks. Society is the problem, not money. Society distributes money unfairly, which is why we have inequality. The concept of a global society is a new one, and a firmly established, integrated and fair global society would be required for everyone to live in the kind of world the video describes. Give it time, we are getting there, maybe, but removing money will play absolutely no part in this global society. It's not even relevant, in fact it's ludicrous. It doesn't matter if you remove "money" there will always be some form of credit system, one way or the other. I am suprised at the amount of debate over something as conceptually flawed as the end of money. As funny as it may be, until this pot smoking hippie's vision comes true we will never have an integrated and fair global society and the world the charter describes will never exist. Ok maybe he takes it a little too far with "no possessions" but you get the idea. + Show Spoiler +
Your corrolation between money and cost is confusing how are they connected? and i still dont understand what you mean with cost is a law of physics and what relevance it has to what is being disscused ?
|
On May 15 2012 03:50 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2012 02:54 Reason wrote:On May 14 2012 09:10 DeliCiousVP wrote:Money is a credit system.
Cost is a law of physics.
Society is the problem. Eleborate? Elaborate? I wrote a massive wall of text then my computer crashed, so I decided to write three lines instead. The following post is somewhere in between three lines and a massive wall of text. Enjoy. Money is a credit system. It replaced barter.. Instead of trading surplus items for someone elses surplus items, you trade your surplus items for money and buy exactly what you need or want. Money = good. Cost is a law of physics. If you pour a glass of free water the cost is the energy used to pick up the glass, turn the tap and fill it. This energy costs the food you consume to produce it. This food costs the energy it absorbs to grow, and also the nutrients it absorbs, which in turn have their own cost cycle. Everything does. Food does grow in the ground, but it has to be planted, grown, harvested, packaged and delivered. These all are cost cycles with many sub cycles which are all part of an infinite loop of cost cycles. You cannot create energy, you cannot remove cost. Cost is a law of physics. The video itself points out there is more than enough stuff in the world to look after everyone, and says "In todays society, if you don't have money, basically you die." It states the reality and the solution but fails to acknowledge the words of wisdom it speaks. Society is the problem, not money. Society distributes money unfairly, which is why we have inequality. The concept of a global society is a new one, and a firmly established, integrated and fair global society would be required for everyone to live in the kind of world the video describes. Give it time, we are getting there, maybe, but removing money will play absolutely no part in this global society. It's not even relevant, in fact it's ludicrous. It doesn't matter if you remove "money" there will always be some form of credit system, one way or the other. I am suprised at the amount of debate over something as conceptually flawed as the end of money. As funny as it may be, until this pot smoking hippie's vision comes true we will never have an integrated and fair global society and the world the charter describes will never exist. Ok maybe he takes it a little too far with "no possessions" but you get the idea. + Show Spoiler + Your corrolation between money and cost is confusing how are they connected? and i still dont understand what you mean with cost is a law of physics and what relevance it has to what is being disscused ?
I think his point is that everything costs something physically (labor, machines, energy, natural resources etc.) so you cannot make everything free any more than you can make physical things infinite.
So relating it to the OP the RBE just replaces money with different form of money. Like in SC2 units do not cost money, they cost resources, but they still cost something.
|
As the post above argues very well the idea of ending money is completely conceptually flawed. Those who really think it is a good idea please read some economics/history books and don't be brainwashed by that ridiculous video. We all deserve to be treated better than that piece of rubbish.
People who blame capitalism and money for social ills completely miss the point.Money is simply an effective way of replacing bartering. Rather than completely blame society (constructivist view I think) I take a neo classical realist stance and argue that human nature is mainly to blame. All living things are naturally insecure and will always seek more security. This is particularly true with humans.
Humans will primarily seek security. Most will try and achieve it by gaining greater power. In the capitalist system this usually comes in the form of money.
The primary failure of the socialist/ communist system is they fail to take into account that human beings will always try to better themselves. This is why every communist state ever has failed. The socialist utopia where everyone is equal doesn't exist in reality. By our very nature we are all defined by our differences. The people have to be kept in line and this results in totalitarianism and repression. This makes living in these states very difficult and eventually results in revolution.
The one good video on the OP is about incentives. It makes very good points. Unlike other creatures humans seek purpose and meaning in their lives.
However note how he says that before someone can operate with cognitive efficiency money worries must be taken off the table. Security will still always come before purpose.
Human desire for purpose is also incompatible with the utopian communist model where everyone must have the same ideas and purpose. In reality we all have different purposes. Throughout history political elites have tried to control peoples purposes through religion. Totalitarian regimes have tried the same as well. However they are always destined to failure because each individuals purpose is different.
Socialism is a failed ideology. There are problems with society and humans are naturally flawed. We can work to solve these problems but we must approach them from the correct direction. Not through some some flawed idealism
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/522665_216226968487822_105513649559155_332053_1337775735_n.jpg)
