to euph

LordOfEntropy · 09-24-2005, 01:50 PM

Well put!

spkb25 · 09-24-2005, 04:41 PM

yasoon i think we agree more then we disagree. there is no doubt that there are people that need the money. lets say you can't earn more money then you are getting from the assistance. there is no incentive to work other then pride. pride is wonderful btu it doesn't feed your family. what i said in another post is that if a person goes to work but is making less then they were on assistance they should be given the remainder regardless of them working. also excuse me yasoon i said that the system rewards hard work. if you are a person that worked hard and is now reaping the benefits where is your argument or what is your argument to me. that you worked hard so you wouldn't be poor. i am pretty sure that is exactly what i just said. my mother grew up poor also. so what. what my point was was that if you remain poor it is a result of your choices. not that because you are poor you are garbage. if your whole life is spent doing nothing to better yourself and waiting for someone else to do it well guess what you will be in exactly the same situation. i am by no means rich.really am probably on the lower middle class side. which is why me and my wife both are going to school. to change that. it absolutely sucks working full time and going to school. i do it so someday i won't have to. i own a house and two cars. that isn't enough for me. i want more. so i am going to work for it.

once and for all for the people that don't get or can't read through the lines on who i am talking about IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT CONTINUE THROUGH THEIR ENTIRE LIVES BEING POOR. . a result of bad choices

YES ON THE HYSTER. IDEA.

also we disagree very much on the governemtns roll. they have no right at all to step in and tell a buisness owner what he can and can't sell his product for. that is why there is competition. if you don't like the price don't buy the product. the government does not own the company or the resources. let it be. isn't that the motto of the market. what is the french phrase. help me loe. i don't know french.

spkb25 · 09-24-2005, 04:58 PM

hey yasoon i am also sorry you lost your pop. i have both my parents still so that must have been very hard to deal with. i am sure it still is.

stockman311 · 09-24-2005, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by spkb25

yasoon i think we agree more then we disagree. there is no doubt that there are people that need the money. lets say you can't earn more money then you are getting from the assistance. there is no incentive to work other then pride. pride is wonderful btu it doesn't feed your family. what i said in another post is that if a person goes to work but is making less then they were on assistance they should be given the remainder regardless of them working. also excuse me yasoon i said that the system rewards hard work. if you are a person that worked hard and is now reaping the benefits where is your argument or what is your argument to me. that you worked hard so you wouldn't be poor. i am pretty sure that is exactly what i just said. my mother grew up poor also. so what. what my point was was that if you remain poor it is a result of your choices. not that because you are poor you are garbage. if your whole life is spent doing nothing to better yourself and waiting for someone else to do it well guess what you will be in exactly the same situation. i am by no means rich.really am probably on the lower middle class side. which is why me and my wife both are going to school. to change that. it absolutely sucks working full time and going to school. i do it so someday i won't have to. i own a house and two cars. that isn't enough for me. i want more. so i am going to work for it.

once and for all for the people that don't get or can't read through the lines on who i am talking about IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT CONTINUE THROUGH THEIR ENTIRE LIVES BEING POOR. . a result of bad choices

YES ON THE HYSTER. IDEA.

also we disagree very much on the governemtns roll. they have no right at all to step in and tell a buisness owner what he can and can't sell his product for. that is why there is competition. if you don't like the price don't buy the product. the government does not own the company or the resources. let it be. isn't that the motto of the market. what is the french phrase. help me loe. i don't know french.

I believe that the government should keep out of most things. However, price manipulation for necessities such as bottled water and gasoline so people can do their jobs, i.e. fire, rescue, ambulances, recovery, driving to your office, etc much be protected in times of crisis.
As for your theory on not buying gas at a particular gas station. If you are close to a hurrican ravaged area you will buy gas where it is for sale unless you enjoy walking.

saintz08 · 09-24-2005, 06:35 PM

As for your theory on not buying gas at a particular gas station. If you are close to a hurrican ravaged area you will buy gas where it is for sale unless you enjoy walking.

Whatever happened to good old fashioned tar and feathering ??

Seems to be a fine solution here ....

spkb25 · 09-24-2005, 09:56 PM

thats funny 08 and stockman i see your point. i think what you are saying is that it is ok to raise prices but to kill people when they need a little compassion is wrong. i think you are right. i think people that do that sort of thing have no heart and r just terrible people. i guess my only real problem with it is whenever you have the government get involved you throw out all indviduality (did i even spell that right) and every case is the same. i guess really i just don't like the government involved in anything. so that is just my prejudice. but you make good points my man. i am glad we can all talk on here and be heard. now that is nice

Euphoria · 09-24-2005, 11:17 PM

capitalism is one thing but in a mist of a desaster and you jack prices up for people trying to escape is NOT-American.

CheramieIII · 09-24-2005, 11:19 PM

I agree E and those sons of witches should be shot.

Tobias-Reiper · 09-24-2005, 11:51 PM

Capitalism doesn't "mandate that you have the poor", just as Communism doesn't mandate that you have a dictator. It is merely an economic theory.

Now, spk, don't think for a minute that being poor in a capitalistic society comes down to a choice. Merely "working hard" (however you decide to define working hard) doesn't guarantee you success, or that you are going to stop being "poor" (however you decide to define being poor). There are many factors that can keep a person poor, such as sickness or disability, just to mention 2; sickness can financially devastate a family; or in the case of the so-called minorities, oppression, racism, etc... it really wasn't that long ago, merely a generation ago that, openly, people were not given either academic or laboral opportunities merely because of the color of their skin.

Capitalism cannot be defined as the "perfect system". Think about the Russian revolution: what good could've capitalism done in a society where no one had anything? You need to consider the specific socio-political environment of a particular society to determine which economic model is better for that society at that particular moment in time.

... this reminds me of the old Russian joke, of the Russian defector who goes back to Russia, and tells his buddy he hasn't seen in many years: "you know all those things the government told us about communism? They were lies. You know all those things they told us about capitalism? They are true"...

..and your water bottle argument is flawed. Gauging doesn't mean that prices go up because demand increases. Staying with the water bottle example; a store sells the bottle of water for $1. The store paid .50 for that bottle of water. Selling that bottle of water will yield the store a profit of .50. Hurricane hits, and now that same bottle of water all of the sudden costs $10, yielding the store $9.50 profit. That's gauging. In layman's terms, taking advantage of a bad situation to make a higher profit on goods and services that are considered necessities when it is not costing you any more to provide those goods or services as before.

09-24-2005, 04:41 PM	#12
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	yasoon i think we agree more then we disagree. there is no doubt that there are people that need the money. lets say you can't earn more money then you are getting from the assistance. there is no incentive to work other then pride. pride is wonderful btu it doesn't feed your family. what i said in another post is that if a person goes to work but is making less then they were on assistance they should be given the remainder regardless of them working. also excuse me yasoon i said that the system rewards hard work. if you are a person that worked hard and is now reaping the benefits where is your argument or what is your argument to me. that you worked hard so you wouldn't be poor. i am pretty sure that is exactly what i just said. my mother grew up poor also. so what. what my point was was that if you remain poor it is a result of your choices. not that because you are poor you are garbage. if your whole life is spent doing nothing to better yourself and waiting for someone else to do it well guess what you will be in exactly the same situation. i am by no means rich.really am probably on the lower middle class side. which is why me and my wife both are going to school. to change that. it absolutely sucks working full time and going to school. i do it so someday i won't have to. i own a house and two cars. that isn't enough for me. i want more. so i am going to work for it. once and for all for the people that don't get or can't read through the lines on who i am talking about IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT CONTINUE THROUGH THEIR ENTIRE LIVES BEING POOR. . a result of bad choices YES ON THE HYSTER. IDEA. also we disagree very much on the governemtns roll. they have no right at all to step in and tell a buisness owner what he can and can't sell his product for. that is why there is competition. if you don't like the price don't buy the product. the government does not own the company or the resources. let it be. isn't that the motto of the market. what is the french phrase. help me loe. i don't know french.
	Your team stinks

09-24-2005, 05:51 PM	#14
stockman311 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,137	Originally Posted by spkb25 yasoon i think we agree more then we disagree. there is no doubt that there are people that need the money. lets say you can't earn more money then you are getting from the assistance. there is no incentive to work other then pride. pride is wonderful btu it doesn't feed your family. what i said in another post is that if a person goes to work but is making less then they were on assistance they should be given the remainder regardless of them working. also excuse me yasoon i said that the system rewards hard work. if you are a person that worked hard and is now reaping the benefits where is your argument or what is your argument to me. that you worked hard so you wouldn't be poor. i am pretty sure that is exactly what i just said. my mother grew up poor also. so what. what my point was was that if you remain poor it is a result of your choices. not that because you are poor you are garbage. if your whole life is spent doing nothing to better yourself and waiting for someone else to do it well guess what you will be in exactly the same situation. i am by no means rich.really am probably on the lower middle class side. which is why me and my wife both are going to school. to change that. it absolutely sucks working full time and going to school. i do it so someday i won't have to. i own a house and two cars. that isn't enough for me. i want more. so i am going to work for it. once and for all for the people that don't get or can't read through the lines on who i am talking about IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT CONTINUE THROUGH THEIR ENTIRE LIVES BEING POOR. . a result of bad choices YES ON THE HYSTER. IDEA. also we disagree very much on the governemtns roll. they have no right at all to step in and tell a buisness owner what he can and can't sell his product for. that is why there is competition. if you don't like the price don't buy the product. the government does not own the company or the resources. let it be. isn't that the motto of the market. what is the french phrase. help me loe. i don't know french. I believe that the government should keep out of most things. However, price manipulation for necessities such as bottled water and gasoline so people can do their jobs, i.e. fire, rescue, ambulances, recovery, driving to your office, etc much be protected in times of crisis. As for your theory on not buying gas at a particular gas station. If you are close to a hurrican ravaged area you will buy gas where it is for sale unless you enjoy walking.

09-24-2005, 06:35 PM	#15
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020	As for your theory on not buying gas at a particular gas station. If you are close to a hurrican ravaged area you will buy gas where it is for sale unless you enjoy walking. Whatever happened to good old fashioned tar and feathering ?? Seems to be a fine solution here ....
saintz08 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,020

09-24-2005, 09:56 PM	#16
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	thats funny 08 and stockman i see your point. i think what you are saying is that it is ok to raise prices but to kill people when they need a little compassion is wrong. i think you are right. i think people that do that sort of thing have no heart and r just terrible people. i guess my only real problem with it is whenever you have the government get involved you throw out all indviduality (did i even spell that right) and every case is the same. i guess really i just don't like the government involved in anything. so that is just my prejudice. but you make good points my man. i am glad we can all talk on here and be heard. now that is nice
	Your team stinks

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-24-2005, 01:50 PM	#11
LordOfEntropy 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Cary, NC Posts: 1,838	Well put!

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

09-24-2005, 04:58 PM	#13
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,057	hey yasoon i am also sorry you lost your pop. i have both my parents still so that must have been very hard to deal with. i am sure it still is.

09-24-2005, 11:17 PM	#17
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	capitalism is one thing but in a mist of a desaster and you jack prices up for people trying to escape is NOT-American.

09-24-2005, 11:19 PM	#18
CheramieIII Fan Since 1967 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nomad Posts: 7,457 Blog Entries: 3	I agree E and those sons of witches should be shot.

09-24-2005, 11:51 PM	#19
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Capitalism doesn't "mandate that you have the poor", just as Communism doesn't mandate that you have a dictator. It is merely an economic theory. Now, spk, don't think for a minute that being poor in a capitalistic society comes down to a choice. Merely "working hard" (however you decide to define working hard) doesn't guarantee you success, or that you are going to stop being "poor" (however you decide to define being poor). There are many factors that can keep a person poor, such as sickness or disability, just to mention 2; sickness can financially devastate a family; or in the case of the so-called minorities, oppression, racism, etc... it really wasn't that long ago, merely a generation ago that, openly, people were not given either academic or laboral opportunities merely because of the color of their skin. Capitalism cannot be defined as the "perfect system". Think about the Russian revolution: what good could've capitalism done in a society where no one had anything? You need to consider the specific socio-political environment of a particular society to determine which economic model is better for that society at that particular moment in time. ... this reminds me of the old Russian joke, of the Russian defector who goes back to Russia, and tells his buddy he hasn't seen in many years: "you know all those things the government told us about communism? They were lies. You know all those things they told us about capitalism? They are true"... ..and your water bottle argument is flawed. Gauging doesn't mean that prices go up because demand increases. Staying with the water bottle example; a store sells the bottle of water for $1. The store paid .50 for that bottle of water. Selling that bottle of water will yield the store a profit of .50. Hurricane hits, and now that same bottle of water all of the sudden costs $10, yielding the store $9.50 profit. That's gauging. In layman's terms, taking advantage of a bad situation to make a higher profit on goods and services that are considered necessities when it is not costing you any more to provide those goods or services as before.