BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Capitalismo

  
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:10 / 24.04.03
Capitalist Piglet, the point of a farming model that I describe is that it would be nice, fluffy, warm, community-friendly, A Good Thing To Do and not be at all about Socalist-control and freedom-limitation, which is a Bad Thing. Who cares if it is wasteful, if it enriches society?

Well, it's kind of swings and roundaboutsy, isn't it? The more people are employed on theese farms, the more people have jobs, they spend more at the local markets, who have to take on more staff, so more people get jobs, they can afford to buy more food, more produce is ordered, the farm takes on more staff, the people who have worked on the farm for a year and know how it works backwards get more respect, and more money, which they can then spend on buying new jeeps, so more people are hired at the factory that makes jeeps, so the price of jeeps remains the same because suppky is increasing to match demand, and the extra cost of the new workers is balanced by the extra margin on selling more jeeps. And these workers buy more baroque iron beds, and a small company making baroque iron beds finds itself suddenly able to charge more for its beds, which is sustained by the market because people want iron beds and are ready to pay more with their extra money, and then more people are hired to produce the beds, so supply...

Hang on, I just created a utopian model of consumer-led capitalism. Am I feeling all right? What I find interesting about capitalist structures is that it is enormously difficult to work out the effects of a change at any one point in the chain, or the volitions behind it.

Still, assuming that it all works as it should (arguably), how about those trickle-down economics? I seem to recall that Reaganomonics aimed at allowing people to maximise their capital accumulation at the top of the chain, on the grounds that this would then be reflected in benefits passed down throughout the capitalist system of exchanges, whereas if you give the people at the bottom more money you just short-circuit the whole process and end up with inflation. How did that work out?
 
 
Pepsi Max
12:25 / 25.04.03
Modern consumer capitalism is not simply one "thing" but a collection of related activities. Are all capitialist economies the same? Is there more than "capitalism"?

To put it another way, the US presents itself as the world's leading exponent of capitalism - but 15 years ago they were shitting themselves about the Japanese and Germans. Are different flavours of capitalism better at different periods in history or a society's development?
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
13:49 / 25.04.03
Pepsi, the protectionist measures the US took with the Japanese and Germans were a bad thing, IMO. The US auto industry almost got screwed.

Quote: Also, the emphasis on only the things that it values...

Capitalism doesn't value anything. The road that capitalism takes us on is dependent on what the PEOPLE value. If more people valued the environment or social causes, then you'd see things tilt that way. Again, don't blame the system, blame the people.

There is more I would like to say, but I will get to it later...
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:19 / 25.04.03
Capitalism doesn't value anything. The road that capitalism takes us on is dependent on what the PEOPLE value. If more people valued the environment or social causes, then you'd see things tilt that way. Again, don't blame the system, blame the people.


Sure but...thats a bit of a cop out. You can defend any system like that. I think it is valid to point to elements of capitalism and trends that are encouraged by them. Surely, if you want to be even handed, you can't on the one hand say that capitalism creates wealth and on the other hand that it cannot be at fault for any negative impact as a result of the concentration on wealth.

Having said that, I could have perhaps expanded on the idea that capitalism is at odds with environmentalism. I think this is a result of the goal of the allocation of cost and desirability of minimising these costs under capitalism. That sounds all very well, but if you then ask "who pays to clean up the pollution", a cpaitalist would like to answer "not me guv". This is because though in some sense pollution is a cost to us all, it isn't an individual cost so individuals attempt to avoid it.

Hence to deal with pollution you need regulation. Fair enough. Someone sufficiently radical will apply the same rationale to lots of other areas which if one were to regulate them would result in a system quite unlike capitalism.
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
14:27 / 25.04.03
This is an excerpt from www.capitalism.org, so it's naturally going to be pro-capitalism, but it sums it up simply. I recognize that it is more complicated than this, but the basic principal is that one protects what they own much better than what they do not own.
"
Doesn't capitalism destroy the environment?
No. Capitalism is the system of individual rights. It is the greatest protector of man's environment' (as opposed to the protection of the environment at the expense of man's well-being).

How is this possible?
Under capitalism all property is privately owned. If you pollute your own property that is your business (but in doing so you reduce the property value which would not be in your self-interest). However, the minute your pollution spreads to another person's property, and causes objectively provable damage, the owners of that property can sue you as a matter of right.

The right to property is not the privilege to damage or pollute the property of others. Witness that the privately owned locks and streams of Scotland are far cleaner than the government owned cesspools of socialist India.

What is the solution to pollution?
As for the disposing of the pollution of factories, this is a technological solution -- and capitalism, as the system of technological progress, is the only system that can provide such a solution.
"
 
 
Lurid Archive
14:52 / 25.04.03
But an environmentalist would argue that owning property should not give you the right to pollute that property - and note that the effects of this can be very long lasting.

Also, the idea that property is divided up in a way that is environmentally meaningful doesn't really work. Its a demarcation that has ownership as its only real goal and environment is an afterthought.

Finally, the bit about being able to get compensation for pollution is misleading. If I live in a country with laws against pollution - air pollution, say - then I might be able to get compensation if that pollution affects me on my property. Maybe. But this is precisely the kind of legislation that is opposed by many companies and is by no means a given in a capitalist system. Bush, IIRC, has been keen to do away with environmental controls.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
15:01 / 25.04.03
Sounds like cobblers to me. I think the reason that Scotland has reasonably clean water (not that clean, mind - full of horrible hormones and bacteria from fish farms, in fact) in comparison to India is that the terrain doesn't support large numbers of people and isn't suitable for industrial productions, being remote and mountainous. Nothing to do with capitalism versus socialism.

The last point you give is a circular argmuent: 'capitalism is the the system of technological progress therefore technological progress can only be made under capitalism because it's the system of technological progress'. So why isn't technological progress being made and implemented in terms of the environment?

Under capitalism all property is privately owned. If you pollute your own property that is your business (but in doing so you reduce the property value which would not be in your self-interest). However, the minute your pollution spreads to another person's property, and causes objectively provable damage, the owners of that property can sue you as a matter of right.

Unfortunately this doesn't hold true for corporations and corporate bodies - here or in the US. They are able to lobby governments and thus gain more immunity from prosecution than private individuals. This is a major problem with the way that capitalism functions in the UK and the US - protecting and preferring corporate business over the individual.

And on the first point you quote - surely the protection of the environment is fundamentally the same thing as protecting man's well-being? I don't see that you can protect the environment at the exoense of the well-being of mankind.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
15:02 / 25.04.03
'Cobblers' aimed at Piglet rather than Lurid, btw, just in case not obvious...
 
 
cusm
15:14 / 25.04.03
Capitalism doesn't HAVE a moral value.

Precisely my point. And humans working within a system without moral limitations imposed by the system will always choose profit over self regulation. Sure, some will do the right thing, but enough won't that it won't matter. As well, those that do chose profit over ethics grow in power, allowing them to more easily disregard morality because they have the power to get away with it.

You can't just judge a system by its mathematical merit when it includes humans. Human nature and how it relates to the system becomes a part of the system, and has to be taken into account. Capitalism rewards immoral behavior and corruption. Therefore, the system itself is flawed.

True, it is always up to the people as to how it is used. However, when you can statisticly guarantee that people will choose a certain way, you have no choice but to abstract this back into the system itself as cause for this behavior. I'm all for advocating the sanctity of personal choice, but the fact remains that humans in large groups work in predictable ways, and this must be taken into account in systems which operate with humans in large groups as a vital component to their infrastructure.

Under "perfect" capitalism, you have a justice system that protects people from force.

"perfect" capitalism in this case is not "free" or unregulated "pure" capitalism, but is capitalism checked by the efforts of the "left", by instituting socalist limitations to the system to create a balance of justice. "Pure" capitalism is an ugly destructive thing. "Perfect" capitalism is this system combined with other opposing systems in order to create balance, such as we have today in the US.

Under capitalism all property is privately owned. If you pollute your own property that is your business (but in doing so you reduce the property value which would not be in your self-interest). However, the minute your pollution spreads to another person's property, and causes objectively provable damage, the owners of that property can sue you as a matter of right.

No, they can't. Ma and Pa Kettle can't afford to sue Pepsico when they dump sewage in their lawn. Law suits are extremely expensive, and the weapon of those with the power to wield it, not the common man. That's why we invented this little thing called a government, so there is a body of power capible of filing such a suit against an offending company on behalf of the people violated.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:27 / 25.04.03
Just as I was getting ready for a flame war, too...


I think you are right, KKC, about the distribution of power under capitalism, but I'd make a different point about "well being". Under capitalism, "well being" tends to come down to economic well being. It is a measure that is raised above and sometimes to the exclusion of all others. Certainly, economic well being is inmportant, but it seems to me that it can engender an attitude that frames all problems in terms of capitalism and hence makes it difficult to conceive of alternatives. I remember reading reactions to Vivienne Forresters book Economic Horror where people were shocked at the idea that society should be rearranged so that one needn't work to live.
 
 
Leap
15:50 / 25.04.03
I thought capitalism was about one person owning the means of production whilst someone else, who does not own them but who owns their labour, works for the owner of the means of production?

Or is that something else?

Or is this a discussion about private property (property you either directly own/control by your self, or that which you directly own/control in conjunction with others (Shared ownership)) as opposed to delegated ownership (when you own something in name but have no rights as to control of it - a "sleeping partner" - which is the idea behind Socialism is it not)?

I am a tad confused.

Piglet -

If you are promoting the Lord-n-Serfs idea of capitalism, the one where the worker works and the owner reaps benefits based on his ownership rather than his labour, then I would oppose that as essentially a case of slave and master: The owner can work when ever he wants to (such as when no one else will work for him), but the worker requires the owners property to work ok (and so is dependent upon the owner).

If you are promoting the "private property" understanding of capitalism then I agree with you that only direct "ownership" (either privately or shared) of things encourages responsibility - anything else leads to "it's somebody else's responsibility” or feelings of powerlessness. When a free market is driven by people who do not seek to come out ahead (as that implies they are trying to sell something that is in fact not quite as valuable as that which they are buying) but rather simply meet their needs, it is a good system. The catch is when you get people who seek to cheat (profit) by means of giving less than they are getting. Most "Capitalists" seem to assume that profit and cheating are not connected (Ayn Rand certainly appears to believe they are not!) when they quite clearly are.
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
16:53 / 25.04.03
OK, well it seems we are agreeing that it is the people, not the system(s) that make the system not work. It sounds like you are all saying that people are inherently going to do bad things, so we should have socialistic measures to keep people in check. But who are going to put those measures in place? PEOPLE! And there is an even bigger platform for oppression when you let someone else decide for you what you can and cannot do, including what to do with your money. I love the Thomas Jefferson quote: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?"
 
 
cusm
17:25 / 25.04.03
Too true, Piglet. Corruption swings both ways. And for a similar quote I'm fond of, Ben Franklin (approximately): "The problem with democracy is that you get exactly the government you deserve."

The best we can do is a combination of competeing systems which check eachother to prevent any one from becoming so dominant as to be corrupted. That's the sort of policy I go for.
 
 
_pin
17:29 / 25.04.03
The other point about my disgustingly liberal view on farming is that it wouldn’t increase inflation. Isn’t inflation measured against the prices of only some goods? Because food is, Soviet-style, being bought by the supermarkets at artificially low prices, leading to government subsidies to keep this industry doing, if the supermarkets paid the farmers a decent amount they could still sell produce at the price it is no, and only loose profit instead of running at a loss. This loss of profit could easily be shifted onto other goods which don’t affect inflation, such as TVs, or out of the investor’s pockets. This cost would, I believe, ultimately be spread very thin, and would also result in a drop in subsidies, leading to taxes being spent on other things. It’s. All. Good.

Also, under capitalism, people are free to live in cramped conditions with many other people or suffer the effects of massive debts or homelessness. Under the Soviets, people were free to live in cramped conditions or suffer the effects of imprisonment or homelessness. From this, we can see that fried shit is better then boiled shit because fried shit goes crispy whereas with boiled shit there’s always the risk that the shit may be boiled too long and go watery and mushy.

[theory proposed for shooting down] Ultimately, it seems, polyopolies emerge under the guise of free choice and the markets suffer from hegemony and “Socalist-style repression” while claiming to not. Pure capitalism, functioning in a vacuum, provides nothing that it states it will. It needs people to fight against it at all times to ensure it functions well as a tool for society to better itself. [/theory proposed for shooting down]

capitalism is the the system of technological progress therefore technological progress can only be made under capitalism because it's the system of technological progress- that’s just crap, that is. First of all: the genome project that wasn’t for-profit (as opposed to the one that was) was hardly a big pile of useless crap now, was it? Second of all: fundamental Marxism is the the system of social progress therefore social progress can only be made under fundamental Marxism because it's the system of social progress and the Anglo-Saxon race is the the race of cultural achievement therefore cultural achievement can only be made under the Anglo-Saxon race because it's the race of cultural achievement.
 
 
_pin
17:30 / 25.04.03
I relaise that cusm has just said my theory for shooting down. Kinda.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:52 / 25.04.03
It sounds like you are all saying that people are inherently going to do bad things, so we should have socialistic measures to keep people in check.

Deja vu, dude. Are we going to go down this road again? (Nothing personal piglet).

It isn't a question of good verses evil. Conflicts of interest can arise between two parties - and inevitably do - without either party being good or evil.

Companies that own polluting factories do not do so because they are evil. They do so because their organisation is essentially blind to non-economic factors. One might assign a moral value to that - many do - but it arises partly as a function of capitalism. It is not inherent evil, but a product of institutional structure.

I can't see that you can argue that capitalism is worthwhile if at the same time you say that its properties are entirely determined by the people in it. If that were true, why not support Marxism?
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
17:58 / 25.04.03
Inflation refers to the continual increase in prices. The value or purchasing power of money refers to the amount of goods or services one dollar/pound can buy. Inflation means the value of money is falling because prices keep rising. That goes for ALL things you buy, including food, TVs, investments, etc. Yes, certain good and services are specifically used to determine a country's inflation rate, but that does not mean the goods not used in the formula are exempt from the effects of inflation. By forcing grocery stores to buy food at a price higher than the market equilibrium, you will have a rippling effect through the other goods and services, or will force the company to cut costs elsewhere (like with laying people off). You may have more people employed at the farms, but less at the grocery store. And ALL the consumers will have to pay more for their food. As for your little twisty words at the end, pin, I will clarify what the website I quoted from meant. Or, rather, my opinion on the matter. Technological advancement CAN occur under any economic system. But, with capitalism, there is more incentive to advance technology. This doesn't make light of the human genome project or NASA or anything like that. But it is pretty clear that the greatest technological innovations came out of countries that embraced some level of capitalism.
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
18:05 / 25.04.03
Lurid, it's dudette.

IMO, there is no such thing as "non-economic" factors. Everything in life is "economic" and follows the principals of economics. Maybe I am biased, though, being an economics degree holder.

I cannot support Marxism because I find it inherently flawed. It's a nice idea, but people aren't like that. Though not without it's own flaws, capitalism seems to be the best system so far. I would be for socialistic measures to keep capitalism in check if there were some way to keep the socialistic measures in check, as well. But there isn't. Well, not now, since nobody will vote anymore.
 
 
Leap
18:06 / 25.04.03
Capitalist Piglet –

It sounds like you are all saying that people are inherently going to do bad things, so we should have socialistic measures to keep people in check.

Personally I’d say that people are best placed to keep themselves and each other in check directly, rather than relying on the interference of a managerial class; although the people have to have a sound grasp of why they should do so, in order to reduce the chance of back-sliding!

I love the Thomas Jefferson quote: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?"

Like I have been trying to explain elsewhere on this board; if we are trustworthy enough to form govts then we are trustworthy enough not to need them…..
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:23 / 25.04.03
IMO, there is no such thing as "non-economic" factors

Art, love, respect, dignity, persecution, discrimination, bigotry. Some of these may or may not be relevant to your social organisation. But it rather begs the question if you justify capitalism by assuming that only economic factors are relevant in the organisation of your society.

It's a nice idea, but people aren't like that.

Fair enough. But if you are defending capitalism you need to justify that. So I would note that your previous argument (and leap's) isn't being applied here. "Are you saying people are naturally bad?"

Like I have been trying to explain elsewhere on this board; if we are trustworthy enough to form govts then we are trustworthy enough not to need them…..

Because if you repeat something often enough, it becomes true.

Or to put it another way...in the UK Blair has often justified the erosion of civil liberties by asking that we trust him. So, is Blair "good" or "evil"? The thing is, that isn't the point. The oprganisation of society is not arranged along a dichotomy which decides whether people are good or evil. Conflicts of interest abound. Moreover, some organisational structures emphasise, or even enable, certain cooperative behaviours.

So saying that either people will do something individually or it won't happen at all is misguided.
 
 
Leap
18:38 / 25.04.03
Lurid –

in the UK Blair has often justified the erosion of civil liberties by asking that we trust him. So, is Blair "good" or "evil"?

Hmmm Blair promotes big govt, funded by our taxes, when either:

i. we are generally trustworthy enough to form and vote in govts, thus we are generally trustworthy enough not to need govts, and so tax funded govt is a needless expense (and thus requires us to work for no gain – in order to pay those pointless taxes that we have no choice in paying without going to jail)

or

ii. we are not trustworthy enough to form or vote in govts, in which case we should not form govts and so tax funded govt is a needless expense (and thus requires us to work for no gain – in order to pay those pointless taxes that we have no choice in paying without going to jail)!

The organisation of society is not arranged along a dichotomy which decides whether people are good or evil. Conflicts of interest abound.

Which is a reason for a public court, where cases can be openly aired in a restrained manner, but not one for a govt.
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
18:46 / 25.04.03
....Art, love, respect, dignity, persecution, discrimination, bigotry...

There is a price tag on all of those, whether you want to admit it or not. It may not be a dollar/pound amount, but ALL things have opportunity cost, and therefore affects the economic climate on some level.

People are not naturally "bad", they are naturally "self-interested", which IMO, is amoral. Capitalism is the only system that uses this inherent quality of people to some sort of benefit. One benefits himself the most when he thinks about what might benefit others. Is it "bad" if his motive is money and not some touchy-feely reward to his heart?
 
 
_pin
19:00 / 25.04.03
This doesn't make light of the human genome project or NASA or anything like that.
Yes it does- it says they were done for the betterment of the person who did them, not for the betterment of society. A crapier aim.

But it is pretty clear that the greatest technological innovations came out of countries that embraced some level of capitalism.
Mostly beause non-capilatist societies spend their whole time getting fucked over by the capitalist ones who are determined for them to not work because they are run by selfish people who got to where they are by being selfish.

And prices wouldn't have to rise, profits would have to fall. Managers who do nothing with the money the earn but keep it in shoebox under the bed and thus do not contribute it back to the economy would have to get a bit less money. Boo-the fuck-hoo. So maybe we'd all pay a little more? We'd pay a little more, but then there'd be more tax monies sloshing around to pay for schools because we wouldn't ahev to subsidise farms AND we'd have a better and more just society.

I'm sorry if base level humanity and giving a fuck about other people isn't compatible with improving myself to yr own standards of what makes a good person, and improving my own freedom to fuck other people over. I guess I'll just have to live with being a better person then that.
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
19:34 / 25.04.03
Pin, I hope you are a kid. You will see, my friend, you will see. You are so far from the mark, the mark is a dot to you.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
19:55 / 25.04.03
I've been AFK for a while and am jumping ahead to comment on this. Sorry if y'all are past it.

Most monopolies are created by the government, actually (ie, utility companies, etc.).

Grossly oversimplified, and I'm a little stunned you were even willing to bring it up, Piglet. This would seem to be the perfect counter-example to the trickle-down-like argument that corporate capitalism is in any way good for the little people. Utility companies (what's the "etc."? Telecomm?) were not monopolies created by the government, they were industries regulated by the government because they provided goods/services that were understood to be too important to subject them directly to market forces -- and they are. In every sector where it's been tried, deregulation has resulted in worse and worse conditions for the consumer (poorer service, higher prices, engineered scarcity, etc), even though the deregulated company looks more efficient. They're more efficient because they're doing less and charging more, and they are not only entitled but encouraged to do so in a deregulated system.

And with monopoly-like companies (like Wal-Mart and Microsoft), there is still a threat of competition (because the market is ever-changing), so they still must remain competitive, thus providing equilibrium levels of goods/prices.

The only competitive strategy that works -- eg, that increases shareholder value -- on that scale is to provide shoddier and shoddier merchandise that, while cheaper than what's offered by less "efficient" competitors, is still outrageously marked up, so that the "monopoly-like company" can subsidize tomorrow's crappy, overpriced merchandise... which will in turn be marked up to subsidize the next day's.

The thing is, "capitalism" on this scale is definitely not any kind of Capitalismo that would be recognized by the guys who framed the concept -- except maybe Marx and Engels. This kind of capitalism, corporate capitalism (not, by the way, what I was talking about at the start of the thread), is simply coersion draped in libertarian rhetoric.

'Kay, I'm going back to reading the thread. I'll probably be a few days behind you guys.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
20:13 / 25.04.03
Q, the value these "stars" bring in is pretty hefty, economically.

To whom? I guess they're paying hefty property taxes, and I'm sure their managers are making a bundle, but I was talking about "keeping it real" in the sense of investing some of their sudden, historically unprecedented (? I'm going out on a limb here) economic power in the future of the community.

I know I'm beating the same drum again here, but this is where I came in and I'm not sure it's been addressed (except in a kind of way, by Grant). Why is P Diddy ripping off his own people when he could be helping to elevate them? Why is JLo running around with a gazillion dollar wedding ring when the South Bronx, where she comes from and where, presumably, she once had friends, is still one of the worse neighborhoods in the country? Is it because they're miseducated numbskulls who've stuck their feet in more money than they have any right to? Or is there something else going on? If yes, what does it say, if anything, about the nature of our economic systems?
 
 
Leap
20:28 / 25.04.03
That, the more you set yourself apart from, and above, others, the less you will care about them in any genuine way?
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
20:31 / 25.04.03
It says nothing about our economic system. It says these people are idiots. Besides, lots of celebrities donate to charity pretty regularly (it's that guilty millionaire syndrome). MC Hammer went broke because he gave his down and out friends too much of his own money.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
20:35 / 25.04.03
Systems, Piglet. Plural.

I dunno. I think there's more to it. Not sure what, yet.

Leap, you're assuming they ever did care -- or even that people can "care" abstractly about people they don't know. Is enlightened self-interest based on "caring"?
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:50 / 25.04.03
pin, my man, don't listen to em. You are doing fine as you are. We can all stand to learn more, but you aren't so far off the mark.

There is a price tag on all of those, whether you want to admit it or not. It may not be a dollar/pound amount, but ALL things have opportunity cost, and therefore affects the economic climate on some level.

I can accept that. But...this is partly the point. They are undervalued, or ignored by capitalism, in the sense that talk of efficiency and profitability is a local property. A company that decreases overall wealth in these broad terms, but generates a surplus profit will thrive. This is why Bush says we cannot afford to deal with global warming. But how can we afford not to deal with it?
 
 
Capitalist Piglet
01:23 / 26.04.03
On the contrary, my friend. Tapping into the human emotion is the key to successful advertising.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
04:05 / 26.04.03
If I'm not mistaken, capitalism is the reason I have ten pounds of crap shoved into my mailbox every day when I get home, and that's enough reason to get rid of it altogether.

I also hate the "someday you'll grow up and realize that life is really all about money" speech. I hated it in high school economics class and it doesn't sound any better today. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and the more people who buy into it, the more right they all are and the worse the world gets.

There's that whole Prisoner's Dillema thingy - as in if we were all smart enough to be nice to each other, we'd all benefit. But since most people have "grown up" and realized that the only way to get ahead is to screw your neighbor, the only way left to survive is to screw back.

Some people argue that capitalism is the most successful setup because it's "winning". People in china want to buy coca cola, but no one in America is lining up at the Qui-Gong Cafe to buy Hsi-Yen cola. Twenty years from now everyone in the world will know enough English to order a Big Mac and there won't be enough cultural difference to bother having wars over. Great. Other people would argue that someplace like Scandinavia has the most successful setup because they have high(er) life expectancy, literacy, employment, etc rates. I wonder if they get junk mail in Finland? If not I'm moving.
 
 
_pin
07:32 / 26.04.03
I just wrote a lot and lost it, so I'm just going to say: Yes, I am young, but old enough to vote, and ask why it is that, becuase I have not "grown up", which seems to a by-word for "getting things to take your mind off other people's problems and get a vested interest in the system", my opinions are suddenly invalid? Fuck they are! Unless you're proposing that the only way someone becomes grown up is by earning money, and thus the only way someone can be elligible to vote is if theyve earned enough money, then you appear to be legally required to listen to my opinion on this.

What sort of a system automatically ignores the views of someone about that system just because they don't rely on the system. That isn't going to sovle problems, is it?
 
 
Leap
07:53 / 26.04.03
I just wrote a lot and lost it, so I'm just going to say


A side note on this matter......I get pissed off at this happening to me, so I have taken to writing my replies in word, saving and spellchecking them, and that way suffering far less of the dreaded post-swallowing effects of the .net
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:47 / 26.04.03
Moderator Hat:

Very sensible advice. Replacing IE with Mozilla also helps me, I find.

Quick note - for those new to the Head Shop, the general m.o is slightly different in the Revolution section to the Conversation. If you disagree with someone, take the time to explain why. Insults and general flaming are, in general, acceptable as long as they form part of a post broadly relevant to the thread topic and topic abstract.

Also, if you use smilies, try to think why you're using them. Are you saying "this is a joke, and I am sticking a smiley in here to show that, so that we don't get bogged down discussing a position I'm not really advancing", or, for example, "I am insulting you, but I do not want to be insulted back, so I have appended a smiley as a 'can't get angry' sign"? If the latter, you are producing a danger of threadrot.
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply