Jesus Appalled By Americans?

POSTED BY: Mavourneen
UPDATED: Monday, April 9, 2007 23:32
VIEWED: 11915
PAGE 11 of 15

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

ALLIETHORN7

Friday, March 30, 2007 12:19 AM

Yo, I'm back again (That I haven't made myself seem an idiot on this thread yet is simply amazin', to my mind).
SM, about what you said, to the effect that all of the folks with power have found some way to abuse it legaly, true.

What the rest of ya'll is sayin' (Too tired/ too many names to name on this post, either or), that Capitilism is inherently wrong- and that's what I managed to pick up from the odd twenty or so posts what came after mine- is misguided.

To put simply, don't hate the Game, hate the Players. If Capitalism is inherently wrong, then it is so only by the virtue of the folks using it being inherently wrong themselves. Look at how our Gov't has changed over some odd two hundred and thirty or so years we've been a nation; started out with the Articles of Confederation, which was so bad that it was changed after a few years to what we now have- minus the Amendements, of course. Then, we hobbled about for a few years, trying to repay our war debts and look tough enough so no other firmly entrenched European nations got the bright idea to snatch up a few extra colonies out of our collective hides. Then, came the fun part- Daniel Shayes Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, where folks rebelled either cause of taxes or other (Read, richer) folks taking advantage of them and their wares (Sound familiar). Skip ahead a bit to the Great Depression, and the Market Crashes. Now, in the ensuing century and twenty odd years, there were at least seventeen wars, wether they were with Brits, French, Spainiards, Native American Tribes like the Sioux, Blackfoot, Crows, etc, etc, etc...

Now, what am I trying to say? Two things meself; one, their has always been some kind of undercurrent of unrest and poverty in our society. But, it has also seen the most satisfaction in the lives of the general populace, because they can, in theory, make themselves, because there were no restrictions on them making more money and spending it how they pleased; no one tells us how we must spend our cash (Cuz, Lord knows that lots tell us how we should). People live by their own worth. Unfourtuneately, we've lost touch with that aspect, because now we really start to believe that it is our RIGHT at birth to get loads of cash by the time they're twenty. BUT, nobody takes the time to prove them wrong (That they have every right to make said basinful of cash, but that they need to bleed, cry, and sweat for it), so our society steadily gets more watered down by blowhards that bitch about how other people take their jobs for such stupid reasons as "They work harder than me, but I was born here!" It's the same about using affirmative action as a scapegoat for losing a job to a minority. It's stupid and childish, which is sad coming from some 16 year old kid.

Second? America has had a disturbin' habit of using disasters to liven up the general populace. Whether it's a war or a drought or an economic crash, it actually takes people DIEING to make us move forward (Think about that one intersection where everyone KNEW someone was going to die there if there weren't no light, but a light was put there only AFTER somefolk died there). These wars are like mini-Revolutions; they bring us forward and add some knowledge to the general publics collective I.Q., until the entire vicious cycle starts again.
That make any sense at all?

Having fun yet?

-Danny

I wanna take the Bullet,
The one aimed straight for your Heart;
I wanna meet the wolves halfway,
And let them Tear me APART,
But that's not the way they do it here...
THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 30, 2007 1:23 AM

I'm not buying you're 16, but then again, if I had internet access when I was 16 I would have been talking to a bunch of people much smarter than the morons I had around me.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Friday, March 30, 2007 4:10 AM

Hey Danny, thanks for the discussion. But I disagree with certain parts...

one, their has always been some kind of undercurrent of unrest and poverty in our society
as with most- BUT NOT ALL- societies

But, it has also seen the most satisfaction in the lives of the general populace
Not according to various surveys that place USA happiness somewhere between 15th and 30th

because they can, in theory, make themselves, because there were no restrictions on them making more money and spending it how they pleased
happiness and consumerism are found to be somewhat antithetical; health, education and GDP tend to parallel happiness

no one tells us how we must spend our cash
are you counting commercials?

People live by their own worth
except the very wealthy, who generally speaking have inherited their wealth

Unfourtuneately, we've lost touch with that aspect, because now we really start to believe that it is our RIGHT at birth to get loads of cash by the time they're twenty.
Maybe. I'm out of touch with your generation. But maybe it has to do with the consumerism that's constantly foisted on us. Ads for cars: "beyond machine", "live on the ege" "perfection" These are ads for CARS for crissake, not ads for eternal wisdom! You are what you BUY?

BUT, nobody takes the time to prove them wrong (That they have every right to make said basinful of cash, but that they need to bleed, cry, and sweat for it), so our society steadily gets more watered down by blowhards that bitch about how other people take their jobs for such stupid reasons as "They work harder than me, but I was born here!"
You believe in playing a gamed system, don't you? If corporations - which are are conglomerations of people- can dictate where we live, what we do, how much we make, what we see, and what we can buy- why do we HAVE to deal with them as individuals?

It's the same about using affirmative action as a scapegoat for losing a job to a minority. It's stupid and childish, which is sad coming from some 16 year old kid.
We should NOT be having to fight for jobs! There is so much to do!

Second? America has had a disturbin' habit of using disasters to liven up the general populace. MOST people are not proactive. But Americans are lazier than most, I agree. We have a habit of not THINKING.

Having fun yet?
Actually, yes. I hope you are too.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 30, 2007 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You are what you BUY?

I own a beat up piece of shit Cavalier and I'm a miserable, pessimistic bastard.....

I don't believe in coincidences, so you may be on to something here.

Not arguing... just sayin, is all

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Friday, March 30, 2007 11:09 AM

6ix- hahahaha!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, March 30, 2007 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are several repeating themes in our history as a species, and one of them is the development of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of others. Capitalism is not the only economic system which has created poverty, and it is not the only economic system to justify itself on the basis of greater themes.

But, unfortunately, you can't provide us with a viable alternative which creates less poverty.

And strangely enough, it is countries which have a democratic government and a capitalist economy which have the highest Human Development Index rankings.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hum_dev_ind-economy-human-develo
pment-index

So although you don't like capitalisim, it seems to be the best we got so far, and no contenders for a better system are on the horizon.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, March 30, 2007 3:34 PM

I wonder what year the data was drawn from, because in 2002 Argentina experienced an economic meltdown from which it has not yet recovered. So there are some specific rankings and inclusions that I wonder about. But in general if you look at the human development rankings you'll notice that 19 of the top 20 have a form of "capitalism" that you might call "socialism" - universal ("socialized") health care; generous wages, vacations, and welfare benefits; free edcuation; and highly regulated industry; high taxes; and (compared to the USA) relatively small differences between the richest and the poorest. So it's not pure capitalism that creates these conditions but a form of highly-regulated capitalism.

Here is a list of nations by difference between rich and poor. Notice that many of the nations in the top 20 of your list are also the most equal in income.

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908770.html

So thank you for shooting your own argument.

AFA alternatives, well... 19 of the top 20 in your list offer one viable alternative, don't they?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, March 30, 2007 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I wonder what year the data was drawn from...

Right at the bottom of the page it states:

SOURCE: Human Development Reports, United Nations 2003

Quote:
But in general if you look at the human development rankings you'll notice that 19 of the top 20 have a form of "capitalism" that you might call "socialism" - universal ("socialized") health care; generous wages, vacations, and welfare benefits; free edcuation; and highly regulated industry; high taxes; and (compared to the USA) relatively small differences between the richest and the poorest. So it's not pure capitalism that creates these conditions but a form of highly-regulated capitalism.

But didn't someone say

Quote:
"Charity" is what governments do to PROTECT CAPITALISM from it's inevitable self-generated catastrophic failure.

and

Quote:
Capitalism is not the only economic system which has created poverty, and it is not the only economic system to justify itself on the basis of greater themes...Capitalism just happens to be the one we're dealing with today.

Oh, now there's "Good" capitalism and "Bad" capitalism where before there was just capitalism. Seems like what you call "Good" capitalism is the same sort of capitalism that provides the most "charity" (as social services) to the masses.

Check here for a description of the economic structure of the top countries I listed earlier, and you'll see they're most all either capitalist or free-market.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2116.html

So maybe it's not capitalism you have a problem with?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, March 30, 2007 6:05 PM

Geezer- capitalism doesn't provide social services, government does. There is bad capitalism and there is good government. And I maintain my previous point- if we had to live under bare-knuckles capitalism, capitalism wouldn't survive for long. The only reason why capitalism continues to exist is because it is moderated by socialist government action.

I'm trying to get our a report so I'll have to be brief but I want to leave you with this concept: capitalism is primarily concerned with production, socialism with distribution, democracy is a form of government. Poverty can be both absolute and relative. The causes of poverty can be found in extrinsic factors (poor resources), and intrinsic factors such as poor productivity and uneven distribution.

I don't have such an ideological axe to grind that I'm not capable of looking at the big picture, and that's what I'm trying to do.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, March 30, 2007 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- capitalism doesn't provide social services, government does.

With you so far. It isn't an economic system's responsibility to provide social services.

Quote:
There is bad capitalism and there is good government.

And the good government can only afford to provide those social services if there is a profitable economy to tax. Capitalism is the most profitable economy.

Quote:
And I maintain my previous point- if we had to live under bare-knuckles capitalism, capitalism wouldn't survive for long.

Like the Bill Gates, the Vanderbilts or J.P. Morgan type bare-knuckles? That goes back 150 years or so and we still got capitalism here. What do you consider "long"?

Quote:
The only reason why capitalism continues to exist is because it is moderated by soicalist government action.

Here in the US that would be George W. Bush's socialist government? Or Bush I's? Or Reagan's?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE