|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
you just keep biting the bullets huh?
You are trying to reframe what I said about women irresponsibly birthing kids into this world as a responsible, positive thing that contributes to society.
no fox, no. Such things should not be allowed. People should not have to sacrifice their sweat and tears so that moochers like the one I described can thrive on it. I feel like vomiting. [/code] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
You are trying to reframe what I said about women irresponsibly birthing kids into this world as a responsible, positive thing that contributes to society. |
In a society that is struggling to keep their fertility rate at basic replenishment, raising children is a positive thing.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| no fox, no. Such things should not be allowed. |
Yes, they should, both because it's humane, and because it helps society. A society with a shrinking, aging population is a society that is going to have problems. This is the problem with your kind of thinking, it's all about you (and I use the term "you" here generically to mean anyone who is a proponent of your particular ideology), with nary a thought to your countrymen. You aren't living in a society, you're living at odds with a society, with your only measure of success how much material wealth you can wrest away from it.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| People should not have to sacrifice their sweat and tears so that moochers like the one I described can thrive on it. |
What you're really saying is wealthy people shouldn't have to sacrifice luxuries for the sake of the collective good (and yes, keeping population up and minimizing the impact poverty has on the young are both part of the collective good). We're not talking about sweat and tears, we're talking about TVs and boats. Yes, if I have to choose between CEO Bill buying a second vacation house and several dozen secretary Sarahs being able to feed their kids, I'll choose the latter.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| I feel like vomiting. |
The idea of the well off being taxed to reduce child poverty in societies that actively need increased fertility rates makes you feel like vomiting? So are you just actively trying to cultivate the image of a Mammon-worshiping monster here or what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can anyone else please tag in and puit fox (who is sounding a lot like Michael Moore with his anti-rich rhetoric) in his place?
got exams thurs.fri
sincerely,
recessiontime |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Recessiontime, have you considered Honduras?
WSJ's O'Grady: Honduras's Experiment With Free-Market Cities
| Quote: |
What advocate of free markets hasn't, at one time or another, fantasized about running away to a desert island to start a country where economic liberty would be the law of the land? If things go according to plan, more than one such "island" may soon pop up here.
Honduras calls these visionary islands "model cities," and as the Journal's David Wessel reported from Washington 10 days ago, the Honduran Congress is expected to soon pass an amendment to the constitution that would clear the way to put the concept into action.
The idea is simple: A sizable piece of unpopulated government land is designated for use as a model city. A charter that will govern the city is drafted and the Congress approves it. A development authority is appointed by the national government. The authority signs contracts with the investors who will develop the infrastructure. The city opens for business under rules that act as a magnet for investment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Along with Honduras, let's talk about Mauritius.
Stiglitz on the Mauritius miracle
| Quote: |
[Stiglitz] emphasizes the country's investment in education, universal health care, and limited spending on defense. Oddly enough he fails to comment on its liberal trade policies, open capital market, light-touch business regulation, and low, flat taxes. Mauritius ranks 12th out of 183 in the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom--three places behind the US, and way ahead of the next-highest-ranked country in its region (Botswana). Well, hardly worth mentioning.
He does underline one other thing:
| Quote: |
| a strong commitment to democratic institutions and cooperation between workers, government, and employers - precisely the opposite of the kind of dissension and division being engendered by conservatives in the US today. |
|
There are probably many possible paths to success. But the vitriolic rhetoric we see in the US today is unlikely to be one of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
Can anyone else please tag in and puit fox (who is sounding a lot like Michael Moore with his anti-rich rhetoric) in his place?
got exams thurs.fri
sincerely,
recessiontime |
You have proven nothing, just a series of paranoid rants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
Can anyone else please tag in and puit fox (who is sounding a lot like Michael Moore with his anti-rich rhetoric) in his place?
got exams thurs.fri
sincerely,
recessiontime |
You have proven nothing, just a series of paranoid rants. |
Actually, he's contributed more to the forum and this thread than you. But then again you contribute pretty much nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| There are probably many possible paths to success. But the vitriolic rhetoric we see in the US today is unlikely to be one of them. |
Yeah, you're probably right. There are many paths to success; I don't doubt that. The US too, despite all of the vitriol, rancor and cynicism, still remains largely peaceful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| There are probably many possible paths to success. But the vitriolic rhetoric we see in the US today is unlikely to be one of them. |
Yeah, you're probably right. There are many paths to success; I don't doubt that. The US too, despite all of the vitriol, rancor and cynicism, still remains largely peaceful. |
Peaceful, sure. Productive or progressive? Not so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Madigan wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| There are probably many possible paths to success. But the vitriolic rhetoric we see in the US today is unlikely to be one of them. |
Yeah, you're probably right. There are many paths to success; I don't doubt that. The US too, despite all of the vitriol, rancor and cynicism, still remains largely peaceful. |
Peaceful, sure. Productive or progressive? Not so much. |
Dial it back to the states. Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Madigan wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| There are probably many possible paths to success. But the vitriolic rhetoric we see in the US today is unlikely to be one of them. |
Yeah, you're probably right. There are many paths to success; I don't doubt that. The US too, despite all of the vitriol, rancor and cynicism, still remains largely peaceful. |
Peaceful, sure. Productive or progressive? Not so much. |
Dial it back to the states. Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? |
I really think so. Federalism would follow J. Brandeis's conception of the American Experiment. J. Brandeis was a liberal Jew, btw, and believed that except for national Civil Rights norms, the states should act as political laboratories.
Somewhere along the line, so-called progressives lost the faith, and began clamoring for noxious causes such as public-sector unions (which we are told FDR would've advocated for if he had lived long enough) and overall Federal mission creep. Progressives will tell you that we can only regulate corporations through Federal law, but this is a canard, because only corporations engaging in interstate commerce need be regulated at the Federal level. As for all the Federal social programs? That's a legacy of progressive combat with Southern states during Jim Crow. This legacy should die with affirmative action, which is due to expire very soon (at least racial classifications, a valid case can be made for class-based AA).
Some progressives on this board clamor for different representation schemes in US Congress, neglecting the Federalist solution: reduced responsibility and power at the Federal level. Principled Republicans (usually with the surname Paul) advocate Federal reductions, and in turn progressives claim class warfare. Constitutionalism is a remnant from the 19th century, apparently, and determining that Federal administrative power should be restrained? Its a very mysterious victory for racism and child labor, somehow. What progressives miss is that since the 19th Century, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been incorporated to the States (minus some stuff like the right to jury trial), and the Federal power protects citizens from State encroachment now, whereas it didn't then.
Such a tripartite division of Federal/State/Citizen power emulates the Executive/Legislative/Judicial division tradition of power we see passed down from Polybius/Machiavelli/Montesqieu in the grand tradition of Western balance of power doctrine. Again, America is a republic, not a full democracy (thanks be to the Enlightenment), and for good reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US is still the most productive real country in the world.
Norway and Singapore are above us, but one is a trust fund state and the other is a Mafialawyertocracy (a Tommy Hagen Republic?)
http://247wallst.com/2010/06/28/72005/2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:27 am Post subject: I've returned from the debt of hell, fox. |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| In a society that is struggling to keep their fertility rate at basic replenishment, raising children is a positive thing. |
It's just the 1st world countries that are having lower birth rates. According to biologists the world is approaching or has already reached carrying capacity. And even if it was the case that you wanted to increase the birth rate for economic reasons it makes little sense to have the next generation come from children of uneducated, valueless individuals that are a drain on hand outs.
| Fox wrote: |
Yes, they should, both because it's humane, and because it helps society. A society with a shrinking, aging population is a society that is going to have problems. This is the problem with your kind of thinking, it's all about you (and I use the term "you" here generically to mean anyone who is a proponent of your particular ideology), with nary a thought to your countrymen. You aren't living in a society, you're living at odds with a society, with your only measure of success how much material wealth you can wrest away from it.
What you're really saying is wealthy people shouldn't have to sacrifice luxuries for the sake of the collective good (and yes, keeping population up and minimizing the impact poverty has on the young are both part of the collective good). We're not talking about sweat and tears, we're talking about TVs and boats. Yes, if I have to choose between CEO Bill buying a second vacation house and several dozen secretary Sarahs being able to feed their kids, I'll choose the latter. |
I'll let a dead Joosh woman handle this one:
"Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth."
| Fox wrote: |
The idea of the well off being taxed to reduce child poverty in societies that actively need increased fertility rates makes you feel like vomiting? So are you just actively trying to cultivate the image of a Mammon-worshiping monster here or what? |
Again, you are forcing me to give to those that I do not value. This is unjust and vomit-inducing. They are not deserving of my wealth because their parents were too stupid or irresponsible to provide for them. Why punish the responsible and reward the irresponsible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:54 am Post subject: Re: I've returned from the debt of hell, fox. |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
It's just the 1st world countries that are having lower birth rates.
|
Well, my home country is in the first world, so I'm obviously concerned about the first world.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| According to biologists the world is approaching or has already reached carrying capacity. |
Well, I don't know who these unnamed biologists are, but they're probably wrong. Western countries assuredly do not need to undergo population contraction for the sake of the world.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| And even if it was the case that you wanted to increase the birth rate for economic reasons it makes little sense to have the next generation come from children of uneducated, valueless individuals that are a drain on hand outs. |
Your concept of value is petty, inhuman, and wrong.
| recessiontime wrote: |
"Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth." |
This is trash. Enjoyment is amoral. Giving being virtuous doesn't imply that "taking" is selfish. I don't fear people who have less money than me. I don't have any guilt, irrational or otherwise. Sometimes we have a duty to help others, regardless of whether they feel entitled to it. Many parts of this country were built by men who sought handouts. America at its "freest" had immense amounts of human suffering and misery, such that anyone holding it up as a model of "what happiness is possible on Earth," is more or less simply ignoring reality. This is all just drivel trying to justify an attempt to ennoble humanity's basest and least admirable traits. Please never quote Rand's trash at me again. In addition to it being both ridiculous and incorrect, I find it to be distasteful.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Again, you are forcing me to give to those that I do not value. |
If you genuinely don't value your fellow man then you are his enemy, as you have natural inclination to compete with him for resources and benefits, but no corresponding natural inclination to assist him due to the aforementioned fact that you don't value him. If you are his enemy, you are in no position to be dictating how he should live. Indeed, a society would be extremely foolish to accept advice from a person who just comes out and says he doesn't value his fellow man. Doubly so if the anti-social individual in question is just parroting from a fictional novel.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Why punish the responsible and reward the irresponsible? |
Taxation (when administered justly) is not punishment, and financial assistance for the genuinely needy is not a reward. Your posts are like cascading waterfalls of wrongness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
The US is still the most productive real country in the world.
Norway and Singapore are above us, but one is a trust fund state and the other is a Mafialawyertocracy (a Tommy Hagen Republic?)
http://247wallst.com/2010/06/28/72005/2/ |
American unemployment raises productivity (because of how productivity is measured). A similar amount of work being done with fewer workers. You see this relationship every day in Korea. They employ hoards of people do to very little. The department stores will have many times more workers in Korea than in the USA. This diminishes productivity statistics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
