DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Sheep Tag Community
HTML https://sheeptag.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2095--------------------------------------------------
To Americans
DIR By: Shoop
Date: October 24, 2013, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
#Post#: 2100--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: Spoofy
Date: October 24, 2013, 1:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure what your point is here, but I know for fact the
economist mentioned in the video was biased towards equity. It
is simple economics, equity vs efficiency. Both methods are
viable for an economy. Yes I agree, north america is 'efficient'
in economical terms. Meaning wealth is not dispersed, if you are
on the top, you are most likely going to stay at the top. If you
worked hard, had the opportunity (could be luck etc.) to get a
good education, you will most likely be at the top. On the other
hand, if you are at the bottom and in the slums, more likely to
stay at the bottom. North american culture does not care about
these facts, they ignore them and try to continue to advance
with 'efficiency'. But does that mean they are wrong? no. There
are pros and cons to both methods and opinions. Equity means to
disperse the wealth between the rich and the poor, try to
equalize society. However, how would you justify this situation?
For example, a person who is rich has to work his/her ass off to
support (equalize) someone who is dirt poor because they simply
do not care / lazy / unable. It is sad, but it is reality.
#Post#: 2101--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: Shoop
Date: October 24, 2013, 1:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I am not sure what your point is here, but I know for fact the
economist mentioned in the video was biased towards equity.
--- End Quote ---
What does this even mean lol? "Biased towards equity"? That he
prefers equality (even though equity is an economic term that
means something completley different I am going to assume you
mean equality) over inequality? Who doesnt lol? Through an
objective perspective how can you claim that inequality is
better than inequality? And what difference does it make if he
prefers equality? Do you think he made up the numbers?
My point is the numbers are insane. And it seems like a vast
majority of your so called "democratic country" agrees with.
--- Quote ---
> It is simple economics, equity vs efficiency.
--- End Quote ---
Wrong.
--- Quote ---
> Yes I agree, north america is 'efficient' in economical terms.
--- End Quote ---
How is USA efficient?
--- Quote ---
> If you worked hard, had the opportunity (could be luck etc.)
to get a good education, you will most likely be at the top.
--- End Quote ---
USA land terrible in the kind of rankings that meassure "class
trips", so hard work and skill is probably not a very important
factor to why people get rich in USA.
--- Quote ---
> On the other hand, if you are at the bottom and in the slums,
more likely to stay at the bottom.
--- End Quote ---
And you think this is good?
--- Quote ---
> North american culture does not care about these facts, they
ignore them and try to continue to advance with 'efficiency'.
--- End Quote ---
Efficiency has nothing to do with this.
--- Quote ---
> There are pros and cons to both methods and opinions.
--- End Quote ---
What methods lol, whats positive about inequality?
--- Quote ---
> For example, a person who is rich has to work his/her ass off
to support (equalize) someone who is dirt poor because they
simply do not care / lazy / unable. It is sad, but it is
reality.
--- End Quote ---
Nothing supports the claim that people are rich because they
work hard or that people are poor because they are lazy.
#Post#: 2103--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: Spoofy
Date: October 24, 2013, 2:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> What does this even mean lol? "Biased towards equity"? That he
prefers equality (even though equity is an economic term that
means something completley different I am going to assume you
mean equality) over inequality? Who doesnt lol? Through an
objective perspective how can you claim that inequality is
better than inequality? And what difference does it make if he
prefers equality? Do you think he made up the numbers?
>
> My point is the numbers are insane. And it seems like a vast
majority of your so called "democratic country" agrees with.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Wrong.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> How is USA efficient?
--- End Quote ---
response:
i am not saying 'efficiency' is better than 'equity' and i am
not trying to prove you wrong, i am simply trying to inform
you.
i am taking economics at university level. business student.
its simple economics, learn the terms linked below dr.shoop the
economist... i was never stating the CASE was simple. however, i
was saying it can be broken down to the most basic levels of
'equity' vs 'efficiency'. its a huge controversial topic that
economists have discussed for years.
'efficiency' -
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency
'equity' -
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(economics)
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(economics)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> USA land terrible in the kind of rankings that meassure "class
trips", so hard work and skill is probably not a very important
factor to why people get rich in USA.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> And you think this is good?
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> What methods lol, whats positive about inequality?
>
--- End Quote ---
Response:
stated before, there are pros and cons for both 'efficiency' and
equity'. in my opinion, efficiency is best for the economy. i
never said it was good, i do not think its good that people who
are poor are more likely to stay poor, but when you are trying
to be "efficient" that is what happens. its harsh reality, and
there is no perfect economy, there is no such thing as EQUALITY,
its impossible.
--- Quote ---
> Nothing supports the claim that people are rich because they
work hard or that people are poor because they are lazy.
--- End Quote ---
Response:
use your brain shoop, i was using the extremes to make a point.
how would equality exist if this is a possible scenario when
attempting to spread the wealth?
#Post#: 2104--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: Shoop
Date: October 24, 2013, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thats nice Spoofy. Ive also studied economics at universitylevel
dont worry.
Now, lets discuss what the video is about instead of the
pseudoscientific theories you learned in businessclass, shall
we? :)
This video is about economic inequality in USA. Are the levels
acceptable? To start the discussion we need to know where we
have eachother, so Ill summarize my position
Me and most people agree inequality is something bad,
intrinsically. Equality is an objective value for a society. We
agree that perhaps some degree if inequality is required
(allthough by itself, "everything else equal", still negative)
for society to function, and that everyone benefit from it to a
certain extinct.
From an objective level Id say there are 3 perspectives you can
have on economic inequality :
1. All equality is bad. No matter what effect it has on the
economy. This is some sort of Neo-Marxism I guess.
2. The only acceptable inequality is the inequality that benefit
those worst off. This is a central thesis for John Rawls theory
on justice, probably the most influential book in politic theory
of the 20th century and essentially the central thesis for
social liberalism.
3. Inequality is acceptable as a tool to increase production.
The capitalistic view, essentially that production itself is the
only value.
Thats the moral/ideological perspective of it, and Id say I am
number 2. And I think most people more or less would position
themselves there if they thought it through.
Now where is USA:s inequality at?
Its definently past 1. USA isnt perfecly equal. Its definently
past 2 too. The inequality in USA does not benefit those worst
off. And Id say its even past 3. The economic inequality in USA
is so high its actually negative for the economy.
So, whats your ideological perspective on equality and how do
you think USA today fit into this?
#Post#: 2121--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: Tollison
Date: October 24, 2013, 8:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We all know America is a piece of shit political arena, Shoop.
Generation after generation is trying to fix it.
#Post#: 2123--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: Spoofy
Date: October 24, 2013, 8:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
summary of my points: pointed out video was biased towards
'equity' (basically equality), flamed american's 'efficient'
economy that is failing. i explained 'equity' and 'efficiency'.
stated america's economy uses 'efficiency' (basically
inequality) rather than 'equity' (basically equality). agreed
'efficiency' (basically inequality) is not necessarily a good
thing, but neither is 'equity' (equality). both "methods" have
their pros and cons. economists have spent years theorizing how
the economy should work, rather than how it is working. how it
is working is non refutable, the economy will work itself out.
answering your question: usa's economy is 'efficiency'
(INEQUALITY). in my opinion, usa's economy is completely
unequal, they do not give a shit about the lower class. i do not
agree with it, but shit, i have no control over it. and like i
mentioned before, i am not trying to prove you wrong regarding
your opinion on the video. usa's economy is shit, and they are
using 'efficieny', but i do not agree'equity' (EQUALITY) would
fix it.
side note:personally, i think you basing your reasoning off of 3
points you came up lacks evidence and solidity. its too black
and white with no grey. how the economy functions is definitely
grey. thus i do not think it is wise to base your reasoning off
it.
#Post#: 2125--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: Chakra
Date: October 24, 2013, 9:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
An efficient economy would be one that strives to produce things
at minimal costs. The US, in no way shape or form, does this.
Instead, most industries try to undercut competition via corrupt
regulations, reduction of social welfare, and much more.
A more efficient system, as proven by history, would be one that
grants equal opportunity from the beginning and then "weeds out"
individuals that under-perform.
#Post#: 2127--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: Spoofy
Date: October 24, 2013, 9:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> An efficient economy would be one that strives to produce
things at minimal costs. The US, in no way shape or form, does
this. Instead, most industries try to undercut competition via
corrupt regulations, reduction of social welfare, and much more.
--- End Quote ---
efficiency in economical terms is different than efficiency's
defintion lol
edit: changed a word
#Post#: 2130--------------------------------------------------
Re: To Americans
DIR By: koala
Date: October 24, 2013, 10:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote=
HTML http://calicantsar.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/semantics-2.html]What<br
/>is exchanged as information concerning our position within the
group's dynamics, must preserve the group's existence, and
remain loyal to the basic requirement of access and inclusion.
Language takes on a specialized form of acknowledging each
other's shared commitments to the group's well-being.
Not only what words are used but how they are used and what
emotional impact they carry, is already predetermined, and taken
for granted, through the authorities we reference and how they
are respected.
Those who challenge group dynamics or disrupt them or threaten
to tear them a part, are excluded, in unison, from
consideration. They are pariahs who are judged using a harsher
more stringent standard, which is never applied to anybody else,
if they remain loyal and dedicated to the shared rules.
Simply using terms like Nazi, Hitler, racist, fascist, Commie,
sexist amongst certain circles (each circle having tis own list
of emotionally laden words) and/or questioning the official
dogma, is enough to box you into a category which is not to be
taken seriously, or a category which should be expelled from the
communal grooming, as soon as possible, because (s)he has not
shown the proper deference to the shared ideals, has not learned
the proper usage and application of terms, and what concepts are
considered “out of bounds,” by the group’s unwritten rule.
Another method of unrevealed, dismissive, pseudo-intellectualism
is the specialized forms certain disciplines construct to
separate themselves from the others, as the ones who have
learned the proper terms, and their proper usage, so as to
justify the time and effort and money expended towards
memorizing and learning the precedent: the official narrative of
the particular discipline.
Often times the concepts are quite simple but they are delivered
with such rigid, specialized terminology, that one begins to
feel like something more profound is being talked about.
This is most evident in Religion and in Economics, where a
shared text, with shared words (the slang of the trade), is part
of the mystique, being promoted as part of the specialists own
status.
In the area of philosophy the same holds true, to such a degree
that the mere usage of the term "philosophy" has become pompous
and arrogant, connected to academics and the endless recitation
of historical precedent, and discussions through authority
figures.
You cannot discuss a shared reality, without having to use the
proper references (implying proper credentials) using the
appropriate terminology, similar to repeating a Biblical prayer,
by precisely repeating text.
Most of the time what is being said is quite simple and easily
understood, by even the average mind, but it is immersed in
particular terminologies, referring to how particular thinkers
used the particular word, that it sounds as if it is far more
complex than it really is.
Those who are obsessed with remaining true to their studies of
precedent and the official narratives, are the ones who insist
on using pretentious methods, play-acting to be far more wise
than they really are. In groups this shared verbiage is defended
with vigor, because a shared lie is a common truth.
A simpleton academic with no ability to think on his own, will
prefer to engage the world around him via these surrogate
authority figures, loyalty adhering to the terminology,
repeating the concepts as close to how he learned it, as
possible.
In groups there is no way they will allow any outsiders from
disturbing their grooming, if he does not prove to be one of
them by the precise usage of the words, in accordance to how it
has been taught through the appropriate institutions, using the
exact same words, referring to the same narrative, the same
shared authorities and precedent.
What is being exchanged may be ridiculous, but that it is shared
and part of the specialized dynamics of the particular
sub-grouping, is what ensures that no interference will be
permitted.
This is how the mind is contained through the limitation of
words, or the connection with emotions or particular
conceptions, allowing for no divergence that may challenge the
official story, disturb the established internal hierarchies and
expose the lies beneath the semantics.[/quote]
Also interesting post about Obamacare
HTML http://anti-gnostic.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/why-medicareobamacare-cant-work.html
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page