I did laught a little at that one. 

According to ABC News, the day after we all bailed out AIG, its board all went on a $500,000 trip to a resort and played golf.

I suppose I don't need to say who paid the bill.

Ok, I'm not really knowledgeable about economics or financial stuff, so let me ask kind of an innocent question, might even sound naive. Please though, before you completely shoot down my idea, give it some thought.

Why is our economy not based on our collective ability to produce? Instead, our economy is based on an abstract concept called money. If you have a stack of lumber, hammer and nails, you can build a house. If all you have is a stack of $20's you're gonna freeze your ass off.

Let me make an analogy. If you're driving down a narrow road with a couple friends, and come to a huge rock in the road, you and your friends would get out of the car, push from one side of the rock and move it off the road.

Instead, the way our economy works, because of the intense competitive need to have `money', is that we, collectivley as workers, get up everyday, and, as a society, we are all standing and pushing from opposite sides of the rock.

If we're all under the same flag, why aren't we working together to make sure everyone has everything they need, just like you and your friends helping each other to move the rock off the road?

I know we need a means of universal trade, but the whole rat race concept of charging more and more money for stuff that is basically a necessity just gets ridiculous.

As a previous poster pointed out, there is actually too much housing. Too many contractors. And there's people living in the street and in shelters. What sense can this possibly make?

How can we expect hundreds of millions of people to work 40-60+ hours a week producing stuff and providing services, when we have automation and technology coming out of our ears? What are we going to do 100 years from now when robotics becomes even more common place?

So these are my thoughts, please give them some thought, maybe expand on them. It seems to me we as a society need to seriously reassess our approach to the everday workaday concept, so we can move into the automation and technology age without having to end up killing each other in a massive sea of anarchy ala Thunderdome and Mad Max,.

psychoak,

Thanks for your response.

The politicians that are running the show sit around in meetings blowing hot air, making a bunch of extraneous laws so they can substantiate their full time political job that started out as a part time job years ago and that's what it should still be, because unless you're constantly making new laws, there is nothing else to do. Most of those guys already had high paying jobs, now they're just making their money a whole lot easier. That's why they want to get re-elected.

Then you have the people running the stock market, making hundreds of millions for themselves, while playing with other people's money, including 401k retirement funds.

Then you have actual hard working people that are busting their asses at a real job, like EMT - emergency medical technicians - saving lives everyday, they make a whopping 40k a year `reward' money approx. Then you have guys like the coal miners, what do they get `rewarded', about $13.00/hr?

So my point is, the `reward' system is upside down and completely broken. 

As long as there is plenty enough to go around, we might as well make sure everyone is taken care of at a decent level. Then let the super achievers have their Porsche in the driveway.

You're asking me if I'm perfect. Of course not. Would I work if I had 10 miliion dollars? Yes, of course, and so would most other people that I've asked the same question.  

You are basing a lot of your thoughts on how afraid you are that everyone would just sit back and do nothing.

This doesn't need to be some ultimate `Utopia', in order for these things to happen. Most people naturally want to work and feel useful.

The trouble is that even among those that would continue to work, many wouldn't work with the same dedication, and there are a lot of jobs that wouldn't get done.  You mentioned miners being paid less than stock traders and executives.  The reason executives get paid so much is because their job is one that anyone would want, but that not many are qualified for.  How many people would work as miners if they didn't need the money?  How many would work at a farm all day?  The pay is the main reason people stay with these low paying and difficult but necessary jobs.  If all of us were wealthy, the workers for these jobs wouldn't meet the demand, because even if we all worked, we'd generally find something easier and more pleasant than those things.

My formal education in politics began and ended with my freshman year of undergraduate university study.  Admittedly, I have neither the time nor resources to diversify my qualifications so far as to include economics or government.  While I am not personally effected by financial crises, recessions, depressions, or otherwise, I would like to point out that the mortgage foreclosure rate does not appear likely to go over 5-6%.  At the point of default, the home in question is repossessed by whatever entity is loaning the mortgage.  My natural distrust of all things bureaucratic does not nurture a paranoia great enough to believe that the US government can somehow misplace the bulk of $700 billion dollars plus interest and the material assets acquired through any buyout plan.

As for the tangent discussion…

No one in my field of expertise does it for the money.  Note: I can use the absolute, because I’ve personally met everyone in my field of expertise.

-Dr. B

Pardon me but more I read you psychoak and more well how I say wish you to meet the situation of those who you describe as lazy ppl. Not everything is in our control and one day something may go wrong and things may developpe pretty quick without you even noticeing it. That day you would be glad to have someone to offer you a hand of help but in your world that help will never come. In your perfect world where every one is happy and where the failure is impossible and where everything depends on your own will the help isn't needed. 

As far as veterans are concerned well know that they fought for your sorry ass so at least you can respect that and stopp by them just to ask them what is wrong or have a chat with them instead assuming that they are all fools because all they do they drik, and you never asked them why they drink. 

P.S.

For statistics my professor used to say us : "Statistics are the best tool of propaganda. You can make them say what ever you want and it will always sound in your favor"

In the range of categorical statements are refuted by one counter-example, I have here in front of me a wonderful gif, How Our Mail Gets to Us saved from that paragon of communist thinking, Fortune magazine (Despite some searching, I'm not finding the original article) with the budgets, parcels, et al delivered by the top four shipping companies.

I'm sure you will come up with some way of ignoring the objective facts in favor of idealogy, nonetheless on a head to head comparison - Fedex, UPS, and DHL together don't have the efficiency and bang for your buck of the horridly inefficient government run service service.

Although it probably is an unfair comparison - as everyone knows the USPS actually uses magical fairies to deliver and sort packages. Also Orks, Oni, Djinn, Ifrit . . . you know, I'm almost sure this is the plot of an unpublished Tom Holt novel . . .

Jonnan

The bailout plan is bad, but for many reasons not understood by the majority of people.  Not only is it morally wrong to give tax payers' money to companies to bail them out, not only is this the biggest intervention in the economy since the great depression, not only is it unconstitutional but --

This fails to address the problem that caused this in the first place.  The problem is NOT the free market gone amuck.  Many democrats and some republicans will try to tell you this.  Neither John McCain or Barack Obama have the first clue about the economy, how it works, and what caused this. 

The real problem is the government's current meddling in the economy.  Unfortunately this century has seen our once great country sullied by the economic policy of one John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas have formed the basis for European mixed economies (socialism).  Namely, the Federal Reserve Bank whose board members are private bankers, has the power to increase or decrease the money supply through a few quite powerful tools.  They can essentially print as much money as they want, greatly inflating the money supply and sending prices through the roof.  This not only destroys the dollar, and taxes the people since the new money they print is offered to banks in exchange for bonds (i.e. the bankers get free money at the expense of the value of dollars EARNED by every humble Tom Dick and Harry).  This really is a tax, and it's an outrage that the value of our earnings in controlled by people we don't even elect.  Taxation without representation.  The constitution doesn't give congress the authority to devalue the dollar and send inflation through the roof, and give another entity free reign to do it.  It's CONGRESS job to coin money and regulate the value thereof (by issuing 1 dollar notes vs 5 dollar notes).

The point is that this meddling, this manipulation by the Federal reserve... by decreasing the interest rate at which banks can borrow from the Fed far below their equilibrium level (since the Fed can just keep printing money and loaning as much money as it wants) they give banks very easy access to credit.  This essentially lets the banks loan out OVER 100 percent of their real assets.  In addition, since the banks have such cheap access to credit, they are less particular about who they are lending to.  The investor, correspondingly, gets money for much cheaper than he should given that in a market that actually reflects on the economic climate of the time money would be more or less scarce based on how much money banks actually had to loan to one another.  That is, the interest rate goes up as more loans are made and less money is left to loan.

The net result is that both banks and investors take more risks with their loaning and investments, respectively.  Risks that they would usually only make if times were good, since by pushing the interest rate so far south the Fed has made bad investments attractive.  They thus create bubbles.  Like the housing and financial bubble.  Combined with the bad loans made by Freddie and Fannie, and you get quite a bubble. 

Translation:  this is all false wealth.  Of course it will fall.  It doesn't really exist.  Houses, for example, are far overvalued.  By continuing to try to prop up the bubble they've created (with the bailout and even more printed money) the government just makes assets even more overvalued and continues to propagate bad loans.

I mean, people took out loans using imaginary, temporary increased perceived market value on their homes as collateral.  That means they owed more than they bought their house for.  When these unnaturally high house prices fell, their houses were worth far less than their loans and the only smart thing to do is default. 

The translation is that this is all the government and their monetary policy's fault.  And by continuing to attempt to prop up false wealth they make the eventual inevitable market correction even more extreme since assets are even more overvalued.

The solution is to let the market readjust and abolish the Federal Reserve since putting our monetary system under the control of the very bankers that can profit most from this control, and then trusting them, not auditing them, and not even electing them is disastrous, immoral, and unconstitutional.  And it prevents market participants from correctly judging the true market conditions.

The bailout bill, in addition to continuing to try to prop up imaginary market values, also rewards bad business and therefore makes these businesses less efficient and frugal.  Namely, rewarding people whose businesses failed can do nothing but teach them that if they fail again all will be fine.  Bad, risky investments, as well as inferior service, are suddenly not so costly when big brother's got your back.

Well put vxt22!

psychoak, remember one ststement. "Don't argue with a fool as others might not be able to tell the difference..."

Your statements are sound, but I see your IQ dropping with each rebuttal.

I'm just saying, don't let yourself get dragged down!!!

I can't help myself, arguing with retards is the only thing that keeps me living.  I'd go emo and slash my wrists without such entertainment!

As an aside, based on the posts I keep seeing, I feel compelled to clarify that the above statement is not serious.  If you all stop posting this idiocy, I wont actually kill myself.  However, my I.Q. probably is dropping from this so perhaps that might change eventually.

On to the paradox of an utter moron that can somehow argue copyright law logically.

It's a mystery to me.  If your USPS snafu had been your first post here on these forums, I'd have decided you had the I.Q. of a retarded gnat, severe reading comprehension flaws, no arithmatic skills at all, and years of brainwashing by equally stupid people.  Without your political posts, just going by your copyright law arguments, I'd have assumed you were relatively intelligent.  It's a simplistic issue and doesn't require a genius to understand of course, but the ability to read, and grasp what you're reading at least says something.

My current hypothesis is that you're just severely brainwashed, unable to see beyond the cages of your royally fucked up mind, and can only logically argue that which you haven't already been fed illogical conclusions in advance.

Ok, second try.  IT'S ILLEGAL YOU FUCKTARD.

Take what you've done with copyright law, study the fucking subject.  Your argument is fucking worthless because one fifty pound box costs as much to ship as thousands of leaflets, and is a single item to those thousands.  The USPS is the only cheap letter carrier because it's ILLEGAL for anyone else to do so.

I will now accomplish a great feat.  I will make this simple enough that a two year old can figure it out.  How many grains of sand can you carry in a quart jar?  How many quart jars can you fit in a quart jar?  Do you think that maybe if they used actual volume, instead of the number of items, there might be a drastic difference in the amount shipped when comparing sheets of paper to a fucking box?

You're shitting me right?  You don't actually believe this and you're bored out of your fucking skull, right?  Please say yes, because I'm pretty sure I've never met anyone this stupid, and it's a scary thought that you can type and study law with such a handicap.  Hell, it's a scary thought that you can survive eating.  OH SHIT, I ACCIDENTALLY ATE MY FORK AGAIN!

Well, that answers that question, you didn't read it.  Could you at least go to their websites and calculate package shipping costs and compare equal services?  You'll find that for a two day delivery on that letter, UPS is cheaper.

First, laziness in not looking it up yourself aside, how does this not work out in my favor?  UPS and FedEx are prohibited by law from shipping half pound letters in most cases.  You know what they're allowed to do?  Second day air and faster.  You know what USPS does?  Express mail and slower, at equivalent prices to second day air, with a guaranteed arrival date one day later.  Wow, they don't have comparable prices because they aren't allowed to compete with USPS for the snailmail letter carrier badge!  Maybe if USPS offered same day delivery, they'd have $70 shipping plans too!  Maybe if UPS was allowed to take two weeks to deliver a letter, they'd send it for fifty cents?

Second, the almighty mailbox, sanctuary of USPS delivered mail.  Who buys your mailbox?  Who puts it up?  Who replaces it when some shittard runs it over or throws a brick at it?

Now, do you really want to be a fucking dumbass and compare your mailbox, that you purchase and maintain yourself, but can't recieve mail from other carriers in, to a store location owned by a private company?  It's either hypocracy or stupidity to the extreme, and I can't figure out which.  My fucking mailbox should be my own goddamned property and I should be able to give access to whoever the fuck I want to.  Instead, it's a fucking felony if UPS opens it and puts a package inside.  This should answer your claims that I'm socialist and want to give USPS resources to UPS and FedEx, but if it doesn't let me know and I'll cuss you out again.

Would it help if I begged?  Please tell me you're not this dumb.  It's going to give me nightmares.  Next I'll be debating primordial goo like they did in ST:TNG!

Um... if I disappear, I was banned, for cause, lots of cause...  So many rules to disregard, so little time...

You suck at debating a losing argument, when cherry picking aspects to make yourself look good, they can't show the opposite.

You mistake optimal delivery for guaranteed delivery.  UPS next day air is guaranteed by the end of the next business day.  USPS Express mail is "guaranteed" inside three.  Comparing Express to Second day air seems fair, maybe it arrives a day earlier, maybe a day later.  Unless they lose it and ship it to you a week later.  A show of hands for those with personal experience on that one?

Also, 5 pound packages and .5 pound letters are a long way off from each other.  But then I've apparently stated that UPS is more effective in every minute aspect of their business in an alternate reality and have to prove that they outdo the USPS at every weight, dimension and shipping speed before your colossal fuckup of an argument becomes invalid and you don't look like a complete asshat.

I really shouldn't complain though, much less brain atrophy caused by reading this one.  Also, chimpanzees seem to be smarter than you going by these last few posts, so I'll take the poo flinging as a badge of honor.

For your next argument, try damage.  USPS has the best record for packages arriving safely between the big three.

psychoak, you seem to read a lot, so I wonder what you think of the economists' term "public good." If you find the category reasonable, can you tell us some things you'd put there? If you reject the concept, can you say a little about why?