Staredit Network

Now I see what you were saying, but it isn't true. The succesful don't get much of it back, but the lazy do. The succesful are forced at gun point to pay for things that they don't want, and the masses gladly gobble it up.



That doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying that the basic laws of capitalism are false? You know, the ones even leftists agree are true?



So WHAT!? There is nothing wrong with saying, "I earned this money, and I would rather save it or spend it on personal things than spend it on a park".

Nothing is wrong with choice, unless you have a fetish for controlling others, which I have a feeling you have (for example: your lag-hacking).

Think about what taxation provides us with. Roads, education, etc. Do you know how awful that would be to make people sit down and decide what they're going to spend money on? It would take days. For example, would they only be allowed to drive on roads that they helped pay to maintain? That would only be fair *grumbles.* I'm not arguing with your twisting of my argument. I'm saying that what businesses offer and what the government pays for with our money are in two seperate categories.

I have no fetish for controlling others. This just makes it much easier. However, if you want to do something like you suggest, we could. Firstly, the minimum and maximum wages could be something like two dollars. You earn the money! The businesses get taxed for most of the rest, and the government has all the money it'd ever need! You'd even get provided with such benefits as... a nice home, a nice car or two, cable television, the internet... you know, the basics! And you wouldn't even pay for it. That was a pleasant alternative. It's a little something called socialism, and it could work just great. You'd get all the money that you earn, and the government wouldn't take a penny. However, if you don't like this alternative, you're going to have to stick to the present situation.

Hahahaha, You don't know who you're arguing with. At first, I thought you might be serious, but after that last post it's clear you are just some 15 year old who thinks communism is better than capitalism.



So what? It has a monopoly on all of those. Open up the market to fair and free competition, and prices will be lower, quality will be higher.



People already do this for hundreds of things. What is so different about these? What are you even talking about? You are saying you want to government to choose how people spend their money in order to save the, them time? Why not give them a choice? Why not ask them, "Do you want us spending your money in order to save you time?"? You do have a fetish with controlling people!



Have you ever heard of toll roads?


I didn't twist it at all. Point it out, please.



Only because you put them there. There is no reason why the free market can't provide education, etc.



Easier for whom? The people you are controlling? Why not ask them if they want to be controlled? The fact that you refuse to give anyone that choice is proof that you do have that fetish.



Wow. Wow wow wow. I hope the liberals on this forum jump you for giving them such a bad name. This is so rediculous that it's hard to argue with using logic.

Here is my best try: Why would there be any incentive to work harder at your job if you only get a tiny fraction of what you really earn? Why would there be any incentive to get a tougher job if you could only keep a fraction of what you really earn? Why would there be an incentive for owning a business if you only would keep a fraction of what you really earn? How could people buy things that they choose if they only get $16-$20 a day? Why not let the market set wages based on demand? How will businesses stay afloat when no one has any money to spend on them? What the hell is wrong with you?



Yes, you would be paying! Most of your wages would be going to the government! Let's ignore for a second the fact that this system obviously won't work, and no one thinks that it will work (not even 99% of liberals). I don't see how you can call it fair when the government, instead of letting a man decide how he spends his own money, seizes it and spends it for him. Why not let the man decide for himself, instead of excercising your fetish for power over him?



What!? First of all, most socialism isn't anywhere near that drastic. What you are describing is near communism. Second of all, "the government wouldn't take a penny"?, did you already forget what you said?



Second, why is the only other alternative near-communist? And why did you say that this alternative is closer to what I am asking for? Are you this clueless? I hope you respond to all of my points, but I don't expect that you have the ability.

Lol, if you hadn't noticed, that alternative was poking fun (and I mean blatantly laughing in your face) about your idiocy and lack of plain common sense.

Let's take education for example. How could allowing the private sector to govern education decrease the amount we pay while increasing the quality? The staff would still need to be paid and the buildings would still have to be maintained. Besides, only one company would be able to manage the American education system, or else there could be varying educations around the country, which isn't very fair at all.

I'll agree that our government could use a cleaning out to make it more streamlined and more efficient. However, what you propose is idiocy plain as day.



I have never seen such a conspicuous case of "look I'm trying to act ten years older than I really am." I am beginning to love "arguing" with you because your statements are usually a) false or b) stupid, making it an easy argument indeed to win.

*Edit* I am 16 years old, so you were off by one. However, I do applaud thee master genius on ripping the joke apart as if it were offered in all seriousness.

1. It clearly isn't a joke; it is 100% consistent with what you have been pushing, but it got badly owned and you had to retract it.

2.



Not everything is going to be equal, and that is never a problem. Are all cars equal? No. Are all brands of silverware equal? No. Are all computers equal? No. Are all encyclopedias equal? No. Are all mice equal? No. Are all AC-units equal? No.

But they are all much better than if a single entity was given a monopoly over it*. Competition lowers prices and increases quality. It happens with everything! No one disagrees with that. I am going to stop wasting my time arguing with you, I have much smarter people I could be doing that with.

Let capitalism work, let the free market work, and take an economics class.


*You are proposing something even worse than a monoply; you are prosing that the single entity that controls it has the right to actually seize money from people!

You only wish it weren't.


Education should be, and a "free" market isn't going to keep it that way.


They must own you ever worse than I am.


You cannot lower spending on education. You cannot. But, then again, I'm beginning to wonder if you ever had one to know of its importance. If anything, the private sector would increase spending, and we would pay more. GG ihatett, it looks like you've wussed out of this amusing banter.

Nice job skipping over my points.

I guessed 15 because you are exactly like my little brother, who is 15. He holds the same views, ignores what I say the same as you, and thinks that stealing is OK as long as it is for a good cause.

Assuming you are telling the truth, I was only a year off.

I want my government to use my taxed money to help others.

A government without taxes would have everyone making selfish decisions and the roads would be crumbled and schools be unrepaired. No body would agree on what to spend money on.

You'd really notice that I haven't, but you're too busy in your own little dream world where a dreamy Fela fails to address your points. Will someone please snap him back out of it into reality and tell him that I've met his points?



Actually, with computer hardware and software, it tends to both increase the price and the quality (though some companies in a totally non-competitive manner have churned out some great games, like that German company's Far Cry). For example, take AMD vs Intel. Both companies produce chips that are over $1,000 (and while AMD has chips that are a good deal faster than Intel) the fact remains that their products cost more but work better. Oh, but when you speak of distributing companies, like retail stores, then they lower prices. For the "building" companies of products, it usually doens't work that way. They generally go for quality over price, and the ones that don't, well... that negates your whole argument about pricing and quality. So our tax dollars go to "building" companies not "distributing" companies (we don't give JCPenny money to sell clothes, but we may give money to say Nike to produce speakers for people who don't have a lot of money in Asia).

Only the government has the jurisdiction to balance the national economy, and if they weren't allowed to, there would be complete and utter chaos.

You've taken two different parts of the economy and combined them into one, but they exist as seperate entities. Anything else you might want to add?

Explain why education is so different from everything else (in that competition won't raise quality and cut prices of tuition). You also skipped over all my points about your dream system, saying that you were joking.

You see you skipped over this:






Prices have been going down forever, but when they do go up it is disporportionately small to the quality increase. Look at the price of a 3+ gig cpu today compared with the price of a 300 mhz cpu 8 years ago. Without competition, you get stagnation, which is exactly what happens to everything when the government installs itself as a monopoly. The only section of government that has innovated is the military, and that is only because they contract out their projects to competing private firms.



The game market isn't competitive? Pick up Game Coding Complete 2nd Ed. It is writting by Mike McShaffry, who has been in the industry for a long time. He would beg to differ.



Rofl, you don't think that the free market works? You think it devolves into chaos? You think everyone needs someone to force them to do something? Capitalism works, buddy, the only thing hurting it is taxes and regulations.



Again, they are only different because people like you want the government to have extra control. There is no reason that a free market can't set prices for education, quality controls, etc. Toll roads work as well.

ADDITION:


Good for you. But surely you don't want other people's tax money used on things they don't want it used on, right?

They come out with faster technology, so prices have to go down or else no one would buy the older stuff.

And I did not skip over this:







And the game market is competitive, but the creators of Far Cry were pretty much unknown and it turned out as a big surprise. They certainly didn't think they had as much going for them as say EA Games, but Far Cry has been phenomenally successful.



The only thing keeping our country together is our government. We need order! We need organization. We have a democracy. If we allow your "government" to take place, we'll have inbreeders in Arkansas, a general relaxation of everything security wise (not to mention intelligence agencies would be scattered and useless), and a general devolving of society.

And there is nothing to stop any of these private groups from changing their stances on anything, so what if a moron comes into education and decides that, well, math isn't important and does not pertain to life? He owns the company, so no one will stop him. I am glad that people like you are not in office, because you would be a thousand times worse than Bush.

Wrong. I want everyone, selfish - evil - cheap - or not, to be forced to share their money with the less fortunate.

This system may work in a socialist country, but right now it would only be used to exploit the poor.

It would exploit the poor to help the less fortunate ... what? Do you know what you just said?

Think about it - ihatett's "system" would essentially make the poor pay the same amount as the rich for the same stuff, i.e. roads, education, etc. and I vehemently disagree.

You may not have understood chuiu because ihatett and I have been having a lengthy "discussion" on this topic. We were talking about economy in a very general sense. It had evolved beyond foreign aid.

*Edit* Oh I see. I wasn't talking about your foreign aid statement chuiu, but rather what we had been talking about before then.

1. You never explained why education wouldn't improve because of competition, you simply said that it wouldn't.

2. You are saying that because the creators of Far Cry were not known, they were not in a competitive industry? What!?

3. You don't need to have an entity with a monopoly on the use of force to keep order; private individuals and security firms can do that just as well as a bloated beauracracy.

4. You said that the CEO of an education company could decide to stop teaching math. Now, assuming that all of their shareholders would magically agree, there is nothing stopping the parents from moving their kids to another school. You don't see companies today dooing stupid shit like that, why do you think it would be any different with education?

5. Who gave you the right to choose where others money are spent? Why not give everyone the choice on whether they want to participate in your socialism? My economic system is optional; if you want to join a socialist system, you can get together with some of your friends and install socialism. But leave everyone else out, okay?

ADDITION:


Who gave you the right to decide how they spend their money? Why do you people have an obsession with forcing people to do things? Do you all have older siblings that pushed you around, and you want to get back at the world?

It's kind of funny how most threads in the serious discussion forum are not actual serious discussions but just contentious debates over various issues. But that's just the way we are

It's still discussion and more serious than the Moose Zone.

Yup, at least we're still on topic kinda and we dont tend to digress as much unlike the moose forum.

Btw, that forum needs a name change


oops i just digressed x_x

Ffs, now your stubborn mindset has annoyed me.



I was saying that prices could not go down. They may improve, but costs would go up. Things are already as bad as they can be for education.



If you had thought about it, which you generally fail to do, you would have realized that they did not expect to start competing against the big guns, like EAGames and whatnot. I guess I could have worded that a little better, so my mistake. Still, it's a trivial point.



Except that we need to control our own army, not give companies "licenses" to train troops. Besides, our entire defense network would be crippled if this change were to take place, and there would be no communication between the various groups. Some things you just have to use common sense for. I suggest you get some.



Yes, I have seen enough stupid shit like that. Why don't you turn on the news?



Since when have I been talking about socialism? I've been talking about a certain amount of order around here, whilst you've been talking of anarchy. Taxation helps bind this country together, and I wish that there'd be more of it.

Tell me, do you come from a poor family? It sounds like it.

And this is where I stop replying in this discussion because you're too thick-headed to hold any form of intelligent conversation with. For every good point that I've made (some time and again) you come back with a bullshit statement that has a logic that makes you appear to be on marijuana.

No. Money is extremely poorly spent now. Budgets are extremely top-heavy, and there isn't any incentive to be more efficient when there isn't any competition. I'm sure you knew that private schools on average spend less per student on government schools; how about thinking why? They are private businesses, and they need to be efficient.



Wrong. Every game released that is intended to sell is in competitiion with other games in its market. They know if they release an aweful game, consumers will choose other games over theirs. I again direct you to Game Coding Complete 2nd Ed.



OK, if you insist that you are not talking about socialism, replace "socialism" with "your economic system". The point still applies. Would you give people a choice, or would you force them to follow it?"



There is no reason that the companies would not share information for their mutual benifit. Do you think the shareholders would be against that?


That's awefully off topic. Why do you ask?

ADDITION:
Missed this:



No, I am talking about when the older CPUs were new. And you knew that.

The government reserves that right, it's not a free country and it's taxed money that they have to budget with every year. If you're so pissed off about your money going to people who are dying and need our help then move to a different country that doesn't like helping others or can't.

I see. If you don't like the fact that the people around you are stealing your money, just leave your property and move somewhere else!

That is the logic of the mafia.

It is also the logic of civilized men, which you failed to point out to conveniently further your "argument."

The government has created a great currency called the dollar, and they have never had any reason to give it to anyone else. You should be thankful you have any of their money to begin with. That you are allowed to live in the United States (or any country that you do live in) should come at a small price. You still get to keep most of your money, and with that you can pay for utilities, transportation, or heck, even recreational stuff. So stop whining.

If you find out you can't abide by the rules of society when you grow up you'll be a) forced to, b) sent to prison, or c) exported.