snowager286

Wow, if you were president, it would be Hell for people that don't have an education. Why? Would they suddenly become the target of mass murder? Would roving bands of high school graduates attempt to wipe out the poor drop outs in a great act of genocide? I personally think the idea is kinda silly, but I thought your response was even sillier. (don't take it to seriously, or personally.)

To the poster above.(about his edit concerning the limitation of political parties.) You are so wrong, do you know how much of a disaster it would be if we ever manage to have more then two parties? Imagine trying to elect a president where the winner would merely be the one with a plurality of votes, and trying to elect a speaker of the house... or worse yet trying to actually get something passed. The U.S congress cannot function like the U.K's parliament, it's built for super majorities, not pluralities.

You can make more capital and you can decrease it or, more specifically, the Fed can. They do this by increasing or decreasing the % of required reserves banks hold, which affects the amount banks can lend out or invest. When the Fed decreases the money supply ("destroys money"), they decrease the rate of inflation and in some cases can cause a recession (Fed chair, Volcker, in 1981 or 82). Note though, that inflation commonly exists at a greater rate than the rae of growth of the money supply (think 2.5% growth in money supply and 4% inflation). So, there are other factors that affect the value of money. Hopefully, this explains some things. Not really anything I didn't already understand. But money is still a finite definite number, it cannot be changed in any great amount. Their may appear to be more money at any given time or less, but in reality the number remains the same.

Switzerland is a country famous for its pacifism. The U.S... not some much. Give me some hard facts, some historical precedent. You people are arguing about Attics for god's sake! You have to look at human nature, humans are just plain stupid, their is just no getting around that. We rarely base our decisions off of cold hard reason and logic. We never think all of our actions through to their logical conclusion. For example, lets say John Smith is and average guy. Someone goes up to him and calls his wife a word that remains with door, the man then proceeds to laugh at John's anger and John then punches the man. Lets say that John had a gun, do you still think he would have just punched the man? Humans almost always respond to a threat with the most force possible. If you give a man a pistol and a can of powerful pepper spray and then have another man threaten him with a gun he will always choose the gun.

I can't speak for anyone else on this, but I listen to music because it lets me think without distracting noise in the background. It also provides a tempo to my thoughts.

Really? How do you plan on doing that? (I'm NOT being sarcastic I am honestly interested in what you have planned.)

1. Increase the level of buisness oversight by the federal government. 2. Abolish the electoral college. 3. Make the illegality of phone tapping and other invasions of privacy by the government part of the constitution. 4. Increase the size of the legislature. 5. Increase the power of the federal government over the states. 6. Make seperation of church and state a part of the constitution. (more so then it is now. explicitly so, instead of merely implied.) 7. Make abortions impossible to obtain except for those with a legitmate reason. (I.E genetic disease, rape, incest.) * 8. Legalize gay marriage * 9. Slash millitary spending, and make all money spent on researching to be spent on things that can be legitimately argued to have almost entirely defensive purpose. 10.Legalize marijuana, but put taxes on it. And a ban restricting how much you can have at a time. * 11. restructure the federal bureaucracy. *= things I'm willing to compromise on.

I did not know that, for all I knew you could have been an extremely witty 4th grader. I disagree, I think your teacher was part of a vast right wing conspriacy to subvert the south of America to their evil agenda. :ohnoes: Thats fine, as long as they get to keep the one dollar bills. That only makes us terrible people if we haven't ever done anything. I have done something about it. Then again maybe we could convert our computers to food! I'm sure you would be happy about that, you wouldn't have to read my posts anymore. Cool down, I was just messing around with that one. I don't "hate" rich people. I hate rich people who don't share their wealth. I hate middle class people who don't share at least some of their money. And I hate lower class people who don't do anything about their situation, or at least try. If those part were gone we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Oh and, I would like to point out that capital is like so many other things. You can't make more of it, and you can't decrease it. If you print more money then you decrease the value of it, if you destroy money you increase the value of it.(directly proportional to the percent of total amount of money there is.) So if the rich get richer somebody gets poorer.

The arguement doesn't compare. First of all why would the farmer should not be making the same number of potatoes because the shortage happened for some reason (unless he was for some reason unaffected). Furthermore, a potato is a commodity money on the other hand is a currency.(they have very different functions.) Finally, I'd like to point out that unless the potato shortage was causing people to have a severely decreased standard of life, then no he should sell the potatoes. However, if their was a money shortage on the other hand, people would not just have to tighten their belts, they could starve and die while the rich man doesn't starve end die but instead buys himself a fancy new pool so he can swim in it while other people starve and die. Oh and how can you increase the amount of capital in a market? the economy just doesn't work that way. Capital has to come from somewhere, if what you say is true then everybody could get rich, which doesn't even make any sense. This is what I like about TIF, the people here are actually fairly well informed and at least have a decent grasp of these types of things.

Your grasp of economics must be pretty weak to think thats possible. If the rich get more money that means that SOMEBODY has to have less money. Sure the federal reserve can print more money, but for every dollar you print the value decreases in proportion to the amount printed. But your not tottaly wrong, and that mainly due to how you worded your statement. If you define the poor as people who make a certain income or less, then no, they cannot get "poorer" but the number of poor people can decrease. Ok, then can you tell me exactly what insanely difficult thing a CEO does that one could not become at least profcient at given a few years of college training? or the slightest amount of skill. Your mistaken if you think that only a few people have talents it takes to become a CEO. But you would be right if you thought that only a few people have both the skills and the opportunities.

I never said, however improvements in technology don't actually change much, they just increase the human population which increase the demand for food while at the same decreasing the amount of usable land, but if you manage to find a way to get more food out of that land you only increase the number of people that survive which increase the demand for food and decrease the amount of usable land. You see, it's a never ending cycle and eventually were going to stop finding ways to make more food. Oh I understand exactly what your saying. The chinese now get the privilege to have dangerous working conditions and live in tiny houses while almost starving and dying young. Factories may have slightly improved conditions in those nations, but they are only temporary, eventually the population will continue to increase but the number of jobs won't, then what? they will be right back to where they started. Except this time, they don't have industry to help them. How is that possible? How can the rich get richer and the poor remain the same? Do the rich magically generate more money? You can't gain without first taking away, everything you get in your life you've in effect prevented somebody else from getting. To be honest I have no idea at all as to how we can fix the problem we've gotten ourselves into. We could wipe out half of the human population(or more) then we would have more then enough resources to go around. We could all live in the lapse of luxury, it would be like a utopia no more fighting because there is nothing to fight over(okay somethings). The only thing we have to do for that would be to become monsters, and kill off some 3 billion innocent people. But other then that i don't see a plausible way out of the hole we are in. Oh ya, the job of CEO is soooooo risky. Because if the company goes under the CEO will have to give up his plans to go to five star hotel that night. But the worker, he gets it easy, if the company goes under all he has to do is starve. Dude I was arguing over whether it was industry that truly raised the standard of living. Which was something that happened a long time ago.

Thats not entirely true, your right that nobody forced those people to work at those factories. They could have starved. You see, a marvelous little thing had occurred right before the industrial revolution. It's called the agricultural revolution, during this much forgotten revolution farming techniques imporved so much so that the amount of food producded per acre increased massively. also, less farmers were needed for farm this land and many landowners started to buy out land from the poorer farms meaning that they no longer had a job. At the same time medical breakthroughs made it so that far fewer people died. This had the unsurprising result of increasing the population. So what does a rapidly increasing population do when they can't farm anymore? They go to work in factories and get whatever factory job they can get just to survive. What was true then is true now. What do you expect the Chinese people to except to work in sweatshops? what land can they farm? what other jobs are there? I disagree, judging from what I've seen a factory work should be able to drive a company into the ground just as well as the man whose parents paid for his college. All kidding aside the only thing that seperates many CEOs from their employees is that the CEO's parents made enough money for them to go to college. Meanwhile, the employees parents couldn't have afforded a college tuition. True, the worker could have worked his behind off and gotten a scholarship, but if he had worked hard and not gotten the scholarship, he would have wasted all that hard work for nothing.

I've always wondered way you anti-gun control people never seem to bring up the moments and places in American history where a good part of the population had guns. Like the wild west where nearly everybody had a gun. They still tons of shootings. (more than in any part of east, where guns were less common.) The whole idea that if everybody was armed 24/7 their would be fewer murders, relies on the belief that humans will always think rationally in any situation. They don't, a simple misunderstanding could lead to a death and as long as you think you can shoot faster then the other person, then you care if they have a gun or not. The fundamental problem with having an armed society is that when you have a gun, every problem is a target.

Those are just three CEO's of major american corporations. If it wasn't for the entepreneurship of most original american companies' CEO's, your parents wouldn't even have a job in any industry to begin with. There would be no viable public jobs either due to a lack of tax income. I just find it funny how today's young people are so against corporations and hold them as the origin of all evil. You (not just you, everybody) would have nothing in your current life if it wasn't for corporations providing you services & providing the government with tax revenue. Before corporations started providing jobs to the population, your relatives were farming, gathering diary products from livestock and hunting wild game less than a hundred years ago. Even under communism in DDR/Soviet Union, private property was scarce; Long shifts in smoggy factories for nominal food pay. Unless they were noblemen, merchants or royalty; your ancestors had likely next to no viable property and spent their entire lives in hard physical labour. Sure, it may be questionable some of them make up to 500 times more money just by salaries (not even counting bonuses or stock options) than their workers. Some companies are already putting salary caps on the top executives. That still doesn't mean they shouldn't be rewarded. Top jobs are regulated by demand and supply just like everything else. If company X wont pay a skilled CEO $5 million a year, another ambitious company will pay him $6M a year to secure him. So you think it was simply industry alone that changed the situation of our ancestors? If you do, your dead wrong. For most of Industry's early life it exploited workers in horrific ways. Children worked for 16 hour shifts for little pay, and adults did not fair much better. Orphans performed dangerous jobs that could kill them for little more then privilege to sleep in tiny beds and eat disgusting food. The fact is that only through the hard work of trade unions and legislation have we reached this level. You cannot deny that corporations don't really care about their workers, as long as they, can make a profit they don't care about the condition of their workers. The problem with your statement that the CEO's salaries are determinded by supply and demand is that often enough, CEOs raise their own salaries.(to disgusting levels) Why exactly do these CEOs of failed auto companies deserve more then their employees? What qualifies them for their atrociously massive salaries, except for the loose concept of "hard work"?

You think singing and dancing and having disney make a TV show for you entitles you to millions? Teachers do not have a nice job, they deal with kids who hate their guts. Oh, and did I mention that teachers are often required to get a masters degree (six years of college) for that privilege? Most of the people who are super rich, have done FAR less then many professions that earn far less. (fire fighters, police, coal miners, etc.) People pay for the entertainment she provides. There is no all powerful wealthy being who assigns salaries to people; people assign salaries to people. Don't like Miley Cirus? Then don't buy any of her products. Or go one step further and don't support Disney in any way. A coal miner does not have the same skill set that an investor has. There in lies the difference in amount of money earned. Teachers are not required to have anything more than B.A. No public school will require more than that. I don't know where you got the idea they had to have a Master's. If you want to get the 55k salary you need a masters, plus, teachers with just a B.A tend to get the harder positions in the school( teaching the low end students and such). I know this because both of my parents were teachers, and my sister is one.(oh and note that the teaching conditions vary between states.) The point I was trying to get at about the coal miners and such, was that they did more to deserve their pay the many of the super rich. Not that coal miners should receive millions, but that nobody deserves to make millions.(that came off way more communist then I intended, I don't mean that nobody should be a millionaire but that nobody has honestly done enough work to justify keeping that much money for themselves.)

So, Miley Cyrus works as hard as more than 490 (average) teachers? I think not. Next time you see someone rich and feel all gooey inside about them, I suggest that you stop for a minute and consider whether what they've actually done is worth your admiration. Money isn't the same as achievement. I don't see you making millions. What has she done? Let's see... -Started a TV show on Disney, currently watched by millions -Kick started a singing career, making billions Besides, being a teacher is the best job in the world. 8-9 hour days, weekends, holidays, and summers. You think singing and dancing and having disney make a TV show for you entitles you to millions? Teachers do not have a nice job, they deal with kids who hate their guts. Oh, and did I mention that teachers are often required to get a masters degree (six years of college) for that privilege? Most of the people who are super rich, have done FAR less then many professions that earn far less. (fire fighters, police, coal miners, etc.)

I agree strongly agree with Ginger. Their are flaws inherent in every system. For example, in pure capitalism you have rampant abuse of the lower class, a more volatile economy , and finally excessive consumerism and health hazards. However, with socialism you get a whole other set of problems. Like stagnant economic growth, lack of market variety(limited choice) lack of motivation to work hard, and finally an overall lower quality of goods.

its good to see that tip it hasn't changed much. They still love their pure bashing. ;) So what if they have unoriginal names, is that really such a bad thing? Is it so terrible a crime that they should be treated like junk simply because of your silly beliefs about what the names mean?.(oh and one last thing, there just aren't enough possible creative names for every pure to have one.)

I've been playing off and on for about 4 years now. My time playing the game is a source of pride for me. However, I do not feel that it is a reason to be respected, and I only bring it up when I want to let someone know that I've been around the block a few times.

Summoning should raise the combat level since it is immersed in combat features. I also think that generally speaking it is a good idea to raise summoning despite the combat increase because the benefits of summoning levels far out way the problems of a higher combat level.

I find it odd that the person who began this silly rumor managed to recall a great deal about the animals appearence for having only seen a quick glimpse of it..... -.-

Let's play a game called "Guess this idiot's IQ!" I guess -32. I win. Or we could use a real life example.. P1:"WOW! This test is really easy.." P2:"Didn't you read the directions? It says don't answer any questions and turn it in blank for a 100%.." P3:"OMGZ!@!!11 He idi0t becuz he n0t r33d direckshuns." P2:"Yea! NOOB NOOB NOOB!" Seriously, some people just don't read directions, or in RS, quest text. No need to call him an idiot and insult his IQ because he made a simple error. Would you like it if someone insulted you like that because of a simple mistake? And don't say you would never make one, because you have and will. [/hide] His only 2 ranked stats are 50 FM and 72 range... an Ancient pure should know better.. So now you resort to stereotyping him? Please, go on.. :roll: I am not steryotyping I am stating FACTS. Your an Idoit, Just because his only stats are 50 FM and 72 doesn't make him a ancient pure. Second of all you DID stereotype by stating that all ancient pures should know.

God I hate when people make topics like this.... Its like they are saying "hey! ignore all the bad stuff and only think about the good stuff!!!". Tbh I'm fine with the wildy removal (still think it was drastic) and I am highly doubtful that RWT is truly gone.

It isn't sexism. The reason they are less exspensive is purely because more men play runescape then women. Therefore legs have far more demand then skirts. Saying its sexist is like saying its sexist for men to not want to wear skirts.

Jagex IS doing what's best for the game. Do you think they did it for the money? 'Cause removing the wilderness and 'free trading' isn't going to win them more subscribers. Their move against RWTing is without doubt for the best of the game. And would people please stop saying that RuneScape is ruined? I have nothing against people saying that PK'ing is ruined, and 'free trading' is ruined. But saying that RuneScape is ruined, is plain... Idiocy. I suppose you would advocate monitoring phone calls and placing video camera in peoples homes right? I mean who cares if your privacy is invaded? A lot of bad people will be caught, and the world would be a better place.