Quoi_Tu

And yet we still have a crummy system for assigning budgets for education.

That is a very snobbish way of looking at things. It has little to do with "working hard" and receiving "college education". Ever heard of Richard Branson or Duncan Bannatyne? Neither left school with any qualifications, yet both are hugely successful entrepreneurs. If everyone who received a high education, and worked hard got into a higher job, who'd work for them? Capitalism only exists because there is a large pool of people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder who do not become anything higher than a worker - the very people you seem to look down on for not working hard enough. Your perceived system is economically illiterate. Also, your rose-tinted view is founded on the principle that all are equal. That's completely rubbish to anyone with sense. I was born into a poor family, received basic state primary education, went to a basic state-run comprehensive, went to a state-funded FE college. Thankfully, I had intelligent parents who went to university and bought books while they were there, so I left with decent grades. However, are you seriously suggesting I've received the same standard of education as someone who's had Mummy and Daddy spend thousands a year on private tuition in Kensington? The poor get poorer because as the rich get richer, more would-be opportunities are denied to them. And I've news for you. The gap between rich and poor, in the UK at least, is getting wider[1]. Do you blame this merely on people not working hard enough, or do you blame it on capitalism, or alternative, do you blame the rich not being taxed enough to prop up those at the wealthy bottom? That is why capitalism is a system based on exploitation. How did they not? The New Deal got the economy into a state where it could actually fight a war in Asia and Europe. I was responding to snowager's opinion that factory workers are equal to CEOs. That was typo on my part. If you look at my quote it makes sense(with edit): "Also people aren't created equal. The cynics are right on that one and the only thing we as a society can influence is the equality of treatment among unequal individuals." (bold is the edit) The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger, but is the standard of living for the poor declining? Because what I said earlier would agree with what you said. The rich get richer and have more opprotunities, but without the poor, they wouldn't be rich. I blame economic equality on inequality of people and oprotunities. The new deal wasn't enough to pull the economy out of the recession, the war was. The new deal was the right idea, but the government didn't spend enough to truly get the economy rolling. Yes, because China has no economic growth and development and will always be our factory workers. I mean, come on, seriously? Money is created by magic by the Federal Reserve, but we'll ignore that bit. Example: Poor person makes min. wage that increases (ideally) with inflation. Rich person makes $500,000 a year, investing $250,000 of it 4% above inflation. The rich get richer, the poor stay the same.

Nice twist on the word 'innocent' you used there. I like to be cynical. *Points to past again when guns didn't exist yet crime/murder was just as prevalent* Irrelevent? What does the past have to do with gun giving more powerto an individual? Wait, you think guns for hunting are okay? Yes.

Exactly, that's why it's fair for innocent people to have them. Those same selfish, greedy, and egocentric innocent people? People are corrupted by power. A gun gives people more power. It expands the crime of opprotunity category. Also, I'm just talking about self defense gun use not hunting. Just in case anyone was wondering.

Which country and what is immigration causing? Sweden. 99 485 immigrated last year. It's so damn stupid. We are loosing jobs (and we'll see what happens with Volvo and Saab in the near future), companies moving to Poland or China while we keep accepting around 100k people each year. Crime rates keeping going up. And the even worse thing is, that the immigrations has failed (of course, politicians don't admit it). The immigrants usually get put into the Stockholm, Malmö or Gothenburg area, while almost none get sent more north. They get sent to these areas where it's not a good percentage of getting a job, while there are other places that would be able to give them jobs. Just take Rosengård in Malmö as an example, ambulances and firefighters don't go there anymore if they don't get back-up by the police, because people living there disturbs the work and even throw stones. So i think it should be stopped, because the unemployee-rate just keeps on rising (especially with the current financial state). That sounds like a bad situation getting worse fast. Do you know where most of the immigrants come from? Middle East, Slavic countries, etc.? banning religion? thats probably the best idea ive ever heard. =D> Bad idea.

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? So, we shouldn't advance and discover new technologies? According to what you said, that would have made sure everyone had a fair and decent job. You don't understand what I'm saying. What were the Chinese workers doing before the sweatshops? Think about it. Poor, starving, and jobless or have a home, some food, and crummy working conditions. Same applies to US industrilazation without as much foreign corporate intervention. 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. And for not working hard and getting a college education the factory worker is a factory worker. It's not a completely fair system. The rich do get richer, but the poor do not become poorer; they just remain stagnant. Also people are created equal. The cynics are right on that one and the only thing we as a society can influence is the equality of treatment among unequal individuals.

On the other hand, I would think people would be less likely to do something 'stupid' if they know other people around them probably have guns in their possession. If I've learned anything in life, it's that people are selfish, greedy, and egocentric. A much worse combination when a gun is added.

Ask her to a movie like Australia.

Unfortuantely, starting as a teacher in NC with a master's is only 40K. They don't deserve what they earn? I know for a fact I will make more than the average person because I plan to go to graduate school. Factory workers are rarely required to have anything more than high school. Why do they deserve to make the same as someone like me who will be in school until I'm 26? Industry raises the standard of living in countries. What you're suggesting in your first paragraph is that people were forced to work for those companies. They weren't. Chinese citizens choose to work at sweat shops contrary to popular belief. Because of American companies, countries in southeast Asia are seeing better standards of living. In fact, many factories in China are there to create a foot hold in their rapidly growing market. CEO salaries are the result of basic economic principles. I do agree they are inflated, but disagree they should make as much as their employees. If they should make as much as a factory worker, than a factory worker should be able to do a CEOs job, which they can't.

Which country and what is immigration causing?

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.

Awesome! I think I'd do that as well; make some people get their hands dirty.

[/hide] I don't know why more people don't just simply agree with the above. The current situation is exactly what capitalism is supposed to do; Weed out the incompetent companies. Those 3 car companies are obviously creating a huge inventory of low-selling and some of them massively petrol-consuming cars, if there is no buyer market for them, why should they be bailed out? Try this way... A company hired 5,000 people to create tourist souvenirs for the Beijing 2008 olympics. The products range from handmade mugs to flags, t-shirts and fan products. The pricing has been solely designed for the wealthy tourists visiting the olympics. The entire business depends on them. Once the olympics are over and the buyer market disappears, why would those 5,000 people keep making mugs and t-shirts when there is no longer anybody to buy them? Why on earth would the government sponsor those people to keep making objects that no longer have a viable market? Following ideas of capitalism, the US shouldn't have a significant financial market at all right now. Without the financial market our economy would have crashed and brought down many other countries with it. There is a good reason we don't follow pure capitalism. That example is akin to the government paying an ice cream truck to stay in business in the winter. It doesn't make any sense. To expand the allegorical ice cream truck to the auto situation, the government is thinking of keeping it in business because it also sells hot chocolate.

But who is to say they deserve leisure more than the destitute deserve necessity? Why should the wealthly help anyone but themselves? Or help anyone beyond those directly around them (family, friends)? Side note: Damn you Saruman and your sig!

That's easier said then done. I'm sure once you have access to things because of your vast wealth, the more things you'll think you "need". And there's also retirement funds and kids' college to pay for(both of which can take hundreds of thousands of dollars). A lot of money can be spent while just living comfortably.

They're edible, eat up.

It is official, we're in a recession and have been since December 2007. I think my post could be summed up as "life's not fair" without going into any detail.

There is no flower. Nothing is real and not real. Buddha knows best. For more, read the Diamond Sutra.

May I suggest http://www.headsets.com/ for all your headset needs.

Alpha Whiskey Echo Sierra Oscar Mike Echo Al for short.

Getting rid of the black market is one thing, getting rid of the high demand is another. Like I said, exterminating the high demand sounds like a nice idea but it also sounds like an infeasible one. It almost sounds like something out of a John Lennon song. If the supply is controlled the demand has no other option but to follow along. If there are 1,000 guns and 10,000 people wanting guns, 9,000 people don't get guns. They may still want a gun, but they have no access and will never get one, so it is a waste of their time to continue to want one. That's all assuming supply is controlled. Now putting a black market in there will increase the supply a little, but not enough to give 9,000 people a gun. Also, not all of those 9,000 people are going to want to risk the punishment of being caught with a black market gun. In the end, the control on supply effectively lowered the number of people with a gun. If I grow up knowing I have to go through a lot of work and training and money to get a gun (assuming those factors are used to decide which people get a gun), then my demand for a gun will be less.

I think a system similar to getting a driver's license should be used. That way a person could only buy a gun if they have taken a class and passed a test proving they know how to safely use and own a gun. And the license would have to renewed every 5 or so years to prove the person still knows all the rules. Unfortunately, I could see implication of this turning into a bureaucratic mess.

Er, Fox news? Quite the conservative news channel. Also, considering we had a republican in office the past 8 years, I think the "liberal" media doesn't have as much effect on people's views as you think.

Yes, Finland has no freedom of press, is full of murder, and is a dictatorship, all due to socialism. Finland's also not very diverse. CIA

Be careful with the words "every time" because smaller communities can achieve communism much more easily than larger states. In general, a socialist system is run with an increase in government control over the economy, which can lead to a corruption of power. No one likes power corruption. I think there is a whole thread on this lurking a page or so back: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=770726&hilit=socialism