Most western atheists work on a moral philosophy which has been greatly influenced by christian moral philosophy - that does not mean that it is christian moral philosophy, merely that it has a lot in common with it.Macbeth wrote:
2. Ugh, if you look at how society was structured and the morality of the religions that came before Christianity, elsewhere and in Europe you would notice how Christianity is something else altogether. Before Christianity things like 'poor people' and 'the weak' were looked down upon as nothing. In Rome and Greece, among other places, strength, courage, pride, wealth and power were held in extremely high regard. Then comes Christianity and things like modesty, meekness, chastity, forgiveness, charity becomes the prevalent morality throughout Europe and eventually infects it's way into other religions.
What most atheist don't realize is that they are working mostly on a Christianity moral philosophy while at the same time bitching about Christianity.
'cause Keynesian philosophy states go into debt in bad times, and continue going into debt in good times.JohnG@lt wrote:
You want a perfect example of Keynesian philosophy run amok? Look no further than my own country and the 11 trillion dollar deficit and the current recession caused by political meddling in the free market.
I think you'll find said "political meddling" didn't have too much to do with Keynesian economics. It's a bit more complex than 'government does stuff --> money comes out", you know...You want a perfect example of Keynesian philosophy run amok? Look no further than my own country and the 11 trillion dollar deficit and the current recession caused by political meddling in the free market.
You will find that the stimulus packages, which are bread-and-butter Keynes, have helped immensely - in this country, at least.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
you're getting as bad as lowing with his Muslim rants when it comes to communism galt. Nice derail.JohnG@lt wrote:
Fool. What do you think the entire system thought up by Marx is? It's absolutely 100% impossible to make work but people keep thinking that it is, if only people put more effort into it. Fools the lot of them.
LOL so nothing should be discussed where kids might have to formulate their own ideas and argue against other people's? You dumbass. I'm glad you're not in charge of the curriculum. So Philosophy should never be studied, or religious studies, or history for that matter. Or, maybe the teacher can TELL you shit you just can't THINK or TALK about it! Now who's the fascist?!JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah? Since when am I a christian? Discussions regarding the validity of religion or non-religion do not belong in school. Discussions involving communism don't belong in school because it's an economic and social system that does not work. It's like having a discussion about the tooth fairy. It teaches the kid nothing useful for life.
Galt you really are turning into more of a prick eveyr day. You insult other people by saying they don't knoew much about 'economics' cos you've read a few books, but you obviously know f.u.c.k.a.l.l. about 'socialism' and 'communism' if you think they're the same. As someone else pointed out there are lots of 'socialist' countries over here in Europe that kick the shit out of the USA EVERY TIME there is one of those polls of best places to live in the world. That must be because they're communist countries as well then yeah? So communism DOES work? Right, and I'm living in a ommunist country too I suppose. You're so full of shit.JohnG@lt wrote:
Difference between communists and socialists is about this big [].
No, what most Christians don't realise is they're working mostly on an atheist set of moral values. They also don't realise that looking for moral guidance to a 2000 year old book of dubious provenance, and to the voices inside your head, is a frankly stupid way to live your life. You could try, I dunno, reason instead?Macbeth wrote:
What most atheist don't realize is that they are working mostly on a Christianity moral philosophy while at the same time bitching about Christianity.
No, they force me to pay €160 for State Broadcasting that insists on forcing a Christian agenda.LividBovine wrote:
So they force you to sit there and watch it?Braddock wrote:
I'm still legally obliged to pay €160 per annum for the TV licence though... no choice there.LividBovine wrote:
You have a choice to turn it off do you not?
These are some nice apocalyptic soundbites you're coming out with but you should read a little bit more about the Norwegian economy, it's far from a one-trick pony. It has successful petroleum, aluminium, telecommunications, fishing, and shipping industries (to name but a few), as well as hourly productivity levels and average hourly wages that are among the highest in the world.JohnG@lt wrote:
Norway is propped up by the fact that it's a small population sitting on large oil deposits. Denmark is a small population propped up by Maersk. Switzerland is a small population propped up by it's banks. The only one with long term suvivability is Switzerland. Norways oil is running out and Denmark will eventually drive away Maersk.Braddock wrote:
You sound like your entire world view comes out of a book.JohnG@lt wrote:
Really? The end result is the same. Taking the socialist path is just the more insidious, long view on how to get to communist utopia rather than an uprising by the proletariat.
Socialism's difference is that it attempts to harness the rational self interest that is inherent in mankind in ways that communism could never do. How is this achieved? By the enslavement of those who desire more in life, by those who lack that desire. So, you pile on a bunch of social programs, you raise some taxes and over time you reach an end state where the social programs are so large and the taxes so high that society ceases to function in the capitalistic way that it did in the beginning. The end result is communism, it just took longer to get there and people feel better about the path taken because it isn't as jarring as a revolution would be.
The best part though? It can never work. Society would collapse long before the socialists could even see the finish line.
Bitch about capitalism all you want, that mostly comes out of ignorance. The lies and half truths I read on a daily basis describing it show me that 95% of the people who think they know something about capitalism, know jack shit. This isn't only from the socialists, it comes from 'my side' as well.
People are stupid. They don't seek knowledge on their own or do the research necessary to understand a subject. This applies even more to a difficult topic like economics because the language used is not the same as that used in ordinary daily language (in much the same way that the language a doctor uses is different from the laymens when describing the same injury). Frankly, reading most of what is typed on the internet is a source of frustration because it's like playing the telephone game. I have to interpret what people are really trying to say and then look at the source. Words like capitalism and socialism have different meanings to different people because it depends on which variation of the telephone game they played and who can be credited as the original source. Yes, I am being an arrogant prick, but this crap frustrates me to no end.
Have you ever set foot in a socialist country? You do realise that we are allowed to own our own businesses, grow our own crops, own our own possessions, and criticise our leaders in a free and democratic society? We have banded tax systems and options for private superior healthcare plans if we are so inclined. Yes, we pay taxes (as do Americans), but for our tax Euros we expect social systems that provide a little more than can be expected in places like America. We are proud to have healthcare systems that will not allow fellow citizens to die on the side of the street. Our welfare programs are not open-ended and are only intended as a helping hand for people who find themselves out of work and need a hand to get back in the game (that's what we pay our taxes for). It's called socialism because we believe in the concept of society, we are not out to slit each others throats or trample over each other to "get to the top".
You talk about socialism as though we are all on some inevitable road to ruin. How do you explain countries like Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland, which consistently kick the shit out of America in international studies regarding the best places to live on earth?
Denmark has the most flexible labor market in Europe, as well as the fourth highest ratio of tertiary degree holders in the world. According to a report by the World Economic Forum in 2008 Denmark is one of the most competitive economies in the world. It's exports include machinery, animals and foodstuff, and chemicals, as well as oil and gas.
As well as being a banking powerhouse, Switzerland is home to a whole host of multinational companies including Glencore, Nestlé, Novartis, and Hoffmann-La Roche. Chemicals, health & pharmaceutical, real estate, banking & insurance, and tourism are all important industries in Switzerland. It is also home to CERN, one of the most important scientific institutes in the world and owners of the large hadron collider.
Why not just take one on the chin and admit that Socialism has worked out quite nice for some countries? As Dilbert already pointed out, your beloved system of Capitalism is currently on a Socialist life-support machine. If it weren't for the bail-out we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
lol. nice one.Braddock wrote:
As Dilbert already pointed out, your beloved system of Capitalism is currently on a Socialist life-support machine. If it weren't for the bail-out we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
You people are assuming our economy would have collapsed. Many over here do not agree with you on that. There is also a big debate on how we got into this mess to begin with. Some part greed and some part the government intervention in the market.ruisleipa wrote:
lol. nice one.Braddock wrote:
As Dilbert already pointed out, your beloved system of Capitalism is currently on a Socialist life-support machine. If it weren't for the bail-out we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Nu uh ... that would be HUGE part greed and some part lack of government intervention ... but keep fooling yourselfLividBovine wrote:
You people are assuming our economy would have collapsed. Many over here do not agree with you on that. There is also a big debate on how we got into this mess to begin with. Some part greed and some part the government intervention in the market.ruisleipa wrote:
lol. nice one.Braddock wrote:
As Dilbert already pointed out, your beloved system of Capitalism is currently on a Socialist life-support machine. If it weren't for the bail-out we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Nope, it was the failure of the free market to regulate itself, and however many decades of Greenspanish economic theory which also failed spectacularly.JohnG@lt wrote:
You want a perfect example of Keynesian philosophy run amok? Look no further than my own country and the 11 trillion dollar deficit and the current recession caused by political meddling in the free market.
At least according to Greenspan.
Surely you learned the tragedy of the commons in the many books you read?
Fuck Israel
It's all ifs, buts, and maybes now but personally I think that it would be quite logical to assume that as each bank was left to collapse more and more panic would ensue among the general population, leading to a run on the remaining banks, which would in turn perpetuate the collapse of more and more banks as fears grew regarding the security of deposits. End result... meltdown. It's all very well saying other banks would step in where others had failed but in reality it would have been chaos, once panic spreads in banking it often tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy... just like the time word got out that Northern Rock was failing in Britain and Ireland.LividBovine wrote:
You people are assuming our economy would have collapsed. Many over here do not agree with you on that. There is also a big debate on how we got into this mess to begin with. Some part greed and some part the government intervention in the market.ruisleipa wrote:
lol. nice one.Braddock wrote:
As Dilbert already pointed out, your beloved system of Capitalism is currently on a Socialist life-support machine. If it weren't for the bail-out we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.
Everyone in the US govt who knew anything about economics was scared shitless, the must have been to just hand out a trillion dollars in cash.
The experts predicted the banks to fall like dominoes as the were all wildly overleveraged and dependent on fruity financial instruments no-one really understood.
They wouldn't have been able to step in and stop each other drowning, they were all chained together - if one went to the bottom they would have dragged the rest in too.
The experts predicted the banks to fall like dominoes as the were all wildly overleveraged and dependent on fruity financial instruments no-one really understood.
They wouldn't have been able to step in and stop each other drowning, they were all chained together - if one went to the bottom they would have dragged the rest in too.
Fuck Israel
I hate repeating myself. I've had this same conversation at least twenty times in the past 5 or so months that I've been here. What seems so easy to understand and clear to my eyes is shrouded for those that really could care less about personal freedom. The Americans understand because they grew up here, the rest of you? Not really.ruisleipa wrote:
you're getting as bad as lowing with his Muslim rants when it comes to communism galt. Nice derail.
Whatever, I'm done arguing for a while here. Some of you will cheer, some of you will breathe a sigh of relief and Dilbert_X can claim victory for his trolling. I'm just tired of repeating myself and making no headway.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This works...assuming you think that you can't be both. It's easy to just simplify the beliefs of others to peg them as craziess, isn't it? Reason and religion are perfectly compatible, same as evolution and Christianity.ruisleipa wrote:
No, what most Christians don't realise is they're working mostly on an atheist set of moral values. They also don't realise that looking for moral guidance to a 2000 year old book of dubious provenance, and to the voices inside your head, is a frankly stupid way to live your life. You could try, I dunno, reason insteadMacbeth wrote:
What most atheist don't realize is that they are working mostly on a Christianity moral philosophy while at the same time bitching about Christianity.
If it is true, that all banks might collapse, my question is, why is this so? Is the system so over leveraged that the slightest economic shock will bring down our entire financial system? How did this happen, and why was it allowed? No one can seem to answer those questions with any amount of credibility, because most people did not expect a depression scare, let a lone a mild recession to his the global economy. It was Goldilocks through and through.Dilbert_X wrote:
Everyone in the US govt who knew anything about economics was scared shitless, the must have been to just hand out a trillion dollars in cash.
The experts predicted the banks to fall like dominoes as the were all wildly overleveraged and dependent on fruity financial instruments no-one really understood.
They wouldn't have been able to step in and stop each other drowning, they were all chained together - if one went to the bottom they would have dragged the rest in too.
The free market isn't being allowed to regulate itself.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nope, it was the failure of the free market to regulate itself, and however many decades of Greenspanish economic theory which also failed spectacularly.JohnG@lt wrote:
You want a perfect example of Keynesian philosophy run amok? Look no further than my own country and the 11 trillion dollar deficit and the current recession caused by political meddling in the free market.
At least according to Greenspan.
Surely you learned the tragedy of the commons in the many books you read?
Greenspan's bubble blowing policy is hardly free-market economic theory. His policies are indeed failures.
OK...to some extent that's true. But not if you talk about fundamentalists, then reason pretty much flies out of the window.DesertFox- wrote:
This works...assuming you think that you can't be both. It's easy to just simplify the beliefs of others to peg them as craziess, isn't it? Reason and religion are perfectly compatible, same as evolution and Christianity.