Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Impenitent · Nov 25, 2003, 01:09 am

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fishamaphone,)
It takes into account that people are greedy. That's why there are the unbreakable rules... checks and balances... that's the key. The whole idea is to counterract the greediness that in inherrent in the present system. Rich people inherently want more*, even if they already have more than they can use. That creates a situation where the lower class keeps losing money until they have virtually none, at which point any capitolistic system will freeze on itself.

*poor people do too, but they lack the means to get more, while the rich do not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

unbreakable rules? god has rules too... there is no such thing as an unbreakable rule...

everyone wants more but your happy thieves will steal it from you if you have more... this builds resentment... the lower class breaks even, it doesn't lose anything... but your idea of counteraction is doomed because greed isn't in the system... it is in the humans

fishamaphone · Nov 26, 2003, 10:47 am

Unbreakable in the same sense as an ammendment to the constitution. You act as if this is a group of bandits coming in and taking money for their own good. It is a group of elected officials, who must appeal to the populous in order to keep their jobs. Checks and balances. There will be a way to make it work, and you're confusing that question with the one of whether or not it would help. We're getting into all new debates when we haven't solved the first one.

Impenitent · Nov 26, 2003, 02:12 pm

-Unbreakable in the same sense as an ammendment to the constitution.

the ammendments are broken all the time...

- You act as if this is a group of bandits coming in and taking money for their own good. It is a group of elected officials, who must appeal to the populous in order to keep their jobs. Checks and balances.

and do you know who the biggest criminals in america are today? the house and senate... checks and balances do not work when everyone is corrupt...

-There will be a way to make it work, and you're confusing that question with the one of whether or not it would help.

there will? just as there will be a glorious communist revolution and no government...

-We're getting into all new debates when we haven't solved the first one.

it cannot be solved

fishamaphone · Nov 26, 2003, 08:40 pm

Do you ever say anything constructive? You're very cynical, you know that? There is always a way to get something done, even if all logic says there is not. History has proven that countless times(One of the Wright brothers is quoted as to saying flight was impossible in his lifetime, the Beatles were told guitar music was on its way out before they became famous, and who would have thought that a country in recession could hold the rest of the continent hostage a mere few years later[Germany]?) You seem to be avoiding the real question in every way possible: if this idea were implimented succesfully, would it help? If no, why not?

Impenitent · Nov 27, 2003, 12:41 am

-Do you ever say anything constructive? You're very cynical, you know that?

yes and yes

-There is always a way to get something done, even if all logic says there is not.

but not by stealing it from some and destroying future production...

-You seem to be avoiding the real question in every way possible: if this idea were implimented succesfully, would it help?

for the fifth time... NO! it cannot be sucessful because it is based on theft and changing human nature...

fishamaphone · Nov 27, 2003, 02:12 am

You don't seem to understand. "Will it work?" and "Would it help if it hypothetically worked?" are two different questions. You are answering the former, I am asking the latter.

It's like I'm saying "could I get from here to Orlando in my car on one tank of gas" and you answer "there are no gas stations nearby."

The questions you are asking are not important until I'm somewhere near being able to impliment this idea. As it stands, I'm a minor and have too much on my plate simply getting a document saying I've got a high school education. I'm not going to catalyse major economic reforms any time soon. Wait till I'm a college student.

Impenitent · Nov 27, 2003, 02:57 am

"Would it help if it hypothetically worked?"

only if you changed human nature, and you can't do that so it could never work...

"The questions you are asking are not important until I'm somewhere near being able to impliment this idea."

no, the questions I ask should show you that your idea is impossible...

good luck in school, get the diploma and yes take some philosophy, psychology, sociology and poly sci courses in college... then you'll prove it to yourself...

fishamaphone · Nov 27, 2003, 01:09 pm

I really don't need to change human nature, though: all I require is conflicting interest. One group wants it one way, and another group wants it the other. Assuming they're equal groups, or at least closely so, shifts in either direction will be minimal, and the original idea will stand. That's how American government has worked for over 200 years, and American government *does* work, for the most part.

You just can't give any one group absolute power... which is the intrinsic point of the whole idea in the first place.

Impenitent · Nov 28, 2003, 02:31 am

there are no equal groups

unbreakable rules are absolute in their power

fishamaphone · Nov 28, 2003, 07:26 pm

You're still not listening. They don't have to be exactly equal, just somewhere in the realm where one can compete with the other. A good example, I suppose a good example of this are the Democratic and Republican parties. One has more members, the other has generally richer members, not complete equals, but equal to the point where it's not often that one part gains all the power. Another example is McDonalds and Burger King: McDonalds is much larger, but Burger King is still big enough to compete. That's all you need. Competition. So long as one party does not control all of anything, everything's good. That's all I'm trying to regulate. Contradictory, yes, but this plan ideally would be instituted by two separate parties that disagree on it.

That and I'm altruistic.

Impenitent · Nov 29, 2003, 12:46 am

you can't have competition if you steal from the winners

if you steal the profits from mc donalds to give it to burger city mc donalds will stop producing for you to steal their profits or they will move off shore so you can't steal their profits

you are the one who isn't listening, your "altruistic" steal from the rich plan is doomed to failure

fishamaphone · Nov 29, 2003, 02:00 am

Are you one of those people who got his dreams dashed at one point and decided to take it out on everyone else?

Power to do things and power to change things are two different things. Those who are rich will still be able to do everything, they just won't be able to change as much.

I'd also like to disagree with that McDonald's not working statement. This is all hypothetical, and I'm not saying my idea encompasses any of this, but if you were to take a company with, say, 60% of the market base, and give 10% of their earnings to the company with 25% of the market base, that first company would have to work harder in order to survive, and trust me, the company won't go from dominant to dead immediately.

This idea of mine won't apply to eveyone, and it won't apply forever. You're telling me everyone will stop working if 100 people have less incentive to work. Can you please explain how that works, using some kind of economic theory to back it up, not simply telling me "they won't work?" I'd much appreciate that.

Impenitent · Nov 29, 2003, 02:26 am

f

-Are you one of those people who got his dreams dashed at one point and decided to take it out on everyone else?

LOL no, I am a realist

-"I'd also like to disagree with that McDonald's not working statement. This is all hypothetical, and I'm not saying my idea encompasses any of this, but if you were to take a company with, say, 60% of the market base, and give 10% of their earnings to the company with 25% of the market base, that first company would have to work harder in order to survive, and trust me, the company won't go from dominant to dead immediately.
This idea of mine won't apply to eveyone, and it won't apply forever. You're telling me everyone will stop working if 100 people have less incentive to work. Can you please explain how that works, using some kind of economic theory to back it up, not simply telling me "they won't work?" I'd much appreciate that. "

look in california...
why have the companies left the state?
over regulation and over taxing...
your utopia of steal from the rich via taxes DOES NOT WORK...

look at economic reality...

you try to steal from the rich and the rich will leave... why do you think companies move overseas? so they can pay higher taxes and wages?

take economics 101

that's just the way it is...

fishamaphone · Nov 29, 2003, 02:44 am

When you're the strongest economy in the world, source of 1/5 of the GWP, there's incentive for rich people to stay with you. You're telling me a company will A) give up the fact that it's an American brand(that still holds a lot of value to a lot of consumers), and B) close down its American HQ in order to build one in Europe(because, frankly, I don't see any kind on international company based in a 3rd world country)? Once you build an HQ, it's kinda hard to move it...

Impenitent · Nov 29, 2003, 11:07 am

again, take economics 101... why do you think manufacturing jobs have gone overseas? and you still haven't addressed california... the rich LEAVE when taxes/theft go up... no, not europe either... asia... where do you think most of the imports come from? why are they imported from 3rd world countries... and what does a hq produce? where is the nike shoe plant? cleveland? guess again...

fishamaphone · Dec 1, 2003, 12:29 am

You yourself have preached how school courses are filled with lies. Don't be a hypocrite... Economics 101...

And as for your argument... I don't see how it's got anything to do with what I'm saying: so small manufacturing jobs go overseas. Where do the rich people stay? Rich people don't work in factories, I'm sorry to inform you. And even most of those aren't affected, just the super-rich. Not even all of them, either... my policy is very elitist...

Impenitent · Dec 1, 2003, 02:33 am

econ 101 is a college course... but you can do the research anytime, learn some economics

manufacturing jobs go overseas so they don't pay taxes...

rich people stay where ever they like and as far away from your tax policy as possible...

from where will all these new jobs you will produce from theft suddenly appear? stealing from the rich doesn't create one new job... the places with lower taxes will still have the factories...

fishamaphone · Dec 1, 2003, 03:25 am

Ok, this "theft" thing's going a bit too far... you're using it as badly as teenagers use the word "gay." All homosexual debates aside, both are percieved as a negative terms and that skews any argument. Can we please be just slightly more objective?

(but you probably knew all that, right?)

The jobs I spoke of were government jobs. You're getting really really confused, or simply trying to get me confused. My tax will NOT apply to any manufacturing, so any inclination to move production would be the same today as it would be afterward. The rich still get their paychecks from HQ, which is based in good ol' USA for my previously stated reasons. I don't see how any of that has to do with moving some sweatshops to China.

Impenitent · Dec 1, 2003, 03:33 am

taxes are theft... that's it... if you think that taking money from others is not theft, you have a problem with definitions, not me...

government jobs? producing what? manufacturing what? food? energy? clothes?

"My tax will NOT apply to any manufacturing"

how can it not? if you tax the business, the business leaves...

tax the hq in america, the people will sell elsewhere where the taxes are lower and the hq will leave... look at california...

fishamaphone · Dec 1, 2003, 03:45 am

You're vigilant at being ignorant, you know that? I'm not taxing the business, I'm taxing the person: the rich person. I believe(I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not) New York has the highest taxes of any state, and yet New York City contains some of the highest concentrations of wealth in the world.

Going back to the theft debate: you're going hugely on technicalities. I could easily say, for example, that Jesus is sin because his body is represented by a cracker you eat in Church, and crackers are thrown into water to represent the atonement of sin in Judaism. A cracker is a cracker, right?

Government jobs can do litterally anything. The government can make up a job for these people to do. Roosevelt did. Who really needs a road that follows the length of the Appalachian Mountains? It got people paychecks, though.

Nov 25, 2003, 01:09 am	#41 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fishamaphone,) It takes into account that people are greedy. That's why there are the unbreakable rules... checks and balances... that's the key. The whole idea is to counterract the greediness that in inherrent in the present system. Rich people inherently want more, even if they already have more than they can use. That creates a situation where the lower class keeps losing money until they have virtually none, at which point any capitolistic system will freeze on itself. poor people do too, but they lack the means to get more, while the rich do not.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> unbreakable rules? god has rules too... there is no such thing as an unbreakable rule... everyone wants more but your happy thieves will steal it from you if you have more... this builds resentment... the lower class breaks even, it doesn't lose anything... but your idea of counteraction is doomed because greed isn't in the system... it is in the humans "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 26, 2003, 02:12 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	-Unbreakable in the same sense as an ammendment to the constitution. the ammendments are broken all the time... - You act as if this is a group of bandits coming in and taking money for their own good. It is a group of elected officials, who must appeal to the populous in order to keep their jobs. Checks and balances. and do you know who the biggest criminals in america are today? the house and senate... checks and balances do not work when everyone is corrupt... -There will be a way to make it work, and you're confusing that question with the one of whether or not it would help. there will? just as there will be a glorious communist revolution and no government... -We're getting into all new debates when we haven't solved the first one. it cannot be solved "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 27, 2003, 12:41 am	#45 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	-Do you ever say anything constructive? You're very cynical, you know that? yes and yes -There is always a way to get something done, even if all logic says there is not. but not by stealing it from some and destroying future production... -You seem to be avoiding the real question in every way possible: if this idea were implimented succesfully, would it help? for the fifth time... NO! it cannot be sucessful because it is based on theft and changing human nature... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 27, 2003, 02:57 am	#47 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"Would it help if it hypothetically worked?" only if you changed human nature, and you can't do that so it could never work... "The questions you are asking are not important until I'm somewhere near being able to impliment this idea." no, the questions I ask should show you that your idea is impossible... good luck in school, get the diploma and yes take some philosophy, psychology, sociology and poly sci courses in college... then you'll prove it to yourself... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 28, 2003, 02:31 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	there are no equal groups unbreakable rules are absolute in their power "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 26, 2003, 10:47 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	Unbreakable in the same sense as an ammendment to the constitution. You act as if this is a group of bandits coming in and taking money for their own good. It is a group of elected officials, who must appeal to the populous in order to keep their jobs. Checks and balances. There will be a way to make it work, and you're confusing that question with the one of whether or not it would help. We're getting into all new debates when we haven't solved the first one.

Nov 26, 2003, 08:40 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	Do you ever say anything constructive? You're very cynical, you know that? There is always a way to get something done, even if all logic says there is not. History has proven that countless times(One of the Wright brothers is quoted as to saying flight was impossible in his lifetime, the Beatles were told guitar music was on its way out before they became famous, and who would have thought that a country in recession could hold the rest of the continent hostage a mere few years later[Germany]?) You seem to be avoiding the real question in every way possible: if this idea were implimented succesfully, would it help? If no, why not?

Nov 27, 2003, 02:12 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	You don't seem to understand. "Will it work?" and "Would it help if it hypothetically worked?" are two different questions. You are answering the former, I am asking the latter. It's like I'm saying "could I get from here to Orlando in my car on one tank of gas" and you answer "there are no gas stations nearby." The questions you are asking are not important until I'm somewhere near being able to impliment this idea. As it stands, I'm a minor and have too much on my plate simply getting a document saying I've got a high school education. I'm not going to catalyse major economic reforms any time soon. Wait till I'm a college student.

Nov 27, 2003, 01:09 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	I really don't need to change human nature, though: all I require is conflicting interest. One group wants it one way, and another group wants it the other. Assuming they're equal groups, or at least closely so, shifts in either direction will be minimal, and the original idea will stand. That's how American government has worked for over 200 years, and American government does work, for the most part. You just can't give any one group absolute power... which is the intrinsic point of the whole idea in the first place.

Nov 28, 2003, 07:26 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	You're still not listening. They don't have to be exactly equal, just somewhere in the realm where one can compete with the other. A good example, I suppose a good example of this are the Democratic and Republican parties. One has more members, the other has generally richer members, not complete equals, but equal to the point where it's not often that one part gains all the power. Another example is McDonalds and Burger King: McDonalds is much larger, but Burger King is still big enough to compete. That's all you need. Competition. So long as one party does not control all of anything, everything's good. That's all I'm trying to regulate. Contradictory, yes, but this plan ideally would be instituted by two separate parties that disagree on it. That and I'm altruistic.

Nov 29, 2003, 12:46 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	you can't have competition if you steal from the winners if you steal the profits from mc donalds to give it to burger city mc donalds will stop producing for you to steal their profits or they will move off shore so you can't steal their profits you are the one who isn't listening, your "altruistic" steal from the rich plan is doomed to failure "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 29, 2003, 02:00 am	#52 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	Are you one of those people who got his dreams dashed at one point and decided to take it out on everyone else? Power to do things and power to change things are two different things. Those who are rich will still be able to do everything, they just won't be able to change as much. I'd also like to disagree with that McDonald's not working statement. This is all hypothetical, and I'm not saying my idea encompasses any of this, but if you were to take a company with, say, 60% of the market base, and give 10% of their earnings to the company with 25% of the market base, that first company would have to work harder in order to survive, and trust me, the company won't go from dominant to dead immediately. This idea of mine won't apply to eveyone, and it won't apply forever. You're telling me everyone will stop working if 100 people have less incentive to work. Can you please explain how that works, using some kind of economic theory to back it up, not simply telling me "they won't work?" I'd much appreciate that.

Nov 29, 2003, 02:26 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	f -Are you one of those people who got his dreams dashed at one point and decided to take it out on everyone else? LOL no, I am a realist -"I'd also like to disagree with that McDonald's not working statement. This is all hypothetical, and I'm not saying my idea encompasses any of this, but if you were to take a company with, say, 60% of the market base, and give 10% of their earnings to the company with 25% of the market base, that first company would have to work harder in order to survive, and trust me, the company won't go from dominant to dead immediately. This idea of mine won't apply to eveyone, and it won't apply forever. You're telling me everyone will stop working if 100 people have less incentive to work. Can you please explain how that works, using some kind of economic theory to back it up, not simply telling me "they won't work?" I'd much appreciate that. " look in california... why have the companies left the state? over regulation and over taxing... your utopia of steal from the rich via taxes DOES NOT WORK... look at economic reality... you try to steal from the rich and the rich will leave... why do you think companies move overseas? so they can pay higher taxes and wages? take economics 101 that's just the way it is... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 29, 2003, 02:44 am	#54 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	When you're the strongest economy in the world, source of 1/5 of the GWP, there's incentive for rich people to stay with you. You're telling me a company will A) give up the fact that it's an American brand(that still holds a lot of value to a lot of consumers), and B) close down its American HQ in order to build one in Europe(because, frankly, I don't see any kind on international company based in a 3rd world country)? Once you build an HQ, it's kinda hard to move it...

Nov 29, 2003, 11:07 am	#55 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	again, take economics 101... why do you think manufacturing jobs have gone overseas? and you still haven't addressed california... the rich LEAVE when taxes/theft go up... no, not europe either... asia... where do you think most of the imports come from? why are they imported from 3rd world countries... and what does a hq produce? where is the nike shoe plant? cleveland? guess again... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 1, 2003, 12:29 am	#56 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	You yourself have preached how school courses are filled with lies. Don't be a hypocrite... Economics 101... And as for your argument... I don't see how it's got anything to do with what I'm saying: so small manufacturing jobs go overseas. Where do the rich people stay? Rich people don't work in factories, I'm sorry to inform you. And even most of those aren't affected, just the super-rich. Not even all of them, either... my policy is very elitist...

Dec 1, 2003, 02:33 am	#57 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	econ 101 is a college course... but you can do the research anytime, learn some economics manufacturing jobs go overseas so they don't pay taxes... rich people stay where ever they like and as far away from your tax policy as possible... from where will all these new jobs you will produce from theft suddenly appear? stealing from the rich doesn't create one new job... the places with lower taxes will still have the factories... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 1, 2003, 03:25 am	#58 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	Ok, this "theft" thing's going a bit too far... you're using it as badly as teenagers use the word "gay." All homosexual debates aside, both are percieved as a negative terms and that skews any argument. Can we please be just slightly more objective? (but you probably knew all that, right?) The jobs I spoke of were government jobs. You're getting really really confused, or simply trying to get me confused. My tax will NOT apply to any manufacturing, so any inclination to move production would be the same today as it would be afterward. The rich still get their paychecks from HQ, which is based in good ol' USA for my previously stated reasons. I don't see how any of that has to do with moving some sweatshops to China.

Dec 1, 2003, 03:33 am	#59 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	taxes are theft... that's it... if you think that taking money from others is not theft, you have a problem with definitions, not me... government jobs? producing what? manufacturing what? food? energy? clothes? "My tax will NOT apply to any manufacturing" how can it not? if you tax the business, the business leaves... tax the hq in america, the people will sell elsewhere where the taxes are lower and the hq will leave... look at california... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 1, 2003, 03:45 am	#60 (permalink) (top)
fishamaphone Molten Ash Posts: 68	You're vigilant at being ignorant, you know that? I'm not taxing the business, I'm taxing the person: the rich person. I believe(I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not) New York has the highest taxes of any state, and yet New York City contains some of the highest concentrations of wealth in the world. Going back to the theft debate: you're going hugely on technicalities. I could easily say, for example, that Jesus is sin because his body is represented by a cracker you eat in Church, and crackers are thrown into water to represent the atonement of sin in Judaism. A cracker is a cracker, right? Government jobs can do litterally anything. The government can make up a job for these people to do. Roosevelt did. Who really needs a road that follows the length of the Appalachian Mountains? It got people paychecks, though.