Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.
People think of SS as a savings program, except that is wrong. It's a government program funded by a specific tax. It just turns out that our current method of paying for it and it's spending do not equal each other.
Yes, and in opposition to the myth generated by talking heads and popular opinion, currently this inequality is coming out on the side of a profit, not a deficit.
Touche
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turning the dial to pedantic, what exactly are we calling "our current model of civilization" here? Taking the failure of social security as an example (not going to happen, I know, but hypothetically), as awful as it might be, I don't think it would end our civilization. And even if our civilization (that is, what I can only call Western European Culture) ended tomorrow, the model's pretty wide spread at this point.
Are we talking about industrialized society, public education, voting rights, the internet, or what?
Underwear, mostly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Underwear, mostly.
Does it have to be clean for me to be considered "civilized"? *crosses fingers*
Underwear, mostly.Does it have to be clean for me to be considered "civilized"? *crosses fingers*
I'd say that a good line of division would be the point where there are more cells in your underwear than on the body parts it's supposed to be covering.
If it's cleaner than that, I'd call you civilized, aye. If it has its own genetic profile, then no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely, I guess I am just tired (not from these boards but from different discussions, too) of people quoting dead politicians, philosophers et al. as a proof for their own line of thought.
It was meant humorous, I am sorry if that didn't translate too good.
Uh, Darl Jubannich was a close personal friend of mine.
We served together in the vicious street fighting to liberate Azurestone from the clutches of the Chelish Hell worshippers and plutocrats. I got cornered by two bugbears and a quasit and would have been torn to pieces if Comrade Jubannich hadn't valiantly come to my aid.
Never have I known such a pinkskin as Darl Jubannich. Say something bad about him again and I'll throw you in a Fun-Timey Reeducation through Labor Supercenter!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not very.
We cannot continue to increase both the number of humans and the resources used by each human: we don't have enough.
Our entire society is built around the expenditure of non renewable resources. Unless something transformative is coming down the pipe, we're going to be in trouble when oil runs out.
We cannot continue with every person looking out for themselves, or the organized sociopathy that the current financial markets demand out of their manufacturing arms.
Not very. We need to start colonizing space.
Not very.
We cannot continue to increase both the number of humans and the resources used by each human: we don't have enough.
Our entire society is built around the expenditure of non renewable resources. Unless something transformative is coming down the pipe, we're going to be in trouble when oil runs out.
We cannot continue with every person looking out for themselves, or the organized sociopathy that the current financial markets demand out of their manufacturing arms.
When oil starts to climb in price, energy companies will start building and investing in cheaper fuels. Natural gas and coal power plants will replace the oil ones, and those resources will last us almost a lifetime. Ethanol and similar fuels will become standard for cars, and they will slowly phase in hydrogen-based vehicles. Eventually liquid fuels will be relegated to higher energy density needs, like trucks and industrial machinery. This will result in higher energy prices, which will drive demand for cheaper energy and hopefully pave the way for fission plants. Utalizing fission, we can power our economy while it grows for a long time. That is assuming we don't develop fussion reactors.
The initial transition will probably take about 5 years for power plants and 10 to 15 for vehicles. The transition will be expensive and will probably tank the US ecconomy and send it into a depression. It will emerge though. We have solutions to our energy needs. People just aren't investing in them yet because they aren't ecconomically viable. When energy becomes more expensive, the infrastructure will become viable and investments will be made to meet the demand.
This is why I love the Internet. Trying to find all you hilarious doomsayers on street corners was just exhausting. So how many of you think some collapse is actually going to happen and how many just want it to happen?Im sure many in carthage and rome felt like you. All empires fall in time.
I love when someone with no sense of history tries to use history to make a point. We are far from the decadence of Rome despite how much some people hate Jersey Shore or Honey Boo Boo. The race riots of the sixties were pretty bad, we got through them. The civil war was really bad, we got through them. Forgive me for not worrying over a black man in the White House or the fact republicans think you can't get pregnant from rape. There is a 24 hour news service dedicated to perpetual fear mongering but I assure things aren't as bad as they seem if you can look at things rationally. Humans have survived much worse, we will survive a little financial hiccup.
BTW, I thought this was a nerd forum. Surely you know we all survive till the year 5 Billion when the last pure human is but a piece of skin in need of constant moisturizing.
BTW, I thought this was a nerd forum. Surely you know we all survive till the year 5 Billion when the last pure human is but a piece of skin in need of constant moisturizing.
Television forum is that way >>>
I approve, but most people in these kinds of threads in OTD lack a sense of humor.
BTW, I thought this was a nerd forum. Surely you know we all survive till the year 5 Billion when the last pure human is but a piece of skin in need of constant moisturizing.Television forum is that way >>>
I approve, but most people in these kinds of threads in OTD lack a sense of humor.
Right, well I'm off then. Have fun everyone.
Not very.
We cannot continue to increase both the number of humans and the resources used by each human: we don't have enough.
Our entire society is built around the expenditure of non renewable resources. Unless something transformative is coming down the pipe, we're going to be in trouble when oil runs out.
We cannot continue with every person looking out for themselves, or the organized sociopathy that the current financial markets demand out of their manufacturing arms.
Yeah, we need to move to a sustainable economic model first and foremost.
Here's my 2cp overall. The reason that we use vastly more non-renewable resources than we should is greed and consumerism. When I catalog all the things I consume, however, the vast majority are renewable. Cotton fabrics for my clothes, food, and entertainment. About 99% of my entertainment needs are delivered electronically. As long as we move to a sustainable ENERGY model, i.e. wind and solar (and sundry other sources) and electric cars, I'm fairly certain there would be SOME model that would allow me to continue to enjoy the quality of life I already am.
The problem is, really, all the other people *points* out THERE.
I envision a post collapse world where we all live in hobbit holes covered in solar panels, on small plots of land where every last square inch is used to produce food, and we all communicate through the internet and travel short distances to social gatherings and participatory government with electric cars. This is my utopia.
wut
Here's my 2cp overall. The reason that we use vastly more non-renewable resources than we should is greed and consumerism. When I catalog all the things I consume, however, the vast majority are renewable. Cotton fabrics for my clothes, food, and entertainment. About 99% of my entertainment needs are delivered electronically. As long as we move to a sustainable ENERGY model, i.e. wind and solar (and sundry other sources) and electric cars, I'm fairly certain there would be SOME model that would allow me to continue to enjoy the quality of life I already am.
The problem is, really, all the other people *points* out THERE.
I envision a post collapse world where we all live in hobbit holes covered in solar panels, on small plots of land where every last square inch is used to produce food, and we all communicate through the internet and travel short distances to social gatherings and participatory government with electric cars. This is my utopia.
Cotton fabric for entertainment??? Uh... Whatever floats your boat, dear...
What you read:
Cotton fabric for entertainment
What was posted:
Cotton fabrics for my clothes
Reading comprehension FTMFL.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you read:
Cotton fabric for entertainmentWhat was posted:
Cotton fabrics for my clothesReading comprehension FTMFL.
Technically what was posted was "Cotton fabric for my clothes, food and entertainment." Incoluding entertainment under the clause bound by cotton fabric is a gramattically correct way of reading the sentence, if one that produces weird images. I'd be more concerend about you eating the cotton than playing with it, to be honest.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.
People think of SS as a savings program, except that is wrong. It's a government program funded by a specific tax. It just turns out that our current method of paying for it and it's spending do not equal each other.
Take in money from investors to repay, with more added, the old investor. And then get new investors to pay those. How is that not a ponzi?
Take in money from investors to repay, with more added, the old investor. And then get new investors to pay those. How is that not a ponzi?Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.
People think of SS as a savings program, except that is wrong. It's a government program funded by a specific tax. It just turns out that our current method of paying for it and it's spending do not equal each other.
Because government said so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that, while we can survive on solar, wind, natural gas etc, you don't THRIVE on it.
No country is going to survive when, with a little murder and mayhem, it can thrive. If you treat the entire planet and its population as one discreet, collective unit then it works. When you break it down to how resources get allocated, it doesn't.
Not very. We need to start colonizing space.
Yup. Just like that.
Take in money from investors to repay, with more added, the old investor. And then get new investors to pay those. How is that not a ponzi?Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.
People think of SS as a savings program, except that is wrong. It's a government program funded by a specific tax. It just turns out that our current method of paying for it and it's spending do not equal each other.
Are you going to claim that paying for the federal highway system is a ponzi scheme?
It's a government program. It collects money, and then redistributes it per the criteria set by Congress. Social Security is not a savings plan or investment vehicle. It is not an IRA or 401(K). It is a government program.
You are not an "investor" in Social Security. You are contributing to a government program that tries to reduce the burden of poverty on the elderly.
The problem is that, while we can survive on solar, wind, natural gas etc, you don't THRIVE on it.
I have to disagree, especially if you put natural gas in there.
Alternative, sustainable energy sources have been shown that they can easily be substituted for existing paradigms to provide something like 90% capacity to what we currently produce with coal.
The remaining has to be made up by energy conservation and investing in more efficient energy technologies. I don't have the time or inclination to go into it right now, but I'm sure you can think of all the same things I have, ways in which our society uses energy inefficiently based on outmoded pre-industrial paradigms (house design, city planning, etc.) Also, the amount of energy resources used by the top 1% is pretty staggering. After we've all revolted against the bourgeoisie that should shore up our deficit ;)
Joke's a joke but, in all honesty, a proactive redistribution of wealth and resources will definitely help our situation.
And we don't have to become completely sustainable, IMO. We just have to slow the consumption of fossil fuels to the point that we buy time to think of a practical solution and replacement for them. We have a VIABLE solution, we just have to learn to use it wisely.
I understand what you mean, though, about no country choosing to cut back if they're not forced to. Thing is, everyone else is already preparing for when they ARE forced to, INCLUDING China, which is the US's chief excuse for not doing so itself.
The problem is that, while we can survive on solar, wind, natural gas etc, you don't THRIVE on it.
No country is going to survive when, with a little murder and mayhem, it can thrive. If you treat the entire planet and its population as one discreet, collective unit then it works. When you break it down to how resources get allocated, it doesn't.
Wind keeps improving pretty dramatically, but it's still going to be another 10+ years until it starts to even be economically viable of it's own accord. The output has improved something like 10-fold over the past 15-20 years.
We also need more economical energy storage. Once we can store, and access as needed, 80% of our energy needs on the electrical grid for a month, we basically just need to match wind capacity with our current capacity and won't need to rely on fossil fuels for electricity any more.
Pumped-storage hydroelectric works, but it's somewhat terrain dependent and loses something around 30% of what it stores. It's cost effective at high energy prices during peak demand, but would be a net loss on it's own.
But if we are serious about getting energy, doing what politicians across the globe are doing today and shutting down existing nuclear plants while not building more of them is sheer insanity. We need nuclear plants, we need modern, safe ones, we need breed reactors. This does not produce carbon dioxide either. Shutting them down makes no sense whatsoever... Unless you really WANT a society where energy is difficult to come by and therefore rationed, controlled, and so on.
I never bothered with environmentalism because I figure that international proletarian socialist revolution and a planned economy are the only answer to capitalist degradation of the environment.
But now, my activist partner thinks there's going to be this big protest movement against some frickin' Canadian Tar Sands pipeline and I have to read all of this boring science stuff.
:(
But if we are serious about getting energy, doing what politicians across the globe are doing today and shutting down existing nuclear plants while not building more of them is sheer insanity. We need nuclear plants, we need modern, safe ones, we need breed reactors. This does not produce carbon dioxide either. Shutting them down makes no sense whatsoever... Unless you really WANT a society where energy is difficult to come by and therefore rationed, controlled, and so on.
Nuclear power presents its own very expensive and problematic issues, and they're issues that last thousands of years.
Our best bet would probably be to fund a trip to Mars for a solution sooner than later. The odds are pretty good that the advances in physics required would open up opportunities for energy solutions as well.
That would make it easier to find dates....
|
|
Lets see if these get a look in:
Public vote on all submitted petitions
Removal of the existing government structures for self representation
Those two are just ridiculous and you know it. You know it, because if everyone else agreed, you'd be the one guy saying no, just because he could.
No, they are ridiculous. If you want to benefit from society, you get to play by the rules. If you want to live in the wilderness alone, there are plenty of places you can go.
If it takes a 100% agreement to pass a law, and all laws require retroactive approval from all citizens, that means that criminals now get to vote on the laws that made them criminals. People who are concerned about getting caught can also vote against those laws.
That means an organization like NAMBLA will vote against laws that make it illegal to molest children. With a system in place to punish them, the populace will end up resorting to mob rule and punishing pedophiles themselves, which will inevitably lead to an innocent person eventually being killed based on incomplete evidence.
Also, laws against mob rule won't get passed, because people won't want to give up their only recourse to pedophiles.
Your proposition actually lowers the safeguards of minorities, not improving them.
|
|
If it takes a 100% agreement to pass a law, and all laws require retroactive approval from all citizens, that means that criminals now get to vote on the laws that made them criminals. People who are concerned about getting caught can also vote against those laws.
That means an organization like NAMBLA will vote against laws that make it illegal to molest children. With a system in place to punish them, the populace will end up resorting to mob rule and punishing pedophiles themselves, which will inevitably lead to an innocent person eventually being killed based on incomplete evidence.
Also, laws against mob rule won't get passed, because people won't want to give up their only recourse to pedophiles.
Your proposition actually lowers the safeguards of minorities, not improving them.
But in both cases a Child molester and a mob of outraged citizens looking to lynch him/her would be violating some ones right to be ungoverned by others. So what this really does is set the bar of civility beyond the capacity of the populace to meet it, not lower the standard by which you can conduct yourselves. The thought that a child being molested is as much the fault of the angry mob in not being there to guard that child as it is the child molester who violates the child doesn't get much consideration but it should.
Nothing you just said countered my point that your system doesn't work.
|
|
The problem is that, while we can survive on solar, wind, natural gas etc, you don't THRIVE on it.I have to disagree, especially if you put natural gas in there.
Alternative, sustainable energy sources have been shown that they can easily be substituted for existing paradigms to provide something like 90% capacity to what we currently produce with coal.
The remaining has to be made up by energy conservation and investing in more efficient energy technologies. I don't have the time or inclination to go into it right now, but I'm sure you can think of all the same things I have, ways in which our society uses energy inefficiently based on outmoded pre-industrial paradigms (house design, city planning, etc.) Also, the amount of energy resources used by the top 1% is pretty staggering. After we've all revolted against the bourgeoisie that should shore up our deficit ;)
Joke's a joke but, in all honesty, a proactive redistribution of wealth and resources will definitely help our situation.
And we don't have to become completely sustainable, IMO. We just have to slow the consumption of fossil fuels to the point that we buy time to think of a practical solution and replacement for them. We have a VIABLE solution, we just have to learn to use it wisely.
I understand what you mean, though, about no country choosing to cut back if they're not forced to. Thing is, everyone else is already preparing for when they ARE forced to, INCLUDING China, which is the US's chief excuse for not doing so itself.
Gas is great and renewable. the biggest issues with wind and solar is storage, they only produce under some circumstances