Catholics more inclined to share wealth than Protestants, Euro central bank says
I asked this question before. "Is the protestant movement the reason that United States became such a modern technological country, yet so backwards when it comes to religion?" No one seemed to agree that religion heavily influenced our economy at all, but I think they're wrong.
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Weber maintained that while Puritan religious ideas had significantly impacted the development of economic system in Europe and United States, there were other factors in play, as well. They included the rationalism in scientific pursuit, growing connections between observation and mathematics, development of scholarship and jurisprudence, rational systematization of government administration (development of bureaucracy) and advances in entrepreneurship. In the end, the study of Protestant ethic, according to Weber, investigated a part of the detachment from magic, that disenchantment of the world that could be seen as a unique characteristic of Western culture.
In other words, the Protestant work ethic was a force behind an unplanned and uncoordinated mass action that influenced the development of capitalism.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
MARX VS.WEBER (PDF file)
Doesn’t this mean that the RIGHTS of the individual outweigh the RIGHTS of the many? Politics is more confusing than physics. I know I’m an atheist, and now I am trying to figure out if I’m a libertarian. The criticisms of libertarianism fall short and I strongly believe in inalienable rights. Does anyone have any good arguments against libertarianism?
In other words, the Protestant work ethic was a force behind an unplanned and uncoordinated mass action that influenced the development of capitalism.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
MARX VS.WEBER (PDF file)
QUOTE
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”- Declaration of Human Rights: PREAMBLE
Doesn’t this mean that the RIGHTS of the individual outweigh the RIGHTS of the many? Politics is more confusing than physics. I know I’m an atheist, and now I am trying to figure out if I’m a libertarian. The criticisms of libertarianism fall short and I strongly believe in inalienable rights. Does anyone have any good arguments against libertarianism?
Most people think libertarianism means Left anarchism.
Besides, politics by any other name is still politics.
Besides, politics by any other name is still politics.
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Libertarianism, in the strictest sense, is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. In the broadest sense, it is any political philosophy which approximates this view. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to governmentactivity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 2 2011, 06:28 PM)
Does anyone have any good arguments against libertarianism?
Libertarianism assumes that a free market will provide the best solution to every imaginable problem (if I'm mistaken, please provide examples). This is nothing more than a statement of faith. Problems need to be solved on a case-by-case basis, not by some blanket rule.
For example, Libertarianism says nothing about dealing with natural monopolies. Consider utility companies. How many choices for utilities do you have at your home? If you have more than one choice, I would be surprised. This isn't due to some government interference, it's just not worth it to set up parallel services in one area. You're not going to put water pipes under the street for five different competing companies. Because of this, competition is nonexistent in that sector.
Libertarianism would exchange government control for corporate control. Government regulation of business is just as necessary as the checks and balances between the different branches of government.
Libertarianism assumes that a free market will provide the best solution to every imaginable problem (if I'm mistaken, please provide examples). This is nothing more than a statement of faith. Problems need to be solved on a case-by-case basis, not by some blanket rule.
For example, Libertarianism says nothing about dealing with natural monopolies. Consider utility companies. How many choices for utilities do you have at your home? If you have more than one choice, I would be surprised. This isn't due to some government interference, it's just not worth it to set up parallel services in one area. You're not going to put water pipes under the street for five different competing companies. Because of this, competition is nonexistent in that sector.
Libertarianism would exchange government control for corporate control. Government regulation of business is just as necessary as the checks and balances between the different branches of government.
QUOTE
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba @ Nov 2 2011, 06:28 PM)
Does anyone have any good arguments against libertarianism?
Does anyone have any good arguments against libertarianism?
Libertarianism says 'fu(k you, I've got mine."
I'm not sure if that's an argument against it.
QUOTE (AlexG+Nov 2 2011, 05:25 PM)
Libertarianism says "fuсk you, I've got mine."
I'm not sure if that's an argument against it.
I can't decide if you're a man of few words or if you just spread them too thin.
So, do libertarians believe in charity? Should “we the people” force Bill Gates to redistribute his fortune? Isn’t that akin to forced labor? Do you believe that the individual matters? Do they have the right to personal property, which others may be denied the use of? Does the majority trump the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 2 2011, 09:48 PM)
I can't decide if you're a man of few words or if you just spread them too thin.
So, do libertarians believe in charity? Should “we the people” force Bill Gates to redistribute his fortune? Isn’t that akin to forced labor? Do you believe that the individual matters? Do they have the right to personal property, which others may be denied the use of? Does the majority trump the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property?
You're taking the extreme opposite and presenting it as if it were the alternative to libertarianism.
So, do libertarians believe in charity? Should “we the people” force Bill Gates to redistribute his fortune? Isn’t that akin to forced labor? Do you believe that the individual matters? Do they have the right to personal property, which others may be denied the use of? Does the majority trump the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property?
You're taking the extreme opposite and presenting it as if it were the alternative to libertarianism.
QUOTE (AlexG+Nov 2 2011, 07:49 PM)
You're taking the extreme opposite and presenting it as if it were the alternative to libertarianism.
No I'm not. Im just curious, and I'm following an online course, while reading a little bit of John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
Never mind, Alex. God!
No I'm not. Im just curious, and I'm following an online course, while reading a little bit of John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
Never mind, Alex. God!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 3 2011, 12:24 AM)
No I'm not. Im just curious, and I'm following an online course, while reading a little bit of John Rawls and Robert Nozick.
Never mind, Alex. God!
Did you happen to read my response?
Never mind, Alex. God!
Did you happen to read my response?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 2 2011, 09:48 PM)
So, do libertarians believe in charity? Should “we the people” force Bill Gates to redistribute his fortune? Isn’t that akin to forced labor? Do you believe that the individual matters? Do they have the right to personal property, which others may be denied the use of? Does the majority trump the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property?
Libertarianism is the belief that individual liberties are paramount in importance when it comes to social or legal concerns.
It isn't necessarily the belief that corporate liberties reign supreme, although that is quite a common view among libertarians (understandable, given the individualized nature of a corporation in the modern world).
So in short answer to your questions (in order):
-Some do.
-No.
-Yes.
-Yes.
-Yes.
-No.
In long answer:
-Charity doesn't contradict any principles of libertarianism. Socialism however, is something different. In socialism, those who have wealth are forced to give to charitable programs which are run by the government. This is antithetical to libertarianism.
-No, that would be antithetical to libertarianism, as doing so would deprive Bill Gates of his personal liberty to possess wealth.
-I do, and I suspect the vast majority of people outside of the far political left would, as well (which likely includes Alex).
-Absolutely: That is the very basis of libertarianism. Disallowing others the use of your own property deprives them of no rights whatsoever (even if it deprives them of opportunities, wealth, etc), while forcing individuals to share property deprives them of their rights to possess it.
-Absolutely not... In theory. In actual practice, situations may arise in which the good of the many outweigh the good of the one (quite often, really). In these cases, it is not so much society's best interests which are at stake, but the liberties of many other individuals, and so it must be judged by a moral principle not included in libertarianism whether or not the rights potentially removed from the single individual outweigh the rights potentially removed from the collection of individuals which constitutes the rest of society.
Libertarianism in practice (and, depending on interpretation of a number of unrelated issues, in theory) tends to advocate Laissez-faire capitalism, which is (sometimes surprisingly, given the truth behind Lasand's observation earlier in this thread) rather to the political right.
For the record, I am not a libertarian. Although I do believe strongly in the importance of individual liberties, I also believe in the importance of individual responsibilities to one's society. To illustrate, two beliefs of mine show strongly contradictory political leanings: I oppose gun control laws (beyond registration of firearms), a right-wing position, while I simultaneously support an expanded welfare program that would include much of the working class, a left-wing position.
Libertarianism is the belief that individual liberties are paramount in importance when it comes to social or legal concerns.
It isn't necessarily the belief that corporate liberties reign supreme, although that is quite a common view among libertarians (understandable, given the individualized nature of a corporation in the modern world).
So in short answer to your questions (in order):
-Some do.
-No.
-Yes.
-Yes.
-Yes.
-No.
In long answer:
-Charity doesn't contradict any principles of libertarianism. Socialism however, is something different. In socialism, those who have wealth are forced to give to charitable programs which are run by the government. This is antithetical to libertarianism.
-No, that would be antithetical to libertarianism, as doing so would deprive Bill Gates of his personal liberty to possess wealth.
-I do, and I suspect the vast majority of people outside of the far political left would, as well (which likely includes Alex).
-Absolutely: That is the very basis of libertarianism. Disallowing others the use of your own property deprives them of no rights whatsoever (even if it deprives them of opportunities, wealth, etc), while forcing individuals to share property deprives them of their rights to possess it.
-Absolutely not... In theory. In actual practice, situations may arise in which the good of the many outweigh the good of the one (quite often, really). In these cases, it is not so much society's best interests which are at stake, but the liberties of many other individuals, and so it must be judged by a moral principle not included in libertarianism whether or not the rights potentially removed from the single individual outweigh the rights potentially removed from the collection of individuals which constitutes the rest of society.
Libertarianism in practice (and, depending on interpretation of a number of unrelated issues, in theory) tends to advocate Laissez-faire capitalism, which is (sometimes surprisingly, given the truth behind Lasand's observation earlier in this thread) rather to the political right.
For the record, I am not a libertarian. Although I do believe strongly in the importance of individual liberties, I also believe in the importance of individual responsibilities to one's society. To illustrate, two beliefs of mine show strongly contradictory political leanings: I oppose gun control laws (beyond registration of firearms), a right-wing position, while I simultaneously support an expanded welfare program that would include much of the working class, a left-wing position.
Any kind of political or religious doctrine assumes that, under it's influence, people will act in a certain way. History has proven that's a bunch of ***.
Religion affects politics and the economy.
Politics affects religion and the economy.
The economy affects politics and religion.
Not quite sure why this is a question.
Religion affects politics and the economy.
Politics affects religion and the economy.
The economy affects politics and religion.
Not quite sure why this is a question.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Did you happen to read my response?
Oops, missed it. Sorry, FBM.
Now, that’s what I’m talking about, some food for thought. I’ll be out of town for a few days, but you guys have given me something to think about.
Capitalism was successful because it provided so much prosperity that the worker was living better than he ever had before. So, do you guys feels that the state should oversee competition? Isn't the public capable of judging the value of a product? Do you remember the anti-slavery movements? We could and have controlled large companies before by not purchasing their products. If we chose to, we could have a “lights out” protest.
The government also restricts competition in many ways, i.e. selling health insurance across state lines. Shouldn’t the social goal be to reduce the state’s influence in the economy? We should be able to choose, if and how we wish to share our wealth. Is our government doing a good job at managing and redistributing wealth?
How about creative capitalism?
P.S. How about throwing up some of your favorite, (non-head banging tunes) on your channel, MP?
Thanks guys!
Oops, missed it. Sorry, FBM.
Now, that’s what I’m talking about, some food for thought. I’ll be out of town for a few days, but you guys have given me something to think about.
Capitalism was successful because it provided so much prosperity that the worker was living better than he ever had before. So, do you guys feels that the state should oversee competition? Isn't the public capable of judging the value of a product? Do you remember the anti-slavery movements? We could and have controlled large companies before by not purchasing their products. If we chose to, we could have a “lights out” protest.
The government also restricts competition in many ways, i.e. selling health insurance across state lines. Shouldn’t the social goal be to reduce the state’s influence in the economy? We should be able to choose, if and how we wish to share our wealth. Is our government doing a good job at managing and redistributing wealth?
How about creative capitalism?
P.S. How about throwing up some of your favorite, (non-head banging tunes) on your channel, MP?
Thanks guys!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 3 2011, 02:55 PM)
The government also restricts competition in many ways, i.e. selling health insurance across state lines. Shouldn’t the social goal be to reduce the state’s influence in the economy? We should be able to choose, if and how we wish to share our wealth. Is our government doing a good job at managing and redistributing wealth?
Health care is one area where the profit motive is detrimental to the service being provided. Insurance companies make money by charging their customers a monthly premium, and in return they are supposed to pay for their customer's medical needs. The more money that the insurance company pays out on behalf of their customers, the less profit the company sees as a whole. Therefore, it is in the insurance company's best interest to limit payouts without appearing to. That's why these companies try to deny claims based on pre-existing conditions. In this case, the profit motive runs contrary to providing health care to customers.
Health care is one area where the profit motive is detrimental to the service being provided. Insurance companies make money by charging their customers a monthly premium, and in return they are supposed to pay for their customer's medical needs. The more money that the insurance company pays out on behalf of their customers, the less profit the company sees as a whole. Therefore, it is in the insurance company's best interest to limit payouts without appearing to. That's why these companies try to deny claims based on pre-existing conditions. In this case, the profit motive runs contrary to providing health care to customers.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 3 2011, 07:30 PM)
Health care is one area where the profit motive is detrimental to the service being provided. Insurance companies make money by charging their customers a monthly premium, and in return they are supposed to pay for their customer's medical needs. The more money that the insurance company pays out on behalf of their customers, the less profit the company sees as a whole. Therefore, it is in the insurance company's best interest to limit payouts without appearing to. That's why these companies try to deny claims based on pre-existing conditions. In this case, the profit motive runs contrary to providing health care to customers.
Well was there a pre-existing problem or not? How many people get insurance and try not to mention their pre-existing problems?
Well was there a pre-existing problem or not? How many people get insurance and try not to mention their pre-existing problems?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Nov 4 2011, 05:09 AM)
Well was there a pre-existing problem or not? How many people get insurance and try not to mention their pre-existing problems?
What is your point?
What is your point?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 3 2011, 02:30 PM)
Health care is one area where the profit motive is detrimental to the service being provided. Insurance companies make money by charging their customers a monthly premium, and in return they are supposed to pay for their customer's medical needs. The more money that the insurance company pays out on behalf of their customers, the less profit the company sees as a whole. Therefore, it is in the insurance company's best interest to limit payouts without appearing to. That's why these companies try to deny claims based on pre-existing conditions. In this case, the profit motive runs contrary to providing health care to customers.
On top of that, the profit motive is going to lead any corporation in any industry to behave in a manner which adversely affects society when market saturation is approached.
Suddenly, advertising and R&D don't pay out any more, and companies have to turn to mergers & acquisitions to keep growing, which leads to massive layoffs, rising prices and reduced quality of goods and services. I wrote a bit more initially, but since it's a mouthful, I'm just going to shrink it down and white it out so you only have to read it if you're interested.
Common wisdom holds that businesses compete by offering better products, or by offering similar products at a cheaper price. This works quite well when there's plenty of room to grow (think of the restaurant industry in most developed countries). However, when there's not room to grow (telephone/cellphone service in the US), offering a better or cheaper service than the competition isn't enough, you have to discredit the competition to convince people to switch. In these kinds of situations, you need to invest heavily in marketing to get new customers, not only because you need to let them know you have a good product, but you need to let them know that the competition has a worse product. Advertising under ideal circumstances can be a corporation's second biggest cost (behind payroll, more on that later), when advertising needs to be poured on with a bucket, the costs can become crippling. When you combine this with expanded R&D (because the competition is doing the same thing you are, you need to keep your product quality level high, as well as figure out ways of cutting operating/manufacturing costs, both of which R&D do), things can start to look desperate.
So what do most corporations do? Mergers & acquisitions. Most of the time, these strategies entail a one-time-cost, and often at a price on par with one or two year's advertising budget. The payouts can be enormous, however. Right off the top, you add huge numbers to your customer base, as well as boosting your chances of getting a new customer as they're born/turn 18/whatever. For another thing, acquiring another company allows you to downsize, because you don't need their top level management, their HR departments, their legal departments, etc. You've already got those things. In fact, the people whom you need to keep on are those who make the least amount of money, in most cases. On top of that, manufacturing/coordination centers can be sold off to the highest bidder, to help offset the purchase cost, existing management might pass off new cost-saving measure before you can them, R&D departments can be consolidated (meaning more layoffs and property sales), and so on and so forth.
Then, once you control a large enough chunk of the market, you get two of the advantages of a monopoly: The ability to arbitrarily set prices and arbitrarily decide on quality levels for your goods/services. It doesn't matter that there's still some competition left, because when you raise your own prices (citing the economy) and stop improving your product (citing technological limitations) the competition secretly cheers, then raises their prices to just below yours, starts focusing their advertising on the quality of their product while simultaneously letting the quality slip just as much as yours (because if people believe it's better, they'll tell each other it's better, which is just as good as it being better), and nothing they do matters, because you already control more of the market than they do, thanks to your recent takeover. The best part is this: You can do this again in just a few years! Just talk about inflation and people will suck it up.
And if you don't believe me, take a close look at corporate behavior in industries which are near or at market saturation.
It's perfectly clear and irrefutable: A completely free market is just as flawed as any other system.
On top of that, the profit motive is going to lead any corporation in any industry to behave in a manner which adversely affects society when market saturation is approached.
Suddenly, advertising and R&D don't pay out any more, and companies have to turn to mergers & acquisitions to keep growing, which leads to massive layoffs, rising prices and reduced quality of goods and services. I wrote a bit more initially, but since it's a mouthful, I'm just going to shrink it down and white it out so you only have to read it if you're interested.
Common wisdom holds that businesses compete by offering better products, or by offering similar products at a cheaper price. This works quite well when there's plenty of room to grow (think of the restaurant industry in most developed countries). However, when there's not room to grow (telephone/cellphone service in the US), offering a better or cheaper service than the competition isn't enough, you have to discredit the competition to convince people to switch. In these kinds of situations, you need to invest heavily in marketing to get new customers, not only because you need to let them know you have a good product, but you need to let them know that the competition has a worse product. Advertising under ideal circumstances can be a corporation's second biggest cost (behind payroll, more on that later), when advertising needs to be poured on with a bucket, the costs can become crippling. When you combine this with expanded R&D (because the competition is doing the same thing you are, you need to keep your product quality level high, as well as figure out ways of cutting operating/manufacturing costs, both of which R&D do), things can start to look desperate.
So what do most corporations do? Mergers & acquisitions. Most of the time, these strategies entail a one-time-cost, and often at a price on par with one or two year's advertising budget. The payouts can be enormous, however. Right off the top, you add huge numbers to your customer base, as well as boosting your chances of getting a new customer as they're born/turn 18/whatever. For another thing, acquiring another company allows you to downsize, because you don't need their top level management, their HR departments, their legal departments, etc. You've already got those things. In fact, the people whom you need to keep on are those who make the least amount of money, in most cases. On top of that, manufacturing/coordination centers can be sold off to the highest bidder, to help offset the purchase cost, existing management might pass off new cost-saving measure before you can them, R&D departments can be consolidated (meaning more layoffs and property sales), and so on and so forth.
Then, once you control a large enough chunk of the market, you get two of the advantages of a monopoly: The ability to arbitrarily set prices and arbitrarily decide on quality levels for your goods/services. It doesn't matter that there's still some competition left, because when you raise your own prices (citing the economy) and stop improving your product (citing technological limitations) the competition secretly cheers, then raises their prices to just below yours, starts focusing their advertising on the quality of their product while simultaneously letting the quality slip just as much as yours (because if people believe it's better, they'll tell each other it's better, which is just as good as it being better), and nothing they do matters, because you already control more of the market than they do, thanks to your recent takeover. The best part is this: You can do this again in just a few years! Just talk about inflation and people will suck it up.
And if you don't believe me, take a close look at corporate behavior in industries which are near or at market saturation.
It's perfectly clear and irrefutable: A completely free market is just as flawed as any other system.
COOL! 
I love that little trick and thanks for teaching me about the character map. It comes in handy.
I tend to disagree. I'll write more when I return from my trip.
Cheers!
I love that little trick and thanks for teaching me about the character map. It comes in handy.
I tend to disagree. I'll write more when I return from my trip.
Cheers!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 4 2011, 10:55 AM)
COOL!
I love that little trick and thanks for teaching me about the character map. It comes in handy.
I tend to disagree. I'll write more when I return from my trip.
Cheers!
Which part do you disagree with?
I love that little trick and thanks for teaching me about the character map. It comes in handy.
I tend to disagree. I'll write more when I return from my trip.
Cheers!
Which part do you disagree with?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 4 2011, 12:28 PM)
Which part do you disagree with?
I agree with everything you said. Libertarians seem to turn a blind eye to situations where competition fails to deliver "good" results. Every time I bring up something like this, the response is always to blame the government for causing companies to grow too large, and they actually believe that left alone, companies will never get that big. It's completely ludicrous. For telecoms, they blame government regulations, as if that alone is enough to spawn giants like AT&T. The telecom industry was at market saturation before cell phones even existed.
Libertarianism is a religion.
I agree with everything you said. Libertarians seem to turn a blind eye to situations where competition fails to deliver "good" results. Every time I bring up something like this, the response is always to blame the government for causing companies to grow too large, and they actually believe that left alone, companies will never get that big. It's completely ludicrous. For telecoms, they blame government regulations, as if that alone is enough to spawn giants like AT&T. The telecom industry was at market saturation before cell phones even existed.
Libertarianism is a religion.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 4 2011, 12:22 PM)
Every time I bring up something like this, the response is always to blame the government for causing companies to grow too large, and they actually believe that left alone, companies will never get that big.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 4 2011, 02:41 PM)
Yeah, cause the government LOVES monopolies...
Unfortunately laws are only as effective as their enforcement.
Unfortunately laws are only as effective as their enforcement.
I think this guy sounds pretty reasonable.
The real crisis? We Stopped Being Wise, DUH!
Barry Schwartz: Using Our Practical Wisdom
The real crisis? We Stopped Being Wise, DUH!
Barry Schwartz: Using Our Practical Wisdom
I'd be more interested in your opinion than a bunch of links.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 14 2011, 10:30 AM)
I'd be more interested in your opinion than a bunch of links.
I don’t have an opinion, as of yet. An opinion is a subjective belief. I’m more comfortable with fact-based knowledge. That’s why I’ve always avoided politics. I’m just trying to step out of my comfort zone and collect a little data. The system definitely needs a change. It’s socially constructed so society should be able to intervene and shift the system, but bureaucracies are extremely difficult to change. I’m open minded. What’s your opinion?
I don’t have an opinion, as of yet. An opinion is a subjective belief. I’m more comfortable with fact-based knowledge. That’s why I’ve always avoided politics. I’m just trying to step out of my comfort zone and collect a little data. The system definitely needs a change. It’s socially constructed so society should be able to intervene and shift the system, but bureaucracies are extremely difficult to change. I’m open minded. What’s your opinion?
Don't actually have an opinion.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 14 2011, 01:05 PM)
Don't actually have an opinion.
Oh, I see. Just missing me, I guess.
Oh, I see. Just missing me, I guess.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 14 2011, 09:39 PM)
Oh, I see. Just missing me, I guess.
We all are missing you and your mates. Come back to Physforums where science rocks. Get off those other sites please!
We miss you.
We all are missing you and your mates. Come back to Physforums where science rocks. Get off those other sites please!
We miss you.
Hey, I don't know anything science (maybe a little forensics).
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 14 2011, 09:39 PM)
Oh, I see. Just missing me, I guess.
Just wanted a say hello.
Just wanted a say hello.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 15 2011, 01:02 AM)
Just wanted a say hello.
4320 one liners. Good going I suppose.
4320 one liners. Good going I suppose.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 14 2011, 05:02 PM)
Just wanted a say hello.
Hi Derek. I'm glad you stopped by. I sort of miss your one liners.
Cheers!
Hi Derek. I'm glad you stopped by. I sort of miss your one liners.
Cheers!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Nov 15 2011, 02:23 AM)
Hi Derek. I'm glad you stopped by. I sort of miss your one liners.
Cheers!
Come on, occasionally it was more than one line.
Cheers!
Come on, occasionally it was more than one line.
An essential part of the flora and fauna of the forum. (Derek1148 that is). (As is rpenner).
Pot embraces kettle.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/17/bill...dorsing-romney/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/17/bill...dorsing-romney/
QUOTE (Capracus+Oct 17 2012, 08:48 PM)
Pot embraces kettle.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/17/bill...dorsing-romney/
Oh that is big . Wow . Being that I was a Mormon as a child . That is just to funny and yeah p[politics is influenced heavy weighted by religion hands down . You got to consider that even Atheists are conditioned to religious rhetoric as there moral fibber . Consider that a butt load of governments are copy paste of religious dogma . Particularly the U.S. into christian cultism . That is one reason government as we know it is becoming out dated for the times we live in . New ideals are emerging .
You take the next generation . There priorities have changed dramatically. Flex Hours , where you live , what you drive and much much more . Not like the old model of you being just a slave to the company . I am talking about talent . The talented are more into quality of life instead of just making the money . Perks like flex hours so they can pursue other interests in life like being with family or more vacation time , or shorter work weeks . You name it . It is not the same as grandpa work tell you drop and then hit it again before you do drop or hit the ground .
In another 20 years it is going to look all different than even that . We are just starting to feel the effects of the information age . I predict it is going to be a bigger displacement than even the agricultural age 10,000 or so years ago .
You can see it happening and it is just the beginning. Right now but loads of professionals that have limited computer skills are biting it big time . They are like beggars to the computer literate. What do you call em . Rocks , cause they are as dumb as rocks .
I didn't make that up either.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/17/bill...dorsing-romney/
Oh that is big . Wow . Being that I was a Mormon as a child . That is just to funny and yeah p[politics is influenced heavy weighted by religion hands down . You got to consider that even Atheists are conditioned to religious rhetoric as there moral fibber . Consider that a butt load of governments are copy paste of religious dogma . Particularly the U.S. into christian cultism . That is one reason government as we know it is becoming out dated for the times we live in . New ideals are emerging .
You take the next generation . There priorities have changed dramatically. Flex Hours , where you live , what you drive and much much more . Not like the old model of you being just a slave to the company . I am talking about talent . The talented are more into quality of life instead of just making the money . Perks like flex hours so they can pursue other interests in life like being with family or more vacation time , or shorter work weeks . You name it . It is not the same as grandpa work tell you drop and then hit it again before you do drop or hit the ground .
In another 20 years it is going to look all different than even that . We are just starting to feel the effects of the information age . I predict it is going to be a bigger displacement than even the agricultural age 10,000 or so years ago .
You can see it happening and it is just the beginning. Right now but loads of professionals that have limited computer skills are biting it big time . They are like beggars to the computer literate. What do you call em . Rocks , cause they are as dumb as rocks .
I didn't make that up either.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.