Supply and Demand - as crappy jobs get a lack of workers, the pay goes up and the job becomes less crappy.
And then what? All in all, we have a country with businessmen and scientists and grocery baggers, but more of the businessmen and scientists and not enough baggers. Until it gets so in demand that bagging groceries pays more then some jobs requiring a brain - I wouldn't need to get deported if that happens.
So you think the rich should pay for the poor to be happier? Moron.
Capitalism is a system divided into, basically, two classes: The very very rich businessmen, and everyone else. Government-funded agencies and all that are in a seperate league. The very very rich businessmen get rich off the work of the poorer. And thanks to the economy system maintained by the government. Whereas poor people get less out of the system, so yes, they owe the system less.
Suggest a better way. Are you saying that someone should be able to say "Well, maybe he did badly in the test, but I'll let him stay because he pays attention in class...". Seriously, corruption?
Refer to the multitude of points and those in different topics about how America needs laborers.
So you believe that it is not bad that the Rich suffer so the poor can be happier.
I think I'm obliged to call you a Moron for thinking that one party of people should have money stolen off them to pay for another groups happiness.
And third, does anyone here notice how he has criticized/flamed (depending on how offended you are) very nearly every major poster on this? (everyone except AntiSleep)
The rich don't suffer. They lose more money, but unless they lose enough to put them below the poor (impossible), they don't suffer more.
One person will never have all of the money. Just a small group of people will own most of it.
REVOLUTION! Read some economists. Karl Marx, for example - 'Major struggles are results of class conflicts'.
Viii_iiiV is talking about changing Great Britain, not the U.S., just to let you know. I believe that is where he lives.
None.
Dapperdan is right - I do live in the UK.
None.
Supply and Demand - as crappy jobs get a lack of workers, the pay goes up and the job becomes less crappy.
And then what? All in all, we have a country with businessmen and scientists and grocery baggers, but more of the businessmen and scientists and not enough baggers. Until it gets so in demand that bagging groceries pays more then some jobs requiring a brain - I wouldn't need to get deported if that happens.
So you think the rich should pay for the poor to be happier? Moron.
Capitalism is a system divided into, basically, two classes: The very very rich businessmen, and everyone else. Government-funded agencies and all that are in a seperate league. The very very rich businessmen get rich off the work of the poorer. And thanks to the economy system maintained by the government. Whereas poor people get less out of the system, so yes, they owe the system less.
Businessmen are not as rich as you think, and there is a large difference between a high powered lawyer on £185,000 a year, (around $400k), and a Wal-Mart worker on £7000 a year. Neither are buisnessmen.
And seriously, the rich do not get rich off the work of the poor - if that is all they do, then how come businessmen are rare? Why can't anyone do it? Logic states that to be a buisnessman, you must have some kind of skill that others do not have (else anyone could be one, which they can't), which means they either do something, or are something. Which makes them deserving.
Suggest a better way. Are you saying that someone should be able to say "Well, maybe he did badly in the test, but I'll let him stay because he pays attention in class...". Seriously, corruption?
Refer to the multitude of points and those in different topics about how America needs laborers.
In about five mins I'll be editing the original post with an even better idea.
So you believe that it is not bad that the Rich suffer so the poor can be happier.
I think I'm obliged to call you a Moron for thinking that one party of people should have money stolen off them to pay for another groups happiness.
And third, does anyone here notice how he has criticized/flamed (depending on how offended you are) very nearly every major poster on this? (everyone except AntiSleep)
The rich don't suffer. They lose more money, but unless they lose enough to put them below the poor (impossible), they don't suffer more.
One person will never have all of the money. Just a small group of people will own most of it.
REVOLUTION! Read some economists. Karl Marx, for example - 'Major struggles are results of class conflicts'.
[/QUOTE]
*sigh*
Money = Power
Power = Status
Status = Class
Poor people cannot have a major struggle (with the exception of the French)
Rich people can have a major struggle.
Need I say more?
None.
Relatively ancient and inactive
Yeah, because there were never any revolutions except the french.. And even then, that's enough to prove my point.
Your point seems to be that Money = Class.. so what? What's the point here? What does that have to do with any of the above points?
Yes, you 'need say more'.
None.
Rich people= people with class
class conflicts = clashes between rich people
Only the rich can have conflicts.
If you don't get it now...
None.
Rich people= people with class
class conflicts = clashes between rich people
Only the rich can have conflicts.
If you don't get it now...
I think he just couldn't believe how ignorant you were acting, and hoped you weren't saying what it sounded like. I can't blame him.
This is just sillyness... and I don't see how this holds
any weight.
None.
Rich people= people with class
class conflicts = clashes between rich people
Only the rich can have conflicts.
If you don't get it now...
I'm sorry. But I have more class than a rich person does, and I'm dirt poor.
I have more class than my old boss who is a multi-millionaire. I have more class than this guy named Paul that I know, whom is a multi-millionaire.
You fail, so leave.
None.
Rich people= people with class
class conflicts = clashes between rich people
Only the rich can have conflicts.
If you don't get it now...
I'm sorry. But I have more class than a rich person does, and I'm dirt poor.
I have more class than my old boss who is a multi-millionaire. I have more class than this guy named Paul that I know, whom is a multi-millionaire.
You fail, so leave.
class |klas|
noun
1 a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality : the accommodations were good for a hotel of this class | a new class of heart drug.
• Biology a principal taxonomic grouping that ranks above order and below phylum or division, such as Mammalia or Insecta.
2 the system of ordering a society in which people are divided into sets based on perceived social or economic status : people who are socially disenfranchised by class | [as adj. ] the class system.
• a set in a society ordered in such a way : the ruling class.
• ( the classes) archaic the rich or educated.
• informal impressive stylishness in appearance or behavior : she's got class—she looks like a princess.
3 a group of students who are taught together.
• an occasion when students meet with their teacher for instruction; a lesson : I was late for a class.
• a course of instruction : I took classes in Indian music.
• all those graduating from a school or college in a particular year : the class of 1907.
No you don't.
Just like anyone who has One million+ dollars can run for president of the United States, but me and you who have less then One Million, cannot?
...........I don't even know wtf this discussion is about, I just wanted to bring those points up
A million dollars isn't actually that much - even a small house in a mediocre neighborhood is around £500,000 - that's about $1,100,000. It's just because of the media, lottery, and general glorification makes it seem a lot more than it is.
And seriously, if you have no idea about the topic then your comments are somewhat spammish.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 6 2007, 7:15 pm by Viii_iiiV.
None.
Viii_iiiV, I do not know how first to put you through this.
1st. Deporting your citizens will come into a MASSIVE lack of workforce.
This will lead to immediate lack of service, infrastructure vacancy, and so on. You might not even have enough toilet papers for your next poop-wipe.
2nd. If you have any idea each citizen's worth is, then you have no idea how your country is still up and running. The rich and poor is of contrast to how well people live in contrast to each other. So if you were to deport all the poor, or half its population- then all your rich would be the poor. And to support your government, they'd end up having to pay more tax then all their stuff would be able to. So in a sense, you'd end up deporting ALL your citizens. So, looks like a one man country. Now that you gotta tax yourself, but with people that left with all their things, it would be better to abandon the idea. People will hate you 100%.
Plus, these things need majority to support you in the first place. So nobody will put you in place of power. Maybe in your dreams.
Even if you did succeed, international pressure will be too great. UN will crush your party instantly. You might actually be held responsible and be taken a court for breaking humanitarian laws ( should this ever happen ).
America is very low wage- Viii. The boss wants their worker's soul. Or they aint hired. 1 mil is a HUGE sum of money for vast majority of americans.
And Viii, if you yourself aint that rich ( who owns multiple buildings and gets inheritant money when yo pop and momz die- then you should consider yourself
deported )
If you arent this rich, you would also be VERY hypocritical.
None.
Viii_iiiV, I do not know how first to put you through this.
1st. Deporting your citizens will come into a MASSIVE lack of workforce.
This will lead to immediate lack of service, infrastructure vacancy, and so on. You might not even have enough toilet papers for your next poop-wipe.
2nd. If you have any idea each citizen's worth is, then you have no idea how your country is still up and running. The rich and poor is of contrast to how well people live in contrast to each other. So if you were to deport all the poor, or half its population- then all your rich would be the poor. And to support your government, they'd end up having to pay more tax then all their stuff would be able to. So in a sense, you'd end up deporting ALL your citizens. So, looks like a one man country. Now that you gotta tax yourself, but with people that left with all their things, it would be better to abandon the idea. People will hate you 100%.
Plus, these things need majority to support you in the first place. So nobody will put you in place of power. Maybe in your dreams.
Even if you did succeed, international pressure will be too great. UN will crush your party instantly. You might actually be held responsible and be taken a court for breaking humanitarian laws ( should this ever happen ).
America is very low wage- Viii. The boss wants their worker's soul. Or they aint hired. 1 mil is a HUGE sum of money for vast majority of americans.
And Viii, if you yourself aint that rich ( who owns multiple buildings and gets inheritant money when yo pop and momz die- then you should consider yourself deported )
If you arent this rich, you would also be VERY hypocritical.
About your comment about workforce, read the original post.
And while what you say is very true, very relevant, and most likely the most intelligent thing anyone other than me has said on this post, the original post no longer includes anything about deportation. I thought of a better way.
The UN will not touch me, mostly because they don't care.
Do they care that there are no human rights in China? No.
Do they care there are dictators in Africa? No.
Do they care about the hundreds of authorotism governments around the world? No.
None.
If you did that, people would leave your country even if you didnt deport them. It would be the same thing for rich and poor- for the poor, its because they have no worthwhile jobs whilst other countries do. Even in Mexico.
For the rich, they would leave because they would have no business worth in your country.
Either way, economy = dead
( On a side note, there is poor and the middle class to account for. They take up MAJORITY of tax incomes if you didnt know. The rich pay a large sum, but their figures are still minor compared to the entire poor and middle. )
The UN will not touch me, mostly because they don't care.
Do they care that there are no human rights in China? No.
Do they care there are dictators in Africa? No.
Do they care about the hundreds of authorotism governments around the world? No.
Thats untrue. Chinese people get a plenty of rights. They have jobs, they get services, ( as long as they stay in their designated place... ) They also have the right to have vacations, and be rich, own stuff. All in all, they have as much as right as any americans do in their personal life. They will have a problem with you and your government.
None.
I believe the UN would care about one of the five permanent seats getting its economy raped with a failed plan.
None.
I believe the UN would care about one of the five permanent seats getting its economy raped with a failed plan.
Didn't I say anything? The first action I will do will be to sign out the UN and EU.
And how would it mess the economy? Explain yourself.
None.
If you did that, people would leave your country even if you didnt deport them. It would be the same thing for rich and poor- for the poor, its because they have no worthwhile jobs whilst other countries do. Even in Mexico.
For the rich, they would leave because they would have no business worth in your country.
Either way, economy = dead
( On a side note, there is poor and the middle class to account for. They take up MAJORITY of tax incomes if you didnt know. The rich pay a large sum, but their figures are still minor compared to the entire poor and middle. )
Wrong. The top 5% of people own 95% of the wealth.
The UN will not touch me, mostly because they don't care.
Do they care that there are no human rights in China? No.
Do they care there are dictators in Africa? No.
Do they care about the hundreds of authorotism governments around the world? No.
Thats untrue. Chinese people get a plenty of rights. They have jobs, they get services, ( as long as they stay in their designated place... ) They also have the right to have vacations, and be rich, own stuff. All in all, they have as much as right as any americans do in their personal life. They will have a problem with you and your government.
Source please.
And I said
human rights. Right against torture, the right to live, etc.
You still didn't mention about African Dictators.
None.
I guess I'll enter the conversation now. I didn't read a lot of responses, because I really don't care about you guys arguing about economic and ideological systems. This system seems pretty fascist to me and conservative, and about as right-wing as you can get. Lets analyze your system of government.
Where does this random amount of £1,360 come from? If it has some specific merit, do tell, because right now it seems like a random number. To do what you propose in this system seems impossible with the amount of money you get from taxes. You don't seem like you get enough money to do very much of anything unless you are trying to make the entire nation's essentials privately owned (this would probably make your nation collapse very quickly). I wouldn't be surprised if your government went bankrupt just by trying to hold the insane amount of referendums you propose to have. Referendums are time-consuming and expensive - this is why nations today tend not to do them a lot.
Your law system is prone to corruption. Who comes up with the "police bill"? The police of course. It's conceivable that the police would overcharge someone to make a profit for themselves, or overcharge enemies with an amount so high that they will forced to be deported. Where they'll be deported I have no idea (OTHER countries can refuse to take them you know).
Zero inflation? What? In your system of economics (purely Capitalistic), it is almost impossible to control the rate of inflation effectively. You need SOME sort of government intervention, it doesn't matter if you're Keynesian or operate from a Freidman view: GOVERNMENT MUST INTERFERE WITH THE ECONOMY IN SOME WAY! This completely shatters your nations fascist standpoint. I'll stop here with discussing the economic policies of your government since it's been proven that pure Capitalism really doesn't work (1930s America).
Your nation would very quickly develop into one with very little culture and one based off totalitarian fear. The fear of being deported would keep families driving their kids toward academic success, and subsequently you wouldn't have the kids that don't finish high school but paint Rembrandts. A society totally fronted towards "personal ratings" leaves no people that are culturally oriented since they'll be deported. Good luck finding musicians or painters.
Your point on lie detectors is flawed. They can be very inaccurate, and you're wasting your already small tax dollars.
Uh... That's pretty much what I was thinking... What I meant by 'Britain will be one hellishly empty country,' since everyone will get deported.
Rich people= people with class class conflicts = clashes between rich people Only the rich can have conflicts. If you don't get it now...
Also, about the African dictators, they aren't suspected of having nukes (Kim Jong-il anyone?).
None.
class |klas|
noun
• ( the classes) archaic the rich or educated.
A million dollars isn't actually that much - even a small house in a mediocre neighborhood is around £500,000 - that's about $1,100,000. It's just because of the media, lottery, and general glorification makes it seem a lot more than it is.
And seriously, if you have no idea about the topic then your comments are somewhat spammish.
Okay buddy, lets see the definition of Archaic:
Quote from Dictionary.com
6 results for: archaic
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ar·cha·ic /ɑrˈkeɪɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahr-key-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion.
2. (of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage except to suggest the older time, as in religious rituals or historical novels. Examples: thou; wast; methinks; forsooth.
3. forming the earliest stage; prior to full development: the archaic period of psychoanalytic research.
4. (often initial capital letter) pertaining to or designating the style of the fine arts, esp. painting and sculpture, developed in Greece from the middle 7th to the early 5th century b.c., chiefly characterized by an increased emphasis on the human figure in action, naturalistic proportions and anatomical structure, simplicity of volumes, forms, or design, and the evolution of a definitive style for the narrative treatment of subject matter. Compare classical (def. 6), Hellenistic (def. 5).
5. primitive; ancient; old: an archaic form of animal life.
[Origin: 1825–35; (< F) < Gk archaïkós antiquated, old-fashioned, equiv. to archaǐ(os) old + -ikos -ic]
—Related forms
ar·cha·i·cal·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
So judging by the context of class you're using, you fail..
If you're going by the archaic form of the meaning "Class", your views are obsolete to todays views so that's why you fail. Your views are also fascist, which is another big fail.
I was referring to the American $, not the English £. Maybe in Gayland (Oops, I mean England) a million dollars isn't much but here in America, someone with a Million dollars is the Lower-Upper "class".. A million dollars would be a dream come true to a LOT of Americans..
But anyways, if you think that bringing up valid points is spam, you shouldn't even be in this forum debating.
None.
I believe the UN would care about one of the five permanent seats getting its economy raped with a failed plan.
Didn't I say anything? The first action I will do will be to sign out the UN and EU.
And how would it mess the economy? Explain yourself.
The very act of withdrawing from the EU and UN would destroy the economy. The withdrawal of trading partners and resources in a crisis may be a problem, eh?
None.
It's only fair that people who make profit of others work are taxed more than than the rest. After all if it was so fucking bad to be rich, they could just fucking stop being rich, after all nobody is asking them to take the workers profit. The overclass is getting all the cream but it's not enough for them, they want more and more, infact they can't get enougth and no means are too cruel to reach the goal of infinite whealth. Capitalism is Slavery, Slavery is evil, Capitalism is evil, Rich People are slavemasters, Slavemasters are evil, Rich People are evil.
None.
Which is why the United States has been going to shit since the early 1900s.
None.
Quick question for Viii_iiiV: Do you support President Bush (yes, I know you're in the UK, I don't care)?
None.
