Stupid World

[Scuba_Steve]

Define "need".

I thought I did... The stuff required [general rule] if you wish to enhance your position in life.

[bogan]

No, that's you deciding for me, yet again, what you believe I have done in order to get to a particular place. I've done nothing of the sort given that poverty exists. Funny, coz them country's setting them thar records seems to tell a different story... but I'm sure those with vested financial interest are more likely to produce facts as opposed to those who are suffering the problem.

Thanks again for confirming that you don't understand what an R.B.E. is, because it most definitely is a big picture. We're already rattling through resources in order to maximise profit and encourage even more resource wastage ... I fail to see how a system that manages those resources based on need and the usefulness of the resource will be any worse than a system that manages those resources on the flawed basis that there is a demand that should be created in order to generate a need.

No that's just me pointing out your logical errors, again. Go off and hide behind semantics again, if you must.

Wrong, resources are currently priced by supply vs demand. An RBE does not manage resource based on need, but based on availability, hence why it would deplete them so quickly. Resources being allocated based on need simply puts more power into the hands of the government (who decides the need) at the expense of the people; who are entitled to it (or not); plenty of historical examples of why that is a bad thing.

[mashman]

No that's just me pointing out your logical errors, again. Go off and hide behind semantics again, if you must.

Wrong, resources are currently priced by supply vs demand. An RBE does not manage resource based on need, but based on availability, hence why it would deplete them so quickly. Resources being allocated based on need simply puts more power into the hands of the government (who decides the need) at the expense of the people; who are entitled to it (or not); plenty of historical examples of why that is a bad thing.

No, I never stated that which you claim I stated, so there's no logical error anywhere other than that which you have created on my behalf. No semantics, just a straight up fact.

An R.B.E. most definitely manages resources. Availability will be considered under the management of those resources. As for the rest, complete total and utter bullshit. History happened a long time ago and we have learned nothing from it... perhaps you should stop living in it. I'd rather we managed the resources than frittered them away aimlessly as we currently do.

[bogan]

No, I never stated that which you claim I stated, so there's no logical error anywhere other than that which you have created on my behalf. No semantics, just a straight up fact.

An R.B.E. most definitely manages resources. Availability will be considered under the management of those resources. As for the rest, complete total and utter bullshit. History happened a long time ago and we have learned nothing from it... perhaps you should stop living in it. I'd rather we managed the resources than frittered them away aimlessly as we currently do.

The relevance of that which you state is zero; I simply explain the logical realities of the situation given what you post. The logical error is that the realities of what you say, differ to the claims you make; thus instigating the hide behind some semantics tactic.

See here is an example, what you say is resource use will be managed; yet what you claim is that the rest is all bullshit. If resources are managed, then those who manage them get to say what everyone is entitled to, this is the only logical outcome here, and certainly not bullshit. And that has happened before, however much you might like to put your head in the sand on that point and continue to learn nothing from it.

[mashman]

The relevance of that which you state is zero; I simply explain the logical realities of the situation given what you post. The logical error is that the realities of what you say, differ to the claims you make; thus instigating the hide behind some semantics tactic.

See here is an example, what you say is resource use will be managed; yet what you claim is that the rest is all bullshit. If resources are managed, then those who manage them get to say what everyone is entitled to, this is the only logical outcome here, and certainly not bullshit. And that has happened before, however much you might like to put your head in the sand on that point and continue to learn nothing from it.

I'll say it again, I didn't state that which you insinuate I did. You have a history of doing that . I see no contradiction, so you must be making shit up. No semantics there, just your usual wishful pseudo-thinking.

What I referred to as bullshit was:

"resources are currently priced by supply vs demand". No they're not, that's a fantasy you've been sold.
"hence why it would deplete them so quickly". Bullshit and yet more bogdan fantasy.
"Resources being allocated based on need simply puts more power into the hands of the government (who decides the need) at the expense of the people". Yet more bullshit... because there would be no expense to the people given that production would revolve around their needs and not designed around the potential for return based on some fauz supply v demand fallacy.

You're calling people corrupt without even allowing them to prove you otherwise... not only that, but you're claiming that you've applied logic, much to my amusement, based on a set of criteria that hasn't yet been set. Pretty desperate avenue to run to when you've got nothing, but not unexpected.

[yokel]

I blame, , the voters.

That's right blame the brainwashed voters, see how that works out for ya

[bogan]

I'll say it again, I didn't state that which you insinuate I did. You have a history of doing that . I see no contradiction, so you must be making shit up. No semantics there, just your usual wishful pseudo-thinking.

What I referred to as bullshit was:

"resources are currently priced by supply vs demand". No they're not, that's a fantasy you've been sold.
"hence why it would deplete them so quickly". Bullshit and yet more bogdan fantasy.
"Resources being allocated based on need simply puts more power into the hands of the government (who decides the need) at the expense of the people". Yet more bullshit... because there would be no expense to the people given that production would revolve around their needs and not designed around the potential for return based on some fauz supply v demand fallacy.

You're calling people corrupt without even allowing them to prove you otherwise... not only that, but you're claiming that you've applied logic, much to my amusement, based on a set of criteria that hasn't yet been set. Pretty desperate avenue to run to when you've got nothing, but not unexpected.

I just explain the realities of what you say; if you chose to read that as insinuations of what you say, then I'd think you are a little too self focused. I'll clear it up now, I think you are far too stupid to have drawn a realistic conclusion from the examples/articles/hypotheticals you post; so whether your conclusions agree with the logical realities of what you post is completely irrelevant. So we shall carry on with the example shall we?

Not solely by price and demand but it plays a big part, obviously; just look at the price of petrol.
Depletion due to use however much you like is not fantasy, merely logic; this is why there are so many water restrictions in summer, resource consents for the same; were there no limits on use, it would be overused.
The expense being the freedom of choice of the people, if the govt decides entitlement based on need, it restricts choice; we've seen it happen before in communist countries, so it is most certainly not bullshit.

Corrupt? I'm not saying the govt would necessarily be corrupt (interesting that you went there though, so it is obviously a risk), just that it would have a more pervasive power than govts currently have. The logic applied is bulletproof; evidenced by your counterpoints which consist of nothing substantial; if you had logical counterpoints you would use them instead of insults; it is only logical

[mashman]

I just explain the realities of what you say; if you chose to read that as insinuations of what you say, then I'd think you are a little too self focused. I'll clear it up now, I think you are far too stupid to have drawn a realistic conclusion from the examples/articles/hypotheticals you post; so whether your conclusions agree with the logical realities of what you post is completely irrelevant. So we shall carry on with the example shall we?

Not solely by price and demand but it plays a big part, obviously; just look at the price of petrol.
Depletion due to use however much you like is not fantasy, merely logic; this is why there are so many water restrictions in summer, resource consents for the same; were there no limits on use, it would be overused.
The expense being the freedom of choice of the people, if the govt decides entitlement based on need, it restricts choice; we've seen it happen before in communist countries, so it is most certainly not bullshit.

Corrupt? I'm not saying the govt would necessarily be corrupt (interesting that you went there though, so it is obviously a risk), just that it would have a more pervasive power than govts currently have. The logic applied is bulletproof; evidenced by your counterpoints which consist of nothing substantial; if you had logical counterpoints you would use them instead of insults; it is only logical

No you don't. You make up a story on the notion, you call it logic for some unknown reason, that you know what I mean... where the reality is, you clearly don't. Spin it anyway you like, tis always amusing, but that's a fact. Everything after that has zero relevance to any form of reality other than the one you've created for yourself. One of us knows this. Oh goody, another example... lulzometer, check, ironyometer, check, regression into a former reality I once chose to be true, check.

It does play a big part... a big part of wasting time and resources. A whole lot of knowledge down the drain. Rocket scientists or molecular biologists getting jobs that have nothing to do with their field of interest. Hugely wasteful.
Yes, the financial system does have overuse in areas and private agri are trying to fill that void because we're only ever going to need more with GROWTH (at any cost) GROWTH (at any cost) GROWTH (at any cost) being the manta. It wouldn't be overused in an R.B.E., because it wouldn't need to be and could be used for something else at a later date, growth even. Yes there will still be droughts etc... but it'll only ever get worse under the current financial system... and I'm pretty damned sure that history will back me up on that one.
Under an R.B.E. people will have more freedom of choice than they have ever had. It may not be the same choice, but it will be a different choice, one chosen by the people and something along the lines of: Would you mind if we only churn out 1 top of the line mobile phone every 5 years instead of 3 variants of the same device once every year... to be disposed of... for growth... forever... You will still have the choice. However they will be different choices, but ones that also have consideration for society and the environment and by default the future thrown in as a bonus.

Where did I mention corrupt dreamweaver? ... what's the gain? having the resources? Fine. Take them. There'll be more along shortly. Not sure what you're gonna do with all of those resources, because you won't be able to sell them in an R.B.E.

Your logic failed when you said "I just explain the realities of what you say". The rest was bullshit.

[Brian d marge]

You're full of shit, show me this record western world poverty. It doesn't exist, dole bludgers today live far better than any last generation low income earner, todays low income earners have standards of living far better than a very wealthy man a couple of generations ago, they live longer, travel more, have fewer dead kids, less disease, far better housing and eat far better.

And capitalism IS the people and their ideas. If you look at a map showing standards of living you'll see it corresponds perfectly with modern capitalist states. More: changes towards or away from that general western model historically result in perfect correlation with standard of living changes.

Them's the facts. All you've got is an opinion, one twisted by a desperate need to divorce effort and return so that you don't have to work too hard. One that's been shown to be wrong so many times it's become synonymous with wrong. Now go away and earn some of the standard of living you're getting paid for rather than shooting your mouth off here all day.

ill start the ball rolling
as i dont have time to answer fully

both parents having to work to buy a shitty box of a house

which should be . , according to your theory pretty much close to zero cost . . what with advances in technology and all that .

[bogan]

No you don't. You make up a story on the notion, you call it logic for some unknown reason, that you know what I mean... where the reality is, you clearly don't. Spin it anyway you like, tis always amusing, but that's a fact. Everything after that has zero relevance to any form of reality other than the one you've created for yourself. One of us knows this. Oh goody, another example... lulzometer, check, ironyometer, check, regression into a former reality I once chose to be true, check.

It does play a big part... a big part of wasting time and resources. A whole lot of knowledge down the drain. Rocket scientists or molecular biologists getting jobs that have nothing to do with their field of interest. Hugely wasteful.
Yes, the financial system does have overuse in areas and private agri are trying to fill that void because we're only ever going to need more with GROWTH (at any cost) GROWTH (at any cost) GROWTH (at any cost) being the manta. It wouldn't be overused in an R.B.E., because it wouldn't need to be and could be used for something else at a later date, growth even. Yes there will still be droughts etc... but it'll only ever get worse under the current financial system... and I'm pretty damned sure that history will back me up on that one.
Under an R.B.E. people will have more freedom of choice than they have ever had. It may not be the same choice, but it will be a different choice, one chosen by the people and something along the lines of: Would you mind if we only churn out 1 top of the line mobile phone every 5 years instead of 3 variants of the same device once every year... to be disposed of... for growth... forever... You will still have the choice. However they will be different choices, but ones that also have consideration for society and the environment and by default the future thrown in as a bonus.

Where did I mention corrupt dreamweaver? ... what's the gain? having the resources? Fine. Take them. There'll be more along shortly. Not sure what you're gonna do with all of those resources, because you won't be able to sell them in an R.B.E.

Your logic failed when you said "I just explain the realities of what you say". The rest was bullshit.

So show me.

Still supply and demand, were there more demand for those rocket scientists, they would get jobs as such. (also worth noting you had to change examples cos petrol clearly is supply and demand)
It would need to be used still, because you'd still need food in an RBE; and with no checks on how much food people can get, the production would need to keep up, and end up running out of resources like water. Only a few options I can think of to combat that, population control, food rationing, or starvation; way to sell the RBE idea mashy...
So people have to make do with less new stuff, less choice, just like I said; and such choice is also specified by TPTB, not the consumer, just like I said as well. If only there was some way in the current system they make do with less choice to get the same benefits; oh wait, there is exactly that; seems people like choice though, go figure.

In the previous post, you brought up corruptness of govt. Resources can be used, like petrol (of which NZ is a net importer, so there will not be more along as required), like food (fancy stuff will push up the water usage, so there won't be more along as required there either since that has run out), etc, etc...

My logic shows what it shows, just as your lack of logic shows how unworkable an RBE is. The realities have been explained, and will continue to be. No doubt you will continue to put your head in the sand and ignore them though...

[Brian d marge]

Just looked at NZ one cos that is where my eyes and ears live.

Defining poverty by the median income (which has been rising for ages), noting that child poverty as a whole is down, and it is only the severe child poverty that is up (again defined not by absolutes, but by relative measure to the rest of society); clearly shows your arguments to be full of shit.

Stop playing the blame game and questioning why people can't keep up with others of today (it's cos faulty entitlement complexes), and instead be thankful that our standards of living leave those of yesteryear in the dust.

some people cant keep up due their circumstances

most are one slip away from ruin

economic darwinisim was a term dreamed up to push an agenda

the biggest spongers on the wellfare system as we have noted before are
. .the oldies

oh but they worked hard and saved for the retirement . . . . its their entitlement . . . . .

[mashman]

So show me.

Still supply and demand, were there more demand for those rocket scientists, they would get jobs as such. (also worth noting you had to change examples cos petrol clearly is supply and demand)
It would need to be used still, because you'd still need food in an RBE; and with no checks on how much food people can get, the production would need to keep up, and end up running out of resources like water. Only a few options I can think of to combat that, population control, food rationing, or starvation; way to sell the RBE idea mashy...
So people have to make do with less new stuff, less choice, just like I said; and such choice is also specified by TPTB, not the consumer, just like I said as well. If only there was some way in the current system they make do with less choice to get the same benefits; oh wait, there is exactly that; seems people like choice though, go figure.

In the previous post, you brought up corruptness of govt. Resources can be used, like petrol (of which NZ is a net importer, so there will not be more along as required), like food (fancy stuff will push up the water usage, so there won't be more along as required there either since that has run out), etc, etc...

My logic shows what it shows, just as your lack of logic shows how unworkable an RBE is. The realities have been explained, and will continue to be. No doubt you will continue to put your head in the sand and ignore them though...

Show you what exactly?

There's plenty of demand for rocket scientists, there merely isn't enough money to pay for them. Hence, people went to uni to become rocket scientists. Demand. No supply. Always another side of the equation bogdan... and I'd rather have the advances rocket scientists can make than not... and certainly not in the banking sector.

In an R.B.E. you merely ask the person. They either respond well, or don't, it will be their choice... and I'm sure they'll do exactly as you say and hoard because they can .

You're not paying attention.

It may not be the same choice, but it will be a different choice, one chosen by the people

and people = consumer, unless in some bizarre reporting world they're further broken into classifications to make is seem as though consumers and people aren't the same entity. so instead of producing shit in the hope of selling it, we'll be producing shit to meet demand of the people i.e. consumer. Keep up oh him of large intelligence and mental agility.

Such 2 dimensional thinking is way to hilarious on an empty stomach. We already waste fuckloads of food, at least those who are hungry can walk into the supermarket and get it instead of dumpster diving. C'mon, activate the other 99.9% of your brain... you might like it.

You haven't debunked an R.B.E. as unworkable. Not even close. Not even a dent in it. Quite obviously because you don't understand it. Fair enough, it's not everyone's cup of chai... but it's where we're headed whether you like it or not.

[mashman]

[Ocean1]

Reckon many of the other western country's have similar issues? (mental note: must remember to add blind to scared old white muthafuckas).

Relying on statistics and calling them facts . You need better reference material. I find eyes and ears usually help... however a soul is usually required so the eyes and ears might not help ya so much.

What issues?

Having to redefine poverty in order to actually be able to count the fuckers on the fingers of more than one hand?

Absolutely. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml

In fact absolute poverty is vanishing at an alarming rate. http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...verty-2030-not

You have to look in some seriously dodgy places to find "opinions" suggesting otherwise.

[Ocean1]

ill start the ball rolling
as i dont have time to answer fully

both parents having to work to buy a shitty box of a house

which should be . , according to your theory pretty much close to zero cost . . what with advances in technology and all that .

We've already done that, haven't we? Your own figures revealed that houses now cost less per square metre than they did in your "golden years"', didn't they?

Continuing to claim that populist bullshit is something else when you've already proved otherwise yourself is taking the whole Stupid World ethos well above and beyond the call of stupidity.