Stupid World

[bogan]

One of the few things that rarks me up is the occasional immigrant's reference to class systems in NZ. I don't think they exist. At least not in the sense that they do in the UK, for example. I think NZ do better than almost everywhere else on the planet at allowing everyone a reasonable chance at a good life based on their own effort. It ain't perfect, it's just better than most. I don't think a lot of Kiwis really understand what it is to be born predisposed to certain limits on your expectations of life. And I]m certain many immigrants see those limits here to the same degree they were in the old country.

Again, it's not perfect, but I really do think that here you can make a life that matches your effort and skill, at least more so than anywhere else. So I get tetchy at the rans about the proletariat this and the bourgeoisie that. It doesn't belong here. Never did, it's a toxic import, and we can do without it's petty bullshit.

Fair enough, I don't mean class in that respect, more class of job you currently have. I guess never having lived anywhere else that's pretty much what the 'class' has always seemed like to me, definitely something that can be raised by hard work, and not affected by birth-class.

[mashman]

It's complicated. Yes the peasants have money. Their economy is described in a couple of dollars per day, of use only amongst peasants. Even that's restricted by what goods are available from outside the village. Only good citizens get to buy luxury goods like a walking tractor or an irrigation pump.

I understand that it's complicated, but you classing money as irrelevant to these people where they are working for the sole purpose of earning (see I can use it in the right place) money was a bit silly.

The target of your bile is exclusively "the rich cunts". So much so in fact that it's pretty obvious that you cherry pick world news for rich pricks behaving badly and then posting a wee rant about them. It's the function of this thread. Isn't it?

And what passes for you as "undeniable logic is simply wishful thinking. Sloppy wishful thinking at that, I could make a better case for banning water because of the hardship and unfairness it promulgates.

Funny, I go to page 1, then page 2, then page 3 and see a mix of things and not all about rich cunts by any means. As I said, you've got no idea what I consider to be a rich cunt, none, zip, you have proven so time and time again, yet my insistence that you don't know only reaffirms your view that you know what I mean better than I do. That attitude sounds like that of a rich cunt. So no, I suggest you get your head out of your arse and reevaluate your opinions of my opinions. Actually, don't, coz it makes me laugh.

As for the news that I do post, it is merely recognising that wealth destroying people's lives. You can wrap any spin around that as you like, but that's all it will be, spin.

Wishful thinking? A human construct cannot be deconstructed by humans? and you have the balls to call me negative? Some things you've just got to work out for yourself. I know this, because I had to do it. It is well within the realms of possibility to have a financially free country, it merely takes trust and a decision to do so. Tis all up to you.

[mashman]

Again, I'm not talking about the manifestation of the behavior's legality or otherwise, but how the system deals with an individual's greed and laziness.

Ah, showing you selectivity again I see. Like I (and others time and time again) have said in the other thread, its not the individual that is worth more, but the work that the individual does; it's a system to balance out the need/benefit/enjoyment (or lack thereof) of different jobs. Trying to bullshit your way past without addressing that point is what makes 'your' system such a shit idea. Claiming the poll is 50/50 also shows your selectivity and bias.
We went over this in the other thread, I see no reason to try again when you don't even attempt to enter into an unbiased discussion.

Currently it uses austerity against the lazy (including many non lazy, they just don't get paid well enough). Currently it uses reward for the greedy (higher interest rates, time to do with as you please). In "my" world, as long as there are enough people doing what is essentiall, the best you can hope for is that the lazy end up Darwin candidates, failing that, they're being fed etc... and they aren't a drain on the finances of the country meaning that valuable resources after removed from others on the basis that we can't afford them. Greedy people will try to be greedy, but the only thing they be able to be greedy over is stuff. Both the lazy and the greedy will remain a minority and it would seem a shame to punish the majority for the greed and laziness of others... but that's exactly what happens.

So you're hiding behind the market? You value some jobs over others. As I tried to explain to you, which you obviously flat refused to accept, you only ever need a doctor when you need a doctor, you only ever need a plumber when you need a plumber, you only ever need a binman when you need a binman. They're all required. Living without a doctor, hope you don't get ill. Living without a plumber, hope you don't mind the waste of water (that breeds disease, unless you have a way to clean water ). Living without the binman, hope you don't mind living in a tip (that breeds disease). The minute you start to value one job over another is the day that you lose yourself as a human being in my opinion. You didn't like that answer, but it did address your point.

Selective bias reading from the poll? 37 yes v 34 no. Selective? @selective bias. It's a choice. I have made mine, in fact I have changed my mind from your side of the fence to my current side of the fence. Choice.

[bogan]

Currently it uses austerity against the lazy (including many non lazy, they just don't get paid well enough). Currently it uses reward for the greedy (higher interest rates, time to do with as you please). In "my" world, as long as there are enough people doing what is essentiall, the best you can hope for is that the lazy end up Darwin candidates, failing that, they're being fed etc... and they aren't a drain on the finances of the country meaning that valuable resources after removed from others on the basis that we can't afford them. Greedy people will try to be greedy, but the only thing they be able to be greedy over is stuff. Both the lazy and the greedy will remain a minority and it would seem a shame to punish the majority for the greed and laziness of others... but that's exactly what happens.

So you're hiding behind the market? You value some jobs over others. As I tried to explain to you, which you obviously flat refused to accept, you only ever need a doctor when you need a doctor, you only ever need a plumber when you need a plumber, you only ever need a binman when you need a binman. They're all required. Living without a doctor, hope you don't get ill. Living without a plumber, hope you don't mind the waste of water (that breeds disease, unless you have a way to clean water ). Living without the binman, hope you don't mind living in a tip (that breeds disease). The minute you start to value one job over another is the day that you lose yourself as a human being in my opinion. You didn't like that answer, but it did address your point.

Selective bias reading from the poll? 37 yes v 34 no. Selective? @selective bias. It's a choice. I have made mine, in fact I have changed my mind from your side of the fence to my current side of the fence. Choice.

Same old shit, different day, different thread. I'm outa here, like you wish you could do with all the money.

[mashman]

Same old shit, different day, different thread. I'm outa here, like you wish you could do with all the money.

So a hide behind the market and a run away. heh.

[Ocean1]

I understand that it's complicated, but you classing money as irrelevant to these people where they are working for the sole purpose of earning (see I can use it in the right place) money was a bit silly.

They were there because they had no alternative. Nothing to do with money.

It is well within the realms of possibility to have a financially free country, it merely takes trust and a decision to do so. Tis all up to you.

Of course it's possible. If you want to return to the stone age.

And I don't, ta.

[scumdog]

So a hide behind the market and a run away. heh.

Suits me too

[Ocean1]

So a hide behind the market and a run away. heh.

Maybe you'll have more luck convincing people when you start asking sellers of the products you buy how much they want for their stuff. And paying it.

Then we could laugh at the fact that you're silly enough to say that everyone's work is worth whatever they say it is AND stupid enough to believe it.

[mashman]

They were there because they had no alternative. Nothing to do with money.

Of course it's possible. If you want to return to the stone age.

And I don't, ta.

Nothing? What an interestingly weak thought process you have. Did you read the article?

That won't happen and you can't prove that it will. Smells like fear there.

That much I've gathered. Ahhhh, New Zealand, built on a culture of following the next guy rightly or wrongly.

Suits me too

Bubye.

Maybe you'll have more luck convincing people when you start asking sellers of the products you buy how much they want for their stuff. And paying it.

Then we could laugh at the fact that you're silly enough to say that everyone's work is worth whatever they say it is AND stupid enough to believe it.

I dunno. I say that I'm not trying to convince anyone and that the only person that can convince you is you, and you go and type something completely to the contrary. I can't describe the level of fail.

[mashman]

Exoneration? The Link Between Money And Corruption Is More Insidious Than We Thought... some people are just weak minded or have at least been subliminally programmed to be a moron.

"It makes a lot of sense that greed would produce evil," Smith-Crowe said. "But we were interested in the fact that maybe it's not even love of money, but just the mere subtle exposure to the concept of money that, in and of itself, may also be corrupting.". Just an exchange mechanism eh

[Ocean1]

Exoneration?

Of your obsessive need to blather on about some ill considered, nonsensical moneyless utopia as a magical counter to the hoards of shysters intent on destroying the world?

No.

Just an exchange mechanism eh

Yes. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/money

money
n. pl. mon·eys or mon·ies
1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.

2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.

3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.

I suggest that if anyone is trying to tell you that money has any other definition then you're looking at either a thief or an idiot. No real news there, there's hardly a shortage of either.

[mashman]

Of your obsessive need to blather on about some ill considered, nonsensical moneyless utopia as a magical counter to the hoards of shysters intent on destroying the world?

No.

Yes. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/money

I suggest that if anyone is trying to tell you that money has any other definition then you're looking at either a thief or an idiot. No real news there, there's hardly a shortage of either.

I can see why you might have thought that when I said exoneration, that I was talking about me, but I wasn't, moreover yourself. But I;m used to people getting the wrong end of the stick... some make a habit of it.

Oh WOW, a dictionary definition. Lame.

No one is telling me anything as my mental fortitude understands that money is much more than a means of exchange... but hey, some people just don't care to think beyond a dictionary definition to absolve themselves of the damage that their self interest perpetuates. Weak, but understandable.

[Oscar]

I can see why you might have thought that when I said exoneration, that I was talking about me, but I wasn't, moreover yourself. But I;m used to people getting the wrong end of the stick... some make a habit of it.

Oh WOW, a dictionary definition. Lame.

No one is telling me anything as my mental fortitude understands that money is much more than a means of exchange... but hey, some people just don't care to think beyond a dictionary definition to absolve themselves of the damage that their self interest perpetuates. Weak, but understandable.

You're used to people getting the wrong end of the stick?

That's nothing to do with all the shit you talk, is it?

Your post above is a great example - I have never seen anyone refer to "their mental fortitude" in the third person.
And I like how you understand that people are weak.
What a guy.

[Ocean1]

No one is telling me anything.

That's been sorta obvious for quite a while now.

[mashman]

You're used to people getting the wrong end of the stick?

That's nothing to do with all the shit you talk, is it?

Your post above is a great example - I have never seen anyone refer to "their mental fortitude" in the third person.
And I like how you understand that people are weak.
What a guy.

Yup.

Probably.

Third person?
It's called empathy.
Ta.