I say there should be a VIP wh0re house in Richland. Only the hottest babes can get a visa to work there.
Inner Evil Voice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I say there should be a VIP wh0re house in > Richland. Only the hottest babes can get a visa to > work there. That will almost certainly be written into the constitution.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, you basically have a separated poor community servicing a rich community. Just instead of “districts”, we are calling it “countries”, and instead of “whites and blacks”, we will call it “Richlanders and Dominicans”. And sure, the Dominicans don’t *have* to work for you, but many black South Africans could have chosen subsistence farming too, right? Now, don’t get me wrong - I am not suggesting that you are racist or anything like that. Your idea is somewhat logical when proposed it in theory. However, in practice, we would basically be making a caste system, and would run into practical and ethical problems that other caste-based systems have encountered.
I think ohai is giving Higgs a hard time to get an ultra-VIP lifetime membership at Richland’s high end “attraction”. Only a secret hand shake along with that membership can give you access to the very top chicks. I like it. Chad should get one too.
Nah, I am just making light of his Apartheid-like proposal for being so much like the Apartheid. This VIP attraction seems compelling though. But no party stuff for me. Seeing other guys’ junk kind of kills it for me.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, I don’t think equality for the sake of > equality is intrinsically valuable. Even if there > is less equality today than in the early 1900s, > people overall are still better off, even in the > recession. A large part of this is due to the US’s > capitalist economy, which is inherently unequal. There was far more inequality in the early 1900 hundreds then now, the growth in inequality really didn’t begin until the late 70’s early 80’s in western countries. The primary drivers of the growth in inequality has been de-industrialization, the technological innovations that made it possible and the adoption of neo-liberal socio-economic policies i.e. Regeanism. The most powerful tool to fight inequality would be reduction in barriers to post secondary education and job training, as the biggest predictor of one’s social-economic class after their class at birth is their educational attainment. Countries with high levels of social mobility tend to have well funded, well ran and accessible public education systems.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Though, presumably, that military would consist > > entirely of mercenaries and play-generals. > > > Nothing wrong with that. Imagine what Blackwater > (now Xe) could do with $100 billion at its > disposal. It’s not like Richland is going to > attack other countries. So how willing do you think they would be to lay their life on the line for pay when the sh*t hits the fan. Also what keeps them from extorting the people they work for?
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wait, who said rich people are depressed? Most > rich people I know seem pretty happy. My uncle, > for instance, made millions of dollars in the tech > boom and retired in his 30s. He seems pretty darn > happy to me. He also has great work-life balance, > given that he does not need to work. Media > celebrities don’t count. I know some really miserable wealthy people
bodhisattva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ohai Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Also, I don’t think equality for the sake of > > equality is intrinsically valuable. Even if > there > > is less equality today than in the early 1900s, > > people overall are still better off, even in > the > > recession. A large part of this is due to the > US’s > > capitalist economy, which is inherently > unequal. > > > There was far more inequality in the early 1900 > hundreds then now, the growth in inequality really > didn’t begin until the late 70’s early 80’s in > western countries. The primary drivers of the > growth in inequality has been > de-industrialization, the technological > innovations that made it possible and the adoption > of neo-liberal socio-economic policies i.e. > Regeanism. > > The most powerful tool to fight inequality would > be reduction in barriers to post secondary > education and job training, as the biggest > predictor of one’s social-economic class after > their class at birth is their educational > attainment. Countries with high levels of social > mobility tend to have well funded, well ran and > accessible public education systems. Globalization also has played a huge role, not sure if you’re lumping that in w/ Regeanism. Its hard for the middle class in western countries to compete w/ +1bn people that are willing to work harder for less b/c they are barely meeting the basic needs. Meanwhile here we whine if we can’t get that extra car or TV installed in the bathroom mirror (ok maybe a bit exaggerated). Additionally, you have consumer power like never before. If someone makes a faster, better, cheaper product the consumer is most likely going to choose that product. So the company that can reduce costs and provide superior products will likely win in the long-run; those that cannot will certainly die off. Its why you are seeing a lot of outsourcing. Its not that these companies are “evil” and are out to stick it to the little guy; they are in survival mode b/c they are facing a very new and rapidly changing competitive environment. Politicians/big labor/businesses etc… can kick and scream all they want, but its inevitable that jobs and industries will go overseas to those who want them more. No one has a god-given right to a job or a business.
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bodhisattva Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ohai Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Also, I don’t think equality for the sake of > > > equality is intrinsically valuable. Even if > > there > > > is less equality today than in the early > 1900s, > > > people overall are still better off, even in > > the > > > recession. A large part of this is due to the > > US’s > > > capitalist economy, which is inherently > > unequal. > > > > > > There was far more inequality in the early 1900 > > hundreds then now, the growth in inequality > really > > didn’t begin until the late 70’s early 80’s in > > western countries. The primary drivers of the > > growth in inequality has been > > de-industrialization, the technological > > innovations that made it possible and the > adoption > > of neo-liberal socio-economic policies i.e. > > Regeanism. > > > > The most powerful tool to fight inequality > would > > be reduction in barriers to post secondary > > education and job training, as the biggest > > predictor of one’s social-economic class after > > their class at birth is their educational > > attainment. Countries with high levels of > social > > mobility tend to have well funded, well ran and > > accessible public education systems. > > Globalization also has played a huge role, not > sure if you’re lumping that in w/ Regeanism. > > Its hard for the middle class in western countries > to compete w/ +1bn people that are willing to work > harder for less b/c they are barely meeting the > basic needs. Meanwhile here we whine if we can’t > get that extra car or TV installed in the bathroom > mirror (ok maybe a bit exaggerated). > Additionally, you have consumer power like never > before. If someone makes a faster, better, > cheaper product the consumer is most likely going > to choose that product. So the company that can > reduce costs and provide superior products will > likely win in the long-run; those that cannot will > certainly die off. Its why you are seeing a lot > of outsourcing. Its not that these companies are > “evil” and are out to stick it to the little guy; > they are in survival mode b/c they are facing a > very new and rapidly changing competitive > environment. Politicians/big labor/businesses > etc… can kick and scream all they want, but its > inevitable that jobs and industries will go > overseas to those who want them more. No one has > a god-given right to a job or a business. Globalization would be the Meta term for all three factors I described. I don’t think I had any value judgements in my post so I don’t know why you are blaming the victim. It may make you feel better now but what do you anticipate doing if your job is outsourced?
bodhisattva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bodhisattva Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > ohai Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Also, I don’t think equality for the sake > of > > > > equality is intrinsically valuable. Even if > > > there > > > > is less equality today than in the early > > 1900s, > > > > people overall are still better off, even > in > > > the > > > > recession. A large part of this is due to > the > > > US’s > > > > capitalist economy, which is inherently > > > unequal. > > > > > > > > > There was far more inequality in the early > 1900 > > > hundreds then now, the growth in inequality > > really > > > didn’t begin until the late 70’s early 80’s > in > > > western countries. The primary drivers of the > > > growth in inequality has been > > > de-industrialization, the technological > > > innovations that made it possible and the > > adoption > > > of neo-liberal socio-economic policies i.e. > > > Regeanism. > > > > > > The most powerful tool to fight inequality > > would > > > be reduction in barriers to post secondary > > > education and job training, as the biggest > > > predictor of one’s social-economic class > after > > > their class at birth is their educational > > > attainment. Countries with high levels of > > social > > > mobility tend to have well funded, well ran > and > > > accessible public education systems. > > > > Globalization also has played a huge role, not > > sure if you’re lumping that in w/ Regeanism. > > > > Its hard for the middle class in western > countries > > to compete w/ +1bn people that are willing to > work > > harder for less b/c they are barely meeting the > > basic needs. Meanwhile here we whine if we > can’t > > get that extra car or TV installed in the > bathroom > > mirror (ok maybe a bit exaggerated). > > Additionally, you have consumer power like > never > > before. If someone makes a faster, better, > > cheaper product the consumer is most likely > going > > to choose that product. So the company that > can > > reduce costs and provide superior products will > > likely win in the long-run; those that cannot > will > > certainly die off. Its why you are seeing a > lot > > of outsourcing. Its not that these companies > are > > “evil” and are out to stick it to the little > guy; > > they are in survival mode b/c they are facing a > > very new and rapidly changing competitive > > environment. Politicians/big labor/businesses > > etc… can kick and scream all they want, but > its > > inevitable that jobs and industries will go > > overseas to those who want them more. No one > has > > a god-given right to a job or a business. > > > Globalization would be the Meta term for all three > factors I described. > > I don’t think I had any value judgements in my > post so I don’t know why you are blaming the > victim. It may make you feel better now but what > do you anticipate doing if your job is outsourced? Easy. Hustle and find another job. It maybe completely different than what I do or went to school for, but whatever pays the bills.
you guys are getting to righteous. please explain, in detail, how you really care about the 3 billion people on this planet in poverty right now and list everything you’re doing about it. let me know if that list takes more or less than 3 seconds to write. its pretty simple when you think about it - we’re making a new ‘buyer’ country, similar to the current US except to the nth degree. there will never be a current account surplus as everything will be imported. the military will be ridiculously specialized, efficient and good-looking. everything and everyone would be at the top of the world class; we’re talking dubai, davos, monte carlo, cruises and leisurely space travel all wrapped into one place. the movies they make would make would make us pity our own selves and question every decision that has put us here. i’d assume PPP would still hold, though, and big mac’s would probably cost somewhere around $1,200.
I like your style mar350. Reminds me of the younger me.
Muddahudda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- thanks, i like being honest and imaginative
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you guys are getting to righteous. please explain, > in detail, how you really care about the 3 billion > people on this planet in poverty right now and > list everything you’re doing about it. let me know > if that list takes more or less than 3 seconds to > write. > I buy sh*t from Wal-mart made in China, that is how I contribute to providing aid.
bodhisattva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > higgmond Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bchadwick Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Though, presumably, that military would > consist > > > entirely of mercenaries and play-generals. > > > > > > Nothing wrong with that. Imagine what > Blackwater > > (now Xe) could do with $100 billion at its > > disposal. It’s not like Richland is going to > > attack other countries. > > So how willing do you think they would be to lay > their life on the line for pay when the sh*t hits > the fan. Also what keeps them from extorting the > people they work for? They put their lives on the line in Iraq. You think the Blackwater folks were over there picking daisies?
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bodhisattva Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > higgmond Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > bchadwick Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Though, presumably, that military would > > consist > > > > entirely of mercenaries and play-generals. > > > > > > > > > Nothing wrong with that. Imagine what > > Blackwater > > > (now Xe) could do with $100 billion at its > > > disposal. It’s not like Richland is going to > > > attack other countries. > > > > So how willing do you think they would be to > lay > > their life on the line for pay when the sh*t > hits > > the fan. Also what keeps them from extorting > the > > people they work for? > > They put their lives on the line in Iraq. You > think the Blackwater folks were over there picking > daisies? Dude, you’re aware those guys get paid in excess of $250k a year if deployed full time? Versus ~$45k for a newly enlisted marine? And that’s their cut, not what’s actually going to the agency like Blackwater and doesn’t even cover equipment, gear, etc. That’s why they’re used sparingly as auxiliary and not a full military.
This conversation is getting interesting. Too bad I don’t have time to compose comments. Maybe later.
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Dude, you’re aware those guys get paid in excess > of $250k a year if deployed full time? Versus > ~$45k for a newly enlisted marine? And that’s > their cut, not what’s actually going to the agency > like Blackwater and doesn’t even cover equipment, > gear, etc. That’s why they’re used sparingly as > auxiliary and not a full military. Yes, I actually know one of their guys. He did three 6 month stints over 3 years for $150,000 a pop. Richland will have the second largest military budget in the world, minimal territory to protect, won’t be the world’s policemen, and won’t be conducting wars in multiple Arab countries, so we will be able to afford very well paid soldiers and the best equipment. BTW, Mike Kowalski (chairman and CEO of Tiffany & Co.) just called and they are very interested in setting up a few locations in Richland.
Well, worst comes to worst, they should just buy a couple of nukes and have someone with their finger on the launch button to deter conventional military attack.