raja_indy14

Originally posted by: -Lexus- Unless you put them in total isolation they are still dangerous. Gangleaders can still get their enemies assassinated even when they are in prison through all kinds of middle man. These bankers would never get life long prison sentences and I think they could still play in the financial markets from their cells by using relatives to buy or sell stocks and stuff. And once they get free they can easily become some a speculant. All you need is a laptop with internet. quote> I think this rather exaggerates their danger to society, particularly on an individual level. Although what may (by some) be described as criminal negligence or incompetence on their part has necessitated massive public bailouts of banks to forestall economic collapse, I hardly think that they need all be treated as dangerous offenders who will take the next possible opportunity to plan and carry out the destruction of the financial system. Either way, despite the recent European frenzy over hedge funds and speculators, the root of the problem with the economy of late lies with the banks - everything else stems from that. Regulate the banks and the problems with hedge funds and speculators, who required the massive amounts of easy money sloshing around from banks to reach their present state, and they pose less of a risk. Another great thing about hedge funds and speculators is that when they go bust, and hundreds of them have since this crisis began, governments don't have to bail them out. Originally posted by: N_O_Body Who is the worse murderer: Who kills his fellow man; or Who kills the truth?quote> The man. Truth isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Originally posted by: -Lexus- I went to a business college. I dropped out because of the people. Most of them where a bunch of greedy materialistic *****s who where in it for the money. Basically, that was why most people went to that sort of college. A chance on a job that pays good and with plenty of opportunity to go upwards on the pay grade. quote> Yes, I'd say a business college is more likely to attract the sorts of materialistic blood suckers you are talking about, same with Law School or even Medicine (and particularly Dentistry). Although I would also say that many people that go into medicine or nursing do so, in part at least, because they want to help their fellow human beings. At my University a tiny minority of students are enrolled in Business. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Of course, you could trust their words blindly and not look at the possible motives behind those words. Of course they would say such a thing. Do you really think they would say that the stuff they deal in is full of risks with the potential to kill the world economy. quote> I didn't say I trusted their words blindly, but let's just say I would consider them more credible sources of information than your own esteemed self. And I would add that there is such a thing as a psychology to economic bubbles, people begin to act and believe in irrational things when there is an upswing. Humans are notorious for not learning from history, and each time it happens they forget that it will come crashing down (or at least that they may not come out of it the better). To forget that these are people and susceptible to all the usual human failings would be misguided. Originally posted by: -Lexus- The fact that they are humans doesnt make them any less responsible for what mess they caused. A mess that could have been prevented.quote> I actually didn't say that they weren't responsible. I said that to think that they intentionally and in full knowledge brought the global financial system to the brink of destruction would be false. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Maybe, but prison or anything else still leaves them to be to dangerous in my opinion.quote> What, are they going to mastermind the next collapse of the global economic system from their prison cells?

Originally posted by: -Lexus- Their comfortable lifestyle is based on materialistic things. A tv, a nice house, a garden, a car etc. All things that people still want these days and all things that cost a lot of money. People are still extremely materialistic. Life goals of middle class children is still focused on materialistic success. These days much of the social picking order is based around what cell phone you own, what game system you have and if you have the latest ipod crammed full with pirated music. Maybe they think that they are less materialistic because kids these days think half of the things you pay money for should be free.quote> I don't think I ever denied that the middle classes in western industrialized countries were materialistic, I was really challenging your assertion (based on no evidence) that everyone was becoming increasingly greedy. I was positing that postmodern qualitative values are increasingly important, not that they have replaced the materialism that has been such a fundamental part of the middle class for at least the last four decades. I live in a middle class neighbourhood, and most of the people here have the luxury of pursuing qualitative rather than simple materialistic values. Yes, there is a lot of materialism, but it really doesn't seem as important as you make out, both in their overall lifestyles and in their career and education choices. Basically, their aim is not to maximize income and have a more profligate life than their parents (which is what many, though not all, preceding generations have done). I don't think most (or any) of my peers are so greedy for material wealth that they will screw anyone over to make a quick buck, which is what you were suggesting. Obviously for people in poverty, there are many reasons why a chance to upgrade to a new and better house with a questionable mortgage arrangement would still be attractive, especially since they come from a class that has not traditionally been home owning. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Yet I wanna see the first person who declines a job offer that pays more but is slightly more boring.quote> I think so long as the income difference isn't too great, many people would choose the job that they feel to be more fulfilling. Obviously these things vary greatly from individual to individual, so one can only ever talk of trends rather than actual hard data, not to mention that it varies with the job market - in the current situation few people can afford to be so picky. At any rate, I was not stating that the middle class has categorically moved to a postmodern qualitative outlook, but that signs of the increasing importance of that trend seem to suggest that your, so far ungrounded, assertions that everyone is simply becoming increasingly rapacious at the expense of anyone they can screw over, was questionable. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Youre telling me that Goldman Sachs did not sell financial products to people and was then actively speculating on the failure of those products? And if they did that, they didnt do it intentionally? And they did not tell these people the products they where buying where great investments for them?quote> I think if you actually read what I wrote I actually said nothing of the sort. Short answer: no I'm not telling you that. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Basically every bank who allowed poor people to buy expensive houses where screwing the customers over. Suuure, they didnt know it was going to end up like that. They didnt think there was a reason why these people couldnt afford those homes. quote> Yes, and quite a few banks went bankrupt... Originally posted by: -Lexus- Also, these people are a perfect example of the greed I was talking about.quote> I hardly thinking purchasing a house beyond your means constitutes screwing everyone else over. Originally posted by: -Lexus- These people spend several years on a business school learning about economics and somehow they forgot to learn the most basics of economy? I doubt that. I think the people who did this knew full well what the possible consequences where. I just think they didnt care because they also knew the whole thing wouldnt fall apart for the next couple of years. And short term profits where more important then long term profits. This enabled them to get huge profits in a fiscal quarter, made those guys who sold those products filthy rich, and once they where rich enough they just moved to some safer job, assured of a nice amount of money on their bank account. quote> Of course we could just rely on your reasoning. I had actually based what I said on interviews and articles by financial historians and economics professors, where they said that in their discussions with many finance industry experts that the majority of them believed that the collateralized debt obligations and securitized mortgages had created a market in which risk was spread out evenly and to those who could most afford to bear it. They were, of course, wrong. But I will obviously trust your unsupported musings over the opinions of academics who specialize in the relevant fields. That isn't to say that certain financiers didn't use the crisis to make massive profits or that it was all squeaky clean, but I think to suggest that they knew that they were driving the economy into a crisis and intentionally did so would be false. Being an expert doesn't render you immune from those intractable human failings of greed, overoptimism in situations of abundance, and irrational exuberance. Originally posted by: -Lexus- There should be a law for it first. Their neglect, ignorance, stupidity, incompetence or whatever you wanna call it is simply so extreme it becomes criminal. There is just no law that can be applied on them.quote> I certainly agree that they should be penalized for their excessive salaries and bonuses for, evidently, shoddy work. And in fact, laws can be applied to them, such as what happened after the Enron debacle (which interestingly enough was the precursor to many of the unscrupulous methods that contributed to the most recent crisis). Taking them out and shooting them, however, is a dangerous precedent.

Originally posted by: -Lexus- I am sure thats what they really wanted at Goldman Sachs when they screwed over their customers.quote> I may be wrong, but last I checked the owners and even operators of Goldman Sachs did not constitute "everyone". In fact, I'm practically certain the number of people employed by Goldman Sachs is an infinitesimal percentage of the total population. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Also, do tell. How do people plan to actually get a relatively comfortable and fun lifestyle and go on trips to all around the world without any money? A relatively comfortable lifestyle likely includes a nice house, a garden, tv, computer, internet, kids etc. The only way you can afford that is by working. And not just 20 hours a week. At least, not if your name isnt Bill Gates. Noooo, in order to even afford the post modern lifestyle you need to work at least 40 hours a week. Probably more because how the hell can you be competitive if you dont work overtime? It could be me, but if people suddenly value family and stuff so much, then why are there still so many people dumping their kids at day care? Why is there an entire day care industry?quote> I don't think I intimated that these people didn't want to work, I was just suggesting that their greed for more material wealth, which you seemed to be suggesting was endemic and increasing, was no more acquisitive or even less so than their parents. I was simply suggesting that, in fact, life goals for many middle class children are not to simply 'get more', but are focussed more on qualitative rather than materialist definitions of success, i.e. a postmodern attitude. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Why is the government enforcing rules to get maximum work capacity (both parents working full time)? quote> Well, they aren't doing that where I live. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Okay okay, I lied. They are only screwing their own customers over in the financial sector.quote> Well, again, last I checked even the entire financial services sector doesn't consist of "everyone", and even within the financial sector services sector not "everyone" was screwing "everyone" else over, and even for some of those that did, it wasn't done intentionally. I just don't see the connection between a few financial executives and bankers acting unscrupulously and reaching the conclusion that "Everyone" in our society wants to screw "everyone" else over. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Thats right, some banks, knowing full well the dramatic consequences this could have in a few years. quote> I think it's quite clear that banks have been more incompetent and foolish rather than actually malicious. The point of this entire financial crisis, going back to 2007, is that people thought that growth and cheap credit would continue indefinitely, the problem was precisely that banks (and others) did not anticipate that there would be "dramatic consequences" in a few years. It was irrational exuberance. Originally posted by: -Lexus- They should be dragged out their homes and executed on the streets.quote> You can hardly be a plausible advocate for regulation and while condoning extra-judicial executions...

Originally posted by: morriswalters I can't be sure but I would be surprised if you got back more than a hundred.quote> I'm not going to speculate because I can't know. Originally posted by: morriswalters When I use the term amoral, I use it in it's classical form meaning without moralsquote> What other meaning is there? Originally posted by: morriswalters Businesses have a moral stand only so long as the business is controlled by one man.quote> Or woman. And only so long as that person is moral. Originally posted by: morriswalters Without someone to take responsibility a business by defintion becomes amoral. The larger the business the greater the "problem". The moral problem gets pushed up the pipeline with nobody having to accept the responsibility. Look to history.quote> No arguments from me that people will do anything to avoid personal responsibility, "collective" responsibility makes amoral/immoral actions so much easier. Originally posted by: morriswalters Most con games require the willing participation of the of the person being conned. The con relies on greed and your belief that you are as smart as him. But all that aside a con game is still a crime, that is unless your an investment bank.quote> True. But only if you accept it was a con on the part of Goldman Sachs perpetrated against the Greek government and not, as seems more likely, a collusion between Goldman Sachs and the Greek government. Con and collusion are not the same thing, and I don't think that the characterization of that relationship as a con is particularly apt. I think that the Greek government knew what it was doing and was not necessarily misled (which is one of the key elements of a con). The widespread tax evasion on the part of the Greek people also mitigates, to a certain extent, the sympathetic feelings one might have for their plight. To pretend that this entire thing was masterminded by Goldman Sachs and that the Greek people and government are simply helpless victims in the face of big business would be excessively generous, I think.

Originally posted by: morriswalters However ever I will say that the number of lawyers in this society can be treated as one marker of the basic amoralism of humans.quote> It seems a more reliable marker of excessive regulation than an indicator of increased amoralism, the more laws you have the more need for lawyers. Many societies easily have far greater levels of 'amoralism', however defined, but have far fewer lawyers. Originally posted by: morriswalters And I have a practical experiment. Put ten dollars in an old wallet with your name and a disposable phone number(safer that way). See if you get it back.quote> This varies from individual to individual and there are many instances of people returning things that don't belong to them even when there are unlikely to be any sanctions against that person. In any event, there are any number of variables that go into an experiment like this. For instance, some people might be tempted to steal $100 but not $10, and much depends on the character and situation of the person involved. Originally posted by: morriswalters They bought into, as did a lot of other people, a belief that the good times would never end and that loans would somehow magically pay themselves off. It didn't help that nobody understood, then or now, the transactions.quote> Most people do, in fact, understand the reasons behind sovereign debt crises, because they are not terribly complicated. In this instance, however, the Greek government colluded with Goldman Sachs to mask the true extent of public debt so that they could continue to spend beyond the Maastricht limitations. Now, it seems amoral for Goldman Sachs to offer such a service, but its probably also true that the Greek government knew what it was doing and was a far from unwilling participant in the scheme. A lot of Greeks will get shafted, but I think that much of the blame falls squarely on their government and on themselves.

Originally posted by: -Lexus- The free market is just a means to a certain end.quote> Not really, the free market is simply one way in which economic activity is organized that tends to be the most efficient. It is and was not a program implemented to achieve certain ends, there is no "end goal" of free markets (in any overarching sense). That tends to be mixed economies, which often have the end goal of national economic development or reconstruction. Originally posted by: -Lexus- But like I said, if the sole purpose in life is to get 'more' you eventually get a society filled with people that want more no matter the costs. quote> People always say that, but it seems to be more hyperbole than fact. Studies have shown, such as that by Robert Cooper, that in fact there is an increasing trend towards postmodern values in many western capitalist democracies that includes an increasing environmental awareness and postmaterialism. I know practically no one who believes that material acquisition is the primary purpose of life, and in many instances their goals in life are less rather than more acquisitive than their parents. These goals tend to be focussed around travel and enjoyment or a modest but comfortable living rather than maximizing income. Obviously, there are people out there who are very much focussed on materialist aggrandizement, but I think it is excessive to claim that the majority of society is increasingly so. Originally posted by: -Lexus- Everyone is *****ing everyone over just so they get a little more money.quote> This may be a reasonable perception, but is it actually true? Originally posted by: -Lexus- They *****ed over an entire country!quote> Greece? Well, even the most kind hearted person has to accept that fact that they acted with the direct connivance of the Greek government, and that Greeks themselves share considerably in the blame. Originally posted by: -Lexus- And now they are speculating on the downfall of the Euro.quote> It is generally a small minority of people that participate in this sort of speculation, it certainly is a far smaller proportion of the population than "everyone". At any rate, I was under the impression that markets and the Euro had rallied over the weekend? Originally posted by: -Lexus- They get filthy rich, but they ruin the economy of an entire continent. Thats what you get with an unchecked 'free market' and unchecked capitalism.quote> I would say the problems in the west are rather more complicated than simple currency speculation, the East Asia Financial Crisis is a far clearer case of unchecked currency speculation precipitating a regional economic crisis. Either way, I think that increased regulation of international currency markets is certainly something to be pursued, and given the fact that so many businesses are beholden to government now for their continued survival one would expect that government will be keeping these sorts of activities on a tighter leash in future.

Originally posted by: Motina As if that was my point. Do not conflate my pointing out the capitalists in the system as a simplification. Focusing on one does not negate all the other factors.quote> Well, I did say I find it hard in parts to understand what you mean, so some of that is based on a certain amount of extrapolation. If you could write more clearly it would certainly help. I only said it seemed that that was what you were intimating, if it was not, please state it clearly. I had also assumed that you must have had more of an objective in mind than simply "pointing out the capitalists in the system", because such a fact is so obvious and well known there is little reason that someone would make a special effort simply to bring attention to it. Originally posted by: Motina Misaprehension, huh? If everything you have said, is exactly what I exected you to say, is it really misapprehension? You are projecting.quote> You haven't actually said anything that would suggest you weren't labouring under a misapprehension, considering that your earlier post was entirely misdirected and unnecessary. Originally posted by: Motina This has gotten to broad, should we narrow the scope, which apparently causes you problems, or just leave it alone?quote> It causes me problems? Sorry, I don't see that at all, as I'm not having any problems (aside from a difficulty understanding some of your writing, but this is a grammatical/structural problem rather than one of conceptual difficulty). I said that government does not (and should not) simply respond to the whims of the majority, to which you responded: Originally posted by: Motina The government does what is in the best interest of the landed oligarchy/opulent minority.quote> Now, your statement is not actually incompatible with mine. A government that does not respond to simple majority opinion can certainly be one that only responds to the elites. Since that was not the point of disagreement I was forced to the conclusion that the 'new information' your post was bringing to the table was that government only does what is in the best interests of the "opulent minority". That is certainly a very plausible reading of the above statement in this context, and this is also what I took issue with. Now, if you don't actually think that government exclusively serves the interests of the elite echelon then your earlier statement was clearly a gross simplification of your actual views and this debate is over nothing (except perhaps a bit of mutual misunderstanding). I certainly don't need it proven to me that governments tend to favour the elite classes. If by narrowing the scope you mean that we should focus on capitalists in government then I think that is a completely unnecessary tangent that will be (a) ultimately unproductive and (b) not particularly illuminating. I would predict that we would agree in principle but diverge sharply in our appreciation of the magnitude of the "problem". If, however, you still think that government exclusively favours the upper classes, I think that is the only point where future debate is reasonable. I have already made my points above that you have yet to respond to, so if you choose to continue we can start there. Originally posted by: saltandsauce the confusion of two terms, one term is of course, capitalism. the second is corporatismquote> I don't think that that confusion exists because corporatism describes a very particular political-economic relationship that is not characterized merely by adding a layer of bureaucracy and complication to the operation of business. Corporatism, as the term is used in Political-economics, is a system where business, labour and the state come together to settle disputes over wages and production in a setting of mutual recognition and an appreciation of a goal beyond the immediate interests of the different parties. In corporatist systems, labour is typically represented by very large and powerful unions that hold direct talks with business representatives under the oversight of the state which plays a role in determining national economic goals and needs. Originally posted by: saltandsauce capitalism is what you find in the informal economies of the world, in India, Lagos, Rio de Jenerio.quote> Those types of informal economies are simply markets and do not have some of the vital aspects of a capitalist system. For one thing, private property rights tend to be amorphous or nonexistent in such situations, and private property protected by the rule of law is generally considered one of the fundamental attributes of a functional capitalist economy. Originally posted by: saltandsauce In the corporate West, when you want to set up a business you have to declare yourself a business, order stock, rent retail space and provide a big fat deposit, plough through regulation which is loosely related to your business which also costs huge amounts of money.quote> If one considers that this has, more or less, been the case with western capitalism since the creation of the first joint stock company which pretty much marked the inception of a modern capitalist system, then there never was such a thing as capitalism except in the pre-modern markets that rested on barter and small business. Since that wasn't capitalism, unless we're going to start re-applying terms willy nilly, and since the western economic system that has developed since the 17th century has consisted of various forms of capitalism, it makes little sense to start limiting the term "capitalism" to describe pre-"capitalist" barter economies. Originally posted by: saltandsauce also since the birth of "free trade" (one of the most laughable concepts ever) corporations can hold governments to ransom by threatening them with outsourcing.quote> Free trade is a wonderful idea, in fact, if your country dominates global manufacturing. @motina; Much of what Kevin Carson says is perfectly reasonable, but he seems to have an intentionally noncomformist definition of capitalism, so while his views should certainly be considered I don't think it makes much sense to use his conception of the term as definitive for lay or nonspecific use.

Originally posted by: Motina No, I didn't. It is just the usual comment against actual democracy. Power of the people. Should it be their fault that they have been regulated into a state of such desperation, while getting bombarded by advertisements. Governments act to the best interests of the people, huh? Sure! Not until they actually become democratic.quote> Ah good, so you did misunderstand me. I think, although I have to admit it is sometimes difficult to follow what you are trying to say. Firstly, I didn't actually intimate that government acts in the best interests of "the people" but "the country", the two can be held to be different if interrelated. What "The People" consists of is rather hard to pin down, but since you've divided the population of the country up into different socio-economic classes with divergent interests it is clearly impossible to benefit them all with any sense of equality. It should have been clear from what I wrote that I had a more unitary entity in mind when I mentioned "country", being more in line with the national economy, defence, and the rule of law (among other things). These are the basic responsibilities of government. Secondly, that comment was in response to the statement that "The Majority" (apparently, although no source was cited) was against the bailouts. I'm not sure which specific bailouts the poster was talking about, but it is relatively clear that without state intervention in the US financial system during the banking crisis of 2008 the country would have been plunged into a severe depression. If he is talking about the bailout of General Motors, then a stronger case can be made that the bailout was unnecessary. If it is the former, however, it seems that the government should be free to implement unpopular and drastic policies such as the bailout of the finance sector in the interests of preventing a systemic economic and social crisis, and in many countries a political one as well, regardless of whether "The Majority" feels itself to be against such policies. One could argue that the bailing out of the financial institutions merely enriched and rewarded the reckless actions of Wall Street bankers, but that would ignore the fact that a systemic economic depression would negatively effect far more people than just the Wall Street bankers. It could hardly be considered in the national interest or politically expedient to allow a depression to occur. Having said that, if these institutions and managers exploit this situation after the crisis has passed that is obviously problematic, but also a different issue entirely. So, you are clearly labouring under a misapprehension. I did not say that government rules in the best interest of "the people", whatever that is, and since favouritism towards the interests of the upper echelons is apparent in virtually all forms of government I could hardly have meant "the people" in the sense of the poor or middling majority. That would be a rather silly suggestion, would it not? (Although, I would disagree with the fact that you seem to be intimating that government exclusively acts in the interests of the elite minority, or even, only when the interests of the elite minority and the majority converge. This is almost certainly not the case, and favouritism does not imply that all governments simply ignore the interests of the lower and middling majority. That would be grossly overstating your case, I think) Originally posted by: Motina Like Knowledge! Currently knowledge and information is regulated to be hard to obtain. It doesn't matter if this is universities in social democracies that greatly limit spots in universities to create an artificial shortage to raise wages, or the expensive tuition paid by individuals in the USA, that generally produce an over saturated prospect market driving down wages. Because of this, a lot who could have innovated ideas, but are kept out because they couldn't afford school or were not "school" smart. This is, of course, to protect the status quo, or the establishment.quote> Knowledge and information is regulated and hard to obtain? Okay, well, give me an example of a society where the same vast collection of knowledge and information is more freely available and I might give you a cookie. One can hardly expect that everyone should or could have a university education, for one thing society would grind to a halt. If you could present a reasoned argument that suggests "the establishment" is conspiring to limit university education in the interests of preserving the status quo it would be helpful, as it stands the conclusion seems tenuous in light of the information given. Originally posted by: Motina Even if they have to get things communally own. If the establishment makes the majority dependant on oil, the majority will not do anything to innovate their lifestyle to limit it, even at the point where they will not accept a war over oil, so it is called something else, whether it be the cold war, or the war on terror. Trust me, both are not about weapons of mass destruction, they are setting the price of resources through "market forces". Oh, a new source of oil - price drops. Is this really in the best interests of people?quote> Yes, clearly it was "the establishment" that arbitrarily chose oil as the energy source of choice for transportation infrastructure so that the majority would become dependent on it and let "the establishment" fight wars of aggression to artificially manage the "market prices" of said energy source. This reasoning seems flawed, for some reason, or at best poorly presented. I hardly think that the choice of oil was made with such sinister motives in mind, but probably rested on the fact that it was a more efficient, readily transportable, and readily available than the other options available at that time. Most societies do resist changes (and yes, replacing oil as the primary fuel of the transportation infrastructure is] a major change), and this resistance tends to come from many levels and is not restricted to the existing elite class. When oil prices were cheap, which is something that the majority of people do want, there is obviously little incentive limit usage, (except in Europe, where access to energy is rather more tenuous and has created a relatively conservative environment with regards to oil consumption), and although there may have been actions undertaken by various oil companies to artificially reduce this incentive still further, I think it would be an exaggeration to say this was the decisive factor in the generally profligate approach to oil consumption that has characterized American, Canadian, and Australian societies in the last few decades. As for the last bit, a drop in the price of oil can be both good and bad. For producer and exporter regions, a drop in the price of oil is not beneficial and can even be disastrous, while for consumers a lower price of oil is obviously beneficial. For governments a lower price of oil can mean less expenditures on subsidies or it might mean a loss of revenue that renders it unable to repay its debt obligations. Originally posted by: MotinaOr how about when international organizations, that are supported by government, doing the business, of say a European water company, taking away peoples source of drinking water? I this really in the best interests of the majority, especially with the new documentary coming out, or about how the plastic for that water may leech toxins into the water while it is in hot travel conditions or warehouses, or how the bottles leave a big waste in the oceans or landfills.quote> I can't make heads nor tails of this. I do hope, however, that you don't base your arguments on what you have seen in documentaries. They are useful at achieving certain aims, but should only rarely be accepted uncritically. At any rate, since it seems to be in the same vein as mounting an argument against the erroneously perceived position that government acts in the interests of the majority, it can probably be safely ignored. Originally posted by: Motina Sounds more like the best interest of the rich to me or those "watchers" in the so called "communist" nations. or maybe the country is not the whole population of it, but maybe the country is actually the opulent minority; the capitalists, or the "watchers".quote> On the contrary, "the country" is something more than "the whole population of it". It includes, but is broader than, the institutions and symbols of the state, and encompasses all the individuals who are citizens of that country and their collective economic, political, and social activities. I would hardly deny that governments tend to favour the upper echelons of the society, and indeed, I was arguing that governments do not and should not simply act on the whim (a specific distinction from "interests") of "The Majority". Originally posted by: MotinaNow is the divine right of hedge funds.quote> I do so love it when people start using phrases like this, which sound impressive and meaningful yet are ultimately meaningless and shallow. I hope I don't need to explain why the comparison between divine right monarchy and hedge funds is neither particularly apt nor analytically useful. Originally posted by: MotinaDriving the economy, writing laws, fighting wars, all in their favour.quote> The United States has a very powerful corporate lobby group, but in many other advanced western democracies this voice is far less prominent and often balanced by recognized labour unions and social interest groups. (I should add that I don't live in the United States, nor am I an American). Although elite interests and individuals certainly play a disproportionate role relative to their numbers in influencing government policy, I think it would be an overstatement, to put it mildly, to say that all government actions are directed by the likes of Warren Buffet. To cite only one example, if the corporate interests in the United States are so powerful as to direct the legislation of government, how did the state of California manage to impose rigorous restrictions on automobile emissions over the loud protests of American auto manufacturers? Originally posted by: Motina Or when the government makes itself dependant on a certain resource. And once the folly of that is out in the open, other countries still end up doing it.quote> Ironically, when governments nationalize oil industries the proceeds are often spent unproductively to pander to the marginalized majority. This is a fairly excellent example of the majority opinion or desire being quite at odds with what is in the national interest. If you're talking about Mexico or Iran, that is, in Nigeria the oil resources have been systematically pillaged by whoever happens to be in power at any particular time and rarely invested in either the good of "the people" or "the country". Originally posted by: Motina And then you have your corporations. All the big "democratic" government has these.quote> Yes, they do tend to be a fairly common way of organizing business in advanced capitalist democracies. At any rate, my point still stands. Favouritism towards an elite minority obviously occurs in most or all governments (So no need to keep flogging that like a dead horse), but, and this was my point, to consider that this favouritism is exclusive or that it is the only or even primary distorting factor in the role of government would be a simplistic view of the operation of government in fact.

Originally posted by: Motina The whims of the majority? Yeah, ahuh... The government does what is in the best interest of the landed oligarchy/opulent minority. just like what James Madison wanted. this, of course, is the structure of a capitalist government. quote> I think that's an extremely simplistic view of the operation of government, which certainly do not follow that line as a general rule. And I hardly think James Madison has influenced the policies of every democratic government since the eighteenth century... I don't entirely follow your comment on the whims of the majority, but you seem to have missed the point of the sentence. Originally posted by: morriswalters As with Religion it comes down to, mine is right and yours is wrong, and with just as much proof for either position.quote> Not really, because although people might argue about the details, most people generally accept that capitalism is a legitimate categorization of economic organization that rests on a few basic principles, similarly with socialism although that is much more theoretical and 'tainted', one may say, by the experience of the Communist states of the twentieth century. Also, if one is using looser definition of the terms, one can clearly use historical evidence that suggests one method of organization is more effective than the other. If not, you can decide between the two based on the theoretical merits of each, one stresses overall productivity and individualism and the other stresses equality and collectivity. At any rate, it is far from that sort of religious debate because people don't necessarily have to be proponents of either position, but can attempt to discuss the merits and drawbacks of each objectively, although unfortunately that rarely happens.

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks What people have to come into agreement with is that no matter what, in any society, no matter how perfect it is, there will always be people on the bottom. Not everyone can be successful, but that's where the arguments start. Do we provide a safety net at the bottom for those people, or not? And if we do, what do we do for them and how much do we spend on them? Personally, I think that there should be a safety net for those at the bottom, but not a substantial one. One that will let them live without starving, or being homeless, or dying, but one that doesn't allow for much abuse. Obviously it's not perfect, but it's just my opinion.quote> I think it might be helpful to stop referring to poorer members of your own society as "them" and start seeing them as part of "us". Of course, class distinctions make it unlikely that such a viewpoint will be largely adopted in the foreseeable future, but one is forced to the conclusion that if individuals within society felt that they had a moral obligation to all other members of that society then the resistance to supporting those that are worse off could be mitigated. This might seem like a pipe-dream, but since the historical progression of human societies seems to be tending towards increasing inclusiveness I remain guardedly optimistic that such an outcome is possible. Because one's starting position in any society is randomly generated, and since so much of what one ultimately achieves is dependent on that initial starting position, it is probably instructive to look at the organization of society and the economy not from the perspective of your current, likely privileged, position, but from the perspective of an outsider who could (and will) be inserted into the society at any level. If you do not know what your position will be, but considering that statistically you are much more likely to be less well off, how would your opinion of social welfare change? It is very easy to say that all that is necessary is to prevent people from starving to death when you never go hungry yourself. It seems that most of the problems with social welfare comes from failures of implementation, but adding increased oversight to prevent abuse means (typically) adding another layer of bureaucracy and increasing expenses and inefficiency. Reinforcing the sense of collectivity rather than division within society seems a possible solution, so that instead of the wealthy middle and upper classes begrudgingly and paternalistically bestowing assistance to the lower order and the impoverished in turn exploiting whatever meagre services come their way, both sides view themselves as part of a collective society with rights and responsibilities to the other members. The wealthy freely and generously give their wealth to alleviate the grosser inequalities, while the poorer members recognize that they have a responsibility to society to be honest hard working. Of course, this all seems, even to me, excessively optimistic, but I also think that one of the first steps towards such a goal, if deemed desirable, is to stop calling less well off members of your own society "them". Originally posted by: jak73 The threat in the United States at this point in time is really not other nations, it is our own Government.quote> That's understandable considering that your government operates more of the most advanced military hardware than the rest of the world combined. Although I was rather under the impression that non-national threats were considered the most serious at the moment? Or has Tyranny replaced Terrorism as the cause du jour? Originally posted by: jak73 The Majority of People said they where against bail outs, it was done anyway; The Majority said no to this Obama Care, they did it anyway, The Majority of people say no, they do it anyway.quote> Interestingly enough, modern liberal democracies do not tend to reflect simple majority opinions, and at any rate voters merely elect the leaders and representatives that they feel will best represent their interests. Those same leaders and representatives may decide that it is politically expedient or economically imperative to make certain decisions even if some slim majority of the "people", which are generally misinformed anyways, think otherwise. Also, was there a referendum on these issues? How else can one decide with certainty what it is "The Majority" wanted? Of course, if people are really unhappy, the leaders and representatives who made these decisions can be thrown out next time they go to the polls, that's the nice thing about a functioning democracy. But one has to respect the fact that the government is supposed to act in the best interests of the country, not to base everything they do on the ephemeral whims of "The Majority". Many times the two are not congruent. November will decide the fate of the United States, If Liberals Rule then the rest of us are in deep.quote> And yet the US is supposed to be the bastion of Liberty. At any rate, I seriously doubt that merely changing parties is going to save the country, one cannot seriously argue that the 2000-2008 period was particularly good for the country either. Either way, that doesn't have much bearing on the socialism-capitalism debate.

Okay, so at this point I'm virtually finished, but I've noticed a small texture problem. This has happened before, sometimes on a much larger scale, but it's particularly annoying right now because it is the only thing not working and preventing me from exporting it. The edge panel that has a fairly plain black texture (used elsewhere and showing up) are untextured: Any reason why this is happening and what can I do to get rid of the problem? Thanks in advance.

To make this into an element of the modular system you actually need something to see there where there is nothing right now - that black space. The best way for seamless integration would be to extend your model enough to cover that black area, while keeping you LODs the same size they are now. quote> Okay thanks, I think I should be able to work out something like that. As for the model itself, I must commend you on an excellent start! Night lighting you have achieved is about as good as can get in GMAX. But I would join Cockatoo in a suggestion of getting 3ds Max. Not only it is hugely more powerful, but also easier to use as your creativity will be far less restricted by the limitation of outdated software. It will allow you much more "natural" approach - recreating real life lighting, materials etc. Things you would need to bend over backwards to try to fake in GMAX. For instance no matter how long you play with lights you'll never gonna get natural looking ones in GMAX. quote> Thanks, that means a lot coming from you. And I'll see about finding my university email address... On the modeling side one thing that little sort of off is the width/depth of teh building... What is it? 6 tiles? It would be about 90+ m... A little on a big side... At Charles de Gaulle, for instance the widest parts are about 75 m... But the main point here is the rationality.quote> Yeah, the depth is 96m, and in fact I've scaled the building up by 133% so that it is now 128m. The original Mirabel is 91m, but that terminal doesn't have a gates area, per se, since they used mobile lounges and not jetways. Many large airports, using measurements from Google Earth, have terminal depths much larger than ~75m, even as large as Terminal 5 at Heathrow which is ~180m from curb to gate, or Stansted which is roughly 190m across. As this terminal is meant to operate more to the layout of Stansted or Terminal 5, rather than CDG, think that the scaling is certainly well within the bounds of realism. Having tested the original 96m depth in-game with one of AC's B747s, I thought an even larger scaling was necessary so as not to have the building appear too small: Such a design would really call for a more elaborate roof to look interesting. quote> Yes, I will add more detailing to the roof, however, the real Mirabel terminal has a very minimal amount of roof detailing as well. @Aaron Graham; thanks!

So, thanks to your advice I was able to night light it properly, although I don't think the effect is as nice. Here's the render of the Check-in area: I have another question, however, how does one make the edges of a BAT see through? It isn't terribly pressing if I join the various sections into one BAT, but if I want to make it more modular it is a little unsightly:

Ah, thanks a lot, that seems to be an effective work around. Just for clarification, what is the difference between near and far attenuation, and what happens when you use them both at once? If you're a student (which you are), you can get Max for free now. It'll save you having to put up with stuff like this.quote> Yes, I saw that a couple days ago and seriously considered it, but figured I might as well see if I could actually make anything passable first. Now if I could only remember what my university email is...

Nice airport, very big. I still havent found out how JFK uses its facility like this. quote> It's just a satellite concourse employed by American Airlines and undergoing construction in that satellite image (which is why there are no planes using it). Satellite concourses are fairly common.

Natural laws are an assumption, nothing more. Even such elementary thinkers as Locke do not go out of their way to justify the concept of natural laws, they simply assume that they exist. They are a helpful assumption in combating tyranny, but that is all they are, an assumption. They help us to construct liberal political structures, but there is nothing inherently correct or true about them, there is no such thing as a natural law. There is nothing that gives people God granted rights, these are things that must be conceived of and then struggled for, they are not natural or inherent. One might as well say that the natural state of humankind is for some to be the slaves and property of others.

Id say any country that has been in open civil war for the past 2 decades counts as being incapable of dealing with itself.quote> Well, lots of countries are or have been in a similar position, western governments can hardly be expected to intervene every time a regime fails and precipitates political instability. As for foreign invasion powers. Yeah they dont make Afghanistan a peaceful place because they arent the rulers there. Its mr Karzai that rules that place, and he isnt doing a terribly good job if you would ask me. And a western military force has the power to beat all other parties in Somalia in any power struggle if they want too. It remain people armed with RPG's and AK 47's. Of course you need the will to win such a conflict. quote> I'm sure simply installing a white ruler will teach those savages the value of civilization and pacifism. And of course western militaries and governments have a massively successful track record against third world guerrilla forces.

What do we all have to say about vicarious attacks on counties by outside or outside inspired forces? There are lots of incidents of this kind of anarchism conducted by criminal murderers who claim to be doing good. In addition to 9/11 there have been atrocities in Britain, Spain, and several middle-east countries, and some in the far east. quote> Political violence is nothing new, the 9/11 attacks were a very dramatic example of terrorism, but I don't think there is anything fundamentally revolutionary about it. Anarchists and Communists did the exact same thing, admittedly without the assistance of modern technology, at the turn of the last century. There will likely always be those who believe that a new political or social order can be achieved through violence, and it is when they are loosely organized and not state-based that they pose the least threat to the existing order. The inter-state conflicts of the Second World War and Cold War fought in the name of capitalism versus socialism were far more deadly and destructive than all the anarchist and communist terrorism of the preceding half century combined. It should always be remembered that while such attacks are disruptive, and the loss of life regrettable, they do their greatest damage by compelling our societies to restrict liberties in the name of repressing terrorism. The surveillance state in England, and particularly London, came about in part as a response to the IRA terror attacks of the early 1990s. For weak states, yes, terrorism can pose a threat to the established order, but in strong states I think it would take a quite extraordinary terrorist attack to do significant damage to the polity as a whole (such as the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major population centre, although even then I don't know how this would achieve the terrorist's ends). I don't believe that terrorism poses a great threat to the global capitalist order, a far greater threat was met in the middle part of the twentieth century and overcome, and some peripheral terrorist attacks are not going to greatly hinder it much today. What is probably of greater concern is the global spread of Saudi-funded madrassas that preach a fundamentalist Wahhabist form of Islam and the ongoing failure of many Islamic states to modernize. Religious conservatism is a powerful force, and even in countries like Indonesia the collapse of the Suharto regime and the end of rapid economic growth as the largest casualty of the East Asia Financial Crisis has encouraged a disillusionment with secular capitalism and a greater embrace of conservative religious values. As for Somalia, I don't think anyone will be able to find the political capital to invade that country any time soon barring the Somalians being implicated in something truly horrendous and disruptive, which seems unlikely. But they cannot be trusted to rule themselves as they have already clearly shown.quote> This is the excuse that is usually thrown up when a government wants to intervene militarily, but it seems a rather vague concept. At what point can a people or a state not be trusted to rule itself? Is it when they are unable to enforce the rule of law or generally exercise sovereignty over the territory they claim to rule? What makes it likely that a foreign invasion force will have much greater success at implementing the rule of law over the entire country? Has Afghanistan suddenly become a peaceful state ruled by law? Military occupation doesn't seem to be terribly successful, historically, at imposing the rule of law (or even just that of force, and if that is all the intervention is bringing then it doesn't seem much of an improvement). I don't see why a western military invasion would contribute anything more to the situation than to add yet another militant faction vying for political control of some slice of Somalia. We cannot trust them to do it themselves because they are simply incapable of self governance.quote> And yet Somalia is doing comparatively better, economically and in terms of literacy and HIV infection rates, than many other African countries that are self-governing. Why are there no calls to militarily invade these countries? The Somalian economy continues to see some growth despite the political turmoil, and Somalian Universities are listed among the best in Africa. The UN estimates that less than 1% of the Somalian population is infected with HIV, which is much better than most other African countries. The growth of piracy since 2004 is partly attributable to the destruction of the Somali fishing fleets that occurred as a result of the Boxing Day Tsunami, and it really poses a less-than-dire risk to international trade and gives navies something to do. Yes, the internationally recognized government of Somalia does not extend its sovereignty to the (artificially created) borders of the country, and there is some amount of internal turmoil, but I hardly think the situation requires massive (and expensive) western military involvement. I suppose a cost-benefit analysis would calculate the likely cost to international commerce in the next decade that might occur if piracy was mitigated through non-military means, compared with the likely costs of a decade-long military occupation of Somalia that may or may not be successful in creating a stable political environment with an economy strong enough to pose a major disincentive to piracy.

Still confused as to why anyone would even want to take drugs of any kind, but there we are. Guess I won't get a straight answer which actually makes logical sense.quote> The great thing about liberalism is it allows people to make individual choices. You are free to remain drug free, but if other people wish to partake they can. You may not understand why they want to, but that is irrelevant. At any rate, drugs pervade our society and virtually everyone uses them. Coffee, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco are the most common and socially acceptable ones (although the third one is becoming less so). Many recreational drugs are harmful and probably should be controlled, but marijuana is not amongst them.

No, because one joint a day is still smoking, and its the smoking, not the actual marijauna, thats the worst for your health. Like you said, you can't die from weed, you'd die from the smoke first, the smoke is the unhealthy part. Also, you can drink alcohol without getting drunk by only having one or two drinks, which is no different than having a coke or orange juice, but the only way you can smoke weed without getting high is if you have built up a tolerance which means you already have very unhealthy habit. quote> I have a feeling this might become a very cyclical discussion, but here goes. Okay, so we've established that smoke inhalation (even just a small amount at a daily frequency or less) is dangerous to your health. At the same time, cigarettes and cigars are legal, which indicates that the threat from smoke inhalation is not the reason that it is proscribed (and both of these can be worse than marijuana). Secondly, drinking caffeine, another legal drug, can have negative health effects as a result long-term use, probably as risky as the lung cancer risk from long-term but controlled marijuana smoking (the risk is really not that great). Thirdly, this is a small and long-term risk of negative health outcomes with a zero risk of death in the short term. Compared to alcohol, which, as frequently consumed, will have similar or worse health outcomes over a long term period, combined with a greatly increased risk of death or serious injury in the short term. Considering that both of these drugs can negatively effect your health if irresponsibly used (and neither poses a great risk to health if used responsibly), it seems that to proscribe one and not the other is preposterous. In other words, people should be at liberty to choose whether they want to partake in either and neither should be restricted by the government. If the government wants to restrict one (as they seem to have arbitrarily), then it makes rational sense to restrict alcohol. Alcoholism is far more destructive than marijuana use (which isn't as addictive), both for physical well being but also your financial and social well being and has a well documented history of ruining families. Binge drinking, which is a common practice, is very dangerous to health and is far more likely to kill you than marijuana use. It also leads to reckless behaviours (drunk driving, unprotected sex, physical aggressiveness) which can seriously damage your health and reputation as well as that of others. Basically, considering the comparable dangers posed by both drugs, in the interests of personal liberty it makes sense, rationally, that neither should be restricted. If our interest is public safety than alcohol seems the far more dangerous drug and more worthy of restriction as it is commonly used.

Its rather easy to skip in most cases. Its just that its unprofitable for the countries involved because it would earn them less money. Especially in China, but thats more because they simply have to much people. But half of the stuff you make in sweatshops can be produced by robots as well. It could easily help you skip the sweat shop stage and start right away with more advanced industries. quote> Oh really. You mean that poor, technically unskilled economies are going leave their one major asset (a large pool of cheap labour) unemployed (and thus disgruntled) and attempt to start an economy where production is done by robots. Okay, that's not unrealistic. At all... If it is so easy to skip, name the countries that have skipped it. Also, what does unprofitability for the country (state?) have to do with it if this is an ill of a capitalist free market? But yeah, people regard it as expensive because it requires a little more money to invest in. Youd actually need to school your workers before they can get to work. And yeah, since we are all cheap greedy bastards, we cant spare that as well now can we? quote> It's clear you don't understand the technical and capital disadvantages of underdeveloped countries. Where does this money come from to educate an entire workforce for a service based economy started from scratch? Also, most times you need a base of efficient agriculture and industry before you can move on to service industries as a major part of your economy. This isn't a case of being cheap, it's a case of not having the capital in the first place and precious little to borrow against. You talked about the industrialization and the industrial revolution. It started with the invention of the steam engine. Every history book Ive read so far has told me the same. Of course, Europe was an economic world super power already, because it was the most advanced technology compared to everyone else. Mainly because there was nobody to rival them. But simply, before the invention of the steam engine, people still mainly worked on the lands, after the invention, the first real fabrics where opened and urbanization happened. quote> Good god, what sorts of history books do you read? A Netherlander especially should appreciate the effects of colonization and the financial revolution (in which the Dutch played a vital role) which occurred about a century before the true industrial revolution. Yes, many things will date the start of the industrial revolution to the invention of the steam engine, but the economic development of Europe towards that point had been occurring for centuries previously. As for wealth, European technology wasn't the most advanced compared to everyone else until c.1750, in the meantime they benefited from a massive influx of silver and gold from the Americas, a sugar plantation economy in the Caribbean and the massive trade in African slaves to run it, and the control of India which was largely achieved by the end of the eighteenth century. You've obviously been taught a very minimalist version of European economic development. Capitalism wouldnt work if the rest of the world was communist.quote> Proof? Or if every country worked with economic isolationism. Such a system wouldnt work now, because of the lack of support world wide. But say that this movement would gain ground in Europe, and it would get massive support. It sure as hell would work. Europe is big enough to sustain itself with only the minimal amounts of resources it actually needs to import. Sure, its a very positive scenario and unlikely to happen. But its not impossible. quote> Yes, economic autarky has been shown to be a failure, it largely precipitated WWII. This is why countries should restrict the urge to increase protectionism and trade controls in the face of cheap Asian labour. History has shown that autarkic trading practices are more likely to induce conflicts, up to an including war, between major states/economies. Yes, I'd like to see how Europe would get along in economic isolation from the rest of the world. Is Russia excluded from 'Europe'? Because there just went Germany's natural gas. Tropical fruits and products and Middle East oil and Asian consumer goods, all gone. Meanwhile, the European standard of living would drastically decline because you would be paying through your noses just to purchase basic goods thanks to your far higher mandatory wages. Maybe for a while you could prey on the cheap labour of the newly introduced Eastern European states, but that probably wouldn't last long in an environment of high labour demand. Yes, Europe could likely sustain itself in isolation, but if you think living standards would stay the same or even suffer only slightly then you would be very much mistaken. Let's define "tax": Tax n. any means by which a government entity collects money from people. Does a tariff fit that description? Absolutely. Thus, it's a tax. A tax on imported goods.quote> *Sigh* Okay, you win. Tariffs are a tax. It's just that since they have rather different effects than a tax on income or goods and services (sales tax), they are normally referred to specifically as a tariff reduction not a tax cut. They are an indicator of less protectionism and freer trade and can be perceived as a spur or a threat to local firms (given America's history of protectionism, probably the latter in this case). So yes, in general terms it can be called a tax cut, but most people would refer to it specifically as a tariff reduction (and would consider the term 'tax cut' misleading). The best policy is less government and fewer laws. There needs to be a rule that you can't put a new law on the books without rescinding two old ones that have fallen into disuse. Eventually you will have skinned back to the essentials and can stop legislating. In our democracies, this will take several centuries.quote> Well, in some people's opinion. I have yet to see any empirical evidence that less government is necessarily "better", especially when there are so many anecdotal cases of a considerable level of government involvement being hugely beneficial (at least over a period of time, possibly not perpetually). Restriction of personal liberties are very tedious and should be taken away, but then again the state can be a primary motivator for the protection of certain liberties that you certainly cannot entrust society as a whole to necessarily uphold.

Alcohol is legal because when used responsibly, it is actually fine or even healthy. Red wine is terrific for your health. Alcohol only becomes unhealthy when someone abuses it and becomes drunk, at which point it starts harming the body. But you can have a drink a day and have no alcohol health problems your whole life. quote> This seems more like something that individuals should be at liberty to decide for themselves. Yes, one glass of red wine a day might be great for your health, but how many young people drink like that? Similarly, one joint a day could probably be found to be beneficial for your long term health by helping to relieve stress. Alcohol also kills far more people a year than marijuana (which actually can't directly kill you unless you take an impossible dose), so I still find it ironic that the latter is far more strictly controlled than the former. Irresponsible use of either can seriously degrade your health and life, so it makes little rational sense to proscribe one but not the other (and the less dangerous one at that).

Considering that alcohol is a legal and far more dangerous drug than marijuana, the continued illegality of the latter seems preposterous.

This isn't so much supposed to be a real airport as a test or proof of concept for a couple of things. Whipped up this terminal in about 45 minutes without any planning: