| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2005 11:17:58 AM · #1 |
| This thread created for GeneralE and others who wish to discuss this topic. Enjoy |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 11:27:00 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant people PLEASE just Link entire articles.
Originally posted by RonB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Because a) many are too lazy to cut & paste the pertinent parts, b) most actually "think" that folks will *read* the entire article if they post it ( not true - I, for one, NEVER read articles that are cut&pasted in their entirety ), and c) most probably haven't read the article themselves - they just found it linked or copied in its entirety on one of the liberal blogs or propoganda sites like democraticunderground that they rely on for their daily pablum.
Oh, and d) they don't have to pay for internet storage or bandwidth - D & L pay for that. Kind of like welfare in that regard - as long as someone ELSE is paying, many will abuse the system.
I propose locking this thread as it's completely out of context and a waste of resources, as pointed out in the above post from another thread. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 11:34:09 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 11:38:06 AM · #4 |
| Somehow I thought this was going to be about Kozlowski and Schwartz. Anyway, I hope they give the creeps the maximum sentence. Does anyone else here work for Tyco? |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 11:46:02 AM · #5 |
In the thread on Pres. Bush and the hurricane and everything, we got off on a slight "tangent" discussing welfare, and the government's obligation to help those in need, labelled by some as welfare.
For contrast, I offered up some examples of government largesse towards the wealthy, and made the observation that while we seem outraged over someone wheedling money out of social services to feed their family, we seem to have little (ethical) trouble with corporations hiding their assets in tax shelters to avoid paying taxes, and allowing their executives to engage in the purchase of such non-necessities as $6000 shower curtains.
Personally, I find a social ethic which throws the petty thief in jail, while honoring and rewarding the billion-dollar corporate rip-off, to be rather disturbing and unstable -- historically, when the gap between the haves and the have-nots continually increases you end up with revolution.
I guess David felt it would be better to confine such a discussion to its own thread.
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 11:46:47. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 11:53:30 AM · #6 |
You must not have read the other thread.
GeneralE asked if anyone wished to discuss this topic and I know how inpolite it is to change subjects.
Why don't we just lock all threads, especially those created with humor in mind?
In the thread on Pres. Bush and the hurricane and everything, we got off on a "tangent" slight tangent discussing welfare, and the government's obligation to help those in need, labelled by some as welfare.
For contrast, I offered up some examples of government largesse towards the wealthy, and made the observation that while we seem outraged over someone wheedling money out of social services to feed their family, we seem to have little (ethical) trouble with corporations hiding their assets in tax shelters to avoid paying taxes, and allowing their executives to engage in the purchase of such non-necessities as $6000 shower curtains.
Personally, I find a social ethic which throws the petty thief in jail, while honoring and rewarding the billion-dollar corporate rip-off, to be rather disturbing and unstable -- historically, when the gap between the haves and the have-nots continually increases you end up with revolution.
I guess David felt it would be better to confine such a discussion to its own thread.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by Riggs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant people PLEASE just Link entire articles.
Originally posted by RonB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Because a) many are too lazy to cut & paste the pertinent parts, b) most actually "think" that folks will *read* the entire article if they post it ( not true - I, for one, NEVER read articles that are cut&pasted in their entirety ), and c) most probably haven't read the article themselves - they just found it linked or copied in its entirety on one of the liberal blogs or propoganda sites like democraticunderground that they rely on for their daily pablum.
Oh, and d) they don't have to pay for internet storage or bandwidth - D & L pay for that. Kind of like welfare in that regard - as long as someone ELSE is paying, many will abuse the system.
I propose locking this thread as it's completely out of context and a waste of resources, as pointed out in the above post from another thread. |
Somehow I thought this was going to be about Kozlowski and Schwartz. Anyway, I hope they give the creeps the maximum sentence. Does anyone else here work for Tyco?
I don't, and glad I don't |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 11:59:19 AM · #7 |
It will go well with a $50,000 camera strap!
|
|
|
|
09/11/2005 12:00:57 PM · #8 |
If that $6000 shower curtain cleans my bathroom for me, I might invest in one. :)
|
|
|
|
09/11/2005 03:24:14 PM · #9 |
It seems that many are suffering from class envy. They have a real "problem" with someone paying $6,000 for a shower curtain but, at the same time, they defend, yea insist on, increasing taxes on the "rich" to fund the governments' many wealth redistribution programs. It's interesting that when one spends $6,000 on a shower curtain, after making the payment, one has a shower curtain to show for the expenditure. Yet when the "rich" increase their expenditure for taxes, they end up with nothing tangible as a result.
As for the shower curtain itself, what difference does it make how much was paid for it? No matter the price, a portion of that payment went to support the retail & wholesale stores ( hence the employees of the stores ), the distributors ( hence the employees of the distributors ), the assemblers ( hence the employees of the assemblers ), all of the manufacturers ( plastic liner, fabric, trim, eyelets, etc. ) ( hence, all of the employees thereof ), the delivery people ( drivers of all sorts, plus pilots ( much of the material was imported )), the manufacturers who made the delivery vehicles ( cars, trucks, airplanes ), and containers/packaging ( and their employees ), and of course the folks who work for those who manufacture the goods used in those vehicles and containers, plus the delivery people who delivered materials to those manufacturers, etc., etc., etc., NOT to mention the insurance companies and lawyers retained by all those companies - AND the taxes paid by all those companies.
In other words, it is likely that even YOU benefited in some way from the money paid for that shower curtain.
It's really just ENVY that prompts these rants against the wealthy. Because many can't see that it is only wealth that is kept under a mattress that doesn't benefit the entire country. Money at work in the marketplace, even if spent for $6,000 shower curtains, benefits many.
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 15:26:07. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 04:00:45 PM · #10 |
Living the life that affords $6000 shower curtains is not sustainable in the long run. The Earth does not have infinite resources to be wasted in that way. The shower curtain is only an example of the extreme wastefulness technology has afforded us and how we blindly consume resources without care.
A couple book recomendations:
The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability
Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 04:10:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Living the life that affords $6000 shower curtains is not sustainable in the long run. |
Why isn't a life that affords $6,000 shower curtains sustainable? Are there any reasons that you can offer in support of that statement?
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The Earth does not have infinite resources to be wasted in that way. |
What resources do you see being "wasted" in "that way"?
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The shower curtain is only an example of the extreme wastefulness technology has afforded us and how we blindly consume resources without care. |
Again, I must ask, where is the "wastefulness" that you refer to? And what "resources" do we "blindly consume" in this example?
Could you post a couple of relevant excerpts to support your assertions? Or is none of the material available on-line?
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 16:11:51. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 04:32:46 PM · #12 |
If you truly believe that we need to recycle more, then the FAIR TAX ( Bill H.R. 25 ) is something you should be promoting everywhere you go ( and writing to your federal representatives about ). Under the FAIR TAX, no one pays any federal taxes on income at all - no payroll tax, no medicare, no social security, no death taxes, no corporate income taxes. Instead all taxes are levied in the form of a consumption tax on NEW goods and services. NO TAX on USED goods. Every family unit will receive a PRE-bate every month equal to the amount of taxes that they would pay for poverty-level essential goods ( food & clothing ). Benefits are many:
1) Money earned in illicit trade ( drugs, for example ) will generate taxes when spent.
2) Non-Reported income ( tips, illegal workers ) will generate taxes when spent.
3) Since there will be NO corporate income tax, outsourcing will be reversed. In fact, other countries will seek to establish businesses in the U.S. since the tax rates will be so favorable.
4) Since there will be NO death tax, farmland can be retained in families that would formerly have to sell land to pay the death tax.
5) The RICH will generate more tax revenue than the POOR, because they SPEND more.
Who will come out disadvantaged under the FAIR TAX? Tax Accountants, Tax Attorneys, those who write and/or sell books on Tax Preparation, and those who manufacture tax forms. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 04:37:51 PM · #13 |
| A few excerpts wouldn’t do the argument justice, as this is a complex issue obviously not understood by the masses. But you can read the 1st 5-6 pages online at those links by clicking on the book picture, may peak your interest enough to purchase them or rent from your library. The reader reviews (both have over 25) may also be helpful. They are both highly rated excellent books I suggest everyone read. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 04:43:24 PM · #14 |
These are a good intro into sustainability; Sustainability and Sustainable development. The "See also" sections in those articles also have many excellent articles on things related to sustainability.
*edit, added 2nd link.
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 17:03:12. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 05:05:44 PM · #15 |
$6000 shower curtains...$500 plus cameras...$30 steak...it's all a matter of perspective. When I go to Honduras in November I'll ask the kids without water which one offends them the most...
|
|
|
|
09/11/2005 05:13:35 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
$6000 shower curtains...$500 plus cameras...$30 steak...it's all a matter of perspective. When I go to Honduras in November I'll ask the kids without water which one offends them the most... |
Maybe some of the richest people in World make the biggest donations to help the poor and needy.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2005 05:41:55 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
$6000 shower curtains...$500 plus cameras...$30 steak...it's all a matter of perspective. When I go to Honduras in November I'll ask the kids without water which one offends them the most... |
Why don't you provide them with water instead! |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 05:58:33 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I propose locking this thread as it's completely out of context and a waste of resources, as pointed out in the above post from another thread. |
What don't you like about freedom of speech? You are under no obligation whatsoever to have any kind of contact with this or any other thread.
humor (n.)
1. The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness: could not see the humor of the situation.
2. That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement: a writer skilled at crafting humor.
3. The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2005 07:41:26 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
$6000 shower curtains...$500 plus cameras...$30 steak...it's all a matter of perspective. When I go to Honduras in November I'll ask the kids without water which one offends them the most... |
If you are paying to go to Honduras to talk to kids without water, may I suggest that, instead, you send the money you would have spent to one of the many NGO's that are actually employing local people to build the infrastructure that will bring fresh drinking water to those kids. As much as they might enjoy your talk, they would probably prefer fresh water.
Do remember, when asking which one offends them the most, to include in the list the several hundred dollars that was spent to provide your transportation.
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 19:45:02. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 07:56:01 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
$6000 shower curtains...$500 plus cameras...$30 steak...it's all a matter of perspective. When I go to Honduras in November I'll ask the kids without water which one offends them the most... |
If you are paying to go to Honduras to talk to kids without water, may I suggest that, instead, you send the money you would have spent to one of the many NGO's that are actually employing local people to build the infrastructure that will bring fresh drinking water to those kids. As much as they might enjoy your talk, they would probably prefer fresh water.
Do remember, when asking which one offends them the most, to include in the list the several hundred dollars that was spent to provide your transportation. |
That's a great idea. While we are thinking along these lines, let's just send money to support the hungry child laborers in China, instead of buying some of the worthless junk that we don't really need. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 09:13:53 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
That's a great idea. While we are thinking along these lines, let's just send money to support the hungry child laborers in China, instead of buying some of the worthless junk that we don't really need. |
NO NO NO I want that worthless cheap junk I don't really need ! |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 09:37:33 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
$6000 shower curtains...$500 plus cameras...$30 steak...it's all a matter of perspective. When I go to Honduras in November I'll ask the kids without water which one offends them the most... |
If you are paying to go to Honduras to talk to kids without water, may I suggest that, instead, you send the money you would have spent to one of the many NGO's that are actually employing local people to build the infrastructure that will bring fresh drinking water to those kids. As much as they might enjoy your talk, they would probably prefer fresh water.
Do remember, when asking which one offends them the most, to include in the list the several hundred dollars that was spent to provide your transportation. |
That's a great idea. While we are thinking along these lines, let's just send money to support the hungry child laborers in China, instead of buying some of the worthless junk that we don't really need. |
a) the "junk" as you call it isn't "worthless". If it was, we wouldn't "buy" it, we'd just ask for it and the owner would "give" it to us, since it had no value ( worth ). Remember, One man's trash is another man's treasure. In a free society, the value ( worth ) of an item is that price at which a seller is willing to sell it, and a buyer is willing to pay for it.
b) If we didn't buy that "worthless junk" what would happen to the child laborers in China? They'd have nothing to "labor" on, hence, instead of "paltry wages and no benefits" they'd have "NO wages and no benefits". True, they wouldn't be "slaving away" for a "greedy multi-national corporation", but I'd still be curious to know how they fared before their employment, or how would they fare if that employment "disappeared". Can anyone provide credible information about that?
Note: I do not condone the mistreatment of laborers of any age or nationality. However, I do believe that in many situations, people let their own emotional reaction lead them into thinking that doing away with the situation would somehow "improve" the lives of those who THEY feel are being "abused". Like Wal-Mart employees. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 10:23:12 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Living the life that affords $6000 shower curtains is not sustainable in the long run. |
Why isn't a life that affords $6,000 shower curtains sustainable? Are there any reasons that you can offer in support of that statement? |
His company went bankrupt, didn't it, costing who knows how many people their savings and jobs? |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 10:23:56 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by RonB:
a) the "junk" as you call it isn't "worthless". If it was, we wouldn't "buy" it, we'd just ask for it and the owner would "give" it to us, since it had no value ( worth ). Remember, One man's trash is another man's treasure. In a free society, the value ( worth ) of an item is that price at which a seller is willing to sell it, and a buyer is willing to pay for it.
b) If we didn't buy that "worthless junk" what would happen to the child laborers in China? They'd have nothing to "labor" on, hence, instead of "paltry wages and no benefits" they'd have "NO wages and no benefits". True, they wouldn't be "slaving away" for a "greedy multi-national corporation", but I'd still be curious to know how they fared before their employment, or how would they fare if that employment "disappeared". Can anyone provide credible information about that?
Note: I do not condone the mistreatment of laborers of any age or nationality. However, I do believe that in many situations, people let their own emotional reaction lead them into thinking that doing away with the situation would somehow "improve" the lives of those who THEY feel are being "abused". Like Wal-Mart employees. |
a) Darn those semantics. You caught me. What I should have said was "useless" junk that upon purchase will immediately decrease in value to become virtually worthless. What you are purchasing is the right to spread your money around to a bunch of people in the middle (much of which is paid in the form of taxes to big government).
b) You are helping make my point (which was originally meant to be sarcastic). If we care so much about the plight of hungry children we should be giving our money directly to the families who really need it and getting tax write-offs. You suggested that thatcloudthere give up his trip to help those children, and I'm proposing that if you apply that logic to everyone, we are all hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2005 10:24:38 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
$6000 shower curtains...$500 plus cameras...$30 steak...it's all a matter of perspective. When I go to Honduras in November I'll ask the kids without water which one offends them the most... |
Maybe some of the richest people in World make the biggest donations to help the poor and needy.
Just a thought. |
Statistics show that the very wealthy donate (as a percentage of income/resources) less that the middle and lower classes. Of course, that's just statistics ... |
|
