Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/27/09 08:30 PM, erenahmed wrote: Jobs: whts going to happen in the future theres not going to be much jobs is there.

I don't know why wouldn't there be.

They will mostly be taken by imagrants. They can't send every imagrant back to there
normal country can they.

Ima chargin mah lazorz!
Anyway, no. As it has been noted here, immigrants take mostly unqualified labor (I'm special! :D).
The problem I could see in the US is becoming Spain: an abundance of highly qualified people that pushes their salaries down to unqualified labor levels. It's already happening with liberal art majors.
People will start realizing that having a BA is not that important, and will switch to technical jobs.

Cars: How much space will there going to be in the future for driven cars.
They can't destroy old cars to replace them with new cars or even make space
for other moving vehicles.

Sure they can, you don't see many 1950s car on the road do you? Unless you're of course, living in Cuba.

Whats going to happen to car sellers, they will get bankrupt
because no one would want to buy them after having such fucked up traffic.

You'll go European and stop buying SUVs and start getting Smarts.

They would have to have people using bikes or skates on the sidewalks like
wht they did in most of France Because of to much traffic.

Yeah, that too. However, there will be only a switch in demand, not a net reduction of it; instead of buying big automobiles, people will get small cars and bikes, so big automobiles will go bankrupt, but small car and bike manufacturers will flourish!

At 12/28/09 04:54 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: ACK WHERE IS MY CAR I DON'T SEE IT

My boyfriend was kind enough to clear the snow off my car this morning before I drove him out for breakfast. Five hours later, it's covered again. Go figure we get a snowstorm the day he has to drive back. I didn't believe that we got nine inches of snow overnight. Then I stepped outside. I believe it, and we're getting more. It's all lake effect.

Lake effect?

At 12/28/09 09:11 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: My husband ate the majority of my tub of deliciousness from Seven. I made the mistake of opening it and leaving it on the coffee table while he was playing Saboteur, and somehow it was empty when I went back for another piece.

Hey, would you consider a book "advanced" or complicated if it used argentine as an adjective to show a similitude for silver? Because I would've had no idea of the meaning of the word if I weren't, you know, such a nerd.

At 12/29/09 02:46 AM, fli wrote: My belly is super duper distended...
I can't eat...
I feel like I'm choking every other second...
The antibiotics is wrecking my insides...

On the plus side, the antibiotics is clearing up my skin.

Yeah, my dermatologist gave me this antibiotic for my skin, at it is ausom. It has kept me acne-free for six months already. I'm planning to discontinue its use, if it passes the major test of the year: the Summer sun!

And the fricking BILL!

Mine is quite cheap...
Anyway, I hope you get better soon.

At 12/29/09 12:17 AM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 12/28/09 09:38 PM, Proteas wrote: All I got was a card... no cookies... were they mailed separately?

No, I remembered the last time I sent food, you told me you didn't want it. I can't remember why. (at easter or valentines) so I didn't this time.

If you want them, then the next time I send yall stuff, I'll include them with yours.

I only sent Brian a card too because he said he didn't want any food.

and I only sent Der Lowe a card because I wasn't sure if cookies would make it to Argentina.

and I cant send things to people I dont have addresses for.

But you said you didn't send me any cookies because you needed me when all the others were gone after they ate the delicious, yet poisoned food, to take over the Lounge, and eventually Ng.
Wait, I shouldn't have said that. Plz don't hunt me down and cut my head off with your katana Miss Seven.
Plz.

At 12/29/09 09:29 PM, Proteas wrote: Well, I've been doing okay with controlling mine. Until I saw this. Now... we both want one.

HELP ME LOUNGE!!!

I have no inner child. I pretty much have saved every extra penny since I was 7. That's why I have so many Bills with Franklin and the map of Europe.
Sad, huh?

----------------------------------------
---
I'm going to the beach for holidays tomorrow! I dunno how I'm gonna make it, I was out on the balcony for 15 minutes, and got a heat stroke. I feel so whitey. Like, Malachy or sth.
Pretty much any of you.
I HATE YOU ALL
</funk>

Nah, I <3 you. Although I'm jealous because of the poisoned cookies you got =(

Merry Christmas everyone!

I gave my parents a 4BG Kingston pen drive. My dad almost cried.
And ate sooooo much. My Grandma prepared Christmas lunch and Christmas Eve dinner.
Ouch.

At 12/21/09 08:56 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Feel free to pick holes in this!

My idea is that exploitation is much easier due to bureaucracy. Or to say that another way a homeless person could disappear tomorrow and it would make no difference to anybody! Basically it boils down to how we manage the world. We are divided into countries, some bigger than others. Some richer than others etc etc.

At one end you have kids like us, who take shit for granted. And their is nothing we can do about that we were just lucky enough to be born in the right place. Then you get kids just like us who were born in some corrupt shitty existence who are slaves and supply our existence. We work for pounds and they work for pennies.

So my idea is the world divides itself into small towns. No bigger than a couple of hundred people. Each town, village or community serves itself. Provides for itself. Your free to visit other places sure. But the main point is you make sure everyone you know is taken care of. Feed, sheltered and clothed.

It'd be horribly inefficient: How could you have computers? There should be millions of electronics factories, while nowadays, there's just a couple world wide. Not to mention planes, or automobiles, basically everything that needs huge scales to be done.
If you want to have everyone feed sheltered and such just make universal programs, like food stamps and such.

barcelona fc is the new world champion
4 forwards two midfielders, insane.

TOMORROW
ESTUDIANTES -BARCELONA

FOR THE FINAL
OF THE CLUBS WORLD CUP

WORLD CHAMPIONS AGAIN?
D:

*nervous*

At 12/17/09 02:04 PM, BrickMurus wrote: The recession hardly bothers me at all. I can't get fired and my pay can't get cut. Definitely makes me glad to be in the military.

For people like you is why God invented inflation.
Muahahahaha!

At 12/15/09 09:20 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/14/09 01:07 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I went buying fruits today! I felt like a grown-up.
I bought:
5 bananas =$5

FIVE DOLLARS FOR FIVE BANANAS? You got took, son. Don't let them fruit vendors punk you like that again.

No, pesos. US dollars and argentinian pesos have the same symbol, that's why I say USD instead of $ when referring to dollars.
1 USD = $ 3.806 ´
They did take me by not taking all the leaves and stuff from my broccoli DAMN BOLIVIANS.
I didn't pay them since they didn't have change, I am going to pay them once inflation gives me back what they took me by charging me for leaves and branches. =D

At 12/14/09 07:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/14/09 06:28 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Not to say that birth control was also mentioned one of the basic needs that the State should provide.

that'd be nice.

Don't public hospitals give away condoms there?

Not to say that birth control was also mentioned one of the basic needs that the State should provide.

At 12/14/09 10:00 AM, Proteas wrote: Wish me luck. After my chiropractor's appointment this morning, I'm going to go to the mall and make th eattempt to get some Christmas shopping done on my limited budget. Yay.

My goal for next year is to have at least one credit card paid off enough to where I can use it to my Christmas shopping online... in November.... like a normal person.

I went buying fruits today! I felt like a grown-up.
I bought:
5 bananas =$5
5 apples =$5
5 oranges =$5
broccoli =$5
chicken milanesas =$15
and 10 turrones = $5

At 12/14/09 05:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: lol "Everyone deserves food shelter clothing education blah blah blah.."

which, by extension, means everyone has the right to have as many children as they want regardless of their (in)ability to support them and have the government subsidise their existence

cool as!

Should the kid suffer because his father is irresponsible?
Why should it bother if there are many kids, is overpopulation a problem in the US?

At 12/11/09 06:32 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'd like to know from a well trained economist, exactly how we're going to use a boost in non durable goods consumption, housing construction, and government jobs to pay off the debt.

The stimulus only pays itself partially (since increased spending boosts GDP, and therefore tax revenue). The debt is going to be paid with more taxes.

Are we going to have to see an increasing size of the public sector

mhmm. About time, the private sector in the US has been doing a poor performance budget-wise. I believe the State will have to boost its tax revenue way beyond zero deficit, and create a big surplus that will not only assure the repayment of debt, but also compensate for the lack of private saving.
A depreciation of the dollar (or revaluation of the yuan) would also help.

and the non-productive sectors, as well as a decline in manufacturing in the united states in order every time the US economy slumps.

Not really, most slumps can be handled through monetary policy, except the big ones. Once every 70 years (the K-wave).

We already have a glut of houses on the market, and foreigners can not (nor would they even want to) gain anything from our morbidly obese public sector.

The US has the smallest government in the developed world.

At 12/10/09 04:35 PM, Elfer wrote: Presumably by 1.8 trillion bucks this time, roughly a 15% increase. Just in time for the election, too! How convenient that they're choosing to ignore hard financial decisions in favour of ignoring the problems, letting them get bigger, and hoping they're dead before it all blows up.

The debt is not really a problem; the problem is the recession.

Once again proving:

- There's no such thing as a debt ceiling, since they just push it upward before they get there

True.

- Fiscal policy has nothing to do with fiscal policy and everything to do with partisan politics

Elaborate.

- Republicans are by no means the only ones who are idiots that don't know how to handle money

There's a whole thing of context; Democrats used fiscal policy when monetary policy went dead, republicans used it just to try and "choke the beast", make the government smaller by taking away its resources.

At 12/10/09 03:08 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: You get the idea: not anarchy, but more involvement.

Yeah, I got it.

Anecdotally, here in Canada I find that in general, private schooling has a reputation no better than public schooling, and in many cases worse, as universities will sometimes find that due to the non-standard courses, people coming out of these schools lack the skills that they want applicants to have (this is partially due to the fact that there's no equivalent to the SAT, at least here in Ontario).

Same here, but in Higher Education. A C in my college is worth as much as an A in any Private University.
"La Estatal" pwnz.

At 12/10/09 01:43 AM, Warforger wrote: The difference is that there are federal programs which allow people who don't have the money to pay for food, to get food, its called food stamps.

Wow, nice catch. I didn't think you'd be able to counter his argument effectively.

At 12/10/09 07:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/9/09 04:24 PM, Elfer wrote: I think a decent way to make post-secondary education more socialized would be to provide merit-based subsidies for a limited number of slots in particular types of programs that develop skills that are actually needed by society.

Australia actually has a system like this, where there are "Commonwealth supported places" for a certain number of positions in each course.
The amount that is subsidised is dependant upon the tier in which a course is, with tiers varying based on what government deems as being most important. Teachers doctors nurses etc. are called 'national prorities' and receive the greatest subsidies.

But because it's Australia the system in inevitably retarded.

We have that tendency as well here: to complain about the country albeit it performs acceptably or even above the norm (lately, it's been "OMG BRAZIL IS GOING TO BE THE SUPERPOWER AND WE WON'T BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MONTONERO KIRCHNERS"). I think it's an English trait.
Is it like that in Canada too, Elfer?

At 12/10/09 03:08 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: You get the idea: not anarchy, but more involvement.

Yeah, I got it.

Anecdotally, here in Canada I find that in general, private schooling has a reputation no better than public schooling, and in many cases worse, as universities will sometimes find that due to the non-standard courses, people coming out of these schools lack the skills that they want applicants to have (this is partially due to the fact that there's no equivalent to the SAT, at least here in Ontario).

Same here, but in Higher Education. A C in my college is worth as much as an A in any Private University.
"La Estatal" pwnz.

At 12/10/09 01:43 AM, Warforger wrote: The difference is that there are federal programs which allow people who don't have the money to pay for food, to get food, its called food stamps.

Wow, nice catch. I didn't think you'd be able to counter his argument effectively.

At 12/10/09 07:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/9/09 04:24 PM, Elfer wrote: I think a decent way to make post-secondary education more socialized would be to provide merit-based subsidies for a limited number of slots in particular types of programs that develop skills that are actually needed by society.

Australia actually has a system like this, where there are "Commonwealth supported places" for a certain number of positions in each course.
The amount that is subsidised is dependant upon the tier in which a course is, with tiers varying based on what government deems as being most important. Teachers doctors nurses etc. are called 'national prorities' and receive the greatest subsidies.

But because it's Australia the system in inevitably retarded.

We have that tendency as well here: to complain about the country albeit it performs acceptably or even above the norm (lately, it's been "OMG BRAZIL IS GOING TO BE THE SUPERPOWER AND US NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MONTONERO KIRCHNERS"). I think it's an English trait.
Is it like that in Canada too, Elfer?

At 12/8/09 08:40 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: I've always had trouble with fitting anywhere on the standard political charts.

You're what we'd call a facho. Congratulations! Now go listen Radio 10 and complain how this communist government won't murder demonstrators, poor people, and non-whites in general.

At 12/10/09 12:57 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 12/10/09 10:45 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: That's why Nazis prefer ARGENTINA! =D

And here I thought they preferred Paraguay. :P

Nah, we hid them all in the Patagonia. And apparently, gold was involved as well.

You're having a nice summer though, I bet. I'm wrapped up in a blanket here.

28ºC It's too hot to wear my jeans =(
I like the spring, when all the Linden trees blossom

At 12/10/09 10:25 AM, ThePretenders wrote:

At 12/10/09 09:54 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: I think I've never eaten fried chicken. We rarely fry things, we oven people.

Fixed for awesomeness.

That's why Nazis prefer ARGENTINA! =D

I think I've never eaten fried chicken. We rarely fry things, we're oven people.

At 12/9/09 06:07 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: I think he was implying that it was funny that his black coworker threatened him over KFC because it is a major stereotype of black people that they are violent and that they like fried chicken. ;)

OH, that racist implication. I had got that.

New Lounge rule: one racist implication at a time.

At 12/9/09 05:15 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/9/09 04:22 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: UNFAAAIR

Sorry, dude. You do get the racist implications, though, right?

There's a copy-cat recipe for their chicken spices here. I've got everything except the MSG in my cabinet, so I may try it out here shortly.

Yeah, we have no KFC because of our Italian origins, apparently.

At 12/9/09 04:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 12/8/09 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Government should be put in charge of providing the menial and unimportant things in life that don't do terrible harm to the economy and to the people at large if they are provided by a coercive monopoly. Snack foods, tennis shoes, rubber bands, card board boxes... etc.

Public goods in its formal definition (which greatly reduces the scope of the term) are (mathematically) proved to be inefficiently provided by a free market.
Nevertheless, empirical evidence shows that other goods (mostly, those with high externalities) are better provided by an entity with coercive power, as you'd call it. Just click at the links I have provided.

For one, most people have little to no idea in any situation (Or they do but it doesn't factor into their decision making) that certain actions have positive externalities, yet they none the less do the. And Something having positive externalities is a rather open ended criterion for making something public or private. That my taking showers makes me smell pleasant to those around me and conveys a positive externality would seldom constitute a valid justification for state subsidies to my showers.

Two, ALL goods fit the criteria of having a positive benefit to society if they were provided "For Free" and Universally, if it was possible to conjure these goods up at no cost what-so-ever, and this is what i assume the public goods advocates refer to when they advocate making something free and provided to all citizens regardless of the ability to pay.

However, i look at something such as Education, in which Public education is most usually more expensive (per child per year) as far as costs go, and often times of equal or even lower quality than private education. And it makes me wonder how much Utility society loses from having to have it's education provided (Albeit universally) at High prices and low quality by a monopoly.

I find neither arguments to be true; educational level's most important determinant is socioeconomic level, that's why a global view on the topic makes people believe that private education is better, since wealthier people attend private schools. Normally, public and private education have the same quality,CETERIS PARIBUS (@ adshepard :P) Actually, if you look at the top educational achievers, you'll see all public systems, that are really free, the government even pays for all the materials the children will need. And Finland does not only beat the Public Sector in the US, which is said to be underfunded, etc, but also the best private universities. There is no equality-efficiency trade-off here: it's not denying the wealthiest individuals a better educational level in favor of those who cannot afford private education: everyone is better off.
Secondly, I do not have figures on cost in the United States, but undoubtely the government is waay more efficient in the provision of higher education here: While the cheapest (read, really bad) private university costs $500 a month = $6000 a year, while top public university (read, UBA) has $1.5 billion budget for 300,000 students, $5000 a year.

As far as levels of welfare go, the only possible way for a society to be able to manage excessively expensive welfare states in the first place is for there to be some semblance of emergent order in production such that people can afford the kind of tax rates necessary to pay for monopolized 'public' goods. No Third world country could afford to fork over a sizable fraction of their income to pay for health, education, and government services until they've achieved a complete or partial developed nation status.

Not true either, those countries that have faced high economic growth have done so prior to the establishment of universal education; Argentina copied the American educational system in the late 1800s, and South Korea did the same before the export boom.
And small (measured by cost) government programs can have huge results, for example, Cuba erradicated dengue fever simply by coercion, it created penalties on those who did not made sure to have covered all water pools; in the mean time, I'm spending loads of money on repel.

At 12/9/09 09:38 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/9/09 09:21 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: KFC = CFK in English?

Uh.... no.

UNFAAAIR

At 12/8/09 08:32 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Strawberry rhubarb pie in the kitchen, can't eat it until it cools down. It smells SO good. I think that's the only thing I hate about cooking - it smells edible way before it is!

Now I'm hungry.

At 12/9/09 12:38 AM, Proteas wrote: A black guy at work told me he'd cut me if I didn't bring him some KFC

KFC = CFK in English?

At 12/9/09 09:16 AM, Proteas wrote: I see no one wants to touch that one with a 39 and a half foot pole.... so...

I demand math kitty pic now! =D

At 12/8/09 08:59 PM, AndyTHL555 wrote:

I suggest you at least read what the original poster has said, not only the subject of the thread.

At 12/8/09 08:03 PM, kraor024 wrote: What should the government provide for free?

Water, health care, & birth control.

Not education?

At 12/8/09 07:57 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: As experience in Africa has shown, the problem of providing basic goods for free is that it undermines the production of similar goods of the cost-money variety. If the choice is between working or starving, a person will surely choose work. But when the choice is between working and living lower class, a significant part of the population chooses to live lower class, effectively reducing the number of available workers and paying customers without reducing the number of consumers.

That's why I said that a safety net half of the minimum wage should be in place, so as to leave incentives for work.

At 12/9/09 12:47 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: So things probably wouldn't be any better or worse without government involvement, but there are many instances where a more proactive people could improve matters by taking them into their own hands.

So basically, you're an anarchist. If Government action is irrelevant, and things could only get better with individuals being more proactive, then why have a government?

At 12/8/09 09:39 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/8/09 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Public goods such as health care, waste disposal, water and electric, food production, law, defense, are too important to be left in the hands of a small group of people decided by bizarre rituals called elections who are given frightening high levels of power to commit deeds otherwise considered anti-social.

So what you saying is, is that instead of putting it in the hands of the government whose goal is for the better of the people, we leave them to people whose only goal is money?

We generally do not care about the goals of the different individuals in the system, but the consequences of their pursuits of their goals. If the consequences of individualistic behavior were to be superior to that of altruistic behavior, then, why condemn it?

Who'd you rather hire, a surgeon that cuts you open for the money, or your 13yo that really cares about whether you live or die, but hasn't even finished high school?

At 12/8/09 09:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: Don't forget to include a utility function describing x number of utiles a person receives from having good y for time span z.

Heh. Actually, that analysis is applicable here, let X be a privately provided good, G a good which consumption is not individual... eh, never mind.

Seriously, dude, I know you're all about the economics, but must you use it in common speech? "Let the minimum wage be A, then A/2 etc." I'm surprised you didn't work Ceteris parebus in somewhere.

The thing is I've got a linear Algebra final next week, and I've studied so many definitions and demonstrations that I'm starting to talk like that.
Ask me to prove that two eigenvectors related to two different eigenvalues are linearly independent.
ASK ME NOW.

Anyway, you first asked what people deserve in terms of services, not monetary equivalents. If the service is meant to achieve some end, then probably one single value will not produce the same end for every single person ("people deserve to be healthy").

Care to elaborate? I believe that I know what you're saying but I'm not sure.

At 12/8/09 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Government should be put in charge of providing the menial and unimportant things in life that don't do terrible harm to the economy and to the people at large if they are provided by a coercive monopoly. Snack foods, tennis shoes, rubber bands, card board boxes... etc.

Public goods such as health care, waste disposal, water and electric, food production, law, defense, are too important to be left in the hands of a small group of people decided by bizarre rituals called elections who are given frightening high levels of power to commit deeds otherwise considered anti-social.

Public goods in its formal definition (which greatly reduces the scope of the term) are (mathematically) proved to be inefficiently provided by a free market.
Nevertheless, empirical evidence shows that other goods (mostly, those with high externalities) are better provided by an entity with coercive power, as you'd call it. Just click at the links I have provided.

At 12/8/09 05:29 PM, Stoicish wrote: It's a little hard to enjoy life when the government is able to provide everything for you in exchange for basic civil liberties.

We're not talking about communist regimes here, the question was what goods should be provided not in an ability-to-pay basis, ie, "freely" (rationing might apply); there is no loss of civil liberties.

At 12/8/09 04:48 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 12/8/09 03:00 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: The questions would be as following: What goods do you think a person deserves even if it does not have an ability to pay for it?

Water, basic food, shelter, basic clothing.

And when I say "basic" I do mean basic.

Define basic non-circularly.
I believe that such a wide array of goods freely provided is too much. I'd limit it to a monetary criteria. Let the minimum wage be A, then give a universal grant of A/2. Or have it implemented as a per-child grant, based on the kid's academic achievement (not that he is an A-grader, basically that he goes and passes school, has all the vaccines, etc).

At 12/8/09 06:28 PM, Ismael92 wrote: I live in Uruguay

Best country in the world
You, sir, win this thread.
*modship*

There have been problems with people taking advantage of our educational system (people from other countries who come here to study for free, and then leave), but I think that's not possible anymore (I think you must pay a tax or something if you study here and go to another country, I'm not sure though).

Actually, I don't believe in free higher education, I like the loan system: it's free if you want, but pay later when you are a qualified worker.

A common argument set forth by those who favor communist regimes in Latin America has been the example of Cuba: with a much more limited amount of resources, it is able to achieve the same level of social welfare as its more affluent neighbors, namely, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile.
I would then like to focus into which goods should be universally provided (ie communism!). Most countries have a "communistic" primary educational system, basic health services, while others also have universal higher education systems many European countries have established "safety nets", minimum incomes for all, etc.
The questions would be as following: What goods do you think a person deserves even if it does not have an ability to pay for it?

If you're interested in the subject, you should check this link, or grab an introductory public-finance book (Stiglitz, Musgrave and Musgrave, or whatever you google).

I never really understood the difference (let alone the reason of existence) of BA and BS degrees.

That's why the media needs to be public, yet independent from the government, in my humble opinion. Otherwise, you end up having crap TV, which is what people want.