Female validation explained

[AttackFormation]

People that have made poor decisions in life and are now utterly dependent on the support of others.

We're all utterly dependent on the support of others in civilized society with division of labor.

You've been had dude. You think the economy is regressing for most people because of "the parasitic underclass", lol. I dunno whether to laugh or sigh. Whatever...

 

[user43770]

We're all utterly dependent on the support of others in civilized society with division of labor.

You've been had dude. You think the economy is regressing for most people because of "the parasitic underclass", lol. I dunno whether to laugh or sigh. Whatever...

I meant financial support, but I think you knew that.

I wasn't trying to blame all of our economic woes on poor people. I was going further into how the West will decline, with the intention of ending on a sort of "enjoy the decline" type thought.

 

[Who Dares Win]

lol, "parasitic underclass" that has "grown too numerable". What a fvcking joke.

Women, minorities and elders cost more than what they produce or pay in taxes*, I guess thats what he meant and he is right about it.

This is the reason why democracy failes, that would be like the whole family voting how to spend daddys paycheck.

*with all the due exceptions clearly.

 

[AttackFormation]

Women, minorities and elders cost more than what they produce or pay in taxes*, I guess thats what he meant and he is right about it.

This is the reason why democracy failes, that would be like the whole family voting how to spend daddys paycheck.

*with all the due exceptions clearly.

I see where you're coming from, but the reason your income and consumption is taxed and society is suffering financially is not because of any underclass that we can't provide for without bankrupting society. It's because capital (society's surplus of wealth where the flow of funds is directed, and more and more so by now) has been systematically untaxed in combination with austerity, privatization and market fundamentalism. This is a calculated and internationally coordinated wealth (and thus also power) transfer upward. The crab-bucket social resentment of scapegoats is just what right wing economics uses to push this policy, inciting people to kick downwards and use their emotions instead of facts... and it works great. Which is also why I don't normally bother to argue about it and I shouldn't have started doing it here either, haha...

It really is pointless to argue over this, as we are going back to the 19th century right now materially regardless of which scapegoat we want to blame. Wealth is polarizing more and more. In Sweden we now have the 7th or 8th highest wealth inequality in the world with 10% of the population having 75% of the wealth and growing, because of the right wing economic policies enacted by all of the political establishment, so called "leftists" as well. This polarization is unprecedented since the 19th century, before universal suffrage and labor movements. Sooner or later this will create a visibly material effect in our societies, at which point reactionary and progressive movements will fight it out again when the status quo collapses as it did after WW1, and then we'll see what happens.

 

[user43770]

I see where you're coming from, but the reason your income and consumption is taxed and society is suffering financially is not because of any underclass that we can't provide for without bankrupting society. It's because capital (society's surplus of wealth where the flow of funds is directed, and more and more so by now) has been systematically untaxed in combination with austerity, privatization and market fundamentalism. This is a calculated and internationally coordinated wealth (and thus also power) transfer upward. The crab-bucket social resentment of scapegoats is just what right wing economics uses to push this policy, inciting people to kick downwards and use their emotions instead of facts... and it works great. Which is also why I don't normally bother to argue about it and I shouldn't have started doing it here either, haha...

It really is pointless to argue over this, as we are going back to the 19th century right now materially regardless of which scapegoat we want to blame. Wealth is polarizing more and more. In Sweden we now have the 7th or 8th highest wealth inequality in the world with 10% of the population having 75% of the wealth and growing, because of the right wing economic policies enacted by all of the political establishment, so called "leftists" as well. This polarization is unprecedented since the 19th century, before universal suffrage and labor movements. Sooner or later this will create a visibly material effect in our societies, at which point reactionary and progressive movements will fight it out again when the status quo collapses as it did after WW1, and then we'll see what happens.

Get off your high horse. No economist tricked me into looking down on sh1tty people who abuse the system. Rich or poor.

We can talk trash about TPTB too if you want, but I don't have the pleasure of interacting with them in my day-to-day life, so my observations may be limited.

 

[AttackFormation]

Get off your high horse. No economist tricked me into looking down on sh1tty people who abuse the system. Rich or poor.

We can talk trash about TPTB too if you want, but I don't have the pleasure of interacting with them in my day-to-day life, so my observations may be limited.

I didn't say you were tricked. I said they incite emotions over facts (this isn't a "trickery" if emotions matter more to someone than the facts, which is typically the case) and use your social resentment to push their policy.

 

[user43770]

I didn't say you were tricked. I said they incite emotions over facts (this isn't a "trickery" if emotions matter more to someone than the facts, which is typically the case) and use your social resentment to push their policy.

Ok I see what you mean. So you're talking about politicians pushing certain policies, or do you mean global financiers? Same thing I guess.

 

[AttackFormation]

Ok I see what you mean. So you're talking about politicians pushing certain policies, or do you mean global financiers? Same thing I guess.

Yeah those are pretty much the same thing. Got a whole site on it here that I read, for reference.

 

[user43770]

Yeah those are pretty much the same thing. Got a whole site on it here that I read, for reference.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the major factors leading us to this point in the U.S.: Doubling the work force via women, ever-increasing entitlement spending, sending production overseas and wide-open third-world immigration.

There's obviously more involved than that, but that's why I hate talking economics, because we can go on forever.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I see where you're coming from, but the reason your income and consumption is taxed and society is suffering financially is not because of any underclass that we can't provide for without bankrupting society. It's because capital (society's surplus of wealth where the flow of funds is directed, and more and more so by now) has been systematically untaxed in combination with austerity, privatization and market fundamentalism. This is a calculated and internationally coordinated wealth (and thus also power) transfer upward. The crab-bucket social resentment of scapegoats is just what right wing economics uses to push this policy, inciting people to kick downwards and use their emotions instead of facts... and it works great. Which is also why I don't normally bother to argue about it and I shouldn't have started doing it here either, haha...

It really is pointless to argue over this, as we are going back to the 19th century right now materially regardless of which scapegoat we want to blame. Wealth is polarizing more and more. In Sweden we now have the 7th or 8th highest wealth inequality in the world with 10% of the population having 75% of the wealth and growing, because of the right wing economic policies enacted by all of the political establishment, so called "leftists" as well. This polarization is unprecedented since the 19th century, before universal suffrage and labor movements. Sooner or later this will create a visibly material effect in our societies, at which point reactionary and progressive movements will fight it out again when the status quo collapses as it did after WW1, and then we'll see what happens.

Bro we all had the political economics at class, its doesnt need a nobel prize winner to confirm that a drug addictcs that doesnt work but take advantages of hospitals and welfare checks its baggage to everyone as much as it doesnt need a top accountant to see that a welfare queen with a rainbow of bastard childs costs to society more than what she gives especially given that the bastards are many times more likely than their peers to abuse drugs and commit crimes in the long run.

If hypotetically elders, post wall women and most minorities in western europe would move to a richer colony in mars, there wouldnt need any policy from the the european istitutiona to set the economy straight...it would fix itself in a couple of years given the surplus of providers and the lack of leechers.

And clearly lets not forget public employees, "we are twice the needed number and we work half of whats needed".

Since you have to brag about your knowledge in economy, you probably remember "a guy" who said that there are no free meals.

Not that your points from a macro view are wrong, not saying that.

 

[AttackFormation]

Bro we all had the political economics at class, its doesnt need a nobel prize winner to confirm that a drug addictcs that doesnt work but take advantages of hospitals and welfare checks its baggage to everyone as much as it doesnt need a top accountant to see that a welfare queen with a rainbow of bastard childs costs to society more than what she gives especially given that the bastards are many times more likely than their peers to abuse drugs and commit crimes in the long run.

If hypotetically elders, post wall women and most minorities in western europe would move to a richer colony in mars, there wouldnt need any policy from the the european istitutiona to set the economy straight...it would fix itself in a couple of years given the surplus of providers and the lack of leechers.

And clearly lets not forget public employees, "we are twice the needed number and we work half of whats needed".

Since you have to brag about your knowledge in economy, you probably remember "a guy" who said that there are no free meals.

Whatever dude. If you really believe the economy would "fix itself" after you get rid of elders, women, public employees and minorities I don't wanna waste my time arguing, our brains don't interpret the world in a mutually intelligible way. Might as well try to speak chinese and nahuatl to each other.

I do remember MF. He's a great con man.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Whatever dude. If you really believe the economy would "fix itself" after you get rid of elders, women, public employees and minorities I don't wanna waste my time arguing, our brains don't interpret the world in a mutually intelligible way. Might as well try to speak chinese and nahuatl to each other.

I do remember MF. He's a great con man.

I'm not saying that economy "would fix itself" by removing people, I'm talking about resources allocation and that removing the wrong allocation would improve economy definitely.

It's not my idea that high taxation cut legs to growth while low taxation pushes growth, now if someone cant provide for himself while consuming more than he creates there is no other way than taxing other to give him the same services.

If 10 guys are paying the "public" care but 20 use it, needless to say that someone is paying more than what he should.

I know my previous post may sound cynic, its than we talk economics we have to talk facts not moral.

What you said on a macro scale its not something I necessarily disagree globally, its just a big blaming the 1% while not keeping accountable the 99%, do you recall what kind of resource allocation they had in Greece before the collapse?

Do you remember the golden retirement for public employees and even benefits for their family members just to name one among the many? in some cases they even had contributions for women who failed to find a husband.

Sure the greek case has been solved in the wrong way from the top but the problem had a strong contribution from the bottom.

 

[user43770]

I've been of two minds about this lately. Generally I'm pretty libertarian, but that has more to do with me as an individual than with government policy, which I can't really change anyway.

But since ALL governments tax and redistribute, my opinion is that a safety net of public health care is a sound investment. Not Obamacare, and I don't mean abolishing private insurance as an alternative. Just something for the have-nots so nobody is getting backbreaking medical bills.

Either way, the consumer or taxpayer with money will bear the cost. An unpaid $20,000 medical bill is just going to be collected from the people who are paying rates. With a public health, it's via taxes and paid in advance. Someone gets sick and everyone chips in. I would gladly pay "more than I should" if I know it'll be there for me if I'm in dire straits.

I know in the USA we look at people like that as "leeches" and some of them are. And there's this fear of quote-unquote socialism or even just the question of whether taxpayers can afford it. But when I think about a lot of the other useless crap government spends money on, I'm sure somehow the US can afford it. Not just for deadbeats, but the elderly, war veterans, the handicapped, and the unemployed.

Anyway, I'm not an economist so I don't have all the answers, just my $.02.

I'm all for having a safety net and government regulation, but when you let the government get involved in anything, the quality of the product is going to decrease. Medicare and Medicaid have a lot to do with why healthcare costs are currently so inflated.

When something is "free," there are always going to be people that consume an inordinate amount. This applies to healthcare, as well as any money via tax dollars.

I worked on an ambulance many years ago, and the majority of our calls were not emergencies. They were minor things that a normal person would go to the local clinic for. But since these people had Medicare or Medicaid, they took a free ride to the emergency room, which ultimately cost the taxpayer thousands of dollars.

 

[user43770]

Whatever dude. If you really believe the economy would "fix itself" after you get rid of elders, women, public employees and minorities I don't wanna waste my time arguing, our brains don't interpret the world in a mutually intelligible way. Might as well try to speak chinese and nahuatl to each other.

I do remember MF. He's a great con man.

If there were more producers than consumers, and the government didn't find ridiculous ways to blow tax dollars, the economy would eventually fix itself. You don't need an economics degree to know that.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I've been of two minds about this lately. Generally I'm pretty libertarian, but that has more to do with me as an individual than with government policy, which I can't really change anyway.

But since ALL governments tax and redistribute, my opinion is that a safety net of public health care is a sound investment. Not Obamacare, and I don't mean abolishing private insurance as an alternative. Just something for the have-nots so nobody is getting backbreaking medical bills.

Either way, the consumer or taxpayer with money will bear the cost. An unpaid $20,000 medical bill is just going to be collected from the people who are paying rates. With a public health, it's via taxes and paid in advance. Someone gets sick and everyone chips in. I would gladly pay "more than I should" if I know it'll be there for me if I'm in dire straits.

I know in the USA we look at people like that as "leeches" and some of them are. And there's this fear of quote-unquote socialism or even just the question of whether taxpayers can afford it. But when I think about a lot of the other useless crap government spends money on, I'm sure somehow the US can afford it. Not just for deadbeats, but the elderly, war veterans, the handicapped, and the unemployed.

Anyway, I'm not an economist so I don't have all the answers, just my $.02.

I'm a libertarian too, dont get me wrong Im fine with public healthcare as long as its done with some sense.

As tyty said below, the same moment something becomes "free", people starts abusing it, when bloodworks are free you get old people with no one to talk that hit the hospital once a week just to befriend the staff there with their "visits" on our wallets.

Even if we pay for them old people shelters where they can go play pool or sing togheter, they most likely wont attend cause they feel "old" there...oh btw when they flood to the hospital, the people who really needs it is in line.

It means workers not getting server when they need it and workers wasting time instead of working when their work taxes keep the hospital running.

Same thing with welfare generally, most people would rather live poorly with welfare checks rather than working and get a decent salary, I aint talking about temporary cases but people like many women in uk who live on welfare checks and public housing as a reward for spawning 3 kids from 3 different fathers which very likely will be a further weight on society growing up.

The principles we need to consider are 2.

1)when you punish something you have less of it, when you reward something you have more of it...think of taxes and welfare checks.

2)when those who leech become too much, it becomes unconvinient for those who sustain all to keep working so you will get a snowball effect of providers turning into leechers.

A well planned public healthcare in my opinion is necessary in a civilized country but at the same time it takes many counterbalances to make sure it works properly for everyone, same thing is all the other welfare items otherwise you screw up society and economy at the same time.

 

[user43770]

Yeah, I agree with you there. Government run = inefficient.

Really what I don't understand is why private insurance is so expensive in the US. Since I'm in Spain now, my private insurance is 47 euro a month, and that's for the most comprehensive plan. That also means no co-pays or "deductibles," which are among the greatest scams ever perpetrated on any consumer. (What the fukk is a deductible, anyway.)

Now, I haven't gone to the doctor yet, just the dentist. So I can't say for sure if it's better or worse than in America. Though that sets a low bar. I don't buy into the "best health care in the world" propaganda. Maybe at the level of Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic if you need some crazy shyt done. But then again, Peyton Manning flew to Europe for spinal surgery, so who knows.

My suspicion is the health insurers are cartels, like the cable companies. There's no actual competition.

I don't fully understand it either. There are so many factors at play with healthcare in the states. Medicare/Medicaid play a major role, but much of it also has to do with everyone covering their own ass. People sue medical providers like crazy. But we could talk about how ridiculous the legal field is all day, too.

 

[Xenom0rph]

My suspicion is the health insurers are cartels, like the cable companies. There's no actual competition.

True, that's why my premiums went up 3x after Obamacare passed.....and yet the liberals kept saying it would drive prices down. The only thing I agree with is that insurers should not be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.....

 

[zekko]

True, that's why my premiums went up 3x after Obamacare passed.....and yet the liberals kept saying it would drive prices down. The only thing I agree with is that insurers should not be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.....

It's not like Obamacare caused those premiums to go up though, it's more like it had no effect. The premiums were going up before Obamacare, they went up during Obamacare, and they're still going up today. If anything, the health insurance/health care problem is in bigger crisis today than ever before. I honestly don't know how some people pay for health insurance.

 

[Xenom0rph]

Okay, well, back to the subject of female validation:

Looks + Money + Status = Slayer

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Okay, well, back to the subject of female validation:

Looks + Money + Status = Slayer

LMS with zero game gets played.