The Gaming Den

violence in the media wrote: If it is somewhat on mark though, doesn't an adherence to such a philosophy mean that the concentration of wealth in America is a reflection of some qualities that make Americans more deserving of that wealth than the Chinese or the Indians?

Kind of like the "Mandate of Heaven" that the Chinese believed in at various points in history?

(For those not in the know, if an Emperor was powerful, he had the "Mandate of HEaven" to rule as he saw fit. If anyone overthrew him, they believed that the previous Emperor lost the Mandate, and the new guy gained it for being more worthy.)

Zinegata wrote:So stop using your own poverty and rage as an excuse for the fact that you advocated violence and chaos. You continued to do so. And you're trying to now paint _me_ as the villain because you had to backtrack your fucking bullshit position.

Even though Count may be understating his ability to improve his life, or overstating the dire circumstances thereof (no offense inteded either way, Count), he has a point in a certain way.

If you don't have any skin in the game, nor a capacity to advance by playing, what interest do you have in maintaining the rules? Especially in light of the people currently winning the game being able to change the rules to facilitate their continued dominance?

Societally, you pretty much have two choices with your population, you can maintain their investment in the game, or you can render them irrelevant. Count is, I think, expressing the understandable rage of feeling that he's being moved to, or already in, the irrelevance category.

violence in the media wrote:That wasn't really specific to the arguments of either of you, but was more geared towards you, Zinegata, as it is my impression that you tend to hold a mindest compatible with such a statement. If that's a mistaken impression, then, my apologies.

I have found it safe to assume that if somebody claims a conservative statement was made (even though it was never made), then it's safe to assume people think I did it. Because as I said, Den people are retards with regards to ideology and jump the gun all the time.

However, I have specifically avoided saying "It's your own fault if you're poor" because it's not true and it's one of those nitwit conservative positions. Your family's wealth, education, and a lot of things determine how wealthy you are. It's not your fault if you were born in Sub-Saharan Africa.

However, it is perfectly valid to counter somebody who claims that "We should have a little violence and chaos to solve our problems" with the argument that "America is a fucking democracy". That has NOTHING to do with wealth.

If it is somewhat on mark though, doesn't an adherence to such a philosophy mean that the concentration of wealth in America is a reflection of some qualities that make Americans more deserving of that wealth than the Chinese or the Indians?

I don't believe America deserves wealth any more than Chinese or Indians.

However, again, do you see Chinese or Indians calling for Americans to be lynched for being rich decadent bastards in the present day? Of course not. That's because we live in civilized times. Where we RESPECT each other's property.

You start saying "It's okay to add a little violence and chaos", and that system goes down the drain and you open yourself up to all kinds of shit. That it would affect the poor the worst - and the only part which Count is willing to concede - is just the least of the problems brought about by violence and chaos.

violence in the media wrote: (no offense inteded either way, Count)

None taken. I think all of use lose perspective from time to time, especially during times of extreme levels of frustration.

violence in the media wrote:Even though Count may be understating his ability to improve his life, or overstating the dire circumstances thereof (no offense inteded either way, Count), he has a point in a certain way.

If you don't have any skin in the game, nor a capacity to advance by playing, what interest do you have in maintaining the rules? Especially in light of the people currently winning the game being able to change the rules to facilitate their continued dominance?

Societally, you pretty much have two choices with your population, you can maintain their investment in the game, or you can render them irrelevant. Count is, I think, expressing the understandable rage of feeling that he's being moved to, or already in, the irrelevance category.

Again, why resort to violence in a country with elections? Why resort to violence in a country where a black man can be elected president?

It's a stupid argument to play if you're an American. It's the sort of argument you should be hearing from Tea Baggers and Rednecks who scream "The South Shall Rise Again!"

It is an election year. Vote for somebody who voted for bills that curb CEO abuses of power. Don't vote for people who got money from BP.

No one needs to fucking die.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

violence in the media wrote: If it is somewhat on mark though, doesn't an adherence to such a philosophy mean that the concentration of wealth in America is a reflection of some qualities that make Americans more deserving of that wealth than the Chinese or the Indians?

Kind of like the "Mandate of Heaven" that the Chinese believed in at various points in history?

(For those not in the know, if an Emperor was powerful, he had the "Mandate of HEaven" to rule as he saw fit. If anyone overthrew him, they believed that the previous Emperor lost the Mandate, and the new guy gained it for being more worthy.)

I fail to see how shifting the Mandate of Heaven - which generally involves revolts costing millions of lives - is something we really ought to emulate.

Americans may think the Civil War is cool and all, but you only lost 600,000 people. And yes, I said "only", because a Chinese revolt isn't major unless the death toll reaches millions.

I will address Zine one more time:

I admitted that I went off half-cocked and didn't think hard enough about my assertions. Continuing to hammer at me when I've conceded the argument is a bitch move, and it makes you a bitch.

I am sorry my apology wasn't good enough for you. But that's all you're getting. You win, you can stop playing now.

Actually, companies that are honest or share profits with employees or even follow the prevailing wage theory are penalized by the investor core. And while many would have you believe investors are other people who earn 50-250K, they're actually the guys in suits who control the pension funds and other companies.

So while no company gets penalized in the market for giving golden parachutes - it's for their buddies after all - I can right now name a company that is penalized in the market for paying its employees a decent wage or choosing to watch their shit. Currently their stock is undervalued; they just fought with a major vendor for having a competitor sell the vendor's product at below the price they were being sold the product; and a majority of one product sector refuses to sell to them, because they insist on testing the product before they sell it.

It doesn't take a company owning even a plurality of the market for it to wield monopolistic power.

And while I live in 'comfort' compared to some - it's due to lots of work by 'the little people' to make it that way. Americans didn't get their government on high; every villages, city, county, and state can make their own law regulating commerce within a few broad limits. And so they do.

-Crissa

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I will address Zine one more time:

I admitted that I went off half-cocked and didn't think hard enough about my assertions. Continuing to hammer at me when I've conceded the argument is a bitch move, and it makes you a bitch.

I am sorry my apology wasn't good enough for you. But that's all you're getting. You win, you can stop playing now.

Count, stop the bullshit and your veiled insults (with your "You win, stop playing now"). Again, you're worse than fucking Kaelik.

You never apologized to me. You apologized to violence in the media for something he thought I said.

So don't bullshit me about how you manned up to anything.

I apologize to you, Count, for making you feel as though you are not entitled to speak because there are other poor people out there. That was not my intent.

THAT is an apology. You deliver it to the person you wronged, not the fucking fourth wall.

Crissa wrote:Actually, companies that are honest or share profits with employees or even follow the prevailing wage theory are penalized by the investor core. And while many would have you believe investors are other people who earn 50-250K, they're actually the guys in suits who control the pension funds and other companies.

So while no company gets penalized in the market for giving golden parachutes - it's for their buddies after all - I can right now name a company that is penalized in the market for paying its employees a decent wage or choosing to watch their shit. Currently their stock is undervalued; they just fought with a major vendor for having a competitor sell the vendor's product at below the price they were being sold the product; and a majority of one product sector refuses to sell to them, because they insist on testing the product before they sell it.

It doesn't take a company owning even a plurality of the market for it to wield monopolistic power.

And while I live in 'comfort' compared to some - it's due to lots of work by 'the little people' to make it that way. Americans didn't get their government on high; every villages, city, county, and state can make their own law regulating commerce within a few broad limits. And so they do.

-Crissa

So, again, why not simply elect people who will actually reward decent companies?

Nobody has to die that way.

Per capita GDP has nothing to do with how we live. Most of India lives far below that point. But guess what? Most Americans live below $46K each, too.

So Count's point stands about how ignorant Zinegata is. Less than 2% control more than a third of that GDP.

Sure, the median looks pretty tasty, even. Except when you realize that they are not, by our laws, allowed to produce the things they need to live. Industrialized societies have one major downside: No subsistence agriculture (or any other production) allowed. So you can't live on very little GDP portion.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Per capita GDP has nothing to do with how we live. Most of India lives far below that point. But guess what? Most Americans live below $46K each, too.

So Count's point stands about how ignorant Zinegata is. Less than 2% control more than a third of that GDP.

Sure, the median looks pretty tasty, even. Except when you realize that they are not, by our laws, allowed to produce the things they need to live. Industrialized societies have one major downside: No subsistence agriculture (or any other production) allowed. So you can't live on very little GDP portion.

-Crissa

Your "analysis" afails on one significant level: Yes, there are rich and poor in America. But guess what? There are rich and poor in China and India too. And the gap between rich Chinese/Indians and poor Chinese/Indians is as bad or worse than in America.

So no, the poor of America still have nothing on the poor of the rest of the world. You can accuse me of oversimplification. But the basic thesis remains valid and you're just nit-picking.

Again, there are rich people, and there are poor people. This is the way civilizations are. And at least we've moved on to things like "elections" as opposed to letting rich people lop off the heads of peasants with their swords.

I can see something that Zine isn't understanding about the American government system that I'd like to address.

If neither of the two candidates oppose underhanded business practices, then you can't vote for one that opposes it. It is nearly impossible for someone who doesn't tow the party line of one of the two parties to even get on the ballot to run for any sort of office in most cases. (Locally, it's a bit easier because one has the time to go around the city and county and meet people personally to sway them. The higher you get in the political machine, the less likely an individual that isn't backed with billions of dollars can even get a chance to be elected.)

And with respect to Crissa, Democrats are better about supporting unethical businessmen than Republicans, but neither are very good at opposing them nationally (which is a shame).

The system is set up to greatly favor the 2% that control the 1/3 of the GDP, and very few candidates have the stones to oppose them (although most openly claim to do so, very few will actually follow through with policy).

Zinegata wrote:So, again, why not simply elect people who will actually reward decent companies?

Nobody has to die that way.

As Count said, many Americans are still insulated from the world and the shocks you listed. While they're busy scraping by living hand to mouth, they still believe the lies fed to them.

There's also some structural problems inherent in our federal government. Currently, while the Republicans hold 41 seats in the Senate, they represent only 30% of the population and economic activity. And yet they are able to stymie any lawmaking and even the installation of the administrative branch - barely half of Obama's selections have been allowed to take their seats, leaving many sections of the government still unled, almost halfway through his term. Voting is severely depressed, where persons working full time or at poverty levels are the group least likely to vote. They can be fired for taking time off for political activities (or medical, or...)

Add to that the market economy is very unfriendly to other types of economies. One of the broad limits to municipal governance is the ability to limit services to residents thereof - while you can limit a park to city residents, you cannot stop them from moving there, even as homeless. This means negative selection stops any sort of social services from getting broad traction unless enacted at the federal level. The free market can and will tromple smaller actors.

-Crissa

Zinegata wrote:Your "analysis" afails on one significant level: Yes, there are rich and poor in America. But guess what? There are rich and poor in China and India too. And the gap between rich Chinese/Indians and poor Chinese/Indians is as bad or worse than in America.

What does that have to do with anything?

That's why there's violent uprisings in those countries, suppressed by military action. That's why there's no violent uprisings in the US. Both Count and I said that.

However, a 1/3 of the American economy is enough to swallow India or China whole. When their children are able to afford to JAQ off on national news and confuse the issue without actually prescribing any solutions... How is the debate supposed to move anywhere?

Just like Zinegata's ridiculous claims about how all Americans are rich because our dollar appears so strong. He wouldn't say that if he knew how much money was needed just to get the basic calories of the day in a major city here compared to where he's from. And he's the same guy who supported companies having the right to hide their means of production and companies having the right to serve ultimately poisonous calories.

-Crissa

Oh, and I'd like to point something out: America has never been a democracy. That isn't a political statement, anything bigger than a village falls apart if they have to rely on being a democracy. We're more of anarchocapitalist state with a representative government (or a republic based on anarchocapitalism, if you prefer. Again, I'm not sure where the anarchy ends and the representation begins most days).

Count/Crissa->

Before I respond regarding the American political system, let me preface this by sharing how the past two Filipino presidents have acted.

Joseph Estrada was a former actor who won by a landslide. He was impeached via a military coup after it was discovered he had stolen billions of pesos by controlling an illegal gambling syndicate.

He was suceeded by his Vice President, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Who extended her term by rigging an election. After the vote-rigging was exposed (via audio tape), she refused to step down and clung to power until the end of her term. She was so corrupt that Obama refused to meet her when she asked for a meeting. We were so pissed off at her that during the mid-term elections we voted Lt. Trillanes - a Marine who had launched a coup against her - as a Senator of the Philippines.

So compared to the shit I've experienced, I don't really wanna hear Americans whining about their political system .

That being said, may I remind you that candidates for your elections are also usually selected via voting. So just be an active Democrat/Republican and be there when you nominate the candidates.

Or setup your own party and run as an independent.

Because frankly, many Filipinos would _kill_ to have a government like America's. Where being a local candidate doesn't come with actual assassination attempts as opposed to just wacky tea party death threats.

Crissa wrote:However, a 1/3 of the American economy is enough to swallow India or China whole.

I rest my case that America is indeed, stinking rich.

And I will ignore the rest of what Crissa says because she's going into tangents that I never went into in the first place.

So... You've seen corruption, therefore a non-corrupt system is better, even if tilted towards...

What's the point, exactly? That I'm lucky that I live with a PS3 in a town where I don't have to lock my door to keep it?

If you'd kill to have our government, why don't you have it? Oh, wait, you did, and you do.

-Crissa

That you have avenues other than violence to address your economic and social grievances? And it's half-decent compared to the rest of the world?

Because you know, Count was advocating lynching CEOs, and I was dead-set against it?

Are you even aware of what we're talking about? Or are you gonna be an insinuating insulting bitch yet again?

Well Zine:

This is an American message board where the admin is an American, with mostly American posters. I would like to say I welcome knowing what other people in the world have to say, but ultimately if you don't want to hear Americans complaining about their political system you are free to not read this thread anymore. Still hundreds of threads left on the board without complaining about American politics for you to enjoy.

I'm not trying to dismiss your pain and frustration by any means, but I am saying that I'm not going to quit acknowledging flaws in our own system and at least think about how they can be fixed (and violence has been struck off the list of things that might help, thank you for enlightening me.)

Ignoring the whole "You don't belong here! We're Team USA!" bullshit...

Did you miss the entire second half of my post?

That you can, in fact, influence who are your local candidates if you simply actively participate in the party you're registered in?

Which gets rid of the "They're both in BPs pocket!" issue?

You say you feel helpless. I described the framework how you can change your own country. Without lynching people.

I'm beginning to feel that you both don't want problems to be solved so you can go on being angry.

You have a system. It does not involve rebellions where millions of people die. Use it, or lose it. It's your choice.

Good night.

Zinegata wrote: That you can, in fact, influence who are your local candidates if you simply actively participate in the party you're registered in?

I think you're assigning more value to this statement than there is in reality. Besides, supporting one local candidate over another, regardless of their policies, isn't likely to change the fact that you make $9 an hour working in the mall.

Affecting political change is hard. Not impossible luckily, but even getting your fellow citizens to give a damn about anything besides sports is arduous and not very rewarding. But it's fucking necessary in a democracy, to have a viable democracy you need more than just going to the polls every few years and casting a ballot.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote: I might have allowed my frustration to get the better of me and I went off half-cocked. I do that from time to time. My apologies.

The fact that I apologize for ANYTHING makes me a bigger man than anyone here.

Except maybe Koumei.

*eh-hem*


The fact of the matter is that "per capita" income is practically meaningless when we're talking poor people. Cause I can tell you, I sure as hell ain't make $46k a year, and if the per capita income of two people is $46k, then means little, except that, if one of the people is making nothing, the other is making $92K a year.

So yeah, our country is fucking rich as hell compared to some others like India and China (I honestly wonder if that has anything to do with the social, political and religious structures), But I doubt I'm much better off than every single Indian. Hell, I *know* there are Indians better off than me, because when I call tech support, I get an Indian guy, meaning there are people in India with jobs.

I'm not as bad off as Count, but that's because I swallowed my pride and moved back in with my parents. Granted, I'm still young enough that people don't necessarily see much wrong with that, and the situation's partially my doing since I'm not scouring the streets for any job that'll hire me...