Meshugger

Yes and no. "Yes" to that we live in a consumer-based society. "No" to that we live in a capitalistic society. It's more of capitalist-lite, with a heavy dose corporatism (basically fascism). Big business always try to influence the governing body to change it for their behalf, and those in government usually don't mind to get a little boon from big business. People high up in government usually have experience from working high up in the private sector and vice versa; And more so, the positions switch every now and then. That's why there's this 'crisis'. Don't you find it interesting that those who voted against the bailout where the ones with the least of influence?(of course there's other political factors, but on the whole)

MIKE GRAVEL! (i just had to say it)

ah, gotcha. not sure i buy into that notion, however. at least, i'm not sure i agree that any politician we've had in the US is actually "free market," at least not for quite some time. nafta is a bad thing, IMO, too. oh, that movie i watched, bordertown (mentioned on the movie thread), had some not-so-nice things to say about nafta and the problems it has caused. not a big deal with canada, since they are economically on par with the US (so there isn't really any wage imbalance problem with them), but with mexico, and central america... taks Nah, i haven't had Clinton on my mind for a while, but the cartoon reminded me. Here's a more superficial analysis.

based on the cartoon? hardly indicative of anything other than political bias. reagan was the one that passed the balanced budget act (and the compromise with congress was a tax raise, btw). clinton got the benefit of being required to balance the budget, and a republican controlled congress. tax and spend liberals can't spend unless congress and the president are willing to do so. when there's a split, there is no spending. when there's control of both by one party, they're all spendy, liberal or conservative. clinton is apparently one of those "third way" guys, from what i've been reading. nothing more than a silly disguise for "socialist that doesn't want to admit it." taks It was not based on the cartoon. It was just anecdote.

The combat in The Witcher succeeds in what it is trying to do, but by itself, it is nothing outstanding. What i do like about it, is: - C&C, it usually not between good and evil, but more amoral. You do one thing, and it leads to the next. Being so mundane, it also shows it's greatest strength. - The atmosphere, very medieval. Castles have walls that are painted according to the worlds culture, the racism between the dwarves, elves, and humans, there's no pure evil, nor pure altruism, love it. Playing it with polish language pack even makes it more apparent on what sapkowski and the devs envisioned. This is a work with passion with a capital P, and it succeeded. //EDIT: People, play with the polish language pack + subtitles. The others might be from 'ok' to 'good', but you miss the essence of what the Witcher should be by hinder yourself to another language.

I would like to add that i find it funny that Bill Clinton, the "tax & spend" liberal, was the most pro-"free market" of the bunch. And i don't mean within the US borders, he actually opened up the US more to the global economy.

Go to any newssite. Dow Jones fell today by 778 points, biggest fall in history(by points, not percentage). Holy smokes. This is like watching a hurricane from afar, you know it dangerous, but you can't stop looking.

I would like to add something as well, eventhough this spiraled out of control while i was away. 1. The Soviet Union collapsed mainly because of one thing: In their planned economy, there were no transportation costs. Think about it again. The size of the soviets, and transportation costs don't "exist". Yup, it was that easy. 2. The Austrian school of economics, which closely seems to resemble taks' personal views, are interesting on a couple of things: - They believe that since humans are inherently irrational atleast once in their lifetimes, then no mathematical model will ever suffice for economics. One has to use deductive logic instead. - Since the perfect trade needs all the information available for the trader, therefore no trade is without risks (noone can know everything). - Markets never stay at one equilibrium. They rather float between several ones, ever changing as long as trade is taking place. But there's one problem that i have there. It is very individualistic, as in everything starts and ends depending on the actions of the individual. Therein lies the problem; Every individual has his own will and will act on it, but it is in human nature to have compassion, empathy and other social attributes. No matter what Ayn Rand thinks, people will still come together, come to agreements and protect family and the herd whenever needed. This is why there should be a somewhat balance here. The government should not intervene with the capital too much (the bailout), but rather serve the interest of the wellbeing of it's citizens. What do the ordinary joe support? A banking bailout or the creation of a fund for those that really will suffer from the crash?

Ah, now i remember. There was a group that managed to seize one judg'se property as protest against his ruling on such a matter. They turned it into a public park, iirc.

they upheld a decision in NH in which some people had land confiscated to make way for some commercial development. the "public use" clause was interpreted to mean "raises more taxes therefore is good for the community" rather than "public park or roadway, etc." it is decisions like these, those that favor some sector of the business world, that are an affront to "rights," and create the environment we have, which i hate, allowing special interests to ultimately decide our fate. the government is in the pocket of big business, and we're screwed as long as we allow this to happen. taks I have never heard about that before. I'll get back later, i need to do some reading on the subject.

other than domestic financial policy, i'd agree 100%. not much changes. domestic financial policy see-saws, and overall, except for taxes, is really driven by congress and the fed more than anything (really, by the fed, since they determine the amount of money available to the system). i.e., the president really doesn't set "domestic financial policy" in any meaningful way (even with taxes, the president only recommends the changes). the only problem that i ever see is when there is control over legislation and its approval by one party. we spend ourselves into oblivion. the balance with SCOTUS is really immaterial. they don't decide much that impacts the average joe. even the kelo decision, as bad as i think it is, will rarely have any effect on most in the US (like, 99.9999% of us will never notice). taks kelo decision? What's that?

Well, here's Chomsky's take on free market and his support for Adam Smith's ideas.

Let's make it even more easier: taks: government meddle in the market == bad random_noob: if (government meddle in the market) == bad then ? Carry on.

She is a 'young earth'-er as well. Neverminding those links that i put up for a moment. After all, as you said, congress and the courts ultimately decide these things. But remember (in case McCain kicks the bucket): - Congress and Senate can easily again fall under republican majority. - Whenever it may happen, she would get to pick the judges in the supreme court (and with a majority controlled senate and congress, there wouldn't be a debate). Guard Dog right on some points. When a party has almost absolute majority, it is never in the best interest for the avarage american.

Uh-huh?

This. Has the US policy towards the middle east changed during the last 20 years? Has the domestic financial policy changed? Has the energy policy changed? And so on...On the whole, not much has changed no matter if it was Carter or Reagan or Bush. Listened to Bill Hicks lately, i presume? Hilarious either way. The current system is built for winners, not for those who are the 'good guys'. The financial and political system rewards winners, who are usually opportunistic, ethically and morally flexible, and seek power for self-gratification, and are not afraid to bestow their power in the most machiavellian ways. The good guys don't win, since they seek justice, empathy and the wellbeing of others. Will those values get you to the top of: - The industrial sector? - The banking and financial sector? - The political establishment? Not really. Well, some will say "But Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus?". Well yeah, look what happened to them.

Good points and good questions, i wish that there would be someone with a good answer.

Personal collection maybe? (even if this sector is really small). As Xard said, a vast majority of all weapons in Finland are used for hunting. Trying to ban guns will never lead you anywhere. It's like aspirin against braincancer.

I just saw Nader on Bill Maher. Boy, the guy was one step away from But he did offer some interesting points: - "The only real capitalism left in this country is in the small business, mom & pop-stores and alike, at least they have the freedom to file for bankrupsy." - "Big companies however, get help from socialistic superman, flying from his washington HQ to the rescue." - "History books will write this episode down as 'The corporate destruction of capitalism." This might belong in the economy-thread, but hey, Nader is running for president, isn't he?

And I work with one of the guys who did some graphics code for LBP... Your point? ^Show-off. Tell us about the game instead

A picture from last night's debate. Before, Obama had this snide "f*** yeah" facial expression through the debate. But this photo from when his wife steps up to congratulate him.... Youuuuu....areeeee......so beautiful......to meeeeeeee......

In 2004, the presidential debate had to be the most dull thing that i've ever seen since "Dude, where's my car?". Now, in 2008, it got marginally better, it looked like they actually tried to have a conversation this time. First some superficial points - McCain didn't have a flagpin, Obama did. - Obama had one of the most sinister grin that i have seen on his face every time he knew that he had painted McCain in the corner. - McCain looked like he would've smacked Obama when he said "That simply isn't true". - McCain didn't look at Obama one single time during the debate. - Obama seems to stutter at times. - McCain had the "i'm too old for this political bull****" face on him. More on the content, neither one said anything remarkable. They used the oldest trick in the book in terms of rhethoric though; I doesn't matter if you're right, it is more important to try to show that your opponent's view is wrong. McCain tried this on numerous of occassions. Neither seemed to know what to do about the bailout, even managing to make the moderator furious. Iraq turned into a "what's the difference between tactics and strategy"-hoopla. On taxes, Obama did a good job at trying to point out that the middle class should be in focus, since they make out the majority of all americans. But all in all, it was quite irritating to see them pointing fingers at each other half the time. I am more interested in Biden vs. Palin.

I just dug out my old copy. Now, should i take it that i have to register at the main site somewhere to get all the enhanced updates. Is it the forum? Or have i gone completely blind? //EDIT: Nevermind, i found the enhanced edition for only 29

Correct me if i am wrong, but didn't Adam Smith say that a free market comes from having a free society? Meaning that in order to even think about having any form free enterprise and competition, one needs to have a free and just society to make it possible. I do not see that as a completely impossible goal myself. Hell, even Chomsky agrees and openly supports this.