Evolution
-
That is why humans invented guns.. :-D
Baboons with guns... now that's a scary thought... We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Looks more like baboons are our destination.
I suggest you take that back... baboons are very violent when insulted.... Personally I think we are headed for one celled life-forms... politicians are already at the jellyfish stage, the rest are devolving similarly. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
politicians are already at the jellyfish stage
:-D
Jellyfish heaven Is not like Japan Jellyfish heaven Is not like Thailand Jellyfish heaven Is a lot Like LA Jellyfish heaven In the big blue sea Where it's too cold to surf And it's too warm to ski Jellyfish Heaven Is full of dead Jellyfish I've been dazed and confused For so long it's not true I wanted a jellyfish Never bargained for you Lot's of people talking Few of them know Soul of a jellyfish Was created below!
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Baboons with guns... now that's a scary thought... We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
Rob Graham wrote:
We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest.
Sadly, few people have realized this. :( Not even the lefties...
-
Rob Graham wrote:
We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest.
Sadly, few people have realized this. :( Not even the lefties...
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Sadly, few people have realized this. Not even the lefties...
The "lefties" tend to substitute envy for greed. They seem to think that Robin Hood was a wise and generous man, rather than just another thieving politician... We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Sadly, few people have realized this. Not even the lefties...
The "lefties" tend to substitute envy for greed. They seem to think that Robin Hood was a wise and generous man, rather than just another thieving politician... We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
I agree with you on greed and envy. They go hand in hand, kind of like yin/yang. Where there is greed, there will also be envy (the lucky and the unlucky). But in Robin Hood's defence, he did fight against the noble people. People who were on the receiving end of the taxation system... I don't see Robin Hood as a socialist icon. Instead, I see him as someone fighting against oppression. My government seem to believe they are the modern version of Robin Hood. What they fail to realize however, is that the middle class is carrying all the burden, leaving the really rich untouched, and the poor in a "the state will care for me!"-mindset. They are making the majority of this country's tax payers bend over... With a little luck, the current government (socialdemocrats in lieu with assorted pseudo communists) will be removed from power. Here's hoping :beer:
-
I agree with you on greed and envy. They go hand in hand, kind of like yin/yang. Where there is greed, there will also be envy (the lucky and the unlucky). But in Robin Hood's defence, he did fight against the noble people. People who were on the receiving end of the taxation system... I don't see Robin Hood as a socialist icon. Instead, I see him as someone fighting against oppression. My government seem to believe they are the modern version of Robin Hood. What they fail to realize however, is that the middle class is carrying all the burden, leaving the really rich untouched, and the poor in a "the state will care for me!"-mindset. They are making the majority of this country's tax payers bend over... With a little luck, the current government (socialdemocrats in lieu with assorted pseudo communists) will be removed from power. Here's hoping :beer:
Conveniently forgotten is that Robin Hood (Robin, Earl of Locksley) was one of the nobility until his land was seized by the sheriff (for failure to pay taxes I think...) From wikipaedia: "The folkloric Robin Hood was deprived of his lands by the villainous Sheriff of Nottingham and became an outlaw. The Sheriff does indeed appear in the early ballads (Robin kills and beheads him), but there is nothing as specific as this allegation (n.b. one historical contender for this villain may be William de Wendenal). Robin's other enemies include the rich abbots and a bounty hunter named Guy of Gisbourne, whom Robin kills and beheads as well. The early ballads contain nothing about giving to the poor, although Robin does make a large loan to an unfortunate knight." As I said, just a politician who found himself on the losing side, and turned to the natural occupation of politicians: theft and pillaging. The part about distributing his booty to the poor may well be just good propaganda with no substance... We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
Conveniently forgotten is that Robin Hood (Robin, Earl of Locksley) was one of the nobility until his land was seized by the sheriff (for failure to pay taxes I think...) From wikipaedia: "The folkloric Robin Hood was deprived of his lands by the villainous Sheriff of Nottingham and became an outlaw. The Sheriff does indeed appear in the early ballads (Robin kills and beheads him), but there is nothing as specific as this allegation (n.b. one historical contender for this villain may be William de Wendenal). Robin's other enemies include the rich abbots and a bounty hunter named Guy of Gisbourne, whom Robin kills and beheads as well. The early ballads contain nothing about giving to the poor, although Robin does make a large loan to an unfortunate knight." As I said, just a politician who found himself on the losing side, and turned to the natural occupation of politicians: theft and pillaging. The part about distributing his booty to the poor may well be just good propaganda with no substance... We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
I did not know those details. You learn something new every day. :)
-
I did not know those details. You learn something new every day. :)
-
I agree with you on greed and envy. They go hand in hand, kind of like yin/yang. Where there is greed, there will also be envy (the lucky and the unlucky). But in Robin Hood's defence, he did fight against the noble people. People who were on the receiving end of the taxation system... I don't see Robin Hood as a socialist icon. Instead, I see him as someone fighting against oppression. My government seem to believe they are the modern version of Robin Hood. What they fail to realize however, is that the middle class is carrying all the burden, leaving the really rich untouched, and the poor in a "the state will care for me!"-mindset. They are making the majority of this country's tax payers bend over... With a little luck, the current government (socialdemocrats in lieu with assorted pseudo communists) will be removed from power. Here's hoping :beer:
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
My government seem to believe they are the modern version of Robin Hood. What they fail to realize however, is that the middle class is carrying all the burden, leaving the really rich untouched, and the poor in a "the state will care for me!"-mindset
What do you propose to replace the current government? The situation you describe of the middle class getting the shaft is exactly the same in the US, but we have a conservative government in power instead of socialdemocrats in lieu with assorted pseudo communists.
-
Evolution is not a progression from "lower" to "higher". Evolution is about creatures finding their nitch. There is a nitch for single-celled bacteria -- which is why all bacteria did not all evolve into multicellular organisms. There is a nitch for monkeys and apes. Very often, evolution is just making modifications to help creatures survive in their nitch. For example, frogs have the ability to reabsorb water from the urine in their bladders (humans cannot do this). Some fish have genes which allow them to survive in freezing cold waters around Antarctica. Reptiles' slow metabolism allows them to survive for months without eating. These are examples of evolution, and there is not some universal trend towards walking on two legs and having large brains. My OPINON is that if we really did evolve from monkeys or apes (pick your choose) why is the lesser evolution still around, because as ALL animals evolved, their lesser evolution died off, (hence the reason so they could adept to their enviroment). Sometimes a single species splits into two groups and live in different environments. Even though one (like humans) become smarter than their cousins (chimps and apes), they aren't in competition with them -- either because they are in different locations, different terrain (jungle versus grassland), separated by water (there are New World monkeys and Old World monkeys), or have different diets. In many cases, there's no reason why a species has to make it's cousin species go extinct. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
My government seem to believe they are the modern version of Robin Hood. What they fail to realize however, is that the middle class is carrying all the burden, leaving the really rich untouched, and the poor in a "the state will care for me!"-mindset
What do you propose to replace the current government? The situation you describe of the middle class getting the shaft is exactly the same in the US, but we have a conservative government in power instead of socialdemocrats in lieu with assorted pseudo communists.
For starters, I'd like a government that promotes the idea of actually earning money by working, and not sitting on the sofa all day. The current one doesn't do that.
-
For starters, I'd like a government that promotes the idea of actually earning money by working, and not sitting on the sofa all day. The current one doesn't do that.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
For starters, I'd like a government that promotes the idea of actually earning money by working, and not sitting on the sofa all day. The current one doesn't do that.
I'm not sure your rhetoric matches the reality. You have a low unemployment rate of 5.6%, which is good. Who exactly is sitting on the couch when your unemployment rate is low? What is the current government doing that you think puts people on the couch? Your economy is 74% services, which is bad. Your country needs to diversify. What is the state of the high tech industry? Who among the candidates for office promotes technology and diversification? Your other problem is the low population growth rate. Your annual population growth rate is only 0.17%. You have 9 million people in an area the size of California, which has over 30 million people. You are not expanding the labor and tax pool fast enough to provide the level of social services you're accustomed to. Which candidate proposes to fix this? Source of statisitcs[^]
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
For starters, I'd like a government that promotes the idea of actually earning money by working, and not sitting on the sofa all day. The current one doesn't do that.
I'm not sure your rhetoric matches the reality. You have a low unemployment rate of 5.6%, which is good. Who exactly is sitting on the couch when your unemployment rate is low? What is the current government doing that you think puts people on the couch? Your economy is 74% services, which is bad. Your country needs to diversify. What is the state of the high tech industry? Who among the candidates for office promotes technology and diversification? Your other problem is the low population growth rate. Your annual population growth rate is only 0.17%. You have 9 million people in an area the size of California, which has over 30 million people. You are not expanding the labor and tax pool fast enough to provide the level of social services you're accustomed to. Which candidate proposes to fix this? Source of statisitcs[^]
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
You have a low unemployment rate of 5.6%, which is good. Who exactly is sitting on the couch when your unemployment rate is low? What is the current government doing that you think puts people on the couch?
That is a fake figure. The government provides "education" and other statistically skewing actions. Funded by tax money of course. I'd say the real figure is closer to 8-8.5%. Perhaps even more. The social democrats call this figure the "open unemployment rate". They don't want to talk about the real unemployment rate, because that would highlight their incompetence.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Your economy is 74% services, which is bad. Your country needs to diversify. What is the state of the high tech industry? Who among the candidates for office promotes technology and diversification?
Because of the high taxes, production is not economically viable in Sweden. Especially not so when you have lots of former east block states, willing to produce for just a fraction of the cost. I seriously hope that no candidate promotes diversification. There is no point in going up against low production cost countries. In fact, that's throwing away taxes.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Your other problem is the low population growth rate. Your annual population growth rate is only 0.17%.
I'm not sure, but I think the climate has something to do with that. Suicide rate is high here too. We don't live on the sunny side of the earth ;)
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
You are not expanding the labor and tax pool fast enough to provide the level of social services you're accustomed to. Which candidate proposes to fix this?
What could a candidate do to increase the population? Put restrictions on condoms? :~
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
You have a low unemployment rate of 5.6%, which is good. Who exactly is sitting on the couch when your unemployment rate is low? What is the current government doing that you think puts people on the couch?
That is a fake figure. The government provides "education" and other statistically skewing actions. Funded by tax money of course. I'd say the real figure is closer to 8-8.5%. Perhaps even more. The social democrats call this figure the "open unemployment rate". They don't want to talk about the real unemployment rate, because that would highlight their incompetence.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Your economy is 74% services, which is bad. Your country needs to diversify. What is the state of the high tech industry? Who among the candidates for office promotes technology and diversification?
Because of the high taxes, production is not economically viable in Sweden. Especially not so when you have lots of former east block states, willing to produce for just a fraction of the cost. I seriously hope that no candidate promotes diversification. There is no point in going up against low production cost countries. In fact, that's throwing away taxes.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Your other problem is the low population growth rate. Your annual population growth rate is only 0.17%.
I'm not sure, but I think the climate has something to do with that. Suicide rate is high here too. We don't live on the sunny side of the earth ;)
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
You are not expanding the labor and tax pool fast enough to provide the level of social services you're accustomed to. Which candidate proposes to fix this?
What could a candidate do to increase the population? Put restrictions on condoms? :~
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I seriously hope that no candidate promotes diversification. There is no point in going up against low production cost countries. In fact, that's throwing away taxes.
I'm thinking more in terms of labor diversification. 80% of the workforce is unionized. That likely means there is little entrepreneurship. If some of the workforce started small businesses it would help the economy tremendously. Here in the U.S., when times are hard and unemployment is rising, many people start their own company.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
We don't live on the sunny side of the earth
:)
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
What could a candidate do to increase the population?
Encourage immigration. Encourage reproduction. It seems that many European countries bought into the zero population growth myth. Unless the human economic model is radically overhauled, the only way to support previous generations is with future generations.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I seriously hope that no candidate promotes diversification. There is no point in going up against low production cost countries. In fact, that's throwing away taxes.
I'm thinking more in terms of labor diversification. 80% of the workforce is unionized. That likely means there is little entrepreneurship. If some of the workforce started small businesses it would help the economy tremendously. Here in the U.S., when times are hard and unemployment is rising, many people start their own company.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
We don't live on the sunny side of the earth
:)
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
What could a candidate do to increase the population?
Encourage immigration. Encourage reproduction. It seems that many European countries bought into the zero population growth myth. Unless the human economic model is radically overhauled, the only way to support previous generations is with future generations.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
That likely means there is little entrepreneurship. If some of the workforce started small businesses it would help the economy tremendously. Here in the U.S., when times are hard and unemployment is rising, many people start their own company.
That is the case here too. However, it doesn't work out quite as well as one would hope, mainly because of taxes. The cost of employing people is ridiculously high. When taxes are paid, the employee gets to keep 26-30% of the salary. Add all other taxes such as VAT, gasoline taxes, vehicle taxes, etc, onto that, you end up with very little in your wallet. To be able to offer competitive salaries, you'd have to shell out a lot of money. Being a one man show is doable, but only for a period of time. The amount of work you have to put in for the reward is just too much. Of course, there are those who are great entrepreneurs, who do make it - and make it well. However, the majority of the unemployed population are not great entreprenuers. The government often tries to boast themselves as "friendly for small businesses". They do it by giving out "business wellfare". :sigh:
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Encourage immigration. Encourage reproduction. It seems that many European countries bought into the zero population growth myth. Unless the human economic model is radically overhauled, the only way to support previous generations is with future generations.
Considering the fact that 10% of our population are of non-swedish heritage, I don't think immigration is a solution. Many of them have bought into this notion of "You don't have to work for money".
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
That likely means there is little entrepreneurship. If some of the workforce started small businesses it would help the economy tremendously. Here in the U.S., when times are hard and unemployment is rising, many people start their own company.
That is the case here too. However, it doesn't work out quite as well as one would hope, mainly because of taxes. The cost of employing people is ridiculously high. When taxes are paid, the employee gets to keep 26-30% of the salary. Add all other taxes such as VAT, gasoline taxes, vehicle taxes, etc, onto that, you end up with very little in your wallet. To be able to offer competitive salaries, you'd have to shell out a lot of money. Being a one man show is doable, but only for a period of time. The amount of work you have to put in for the reward is just too much. Of course, there are those who are great entrepreneurs, who do make it - and make it well. However, the majority of the unemployed population are not great entreprenuers. The government often tries to boast themselves as "friendly for small businesses". They do it by giving out "business wellfare". :sigh:
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Encourage immigration. Encourage reproduction. It seems that many European countries bought into the zero population growth myth. Unless the human economic model is radically overhauled, the only way to support previous generations is with future generations.
Considering the fact that 10% of our population are of non-swedish heritage, I don't think immigration is a solution. Many of them have bought into this notion of "You don't have to work for money".
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Considering the fact that 10% of our population are of non-swedish heritage, I don't think immigration is a solution
Considering that all but 10% of our population are of non-American heritage, immigration has proved itself quite a workable solution for us.