"Minimum Wage Jobs aren't careers"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Super Not Cosmo:

Vylox:
If only things worked out that way for everyone.
I,m 35, educated (finishing up a second degree ATM), army veteran, 12 years of middle and upper management experience along side of 7 years in catering. Unemployed because no one wants to even bother trying to give me a shot at doing anything at their places.

As for your smoking rant in an earlier post. You can easily get 4 cartons worth of cigarettes here where I live for 20 bucks. Some assembly required.

Well that's unfortunate. I mean that sincerely. Have you thought about moving to North Dakota? Honest question. If you are having a hard go of it where you are at and are at all capable of relocating I can't urge you strongly enough to check out the work in the oil fields in North Dakota. They can't hire people fast enough. It's not just oil jobs either, it's all sorts of jobs. Walmart is hiring people in at over 15 per hour because there is such a high demand for workers there.

To relocate requires funding. No job = no funding.
I get by on a tiny stipend for school. I do occasional contract work (all short-term stuff, nothing greater that 20 hours in a week). I walk 8 miles to get to class and bum rides home from my classmates. (At least I,m getting something useful out of my time in the army.... Aside from job skills that I cant use in a civilian setting)
If those companies which are hiring would offer up a per diem or some kind of relocation package, I would jump on it. However, they do not make such offers to relocate.

And that is an issue. The companies that are actually struggling to get employees in some locations are not offering assistance to those that would willingly work (even for minimum wage) from other areas/regions. There aren't any government assistance programs for it either (well there are, but because I'm a white male, I do not qualify for them, regardless of my education and work experience).

While I would be interested in relocating, it is not something that I am capable of doing right now. It takes money to do so. Starting rent, initial deposits for utilities, transportation etc. That stuff is not free. While I do scrape by, it is not exactly a comfortable existence. And my savings are just about dried up after spending a year and a half constantly looking for work. Filling out applications, submitting resumes, going to job fairs, and following up on those things while paying for necessities out of what I had saved up is a drain. Both financially and emotionally.

Super Not Cosmo:

Vylox:
If only things worked out that way for everyone.
I,m 35, educated (finishing up a second degree ATM), army veteran, 12 years of middle and upper management experience along side of 7 years in catering. Unemployed because no one wants to even bother trying to give me a shot at doing anything at their places.

As for your smoking rant in an earlier post. You can easily get 4 cartons worth of cigarettes here where I live for 20 bucks. Some assembly required.

Well that's unfortunate. I mean that sincerely. Have you thought about moving to North Dakota? Honest question. If you are having a hard go of it where you are at and are at all capable of relocating I can't urge you strongly enough to check out the work in the oil fields in North Dakota. They can't hire people fast enough. It's not just oil jobs either, it's all sorts of jobs. Walmart is hiring people in at over 15 per hour because there is such a high demand for workers there.

Rent and property prices over there are also insanely high because of that. Cost of living is easily 1500 to 1800 a month for a one bedroom apartment. Heck, trailer parks are charging 750 a month.

farson135:

Nope. The US just rebuilt from scratch. Just because you are making bread from scratch does not mean you have to reinvent the recipe. You may adjust it, depending on you materials, but that does not mean you reinvent it.

I am confused now. First you say you built everything from scratch. then you say you took the ideas and adjusted them. then you said that you didnt take the ideas and created it from scratch and now once again you say you took the recipes.

As I pointed out, what holds a people together? In our modern world it is national memory (in general). In the old days it was a variety of things depending on where you are.

What does it even mea "holding people together". Jails hold people together too, does not mean its good thing to put everyone there.

So you accept the fact that there is more to a country's wellness than money. Good. Now you need to expend your ideas and accept the basic fact that a country that has time to pull itself together is usually better off than a country that has just started.

Of course there is more than money. If money was all it took then USA would be the best country. Time is required. Hundred of years however are not. Your country didnt just started. Your country has been around for hundreds of years.

Let us see, the bridges that the US built under FDR, Truman, Ike, and others are all falling apart due to shoddy workmanship and poor materials. That means we have to pay an insane amount of money to replace and fix them. Right now our infrastructure is going to shit because of shoddy workmanship and an unwillingness by the Feds to do their damn job (and not just recently). So, France had infrastructure to build upon. We built rapidly from scratch. We see the results. France does not have our problems with infrastructure degradation because they were able to build slowly and carefully (more or less).

France has problems with indrastructure dgradations. Its bridges are falling apart too. Its just that france has the sense to constantly keep them fixed. Now correct me if im wrong but i heard you havent been fixing your rairoads for decades now and they are falling apart.

So you support the death of endangered species? American hunters are the only reason this animal (below) has not gone extinct in the world (it is now extinct in its own country but it is thriving here in Texas)-

Sorry, your "we hunt to keep animal population down" argument does not hold water. the only reason the species has to be kept down is because humans have deprived them of land and food sources to the level where natural balance does not work anymore. That being said, when you hav quatas of wolf killings not based on how many wolves there are but based on how many farmers complained that wolves were being wolves and walked into their land this really doesn't work.

Then again, as a Lithuanian, what business do you have talking about the destructive effects of my culture? Your country has a higher murder rate than the US and one of the highest suicide rates on earth. And guess what, your country is in the bottom 20 of all countries by gun ownership rate.

I never said my country is perfect. However i would rather try and make it better instead of talk about "how much ahrder it used to be" and try to cling onto some ideolgized nationalism that "keeps it together" while keeping the problems.
I also never claimed that gun ownership is sole reason for problems, i said that gun culture in US where a person would rather go and shoot police officer than has its gun taken away is harmful. I never said there were no harnful aspects of my culture. If anything, this part of your post seemt like a failed attemt to insult me.

Agitated Owl:

Actually, I do know those people; at least the ones in my example. I thought that was fairly obvious, considering it was a personal anecdote.

Regardless, what you are saying is that generalized condemnations without specific evidence are perfectly acceptable when applied to the wealthy, but unacceptable when applied to the poor. Even assuming that charity is "often" abused in this way, that does not prove that a specific wealthy person or group gives money to charity in a calculated attempt to cheat the tax system, rather than out of a sense of generosity. You are stereotyping.

No. You said that you saw peopel donating to certain charity and used that as basis of bisnesmen being charitable.
I said that there exists people that evade taxes by donating to charity.
Then i asked whether it is possible that some of these people were doing that instead of being charitable, which neither of us know the answer to. i neer claimed that all of them do it. I however questioned the motiation, as the context here was that free market was the motivation of good deeds and woudl reward it, whereas in reality in situations that i decribed the reward would actually come from the state and without it such charity would not be given. I did not claim that everyone was abusing system like that, this is something you made up.

Strazdas:
I am confused now. First you say you built everything from scratch. then you say you took the ideas and adjusted them.

Those two are the same things.

then you said that you didnt take the ideas and created it from scratch

No, I never said that. I said we built the institutions from scratch that used the ideas. Sorry, this is not a philosophy class. The thought of something existing does not make it exist.

What does it even mea "holding people together". Jails hold people together too, does not mean its good thing to put everyone there.

It means that it applies our primitive tribal instincts, in this case, to a much larger group. Jails tend not to do that. Gangs do but not jails.

Of course there is more than money. If money was all it took then USA would be the best country. Time is required. Hundred of years however are not. Your country didnt just started. Your country has been around for hundreds of years.

vs. thousands of years.

You also do not seem to understand the basic fact that the US only gained access to its materials recently. Jamestown had no access to the Comstock Lode. We had to build to that area which took until the mid-1800s. Over 250 years after Jamestown and about 150 years from our current time.

Now, why don't you explain to me why Mexico is not among the great 1st world nations? Mexico had most of the same issues the US had starting out. Except Mexico actually had political infrastructure designed to lead their entire territory as well as significant economic infrastructure from the colonizers. Hell, they even had a racial system left over from the Spanish that causes them problems even into the modern world. So we have two examples of states that grew into existence at about the same the same time. Here are the two real options you have to prove that your beliefs are correct.

So, we have multiple nations that freed themselves at about the same time period. Neither one has been able to match the infrastructure built up over 2,000 years of history in the mere 200 years they have been free. Those are two modern nations. What examples do you have? I can certainly go back and show how every single European nation was after 200 years of existence. It will not be pretty. Personally I would have preferred to stick with modern nations (fewer variables) but you cannot seem to understand the fact that your idea has no evidence.

I have shown you everything Europe had but the US didn't. You have given me nothing but conjecture. Now it is time to actually prove something. You have all of human history to work on. Let us see what you can come up with (likely nothing). All you have to do is prove that a nation just starting out can be comparable to the greatest nations on earth in a mere 200 years. Then you need to prove that a colonized country can simply replant all the institutions of its colonizer verbatim without a significant hiccup. Go for it. I know a few dozen examples off the top of my head that disprove your theory. But let us see what you come up with.

BTW you want to see what your country was like after 200 years of existence? My area of expertise is in Central and Eastern Europe. Your country's faults are well known to me. You guys had a nice little Civil War almost exactly 200 years after your founding. Which, by the way, was still 400 years before Jamestown (at which time your country was fighting against Sweden to ensure the right of King Sigmund to control both Poland-Lithuania and Sweden and they were also at war in Moldavia and with Russia, plus there was a nice little revolution going on at about the same time, it was the height of your country's power and the start of its inevitable decline, you were saying something about it taking less than a few hundred years to become equivalent to the great powers of the day).

France has problems with indrastructure dgradations. Its bridges are falling apart too. Its just that france has the sense to constantly keep them fixed.

Not to this extent. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Now correct me if im wrong but i heard you havent been fixing your rairoads for decades now and they are falling apart.

You do not need to specify railroads. It is all roads that are falling apart. Now we see the product of FDR's policies. Build a road to nowhere and in a few decades we have to repair said road, on and on for an eternity. An eternal waste of money.

Sorry, your "we hunt to keep animal population down" argument does not hold water. the only reason the species has to be kept down is because humans have deprived them of land and food sources to the level where natural balance does not work anymore.

Your point? Do you want us to be like you? Y'all don't have real nature anymore. Should we just finish the job like your country did?

Also, did you even read what I said? Species that are almost extinct are being transplanted in Texas (and other parts of the US) for hunting and conservation. The picture I showed was of an Onyx that is extinct in the wild (actually from Africa) but is thriving in Texas.

That being said, when you hav quatas of wolf killings not based on how many wolves there are but based on how many farmers complained that wolves were being wolves and walked into their land this really doesn't work.

What in the fuck are you talking about? That is not how it works in the US. However, I have noticed the effects of lack of hunting in Europe- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7116766.stm

I never said my country is perfect. However i would rather try and make it better instead of talk about "how much ahrder it used to be" and try to cling onto some ideolgized nationalism that "keeps it together" while keeping the problems.

If someone else were reading that they might think that I said that. You ought to fix that. Since, you know, I said nothing of the sort.

I also never claimed that gun ownership is sole reason for problems, i said that gun culture in US where a person would rather go and shoot police officer than has its gun taken away is harmful.

Actually you did not say that. But beyond that, are you trying to argue that criminals in your country always surrender to the police peacefully? Because I have never seen a country where that is the norm.

I never said there were no harnful aspects of my culture.

Nope, but you blamed guns for America's problems while your country has far worse problems without guns. Do you not understand the disconnect?

If anything, this part of your post seemt like a failed attemt to insult me.

As does the last part of your previous post.

Strazdas:
IF only in real life law was so easy that you could have a narrow qualification specialized lawyers.....

As I recall part of it was simplification of the legal code was among the first things I brought up. It's little wonder that former lawyers tend to write laws.

Strazdas:

If prices rise and deman remains the same, increased supply will leave equalibrium of prices that are above the original ones. In laments terms - it would still get more expensive.

Only if there is collusion, competition will drive the price down.

Agema:

aelreth:

Certification is a form of regulation.

The government can regulate. Or there can be internal self-regulation by the profession. But there is no guarantee that the self-regulation will be less rigorous than the government (and it may be the opposite, because they know profession restrictions equals scarcity equals higher salaries). But even self-regulation must be backed up by state law (i.e. government) - a bar association can only refuse a lawyer to practice if the government will ratify it doing so. Otherwise, the self-regulation is merely a non-enforceable "stamp of approval", and anyone can practice law without that stamp anyway. Whatever way you look at it and whoever regulates, dropping the standards of practice makes it easier for charlatans and incompetents to work.

Now, imagine you get a charlatan, and he loses your case. How do you even know his incompetence lost you the case? You're not a lawyer. Straight off, a large proportion of people will simply never realise their case was mishandled and suffer injustice.

In order to prevent this or if you think injustice has happened, you need to hire a second lawyer to check up on the fist. That's gross inefficiency, in money as well as time. In a criminal case, you might suffer years in prison before the error is rectified. You might also end up with a second incompetent lawyer. Then you have to sue your original lawyer. Does he have the assets to cover your losses? If not, you've got injustice anyway. This could be dealt with by insurance, but incompetence will create high premiums. High premiums create a barrier to lawyer employment (scarcity) or forcing lawyers to charge much more to compensate anyway.

And as stated before, salaries cannot drop that far because someone talented enough to make a good lawyer is not going to accept minimal salary in law when he could earn twice as much as an accountant, manager, chartered surveyor or whatever else.

So whichever way you roll this out, twist it around, and create hypotheticals, poor people tend to get bad lawyers and/or injustice, and good lawyers remain expensive.

Your only real anti-regulation, small government solution is pro bono work. But this is based (as said before) in hoping that people - whether lawyers themselves or their rich customers pressuring them - are nice, charitable people. And I reiterate, that is simply not an adequate basis for an institutional system.

The free market has no good answer to this.

If a good lawyer is a finite valuable resource unless more are created (which I was getting through division of labor within the labor market) I'm not sure how they can help the individual even with a more equitable division of resources. They are a resource that would be sent to protect something as valuable as they are.

A charlatan could be sent in their place and the peasants would be none the wiser.

Innovation could help, like the new automated medical equipment one could be done for lawyers as well. However legal work is a very controlled space and innovation is very slow in it.

farson135:
*Stuff

Uhh regarding this whole discussion train, yes it IS possible to build what America did in less than 400 years. Easy in fact if and only if you strictly stick to the word build. If you ignore problems of opportunity then its possible. Building infrastructure is exponential in progress. Who cares if it takes 300 years to reach the west coast, in year 301 you'll be able to complete more than the previous 300 combined.

Take the Chinese building ghost towns for instance. It takes them only a few years to make a modern city. Add in the fact that infrastructure perpetuates faster construction of even more infrastructure and you could easily see something similar happen with the Chinese. This delightful theoretical ideal is barred by the limiting opportunity of reality.

Speed of infrastructure building means nothing without the opportunity to exercise it. America had the pacific and Atlantic as a massive shield against most potential invaders, giving it huge opportunity. Wonder why little Lichtenstein never did what America did? Because being landlocked as a tiny country meant that army big or small could easily match them AND easily reach them.

Yes or no, the Atlantic and pacific gives America more opportunity to exercise self improvement as well as restricting the roster of countries that could threaten it by making reaching America in the first place difficult?

It may not seem like a big difference but as I said the exponential nature of infrastructure building means that many small setbacks for a country can lead to huge differences.

America had 2 main enemies to face off early on. The Natives and the Colonial empires. The natives were recently devastated by plague, had very low technological advancement and as a fragmented entity they were subject to divide and conquer tactics (an incredibly well known strategy to Europeans). Not to mention they weren't some constant 24/7 threat. There was highly beneficial trade in furs which gave economic opportunity. Overall the natives weren't a huge setback in opportunity over the 400 year lifespan.

The colonial empires were based in the Old world and never had a united attack on america. They had to by nature concentrate their forces in the Old world as sailing across the sea was risky and time consuming. This already limits power projection into america. And whenever they did try there was always some other power helping america. English attacks? Don't worry france is here to save you.

Importantly the threat didn't pervade. America never had a Hundred years war or a Napoleon to fight or vikings to stave off one after the other. Just the natives who as I said before didn't limit the opportunity they had.

As I said infrastructure is a function of opportunity and ability. America has had plenty of opportunity which compounds itself over and over to make catching up not too big a task. China itself has had something like this happen recently with huge infrastructure projects being made in record time. It's not something unique it' just about the right time and place for the conditions to appear.

Dr Ampersand:
Uhh regarding this whole discussion train, yes it IS possible to build what America did in less than 400 years. Easy in fact if and only if you strictly stick to the word build. If you ignore problems of opportunity then its possible. Building infrastructure is exponential in progress. Who cares if it takes 300 years to reach the west coast, in year 301 you'll be able to complete more than the previous 300 combined.

First of all, y'all do not seem to understand that infrastructure refers to more than just buildings. Political and economic institutions are also infrastructure.

Second of all, you can build whatever you want but that does not make it useful. Building a random road in the middle of nowhere does not mean that people will build around the road. People will build where they need to. If you build a road 50 miles north of where the Comstock Lode will eventually be discovered then you still have to build a second road with the distinct disadvantage of having to maintain that useless road. Not to mention the basic fact that you are still wasting money for something that is not useful.

Third, no it is not exponential. Stick a thousand people on a plot of land and tell them to build a road. Suddenly doubling the size of the land is not going to make work go faster.

Fourth, it is not hard to build up infrastructure with a slave army at your back. A little more difficult in a semi-democratic country. Do you honestly think that the Great Wall of China could be built using Chinese methods by Americans?

Speed of infrastructure building means nothing without the opportunity to exercise it. America had the pacific and Atlantic as a massive shield against most potential invaders, giving it huge opportunity.

An opportunity that the Chinese had in spades (historically there were no nations that could effectively invade the Chinese except for the Mongols and since the US also has a few neighbors it is comparable). Yet somehow they were never able to hold themselves together despite having distinct cultural and economic advantages.

Not to mention they weren't some constant 24/7 threat.

Apparently you do not know much about American history. Or more specifically Texas history since my ancestors (Comanche) made life hell for the settlers of Texas. In fact, Sam Houston, late of the Texas Revolution, tried to make a separate nation for the Comanche in order to get them off of the new Republic's back.

Overall the natives weren't a huge setback in opportunity over the 400 year lifespan.

In your opinion. However, the tens of thousands of lives lost and the millions spent seems to imply otherwise. The US military did not have a significant presence anywhere but in the west. In fact, here in Texas we have a nice line of forts that were established specifically to keep the Comanche out (didn't work). Plus we had the advent of the Texas Rangers and various other groups designed to combat the Native Americans.

The colonial empires were based in the Old world and never had a united attack on america. They had to by nature concentrate their forces in the Old world as sailing across the sea was risky and time consuming. This already limits power projection into america. And whenever they did try there was always some other power helping america. English attacks? Don't worry france is here to save you.

You seem for forget about the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, the Barbary Wars, and the various skirmishes fought against British settlers in Canada.

You know the old song, "From the halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli".

As I said infrastructure is a function of opportunity and ability. America has had plenty of opportunity which compounds itself over and over to make catching up not too big a task. China itself has had something like this happen recently with huge infrastructure projects being made in record time. It's not something unique it' just about the right time and place for the conditions to appear.

Opportunity and ability require funds (which the US did not have until it built up its political and economic infrastructure), need (something that can only be established over time) and will (which did not exist for most parts of the US).

You are arguing a point that is completely irrelevant. The point that I was arguing was that it is amazing that the US is in as good a shape as it is from a socio-economic and cultural perspective due to the basic fact that we had less than 400 years to build from effectively nothing. I was arguing against the idea that the US fulfilling this, that, or the other statistic proves that its methods are faulty. A nation that has spent 2,000 years cultivating a national memory has no place insulting another nation for not developing an equal national memory in a mere 250 years.

farson135:

Strazdas:
I am confused now. First you say you built everything from scratch. then you say you took the ideas and adjusted them.

Those two are the same things.

No they are not. You cannot take and ajust and then claim to build from scratch. If i were to buy a car and tune its engine, does not mean i built it from scratch.

No, I never said that. I said we built the institutions from scratch that used the ideas. Sorry, this is not a philosophy class. The thought of something existing does not make it exist.

Everyone built institutions from scratch, thats the whole point of the changed ideas. Not sure where you found philosphy here, unless you consider seeing that rest of the world uses slaves, and then using them yourself a philosohy class material.

It means that it applies our primitive tribal instincts, in this case, to a much larger group. Jails tend not to do that. Gangs do but not jails.

So nationalism applies to primitive tribal instincts, and that is good because?

You also do not seem to understand the basic fact that the US only gained access to its materials recently. Jamestown had no access to the Comstock Lode. We had to build to that area which took until the mid-1800s. Over 250 years after Jamestown and about 150 years from our current time.

You do not seem to understand that time in amounts that you propose does not matter. We can build better bridges in a week than they could in a year 150 years ago. long term history gives you what, a month long headstart at best? and thatsa suuming bothcountries suffered same destruction. Tip: USA didnt.

Now, why don't you explain to me why Mexico is not among the great 1st world nations? Mexico had most of the same issues the US had starting out. Except Mexico actually had political infrastructure designed to lead their entire territory as well as significant economic infrastructure from the colonizers. Hell, they even had a racial system left over from the Spanish that causes them problems even into the modern world. So we have two examples of states that grew into existence at about the same the same time. Here are the two real options you have to prove that your beliefs are correct.

I already did that with your african example: people. Infrastructure and time does not matter when people do not want to make it work.

So, we have multiple nations that freed themselves at about the same time period. Neither one has been able to match the infrastructure built up over 2,000 years of history in the mere 200 years they have been free. Those are two modern nations. What examples do you have? I can certainly go back and show how every single European nation was after 200 years of existence. It will not be pretty. Personally I would have preferred to stick with modern nations (fewer variables) but you cannot seem to understand the fact that your idea has no evidence.

We have freed outselves from Soveit tyrants 23 years ago. We have the best internet infrastructure in the world. You had 400 years without any wars in your country, and yet we beat you in 23 (less, actually. we beat americans internet infrastructure like 5 years ago at least).

BTW you want to see what your country was like after 200 years of existence? My area of expertise is in Central and Eastern Europe. Your country's faults are well known to me. You guys had a nice little Civil War almost exactly 200 years after your founding. Which, by the way, was still 400 years before Jamestown (at which time your country was fighting against Sweden to ensure the right of King Sigmund to control both Poland-Lithuania and Sweden and they were also at war in Moldavia and with Russia, plus there was a nice little revolution going on at about the same time, it was the height of your country's power and the start of its inevitable decline, you were saying something about it taking less than a few hundred years to become equivalent to the great powers of the day).

For somone with expertese in eastenr europe you know very little of my country it seems. You seem to think that the country magically appeared at the time the monks wrote about it and didnt exist beforehand, when in reality for hundreds of years Balts already lived there.
If anything, you just claimed that in 200 years my coutry became the highest of its power, rivaling that of all nations in the area, if not in known world. s you just proved my point.

Not to this extent. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Like i said: thats becasue france is constantly fixing them and laying new infrastructure. you however seem to think that once layed out, they stay there for 2000 years with everyone using them.

What in the fuck are you talking about? That is not how it works in the US. However, I have noticed the effects of lack of hunting in Europe- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7116766.stm

Becuase noone ever died of a dog attack in USA. nice strawman.
If you want less dog attacks, maybe you shouldnt let anyone own dangerous dogs. but thats another discussion.

Your point? Do you want us to be like you? Y'all don't have real nature anymore. Should we just finish the job like your country did?

Also, did you even read what I said? Species that are almost extinct are being transplanted in Texas (and other parts of the US) for hunting and conservation. The picture I showed was of an Onyx that is extinct in the wild (actually from Africa) but is thriving in Texas.

I want people to stop hunting for fun. I dont know where do you think that will make you like me, but thats not for me to say. Yes, our country has hunted bisons to extinction, and we are not proud of it. That however has nothing to do with the point. I intentionally ignored the Onyx, as i do not see its relevance to the discussion. Are you implying that hunting for fun makes dangerous species more lively?

If someone else were reading that they might think that I said that. You ought to fix that. Since, you know, I said nothing of the sort.

Maybe you shuold look back on the posts of yours in this topic. you know, the ones i initially responded to, ones you got a warning for.

Actually you did not say that. But beyond that, are you trying to argue that criminals in your country always surrender to the police peacefully? Because I have never seen a country where that is the norm.

I said that i do not like fanatic gun culture of your nation. Said gun culture representatives have said that they would organize an armed revolt if government attempted to regulate their guns away. I do not think such people should be given gun to begin with.
Criminals they may be, and obviously not all of them surrender peacefully everywhere. However statistically your country has the most weapon related murders out of the 1st world.

Nope, but you blamed guns for America's problems while your country has far worse problems without guns. Do you not understand the disconnect?

No, i gave fanatic gun cult as an example of one of americas problems.

aelreth:

Strazdas:
IF only in real life law was so easy that you could have a narrow qualification specialized lawyers.....

As I recall part of it was simplification of the legal code was among the first things I brought up. It's little wonder that former lawyers tend to write laws.

Strazdas:

If prices rise and deman remains the same, increased supply will leave equalibrium of prices that are above the original ones. In laments terms - it would still get more expensive.

Only if there is collusion, competition will drive the price down.

Simplification of legal code is good and i support that, but not deregulation. However the pint i was making is that to be a good lawyer knowing a specialized topic will not work because lawyer work does not work like that. thats not how the cases go and would simply not be realistic.

Simple economic logic. you have same demand. you increase the price, which means that the equalibrium settles on high price same demand in short term. in long term the supply increases due to high prices, which brings competition and bring prices down. however in order to stay in competition, the prices need to be high enouh or the supply will fall down again and we are back to square zero. which means that equalibrium will settle with higher supply and higher prices. how much change of which depends a lot on how elastic the supply is, but it will NOT be lower prices. to make this lower prices you need to make the supply expenditure lower, and you cannot do that and assure quality.

farson:
Fourth, it is not hard to build up infrastructure with a slave army at your back. A little more difficult in a semi-democratic country. Do you honestly think that the Great Wall of China could be built using Chinese methods by Americans?

The point he was making that exponential infrastructure growth appears with new methods, thus we should actually be asking can the great wall of china be built using american methods by americans? and the answer is yes, faster.

An opportunity that the Chinese had in spades (historically there were no nations that could effectively invade the Chinese except for the Mongols and since the US also has a few neighbors it is comparable). Yet somehow they were never able to hold themselves together despite having distinct cultural and economic advantages.

You tal about chinese as if it was one country. During those times there was many little kingdoms with their own little empeorors fighting eachother constantly. Once they were actually united they had the largest navy in while world, invented such things as high temperature ovens and gunpowder that europeans adopted and plenty of other things. Dont worry, China was the king of the earth at this time. The difference is they were isolionist, thus they didnt go and colonize everyone.

Strazdas:
No they are not. You cannot take and ajust and then claim to build from scratch. If i were to buy a car and tune its engine, does not mean i built it from scratch.

Go back to my previous example, when I bake bread from scratch I do not reinvent the recipe. I adjust it depending on my materials.

So nationalism applies to primitive tribal instincts, and that is good because?

No, it applies primitive tribal instincts.

Let me ask you something, what exactly ensures your loyalty to your country? What makes it so that you respect its laws and customs enough not to break them regularly?

"Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation."

You do not seem to understand that time in amounts that you propose does not matter.

Got any evidence? I provided plenty but a once over of your post shows no evidence whatsoever.

We can build better bridges in a week than they could in a year 150 years ago.

Apparently not since bridges from 2,000 years ago are still standing while many modern bridges are falling apart.

long term history gives you what, a month long headstart at best?

Show me some evidence.

I already did that with your african example: people. Infrastructure and time does not matter when people do not want to make it work.

Right. You have no examples to prove your point so you just lay it on the heads of the people. I suppose as a white guy you do not want to admit the atrocities of your people. Low blow I know but I want to get your attention. You want a colonized nation to act exactly the same as its colonizers. Not only is that ethnocentrism that is also a failure to understand the insane level of damage perpetrated against colonized nations.

We have freed outselves from Soveit tyrants 23 years ago. We have the best internet infrastructure in the world. You had 400 years without any wars in your country, and yet we beat you in 23 (less, actually. we beat americans internet infrastructure like 5 years ago at least).

First of all, we have had many wars in our country. In fact, Prior to WW1 almost every single one of our wars has been on our own soil (exceptions include the Barbary Wars and the Spanish-American War). The 7 Years' War (and many of Britain's other wars), the American Revolution, the War of 1812, various conflicts with Canada, the Mexican-American War, the Indian Wars, the Civil War, the Insular Wars, and WW2 (and the Germans tried their best to get Mexico involved against the US in WW1).

Second of all, your country is smaller than the state of Maine, is almost twice as densely populated as my country, and yet still has a smaller population than the very rural Iowa. Would you care to try and provide high speed internet to the state of Montana and Nevada? Go for it.

Here is the town of Mina, Nevada, population 265.-

You can start there and work your way up (way up) to Barrow, Alaska-

For somone with expertese in eastenr europe you know very little of my country it seems. You seem to think that the country magically appeared at the time the monks wrote about it and didnt exist beforehand, when in reality for hundreds of years Balts already lived there.

If you are going to insinuate that my knowledge is lacking you had better bring you're A game.

Actually your country officially started in the 1250s as the Kingdom of Lithuania. Before that your "country" was a bunch of bickering tribesmen. Would you care to explain that away?

If anything, you just claimed that in 200 years my coutry became the highest of its power, rivaling that of all nations in the area, if not in known world. s you just proved my point.

No I did not. I said 400 years. At about the time of Jamestown Sigmund III was ruler of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The wars against Sweden were in the 1590s. Lithuania began in 1250. That is about 400 years, not 200. Try and read what I write.

Poland-Lithuania was a regional power but it still could not match up to the power of the Holy Roman Empire, the Rus, Sweden, the Ottoman Empire, or really anyone except for the declining Mongol Empire and the declining Teutonic Order/Prussian states. You guys got your ass kicked by the very new regional power Brandenburg-Prussia. Plus, your country was attached to the far more powerful Poland. You seem to forget about the other half of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/alliance. The real reason Lithuania suggested the Union was because they were afraid of a resurgence of Moscow which had already conquered much of Lithuania's land. The Polish state was formed in the 900s and it was only because of them that Lithuania rose to any real power. So, Poland, being the driving force behind the power of the Commonwealth, had existed for 500 years prior to the height of its power.

Like i said: thats becasue france is constantly fixing them and laying new infrastructure. you however seem to think that once layed out, they stay there for 2000 years with everyone using them.

Fixing something that was not put together hurriedly is better than rapid industrialization.

If you want less dog attacks, maybe you shouldnt let anyone own dangerous dogs. but thats another discussion.

Way to ignore the point. Wild dogs are not particularly dangerous when tamed. Let go and they are a problem.

I want people to stop hunting for fun.

Do you have any idea what will happen if we stop hunting deer? They will eat our crops and expand their population and people will get killed when they run into the middle of the road.

I dont know where do you think that will make you like me, but thats not for me to say.

How do you expect us to live and work with invasive species? We can't. We can hunt them to get them out of the way or we can destroy our nature like you have.

That however has nothing to do with the point. I intentionally ignored the Onyx, as i do not see its relevance to the discussion. Are you implying that hunting for fun makes dangerous species more lively?

I am saying that ranchers are growing these populations for hunting and at the same time saving them from extinction because they are managing their population.

Maybe you shuold look back on the posts of yours in this topic. you know, the ones i initially responded to, ones you got a warning for.

Actually I did not get a warning. Sorry, it was all a mistake.

Why don't you quote exactly where I said what you claimed? Go on. I dare you.

I said that i do not like fanatic gun culture of your nation.

You keep changing what you claim you said.

Said gun culture representatives have said that they would organize an armed revolt if government attempted to regulate their guns away. I do not think such people should be given gun to begin with.

In your opinion. Yet, somehow, my country has been a hell of a lot more stable than yours.

However statistically your country has the most weapon related murders out of the 1st world.

Irrelevant. Murders are murders.

The point he was making that exponential infrastructure growth appears with new methods, thus we should actually be asking can the great wall of china be built using american methods by americans? and the answer is yes, faster.

Really? What exactly happened between 300 years and 301 years after Jamestown to ensure that kind of growth (as per his statement)?

You tal about chinese as if it was one country. During those times there was many little kingdoms with their own little empeorors fighting eachother constantly.

China was one country several times throughout history. The Chinese were Chinas greatest enemies. My point still stands.

Once they were actually united they had the largest navy in while world, invented such things as high temperature ovens and gunpowder that europeans adopted and plenty of other things.

And then fell into ruin and civil war. Your point fails.

The difference is they were isolionist, thus they didnt go and colonize everyone.

No, they became isolationist AFTER the Great Navy was built. That is why they burned it. The Chinese went through periods where they were far less isolationist.

farson135:
.

"First of all, y'all do not seem...institutions are also infrastructure."----Fair enough yeah.

"Second of all,..something that is not useful."--- Yes useless infrastructure is a drain if its chosen to be maintained. Which part of my argument was that supposed to relate to? I'm not sure how it fits to what I said, sorry.

"Third,...work go faster." Infrastructure allows for making new objects to improve old infrastructure building tasks. I chop down trees with my hands at a rate of 1 a day to makes sticks. I dig up iron with sticks and burn sticks to smelt iron into an axe head, I now have an axe that I can chop trees with at a rate of 10 a day.

You're right in that not All infrastructure speeds up future building, but most do indirectly. Things that get built allow for prosperity. Prosperity allow the building/buying/etc of new objects. New objects either increase prosperity, repeating the cycle or increase future building.

How often does useless infrastructure get built? How much of a drain does it incur on a country? How relevant is this drain if any over a 400 year span?

"Fourth, ... methods by Americans?" I agree with Strazdaz.

"An opportunity.. and economic advantages." You said political/cultural institutions were also infrastructure. Chinas downfall was in part due to inferior weaponry which came about from not having an industrial revolution similar to the west. This in turn was due to the cultural situation they had. So no they didn't have cultural advantages in the long run as this led to inferior armies by the time armies could reach China by boat.

"Apparently you do no... new Republic's back." This only applied to Texas, how was the far eastern states like maryland effected by comanche? Yes other states had other indians to contend with but was the scale of indian attacks in texas the norm or an exception?

"In your opinion.... combat the Native Americans." Again were the threat of indians in texas the norm or an exception. Also tens of thousands dead is a drop in the ocean over 400 years. Especially with the high rates of immigration into the U.S.A. They as a whole could easily afford to lose that people.

"ou seem for forget about the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, the Barbary Wars, and the various skirmishes fought against British settlers in Canada." --- I should have been clearer. I meant no-one has made a co-ordinated attack as allies. Spain and england and austria didnt all decide to fight america as allies at once like they did with napoleon and france. There were no such grand coalitions similar to the spanish succesion or napoleonic france throught the past 400 years.

"The point that I was arguing was that it is amazing that the US is in as good a shape as it is from a socio-economic and cultural perspective due to the basic fact that we had less than 400 years to build from effectively nothing."

As I said America has had a lot more opportunity to build when compared to other countries. On top of that, yes you had to build roads where fields stood. But you used technology and ingredients that needed thousands of years to come into existence. When america needed things built, they already knew of pythagoras' rule and iron tempering. They already knew of Athenian democracy and of written legal documents like the Magna Carta. It's the difference between making a table using sticks and stones, and using one using a computer, some software and a 3d printer. Both start with nothing, but the tools and ingredients greatly affect speed and quality of the outcome.

Great works don't just come about by continual refinement of existing things. They also come about by great tools and knowledge. Both possessed in America due to the exchange of information and skilled persons.

Dr Ampersand:
"Second of all,..something that is not useful."--- Yes useless infrastructure is a drain if its chosen to be maintained. Which part of my argument was that supposed to relate to? I'm not sure how it fits to what I said, sorry.

You cannot build a road to the Comstock Lode until the Comstock Lode is discovered (unless you are insanely lucky). That means that road infrastructure follows discoveries and other buildings. Something that takes time.

"Third,...work go faster." Infrastructure allows for making new objects to improve old infrastructure building tasks. I chop down trees with my hands at a rate of 1 a day to makes sticks. I dig up iron with sticks and burn sticks to smelt iron into an axe head, I now have an axe that I can chop trees with at a rate of 10 a day.

The difference between the beginning of the Stone Age and the beginning of the Bronze Age is about 3 million years. And it did not come into existence uniformly.

Anyway, what you are describing is irrelevant. Since, now that you are chopping down trees you are using those trees for other things. That means that your work is now divided between various tasks. So, whatever you were doing before gets roughly the same materials because your new excess materials are being used for other things. That is not exponential growth of infrastructure.

You're right in that not All infrastructure speeds up future building, but most do indirectly. Things that get built allow for prosperity. Prosperity allow the building/buying/etc of new objects. New objects either increase prosperity, repeating the cycle or increase future building.

Not exponentially. What's more, you argued that more land equals faster building.

How often does useless infrastructure get built?

Often. But what it is depends on the person in question. A clergyman certainly will not call his institution a drain. I am different.

How much of a drain does it incur on a country?

It depends on what you are talking about. Some are irrelevant some quite a bit. A road to nowhere costs money at the onset and then continues to cost money as you are required to repair it. So the cost of that useless infrastructure continues for an eternity (effectively).

How relevant is this drain if any over a 400 year span?

Depends on what you are talking about. A small road that costs $5,000 to build and $1,000 per year to repair over 400 years equals $404,000. If that money is given to something useful what could it actually accomplish?

"Fourth, ... methods by Americans?" I agree with Strazdaz.

Read my response to him.

"An opportunity.. and economic advantages." You said political/cultural institutions were also infrastructure. Chinas downfall was in part due to inferior weaponry which came about from not having an industrial revolution similar to the west. This in turn was due to the cultural situation they had. So no they didn't have cultural advantages in the long run as this led to inferior armies by the time armies could reach China by boat.

Their cultural situation allowed the Chinese government to mobilize massive armies of workers for construction projects as well as for military ventures. At the same time their country could be extremely stable depending on the actions of the upper class. Their disadvantage is the fact that, unlike Europeans, they did not have to perfect the art of war. Many would call that an advantage (morally at least).

"Apparently you do no... new Republic's back." This only applied to Texas, how was the far eastern states like maryland effected by comanche? Yes other states had other indians to contend with but was the scale of indian attacks in texas the norm or an exception?

Technically they were not states at the time. Those areas were so out of the US government's control that they could not be formed into states. If you trespassed in those areas you were in great danger. They were called the Indian Wars for a reason.

Also, the Comanche were not just in Texas (in reading their history everyone must admit that the Comanche had balls)-

"In your opinion.... combat the Native Americans." Again were the threat of indians in texas the norm or an exception.

The norm. As time went on the Native Americans were pushed further west but in the beginning the Native Americans could have easily wiped out the settlers (and sometimes did).

Also tens of thousands dead is a drop in the ocean over 400 years. Especially with the high rates of immigration into the U.S.A. They as a whole could easily afford to lose that people.

For a population of that size, no it isn't.

"ou seem for forget about the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, the Barbary Wars, and the various skirmishes fought against British settlers in Canada." --- I should have been clearer. I meant no-one has made a co-ordinated attack as allies. Spain and england and austria didnt all decide to fight america as allies at once like they did with napoleon and france. There were no such grand coalitions similar to the spanish succesion or napoleonic france throught the past 400 years.

Because the US was too much of a pain in the ass to bother with. Not that it was powerful, just that fighting it would take up resources they wanted to use elsewhere. It is not a good comparison to compare France and the US in terms of military power in the early 1800s. Why the hell would England bother to put even a 1/10th of the power used against Napoleon against the US?

As I said America has had a lot more opportunity to build when compared to other countries.

Given time, sure.

On top of that, yes you had to build roads where fields stood. But you used technology and ingredients that needed thousands of years to come into existence.

And hundreds of years to realize in the US. You can have as many plows as you want. You still have to convert the land into farm land (a process that takes years and sometimes decades depending on the area). Europeans on the other hand did not have to worry as much about land conversion. They just had to apply the new technology. What's more, the Europeans had hundreds of years to distribute heavy plows throughout the population. Americans had to do it practically overnight. The costs were spread out for Europeans but Americans had to purchase advanced technology on a moment's notice and for a higher price than Europeans because the infrastructure to build the plows did not exist in the US for some time.

When america needed things built, they already knew of pythagoras' rule and iron tempering.

So did Europeans for thousands of years. See what they did with it.

They already knew of Athenian democracy and of written legal documents like the Magna Carta.

So did Europeans for several thousand years 400 years respectively.

It's the difference between making a table using sticks and stones, and using one using a computer, some software and a 3d printer. Both start with nothing, but the tools and ingredients greatly affect speed and quality of the outcome.

Actually it is more like a person building a table using sticks and stones and then building up incredible economic infrastructure to build tables using a computer. Verses a mildly computer literate person trying to build said economic infrastructure from scratch while at the same time training his/herself to use the computer and the technology.

Great works don't just come about by continual refinement of existing things.

Tell that to London. Or should I say Londinium (the Roman name) or whatever it was called before the Romans.

They also come about by great tools and knowledge. Both possessed in America due to the exchange of information and skilled persons.

All possessed before by the Europeans who had thousands of years to use said infrastructure to build shit. The US had to build an economic system while Europeans were building gunships.

Minimum Wage Jobs are Starvation Wage Jobs.

You know I sort of wonder how this thread moved away form minimum wage. I originally argued with farson, because I disliked his general attitude of "let them starve/ let them suffer", because it's "peanuts to the past" (all of which I'm not making up). The fact that the previous generation suffered does not invalidate problems that occur today.

The main argument was:
1) Increasing minimum wage is apparently just an excuse to live a cushy life
2) The U.S can't help it because it's not over 2000 years old and somehow the infrastructure remained for those countries who were. As if this somehow excused the U.S deplorable infrastructure.
3) His "plan". When confronted about the inability to pay student debt, he said that 50% was mostly for teenagers, ignoring the part then that his plan would fall apart for the other 50%. Then when all else fails declare that "people live on minimum wage fine".

I'm tired about arguing about number 1 because it entails arguing about set of values different than my own and we fell to the point of using anecdotal evidence and I'm certainly not going to share what my own grandfather taught me as a sort of pissing contest.

For number 2, I would like to say that I don't know why there's an argument about Lithuania or France for that matter. Lithuania "wins" the suffering game hands down and I'm not sure how you it can be said that they already had something " to build upon". As for arguing about social progress, the argument is incredibly simplistic and ignorant. It's limited to Jamestown for some reason, completely ignoring U.S growth in the years that followed, assuming that somehow first colonization efforts dictated growth patters for later centuries, which is dishonest. Britain made the first steam trains in 1804 and the first railway system started in 1840. The U.S started it's own system in 1850.
China was building gunships while most of western Europe were living in hutches and would that excuse any lateness in socioeconomic progress? No.

Most of France was effectively destroyed in WWI and WWII, but yeah they had something to build upon. Ruins. Here I could use my dickish "ha ha, our population suffered more card", but quite frankly it's obnoxious and unsightly. Many countries in the world have gone through hell and they pulled through. I can think of an example. Vietnam. They now have better energy efficiency than the U.S, even after the country was bombed enough times to look like the surface of the moon. (I'm not exaggerating, more explosives were dropped on Vietnam than the whole of WWII).
Before that they even went through colonization by the Japanese and the French, yet they don't refuse to repair their country, because they've gone through alot. The U.S doesn't have to be perfect, but it's inexcusable to attribute to history what is actually due to 20-21 century politics.

The U.S even had the progressive era from 1890-1920, that were in the same few period as in Europe. The U.S was more socially advanced and had better infrastructure after WWII. The U.S's "short" history can't be blamed for it lagging behind now in modern times! The fault is with the polices for the past 60 years that have little by little chipped money from infrastructure and social progress.

As for number 3, I can only say that the main problem is that it went most arguments for keeping a lower minimum wage goes by individuals, or uses anecdotal evidence or just plain accusing of coddling people (or wishing for absolute protection which is ridiculous) whereas most calls for a raise in minimum wage work in a system basis.

EDIT: This is from past experience, but no one better cut this post up. It twists an argument, allows opposition to easily and shallowly dismiss arguments.

farson135:
Right, because France built everything it has in the past 400 years. That includes its economic and social institutions.

France has bridges and roads that are older than my country. Your infrastructure was built up over the past 2,000 years. The price of that infrastructure has been spread out over that entire time period. It is amazing that the US has as much as it does.

The U.S still have a higher GDP per capita and has had a higher GDP per capita for a good part of its history. The whole 2000 years claim is nonsensical, since it ignores governments at that time and the shape of society as a whole. Old infrastructure has to be re-purposed, cleared or repaired which can cost just as much. Do anyone seriously believe that Paris is still using the "ancient roman ruins"?

I'm starting to wonder now if you're using Civilization or any other game as a basis for why most countries have better infrastructure simply because they have a "head start".

A high GDP doesn't mean much though, a nation can have a high GDP and half it's population be in poverty.

Janos Valentine:
A high GDP doesn't mean much though, a nation can have a high GDP and half it's population be in poverty.

True. I used GDP per capita though in this post and the last post.

GDP per capita is GDP per population, which is why China has a GDP of 8.227 trillion USD, but a GDP per capita of 6,091.01 USD and the U.S has a GDP of 15.68 trillion USD and a gdp per capita of 49,965.27 USD.

GDP isn't an accurate way to see wealth, and GDP per capita isn't perfect either, but it does give a slightly general idea.

I hope I'm clearer now.

EDIT: I used it in the context against the claim that France by the average population was more wealthy than the average population in the U.S. Yet the GDP per capita of France in modern times is 2.613 trillion USD.

Which led the argument from being about the U.S having a poorer infrastructure, because it didn't have the wealth (which was false) to France just having a head start, which is also false.

Frission:

The U.S still have a higher GDP per capita and has had a higher GDP per capita for a good part of its history. The whole 2000 years claim is nonsensical, since it ignores governments at that time and the shape of society as a whole. Old infrastructure has to be re-purposed, cleared or repaired which can cost just as much. Do anyone seriously believe that Paris is still using the "ancient roman ruins"?

I'm starting to wonder now if you're using Civilization or any other game as a basis for why most countries have better infrastructure simply because they have a "head start".

The thing about infrastructure is that a rapid construction of lots of infrastructure is economically beneficial to a country. This can be seen over and over again in history, with the railroads providing thousands of people jobs laying down tracks and clearing the way for future tracks. Autobahn is another great example of how infrastructure creates both jobs and gets an economy back on its' feet after almost a decade of economical depression.

As such, having established a lot of infrastructure in a short time should be seen as highly beneficial as it has allowed that country to generate lots of wealth and employment opportunities within a short time span. While it is expensive for the government everyone else prospers.

Frission:
I originally argued with farson, because I disliked his general attitude of "let them starve/ let them suffer", because it's "peanuts to the past" (all of which I'm not making up).

Yes you are making it up. Feel free to quote the exact location where I said that.

1) Increasing minimum wage is apparently just an excuse to live a cushy life

No, arguing that the minimum wage is not livable is bullshit because you are not talking about living you are talking about absolute protection.

2) The U.S can't help it because it's not over 2000 years old and somehow the infrastructure remained for those countries who were. As if this somehow excused the U.S deplorable infrastructure.

Wrong again. The US cannot be expected to be in the same exact socio-economic cultural condition as France because it has not had the same history.

3) His "plan". When confronted about the inability to pay student debt

You never mentioned student debt.

he said that 50% was mostly for teenagers, ignoring the part then that his plan would fall apart for the other 50%.

Citation? Of course not. Actually proving your point is beneath you,

For number 2, I would like to say that I don't know why there's an argument about Lithuania or France for that matter. Lithuania "wins" the suffering game hands down and I'm not sure how you it can be said that they already had something " to build upon".

Suffering game? Also, Lithuania was a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A relatively rich regional power.

As for arguing about social progress, the argument is incredibly simplistic and ignorant.

Coming from you that criticism is irrelevant.

It's limited to Jamestown for some reason, completely ignoring U.S growth in the years that followed, assuming that somehow first colonization efforts dictated growth patters for later centuries, which is dishonest.

Did I say that? No. And you accuse me of arguing dishonestly. You cannot even seem to address what I actually said. I used Jamestown as an example of the earliest successful European settlement in what would become the 13 colonies. That is the maximum amount of time you can argue the US had to build up.

China was building gunships while most of western Europe were living in hutches and would that excuse any lateness in socioeconomic progress? No.

Actually Europe was an economic and technological backwater. That is why I forgive Europe's relatively poor socioeconomic position relative to the Chinese early on. However, Europe was still in the east-west orientation which gave it incredible economic advantages over Africa and the Americas. Which is why I am able to understand Africa's and America's relatively poor socioeconomic cultural position.

Europe had lots of disadvantages. The only reason Europe is in as good a position as it is, is due to luck. It was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and fighting against the right people. "Europe" won and everyone else was dragged down to make way for European "progress".

Most of France was effectively destroyed in WWI and WWII, but yeah they had something to build upon. Ruins.

WW1? Bullshit. Germany was in far worst shape after WW1. A relatively tiny area of France was devastated. Same with WW2. France was mostly spared from the brunt of the attack. Northern France was hit hard but southern France was fine. And even Northern France was nowhere near in as bad a shape as Germany. And even Germany was not destroyed completely.

Many countries in the world have gone through hell and they pulled through. I can think of an example. Vietnam. They now have better energy efficiency than the U.S, even after the country was bombed enough times to look like the surface of the moon. (I'm not exaggerating, more explosives were dropped on Vietnam than the whole of WWII).

And nothing of consequence was bombed in Vietnam. Ever wonder why Hanoi still exists with all of those bombs falling? The US held back from bombing North Vietnam's major cities.

If you are going to argue history with me then figure out what the fuck you are talking about.

Before that they even went through colonization by the Japanese and the French, yet they don't refuse to repair their country, because they've gone through alot. The U.S doesn't have to be perfect, but it's inexcusable to attribute to history what is actually due to 20-21 century politics.

Refuse? Would you care to lead the effort to fix every single road in the state of Texas?

The U.S was more socially advanced and had better infrastructure after WWII.

No, shittier infrastructure. That is why it is falling apart now.

The U.S's "short" history can't be blamed for it lagging behind now in modern times! The fault is with the polices for the past 60 years that have little by little chipped money from infrastructure and social progress.

Citation? Of course not. You know it in your gut.

BTW what is "modern times"? Is that more ethnocentrism? Do we have to be exactly like you in order to be "modern"?

EDIT: This is from past experience, but no one better cut this post up. It twists an argument, allows opposition to easily and shallowly dismiss arguments.

You are the one who is making up what I said. Stop twisting my arguments for your own bias.

The U.S still have a higher GDP per capita and has had a higher GDP per capita for a good part of its history.

Your point? You have a higher GDP relative to the size of your country. Once again, would you like to spearhead the repair work for the entire US?

The whole 2000 years claim is nonsensical, since it ignores governments at that time and the shape of society as a whole.

Has your country not built up its socioeconomic and cultural institutions over the past 2,000 years? Yes. How long has my country had to do the same thing? 400 years at best. You are the one who is oversimplifying the world.

Old infrastructure has to be re-purposed, cleared or repaired which can cost just as much.

But you have the cost spread out over time and the materials were already collected and the economic institutions required to build it were already in place.

Do anyone seriously believe that Paris is still using the "ancient roman ruins"?

Your city is built right on top of them.

I'm starting to wonder now if you're using Civilization or any other game as a basis for why most countries have better infrastructure simply because they have a "head start".

I am not but you probably are. After all, you are the one who falls into the very western trap of claiming that more resources equals more stuff. Sorry, this is not Civilization. You do not pay straight resources for culture. It develops over time. In Economics such things might be referred to as outside and inside lag. A similar thing is discussed in the "Shield of Achilles". Recognition of a problem followed by action. Both require time. Your failure is your inability to recognize the importance of time.

Frission:
I used it in the context against the claim that France by the average population was more wealthy than the average population in the U.S. Yet the GDP per capita of France in modern times is 2.613 trillion USD.

Which led the argument from being about the U.S having a poorer infrastructure, because it didn't have the wealth (which was false) to France just having a head start, which is also false.

But regarding averages of wealth, if out of a hundred for every 40 people in grinding poverty you have 20 people who are just barely getting by, then another 20 people who are doing pretty well as working class but still struggling to stay that way, then another 10 that are getting by as comfortably middle class, then about 5 that are rich, then 4 people who are sickeningly rich, then .90 people who eat gold toppings on their ice cream and collect fleets of yachts, then .10 who murder people around the world raking in hundreds of billions and collecting mansions, then what does that average really say? The latter 5% of people have so much money combined that they alone count for more than 50% of the average, so any number looking at the average is going to be skewed by their exorbitant wealth, but in reality it's only about 20 out of every hundred people who are really doing well, and about 40-49% are doing just awful.

image

Gethsemani:

Frission:

The U.S still have a higher GDP per capita and has had a higher GDP per capita for a good part of its history. The whole 2000 years claim is nonsensical, since it ignores governments at that time and the shape of society as a whole. Old infrastructure has to be re-purposed, cleared or repaired which can cost just as much. Do anyone seriously believe that Paris is still using the "ancient roman ruins"?

I'm starting to wonder now if you're using Civilization or any other game as a basis for why most countries have better infrastructure simply because they have a "head start".

The thing about infrastructure is that a rapid construction of lots of infrastructure is economically beneficial to a country. This can be seen over and over again in history, with the railroads providing thousands of people jobs laying down tracks and clearing the way for future tracks. Autobahn is another great example of how infrastructure creates both jobs and gets an economy back on its' feet after almost a decade of economical depression.

As such, having established a lot of infrastructure in a short time should be seen as highly beneficial as it has allowed that country to generate lots of wealth and employment opportunities within a short time span. While it is expensive for the government everyone else prospers.

And what happens when that infrastructure is built so rapidly that they use poor building materials and methods? What happens when they build so much so fast that you build a road to nowhere that we have to support for the rest of time? What happens to all of the materials that could have and should have been used in other projects?

That is the situation that the US faces today. We built a lot of crappy bridges and now they are falling apart. We built roads that were not needed and now we are wasting materials trying to fix them. Who in the hell profits from a bridge that falls down in a few decades? Not the people. But the corporate shills and their government cronies certainly do. It amazes me how often people play into the hands of corporations.

farson135:

Strazdas:
No they are not. You cannot take and ajust and then claim to build from scratch. If i were to buy a car and tune its engine, does not mean i built it from scratch.

Go back to my previous example, when I bake bread from scratch I do not reinvent the recipe. I adjust it depending on my materials.

Whitch is much easier than inventing bread recipe yourself. You didnt invent your institutions, you took existing ones and adjusted to your surrounding.

No, it applies primitive tribal instincts.

Let me ask you something, what exactly ensures your loyalty to your country? What makes it so that you respect its laws and customs enough not to break them regularly?

"Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation."

Nothing makes me loyal to my country. I respect its laws, because if i want to live here i respect the rules of the location. Most of them are beneficial to the nation in my opinion. If i wanted to break such laws, i would go to a country where such act is not regulated by laws. Migration is not prohibited. My lawfulnes has nothing to do with nationalism.

Got any evidence? I provided plenty but a once over of your post shows no evidence whatsoever.

You see, the way it works, is that the person claiming something, in this case you claiming that you are worse of becuase you had less time to catch up, is the one that has to provide evidence.

Apparently not since bridges from 2,000 years ago are still standing while many modern bridges are falling apart.

Do you know of a single bridge that has been used for 2000 years without any repairs? Do enlighten us.

Right. You have no examples to prove your point so you just lay it on the heads of the people. I suppose as a white guy you do not want to admit the atrocities of your people. Low blow I know but I want to get your attention. You want a colonized nation to act exactly the same as its colonizers. Not only is that ethnocentrism that is also a failure to understand the insane level of damage perpetrated against colonized nations.

WIthout people civilization wouldnt exist. There are plenty of attrocities commited by white people, however msot of those people are dead. or are you one of the people that blame modern germans for what nazis did? times change, and yet you live in the past.

First of all, we have had many wars in our country. In fact, Prior to WW1 almost every single one of our wars has been on our own soil (exceptions include the Barbary Wars and the Spanish-American War). The 7 Years' War (and many of Britain's other wars), the American Revolution, the War of 1812, various conflicts with Canada, the Mexican-American War, the Indian Wars, the Civil War, the Insular Wars, and WW2 (and the Germans tried their best to get Mexico involved against the US in WW1).

Second of all, your country is smaller than the state of Maine, is almost twice as densely populated as my country, and yet still has a smaller population than the very rural Iowa. Would you care to try and provide high speed internet to the state of Montana and Nevada? Go for it.

And my country was almost completely leveled twice during WW2, your point?
My country is smaller than a state of Maine. It is also far poorer than the state of Maine, has absolutely no natural resources unless you count that drop of oil we extract from the sea that couldn't cover 1% of our oil consumption even if it stayed in the country. the density ratio would be true for Maine perhaps, closer to 1,57 ratio if we take whole USA. YOu have invented the internet. Till 1990 revolution we didnt even knew what internet was (we didnt knew even more basic things in fact), you had an easy 40 years headstart, massive resources, and yet most of first world has beat you to it.

IF you give me control over american ISPs i would.

If you are going to insinuate that my knowledge is lacking you had better bring you're A game.

Actually your country officially started in the 1250s as the Kingdom of Lithuania. Before that your "country" was a bunch of bickering tribesmen. Would you care to explain that away?

Lithuania became a kingdom in 1251, but it was a nation even before the 1009 mention. If you consider that bickerin tribesmen, then so were french till late middle ages. but that would ruin your 2000 years of infrastructure theory wouldnt it?

Poland-Lithuania was a regional power but it still could not match up to the power of the Holy Roman Empire, the Rus, Sweden, the Ottoman Empire, or really anyone except for the declining Mongol Empire and the declining Teutonic Order/Prussian states. You guys got your ass kicked by the very new regional power Brandenburg-Prussia. Plus, your country was attached to the far more powerful Poland. You seem to forget about the other half of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/alliance. The real reason Lithuania suggested the Union was because they were afraid of a resurgence of Moscow which had already conquered much of Lithuania's land. The Polish state was formed in the 900s and it was only because of them that Lithuania rose to any real power. So, Poland, being the driving force behind the power of the Commonwealth, had existed for 500 years prior to the height of its power.

Not sure what kind of sources your getting this from but i would doubt their objectivity after reading such things.

Fixing something that was not put together hurriedly is better than rapid industrialization.

granted, its easier to fix something that was well made to begin with, but the point was that both countries have to do the upkeep, and you dont just have 2000 year old bridges as a free gift.

Do you have any idea what will happen if we stop hunting deer? They will eat our crops and expand their population and people will get killed when they run into the middle of the road.

Yes, i do have an idea. Theres also this magical invention, one from 2000 years ago, called "fence". You should try that sometimes. Much more reliable than shooting all deers that come into your field.
Its good that thier population expand. That means there will be more natural food for predators, so you can not only stop shooting them, but expect less of them wandering into cities out of hunger.

How do you expect us to live and work with invasive species? We can't. We can hunt them to get them out of the way or we can destroy our nature like you have.

Which species would that be? Because what you are hunting for fun arent invasive.

I am saying that ranchers are growing these populations for hunting and at the same time saving them from extinction because they are managing their population.

Yes, saving a creature from extinction for sole reason you could shoot it later. great way to solve the problem.

In your opinion. Yet, somehow, my country has been a hell of a lot more stable than yours.

Yes, it is my opinion that we should not be giving weapons to people who would organize an armed revolt if we decide to regulate such weapons.
Yes, your nation was much more stable, because its not like WW1, WW2 or soviet ocupation has happened here.

No, they became isolationist AFTER the Great Navy was built. That is why they burned it. The Chinese went through periods where they were far less isolationist.

No. They have been isolationists when the navy was built. Then a new emperor came into power and decided to expand its power to other nations, so it send some of that navy, which was mostly merchant shits refitted since these were the largest they had, however as the msision leader died of dissease ( i dont remember which now), the emperor got all scared and turned to isolationism again. It was a brief period of non-isolationism.

farson135:

Anyway, what you are describing is irrelevant. Since, now that you are chopping down trees you are using those trees for other things. That means that your work is now divided between various tasks. So, whatever you were doing before gets roughly the same materials because your new excess materials are being used for other things. That is not exponential growth of infrastructure.

YOu have said that infrastructure also includes political and economical institutions as well as society. By that definition, the trees going into "other" things also come back into infrastructure, that allows higher prosperity, which in turn allows more axes, which means you chop more treees. Exponentiality remains. Growth is not linear.

It depends on what you are talking about. Some are irrelevant some quite a bit. A road to nowhere costs money at the onset and then continues to cost money as you are required to repair it. So the cost of that useless infrastructure continues for an eternity (effectively).

Useless infrastructure gets removed or abandoned. I dont know how it is in america, but here we do not repair roads to nowhere. We also either remove or recycle abandoned factories and other assets, not just constantly keep them up while doing nothing. There was a large microchips factory here that went under. The building is now used as a block of flats. Essentially it is still bringing in profit to economical and societal structure.

Frission:
You know I sort of wonder how this thread moved away form minimum wage.

I came to the thread.

Frission:
Yet the GDP per capita of France in modern times is 2.613 trillion USD.

Surely, this is wrong? As much as i would like if everyone had 2,6 trillions, thats not going to happen.

<After reading farsons response to Frissions post i relaized he seems to avoid being proven wrong by constantly changing his position and claiming that everything that is not beneficial to him is "not what he said". Following this the discussion will be much more restricted.

Frission:

2) The U.S can't help it because it's not over 2000 years old and somehow the infrastructure remained for those countries who were. As if this somehow excused the U.S deplorable infrastructure.

This point is fundamentally crap.

In terms of intellectual and cultural development, the USA carried with it the whole wealth of Europe. It was already largely self-governing, had laws in place, had literature, science, agriculture, philosophy and so on. When the USA claimed independence and created itself, it did no more than any European country around at the time could (and in some cases did) of adapting their existing governance with additional modern theoretical concepts in plentiful supply.

In terms of physical infrastructure it is similarly risible. The USA had to build modern roads, sewers, bridges, railroads and so on - but so did everyone else, because the prior stuff that existed in Europe was hopelessly inadequate for the modern era and needed replacing. Making a paved road out of a medieval dirt track is negligibly different effort than making a road out of fields. Any pre-1776 bridge seeing halfway considerable traffic (esp. trucks) would need replacing. Virtually the entire housing stock of Europe has been replaced since 1776 (much several times over!) - because it needed to be - and it's negligibly different from building a new house on undeveloped land. If it even matters, given that making houses (/bridges / roads) is all economically useful activity anyway.

The only thing that the USA arguably did not have in the early days was its own, independent, national history. On the other hand, neither have hundreds of newly independent states throughout history, and they frequently manage to forge one pretty swiftly, so its hardly exceptional.

farson:

What happens when they build so much so fast that you build a road to nowhere that we have to support for the rest of time?

Well, in Civ5 you maneuver a worker to the hex and click "remove road". In the real world, you stop maintaining the road.

Glad I'm here to solve the tough issues...

Strazdas:
Whitch is much easier than inventing bread recipe yourself. You didnt invent your institutions, you took existing ones and adjusted to your surrounding.

So why are you arguing? I said that to begin with. Twice in fact using those exact words.

Nothing makes me loyal to my country. I respect its laws, because if i want to live here i respect the rules of the location. Most of them are beneficial to the nation in my opinion. If i wanted to break such laws, i would go to a country where such act is not regulated by laws. Migration is not prohibited. My lawfulnes has nothing to do with nationalism.

Which means you have an attachment to your nation because you respect it.

You see, the way it works, is that the person claiming something, in this case you claiming that you are worse of becuase you had less time to catch up, is the one that has to provide evidence.

I did. Several times in fact. YOU have to provide evidence to show that what you are saying is correct or that I am wrong.

Do you know of a single bridge that has been used for 2000 years without any repairs? Do enlighten us.

Did I say that? Stop pretending I said something I did not.

WIthout people civilization wouldnt exist. There are plenty of attrocities commited by white people, however msot of those people are dead. or are you one of the people that blame modern germans for what nazis did? times change, and yet you live in the past.

No, I understand the past and its implications on the future. You should try it.

For example, since you brought up the Nazis, I understand that the Holocaust has scarred Israelis to the point that they will do anything to protect themselves. So I take what is happening in the Middle East very seriously because I know that the Israelis are not joking. On a similar tangent the Prussians were scarred by the 30 Years' War to such an extent that they built up an incredible military infrastructure. In fact, their general diplomatic outlook came in part from the failure of alliances during the 30 Years' War. The result, we have the invasion of neutral Saxony during the 7 Years' War and later the invasion of Belgium (twice). So, the Prussian diplomatic methods are based on experiences from the 30 Years' War and not them being assholes for the sake of it.

And my country was almost completely leveled twice during WW2, your point?

No it wasn't. Your country was spared the brunt of the war and your partisans were about as active as the Danish partisans. You suffered collectivization but the war did not affect you to the extent say, the southeast US during the Civil War.

BTW I love the fact that you ignored the point. You were completely wrong and yet you keep on a truckin'.

My country is smaller than a state of Maine. It is also far poorer than the state of Maine

Actually y'all have about the same GDP.

has absolutely no natural resources unless you count that drop of oil we extract from the sea that couldn't cover 1% of our oil consumption even if it stayed in the country.

And Maine has....wood. Great.

A quick glance at the Wiki page shows Maine is the top producer of toothpicks and paper in the US. They also export the most blueberries in the US. Wow. How could your country ever compete with such an economic powerhouse?

More seriously they do nave ship yards. But then again so does Lithuania.

YOu have invented the internet. Till 1990 revolution we didnt even knew what internet was (we didnt knew even more basic things in fact), you had an easy 40 years headstart, massive resources, and yet most of first world has beat you to it.

40 years? The US military controlled it for most of that. And it was not until the late 90s that anything of consequence came out of the internet.

BTW beat us too it? We have been using the internet for decades. The hundreds of billions that would be spent by government to upgrade our internet so that my homepage loads 3 seconds faster is not worth it.

Right now Google is bringing "Google Fiber" to my city. To put it simply, once it is in place, my homepage will load 3 times faster than yours (1GB/sec). Guess what, that is insanely expensive and Google probably is not going to make a profit for a long ass time. We have the tech to be far better than y'all. But we do not want to spend the money for that kind of tech.

IF you give me control over american ISPs i would.

Show me a plan that could roll out your level of internet coverage to the entire US. (who wants to take bets on him meeting the trillion dollar mark?)

Lithuania became a kingdom in 1251, but it was a nation even before the 1009 mention.

No it wasn't. What would become the kingdom of Lithuania was not even a cohesive language group at the time. A Lithuanian tribe was mentioned.

If you consider that bickerin tribesmen, then so were french till late middle ages.

No they weren't. The first French leader that comes to mind is Charles Martel in the 700s. He was the one whose sons would form the Carolingian Dynasty of France. That is, the guys would divide France, the Holy Roman Empire, and the low countries into separate countries. In fact, he was the one who defeated the Muslims at Tours. In other words under the leadership of Charles the Hammer (that brings back memories) the Muslims never managed to conquer past Spain.

France comes from Franks, that is German tribesmen who would become the rulers of France once they conquered then Gaul from the Western Romans.

Once again, if you are going to debate me on history you need to bring you're A game.

Not sure what kind of sources your getting this from but i would doubt their objectivity after reading such things.

"God's Playground: A History of Poland" is a good source.

You got anything better? Surely you learned some of your history in school.

granted, its easier to fix something that was well made to begin with, but the point was that both countries have to do the upkeep, and you dont just have 2000 year old bridges as a free gift.

It is usually cheaper to maintain than to build from scratch. And once again, by building the bridge you already have infrastructure to build new bridges. You do not have to build that infrastructure from scratch as long as you keep using it. And France has no shortage of bridges.

Yes, i do have an idea. Theres also this magical invention, one from 2000 years ago, called "fence". You should try that sometimes. Much more reliable than shooting all deers that come into your field.

You mean like this-

Or are you talking about extremely expensive fences like this-

You claim your country is poor. Yet somehow you think it is perfectly alright to have farmers pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to fence in their land when they could pay $200 for a rifle and some ammo to kill the same deer.

Its good that thier population expand. That means there will be more natural food for predators, so you can not only stop shooting them, but expect less of them wandering into cities out of hunger.

Deer do not have many natural predators in the US (except humans). That is the same reason that wild pigs grow so out of control in the US. Sure you go alligators in the southeast and some wolves, bears, and cougars scattered about. But nothing good enough to keep their population down except for humans.

Predators do not wander into cities every day. It happens occasionally in places that still have nature.

Which species would that be? Because what you are hunting for fun arent invasive

Wild pigs first and foremost. In Florida they are having problems with Pythons.

Yes, saving a creature from extinction for sole reason you could shoot it later. great way to solve the problem.

Once again, there are 10,000 of those antelope in Texas. Less than 200 in their home country. Seems our methods are working.

No. They have been isolationists when the navy was built. Then a new emperor came into power and decided to expand its power to other nations, so it send some of that navy, which was mostly merchant shits refitted since these were the largest they had, however as the msision leader died of dissease ( i dont remember which now), the emperor got all scared and turned to isolationism again. It was a brief period of non-isolationism.

No, the Admiral survived and outlived the Emperor. It was the next Emperor that changed the policy.

The Chinese had gone through ups and downs in terms of isolation. That is why they invaded Korea, Northern Vietnam, and other areas and then let them go after a few hundred years.

YOu have said that infrastructure also includes political and economical institutions as well as society. By that definition, the trees going into "other" things also come back into infrastructure, that allows higher prosperity, which in turn allows more axes, which means you chop more treees. Exponentiality remains.

How do you know it comes back into infrastructure?

Growth is not linear.

Nope, growth is actually extremely variable.

Useless infrastructure gets removed or abandoned.

We don't do that. If it is built we try and maintain it.

I dont know how it is in america, but here we do not repair roads to nowhere.

We build them and repair them-
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/20673/maryland-will-pay-for-underused-i-95-toll-lanes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

And on.

<After reading farsons response to Frissions post i relaized he seems to avoid being proven wrong by constantly changing his position

Care to show how I changed my position? Use MY posts as the example not his.

claiming that everything that is not beneficial to him is "not what he said".

Go ahead and show me where I am wrong.

Agema:
This point is fundamentally crap.

If you are going to address my post have the guts to address me directly.

In terms of intellectual and cultural development, the USA carried with it the whole wealth of Europe.

Ah, so the thing that does not actually ensure that we have the same infrastructure as Europe we had. Great.

When the USA claimed independence and created itself, it did no more than any European country around at the time could (and in some cases did) of adapting their existing governance with additional modern theoretical concepts in plentiful supply.

Except for the fact that what the US had tried had never been tried successfully before.

In terms of physical infrastructure it is similarly risible. The USA had to build modern roads, sewers, bridges, railroads and so on - but so did everyone else, because the prior stuff that existed in Europe was hopelessly inadequate for the modern era and needed replacing.

Actually much of what existed is still in use today. They added onto it because they needed to do more.

Making a paved road out of a medieval dirt track is negligibly different effort than making a road out of fields.

Actually it is very different. With a Medieval road you can be relatively certain that you need the road. Build a road from nothing is very different.

Any pre-1776 bridge seeing halfway considerable traffic (esp. trucks) would need replacing.

Strange then that so many of those roads are still in use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosse_Way

Virtually the entire housing stock of Europe has been replaced since 1776 (much several times over!) - because it needed to be - and it's negligibly different from building a new house on undeveloped land.

Actually it is very different. Since you probably have never done any labor like this before I am not surprised that you do not realize this. Unless you spend a lot of time looking at the land you want to build your house on you might not notice the topographical issues. For example, it does not rain much here in central Texas. My Grandfather told me a story of a man who built his house and watched it wash away because he did not know that there was a dike in the next farm over and if that dike collapsed then he is flooded out. Time is a distinct advantage when it comes to planning your home on a piece of land. Another example would be the fact that in the days before soil testing you had to grow something on a piece of land to know for sure that it is useful. Unless you are just damn lucky you will probably build your house in the wrong place for efficient working.

The only thing that the USA arguably did not have in the early days was its own, independent, national history. On the other hand, neither have hundreds of newly independent states throughout history, and they frequently manage to forge one pretty swiftly, so its hardly exceptional.

Never said it was exceptional. In fact, I claimed very little that was exceptional except for the fact that the US is in as good a shape as it is.

Seanchaidh:
Well, in Civ5 you maneuver a worker to the hex and click "remove road". In the real world, you stop maintaining the road.

Glad I'm here to solve the tough issues...

We don't do that. Sorry, you again fail to understand how the political structure in the US works.

farson135:

Strazdas:
Whitch is much easier than inventing bread recipe yourself. You didnt invent your institutions, you took existing ones and adjusted to your surrounding.

So why are you arguing? I said that to begin with. Twice in fact using those exact words.

because you keep claiming that you did things from scratch.

Which means you have an attachment to your nation because you respect it.

I dont respect my nation. I respect specific laws that are used here (and many other places). I got random spawn of being born here, and so far havent moved far. does not mean i somehow respect or love my country any more than any other country. though that may not be entirely true as there are countries that i dislike where for most im infdifferent.

No it wasn't. Your country was spared the brunt of the war and your partisans were about as active as the Danish partisans. You suffered collectivization but the war did not affect you to the extent say, the southeast US during the Civil War.

BTW I love the fact that you ignored the point. You were completely wrong and yet you keep on a truckin'.

My country was a battlefront. we are gates to russia and were the main path for the troops. we have been leveled to the true sense of the word.
And our thieves, sorry, partisans did try to fight, mostly in vein. The book smugglers did more good than the partisans.

There were points where you were correct and i was wrong. I accepted your explanation, and as i had no further comment i did not quote it. The posts are long as it is. I also dont comment on some parts as you keep changing your story and i got no will to discuss like that.

And Maine has....wood. Great.

A quick glance at the Wiki page shows Maine is the top producer of toothpicks and paper in the US. They also export the most blueberries in the US. Wow. How could your country ever compete with such an economic powerhouse?

More seriously they do nave ship yards. But then again so does Lithuania.

Yes, pick the poorest state and compare it to whole country, that surely does the trick! Now that would work if Maine was a seperate country. it isnt.

40 years? The US military controlled it for most of that. And it was not until the late 90s that anything of consequence came out of the internet.

BTW beat us too it? We have been using the internet for decades. The hundreds of billions that would be spent by government to upgrade our internet so that my homepage loads 3 seconds faster is not worth it.

Right now Google is bringing "Google Fiber" to my city. To put it simply, once it is in place, my homepage will load 3 times faster than yours (1GB/sec). Guess what, that is insanely expensive and Google probably is not going to make a profit for a long ass time. We have the tech to be far better than y'all. But we do not want to spend the money for that kind of tech.

Its a fair point about universal use being later than 50s, that however still gives you a headstart, consdiering you have been mastering it for military use for decades even before that.
That was my entire point, you have been using it for decades, and yet your internet is now considered extremely poor because you couldnt do your upkeep (just like you couldnt do that with your rairoads, bridges.... you get the point).
Internet speeds are there not to load homepages faster. Internet connection replaces cable television with much more flexibility, allow streaming, disgital distribution, instant acess, cloud computing (actual cloud computing not the silly things Microsoft is talking about), instant sharing, free video conferences and a lot more. So yeah, it IS worth it. Just beucase you dont use it does not mean it cant do much more.
Considering i heard Google is asking 60 dollars a month, they surely will make a profit within couple years.

Show me a plan that could roll out your level of internet coverage to the entire US. (who wants to take bets on him meeting the trillion dollar mark?)

When you hire me to do it i will start making it. Right now i got better things to do than spend hundreds of hours doing internet placement calculations to give you a cost figure. People earning 4 times less for internet they provide somehow manage to make huge profits on it though. except in america, where they get sued for "bringing competition to local monopoly".

"God's Playground: A History of Poland" is a good source.

Polish view of Lithuania. makes sense now.

It is usually cheaper to maintain than to build from scratch. And once again, by building the bridge you already have infrastructure to build new bridges. You do not have to build that infrastructure from scratch as long as you keep using it. And France has no shortage of bridges.

ITs cheaper to maintain as long as the old object is usable. However when it no longer is (wooden bridge cant suppor trucks for example) you have to cover costs of tearing it down and placing a new one. So there are sitautions where building from scratchs is cheaper, which equalizes the costs here.
And if we look at usable objects from 400 years ago... bridges is probably the only ones left.

You claim your country is poor. Yet somehow you think it is perfectly alright to have farmers pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to fence in their land when they could pay $200 for a rifle and some ammo to kill the same deer.

yeah, if fences are that expensive in america, no wonder you act like building a new bridge is going to bancrupt you.
"hundreds of thousands of dollars" is what cost us to fence all the main roads in the country from the forests so animal would not walk into the road. thats hundreds of kilometers of fence. They seem to be similar to first picture, but higher (above human height).
The problem with your "solution" is that the deer would be dead afterwads.

Deer do not have many natural predators in the US (except humans). That is the same reason that wild pigs grow so out of control in the US. Sure you go alligators in the southeast and some wolves, bears, and cougars scattered about. But nothing good enough to keep their population down except for humans.

Maybe if you havent shot so many wolves, bears and alligators....

Wild pigs first and foremost. In Florida they are having problems with Pythons.

Wild pigs arent agressive (no, really, if you do not try to invade their territory they wont attack, even if they look mean), though they do raid the food fields. Pythons do are invsaive. fair examples, i expected worse. then you could have easily used rabbits, those bastards are truly getting out of control.

another thing i would like to mention here: i said i do not agree with killing animals for fun. i do understand the need to lower thier population in some cases (though this is often turned into excuse to hunt for fun, which is what i disagreed with to begin with). so we are weering off topic.

No, the Admiral survived and outlived the Emperor. It was the next Emperor that changed the policy.

The Chinese had gone through ups and downs in terms of isolation. That is why they invaded Korea, Northern Vietnam, and other areas and then let them go after a few hundred years.

Thats not what my book said, though i dont remember its name currently so fair enough. and yes China's isolationism has fluctuated, but it never went full expansionist like the England did. At that point had China wanted they could have conquered Europe.

How do you know it comes back into infrastructure?

Because i know how market economy works. And since we are using infrastrucre that you defined as including political and economical social conditions, economy is included.
Granted, its possible that it would not come back to infrastructure, for example a king hoarding it, but the only example of anything similar i know in US is the grain hoarding.

Nope, growth is actually extremely variable.

Variable? yes. Long term trend - exponential.

We don't do that. If it is built we try and maintain it.

Then you have jstu discovered a fault in your management. You spend resources to maintain useless structures.

I love when threads like this devolve into arguments that refer to millions of people in singular terms. It skews the perspective in a way that turns decades, sometimes hundreds of years of mismanagement into a problem that can somehow be fixed by one person doing something a little different. As if it was that easy to change the minds of 300 million people that are too accustomed to too many things that are bad for them. "You shouldn't do this". I do not. Farson does not. It's the other 299,999,998 that do. If everything we do is so wrong, tell me how we can fix it in a way that uses means that are actually within our reach.

Strazdas:
because you keep claiming that you did things from scratch.

We did. Once again, making bread from scratch does not mean you reinvent the recipe.

I dont respect my nation. I respect specific laws that are used here (and many other places). I got random spawn of being born here, and so far havent moved far. does not mean i somehow respect or love my country any more than any other country. though that may not be entirely true as there are countries that i dislike where for most im infdifferent.

You respect the laws that represent your country.

My country was a battlefront. we are gates to russia and were the main path for the troops. we have been leveled to the true sense of the word.

Not really. Lithuania was nowhere near the main front. Your country was ceded by both the Soviet Union and Germany basically without a fight. I cannot even find a battle that was fought in your country. I found a minor skirmish between Polish partisans and Lithuanians in the Nazi Army in Belarus. That is it.

I also dont comment on some parts as you keep changing your story and i got no will to discuss like that.

Show me.

Yes, pick the poorest state and compare it to whole country, that surely does the trick! Now that would work if Maine was a seperate country. it isnt.

Maine is nowhere near the poorest state in the US. Also, I did not choose to talk about Maine's GDP. You did.

FYI, the poorest state is apparently Vermont with roughly half your county's GDP.

That was my entire point, you have been using it for decades, and yet your internet is now considered extremely poor because you couldnt do your upkeep (just like you couldnt do that with your rairoads, bridges.... you get the point).

Couldn't? Or didn't want to. Once again, my homepage loading 3 seconds faster is not worth the hundreds of billions it would take to get there for the entire country.

Internet speeds are there not to load homepages faster. Internet connection replaces cable television with much more flexibility, allow streaming, disgital distribution, instant acess, cloud computing (actual cloud computing not the silly things Microsoft is talking about), instant sharing, free video conferences and a lot more. So yeah, it IS worth it. Just beucase you dont use it does not mean it cant do much more.

I do quite a bit of that. Problem, it still does not matter. I can stream videos perfectly fine. Sure, I cannot load the entirety of the video as fast as you can (google fiber is boasting that it can load an HD movie in 15 minutes I think) but then again why do I need to load a video so much faster than I can watch it? UT already does cloud computing and it works fine. It takes 30 seconds to load a 100 page PDF but I can certainly deal with that. I already have free video conferencing and it works fine. You have the advantage of speed but my connection is not that slow. Talk to the Aussies. They have unbelievably shitty internet connections.

Polish view of Lithuania. makes sense now.

Better than what you provided. Also, he is not Polish he is English.

ITs cheaper to maintain as long as the old object is usable. However when it no longer is (wooden bridge cant suppor trucks for example) you have to cover costs of tearing it down and placing a new one. So there are sitautions where building from scratchs is cheaper, which equalizes the costs here.

Not really. Usually if someone is going to build a new bridge they do not tear down the old one. They build a new one right next to it and add a minor change to the road. Then, the wooden bridge can be used for foot traffic.

And if we look at usable objects from 400 years ago... bridges is probably the only ones left.

We have bridges, buildings, roads, topographical changes, mines, and of course institutions.

yeah, if fences are that expensive in america, no wonder you act like building a new bridge is going to bancrupt you.
"hundreds of thousands of dollars" is what cost us to fence all the main roads in the country from the forests so animal would not walk into the road. thats hundreds of kilometers of fence. They seem to be similar to first picture, but higher (above human height).

I would like to see a citation on that. Since-

And he does not even mention the cost of maintenance.

The problem with your "solution" is that the deer would be dead afterwads.

The problem with your "solution" is that it is insanely expensive, it hurts the animals, and it cuts off other animals from traveling between ecological communities.

Are you a vegetarian? If not then perhaps you should not complain about me eating venison.

Maybe if you havent shot so many wolves, bears and alligators....

We don't shoot that many. They die out because of urban sprawl. Those kinds of large predators need a huge area to roam (except for alligators but they are plentiful).

Wild pigs arent agressive

Yes they are.

(no, really, if you do not try to invade their territory they wont attack, even if they look mean), though they do raid the food fields.

You say they won't attack you if you do not enter their territory then you admit that they enter our territory. Do you see the problem there?

A friend of mine was almost attacked by a wild pig because he was walking his family's fence line and a pig happened to be passing by in the brush. The only reason he was not gored was because his dad pulled out a pistol and shot it.

I myself have been attacked by pigs on a fairly regular basis.

fair examples, i expected worse. then you could have easily used rabbits, those bastards are truly getting out of control.

Technically those are not invasive species (that requires them to be non-native). They are just a pain in the ass. On that level I would include wild dogs, coyotes, prairie dogs, rattle snakes, etc.

another thing i would like to mention here: i said i do not agree with killing animals for fun. i do understand the need to lower thier population in some cases (though this is often turned into excuse to hunt for fun, which is what i disagreed with to begin with). so we are weering off topic.

I kill for pest control and for meat. Obviously I do not eat raccoons or wild dogs but those are pests that have to be done away with. I keep the skin because it is useful.

At that point had China wanted they could have conquered Europe.

That is pushing it. Europe is a long ass way off. Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia? Definitely. But Europe would have to wait (the same way the Europeans did not start with China).

Because i know how market economy works. And since we are using infrastrucre that you defined as including political and economical social conditions, economy is included.
Granted, its possible that it would not come back to infrastructure, for example a king hoarding it, but the only example of anything similar i know in US is the grain hoarding.

Not everything goes back to the economic infrastructure in a relevant way. A painter who paints for himself uses resources but does not add anything of significance to the economic system.

Then you have jstu discovered a fault in your management. You spend resources to maintain useless structures.

I did not just discover it. I have been talking about it for years. Yet, when I talk about letting useless infrastructure be ignored I am told we cannot do that because we might finish the road at some point, or some people rely on that road for their jobs, etc.

Yet, when I talk about letting useless infrastructure be ignored I am told we cannot do that because we might finish the road at some point, or some people rely on that road for their jobs, etc.

.......

Seriously, man? It's the self-refuting post up in here.

Seanchaidh:

Yet, when I talk about letting useless infrastructure be ignored I am told we cannot do that because we might finish the road at some point, or some people rely on that road for their jobs, etc.

.......

Seriously, man? It's the self-refuting post up in here.

Roads that are rarely used are called necessary because someone uses them occasionally. They are useless because they are not used enough to justify their cost. If you have a 2 vehicles and you use one only once per year but are still making car payments on it while using the other vehicle 364 days out of your year I would call that other vehicle a useless waste of money.

You know, most people would be able to easily spot what I was saying. What is wrong with you?

Roads that are rarely used are called necessary because someone uses them occasionally. They are useless because they are not used enough to justify their cost. If you have a 2 vehicles and you use one only once per year but are still making car payments on it while using the other vehicle 364 days out of your year I would call that other vehicle a useless waste of money.

You know, most people would be able to easily spot what I was saying. What is wrong with you?

"Used occasionally" = "rely on that road for their jobs"

OK, champ.

Seanchaidh:

Roads that are rarely used are called necessary because someone uses them occasionally. They are useless because they are not used enough to justify their cost. If you have a 2 vehicles and you use one only once per year but are still making car payments on it while using the other vehicle 364 days out of your year I would call that other vehicle a useless waste of money.

You know, most people would be able to easily spot what I was saying. What is wrong with you?

"Used occasionally" = "rely on that road for their jobs"

OK, champ.

Reading various posts proved to me long ago that just because someone argues something that does not make it true. For example, you argued that you put me on ignore in order to avoid what I was saying. Yet, here you are reading my post again.

Remus:
I love when threads like this devolve into arguments that refer to millions of people in singular terms. It skews the perspective in a way that turns decades, sometimes hundreds of years of mismanagement into a problem that can somehow be fixed by one person doing something a little different. As if it was that easy to change the minds of 300 million people that are too accustomed to too many things that are bad for them. "You shouldn't do this". I do not. Farson does not. It's the other 299,999,998 that do. If everything we do is so wrong, tell me how we can fix it in a way that uses means that are actually within our reach.

You shouldnt do this implies whole 300.000.000 shouldnt. How to change peoples minds? if we had an easy solution to that we would have been in a way different world now.

farson135:

Strazdas:
because you keep claiming that you did things from scratch.

We did. Once again, making bread from scratch does not mean you reinvent the recipe.

And so, we go in circles. you either use existing recipe or you invent it from scratch. You cant have both.

You respect the laws that represent your country.

I respect laws that are established in location i live in. Laws do not "represent" countries. I dont respect laws because they represent Lithuania. I respect laws because i agree with them and have a belief that lawful change of rule is better than anarchistic action.

Not really. Lithuania was nowhere near the main front. Your country was ceded by both the Soviet Union and Germany basically without a fight. I cannot even find a battle that was fought in your country. I found a minor skirmish between Polish partisans and Lithuanians in the Nazi Army in Belarus. That is it.

Because germans bombing retreating russians and then russians bombing retreating germans does no damage. no, there was no direct battle. we didnt have enough people or resouerces to even make a stand. they went in leveled the place and we could do nothing about it. There are no battles for moscow of Stalingrad resistances here. imagine if instead of trying to take Stalingrad Germans would have just used artillery to level it and clear it of any opposing forces. We were too small for them to care.

Couldn't? Or didn't want to. Once again, my homepage loading 3 seconds faster is not worth the hundreds of billions it would take to get there for the entire country.

So you intentionally keep your infrastructure sub-par, become unable to use services provided via this infrastructure, and blame history on it.
I guess you are a right to this opinion as strange as it is.

I do quite a bit of that. Problem, it still does not matter. I can stream videos perfectly fine. Sure, I cannot load the entirety of the video as fast as you can (google fiber is boasting that it can load an HD movie in 15 minutes I think) but then again why do I need to load a video so much faster than I can watch it? UT already does cloud computing and it works fine. It takes 30 seconds to load a 100 page PDF but I can certainly deal with that. I already have free video conferencing and it works fine. You have the advantage of speed but my connection is not that slow. Talk to the Aussies. They have unbelievably shitty internet connections.

The average person in you country cant do what you can. just becasue you can doesnt mean the rest can. been there, done that mistake myself.
Yes, Australia internet is even worse, and that is sad but unrelated.

Not really. Usually if someone is going to build a new bridge they do not tear down the old one. They build a new one right next to it and add a minor change to the road. Then, the wooden bridge can be used for foot traffic.

So you have to then create new road leading to new bridge, since its in another place, and that place can often be problematic in itself. Now i dont know how its done in america, here we do tear the old one down when we build a new one on top. because thats easier than redoing the road.

We have bridges, buildings, roads, topographical changes, mines, and of course institutions.

Your still using dirtracks from 400 years ago? and here i thought you used apshalt now. i guess all this video footage of america i saw was wrong. Buildings, yes some are still standing, after how much renovation?
Topographical changes i give you, those remain for long.
Im not aware of any mines built 400 years ago that are in working condition for modern mining without any extra costs.
Institutions, yeah, you sort of have institutions that havent changed in past 400 years, which brings some problems with it, as those institutions are outdated for modern society.

video

here is a link to english version of a website of one of many fence sellers here:
http://www.tvoraplius.lt/index.php/en/p/wire-fence/forest---highway-fence
I am going to use 180/24/15L for calcualtions, 180 in height. 1 meter price of it costs 4,30LTL or ~2 dollars. That would make it 2000 dollar per kilometer. Lets say cosntruction work, poles, ect, double the price (very generous). Thats 4000 dollars per kilometer, meaning that you can strech 250 kilometers lenght of road for 1 million. nowhere close to numbers in that video.

secondly, first of all take away any images with barbed wire, thats an obvious danger and should never be used. In fact the pasture electric fence would be much better option, but that costs more of course. as for the rest - shit happens. people get kileld by cars, does not mean we should stop using cars.

The problem with your "solution" is that it is insanely expensive, it hurts the animals, and it cuts off other animals from traveling between ecological communities.

Are you a vegetarian? If not then perhaps you should not complain about me eating venison.

It is not insanely expensive, im sure shooting the animal hurts it far more. you have a point with migration, however if we shoot all animals that go into our farms we are stopping migration anyway.
vegetarianism has nothing to do with it really. I eat meat because i need food, i dont eat meat because it was fun to shoot a deer. I am not against killing animals for food. i am against killing animals for fun.
Also sicne you did weer into this, i would much prefer if we were to grow meat without having to kill animals, but so far such effets are twarted by "omg lab meet must be poison" narrownindedness.

We don't shoot that many. They die out because of urban sprawl. Those kinds of large predators need a huge area to roam (except for alligators but they are plentiful).

well shooting certainly doesnt help, nor does shooting their food supply. And i have arleady mentioned that urban sparwl is destroying wildlife.

You say they won't attack you if you do not enter their territory then you admit that they enter our territory. Do you see the problem there?

No. when they enter our teritory they are not agressive unelss we provoke them. what we need to do is not allow them in (fences).

I kill for pest control and for meat. Obviously I do not eat raccoons or wild dogs but those are pests that have to be done away with. I keep the skin because it is useful.

Good, then you do not fall into category that i dislike.
Though i do think there are better alternatives, world is not perfect.

Not everything goes back to the economic infrastructure in a relevant way. A painter who paints for himself uses resources but does not add anything of significance to the economic system.

I diasgree. a painter can change feelings of the peopel who see its painting, which then changes how they act, therefore changing the economic system. it does not have to be a direct "producing item" thing.

farson135:

You are the one who started this most recent chain of posts. Don't get pissy at me when it does not go your way.

Now what was your point again? Oh yes. You started a new attempt to insult me. Is that the topic you are talking about?

Now that was simply uncalled for. You stated that people rely on these roads for work, and then claimed they are useless. He pointed this out, to which you retorted that he should have ignored you and still did not address the point of self-contradiction.

farson135:

I must admit though, you amuse me. Tech, Agema, and now you cannot seem to stop posting to me despite claiming to want to avoid me. It is very funny.

I do not read your posts bar snippets that other users quote, but someone has brought this to my attention and your previous slur, so I am temporarily de-ignoring you to make things clear.

Remember when you complained that I wouldn't take responsibility for civil conversation? The responsibility you never took yourself, given your routinely rude and hostile comments to me even without provocation? Well, it was clear we had an irreconcilable personality clash, so I did take that responsibility to avoid our irritatingly antagonistic and tediously fruitless exchanges. Given this is what you yourself wanted, it saddens me that you think it fit to continue to insult me and try to drag me into a feud I have stepped away from. You are lucky enough I am easygoing on reporting, as you could deserve mod action for what you have said.

You need to bear in mind that my disinterest in engaging with you in no way precludes me from making my opinion known in an active, multi-party debate you are also in. A multi-user public debate is not all about you, it's about everyone involved, all of whom may potentially find value in statements made by anyone else. I am not required to be silent because I have a contrary view to you - avoidance does not stretch that far. I will continue to take contrary positions to you on occasion, and it is not about you.

Now, I am going to go back to not speaking to you or about you, and you know why.

In return, you are free to respond to any arguments I make in any thread if you choose (although be aware I will not read them, never mind reply). I do, however, request you exercise your own responsibility and leave the vendetta and personal shit out.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked