TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- See? Americans aren't that bad...
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Even though the curiosity is valid, it does not add weight to the argument that they will lose it eventually. The fact is they haven't lost it. They are alive and well, and everyone is willing to work. Most successful CEO's know that people who are happy work the best. The government in these countries is doing exactly that, making sure everyone is happy and secure. You really believe that just because there is a backup net it means people will lose motivation? It's a pretty fatalistic view of humans. In all my studies in psychology I have never come across anything that would point to people becoming lazy just because they have a fall back plan. Millionaires that don't have to work still work, sometimes harder than many others. Many people work hard to get to one university even though they're sure to get in to lesser ones. I have yet to see anything in our current society that points to welfare alone creating more unemployment or lazier people.

While the nobility of past centuries only made up few of a society, they've done everything to pretty much not work and live a parasitic life in certain societies. (pretty much a lot of social elite)

Now it's not the whole society that's done something like this, but at least in my mind that a group of people who have substance and wealth to live comfortably no longer want to work hard collectively means humanity will be in danger of repeating something like this again.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I see where you're going, Society will fill in the gaps that are needed because of the demand (am I following you correctly?). Unfortunately those people are so very few. All one has to do it look at Cuba to see how well that works. In a Utopian society (ala Star Trek), you're right, it makes sense and it should however, reality is quite different.

Elaborate how it is different if you please. Also, Cuba is of no relevance here. I'm not advocating communism. I don't believe people are as ill willed as you people assume. Just because there is a safety net does not mean there will not be differences in class, in income, in power. It just means that the gap will be smaller. Studies show that countries with the happiest populations are the ones with the smallest divide between rich and poor. In the states, the prime example of capitalism, the divide is only getting bigger.

quote:

Instead of society dictating its needs though peer pressure, society rewards those that don't have that pressure via salary, bonuses, etc.

That is where the problem is. Work has become something to be done in order to earn money that will in turn allow us to subsist. This long process is what has brought us capitalism. Sadly, even though I agree it is the current state of affairs, I don't believe it is the best state of affairs or the pinnacle of human existence. I'm not advocating communism, I do on the other hand desire a more socialist government.

quote:

Prestige sounds nice but it feels better when you've earned it because you wanted to and not because you felt you had to.

Social pressure doesn't force people. It directs and shapes. Ultimate decisions still fall on the person. I have not at any point talked about 'forcing' people.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree While the nobility of past centuries only made up few of a society, they've done everything to pretty much not work and live a parasitic life in certain societies. (pretty much a lot of social elite) Now it's not the whole society that's done something like this, but at least in my mind that a group of people who have substance and wealth to live comfortably no longer want to work hard collectively means humanity will be in danger of repeating something like this again.

True enough. But the parasitism present in noble life centuries ago is not the same as the parasitism you believe will happen with poor people. The power and status that the nobles had is not correlated with the what poor people receiving welfare will have. I don't understand how this counters my argument.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX True enough. But the parasitism present in noble life centuries ago is not the same as the parasitism you believe will happen with poor people. The power and status that the nobles had is not correlated with the what poor people receiving welfare will have. I don't understand how this counters my argument.

Social status is more or less irrelevant in modern ages.

Power is also kinda irrelevant as my argument is that nobles stopped working because they were in a condition where they no longer felt the need to work hard, or contribute to the society, similar to what an avg citizen in a socialist state may be experiencing.

It's just a theory and it's got a lot of holes probably, but I'm just throwing an idea out there

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Elaborate how it is different if you please. Also, Cuba is of no relevance here. I'm not advocating communism. I don't believe people are as ill willed as you people assume. Just because there is a safety net does not mean there will not be differences in class, in income, in power. It just means that the gap will be smaller. Studies show that countries with the happiest populations are the ones with the smallest divide between rich and poor. In the states, the prime example of capitalism, the divide is only getting bigger.

I wouldn't say Cuba is of NO relevance but it is an extreme example.
I didn't think you were advocating communism so don't worry

quote:

That is where the problem is. Work has become something to be done in order to earn money that will in turn allow us to subsist. This long process is what has brought us capitalism. Sadly, even though I agree it is the current state of affairs, I don't believe it is the best state of affairs or the pinnacle of human existence. I'm not advocating communism, I do on the other hand desire a more socialist government.

Work is what gets people ahead in life for themselves and their family.
If I work my ass off and create an ethical, moral, million dollar company why shouldn't I be rewarded for that?
Society rewards those that play by the rules and work.
It is 100%?
Absolutely not, but it works far better than anything else out there.

quote:

Social pressure doesn't force people. It directs and shapes. Ultimate decisions still fall on the person. I have not at any point talked about 'forcing' people.

No one said anything about forcing?
You mentioned a 'compelling call to duty' or something like that.
I say that, given the choice in today's society, the road most traveled will be picked almost all the time if the reward in the end is the same.
There's barely any obligation between employees and employers in a modern day capitalist society (especially with the statistics of how many job changes a person with have in their 'career')!

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd From what I've read, the country that gives the most to charitable causes around the world is actually Germany. So the premise of this thread may be incorrect.

wrong.

no dude, you are thinking of Foriegn Aid. aid given from one government to other foriegn entities/governments.

while Germany and Japan give the most in terms of percent of GDP, we Americans give in absolute terms more than both of them almost combined.

IOW we give the most, again. we have been since the Marshall Plan.

Let me get this straight, it's a good thing to fund a hospital through charity and a bad thing to fund it through taxes?

Surely the tax funded hospital is a guaranteed right that nobody could complain about, and the charity funded hospital could fold up and close at anytime should the charity stop or decrease?

Well I know which one I'd rather rely on thank you very much!

Yeah I'm definitely not sold on public services being maintained through charity.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wrong. no dude, you are thinking of Foriegn Aid. aid given from one government to other foriegn entities/governments. while Germany and Japan give the most in terms of percent of GDP, we Americans give in absolute terms more than both of them almost combined. IOW we give the most, again. we have been since the Marshall Plan.

yeah thanks for that correction. That's what I was thinking of.

But still, doesn't that kinda disprove the myth perpetuated by the thread starter?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Let me get this straight, it's a good thing to fund a hospital through charity and a bad thing to fund it through taxes?

Some specially hospitals do both don't they?
Lets not forget Government can cut off funding just as well.
Something we're quite conscious of here in the Great White North because of our Universal Healthcare.

quote:

Surely the tax funded hospital is a guaranteed right that nobody could complain about, and the charity funded hospital could fold up and close at anytime should the charity stop or decrease? Well I know which one I'd rather rely on thank you very much!

Guaranteed isn't true.
Sure there will be public pressure if it gets too bad but cutbacks are not uncommon; really depends who is in power and how much public pressure there is.

Of course governments can cut health spending, but my point was, at the beginning of the year, the government will say "we will spend x on health" in the budget and that is guaranteed. Charities cannot make the same pledge...

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd yeah thanks for that correction. That's what I was thinking of. But still, doesn't that kinda disprove the myth perpetuated by the thread starter?

A government taxing its citizens and then using that money to give foreign aid is completely different from a person deciding to give money above and beyond taxes to be used in a charity/aid setting. One is forced, the other completely voluntary.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Of course governments can cut health spending, but my point was, at the beginning of the year, the government will say "we will spend x on health" in the budget and that is guaranteed. Charities cannot make the same pledge...

Well since you put it that way, then yea

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Of course governments can cut health spending, but my point was, at the beginning of the year, the government will say "we will spend x on health" in the budget and that is guaranteed. Charities cannot make the same pledge...

But couldn't you also say that once a government has spent "x on health" you're SOL until the new fiscal year begins, whereas a charity can simply hold a fund raiser?

I know that's an over-simplification, but whereas a state sets a yearly budget that is only usually replenished or modified once a year, a charity can be continually adding additional funds to meet its needs.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.