Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
High taxes don't really solve any of those problems, but can make a lot of them worse. High taxes put a bigger burden on the economy making it less competitive and makes labour more expensive.
Well, the people managing that economy aren't stupid, I'm sure they are doing what they can, in the given conditions. Still, it's nowhere near the conditions the US or any EU country is in. I'd change the political system, to eliminate the abuse first, move to a two party system, instead of the current coalition based insanity, which is so easy to abuse
Politics is more about how can I make $$$$ today. Four years from now a new guy could be elected, so I need to do what is best for TODAY. Politicians generally dont think even 4 years out, they certainly dont think 10 or 20 years out. Because in 10 or 20 years nobody will remember what kind of corrupt law they passed 10 years ago and they will never get any blame. Then you have the new politician just repeating the cycle and doing the same shit.
This is why democracies will always be corrupt, the drive to teh status quo is impossible to stop.
Humans are corrupt and we have seen this throughout history. Every once in awhile you find a sole hero out there, but even that person is subject to corruption very, very easily.
-
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
High taxes don't really solve any of those problems, but can make a lot of them worse. High taxes put a bigger burden on the economy making it less competitive and makes labour more expensive.
Well, the people managing that economy aren't stupid, I'm sure they are doing what they can, in the given conditions. Still, it's nowhere near the conditions the US or any EU country is in. I'd change the political system, to eliminate the abuse first, move to a two party system, instead of the current coalition based insanity, which is so easy to abuse
Politics is more about how can I make $$$$ today. Four years from now a new guy could be elected, so I need to do what is best for TODAY. Politicians generally dont think even 4 years out, they certainly dont think 10 or 20 years out. Because in 10 or 20 years nobody will remember what kind of corrupt law they passed 10 years ago and they will never get any blame. Then you have the new politician just repeating the cycle and doing the same shit.
This is why democracies will always be corrupt, the drive to teh status quo is impossible to stop.
Humans are corrupt and we have seen this throughout history. Every once in awhile you find a sole hero out there, but even that person is subject to corruption very, very easily.
That is why the US government was meant to be as small as possible. People are people.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Exactly - Sure, those people managing the economy aren't stupid - instead they are super corrupt! Only looking out for themselves.
Some are corrupt, some are doing a great job under shitty conditions. Simple fact - in 2008 Israel remained untouched by the crisis, the economy remained strong, unlike pretty much everywhere else. So some people there are doing a good job and certainly know what they are doing. Is the economy or the politics there generally healthy? Hell no.
That's not necessarily indicative of the government, though. Just normal people working hard or having a different banking tie in might solve those problems.
Much of the US was untouched by the banking scandal, too. Those that were, were often due to government corruption, not a problem of the economy. The economic "disaster" was widely falsified to shift financial resources around. It was not the big collapse that it was made out to be, that fear and panic was used to push through legislation to remove protections from the poor (and they convinced the poor to demand to be screwed, which is what made it brilliant.)
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
How is that irrelevant?
Because I never said politics are about making $$. I said the politics in a specific country are such, that there is a huge expense that needs to be constantly sustained, which prevents lowering taxes.
Those expenses are usually false, though. I mean they are actually expenses, but there is rarely a need to maintain them.
-
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
How is that irrelevant?
Because I never said politics are about making $$. I said the politics in a specific country are such, that there is a huge expense that needs to be constantly sustained, which prevents lowering taxes.
That's what we are saying - no that expense does not need to be maintained. Only by their corruption does it need to be maintained.
Right. Look at the US federal shutdown. Every job that was laid off is one that the government openly admits it doesn't need and doesn't see as important, all jobs officially seen as being there "just to create jobs." Of course, simply laying people off and not paying what has been earned isn't how you phase people out.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@Dashrender said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
That's what we are saying - no that expense does not need to be maintained. Only by their corruption does it need to be maintained.
What is corrupt, and it's not even corruption, it's simple abuse, is the representative democratic system with low entry percentages. It's the purest kind of democracy, and it is the easiest to abuse, given enough time. Once the abuse works, you cannot get rid of it without changing the system, but the change needs to be legislative, and the legislative authority is part of the abuse. There is no corruption as such, no bribery, just an interessant group in the government forcing everyone else's hand.
At least in the US, "interest group" is a term used to define a group that pays bribes to government officials. That's the purpose of an "interest group."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Taking bribes and funneling money into your pockets instead of governing for the people with a mandate, that's corruption. It's stealing.
Not if you turn that into a law. Lets imagine you have a large group of people, all voting for the same party. The party has a significant following, significant enough to be essential for any government to include them, if they want a lawfully large following. That party doesn't care about governing the country, they'll vote for whatever the rest of the government wants them to vote for, as long as their voters get preferable conditions. They don't put money in their own pockets, they send funds to their voter base, supporting them, exactly as they promised in every election campaign. And that money isn't sent in secret, it is passed as a law, because if that law isn't passed, this particular party will exit the governing coalition, and cause it to fall apart. Pure abuse of the system, without breaking any laws.
-
@wrx7m said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
High taxes don't really solve any of those problems, but can make a lot of them worse. High taxes put a bigger burden on the economy making it less competitive and makes labour more expensive.
Well, the people managing that economy aren't stupid, I'm sure they are doing what they can, in the given conditions. Still, it's nowhere near the conditions the US or any EU country is in. I'd change the political system, to eliminate the abuse first, move to a two party system, instead of the current coalition based insanity, which is so easy to abuse
Politics is more about how can I make $$$$ today. Four years from now a new guy could be elected, so I need to do what is best for TODAY. Politicians generally dont think even 4 years out, they certainly dont think 10 or 20 years out. Because in 10 or 20 years nobody will remember what kind of corrupt law they passed 10 years ago and they will never get any blame. Then you have the new politician just repeating the cycle and doing the same shit.
This is why democracies will always be corrupt, the drive to teh status quo is impossible to stop.
Humans are corrupt and we have seen this throughout history. Every once in awhile you find a sole hero out there, but even that person is subject to corruption very, very easily.
That is why the US government was meant to be as small as possible. People are people.
part of the problem there was... they made the original government "way smaller than possible", and that created a slippery slope because they had to adjust.
-
BTW... This topic has gone way off the rails.
-
So who is placing bets on the superbowl this year? Anyone doing any of the prop bets?
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Taking bribes and funneling money into your pockets instead of governing for the people with a mandate, that's corruption. It's stealing.
Not if you turn that into a law. Lets imagine you have a large group of people, all voting for the same party. The party has a significant following, significant enough to be essential for any government to include them, if they want a lawfully large following. That party doesn't care about governing the country, they'll vote for whatever the rest of the government wants them to vote for, as long as their voters get preferable conditions. They don't put money in their own pockets, they send funds to their voter base, supporting them, exactly as they promised in every election campaign. And that money isn't sent in secret, it is passed as a law, because if that law isn't passed, this particular party will exit the governing coalition, and cause it to fall apart. Pure abuse of the system, without breaking any laws.
Still defining a bribe. Just because a bribe is public and direct to voters, or secret and direct to a legislature doesn't change that someone is using votes to get money to buy votes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Still defining a bribe. Just because a bribe is public and direct to voters, or secret and direct to a legislature doesn't change that someone is using votes to get money to buy votes.
Still perfectly legal. This is why I keep saying that their democratic system is crap and needs to be changed, but for it to change, a government would have to pass a law, and with these groups in the government, they'll never vote for such a change.
This is also why I laugh so hard whenever I hear a kiddie in the US saying your system needs to be overhauled to the European way, with representation from multiple parties instead of just two. Please never do that
-
@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.
-
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.
No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.
No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.
Yeah... we have that too... in fact we have it to an extreme. We elect people not on policies but simply because they aren't part of the other tribe. Therefore anything to help or hinder your tribe or the other is more important then actually getting anything done.... At least with a parliamentary democracy you have the ability to vote for a different minority party if your does something you don't like.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.
No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.
https://media.giphy.com/media/wWue0rCDOphOE/giphy.gif
Two party systems only makes people choose a side. The problem is the both sides are extremely corrupt and because of collectivism people are unwilling to think for themselves. This problems is on both sides. People are defending Trump or Obama just because he his on their side or vice versa. There is already an opinion formed that I am a Democrat/Repubican therefore my party is always right and the other guys are completely wrong.
Intelligent people are able to look at things by issue not by party or politician. Unfortunately 90% of people are completely tied up in this party affliation bullshit. It's easy to sell because you can always make the other side look stupid since they both do stupid things. Then people from each party will make themselves feel better from mocking the other party. When in essence they are the ones being fooled since they never look at issues from a neutral or opposite point of view.
Collectivism is a bitch and it makes people dumber than rocks!
-
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
Yeah... we have that too... in fact we have it to an extreme. We elect people not on policies but simply because they aren't part of the other tribe. Therefore anything to help or hinder your tribe or the other is more important then actually getting anything done.... At least with a parliamentary democracy you have the ability to vote for a different minority party if your does something you don't like.
Still, with a 2 party system, no group can simply force the rest of the country to give them a free ride. Even if you are part of such a group, you simply don't have the option to vote for a party which will be enforcing your freebies and nothing else.
-
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.
No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.
https://media.giphy.com/media/wWue0rCDOphOE/giphy.gif
Two party systems only makes people choose a side. The problem is the both sides are extremely corrupt and because of collectivism people are unwilling to think for themselves. This problems is on both sides. People are defending Trump or Obama just because he his on their side or vice versa. There is already an opinion formed that I am a Democrat/Repubican therefore my party is always right and the other guys are completely wrong.
Intelligent people are able to look at things by issue not by party or politician. Unfortunately 90% of people are completely tied up in this party affliation bullshit. It's easy to sell because you can always make the other side look stupid since they both do stupid things. Then people from each party will make themselves feel better from mocking the other party. When in essence they are the ones being fooled since they never look at issues from a neutral or opposite point of view.
Collectivism is a bitch and it makes people dumber than rocks!
so you are suggesting to split all those people into even smaller chunks, and try to form a government out of a collection of those tiny chunks. If you have 10 parties instead of 2 (with the size of the US, it'll be more like 100 parties really), each pulling in it's own direction, how will a government be able to even form, not to mention actually do anything?
-
@IRJ That's a great gif... I'm keeping that.
-
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@IRJ said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@coliver said in Finally leaving my job, and it's just as annoying as I thought it would be:
@dyasny ...the two party system makes everything you're saying worse.
No, because a two party system makes such abuse impossible. There are other problems, but I'll take those over being forced to feed a small group of people for free, just because they were well enough organized to put a party together and force it down everyone else's throats.
https://media.giphy.com/media/wWue0rCDOphOE/giphy.gif
Two party systems only makes people choose a side. The problem is the both sides are extremely corrupt and because of collectivism people are unwilling to think for themselves. This problems is on both sides. People are defending Trump or Obama just because he his on their side or vice versa. There is already an opinion formed that I am a Democrat/Repubican therefore my party is always right and the other guys are completely wrong.
Intelligent people are able to look at things by issue not by party or politician. Unfortunately 90% of people are completely tied up in this party affliation bullshit. It's easy to sell because you can always make the other side look stupid since they both do stupid things. Then people from each party will make themselves feel better from mocking the other party. When in essence they are the ones being fooled since they never look at issues from a neutral or opposite point of view.
Collectivism is a bitch and it makes people dumber than rocks!
so you are suggesting to split all those people into even smaller chunks, and try to form a government out of a collection of those tiny chunks. If you have 10 parties instead of 2 (with the size of the US, it'll be more like 100 parties really), each pulling in it's own direction, how will a government be able to even form, not to mention actually do anything?
I mean that's kind of the point... the Government should be forced to negotiate between itself. It will need to slow down and actually work through problems instead of waiting for 2-4 years for the next party to become the majority.
