The Brian/Everybody back and forth thread

I'm stuck in this place and I'm losing my mind. All you on the outside (including the ladies in the house next door) can create a thread and post to me. I might even answer.

Go.

 

Good question, Cathy. Sadly, the issue of consumerism is part-and-parcel with any free market society. You can't get the massive innovation that we have had in the past 5 decades without having a lot of pet rocks.

 

Hi Harps! Yeah...the game can get a bit dull. Though it's better when the Brits are up. I kinda like these blokes. Suzi and Guy are fun too, but they only seem to post when I'm tired.

Cathy, there isn't a single Presidential candidate who will balance the budget. They don't care about a balanced budget. Even if they raise taxes (which they will), they'll just spend more. It's the way of things, sadly.

 

Yikes! Thanks for the heads up! I'll post a thread, straight away!!

 

Not true at all. The way you balance the budget without raising taxes is to cut spending. The problem is that no one wants to do that. Pet projects and all. I studied the budget over the last two semesters and there's well over $500 billion that could be cut without cutting health care, education or social security (about $100 billion of which is in the military budget).

Not sure if you were addressing me or Cathy here. That said, supply chains are actually fairly easy to understand in broad terms. But I think Cathy was really talking about marketing more so than consumerism, in and of itself. Today we're inundated with images of what we should have (big-screen TVs, rims, bling, blah, blah). Frankly, I hate that stuff. But it's what comes with a free-market society.

Which old thread? Sorry, man. I've gone through well over 100 threads in the last 4 days. I've spammed so much my brain hurts.

 

Dude. Nothing on Earth can help you, man. I hope you're religious. Maybe you'll find peace that way.

Grant-I love you, too.


Jacen-I'd tell you, but I'd have to kill you. Official answer: > 20 kts.

 

Thanks, Kitty. That means a lot.

 

Twice. And of course I was the DJ!

Edit:

I'm doing fantastic, thank you!! I'm so glad you asked! One of my flatmates has been wondering that very thing. Now he knows.

 

The BBB house is quite fun! The Brits are here now, so life is good.

 

No. I mean discretionary and mandatory spending. It's a rather involved discussion, but the gist of it is that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in individual line items of the budget that are under the category of "miscellaneous" and "administration". Close inspection of these dollars is very depressing.

You missed my point entirely. (I'll go dig up that other thread shortly). My point is that we don't care. I can tell you that you about it, but you won't stop buying chocolate. People knew that Nike was exploiting their workers in sweat shops (which many workers were ok with because at least they got paid) and that didn't stop people from buying Nikes in droves.

 

I'd encourage you to read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. You'll find that many of your doom-and-gloom predictions (that come from such questionable sources as the Worldwide Fund and their ilk) are, at a minimum, alarmist and, at a maximum, flat-out wrong. There has been talk for over 30 yrs of the impending collapse of everything due to mankind's continued growth. These claims are always tied to short-term observations of trends, oftentimes ignoring important factors. Invariably, they are proven wrong. The remarkable thing about this is that these groups are never taken to the mat for their false claims. They're a lot like Nostradamus--they make 1000 false predictions and no one notices; they make one that seems close enough, and everyone says "See! See!! Told you so!!"

Forgive me if I remain skeptical.

Actually, I made it quite clear that there's no money to be made in it. It's fairly cheap to do it. It's just that there's no incentive to do it. The reason it's "generally acknowledged to be fairly expensive" is because the people doing the research are those with very limited supplies of money (charities, etc). Companies that might do it won't do the research because there's no realistic return on investment. Let me say again. With $50 billion dollars, you could solve these problems if you wanted to. The problem is not resources. It's politics.

Who said there are no problems? I simply point out that the problems are hardly immense and certainly not insurmountable, as many alarmists would have you believe. I'm sick to death of hearing about how the world is on the verge of collapse every so often. It's simply not the case. And the problem with that approach is that it encourages people to try and attack all problems at once, with no sense of priority. Should we solve global warming (to the tune of about $150 billion a year for the next 20-30 yrs with no certainty that we'd have a ROI) or do we solve world hunger for about $50 billion? Do you even know that there are choices to be made?

 

1. Will do.

B. Good thinking. I?ll even make a thread.

Of course I missed you! How could I not? My entire evening was ruined. I feel better now, though.

Yes, I?m taking more classes. This one?s the big one. It?s the final capstone report to get my MBA. Wish me luck!!

Thanks, hon!! I feel much better now. I was beginning to think that no one understood my sense of humor.

You know just what to say to a guy, don?t you?

Well, it?s not that silly. The ones who have the financial resources to conduct this research are the oil companies. If they do the research and the research is fruitful, then those same companies will reap the financial rewards of such research. In other words, it would be smart for oil companies to look at themselves as energy companies instead of just oil companies. That being said, there?s a huge difference between thinking that this is the way things ?should? be and writing a law to make it so.

I don?t know which candidate said that, but I wouldn?t be surprised by any of them saying that, frankly. It sounds good and plays well politically. When in doubt, demonize big business. You can?t go wrong doing that in politics.

And I miss you too, hon!

 

SPAM-central? I've heard stories...

On it like stink on bantha butt!

(not really)

Johnson *snicker* who says I find the name Johnson *snicker* funny? What're you talking about, Johnson *snicker*?

 

Pulsy, you get your own post, all to yourself!

This is the proudest moment in my JCC-life! *sniff* I felt a lump in my throat and all...

Carn the Brits? Ok. I have no idea what that means. I'd google it, but I doubt that'd help. But yes, they were good housemates. Sadly, JR has abandoned us.

 

Hi Leona!! I miss my colors too. As for that poll, I can only assume that sock voting was involved.

I did see Transformers (I thought it was awesome!) but no HP tickets yet. I probably won't get to go 'till this weekend.

 

Erwin:

Marry-Dani
Boink-Espy
Kill-Kitty