KN's Guide to Fixing the Country

recon, you keep repeating the same non points.

and you completely ignored by PROOF minimum wage causes inflation.

no minimum wage could be very bad...
I dont know why you want to remove it, especially considering the cost of living would not go down, while the wage paid to workers would

explain how reducing base labor costs won't decrease item cost.

Item costs are not the only issues here. There are many things that would not go down with the cost of labor... ntm, if the value of the dollar stays the same and tons of people are barely being paid anything, it would entirely fuck up trade

KristallNacht wrote:explain how reducing base labor costs won't decrease item cost.

Item cost would go down yes, but those items would become shit to make up for the price, like save-a-lot

KristallNacht wrote:recon, you keep repeating the same non points.

I'm repeating them becuase you've been asking me to clarify them, and you've been blatantly contradicting me, rather than coming up with Counter arguments.

KristallNacht wrote:and you completely ignored by PROOF minimum wage causes inflation.

First of all, a logical process of reasoning is not "proof." Proof is statistical evidence.

Either way, I have not ignored your suggestion that minimum wage is a factor of inflation. If you read my posts, you'll fine that I've actually been AGREEING with you on that point. Minimum Wage DOES contribute to inflation, but not nearly as much as federal spending, and the printing of money does. The fact alone that we have a central banking system, and money that is not representative of actual gold is, in and of itself, the biggest cause for inflation there is.

If you want to continue debating, quote some of my stuff and actually TELL ME WHY I'M WRONG. You've so far completely ignored everything I've said about the quality of goods going down, and the standard of living going to hell.

Realize that farmers who moved to the cities during the industrial revolution did not benefit from the same living standards as they had before. They lived in EXTREMELY cramped "apartments" which tended to BURN DOWN!

Lower wages for the lower-middle class does not necessarily equate to lower costs of quality living and quality goods. It typically equates to cheaper, but MUCH lower-quality conditions... which is not in any way desirable.

How does people sitting around smoking bud compute to having a better country?

Reducing minimum wage? Now thats a way to incentivize progression, bringing crappy jobs to the same level as something worthwhile.

Marijuana draws money from police departments, when marijuana doesn't harm directly.

I could see how that would drastically improve everyone everywhere But the thing is, I think of it like guns, some people use it for good, others bad, some are responsible, while others, not so much. So even though the majority of people may not have a problem with using it, it is that percentage that will ruin things for everyone else, which stems from a much bigger problem that should be tackled way before we consider doing something like this that you may think will be ok for people like you without realizing what it may do to young Tyrice in the ghetto, or the manic depressive that lives down your street.

You say it doesn't harm people directly, which again is true. But the same can be said about guns, I have never heard of someone dying because a gun fell from the sky and killed someone, or someone getting skin cancer from a gun. It is a situational problem, you wouldn't give a gun to someone who was sick of life, and hates everyone and wants to be dead, that would create a problem. Similar to how you wouldn't feed donuts to someone who has diabetes.

That is why you are put in jail for criminal acts, because they know you are not responsible enough to be in a social situation that you may strike again. They isolate you from an inflammatory situation, similar to how they isolate addictive drugs from people. You see these intellectuals talk about tolerance and how they are completely normal with it, well that may be, but their opinion is not relevant, we know that a certain group of people will be perfectly fine with it while another not at all fine with it, and then the majority of people in the middle. What separates these people? What separates young Tyrice, born broke in the ghetto from you?

1. Culture

2. Money

3. Location/Enviroment

4. Education

Keep in mind that you and Tyrice are virtually the same person, the differences you have at birth are minuscule.

If we simply fix these things so they aren't in the absolutely crappy state they are in now we would have no use for laws whatsoever. Do dolphins have laws? chimps? Do they continuously destroy themselves without laws (chimps maybe for different reasons)?

You see, if we fix our broken and unnatural social setting, we would have almost no problems, and in fact, people would have no need for weed.

Ringleader wrote:How does people sitting around smoking bud compute to having a better country?

because when alcohol was relegalized EVERYONE became drunkards right?

Reducing minimum wage? Now thats a way to incentivize progression, bringing crappy jobs to the same level as something worthwhile.

what?


and recon, where are you getting that quality in products will go down? that has absolutely ZERO to do with minimum wage. so until you fix your completely irrelevant arguments, I'm not gonna bother replying to you.


take a fucking economics class and learn about the economy.




and RL, your argument for why marijuana should stay illegal could be said for jello.


some people are irresponsible and will do shit to hurt themselves with jello. Jello should be illegal.

you say eliminate the minimum wage laws... Are you referring to allowing the companies to set their wages? (I do not see how that will amount to any change). Or forcing them to increase the wage so that everyone gets paid the same? Payment is determined on demand, there are more people that know how to flip patties then people who can be a famous actor or people who can build a rocket, then those who can only do simple manual labor will be paid less... What can they do about it being the underdog? well, they can learn a skill and then strive to do something more meaningful that they want to do, all the while being replaced by another generation, in this way the system is self regulatory.

In any case, if the minimum wage is upped to a normal wage, then prepare for a computer controlled burger flipping automaton taking your job.

Ringleader wrote:you say eliminate the minimum wage laws... Are you referring to allowing the companies to set their wages? (I do not see how that will amount to any change). Or forcing them to increase the wage so that everyone gets paid the same?

how in the hell does 'eliminate minimum wage' get scrambled in your head to mean 'everyone, and every job gets paid the same'?

I asked what you were meant, and so far I have not gotten a clear answer. So I provided several responses to what you may have meant. BUT you of course, found something in my confusion and just nit picked at it, way to convey your cure all of society in cheap argument tactics.

NT wrote:and recon, where are you getting that quality in products will go down? that has absolutely ZERO to do with minimum wage. so until you fix your completely irrelevant arguments, I'm not gonna bother replying to you.


take a fucking economics class and learn about the economy.

I've explained three times now how the reduction or elimination of minimum wage could cause the quality of every day products do go down. Of course, in repeating myself to clarify this to your dull mind AGAIN, I run the risk of you telling me that I " keep repeating the same non points."

I suppose that's a risk I'll have to take.


First, lets quote what I've said before:

RT wrote:It would be nice to think that corporations would be so nice and friendly as to continue to supply us with the quality of products that we have today at a cheaper price, but history tells us that this would not be the case.

In the late 1800's, during the industrial revolution, average workers were paid intolerably low wages. Did this result in manufacturers lowering prices on the same quality goods? NO!

Instead, competition between corporations became focused on who could produce the most items fastest, and for the lowest cost to themselves. The result for the consumer was indeed more affordable goods, but these goods were in no way "quality."

RT wrote:No one applies for a job that they cannot be supported by? Again, tell that to the men and women of the late 1800's. If a job which pays less than it is possible for you to live on is the ONLY job available to you, you don't have a choice.

As I explained, if the majority of minimum wage jobs start paying employees extremely low wages, manufacturers will no longer be interested in competing in terms of product quality. Instead, they will focus on producing cheaply made items at the lowest cost, and as fast as they can.

This is what happened in the late 1800's, and it could happen again.

RT wrote:Realize that farmers who moved to the cities during the industrial revolution did not benefit from the same living standards as they had before. They lived in EXTREMELY cramped "apartments" which tended to BURN DOWN!

Lower wages for the lower-middle class does not necessarily equate to lower costs of quality living and quality goods. It typically equates to cheaper, but MUCH lower-quality conditions... which is not in any way desirable.

For clarification, basically, in the 1800's there was no minimum wage.
You claim that if minimum wage were eliminated, people simply would not apply to low paying jobs.

The sad truth is NT, a lot of people don't have a choice. There are people today, even with current minimum wages, who are forced to work multiple low-paying jobs in order to feed their families. People who are desperate for work won't have much of a choice in what levels of pay they are willing to accept.

This was true during the industrial revolution. People were paid extremely low wages. This did NOT result in prices of the same quality of goods going down. This resulted in corporations competing not to make the best quality goods and attract the most customers, but to produce shitty goods as fast and cheaply as they could.

This also resulted in workers being forced to live in extremely cramped "apartments", with no running water, which were substantially prone to catching on fire.

Obviously, modern day consequences of getting rid of minimum wage would not be quite as disastrous. We have building codes, quality production standards, workers unions, ect...

The era that we're discussing was also the beginning of industrial production, and so products were obviously being made faster and somewhat cheaper, whether or not minimum wage was around.

Still, if we got rid of minimum wage, the incentive for corporations to compete amongst themselves on a basis of quality goods would decrease, and they would become more focused on inexpensive, and fast production of goods, which could very likely result in a substantial downfall in the quality of goods.

Now, this all sounds extremely familiar. It feels ALMOST as if I've already said this... something like... THREE GOD DAMN TIMES.

Take a fucking reading comprehension class and LEARN HOW TO READ!

Ringleader wrote:I asked what you were meant, and so far I have not gotten a clear answer. So I provided several responses to what you may have meant. BUT you of course, found something in my confusion and just nit picked at it, way to convey your cure all of society in cheap argument tactics.

and i pointed out that only 1 of the two thigns you proposed made any sense at all.


tip ringleader

ELIMINATING something, means to GET RID OF. not INCREASE.

see what I mean?

that being given, eliminating minimum wage means NO MINIMUM WAGE

ReconToaster wrote:
I've explained three times now how the reduction or elimination of minimum wage could cause the quality of every day products do go down. Of course, in repeating myself to clarify this to your dull mind AGAIN, I run the risk of you telling me that I " keep repeating the same non points."

you haven't explained how companies being able to pay their workers a proper wage causes them to also start making shitty things.


you've only said that "if minimum wage doesn't exist all our goods will suck" while not explaining whatsoever how the two are directly related.

KristallNacht wrote:

Ringleader wrote:I asked what you were meant, and so far I have not gotten a clear answer. So I provided several responses to what you may have meant. BUT you of course, found something in my confusion and just nit picked at it, way to convey your cure all of society in cheap argument tactics.

and i pointed out that only 1 of the two thigns you proposed made any sense at all.


tip ringleader

ELIMINATING something, means to GET RID OF. not INCREASE.

see what I mean?

that being given, eliminating minimum wage means NO MINIMUM WAGE

no, you didn't,

you said:

"how in the hell does 'eliminate minimum wage' get scrambled in your head to mean 'everyone, and every job gets paid the same'?"

I do not see how this^ equates to this:

"and i pointed out that only 1 of the two thigns you proposed made any sense at all."

did I miss the "point out" you were referring to?

and RL, your argument for why marijuana should stay illegal could be said for jello.


some people are irresponsible and will do shit to hurt themselves with jello. Jello should be illegal.

yeah, just like jello, you see, this is why 14 people thought that this is retarded. People need cars to get from point a to point b, people need food (like jello) so they can feed themselves. Being irresponsible with something you need compared with something you don't really need is different. Why were cars designed? what are they supposed to do? and why do you think that using an addictive material somehow equates to the utility and logic of using contemporary materials like jello and cars?

and RL, your argument for why marijuana should stay illegal could be said for jello.


some people are irresponsible and will do shit to hurt themselves with jello. Jello should be illegal.

yeah, just like jello, you see, this is why 14 people thought that this is retarded. People need cars to get from point a to point b, people need food (like jello) so they can feed themselves. Being irresponsible with something you need compared with something you don't really need is different. Why were cars designed? what are they supposed to do? and why do you think that using an addictive material somehow equates to the utility and logic of using contemporary materials like jello and cars?[/quote]

Fine then lets make something that is more dangerous that can not only harm the user, but anyone nearby.
Smoking:

Some people are irresponsible and will hurt themselves by smoking. Smoking should be illegal.

People need to smoke because they are addicted. They were designed and supposed release stress.

Why is smoking, which is more dangerous, toxic, and addictive than Marijuana legal? Yes I know it is taxed, but it is still legal.

I don't know, they should both be illegal because its not really that clear a choice whether or not to smoke, if you are addicted. Nicotine is highly addictive, and what are you going to do about it? you cant stop using it if you want to.

It is kind of messed up hearing how people have to get up early in the morning and then immediately having to smoke. How can this be in our society? They are slaves and we all now that they cant break their habit.

Ringleader wrote:I don't know, they should both be illegal because its not really that clear a choice whether or not to smoke, if you are addicted. Nicotine is highly addictive, and what are you going to do about it? you cant stop using it if you want to.

It is kind of messed up hearing how people have to get up early in the morning and then immediately having to smoke. How can this be in our society? They are slaves and we all now that they cant break their habit.

Those people CHOSE to smoke in the first place.

I sympathize to those who got addicted before it was public knowledge that cigarettes are bad for you, but honestly, I have ZERO sympathy for people my age who have started smoking. I had expected pot to be a big thing. I was perfectly fine with that, and to be honest, I plan to try it out at some point, but the idea that cigarettes are still "cool" completely surprised me.

Either way, it is very possible to quit. My grandpa has been smoking ever since he was 15 years old. He quit 18 months ago, and he's nearly 80 years old.


NOTE- I'll respond to you in a bit NT. I have a ton of homework

Ringleader wrote:why do you think that using an addictive material somehow equates to the utility and logic of using contemporary materials like jello and cars?

proof marijuana is addictive?



and on top of that, are you saying that non essentials should be illegal?

what about video games? movies? deodorant?

How about some links? Here's more.

Raw data, it only has meaning if you give it meaning... Will you give it meaning NT?

Again, a difference between weed and deodorant, one is useful, while the other is not so much. I am sure there aren't many video game related fatalities, unless you are counting freak accidents, because I do not count freak accidents. If people are introduced to some stimulus, and they become addicted, whether its World of Warcraft, or Heroin, there is a problem.

I am not saying that these things (which include weed) are life destroying things, I am saying that in conjunction with a larger underlying problem, they can be bad, which is the case of everything:


Americans dont need to do anything anymore + Infinate amounts of food = Fat Americans

Morons + Jello = Freak Jello related accident

Dirt poor and uneducated people looking for something to do + weed = problems

Rich intellectuals who have their own book on weed and have stable jobs and income + weed =/= problem

Ringleader wrote:How

this shows marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. thus considered 'not addictive'. that helps my point not yours.

about

only one thing here suggest marijuana is addictive at all and its also obviously a problem in the fact that marijuana doesn't actually have any tendency to cause harm so its easier for people to stay on it.

some

not really addictive, and doesn't cause any harm. thanks.

links?

...i don't see anything about weed on there...

Here's

you are aware graphs don't really show anything right? for all you know that graph is based off of people in rehab for a specific substance, and marijuana has a huge number of people in rehab for it because the courts force them to instead of going to jail. its not like a "its ruining my life i need to go to rehab" thus this link is null and void.

more.

what is that graph even showing?

Again, a difference between weed and deodorant, one is useful, while the other is not so much.

yeah, i know, marijuana relieves pain and improves the living conditions in over 200 medical illnesses, is the strongest natural fiber in the world, and causes millions of people each day a lot of pleasure. all deodorant does is stop you from stinking.

I am sure there aren't many video game related fatalities

it only takes a moment to hear about the connections between collumbine and video games, or those peopel in korea dying while playing video games, or that guy in japan that killed someone due to behavior surrounding a digital item in an MMO.

but either way, you will not find a single marijuana related fatality.

, unless you are counting freak accidents, because I do not count freak accidents. If people are introduced to some stimulus, and they become addicted, whether its World of Warcraft, or Heroin, there is a problem.

this is true, but this isn't about people being retarded, this is about Marijuana.

I am not saying that these things (which include weed) are life destroying things, I am saying that in conjunction with a larger underlying problem, they can be bad, which is the case of everything:

so we agree? marijuana isn't bad.

Ringleader wrote:How

this shows marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. thus considered 'not addictive'. that helps my point not yours.

...so by showing weed is addictive at all, I somehow help your point which is weed is not at all addictive.

about

only one thing here suggest marijuana is addictive at all and its also obviously a problem in the fact that marijuana doesn't actually have any tendency to cause harm so its easier for people to stay on it.

Yeah um, the thing is with that reasoning, how "easy" is it to stay on a drug you are hopelessly addicted to? is it "easier" then staying on a non-addictive drug? Well, it's as easy as how addicted you are to it. (not saying that weed is really that hopelessly addictive, but the principle of ease of usage seems as though it is really the principle of how much you need it (or how much you can possibly use without consiquence.))

I missed the part where inhaling burning ash into your delicate bronchial tubes and dilating and damaging your alveoli does not harm you. For crying out loud, its incendiary leaf litter being inhaled directly into your most important of organs, how "good" can it be? It is common sense that something that makes such little sense makes no sense.

some

not really addictive, and doesn't cause any harm. thanks.

actually the chart shows it being both addictive and not good for you

THANKS

links?

...i don't see anything about weed on there...

It was an alt source to the chart above, as I pointed out before.

Here's

you are aware graphs don't really show anything right? for all you know that graph is based off of people in rehab for a specific substance, and marijuana has a huge number of people in rehab for it because the courts force them to instead of going to jail. its not like a "its ruining my life i need to go to rehab" thus this link is null and void.

Like I said, its just data, and you can construct any sort of back story to prove and refute it whatever you think I am trying to convey with it, but again, its a pie, showing substance usage... thats it.

more.

what is that graph even showing?

look at it, mean harm score. Your going to ask me what that means, and I will say, "mean harm score"

Again, a difference between weed and deodorant, one is useful, while the other is not so much.

yeah, i know, marijuana relieves pain and improves the living conditions in over 200 medical illnesses, is the strongest natural fiber in the world, and causes millions of people each day a lot of pleasure. all deodorant does is stop you from stinking.

Weed derivatives (as is the case with most medicinal chemicals in plants) are the chemicals that help you, not inhaling burning weed ash. Do you think we are living in the stone age and we have to grind up the magic flowers and snort it up out nose with the ancestral sniffing pipe? Do you want me do slurp the aspirin juices from the white willow tree? or can I just get a pill? What a weak pillar you are standing on, and all the people who think that. All these people who say "oh, the vaporizers dont work, I have to smoke it in order to get the full benefit of the medicine." Uhm, sir, those chemicals get in your body even more so with the pill then smoking it like a cave man, you simply believe that it works better because it accompanies a euphoric feeling. But as for curing your horrifying deliberating problems, yeah, I dont think feeling good will help you out as much as the unexplored chemicals that very well may help you, without messing up your lungs (did you see that Mitt Romny interview?)

It is just another string in the web of lies, and speaking of web, spider silk is the strongest known natural fiber. You think that legalizing it will somehow create a technological revolution that will give access to before unknown clothing wonders? Is that a serious point you are bringing up? you can make leather out of human skin, let the hunt begin, no but seriously, thats yet another weak point.

I am sure there aren't many video game related fatalities

it only takes a moment to hear about the connections between collumbine and video games, or those peopel in korea dying while playing video games, or that guy in japan that killed someone due to behavior surrounding a digital item in an MMO.

I told you freak accidents that video games play little part in do not count! did this sort of thing happen before video games? Did Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh play counterstrike all day? Games are simply another outlet that just so happen to be part of their lives when in fact they were troubled before.

but either way, you will not find a single marijuana related fatality.

Using weed = smoking, smoking = getting lung cancer. How can you tell if lung cancer is caused from weed aside from tobacco? Well, you cant, that is why they say it probably is only tobacco, when in reality, it is highly likely that those who smoke weed also smoke cigarettes.

smoking = bad for your lungs

, unless you are counting freak accidents, because I do not count freak accidents. If people are introduced to some stimulus, and they become addicted, whether its World of Warcraft, or Heroin, there is a problem.

this is true, but this isn't about people being retarded, this is about Marijuana.

I see how vastly different those things must be, heck it's in its own little ball game with not strings attached. In fact, there is no connection that can be made with the one and only Marijuana, curer of all diseases and improver of all lives. But seriously, why do you think that just because its Marijuana, it is not an object of fixation, and harm caused by fixation?

I am not saying that these things (which include weed) are life destroying things, I am saying that in conjunction with a larger underlying problem, they can be bad, which is the case of everything:

so we agree? marijuana isn't bad.

Context clues buddy, It ain't as bad for those book writing intellectuals as it is for those people in a not-so-well-off social setting, as is the case with everything. Why would we legalize something that we know will not really amount to anything in these settings without attacking fundamental, root problems, such as: why the heck is there still poverty, why is it that some schools are in any way whatsoever inferior to other establishments and why is it that people now are so darn ignorant despite our underpassesed technological achievements?

Its about as bad as the gun in daddy's sock drawer, GIVEN that little Jimmy is not poor, stupid, or undisciplined. If little Jimmy is any of these things, daddy may want to hold of on having a potentially risky item in his house.



So yeah, I do not see how legalizing the stuff will somehow make our country better. Given that our country is in its current social state. Think of it like legalizing infinite amounts of food for all Americans... 60% of us are fat!

According to a recent study by the University of California Los Angeles, there is no increased lung cancer risk in smoking marijuana.

But still it is harmful, but less than smoking.