PDA

View Full Version : What has caused more long term destruction



Rum_Pirate
06-04-2012, 02:26 PM
What has caused more long term destruction -
the A-bomb,
or
Government welfare programs created to buy the
votes of those who want someone to take care of them?

Japan does not have a welfare system.

Work for it or do without.

And I donít think there has ever been a better explanation of the importance of incentive than this example
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied 'hard' were upset and the students who studied 'little' were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied 'even less' and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied 'little'.

The second test average was a 'D'. No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that "socialism" would also ultimately 'fail' because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. " elections sometime soon Ė perhaps the sooner the better"
Your chance to have YOUR say.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.


Is this reasonably accurate?

Ian McColgin
06-04-2012, 02:40 PM
One problem with this sort of thing is the simple flat out falsehoods it puts out. Japan has had an excellent social welfare system since the 1920s. As in all societies, there are political forces and changes and controversies. It's also important to note that there's a profoundly different business or corporate culture. But the OP's flat declarative sentence - "Japan does not have a welfare system." - is a deliberate falsehood. The author knew it but figured folk spreading it on the internet are not worried about facts and reality.

SamSam
06-04-2012, 02:42 PM
The A-bomb.

Tall Boy
06-04-2012, 02:44 PM
No, it's yet another silly and insipid chain email from the irrational right.

Fear not, Obama's plan is working but, what happens when you no longer have a man to put it to?


Number of millionaires see a decline in wealth



The number of millionaires is on the decline in the United States, even as the number of wealthy individuals has increased worldwide.

Millionaire households in the United States decreased by 129,000 in 2011, according to a new study from the Boston Consulting Group. Globally, that figure grew by 175,000. The report defines these households as having over $1 million in cash, stock and other assets, excluding property, businesses and luxury goods.

Singapore has the highest proportion of millionaires (http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/21/pf/millionaire/how_to_be_a_millionaire.moneymag/index.htm?source=yahoo_hosted) in the world; 17% of all households in the Asian city-state have wealth of over $1 million. By comparison, 4.3% of households in the United States had wealth of over $1 million, which ranks it 7th in the world.

The United States also lagged when it came to the proportion of "ultra-high-net-worth" households, defined by the Boston Consulting Group as those with more than $100 million in wealth.

Follow the money ... to Singapore (http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/24/investing/singapore_alphavn_pham/index.htm?source=yahoo_hosted)

Switzerland topped the list with 11 in every 100,000 households qualifying as "ultra-high-net-worth," followed by Singapore with 10 in every 100,000 households.

The United States didn't make the top 15, the report said.

Across Asia-Pacific nations, excluding Japan, wealth increased by 10.7% to $23.7 trillion, while it declined by 0.9% to $38 trillion in North America.

The consulting group attributes the shift to strong economic growth in Asia, while the United States grappled with a "near default on U.S. government debt, combined with the euro debt crisis" and "a downgrade of the nation's credit rating."

The group expects to see more of the mega-rich crop up across Asia in the near future.

"Wealth in the region is expected to continue to grow at a double-digit rate... reaching $40.1 trillion by the end of 2016, at which time it will have slightly overtaken Western and Eastern Europe combined."
View this article on CNNMoney (http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/american-millionaires/index.htm?source=yahoo_hosted)

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 02:55 PM
Ahhh....

That's better. :)

stevebaby
06-04-2012, 03:11 PM
"Japan does not have a welfare system."
Not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_in_Japan

Rum_Pirate
06-04-2012, 03:14 PM
No, it's yet another silly and insipid chain email from the irrational right.


Are the 5 sentences at the end incorrect, silly and insipid?

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

ccmanuals
06-04-2012, 03:15 PM
Japan seems to have their act together with regards to health care.


The health care system in Japan provides healthcare (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Healthcare) services, including screening examinations, prenatal care (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Prenatal_care) and infectious disease (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Infectious_disease) control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Universal_health_care) insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Health_insurance) programme administered by local governments. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage. Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 03:35 PM
Are the 5 sentences at the end incorrect, silly and insipid?

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
Correct.


2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
Correct. So should I discontinue my charitable contributions?


3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
Correct. In fact, government cannot function at all without taking from somebody.


4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
This is simply a silly statement.


5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Well yeah....

Ian McColgin
06-04-2012, 03:37 PM
The portentous sounding five sentences are without foundation and do not apply to the various human societies that have succeeded in different ways for some millennia.

No one is legislating anyone out of prosperity. There is no isomorphic relationship between what one "makes" and what one "gets". Taxes are not about taking from one and giving to another but are for the common weal which includes defense, infrastructure and people in need. You cannot build national wealth by having but a few hoard it. While most societies - especially totalitarian societies whether totalitarian socialist or totalitarian nationalist or totalitarian corporate capitalist - attempt to compell work, the most productive societies have noticed that people are very like domestic dogs and horses in that we actually preferr to work and the fear of the masses malingering is simply the oppressors' excuse.

Tom Montgomery
06-04-2012, 03:41 PM
The five statements taken all together sound to me like an argument for anarchy.

Keith Wilson
06-04-2012, 08:12 PM
Yes indeed. We have to give the rich more so they'll work harder. We have to give the poor less so they'll work harder.

seanz
06-04-2012, 09:46 PM
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!


I like nonsense, it's my favourite type of economic theory..........

Let's see......$100

100 X 1 = 100

Divide 100 by 2 you get 2 lots of 50

Then multiply them.......

50 X 50 = 2500

OMG! I'm a genius!

If you divide wealth everybody becomes filthy rich.

Just send your cheque for $100 to..............

Garret
06-04-2012, 10:25 PM
So - if you believe the last 5 sentences, why weren't we in far worse shape in the 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's when the tax rates on the "rich" were far higher?

'splain that please.

hanleyclifford
06-04-2012, 10:59 PM
As a confirmed rightie (by Bilge standards) I find the 5 statements to be simplistic and in fact a little embarassing. Of couse there is an element of truth in them as with all such simplistic thinking but they don't contribute much to the general debate.

Arizona Bay
06-04-2012, 11:31 PM
As a confirmed rightie (by Bilge standards) I find the 5 statements to be simplistic and in fact a little embarassing. Of couse there is an element of truth in them as with all such simplistic thinking but they don't contribute much to the general debate.

It's not aimed at you, the true thinking conservatives, or to contribute to the debate. It's directed to the lowest common denominator with the intent of raising an emotional reaction.... and it works.
"I'm angry and it's (name) fault" gets votes, not solutions.

brad9798
06-05-2012, 12:34 AM
So ... folks that cannot speak are made to feel even MORE like they cannot speak ... WOW!!! Hmmm ... :(

Gerarddm
06-05-2012, 12:55 AM
Listen, the OP proves yet AGAIN ( sigh ) that the right wing in his country is intellectually incapable of any cogent thoughts beyond bumper sticker simplicities. That's why they watch Fox and ditto head every inanity Limbaugh utters.

By the way, Scandanavian state socialism works like a charm and they are happier than we are, and, I dare say, as 'free'.

AussieBarney
06-05-2012, 03:09 AM
Come and live in Australia and your right wing crap does not hold true here. We have a solid and effective welfare system and very few people fall through the cracks. At the moment Australia is doing reasonably well, financaily and socially

Mind you, as a nation, we don't hold social darwinism as a truth

Hank Rearden
06-05-2012, 05:44 AM
So - if you believe the last 5 sentences, why weren't we in far worse shape in the 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's when the tax rates on the "rich" were far higher?

'splain that please.

Because nobody actually paid those rates. In the 50s 60s and 70s people paid a MUCH lower percentage of their income in taxes than they do today.

Waddie
06-05-2012, 06:13 AM
An interesting question. Which has caused more destruction, the A-bomb or the welfare state? I think it's too soon to tell. One day soon a nation with nothing to lose may acquire the bomb, and we may see that the bomb has the potential to be much more destructive than the welfare state. The bomb could end all life as we know it.

Is the welfare state more destructive? Some would disagree with your premise that the welfare state is, indeed, a destructive force. It does seem to have worked reasonably well for smaller, more homogeneous countries. That would indicate the welfare state is at least potentially positive.

The problem with the welfare state is that you have people, especially children, or the disabled, who genuinely need help, and at least some people who improper take advantage of big, bureaucratic government programs. How do you efficiently sort out the good from the bad? Do you cease payments to the mother of 5 kids because you feel she is not looking actively enough for work?

I will grant that some aspects of the "system" are destructive. (But the idea of helping your fellow citizens in time of need is a worthy cause). The problem of the "social welfare state" is that some people, too high a percentage, become complacent and begin to view social assistance as a lifestyle. From Appalachia to the streets of South Chicago there are people who fall into this trap and repeat it over generations. Peer pressure is the greatest force in the human social world, and when peers view the welfare lifestyle as acceptable it hurts not only the taxpayer but the person on assistance. I'm not suggesting that we stigmatize every person who seeks out assistance, most are trying to avoid going on public money and have every intention of getting off of it ASAP, but this is a problem. But how do we counter-act that complacence? If a solution were that easy it would have already been implemented.

regards,
Waddie

PeterSibley
06-05-2012, 06:13 AM
Because nobody actually paid those rates. In the 50s 60s and 70s people paid a MUCH lower percentage of their income in taxes than they do today.

I'm sure you will have something to back up the assertion?

PeterSibley
06-05-2012, 06:22 AM
Here you go Hank .

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B3k5wnkFyqc/T42kgRb7BnI/AAAAAAAAGF4/EDgEsl2fPTM/s1600/Inequality+3.jpghttp://gulzar05.blogspot.com.au/2012_04_01_archive.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UZQAYjDAzx8/T7Bo_gWpk0I/AAAAAAAAGUE/aAmp_AuNTe4/s1600/US+tax+rates.png

Dan McCosh
06-05-2012, 06:57 AM
Because nobody actually paid those rates. In the 50s 60s and 70s people paid a MUCH lower percentage of their income in taxes than they do today. Quite true, the increase in taxes on the lower income brackets has been huge.

Keith Wilson
06-05-2012, 07:55 AM
One by one:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

So who's proposing doing that? Nobody I know of. Certainly not the Obama administration. Communism is long dead, thank you, despite Milo's rantings, and confiscatory taxes are not on the horizon. This is a straw man, an attempt to make people believe a lie: that higher taxes on the wealthy can't help anyone.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Really? Those who inherit vast wealth and live from investments are receiving something that another person worked for? Vulture capitalists who buy companies , load them with debt, then close them down while making vast amounts of money themselves are receiving something that another person worked for? Speculators who impoverish whole countries while making their money are taking the result of others' labor? A CEO who takes home billions while laying off thousands of workers and shrinking the company . . . . Hmm . . maybe it has some truth in it. But those who live high off the fruit of others labors may not be the people the author was thinking of.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Certainly. That's how taxes work. But a reasonably well-run government is a benefit to all, as are roads, schools, national defense, the federal reserve, libraries, the EPA, universities, and all the results thereof. When government does a reasonably good job, taxes are well worth paying. This sentence is simple-minded criticism of assistance to the poor, and the underlying assumption is that the current distribution of income is result of laws of nature, not an economic system constructed by people, operating under rules that are human inventions.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

Cathchy, but nonsensical. The idea that greater concentration of wealth is beneficial is profoundly wrong, as is the idea that efforts to reduce it are ineffectual or even harmful.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Another straw man. If this were true, it would be bad. If pigs has wings, standing under trees would be risky. The poor work very hard, in general, and they're still poor. As a description of what's currently occurring it's a lie, and any plan of action based on a false description of reality is also wrong.

I really worry about anyone who thinks this bit of drivel contains real wisdom.

LeeG
06-05-2012, 08:09 AM
sorry guys, no c&p response to actual arguments.

Chris Coose
06-05-2012, 08:19 AM
What an insulting question.
I suppose you couldn't attempt to imagine what it'd be like on your tiny isle in the Caribbean if someone were to lob a f*****g atomic bomb on to it.

Tom Hunter
06-05-2012, 09:57 AM
As a confirmed right winger, I’d like to attack this article because it’s stupid, and the USA can’t afford a lot of stupidity right now.

Starting with the welfare system vs. A-bomb question:

The Japanese do have a welfare system, and they do give people benefits in their old age. The Japanese have also been hit by A-bombs twice. The A-bombs flattened cities, killed over 100,000 people and did huge property damage. None of this happens when an elderly Japanese person gets a pension check.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all are applicable to this experiment:
I consider myself well read, if I were picking the 5 best sentences I would pick sentences that start more like: “We hold these truths to be self evident,” “ask not what your country can do for you,” or “As our case is new.” If the sentences below are possibly the 5 best sentences you will ever read, read more.

Now for the sentences:


You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.


This one true, but obvious. Being obvious is not a criteria we should associate with best. As pointed out already, no one is trying to do this anywhere on planet earth.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

This isn’t true. My mom received and inheritance that her father worked for and received. I received a wonderful day of sailing, but no one worked for it and did not receive it. Every day we receive things we work for, we receive things we do not work for, and we work for things we do not receive.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Not true. About 200 years ago some people started a government designed “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” None of these things take anything from anyone. So, once again, the sentence is just wrong. It’s also profoundly Marxist, it assumes that government is about giving and taking, not about establishing, insuring, and providing for.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

Actually history is full of cases of multiplying wealth by dividing it. From the loaves and fishes to the breakup of Standard Oil and the end of AT&T’s monopoly on phone services, dividing wealth has been shown to be a huge multiplier. Not only is this sentence wrong, but it’s exactly the opposite of the truth, you cannot multiply wealth without dividing it, if you disagree, ask a venture capitalist.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

I’ve never heard of a nation where half the people think either of these two things. I’ve never heard of a nation that ended because of this. Since it’s never happened, we can’t really tell if it’s true. More to the point, it would be impossible to make this happen even if you wanted to.

I think the author spent way too much time with hard core communists, didn’t like it, and it addled his brain. Not only is this stuff not true, it’s not even relevant to the economy and government of the US or any other country today. I reads like a political debate from 1937.

We are not fighting for the future of the world with Stalin’s Soviet Union. No one believes in Marxist Leninism any more, not even Ian and Norm. It’s a new situation, and this really is one of the 5 best sentences you will ever read: “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” A. Lincoln, December 1, 1862

Gerarddm
06-05-2012, 10:16 AM
One must always suspect right wing trolls who decorate their posts in red, whitE, and blue. Like they are trying out for a vaudeville act or something.

Rum_Pirate
06-05-2012, 10:20 AM
An interesting question. Which has caused more destruction, the A-bomb or the welfare state? I think it's too soon to tell. O



HIROSHIMA THEN AND NOW


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/asia_pac_hiroshima_then_and_now/img/2.jpg


http://picturrs.com/files/funzug/imgs/travel/hiroshima_nagasaki_04.jpg

http://gutschow.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/hiroshima-then-now1.jpg

Chris Coose
06-05-2012, 10:42 AM
That was obviously a waste of time Tom Hunter but I will give you solid +2 on the effort.

Rum_Pirate
06-05-2012, 10:47 AM
By the way, Scandanavian state socialism works like a charm and they are happier than we are, and, I dare say, as 'free'.


Would you like to pay the tax rates that they pay?

Rum_Pirate
06-05-2012, 10:55 AM
One must always suspect right wing trolls who decorate their posts in red, whit, and blue. Like they are trying out for a vaudeville act or something.

Oh well that lets me out, (from being accused of being a right wing troll) as the C& P that i used was BLACK, BLUE, GREEN RED AND PURPLE. :ycool:



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lfHzD-pMHj0/SY8szZ4fAiI/AAAAAAAAAoQ/gq0NbomJZu0/s400/ObamaMadison.jpg

David G
06-05-2012, 10:59 AM
Would you like to pay the tax rates that they pay?

Rum,

Did you miss that part where - taken as a whole... including the taxes paid and the benefits received... they are not only doing fine, they are happier with their system than we are?

LeeG
06-05-2012, 11:04 AM
As a confirmed right winger, I’d like to attack this article because it’s stupid, and the USA can’t afford a lot of stupidity right now.

[/B]

Amen

LeeG
06-05-2012, 11:06 AM
Oh well that lets me out, (from being accused of being a right wing troll) as the C& P that i used was BLACK, BLUE, GREEN RED AND PURPLE. :ycool:
]

Nothing unique about being a troll but the shame is your childish presentation.

Rum_Pirate
06-05-2012, 11:07 AM
Rum,

Did you miss that part where - taken as a whole... including the taxes paid and the benefits received... they are not only doing fine, they are happier with their system than we are?


I am not missing anything.

I merely asked 'Would you like to pay the tax rates that they pay?' :rolleyes:

David G
06-05-2012, 11:15 AM
I am not missing anything.

I merely asked 'Would you like to pay the tax rates that they pay?' :rolleyes:

You are clearly missing much.

And I merely pointed out that a whole population chooses to pay that tax rate and is happier doing so than we are with our lower tax rate. Do you need a more explicit answer? Then, yes, I'd pay that tax rate to live in that happy, productive, and secure a society.

Waddie
06-05-2012, 11:17 AM
I am not missing anything.

I merely asked 'Would you like to pay the tax rates that they pay?' :rolleyes:

I'd like to take a crack at this one if nobody minds. I would be glad to pay their tax rate if I received the level of services they get. That's one of the problems I have with our tax structure - we don't get as much as we should for our tax dollar as too much of it is swallowed up by special interests and a bloated military.

regards,
Waddie

Garret
06-05-2012, 11:22 AM
Thank you Mr. Hunter. Well said & well reasoned. Now if we could only get the more vociferous right to think more along these lines. It is easier to just ingest the pablum though.....

Garret
06-05-2012, 11:23 AM
I'd like to take a crack at this one if nobody minds. I would be glad to pay their tax rate if I received the level of services they get. That's one of the problems I have with our tax structure - we don't get as much as we should for our tax dollar as too much of it is swallowed up by special interests and a bloated military.

regards,
Waddie

Give the man a Kewpie doll!

Chris Coose
06-05-2012, 11:25 AM
Rum really ought to be living in one of those utopic nations where there are no taxes. Lee has got it correct. This selfish world this troll lives in is caused by one of two things. Childishness or drunk.

Kevin T
06-05-2012, 11:31 AM
Well said Mr. Hunter, I would only disagree that you are not a right winger, but rather your words speak of a moderate New England republican, of which there are damn few of you left, also well said Mr. Waddie.

Keith Wilson
06-05-2012, 07:10 PM
Well, Mr Hunter, I'm impressed. I was obviously too polite and restrained, and it took a "confirmed right winger" to really demolish that bit of foolishness. 1937 indeed. Well done! Y>


Would you like to pay the tax rates that they (Scandinavians) pay?If I could get what they pay for with their taxes, I think it would be a good bargain.

PeterSibley
06-05-2012, 07:26 PM
HIROSHIMA THEN AND NOW


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/asia_pac_hiroshima_then_and_now/img/2.jpg


http://picturrs.com/files/funzug/imgs/travel/hiroshima_nagasaki_04.jpg

http://gutschow.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/hiroshima-then-now1.jpg

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were babies ( 20 kilotons?), this the kind of thing they were talking about when I was a kid.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
The Tsar Bomb was a three-stage Teller–Ulam design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design) hydrogen bomb with a yield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield) of 50 megatons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent) (Mt).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#cite_note-4) This is equivalent to 1,400 times the combined power of the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki),[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#cite_note-5) 10 times the combined power of all the conventional explosives used in WWII, or one quarter of the estimated yield of the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa). A three-stage H-bomb uses a fission bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_bomb) primary to compress a thermonuclear secondary, as in most H-bombs, and then uses energy from the resulting explosion to compress a much larger additional thermonuclear stage. There is evidence that the Tsar Bomba had a number of third stages rather than a single very large one.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#cite_note-Nuclearweaponarchive.com-6)

50 megaton and not just one of them, think 1000 or more

Rummy , you are a complete twit.

Captain Intrepid
06-05-2012, 07:55 PM
This question is incredibly offensive, and you should be bloody well ashamed of yourself Rum_Pirate. Seriously, go and do unmentionable things to yourself to atone.

Dumah
06-05-2012, 08:05 PM
I blame it all on shear laziness, we are all guilty of wanting our get to have easier lives than we had, and we as parents tend to make things overly available. The current generation has expectations well above their "station", not willing to take "entry level" positions because of "superior education". What I have learned in my just short of sixty years is that the "information age" has done our children and grandchildren an emense disservice, a majority of these young people are functionally illiterate due, mostly to modern technology, ie; cell phones and texting. To find youngsters willing to show a good work ethic tends to be a large exercise in futility. Without drasticly inproving both of our educational systems (yes, we Canucks have a similar problem) there will be a continued trend towards self distruction.

This, in my view, is causing more distruction than any bomb or economic policy.

Cheers, Dumah,
Halifax, NS

2MeterTroll
06-05-2012, 08:11 PM
dunno about that I have met and worked with a bunch of young kids that really do have a work ethic if you give them a chance. problem is all the jobs that could give them the chance are being absorbed by the influx of immigrants. (note i have nothing against the immigrants) the buisness folks who used to hire kids, Gas stations, vegitable picking, cone picking, tree planting, quarry work ETC. now say no teens want to work, this is a blatant untruth and has the kids locked into a spiral of disappointment.


I blame it all on shear laziness, we are all guilty of wanting our get to have easier lives than we had, and we as parents tend to make things overly available. The current generation has expectations well above their "station", not willing to take "entry level" positions because of "superior education". What I have learned in my just short of sixty years is that the "information age" has done our children and grandchildren an emense disservice, a majority of these young people are functionally illiterate due, mostly to modern technology, ie; cell phones and texting. To find youngsters willing to show a good work ethic tends to be a large exercise in futility. Without drasticly inproving both of our educational systems (yes, we Canucks have a similar problem) there will be a continued trend towards self distruction.

This, in my view, is causing more distruction than any bomb or economic policy.

Cheers, Dumah,
Halifax, NS

Captain Intrepid
06-05-2012, 08:24 PM
Indeed, there is a lack of good jobs, especially for the younger folk. How can an 18 year old compete against a 45 year old with 20 years of experience in a field? They can't, even "Entry Level" jobs now usually require experience in the field unless you're talking Starbucks or Wal-Mart.

Keith Wilson
06-05-2012, 08:43 PM
I blame it all on sheer laziness . . . LOL! Guys your age (our age, actually) have been saying exactly the same thing about the younger generation since men first put pen to paper, and probably before. The world manages to go on somehow.

This is attributed to Socrates by Plato, around 400 BC


"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Hesiod, 8th century BC:


I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint.

Peter the Hermit, 1274 CE


The world is passing through troubled times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest
and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.

The kids aren't so bad, certainly no worse that we were at that age.

PeterSibley
06-05-2012, 09:12 PM
Yep, in my early 20s I worked about 25% of the time and still saved .My needs were minimal but I'd saved enough by age 28 to buy 20 acres and sufficient to build a small house ..... cash, no mortgage ever.

Aquamarine
06-14-2013, 12:04 PM
HIROSHIMA THEN AND NOW


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/asia_pac_hiroshima_then_and_now/img/2.jpg


http://picturrs.com/files/funzug/imgs/travel/hiroshima_nagasaki_04.jpg

http://gutschow.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/hiroshima-then-now1.jpg

Please excuse my first post on your forum, however if you don't mind, please don't go spreading mis-information and idiocy.
The photos of the 'rebuilt' city are actually the city of Yokohama... which if you knew anything about geography of Japan, is several hundred kilometers away from Hiroshima. It's kind of like posting photos of the aftermath of the big 1994 Los Angeles earthquake... then showing photos of Seattle as the 'rebuilt' populace.

bogdog
06-14-2013, 12:17 PM
... please don't go spreading mis-information and idiocy...
Well as far as I'm concerned that answers the question.

hokiefan
06-14-2013, 03:00 PM
Are the 5 sentences at the end incorrect, silly and insipid?

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

When the second sentence is a complete lie, the rest is not worthy of consideration.

Jim Bow
06-14-2013, 03:16 PM
At least the cut and paste was colorful. Five colors in fact.

bogdog
06-14-2013, 04:11 PM
At least the cut and paste was colorful. Five colors in fact.Gave me an ocular migraine...

Dan McCosh
06-15-2013, 09:58 AM
Is this reasonably accurate?[/SIZE] That the economics professor lied to his class? Pretty obvious, isn't it?

McMike
06-17-2013, 06:15 AM
What has caused more long term damage, hand guns or terrorism?

Nicholas Scheuer
06-17-2013, 06:36 AM
The rich will get richer. The poor will get poorer. Eventually it will occur to the poor what all their guns are for. The rich will tweet the police. But the police will say to themselves, "are we rich, or are we poor".

Mrleft8
06-17-2013, 07:53 AM
I would say that those who stood to benefit the most by continuing to study to keep the group above the failing grade, let the rest of the group, and themselves down. I hope they continue on in life as overachieving brown nosers, who do the extra work for their bosses with out getting any additional credit, so that they can complain about the welfare class without even noticing that it's not those who are unable to contribute that are dragging the system down, but those that are unwilling to contribute, because they know that others will carry the weight. There's a difference, and willful ignorance of this is a root problem.

Gerarddm
06-17-2013, 09:36 AM
Yes, rum-pirate, I'd be happy to pay Scandanavian levels of taxes, as long as I got the same equality of life benefits that they have. And their "pursuit of happiness" seems to have born more fruit than ours, eh?

hokiefan
06-17-2013, 02:55 PM
When the second sentence is a complete lie, the rest is not worthy of consideration.


"2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
How is that a complete lie?

I counted this as the second sentence:

Japan does not have a welfare system.

And read no further.

Tom Montgomery
06-17-2013, 04:59 PM
I counted this as the second sentence:

Japan does not have a welfare system.

And read no further.

Correct on both counts. It was the second sentence of the op and it is a lie. Y>