What annoys you most about your culture?

[Galleleo]

That is very expensive =(.

well, Netherlands isn't that cheap. But like I said that is also the better bowling place, with automated score counting, good lanes and balls, etc. And we don't get charged for the shoes.

I also know of bowling places around here that are like 10 euro an hour, but the lanes are crappier, the balls are crappier, you have to keep your own score. The space to throw and stuff is tighter etc.

[Squeezer]

I guess I should rephrase what I said. It's not that there's nothing to do, it's just that most leisure activities we do are enhanced when Alcohol and Pot are involved.

[Epinephrine]

well, Netherlands isn't that cheap. But like I said that is also the better bowling place, with automated score counting, good lanes and balls, etc. And we don't get charged for the shoes.

I also know of bowling places around here that are like 10 euro an hour, but the lanes are crappier, the balls are crappier, you have to keep your own score. The space to throw and stuff is tighter etc.

You can bowl here in Toronto for like $14/hour in fully automated and nice lanes but shoes are like $2/hour.

And it's like $2 per 1 Euro.

[Subjugation]

What annoys you most about your culture?

1)The dumbing down of America.


2)Erosion of our civil liberties and political corruption.


3)Religious fundamentalism.

[flibb]

[Foreign]

Inter-personal
The idea that it is acceptable to be an insecure bleeding vagina who trusts nobody and expects everyone to constantly affirm their love, dependability, trust, etc. all the while expecting everyone else to trust oneself.

The idea that true friendship is conditional and that time, distance, or life changes have the power to affect one's standing with another human being.

The idea that how one feels is a clear indicator of the current state of affairs.

The idea that it is naive to think good of people by default until proven otherwise.

Laziness, the act of taking advantage of others for the cause of one's selfish desire to do nothing.

Making decision based on how one feels at the time and not based on what is factual and real.

Society
In the Christian realm, the idea that everyone who drinks alcohol is "in sin" and will be an abusive husband/father who one day will kill an innocent family by driving drunk.

Also in the Christian realm, the value placed on being "safe" to the point of isolating oneself and depriving oneself of things God made for us to enjoy.

The fact that my vote ends up being tallied up to prevent someone from entering office rather than to elect someone to that office.

The idea that the government should do anything for us that we can do for ourselves and our families.

The idea that raising children and keeping a household is somehow degrading to women and not an honorable profession.

The idea that a woman is confined to the "kitchen" regardless of circumstances that might force her into work outside the home.

The idea that anything good in and of itself that can be abused (alcohol, guns, cars, fireworks) should be restricted, and in response the idea that it is naive to expect a man to teach his family about those things and show them how to use them correctly.

[gran guerrero]

you guys mention how cheap other stuff is but fail to account for alcohol

Old English, Steel Reserve, etc...

[Foreign]

Wow, you lost respect from me. Fuck you, biatch.. anyways here what i hate from my culture:

Arrange Marriage. I think its utterly pointless, when your family decides on who you are going to spend your life with.. I think everyone should choose who they want to marry to, by finding that one special person. It annoys me, how could you be happy, if you really do not know this person or like them for that matter. Getting married just like that, it just annoys me.

That is because love is not something that exists to make you feel happy. Compare the divorce rate between arranged marriages and those in America. People nowadays want to marry out of feeling. The problem with that is that feelings change, people "fall out of love," get a divorce, and repeat the process again. Your love for another person, especially your spouse, ought not be dependent on how you feel about that person because love is dependent on nothing. It should endure even the worst storms that could strike your relationship. That is not something that comes from being happy with someone, it is something that comes from commitment to someone. So it should be more based on a decision (just like that) than on feeling, otherwise when those feelings change the marriage is on the rocks.

As one who is engaged, I can say there have been times when I felt out of touch with my fiance, as if because I spent a lot of time away from her that we were not as close as we had previously been, but knowing that I can count on her unconditional love for me allows me to say to myself "these are only feelings, and they will pass." The idea that reality is at all based on emotions is ridiculous when you look closely at it, but when emotion hits you it seems like the truth. That love is something you can focus on that acts like an anchor back to reality, and it doesn't have to be based on the fact that your spouse is good-looking or fun to be around.

I don't think arranged marriages are necessary, but I don't think they are nearly as wrong as the reasons people marry in the US.

[Jerome Scuggs]

part I

let us begin

Jerome using his immense powers of high school debating to justify his worldly knowledge... oh boy!

No. Jerome using his immense powers to read approximately one (1) college-textbook-sized book on economics per week to research and find evidence for debates where I win against the very arguments you put forth to justify his worldy knowledge, while also taking the high-road and not judging everyone by the level of superficial education they have recieved and instead focusing on what the person ACTUALLY knows (which, well, is the level of high schooler in your case in many respects to economics).. oh boy!

Basically everyone in the world agrees that monopolies are bad, especially people who know much more than you or I and have much more experience dealing with such things.

I now understand why you KNOW "four world champion of the universe" debaters, and are not one yourself - First you generalize, then you lie. I mean, I know most anti-free-market people are anti-free-market because they read alot of socialist propaganda without actually researching the other side, but there are many, MANY people who believe, firmly, in what I say. One died recently and was considered one of the world's best economists (Milton Friedman). One ran our Treasury and, under him, had some of the best economic prosperity this nation has ever recieved (Alan Greenspan). One is a doctor and a Representative from Texas who is running for President, and gives speeches in Congress on exactly how people with your mentality are killing our Economy (Ron Paul).

...but maybe you're right. I'm fresh out of high school.

Jerome, think about it for a second dude. You're actually coming out and supporting monopolies here!

...You act like I didn't specifically point out the fact that yes, yes, YES, I do support monopolies. Kudos for the clever smear tactics, too - Epinephrine, think about it for a second dude. You're actually coming out and supporting gay rights! There, I made it sound like a bad thing by cleverly manipulating the English language, too. Perhaps you real-world folk learn that after college.

You're saying that it's actually a GOOD IDEA for one person to be in charge for a significant portion of the economy

Microsoft's profit in 2006: 2.83 billion
United States GDP: 13.22 Trillion

SOMEONE CALL THE ANTI-FASCIT POLICE I BELIEVE BILL GATES OWNS A SIZEABLE PORTION OF THE ECONOMY. GUYS BILL GATES MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING LIKE 0.2% OF THE ENTIRE US ECONOMY

Yo guess how long it took me to find those figures: 5 seconds, thanks to google. Since you're making a big deal of how I'm in high school - can't you at least do research like you're out of the fifth grade?

and that it's actually good for everyone that this is allowed. I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to actually believe this and not be someone who is benefiting from this (i.e. the person who runs said monopoly) and be proud of it!

You're right. I'm not benefitting from monopolies. This Microsoft computer that I got for under $300 that I am using to read this thread that says people don't benefit from Monopolies (like Microsoft) is in no way shape or fucking form, a benefit.

Jesus christ you Canadians are so ingrateful for the very companies that allow you to connect to the internet and bitch.

Look man, you need to seriously listen to me. Divide up your notions of a natural monopoly (Microsoft) and an artificial monopoly (The Post Office). One provides awesome technology (Microsoft) and one provides slow mail delivery (The Post Office). When one starts to become a problem, it's market shares fall, and it must listen to the people and try to fix the problem (Microsoft). When the other starts to become a problem... so what. They're funded by the government (The Post Office).

Why are monopolies bad?
1) Decrease reasons to innovate - why try inventing new things, when whatever you have is selling anyway? You will have business no matter what you do.

fhtusfj kskjdkj masdadfmm masdkfa mmmmaksdfkasm mmmmmMMMMMMIIICCCRRROOOSSSOOOFFFFTTTTTTTT dear god you're accusing me of being 'not in the real world' and you're ignoring one of the biggest Natural monopolies in the world that is STILL innovating? Dude, if you're going to not even ATTEMPT to research my side of the arguments, just tell me so I won't have to waste time googling "monopolies that are innovative"

Recently, Microsoft has slowed down on the innovation, and as a result, entry barriers are lowering. But what do I know? It's not like I live in the real world. It's not like my high school switched to Macs because they were cheaper. God, I HAAAATEEE BEING IGNORANT!!!!! Help my become like you Epi (i'm kidding btw)

2) Prices - competition drives down prices. How can anyone who believes in the free market not understand this simple fact?

aduhshfxjsk

Looks like poor-boy high school Jerome Scuggs can't give you the mechanics of HOW your statement is untrue, I will once again have to point to past markets that were 1) monopolized yet 2) flooded with some of the cheapest prices in U.S. history. Still on the table is my offer that I will drop this entire shpiel if you find me ONE instance of a NATURAL (NOT GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED/CREATED/ENFORCED) monopoly's market prices being coercively high. You should start around the 19th century so you can see the number of markets whose prices PLUMMETED when a monopoly took over before you find a monopoly whose prices are, at worst, "so-so".

3) Concentration of power - Why oh god why do you want one person or one company in charge of everything about a certain part of the economy?

Ah, I see your problem here. You don't know what "political power" and "economic power" mean. Oh, I totally agree that Hitler's a bad guy. Stalin was a bad guy. Hell, Marx was a bad guy.

How many people did Commodore Vanderbilt kill? Not counting the thousands of people who probably gained weight when he invented the potato chip (it's not quite the Holocaust but I guess it's bad enough)

How many people did James Jerome Hill force to ride his railroads? None, unless you count the people who couldn't stand the government-run railroads and were forced (oh, those poor guys) to pay lower prices than their previous railroad shipper.

And Steve Jobs. God, that bastard! Him and his... sweaters... and cool products... that bastard has ruined everyone's lives.

[Jerome Scuggs]

part II

You speak of Microsoft... actually wait a sec... once they controlled the browser market, remember what we got?

Yeah, I remember - the product was inundated with endless problems... until Firefox came out and forced Microsoft to innovate. It's a classic example of how monopolies have and will be forced to innovate to remain competitive. But back to your post. What were we going to get?

IE5 for about 5 years with it's endless problems until Firefox came out and forced Microsoft to innovate.

...holy shit! It's like we were thinking the same thing!!

Not to mention the fact that they can and do charge whatever they want for software

Well if you truly think that, just wait. Soon they'll encounter other companies who will competitively lower their prices, forcing Microsoft to use aggressive pricing as well.

until now when they are finally using more aggressive pricing thanks to competition from other companies.

wgaff YOU MEAN THEY ALREADY HAVE? DAMN! For all that time spent slamming me for being under-educated, we sure do think alike, Epi!

Deregulation in terms of the telephone business refers to government forcing AT&T to allow competitors to use it's lines. It broke up the company and all of the sudden we have massive innovation in terms of much lower long distance rates, much different ways of doing things, and many new phone services never before imagined. A similar thing happened in Canada many years later when Bell Canada's monopoly was broken. Suddenly I didn't have to pay $1/minute for long distance because hey... there was COMPETITION.

You... ah... you realize AT&T was a government monopoly in the first place. And even if it had remained a monopoly, innovation (ie Digital Phones) would have eventually become a serious competitor. Hell, I bet we'd have that tech sooner if AT&T had continued with their prices... but people are just so goddamn impatient, aren't they?

This is the same with Standard Oil. Yes Rockafeller did earn it by running a successful business. But Rockafeller had immense power. He could dictate how the country ran

He didn't

and he could pay his workers next to nothing because there was no one else to work for.

He didn't- wait what? "Noone else to work for" are you reading what you type? Wish you would have just posted that sentence first and save me the trouble of digging up these facts I'm using because hell, I could just bullshit Economics 101 too

There was also no one else to buy oil from, so he could charge as much as he wanted to still make money

He didn't

(instead of charging as low a price as possible to help out consumers, which was the crux of your $3/gallon argument).

Still is

Because once Standard Oil broke up, there were a lot more companies which were competiting against eachother, with good reason to charge lower prices and have better ways of doing business, more reasons to expand technology because... well there was competition!

Ah, so historically speaking prices should... be... lower... nvm

Each successive post, you've shown your increasing ignorance at things.

By "ignorance at things" you mean "ignorance at the blissfully idealistic hypothetical hyperboles in which i subscribe to" yeah

I hope that years from now you will realize how misguided your views are now, although it will probably take a while for you to realize.

Eeehh if you wanted any leverage here you would've written a post which couldn't be mocked by an 18 year old dude on the internet who hasn't finished high school and can expose alot of your inaccuracies with a mere google checkup

The worst is if you don't end up realizing at all that you're wrong and just take your ridiculous views to the real world with you.

Look dude, if you believed that racism was wrong, you wouldn't try to convince him of your viewpoint by 1) calling out his character/qualifications 2) calling him ignorant and then 3) relying on the person to believe everything you say without doing any real analysis or checking up on your data. The way I have been going about this argument is VERY real world - while YOU are taking the route of a "holier-than-thou", condescending, college graduate, I am actually doing my research to provide you with statistics and historical reality, as well as grouping and responsing to specific individual points - something an employer would LOVE to see (if only he wasn't swimming in his own blood money - damn those capitalists). I do apologize for the snide way in which I am writing, but then again, I didn't start the sarcastic remarks.

[Troll King]

EDIT: let me rephrase that.

So your point is that monopolies are good because they eventually stop being monopolies?

[Jerome Scuggs]

EDIT: let me rephrase that.

So your point is that monopolies are good because they eventually stop being monopolies?

What I am doing is dismissing the notion that natural monopolies are inherently evil. I am arguing that they got to where they were by being good what they do, and if they want to stay that way, they will continue to be the best - and if they don't, they go the way of their previous competitors.

EDIT: let me rephrase that: Dog eat dog.

[Facetious]

When you have nothing else to do besides drinking and smoking perhaps you should use that extra time to try and make something of your life, like contribute to society in some way. Or hell pick a hobby.

Smoking away all your free time is pretty sad, sadder than playing Subspace with all your free time IMO.

Yeah, I mean, I think about volunteering or something, and clearly I should, but that's another responsibility/obligation, and while it is kind of pathetic, if I have any obligations other than my schoolwork, I always end up fucking up at school. Also, I didn't mean that I literally have nothing to do but drink or smoke, what I meant was, on a Friday or Saturday night, what else is there to do that doesn't cost 10 dollars an hour?

Most of the free stuff that was suggested I already do, during the day, and isn't really what I'm talking about. I have plenty of things to do during the day. LB had a good breakdown of everything MirroriM listed in terms of cost. To fill an entire evening of socializing without ending up at someone's house watching TV or playing Boggle with the activites you listed would end up being like 50-60 bucks. Figure 15 bucks for dinner at somewhere really shitty, that gets you from 8:30 to 9:30. 20 bucks for an hour and a half of bowling (conservative estimate), gets you to 11. 10 bucks for a movie gets you to 1 AM. That's 45 bucks assuming you don't get any sort of soda or snack while bowling or at the movie (that'd add another 5-15 bucks to the cost). A fifth of Kentucky Gentleman and a decent sized party entertains me for even longer than that and only costs 8 bucks.

[Facetious]

Wow, I just noticed all the angry shit Spider wrote.

This is what I was responding to:

Anyway, what the fuck was I talking about? Oh, right, drugs. The weed smoking student archetype that you know and support is not bad. But those drugs are very harmful to people in poor areas. Your money probably goes to some guy that lives in the dorm on campus but in lower class areas (where most of the using happens) it goes to gang related shit. It takes money away from poor people who can't feed their children. It takes hope out of those families and communities.

I don't see how anyone could read this paragraph without thinking that you meant that when college students buy drugs, the money trickles down to poor areas. I was responding to what it sounded like your point was. I'll admit, my sentence structure wasn't the best, but the miscommunication occurred when you were unclear about what you were saying.

I don't have the time or energy to dissect your entire rant, seemingly irrelevant asides and contradictions and all. The overriding point seemed to be "I'm not against college students doing drugs if you take it out of context, but they're selfish if they don't understand that drugs are bad, and by doing drugs, they are harming poor people." My point was that from what I know, my money doesn't go to poor people or poor areas. The pot the vast majority of college students smoke is of a very high grade. To grow that stuff you need expensive equipment, and a whole lot of space. Meth, from what I understand, can be made in a kitchen in really short period of time using things you can buy at the grocery store. Big difference.

This is clearly anecdotal, but pretty much whenever I'm anywhere in public (where it's not clear what people's substance abuse habits are), and I meet someone that is fairly socially competent, with a good sense of humor, it almost always turns out that they drink, and usually turns out that they smoke pot. Maybe the majority of people don't drink or smoke, I don't know the statistics, but pretty much everyone that I like does, and I don't really care what people I don't like do, because I don't want to hang out with people I don't like. You suggested sports, shopping, movies, and sexual intercourse as alternative activities, but I already do three of those regularly, with the exception being shopping (Shopping? What the fuck?). It's obviously not true that I couldn't think of those cookie-cutter ideas because I drink and smoke too much.

Conclusion: Smoke a couple bowls dude, it's fun.

[Kolar]

What I am doing is dismissing the notion that natural monopolies are inherently evil. I am arguing that they got to where they were by being good what they do, and if they want to stay that way, they will continue to be the best - and if they don't, they go the way of their previous competitors.

So Microsoft bought the Disk Operating System (DOS), made a lot of money without putting an dime into R&D, basically ripped off or stoled every idea at the time to create a GUI operating system (Windows 95)... Keeps an almost complete hold on the market by scaring Dell and the likes into not dumping their inferior piece of shit software (which does nothing but cause billions of dollars in problems), has for the past decade refused to go back to the drawing board as Apple did for OSx and is now suing its competitors for "infringing" on their intellectual property, mostly to scare the server market without citing anything specifically. And they're "good" at what they do? If you define good as purely staying in business and beating their competitors by all means necessary then how does innovation and change enter into it?

I'm all for free markets, less regulation to spawn innovation etc etc... but in the past innovation has had little to do with success or the ability to command a share of a market. Don't make that mistake. Unchecked and regardless of how they are created Monopolies will always, always, always, always, always.... in the long run hurt the middle.

Edit: I mean no offense Jerome but you're pretty average at arguing a point which is better then most on this forum. Being good at debating a topic is one thing though, actually taking the time to understand issues as complex as economics (not to mention NOT arguing from an idealogical POV) is something entirely different. I'm not saying I am any better because I haven't studied this subject before, I just think you need to consider the other side of things and understand where you stand firmly before coming to the table. More often then not you're proving the point for the other side.