What annoys you most about your culture?

[Zeebu]

ive talked twice in this thread and got ignored =(

i give up

im goin back to the calc thread

[genocidal]

I didn't read everything, so it prob was said before.

But in a perfect free market, monopolies are never around for long. A monopolie makes a lot of profit if they do it right, which attracts new companies, which eventually leads to price based competition and getting rid of the monopolies.

But we don't have a perfect free market, high costs to enter a market because of government regulations, thus Monopolies are a crime to the economy and prices in our day and age.

You got it totally backwards. A completely free market tends towards monopolies because once they're there they can just buy up the competition and maintain whatever prices they want.

Regulations are what prevents Microsoft from buying Apple (though they pretty much buy up everything else they can).

[Jerome Scuggs]

I didn't read everything, so it prob was said before.

But in a perfect free market, monopolies are never around for long. A monopolie makes a lot of profit if they do it right, which attracts new companies, which eventually leads to price based competition and getting rid of the monopolies.

But we don't have a perfect free market, high costs to enter a market because of government regulations, thus Monopolies are a crime to the economy and prices in our day and age.

Wait, because REGULATIONS prevent economic competition and thus prosperity, the monopolies are the 'criminals'?

Analogy: The Nazis are murdering alot of Jews, thus Jews are a crime to our society in this day and age, because they cause murder.

[Galleleo]

I didn't read everything, so it prob was said before.

But in a perfect free market, monopolies are never around for long. A monopolie makes a lot of profit if they do it right, which attracts new companies, which eventually leads to price based competition and getting rid of the monopolies.

But we don't have a perfect free market, high costs to enter a market because of government regulations, thus Monopolies are a crime to the economy and prices in our day and age.

[MirrorriM]

Or dont assume such a negative tone? Out of all these posts I was trying to give responses to both sides, unlike others who just said "wow get a life there is more to do than get drunk." I'm sorry if what I said sounded so mean or hurtful, like I keep saying all I wanted to say was offer some options! I even gave ones where getting drunk can be involved too for an extra fun factor. It was just something new to do for a change, didnt mean to make it sound like something to do all the time.

My closing line is how I feel. Sorry if you take it the wrong way. It was not meant to be insulting no matter what you think. I would like to try some new stuff, and yeah you guys cant so much because of how expensive things are. With an open mind, I offered some other activities--oops guess they are expensive too sorry for trying to help. When I offered activities I didnt mean to cut out drinking, say go bowling and then come back and drink and hang out and have fun some more. It was meant as a way to change the routine. If that is overly negative and close-minded, so be it.

[gran guerrero]

I smoke because I can and its better than being sober, there.

[Liquid Blue]

uldnt want to spend time just watching TV..I think the point I was trying to make got lost somewhere. Wasnt trying to say just watching TV is a fun time. I wanted to add some options (if that means I'm not open-minded according to LB so be it). Somehow LB took that as an "im better than you" response. Some think drinking is a fun way to hang out and loosen up, others think there are other options to having fun. All I was trying to say was hey this is some other things too! Lol, dunno why that was so hard to express.

I called you close-minded because you refused to grasp that things were expensive over here, and decided that because you couldn't believe things were so expensive, Face was complaining about the prices.

There are other options to having fun but you're still cutting alcohol out of the equation and treating it as a completely different way to handle the night when it's not. You can do your other options while having a good buzz (unless it involves driving around)- instead of treating drinking as a separate activity, think of it as a warm-up to whatever you're going to do.


Having this-

I guess this is where you and I differ: you would rather do the same thing with your free time, and I would rather find new things to do. I'd honestly rather have more "remember when we were here/or here/or there" rather than "remember when we were at that party and getting drunk/high at that other one/or those chicks at another party." I guess everyone has their preference.

at the end of a post where you repeatedly say he's complaining is why I reacted the way I did. If you want to express your opinion without worrying about people getting defensive, don't have such a negative tone in your posts.

[MirrorriM]

You must go to some really lame parties if everyone sits around watching TV... Drinking is activity that promotes socializing, when people are drunk, they are more lively and talkative. It's not just being drunk that's entertaining, it's the antics that arise when everyone is drunk.

Really, this didn't start with you, what initially bothered me was Spider "having a problem" with people that drink and do drugs. To me, those things are just a harmless activity, no more a waste of time than any other. If he doesn't enjoy it, fine, but I don't understand what right he has to preach about it. I don't enjoy horseback riding, but I don't give a shit if other people do it. My follow-up question was one I'd always wanted to know the answer to, what the hell do people who don't drink do if they want to get together with a group of people and socialize, and I got my answer. People that don't drink spend a bunch of money doing stuff that's less fun than drinking. I was wondering if maybe people did stuff that sounded appealing to me that I hadn't thought of doing. However, it's fine with me if you want to go bowling or to the movies (although I got sick of that shit in high school and it's in no way worth the money to me anymore), and hopefully, it's fine with you if I go drink.

I was referring to your comment about how you wouldnt want to spend time just watching TV..I think the point I was trying to make got lost somewhere. Wasnt trying to say just watching TV is a fun time. I wanted to add some options (if that means I'm not open-minded according to LB so be it). Somehow LB took that as an "im better than you" response. Some think drinking is a fun way to hang out and loosen up, others think there are other options to having fun. All I was trying to say was hey this is some other things too! Lol, dunno why that was so hard to express.

I agree that people shouldnt preach about how bad or wrong something is. I also think people should be more open to other's giving their opinions however and just taking it with a grain of salt or actually taking note of it (this is to no one in particular).

[Facetious]

No. I was referring to Face's post about how he didnt want to sit around watching TV all night when a party is about the same thing (I did admit the "drunk" factor).

You must go to some really lame parties if everyone sits around watching TV. If you throw a party, you invite people you don't see all that often and have the entertainment value of talking to those folks and meeting new people that they might bring. Without the party, those people aren't going to want to come over. I know I wouldn't. If my options are watching TV with a couple people or watching TV in a room with 15 people in it, where I have nowhere to sit and I don't get to control what I watch, clearly I'm going to pick the smaller group, and so would most people. Drinking is activity that promotes socializing, when people are drunk, they are more lively and talkative. It's not just being drunk that's entertaining, it's the antics that arise when everyone is drunk.

Really, this didn't start with you, what initially bothered me was Spider "having a problem" with people that drink and do drugs. To me, those things are just a harmless activity, no more a waste of time than any other. If he doesn't enjoy it, fine, but I don't understand what right he has to preach about it. I don't enjoy horseback riding, but I don't give a shit if other people do it. My follow-up question was one I'd always wanted to know the answer to, what the hell do people who don't drink do if they want to get together with a group of people and socialize, and I got my answer. People that don't drink spend a bunch of money doing stuff that's less fun than drinking. I was wondering if maybe people did stuff that sounded appealing to me that I hadn't thought of doing. However, it's fine with me if you want to go bowling or to the movies (although I got sick of that shit in high school and it's in no way worth the money to me anymore), and hopefully, it's fine with you if I go drink.

[Jerome Scuggs]

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.

If I concede your brilliant argument, do I win the Universal Health Care (a government monopoly on doctors and hospitals) debate?

[MirrorriM]

-Both Face and I have already told you that the area we live in is expensive, I don't know why that isn't sinking in. And I don't see how it's unreasonable to go bowling and then get something to eat, or vice versa- while I usually don't do 3 things of that nature here (because it's so expensive), I would have no problem doing all 3 in one night. If the prices around here were similar to what Izor or some other posters have mentioned, you can bet I'd do some bowling, check out a movie and top it off with a trip to Silver Diner or whatever restaurant we feel like going to.

They're equal (to me) because they both fill up a Friday/Saturday night. That was the point, right?




Alcohol loosens some people up, and some crazy adventures/instances that would have probably not happened while sober, come to light when the alcohol is flowing. Also, as long as you don't get completely shit-faced, having a good buzz only heightens the enjoyment level of the night you spend with your friends.

Giving the reason why he doesn't do so many things (the prices) is fair since we're talking about what there is to do on weekend nights and why he doesn't do more. It's not the fact that bowling is too expensive to enjoy period, it's the fact that it's too expensive to enjoy for an hour, or two hours around here. Believe me it's no fun being serious when he says you could easily spend $45-50 dollars a night just trying to find things to do for 3, 4 hours in our neck of the woods.




You two differ in the fact that you're ignoring his reasons simply because you can't seem to grasp the idea that it's too expensive to do different things every weekend. Matter of fact, who does that? No one finds new things to do every weekend unless they're spending loads of cash or aren't paying for the things they're doing. Not only is our area expensive, but there also is not a huuuge range of options available in terms of entertainment- I'm sure pretty much everyone hits a wall at some point in terms of things to do around town. If you want to feel better about yourself by lumping him into a stagnant, repetitive lifestyle category while you yourself seem to enjoy new and wondrous experiences every day, then go for it. Pat yourself on the back.

Just try to stay away from extremes and comparisons if you aren't willing to keep an open mind about things.

I love how everyone gets so defensive on here. I understand your area is expensive, I only gave a small list of things to do, and you guys picked the "most expensive" ones. Anyways, I live in a rural area too and I know how it feels to have nothing to do close by, perhaps I'm just used to driving further? Does that mean I'm sitting on a high horse cause I am willing to drive further to do stuff? No. I was referring to Face's post about how he didnt want to sit around watching TV all night when a party is about the same thing (I did admit the "drunk" factor).

I'm not arguing that he can do things every weekend, I gave some options...of course it would get expensive if he did that every weekend all night! I was just offering some ideas to break the "lets party" repetition. I've hit a wall too trying to find things to do where I live. My comment had nothing to do about a "stagnant lifestyle," more like repetitive as you said. I thought this was a discussion on different things to do? That there was nothing better or cheaper to do? No need to get so uppity about someone offering something else.

I'd like to be able to do new things, not the same every weekend. Doesnt mean I do, doesnt mean I'm saying partying is bad, or people who get drunk is bad, just that I'd like to do some new stuff too. If that deserves a pat on the back, then I'll take it

[Zeebu]

man... this whole economics fiasco confuses me...

i was hoping for an answer to my question. from your arguments, it sounds like since Microsoft grabbed the biggest handhold in the market first they should keep it if they can?

why should that apply only to business... why not everything?


also, youre responses of 'he didnt' kinda suck. saying he could have but didnt doesnt strike me as a great argument in general. just because it hasnt happened in the past, does that mean we should count out the possibility that it could?

another thing... microsoft is a small percentage of the income of the US. but since the US has more power and more money... they could shut down whoever they wanted to? luckily for us, they're not. feasibility of that is kind of goofy; but to me, it can be looked at as similar reasoning.

[Liquid Blue]

I find it interesting that you complain about the cost of filling up the entire night with many things(I dont even go to dinner then bowling then movies..and even living in California where the price of most stuff is high, is not as high as what youre stating) to doing the same thing all night, as if they somehow are equal.

-Both Face and I have already told you that the area we live in is expensive, I don't know why that isn't sinking in. And I don't see how it's unreasonable to go bowling and then get something to eat, or vice versa- while I usually don't do 3 things of that nature here (because it's so expensive), I would have no problem doing all 3 in one night. If the prices around here were similar to what Izor or some other posters have mentioned, you can bet I'd do some bowling, check out a movie and top it off with a trip to Silver Diner or whatever restaurant we feel like going to.

They're equal (to me) because they both fill up a Friday/Saturday night. That was the point, right?

Yeah, there's the whole "drunk" factor and such, but in both instances youre sitting around. To compare that to a night filled with a ton of stuff--I dont think many people actually go to a restaurant and bowling and movies all in the same night--and complaining about the price is not fair. Perhaps complain about how one activity such as bowling is just too expensive for you to enjoy.

Alcohol loosens some people up, and some crazy adventures/instances that would have probably not happened while sober, come to light when the alcohol is flowing. Also, as long as you don't get completely shit-faced, having a good buzz only heightens the enjoyment level of the night you spend with your friends.

Giving the reason why he doesn't do so many things (the prices) is fair since we're talking about what there is to do on weekend nights and why he doesn't do more. It's not the fact that bowling is too expensive to enjoy period, it's the fact that it's too expensive to enjoy for an hour, or two hours around here. Believe me it's no fun being serious when he says you could easily spend $45-50 dollars a night just trying to find things to do for 3, 4 hours in our neck of the woods.

I guess this is where you and I differ: you would rather do the same thing with your free time, and I would rather find new things to do. I'd honestly rather have more "remember when we were here/or here/or there" rather than "remember when we were at that party and getting drunk/high at that other one/or those chicks at another party." I guess everyone has their preference.

You two differ in the fact that you're ignoring his reasons simply because you can't seem to grasp the idea that it's too expensive to do different things every weekend. Matter of fact, who does that? No one finds new things to do every weekend unless they're spending loads of cash or aren't paying for the things they're doing. Not only is our area expensive, but there also is not a huuuge range of options available in terms of entertainment- I'm sure pretty much everyone hits a wall at some point in terms of things to do around town. If you want to feel better about yourself by lumping him into a stagnant, repetitive lifestyle category while you yourself seem to enjoy new and wondrous experiences every day, then go for it. Pat yourself on the back.

Just try to stay away from extremes and comparisons if you aren't willing to keep an open mind about things.

[MirrorriM]

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.

I find it interesting that you complain about the cost of filling up the entire night with many things(I dont even go to dinner then bowling then movies..and even living in California where the price of most stuff is high, is not as high as what youre stating) to doing the same thing all night, as if they somehow are equal.

Shitty restaurant-10 bucks at most
just went bowling from 11 pm to 2 am for 19 bucks total. (double your time estimate for same price) For just two games, which is about an hour and a half, 12 dollars.
Movies is about right, some theatres our student discount is 9.50, for snacks tho overpriced, not nearly as much as you state (who gets 15 bucks worth of food after eating? perhaps its different for me since im a girl). candy-3.00.

Anyways, my point is not to argue prices. My point is that you say a night filled with stuff is better than "sitting at home watching tv or playing boggle" but costs too much than a good party and some alcohol. I dont see much of a difference between messing around with friends at home, and messing around with friends at home with alcohol. Yeah, there's the whole "drunk" factor and such, but in both instances youre sitting around. To compare that to a night filled with a ton of stuff--I dont think many people actually go to a restaurant and bowling and movies all in the same night--and complaining about the price is not fair. Perhaps complain about how one activity such as bowling is just too expensive for you to enjoy.

I guess this is where you and I differ: you would rather do the same thing with your free time, and I would rather find new things to do. I'd honestly rather have more "remember when we were here/or here/or there" rather than "remember when we were at that party and getting drunk/high at that other one/or those chicks at another party." I guess everyone has their preference.

[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.