The Most Significant Problem

[Caravan Ray]

ie. A give aid money to B. B spends money. A wants money back with interest. A becomes richer. B becomes poorer. (for an example closer to home - substitute A=your bank, B=you, aid=credit card).

Your point is fine, but I think the credit card is a poor example. Credit card debt is generally self-inflicted by persons too selfish to wait until they have the money. It is pretty rare that the people building up credit card debt are in dire straights. And often if they are, it's because they just finished paying off their old, irresponsible purchases, have no savings, and now have an emergency and an open credit card.

You're right - it was a poor example

[sparks]

I hope this guy never, ever has a credit card, if he thinks that's their only use.

And it was a poor example, but not -that- poor of an example. Most of us can stretch a little to find the target of your allegory. Most of us.

I'll be good, now, and go wander around outside while it's still warm.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

derive my meaning from the context.

Seriously though, credit card debt is not equivalent to a mortgage, or a student loan. And I use the word selfish because most people don't go take their visa, and say, "Gee, I'd like to charge up my $2,000 limit on a brand new guitar for my friend."

Since you like these...

selfish
adj : concerned chiefly or only with yourself

So honestly, the last time I used my credit card was because I was concerned with acquiring something for myself. I didn't take into consideration who else would benefit from my purchase. That is selfish, is it not?

And, just my opinion, but if my car breaks down, and I have a choice of swallowing some pride and riding public transit, or paying some corporate ass-faces 20% on a $1500 repair, then sign me up for one of those passes that 15-16 mentioned recently.

[erik]

ie. A give aid money to B. B spends money. A wants money back with interest. A becomes richer. B becomes poorer. (for an example closer to home - substitute A=your bank, B=you, aid=credit card).

or

A gives money to B to grow coffee. B grows and sells coffee. B gets richer. B grows more coffee. B doesn't grow wheat. B buys food. A decides to start drinking tea. B can't sell coffee. B can't eat coffee. B starves.

or

A gives B money to realise a valuable natural resource (gold, copper, grazing land, phosphate, oil...whatever). A gives money. A provides expertise. A builds infrastructure. A provides jobs for B. B gets richer - but not as rich as A. Resource runs out. B is buggered (take a trip to Nauru if you want to see how this one works).

BTW - I didn't say it would be easy to eliminate poverty - just that there is no real reason why it can't be done.

I think the reason is that people like getting loans, coffee, gold, copper and whatever else. What types of business deals will replace these specific examples, if we decide to not do them anymore?

[mico saudad]

If you define poverty as 'suffering due to a lack of basic necessities'. Then isnt' life as a whole predicated on a poverty? Bacteria, fungi, worms, polar bears - the things these animals do to cope with a life of minimal resources etc. is amazing.

I don't think we can eliminate poverty. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, because the desire to help others, if anything else, is what's going to keep humans around for a while.

[sparks]

selfish
adj : concerned chiefly or only with yourself

So honestly, the last time I used my credit card was because I was concerned with acquiring something for myself. I didn't take into consideration who else would benefit from my purchase. That is selfish, is it not?

You realize that to BUY something is primarily "selfish" by this logic. Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with credit or the loan of money. The fact that a fee is (sometimes) exacted in the form of interest or charges is irrelevant--you're already paying more money for the things you're buying because you didn't go and sew those clothes yourself, or whatever moronic ideal you're imagining. No matter what, with an exchange, you are losing something in order to gain something--in the case of credit, convenience and financial flexibility.

Additionally, credit -can- be used in a way that involves no cost to yourself, while producing immediate benefits. Additionally, you can charge more than you can immediately pay to credit in order to put yourself in a better situation for making more money (e.g. buying a car so you can drive to a better job).

Do you even think about the things you say before you write them? Or defend them?

[sparks]

If you define poverty as 'suffering due to a lack of basic necessities'. Then isnt' life as a whole predicated on a poverty? Bacteria, fungi, worms, polar bears - the things these animals do to cope with a life of minimal resources etc. is amazing.

I don't think we can eliminate poverty. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, because the desire to help others, if anything else, is what's going to keep humans around for a while.

I agree absolutely. There is always a margin, but you can do a lot to change the size of that margin and you can do a lot to change the overall frame which that margin exists within. Poverty means something very different from location to location--poverty in the US, while real, is really a beautiful ideal compared to poverty in Africa, Asia, Latin America. The ideal, I think, should be to change the world and its economy to such a degree that poverty is something a great deal better than it is right now. It's a realistic aspiration, by comparison to the all-encompassing "get rid of poverty!" dream.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

You realize that to BUY something is primarily "selfish" by this logic. Your statements have absolutely nothing to do with credit or the loan of money. The fact that a fee is (sometimes) exacted in the form of interest or charges is irrelevant--you're already paying more money for the things you're buying because you didn't go and sew those clothes yourself, or whatever moronic ideal you're imagining. No matter what, with an exchange, you are losing something in order to gain something--in the case of credit, convenience and financial flexibility.

Additionally, credit -can- be used in a way that involves no cost to yourself, while producing immediate benefits. Additionally, you can charge more than you can immediately pay to credit in order to put yourself in a better situation for making more money (e.g. buying a car so you can drive to a better job).

Do you even think about the things you say before you write them? Or defend them?

-can- I -can- win the lottery. I -can- store my silverware in my toilet. Why are we having a discussion based on -can-s? The majority of America spends 120% of their income. That doesn't mean their investing with credit, or using a car to get a better job. That means that they are using credit to purchase something they cannot afford right at the time, and also cannot afford to pay back, realistically. Or more likely, they can afford to pay back, but don't. I don't see why you feel the need to be an ass to me, if you don't like what I'm saying that much than don't respond.

[erik]

Because he can.

[/sorry]

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

Because he can.

[/sorry]

You mean, because he -can-

[roymond]

I think this discussion is great. While it's easy to throw around generalizations, it's valuable to introduce concepts that are worth further exploration.

In that spirit, I highly recommend the PopTech 2004 conference recordings on ITConversations.com. These are really stimulating presentations by very smart people in their fields. You can also subscribe to a Podcast that will automatically stage them to your iPod or other device for convenient listening on demand (they are large files because they are long). They are really quite amazing!!!!

Some recommendations:

Richard Alley: Big Weather - an overview of the impacts of man on global climate change and what opportunities there are to reduce the bad stuff.

Janine Benyus: Biomimicry - a discussion about how to design future products based on the ways nature itself takes care of things.

Ze Frank: Happiness - Just really really fucking funny. And more.

[sparks]

if you don't like what I'm saying that much than don't respond.

"Like" isn't so much the point--there are plenty of people who can hold an intelligent conversation without me liking what they're saying. But I'll have to take you up on that from here on. Really, this was halfway intelligent before this crap was introduced. Mindless, baseless, and unintelligent generalizations don't really help anyone's argument, and we are left having to spend our time explaining things to you rather than discussing them, only to find a response even more inane and incompetent in its misdirection from the topic.

[bz£]

Why can't I vote for "message board trolling" as the most significant problem plaguing humanity today? I guess I'll have to go with "moral decay" then, because it is pretty close to "molar decay" and I think that if more people brushed their teeth regularly then the world would be a kinder, gentler place. I mean, consider the state of dentistry in the 1300s; they weren't called "the Dark Ages" for nothing.

[sparks]

Really, a forum troll is someone who posts facetious (usually offensive) comments in order to "troll" an amusing response out of the group (the word derives from a fishing term, not the kind of troll who lives under a bridge or smashes sneaky hobbits). E.g., "I think Hitler was really a pretty sensitive guy," on a Jewish affairs forum. I don't think we get many/any of those here.

People who don't understand the term tend to use it to describe anyone who says something they don't like.

[erik]

The best way to get interesting responses out of a group is to have them convinced you're not trying to get interesting responses out of them. If folks go in all guns ablazing with "Fire bad, Hitler good" type of stuff, it's pretty easy to dismiss those people as folks who are just trying to get a rise out of you. A good troll makes it look like they are interested in having a discussion/debate, but then does things which do not promote discussion, which would serve to clear up exactly what it is they are saying, or why it is they are choosing to say it.

[/so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me]

[j$]

to no-one in particular (i.e. I follow Eric's post but it's not directed at him)

Somewhat like Jazz, one man's troll is another man's challenging individual. I find people not granting others any intelligence / wisdom (especially in musical tastes) the most troll-like behaviour. Like 'Well, if you dug the [insert artist poster thinks only h/she has heard of], you might get this' when, of course, it's because I dig the [artist poster thinks only h/she has heard of], that I can understand how bad this is in comparision ...

My favourite kind of troll is the kind who really has no idea they are trolling. They can lurk for days or weeks on a site being non-commital and surface-friendly, then something will push their button and the rest of the board is condemned to die in fiery pain. Rinse and repeat. I guess that could possibly apply to anyone who posts with any regularity anywhere, of course ....

[/strange mood discourse]

[the Jazz]

Somewhat like Jazz, one man's troll is another man's challenging individual.

What now?

[Caravan Ray]

E.g., "I think Hitler was really a pretty sensitive guy," on a Jewish affairs forum. I don't think we get many/any of those here.

.

Well at least he got the trains running on time...

[Caravan Ray]

...or was that Mussolini?

[j$]

Yup, Il Duce. Train punctuality in Nazi Germany is not a matter of public knowledge.

And all tasteless jokes based on that second sentence should be thought of, considered then left untyped.

j$

[Fried]

I might have missed it, so sorry if I did. I was looking for the definition of poverty in the context of this discussion. What we in the U.S. consider poverty, is gravely different than, say, Mexico. I think of povert as people who do not have enough to eat, no place to sleep and unsanitary conditions living conditions. All brought on my no fault of thier own, or thier lack of willingness to work toward a remedy to the situation. Just my 2 cents.

Isn't it a basic idea in communism to eliminate poverty by flattening pay and social structure? Why doesn't that work? (This question is trolling)

[Caravan Ray]

(This question is trolling)

Yes, it is.