[c312]

Originally Posted by Trunks

Greedy people won't waste money looking for solutions to the problem, they will just keep raking in the money,

Think of this logically, they are greedy and they want money. Soon gas will be too expensive and they won't be able to profit from it. What do they do next? Retire? No, they are too greedy, they want more money so instead they invest in something else that can make them more money now that they can't get profit out of gas sales. Their greed is exactly why they will look for solutions to the problem so that they can continue raking in the money.

[Trunks]

Trunks, you need to think about this a little more, you're starting to pull things out of your ass. Companies will never stop wanting more money, you're stupid if you actually beleive that they will be satisfied and the entire company will just retire to south beach...Wrong. Companies are run by people. People who will not see the need to continue their companies when they are filthy rich. There aren't a lot of Bill Gates' out there buddy. When people have enough money, they stop caring about their companies, and start caring about luxury.

Also, the people you know who can't afford the high gas prices are exactly the incentive that the gas companies have to find more affordable sources of energy. You think they don't know that people are not gonna be able to pay $5 for a gallon of gas? Of course they do! It's in their best interest for them to maintain customers, otherwise they don't get enough money!!!! You are seriously underestimating the intelligence of corporations. You may think they are evil, but that certainly doesn't mean they are stupid... Oh dont worry bud. We will be able to afford $5 a gallon. We will just have to buy cheaper food, get closer jobs, buy less luxuries, etc. For somebody who is telling me I did not think closely enough to what I said, you are making the same mistake. The gas companies also know that EVERYTHING we have runs on oil. No matter how high they jack up the prices, people will ALWAYS have to go to work, go on bussiness trips, drive to teh supermarket, etc.

I didnt bother responding to your second post, because I would be more or less restating what I just said.

[Machette]

The first rule of running a company/corporation is to make a profit.

[TGB!]

[quote:9c64b]As for socialism, as you said yourself, TBG, it depends on how heavily they rely on the said system. For example, Britain, can be considered socialist to an extent, because it institutes policies such as free healthcare(I could be wrong about this, but it is what I have heard.)[/quote:9c64b]

Britain is no more socialist than the UNITED STATES. In this modern era it is not realistic to not expect some social services from the government, such as access to health care and an unemployment check every two weeks. However, there is a REASON why no government exists as a purely socialist state - because it does not work. Period.

[quote:9c64b]I honestly see no reason why a socialist economy could not function.[/quote:9c64b]

Because it stifles free market growth, which stifles industry, which stifles modernization and creativity, which stifles progress, which - well you see where this goes.

[quote:9c64b]Socialism is a government which is all about the people[/quote:9c64b]

Oh give me a break. As if capatalistic democracies somehow arent for the people.

[quote:9c64b]The entire reason for communism's creation was because of the corruption of the bourgeousie + nobles[/quote:9c64b]

Right - so instead of the material elite, you produced the political elite, who did a BANG UP job.

[quote:9c64b]So many live in poverty. And even more are oblivious of that.[/quote:9c64b]

Youre overgeneralizing causes of poverty under the United States government. Presuming a capatalistic model is the ONLY reason many live below the poverty line is specious. You dont think theres poverty in the Oceanic states? You dont think its possible for someone to receive government aid and not be below the poverty line?

[quote:9c64b]There are countries where thousands die of starvation....this would not happen if food was shared equally.[/quote:9c64b]

Irrelevant to this discussion, and a faulty expansion of the ideas of socialism.

[Trunks]

Britain is no more socialist than the UNITED STATES. In this modern era it is not realistic to not expect some social services from the government, such as access to health care and an unemployment check every two weeks. However, there is a REASON why no government exists as a purely socialist state - because it does not work. Period.

Well we've never had a pure socialist state so how do we know? You are probably right, but only because it would be a single socialist nation in the midst of dozens of capitalist ones.

Because it stifles free market growth, which stifles industry, which stifles modernization and creativity, which stifles progress, which - well you see where this goes.

How does being provided with everything you need in life in exhange for work do any of those things? If anything, modernization, creativity, and progress would be more evident because for once, people wouldn't be worrying about money, they would be doing what they love to do. Growing up, my father never once told me to do what I liked. He told me to do what got me the most money. That is wrong, but thats the mentality which so many people have. They waste their lives away, make a lot of money, doing things they don't like, and in the end, what does it add up to? A big house? A cool ride? What matters is happiness...and the willingness to work towards making the earth a better place to live, something I don't see much in our current world...

Oh give me a break. As if capatalistic democracies somehow arent for the people.

They aren't. Everything is determined by money. Money determines power. Money determines the presidential candidates. Money determines whether I can get into the college I want. Money creates large rifts between the various classes of society. The poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and the ones in the middle stay in the middle.

Right - so instead of the material elite, you produced the political elite, who did a BANG UP job.

And we do not have political elite?

Youre overgeneralizing causes of poverty under the United States government. Presuming a capatalistic model is the ONLY reason many live below the poverty line is specious. You dont think theres poverty in the Oceanic states? You dont think its possible for someone to receive government aid and not be below the poverty line?

I never said that. But I did say the capitalist system is flawed, and as a result of its flaws, many people are in poverty.

Irrelevant to this discussion, and a faulty expansion of the ideas of socialism.

On the contrary, it is very relevant. We don't sell food to Africa, because the only thing african countries like Chad and Zimbabwe can give us in exchange is sand. I am exagerating of course, but my point is, in a capitalist world, as many people said in this thread already, the goal is to make money. Selling food to chad doesnt get countries as much money as selling to other countries. So the result? Nobody sells food to Chad. And the people starve. And we wonder why.

[c312]

It's hard to argue with someone who has such a lack of logic in their argument, so I'm gonna end with this:

You say the heads of corporations don't care about their corporations once they get enough money and that the company then becomes stagnant because they don't need anymore profit? Do you honestly think a company stops trying to get profits once their CEO and boards are rich enough? You have to be kidding. You seriously need to think this stuff through more before you try to post like the resident "way things are" expert.

[Trunks]

Lol. Settle down there buddy. Don't throw a hissy fit. Even tho you said you are ending with that, I know there is a 95% chance you will loook in this thread again anyway so I will respond anyway.

You say the heads of corporations don't care about their corporations once they get enough money and that the company then becomes stagnant because they don't need anymore profit? Do you honestly think a company stops trying to get profits once their CEO and boards are rich enough? You have to be kidding.An oil company is an oil company. It has one goal. To sell oil, and make money off of it. When a company does well, its stock goes up. So what happens when we run out of oil? Well just before we do, everyone will sell their stock in oil companies, CEO's and all the head honcho's will leave, etc. With stockholders selling their shares like no tommorrow, and the head honcho's quitting. Again, people are short shighted. Why would a 40 year old CEO care that we are gonna run out of oil in 2040? Why would the major stockholders care? They will sell their stocks, make tons of money, and if their heart desires it, invest in something else. I find my thinking quite rational, as do most of the people I speak with. As for me knowing it all, I never said I did. I am giving you my opinion on a subject. If you don't want to debate, then don't. Not my loss.

[Machette]

What about other companies though? I mean a company's first rule and only principle is to do whatever it is to make a profit. You are zeroing in on the oil sector rather than the larger picture. Think about the billions of corporations out there.

[c312]

Originally Posted by Trunks

Lol. Settle down there buddy. Don't throw a hissy fit. Even tho you said you are ending with that, I know there is a 95% chance you will loook in this thread again anyway so I will respond anyway.

You say the heads of corporations don't care about their corporations once they get enough money and that the company then becomes stagnant because they don't need anymore profit? Do you honestly think a company stops trying to get profits once their CEO and boards are rich enough? You have to be kidding.An oil company is an oil company. It has one goal. To sell oil, and make money off of it. When a company does well, its stock goes up. So what happens when we run out of oil? Well just before we do, everyone will sell their stock in oil companies, CEO's and all the head honcho's will leave, etc. With stockholders selling their shares like no tommorrow, and the head honcho's quitting. Again, people are short shighted. Why would a 40 year old CEO care that we are gonna run out of oil in 2040? Why would the major stockholders care? They will sell their stocks, make tons of money, and if their heart desires it, invest in something else. I find my thinking quite rational, as do most of the people I speak with. As for me knowing it all, I never said I did. I am giving you my opinion on a subject. If you don't want to debate, then don't. Not my loss.

Alright, one more thing then. What do you think happens to companies when their CEO's retire? It seems that you think the corporation just ends...But they get new CEOs who also want more money and continue their desire for profit. I honestly do not see how anyone who has developed abstract thinking capabilities can argue what you are arguing. Your opinion is disproved in theory, in practice, and in history. You are just plain wrong. And now I am done, because this is starting to feel like arguing with a child.

I say good day!

[Trunks]

Originally Posted by c312

Alright, one more thing then. What do you think happens to companies when their CEO's retire? It seems that you think the corporation just ends...But they get new CEOs who also want more money and continue their desire for profit. I honestly do not see how anyone who has developed abstract thinking capabilities can argue what you are arguing. Your opinion is disproved in theory, in practice, and in history. You are just plain wrong. And now I am done, because this is starting to feel like arguing with a child.

I say good day!

LOL. True. New CEO's come to take the position of the old ones. But the ones in line for the job are all still extremely well paid, and would have more than enugh to live in luxury for the rest of their lives. Greed is a human chracteristic, yes, but so is laziness. Oh yea. BTW. A ceo for a company whose major stockholders all sold their shares won't do ya much good. Cheerio! dance:
P.S. I didn't know voicing your opinion in the land of the free was considered childish my good sir. In the future, I will refrain from sharing my ideas, after all, why should we challenge an established way of thinking?

[c312]

I encourage challenging established ways of thinking, but not when the challenge makes absolutely no sense at all and sounds like the logic and reasoning was put together by an 11 year old. But anyway, I'm letting you get to me, and I shouldn't. So therefore,

I SAY GOOD DAY!

[Trunks]

Originally Posted by c312

I encourage challenging established ways of thinking, but not when the challenge makes absolutely no sense at all and sounds like the logic and reasoning was put together by an 11 year old. But anyway, I'm letting you get to me, and I shouldn't. So therefore,

I SAY GOOD DAY!

I like it how you didnt reply to the first part of my post. And I wonder why the other people i've spoken with don't have the problem of thinking it was made up by an 11 year old. In fact, the person who introduced me to this possibility is going for his PHD, at the moment. Not too childish. But anyway, no hard feelings. Cheerio! beer: