Why doesn't "trickle down" work?Posted 8 years Ago

At 12/1/2010 8:30:14 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Am i the only one who thinks trickle down sounds kind of gross

Trickle down is what you feel in your shoes while riding a motorcycle in the rain.
Forums Home > Politics

Being Fat is Now Illegal in JapanPosted 8 years Ago

At 11/30/2010 12:23:39 PM, Sieben wrote:
No I'm saying there have to be thin people to make porn for fat people. So the fat can't outlaw being thin.

Woops, sorry. Must have mis-attributed your intent.
Forums Home > Politics

Being Fat is Now Illegal in JapanPosted 8 years Ago

I also prefer the term "Rotund"
Forums Home > Politics

Being Fat is Now Illegal in JapanPosted 8 years Ago

At 11/30/2010 11:47:40 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This whole thing is actually kinda scary and hilarious. It sounds like a law a totalitarian society like North Korea or Nazi Germany would think up so the fact it's in Japan is even more amusing. However, I can partially understand their reasoning though as many buildings there are built small and compact in order to save space.

As an Engineer I can respect this ironically in a simple way: Now knowing the true upper limit of potential passengers/users/etc. I can create things closer to that rather than guessing about averages and how far outside the mean (hint: 2 standard deviations max) we're willing to accommodate. But more importantly... where's the minimum?
Forums Home > Politics

Being Fat is Now Illegal in JapanPosted 8 years Ago

At 11/30/2010 11:35:43 AM, Sieben wrote:
^Someone has to make porn for fat people to watch...

I'm not sure that the target audience of "fat people porn" is actually fat people. If it's truly a fantasy fetish then wouldn't only the person representing the watcher (i.e. same sex) be the one that should be fat? From my [ahem] experience it's generally reversed.
Forums Home > Politics

Why doesn't "trickle down" work?Posted 8 years Ago

I was away for Thanksgiving so hopefully these responses are not out of place

At 11/24/2010 5:59:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2010 2:22:14 PM, Bipolarmoment wrote:
Also: wealth is a perception by the person accumulating it.

http://www.debate.org...

I misstated by saying the person accumulating it when I meant and/or the person observing the accumulation (i.e. a possible transacting party).

I won't vote because I did not read the entire debate but here are points I will make absent of reading:
1) To an ant a person with a ton of sugar is far more wealthy than a person with a million dollars in paper despite that million dollars being able to purchase a larger volume of sugar.
2) Labor introduced into material goods can increase the wealth of the laborer (i.e. wages) even if the wealth of the payer gains more-so (i.e. as in every business known to man). In any case total wealth is increased without detriment to any party on that side of the transaction. Unless you want to argue the wealth consumed by the laborer is as great or greater than the wealth he receives?

Note that I'm not mentioning specifically consumable goods. If you hire a painter your perception is that what he paints is worth more regardless of the appraisal--it is worth more painted than unpainted. True that it may be also be worth more to outside parties, but that is potentially irrelevant to the owner at present and potentially irrelevant entirely (i.e. never further transacted).

Now if you want to argue that wealth is the ability to barter current possessions for other possessions of objectively similar value with the most liquidity than I cannot argue against using what is currently used as monetary as a measure. However, I think you'd find that not everyone is willing to pay the same price for any given good--which is the correct value? If someone purchases 10 hens for 100 dollars and someone else does for 1000, which is the wealthiest before and after?

At 11/24/2010 4:57:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/24/2010 2:22:14 PM, Bipolarmoment wrote:
At 11/23/2010 7:16:00 PM, DevinKing wrote:
When people say "trickle down" they don't mean that there is wealth moving to the lower classes.. they mean that there is more wealth going to the lower classes than is going from the lower classes to the upper class.

Wealth is not zero-sum. Also: wealth is a perception by the person accumulating it.

If you're preparing a financial statement for your company it better be.

Wealth != Money. And likewise, there are plenty of financial statements that may state a negative value while the wealth (perceived value) of the company increases. Why exactly do you think companies purchase others if not for that reason?
Forums Home > Politics

Why doesn't "trickle down" work?Posted 8 years Ago

At 11/23/2010 7:16:00 PM, DevinKing wrote:
When people say "trickle down" they don't mean that there is wealth moving to the lower classes.. they mean that there is more wealth going to the lower classes than is going from the lower classes to the upper class.

Wealth is not zero-sum. Also: wealth is a perception by the person accumulating it.
Forums Home > Politics

Increased TSA screen is beneficial?Posted 8 years Ago

I think everyone in the US is in one way or another aware of the backlash of the latest increase in intrusive security screenings.

What I would like to see is an actual numerical breakdown of both the effectiveness before the increased screening and the perceived (or actual) effectiveness of the increased scrutiny. This can also include numbers prior to the creation of the TSA but it is likely irrelevant.

Essentially what I'm asking for a cost-benefit analysis (i.e. business case) of whether this increased scrutiny is a net positive. Costs are a factor but since many people would not appreciate putting a specific dollar amount on a human life that can be considered a separate category independent of the monetary cost: For example, a study done by 3 professors at Cornell (http://aem.cornell.edu...) proposes that the reduction in willingness to fly after increased scrutiny (due in part to the attack on the world trade center in 2001) approximately 129 died in one quarter as a result of traveling by automobile instead.

I'm not volunteering for a debate, but I would suggest that it is likely the cost of employment, equipment, passenger time, lives lost and throughput greatly exceeds the potential efficacy of the increased security. I.e. a terrible business model.

What say ye? Anyone run across numbers that back or deny my assertion?
Forums Home > Politics

JimProfitPosted 8 years Ago

I don't think he's an anarchist... he may be a butt-buddy, however.
Forums Home > Debate.org

JimProfitPosted 8 years Ago

I don't think hate speech should be censored--am I eliciting a debate? I hope not. Anyhow, I find JP entertaining regardless of his intention--just imagine his statements being ironic and he's a great critic.
Forums Home > Debate.org

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.