www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote: Yeah, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, not a Communist.

Wait. How does that work? We have Libertarian's here. But they hate socialists. Libertarains are the ultimate capitalist supporters. Essentially Randian. You've got to mean something else that isn't so well represented in the states.

To me, it's a lot like the global warming issue: we know there's a problem, we know we could solve it, but no one wants to pay for it. There seem to be dozens of such issues...

Actually that issue is related to the issues with the corporations. Unless you can get the other soverigns on board one countries efforts generally just hobble that country while the other ones go merrily along.

I saw a poster a long time ago about different economics, the E-Cow-nomics:

Each of these begin with the premise that you have two cows:

Socialism: so you give one to your neighbor

Communism: The State takes both, then gives you some milk

Fascism: The state takes both, then sells you some milk

Nazism: State Takes both, and shoots you.

Bureaucratism: State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and throws away the milk

Traditional Capitalism: You sell 1, buy a bull, your heard multiplies and the economy grows, you sell your heard and retire on the prophit.

There are a bunch more, dealing with each nation, such as Indian Corporation: You have two cows; you worship them.

sunnyside wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote: Yeah, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, not a Communist.

Wait. How does that work?

Something like this.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Something like this.

Hurm. That could actually almost make sense back in the 19th century. Maybe. Well, no. Somebodies going to collect some power, and that'd give them too much of an edge on others.

But maybe if it gets to the point where everybody has a replicator...


Though. wait. Does that mean you sorta agree with the girl in the thread? It seems she should just be able to walk into a given company and have a job by merit of starting work.

sunnyside wrote:Though. wait. Does that mean you sorta agree with the girl in the thread? It seems she should just be able to walk into a given company and have a job by merit of starting work.

I don't think she should be able to sue, but it's certainly implied that if you get a college degree, you can get work. Why bother even giving degrees to people with less than a 4.0 if they're worthless? Not to mention offering worthless degrees in the first place. Sounds like a scam. "Pay us thousands of dollars for this worthless piece of paper!"

Of course, there aren't an abundance of jobs available currently. That's a separate issue, though.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I don't think she should be able to sue, but it's certainly implied that if you get a college degree, you can get work.

That's also sort of implied by breathing. All a college degree does is qualify you for a certain type of work and let you apply for it.

Why bother even giving degrees to people with less than a 4.0 if they're worthless?

They're not, but if two people have the same degree but one has a 4.0 and the other a 2.7 who do you think has a better chance of landing a particular job especially when hiring is low and the candidate supply is high?

Not to mention offering worthless degrees in the first place. Sounds like a scam. "Pay us thousands of dollars for this worthless piece of paper!"

It'd be a scam if many jobs didn't require you to have a college degree. Yes, it's a generic business degree which doesn't really stand out but 1) no one made her pick that as her major and 2) she still has more opportunities than someone who didn't get a degree at all.

Ack! You got me!






Conceded.