Visual Inflation

[Army of GOD]

has anyone else noticed that Juan has slowly becoming the Phatscotty but for libtards? Just posting pics that are loosely related to the topic.

[huamulan]

Yeah, I have no idea what that picture has to do with my post.

[Lootifer]

has anyone else noticed that Juan has slowly becoming the Phatscotty but for libtards? Just posting pics that are loosely related to the topic.

Yer, but libtards are >>>>>> neocontards

[Phatscotty]

[PLAYER57832]

No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.

I don't disagree (mostly because there are too many variables to determine whether one president did more to get us to where we're at now than anyone else). My point is that before Lincoln, we had a weak, decentralized federal government. After Lincoln, we had a strong, central government. President Lincoln ensured that we would have a strong central government thereby taking any number of powers away from the people. The two I'm most concerned with is the right to privacy and the ability of rich people and organizations to control elections of a small(er) group of elected officials and unelected officials. I can explain in further detail if anyone cares enough.

I am interested in the details.

[PLAYER57832]

Once you realize that humans are predisposed to short-term thinking then all of this will be less of a puzzle to you.

It's basic psychology that most people will take 1 sweet now rather than 3 tomorrow.

SUCCESSFUL people wait for the 3. But those at the top gain a lot by encouraging the masses to ignore their better sense.

This well known study addresses just that point:

In the late 1960s, researchers submitted hundreds of four-year-olds to an ingenious little test of willpower: the kids were placed in a small room with a marshmallow or other tempting food and told they could either eat the treat now, or, if they could hold out for another 15 minutes until the researcher returned, they could have two.

Most children said they would wait. But some failed to resist the pull of temptation for even a minute. Many others struggled a little longer before eventually giving in. The most successful participants figured out how to distract themselves from the treat’s seduction — by turning around, covering their eyes or kicking the desk, for instance — and delayed gratification for the full 15 minutes.

Follow-up studies on these preschoolers found that those who were able to wait the 15 minutes were significantly less likely to have problems with behavior, drug addiction or obesity by the time they were in high school, compared with kids who gobbled the snack in less than a minute. The gratification-delayers also scored an average of 210 points higher on the SAT.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.

I don't disagree (mostly because there are too many variables to determine whether one president did more to get us to where we're at now than anyone else). My point is that before Lincoln, we had a weak, decentralized federal government. After Lincoln, we had a strong, central government. President Lincoln ensured that we would have a strong central government thereby taking any number of powers away from the people. The two I'm most concerned with is the right to privacy and the ability of rich people and organizations to control elections of a small(er) group of elected officials and unelected officials. I can explain in further detail if anyone cares enough.

I am interested in the details.

see page 5 or 6

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is not that people don't know they can't afford something. The problem is that people in this country lack self-control and almost feel entitled to have certain things.

And how did an entire nation get into that mindset?

Because we have a nation of companies that have steered our entire economy to the worship of growth.

And, when you realize that, fundamentally, most of that growth is actually based on the availability of cheap fuel (not just abundance, but cheap abundance and ready availability), then its no coodincidence that our economy, the world economy is beginning to tank now.

Blaming the consumer is a lot like blaming the girl who gets raped for wearing a short skirt.

The entire nation got that way because they were raised to think that decisions didn't have consequences. They were taught, and continue to be taught, that if you make bad decisions, the government will take care of you. We do not have a safety net in this country: we have a guarantor of bailouts of bad decisions and irresponsibility. And that's on both the individual and corporate levels.

Except the "teaching" was done by corporations who continue to invest huge amounts in advertising to ensure that their pockets remain full... and then turn around and blame the workers for their failure to make enough profits, environmentalists for calling attention to problems that cost them "too much" (never mind the real cost these things foist on the rest of us).

No, what you are citing is the right wing economic fairly tale. The left can absolutely distort things as well, but most of what you have labeled "left" is really moderate.

Average people are now being held "accountable" for situations created by abuses of large corporations and banks. Cutting schools and lunch programs won't fix the deficit, it will significantly add to them in the long run. Taxing the wealthy a tad more won't fix it entirely, either, but it won't cause the meltdown and failure the right wing likes to claim, either.

[Lootifer]

Bah.... Must... not... agree... with... player....

[Army of GOD]

libtards and conservatards are equally annoying

[BigBallinStalin]

libtards and conservatards are equally annoying

They're great if you just keep scrolling through!

[huamulan]

SUCCESSFUL people wait for the 3.

those who were able to wait the 15 minutes were significantly less likely to have problems with behavior, drug addiction or obesity by the time they were in high school

Personally, I don't count someone as successful merely because they lack behavioral problems, aren't addicted to drugs and aren't blubber monsters. They'll need to do a lot better than that.

To preempt the inevitable protestation of 'you cut my post in half' - yes, I saw that they also score an average of 210 better on their SAT. However, a quick Google tells me that the score range of an SAT is 600-2400. So these kids score roughly 9% better on a childhood intelligence test? How successful of them.

But those at the top gain a lot by encouraging the masses to ignore their better sense.

And now this has become a conspiracy theory in which the instincts of children are actually a corporate plot. Bravo.

[Juan_Bottom]

[WILLIAMS5232]

[Symmetry]

[Army of GOD]

Clearly, Calvin's never heard of Cramster.

BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS A WAR ON LEMONADE STANDS



also, inb4 haggis posts SMBC

[PLAYER57832]

Calvin and Hobbes has to be among the best comics EVER!

[PLAYER57832]

SUCCESSFUL people wait for the 3.

those who were able to wait the 15 minutes were significantly less likely to have problems with behavior, drug addiction or obesity by the time they were in high school

Personally, I don't count someone as successful merely because they lack behavioral problems, aren't addicted to drugs and aren't blubber monsters. They'll need to do a lot better than that.

To preempt the inevitable protestation of 'you cut my post in half' - yes, I saw that they also score an average of 210 better on their SAT. However, a quick Google tells me that the score range of an SAT is 600-2400. So these kids score roughly 9% better on a childhood intelligence test? How successful of them.

Keeping the other variables roughly consistant.. yes, it is significant.
But hey, you would have to have some decent sampling and science knowledge to understand that.

[huamulan]

Oh, I see. If I had the level of statistical knowledge sufficient to avoid being patronized by you then I would suddenly consider the avoidance of drug addiction to be a signifier of success in an individual?

'Congratulations, Milo - you haven't become fat, taken drugs or been suspended from school all year! You are sure to be a successful adult!'

[rdsrds2120]

Oh, I see. If I had the level of statistical knowledge sufficient to avoid being patronized by you then I would suddenly consider the avoidance of drug addiction to be a signifier of success in an individual?

'Congratulations, Milo - you haven't become fat, taken drugs or been suspended from school all year! You are sure to be a successful adult!'

I get what you're saying, but I get PLAYER, too. She's saying that the kids that waited ended up being more successful THAN the ones that hadn't, but didn't assert that the other kids were objectively successful. Other than maybe the SAT scores, but 9% is just above marginal.

-rd

[huamulan]

In my defense her exact words were: 'SUCCESSFUL people wait for the 3'.

Your interpretation of her words is more reasonable, although I still consider the difference between a drug fiend and a sober person to be fairly inconsequential across the entire range of values present on the success-o-meter.

[huamulan]

Especially seeing as drug use and unruly behavior are the hallmarks of many conventionally successful people.

[rdsrds2120]

Especially seeing as drug use and unruly behavior are the hallmarks of many conventionally successful people.

Yeah, but we can also observe that there's a higher correlation of less successful people with drug use as a bar of comparison. Just something, I guess. We in no way can draw that "not doing drugs" has a higher chance of making you successful as a cause/effect, though. Instead, we'd see what other factors and blahblhabalhabalhdflj. I think we're on the same page pretty much.

-rd

[WILLIAMS5232]

some people consider success smoking 6 blunts in one day....

i guess everything can be argued and one persons success is anothers failure.

[spoiler=true story]i was working in San Antonio tearing up a beautiful piece of land in order to put a Toyota test facility.
this was union of course, and union does not hold much weight down south. but there are unions if that makes sense.
so our company was required to hire something like 7 union workers for every 1 non-union worker.
well, i met a guy there named clay he was probably 40 years old or so. he was a bit of an alco, (alcoholic) and didn't have much drive. we were working 6 "11 hour" days, and after about 2 months i was talking to him and he said

"damn... i'm going to have to quit working already...
right now i'm at $11,800 this year. if i make over 13,000 they cut my benefits."

what a go-getter. but in his own mind he was successful. ... i guess.[/spoiler]

[Woodruff]

Charlie Sheen seems to consistently get hired, even after his implosion, so...