The Empath Guild

[GeneralTacticus]

I'd guess the feeling that corporate bosses aren't interested in anything other than profits comes from their behaviour in the Third World and also from the recent scandals involving Enron et al.

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Archaic


This goes a way back, but anyway. What's your problem with Private Schools? While I personally went to a public school, I've got no problem with people getting a better education if they can afford to pay more for that education. Education is just like any other good, from a TV to a VCR to whatever. The higher the ticket price, the higher the expectation of quality.

It's not the question of 'having problem' with private schools. Students and graduates of such schools just cannot be considered as representative sample of society.

Ah, now here's the heart of the problem. You're all assuming
1) There's only the Upper Class and the Lower (Working) Class.
2) One is born into his class and cannot move between them.

1) is rebutted by the simple existance of the (Ever-growing) Middle Class
2) is rebutted by the existance of Media Moguls from humble backgrounds who worked themselves up from, for example, delivering papers, to owning the paper, to owning a stack of papers domestically, to owning many papers internationally, etc, etc, etc, to being the guy who owns News Corp. Hey, this refutes lucky22 as well. "Those in control spread a mass consumerism rather than the culture in which they are raised." See the contradiction between this and fact yet?

1) For the sake of simpleness, almost every sociological theory about mass culture and differences between classes divides society only in two sections: upper and working class. They are at the ends of some continuum, which is filled by as many as about twenty social classes.
2) Social mobility is indeed a relevant factor, but you cannot truly consider particular careers as a social fact. "Media barons" are in general from upper class, one cannot refute it by simple saying: "my friend has a friend who was poor and now owns the paper". For instance, there are more divorces in lower classes than in upper classes. It's sociological truth and it's irrelevant for this fact whether you in particular are divorced or not. Statistics are wiser.

I think you might be failing to grasp there lucky that people in the upper classes in general deserve to be there, either through their own personal effort to get there, or through the effort of their ancestors, who worked themselves up to provide an easier life for their decendants.

LOL. You live in a beatiful world, don't you?

*BUZZ* Wrong! The better educated the populace is, the better things sell. That holds true for everything from computers to TV's to newspapers. You think they'd print the "Far Eastern Economic Review" if everyone was so dumb that they couldn't sell it? And let's not forget that dumb unskilled employees aren't of any use in this day and age. Blue collar is out, white collar is in. Better education works for everyone.
Now, while they *do* aim a significant amount of stuff at the LCD's, they don't make the LCD's any dumber than they already are. Only problem is...LCD's are generally the ones who breed faster. A sad fact, but the more intelligent you are, the longer you generally leave off having a child, and the less children you eventually have.

"Far Eastern Economic Review" is not the element of mass culture, just like Shakespeare. But hey, what's on your TV tonight? Whether it's "Romeo and Julliette" or rather "Rambo VIII"?

There's a difference between culture of upper classes and mass culture, and both of them are spread by media, but mass culture is spread more intensively, has more consumers, is cheaper to produce, can be manipulated in more ways and so on. I had a feeling we were talking only about the latter.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic


This goes a way back, but anyway. What's your problem with Private Schools?

I'm repeating a common and affirmed observation of a typical element of social stratification- not attacking private schools.

While I personally went to a public school, I've got no problem with people getting a better education if they can afford to pay more for that education. Education is just like any other good, from a TV to a VCR to whatever. The higher the ticket price, the higher the expectation of quality.

The notion of education and the socialization it is a major component of being a simple"product" is trite to say the least. You may not have thought this through.

A popular misconception, but completly out of line with modern management theory and practise. Go back 50 to 100 years and it might've been right, but this hasn't been the case for quite some time now. The ones only concerned with the short term bottom line are the shareholders, those generally being the mum and dad investors who just want as high a dividend on their share portfolios as possible.

I was shooting from the hip there- a typical member of the ownership of capital is thinking about all kinds of other things when not thinking about promoting soul-destroying pap and selling peoples' own lives back to them.

Ah, now here's the heart of the problem. You're all assuming

"we all"?

1) There's only the Upper Class and the Lower (Working) Class.
2) One is born into his class and cannot move between them.

Quite wrong.
1) is obviously false.
2) I don't believe we live in feudal times. Occupational and social mobility are very common. Basic research on the other hand, reveals that virtually all wealth (as opposed to debt-paying income, for instance) is inherited.

1) is rebutted by the simple existance of the (Ever-growing) Middle Class
2) is rebutted by the existance of Media Moguls from humble backgrounds who worked themselves up from, for example, delivering papers, to owning the paper, to owning a stack of papers domestically, to owning many papers internationally, etc, etc, etc, to being the guy who owns News Corp. Hey, this refutes lucky22 as well. "Those in control spread a mass consumerism rather than the culture in which they are raised." See the contradiction between this and fact yet?

Did Rupert Murdoch start as a paper boy? I don't know about his background or family. If he began in poverty he is that rare exception that keeps the "you too can be Andrew Carnegie, young Horatio" thing alive and kicking.

I think you might be failing to grasp there lucky that people in the upper classes in general deserve to be there, either through their own personal effort to get there, or through the effort of their ancestors, who worked themselves up to provide an easier life for their decendants.

You're kind of flying off the handle with this one. This sounds like a purely ideological knee-jerk reaction.

The better educated the populace is, the better things sell. That holds true for everything from computers to TV's to newspapers. You think they'd print the "Far Eastern Economic Review" if everyone was so dumb that they couldn't sell it?

All true

And let's not forget that dumb unskilled employees aren't of any use in this day and age. Blue collar is out, white collar is in.

Classism is sadly invisible to virtually all classists. You can't possibly believe that there is more merit in a copy boy at a third rate real-estate ".com" than in a journeyman carpenter? Thankfully the U.S. Census bureau doesn't, for instance.

Better education works for everyone.
Now, while they *do* aim a significant amount of stuff at the LCD's, they don't make the LCD's any dumber than they already are. Only problem is...LCD's are generally the ones who breed faster. A sad fact, but the more intelligent you are, the longer you generally leave off having a child, and the less children you eventually have.

Did "lcd"s magically choose the bottom at some magical point? When they were 12 years old, maybe? Whooee.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic
Long term growth and profitability. They'd rather invest in the community now to reap the future benifits of that investment.

I did forget to add "..and securing market share". The unfortunate thing is that all this deceptive book-keeping which is gutting the ability of many people to consider retirement is much closer to your

... Rape everyone for all they're worth now, and your business is screwed within a few years.

than to your

Invest in the community, and reap the profits of happy and satisfied consumers (And a consumer base that's constantly growing) for many years to come.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I'd guess the feeling that corporate bosses aren't interested in anything other than profits comes from their behaviour in the Third World and also from the recent scandals involving Enron et al.

Unfortunatly, too many people seem to think that the fact that there's been one or two bad apples means that they must all be bad.

Originally posted by Kirov
It's not the question of 'having problem' with private schools. Students and graduates of such schools just cannot be considered as representative sample of society.

Which makes a difference how? So they may have had a more privilaged life than others for whatever reason. So what? It's not only the rich going to those you know. Many parents save up and impose hardships on themselves to put their children through these "Elite" schools, to give their children better opportunities than they had. They're not representative of society as a whole, but neither are public schools.

Originally posted by Kirov
1) For the sake of simpleness, almost every sociological theory about mass culture and differences between classes divides society only in two sections: upper and working class. They are at the ends of some continuum, which is filled by as many as about twenty social classes.
2) Social mobility is indeed a relevant factor, but you cannot truly consider particular careers as a social fact. "Media barons" are in general from upper class, one cannot refute it by simple saying: "my friend has a friend who was poor and now owns the paper". For instance, there are more divorces in lower classes than in upper classes. It's sociological truth and it's irrelevant for this fact whether you in particular are divorced or not. Statistics are wiser.

1) And there's nothing wrong with that, except when you apply those theories in such a way that it's made to seem that there can only be 2 classes.
2) I'm not disputing that. I'm simply getting some facts straight, as the arguements before have made it seem that such mobility was not possible, and tried to use that "fact" as basis for points made.

Originally posted by Kirov
LOL. You live in a beatiful world, don't you?

My motto's not "A realist, not an idealist" for nothing you know. The point stands, and unless you can give me a rebuttal, all you're commiting is a logical fallacy, Appeal to Ridicule.

I'm not saying that *all* people in the upper class deserve to be there, but those who don't, people who've got there or stayed there theough unethical means, or who abuse their position, aren't representative of the whole.

"Far Eastern Economic Review" is not the element of mass culture, just like Shakespeare. But hey, what's on your TV tonight? Whether it's "Romeo and Julliette" or rather "Rambo VIII"?

There's a difference between culture of upper classes and mass culture, and both of them are spread by media, but mass culture is spread more intensively, has more consumers, is cheaper to produce, can be manipulated in more ways and so on. I had a feeling we were talking only about the latter.

"Mass culture" and "Upper Classes" can't be used in comparison. You have idiots in the upper classes, and intellegent intellectuals in the middle and lower classes.

"Far Eastern Economic Review" might not be an element of mass culture, but could it sell if Mass Culture was the only thing people tried to sell too? Idiots exist, and of course they're marketed to, but if they recieve more attention, it's because there's *more* idiots out there than educated intellectuals, like I pointed out earlier. *However*, that is not to say that Education is not in the interests of business, or that they don't promote it. Education is a slow process, not something that happens overnight.

Originally posted by lucky22
I'm repeating a common and affirmed observation of a typical element of social stratification- not attacking private schools.

You're repeating biased and uninformed remarks that assume your social strata is chosen for you, and that the "upper class boogiemen" keep everyone else down by segregating the schools for them and everyone else. Your arguements attack both. Strawman anyone?

Originally posted by lucky22
The notion of education and the socialization it is a major component of being a simple"product" is trite to say the least. You may not have thought this through.

Looks like another Appeal to Ridicule. Education is a product. I'd call it a good, but the quality (And supply) of education is variable with price, so it doesn't fulfill the economic requirement for that. It is however a universal want (And one would hope need), but the distinction still stands.

Now if you've got a problem with it, present an arguement that stands up to basic economics. Oh, and stop it with this "socialization" nonsense. While schooling has a socializing effect on the students, the education itself is not the primary factor behind that socializing.

Originally posted by lucky22
I was shooting from the hip there- a typical member of the ownership of capital is thinking about all kinds of other things when not thinking about promoting soul-destroying pap and selling peoples' own lives back to them.

Go back to your corn fields Mr. Strawman.

Originally posted by lucky22
2) I don't believe we live in feudal times. Occupational and social mobility are very common. Basic research on the other hand, reveals that virtually all wealth (as opposed to debt-paying income, for instance) is inherited.

Present your research then. And then show me why inherited wealth is a problem. The parents (Or Grandparents, or whatever) of those people worked hard to give their children (Or Grandchildren, or whatever) a better life than they had. What's the problem with that, hmmm?

Originally posted by lucky22
Did Rupert Murdoch start as a paper boy? I don't know about his background or family. If he began in poverty he is that rare exception that keeps the "you too can be Andrew Carnegie, young Horatio" thing alive and kicking.

And as an Australian too. Born and bred in Adelaide. And such things aren't as uncommon as you seem to think. Understanding of the masses from having been one of the masses gives great perspective.

Originally posted by lucky22
You're kind of flying off the handle with this one. This sounds like a purely ideological knee-jerk reaction.

Hello Ad Hominem. Hello Appeal to Ridicule. Did you miss me?

Ideology has nothing to do with it. It's a valid statement. Yes, it is a generalization, but I never said it wasn't. Like I said before, I'm not saying that *all* people in the upper class deserve to be there, but those who don't, people who've got there or stayed there theough unethical means, or who abuse their position, aren't representative of the whole.

Originally posted by lucky22
Classism is sadly invisible to virtually all classists. You can't possibly believe that there is more merit in a copy boy at a third rate real-estate ".com" than in a journeyman carpenter? Thankfully the U.S. Census bureau doesn't, for instance.

I thought I told you to go back to your corn fields Mr. Strawman.

Remember when I said "dumb unskilled employees"? Yes, it's a generalization, but in general, the dumb unskilled employees doing unskilled jobs that can be automated are the Blue Collars, are they not? Those Blue Collars are replaced by White Collars with the technical expertise to make sure that automation works.

Originally posted by lucky22
Did "lcd"s magically choose the bottom at some magical point? When they were 12 years old, maybe? Whooee.

If they're having so many more children than they could possibily afford to give a real upbringing, reducing the chances of all, I'd say the decision of the LCD's is both theirs (In reducing their disposable income through the upkeep of so many children) and their parents (For giving them such poor initial opportunities and forcing them to have to work harder to improve themselves than they might have otherwise.

Originally posted by lucky22
The unfortunate thing is that all this deceptive book-keeping which is gutting the ability of many people to consider retirement is much closer to your

... Rape everyone for all they're worth now, and your business is screwed within a few years.

than to your

Invest in the community, and reap the profits of happy and satisfied consumers (And a consumer base that's constantly growing) for many years to come.

Hasty Generalization . "all this deceptive book-keeping" my ass. There's a few bad apples out there, but that's representative of a failing of humanity, not a failure of the system. They are not representative of the whole.


I think Winston Churchill said it best. I don't know the exact quote, so I'll put it in my own words.
There's no worse way to manage an economy or a nation than a Democratic Free Market, except for every other economic and political system that's been tried throughout human history.

If you want to argue, get yourself a better system, one that has less problems over all than a Democratic Free Market. Once you've got that system, prove it's actually viable and not just so ideology that's up in the sky and throws all rationality to the wind.

[GeneralTacticus]

Can we please stop these arguments about the merits of capitalism and the class system and instead get back to the original purpose of this thread? I don't think I've seen a single serious discussion post on foreign policy since it actually became an issue.

[lucky22]

Sorry about this Tacticus... one final actual fact for us and I'll leave this off...

"Murdoch was born in Australia and into the newspaper industry. In the 1950s he inherited his first paper, the Adelaide News, from his father, Melbourne publisher Sir Keith Murdoch; it was the town's sleepy second paper, and he shook it by the scruff of the neck and unleashed it on the competition--if only to gain the means to escape from Adelaide."

Worked up from nothing-bollocks!!

[DeathByTheSword]

i havent said anything here that is good but i am going to try....because we are the UNP i would like to see us making peace with as much people as possible and then if some one goes to war with one of our allies then look at who we can use best and decide on a side....i dont like the idea of no chosing a side because this effects our rep. and i dont want the hive killing everone off...

[Drogue]

I no I'm not a member but id like to add that the wise words from Lal that "Free-flow of information is the only safeguard against tyrany". I would interpret that as meaning that when it comes to trading techs, we should share most (if not all) of our techs (on a like for like basis of course) To those that wouldnt trade weapons techs remember that if we trade techs, we gain and only 1 out of the other 6 gain the tech. And bearing in mind that we trade with our allies, does it matter too much if we give them weapons or better economic techs? I no this is a short term view (they could trade with others) but i would add that we are likely to use the tech better than the computer. In other words, apart essential war techs (impact weapons, air power and fusion power) i would trade ALL techs for other techs, in the long run we gain.

Also free-flow would seem to hint at FM economics.

That probably made little-to-no sense, but hey, i might have got soemthing across

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22
Sorry about this Tacticus... one final actual fact for us and I'll leave this off...

"Murdoch was born in Australia and into the newspaper industry. In the 1950s he inherited his first paper, the Adelaide News, from his father, Melbourne publisher Sir Keith Murdoch; it was the town's sleepy second paper, and he shook it by the scruff of the neck and unleashed it on the competition--if only to gain the means to escape from Adelaide."

Worked up from nothing-bollocks!!

Hmmm....maybe I'm getting him and Kerry Packer confused again. Tell me though, did he only inherit it, or had he been involved in the business in lesser roles before he was given his inheritance?

[Kirov]

OK, Archaic and lucky22, maybe we should give up this argument, or move somewhere else (Rec Commons, I presume). If everyone want to have the last word, we will never finish it.

As to the trading, I agree with Drogue in general, but let's exclude from exchange not only essential war techs but also essential peace techs, like soon-to-come EcoEng, that tech with Hybrid Forest (forgot the name) and like that.

OK, I know we are PK's, but look, can we really trust the others, those bloodthirsty warmongers?

[GeneralTacticus]

I say that ANY information vital to our security (important military or SP, or to a lesser extent, SE, techs) must be kept for us and us alone. We cannot trust anyone other than ourselves on this hostile world, and thus we must try as hard as we can to keep others incapable of harming us.

N.B: There are exceptions tot his rule, if, for example, we have a submissive pactmate, or an ally who is incapable of threatening us anyway, or if we need to prop up an ally against a common enemy.

[GeneralTacticus]

i havent said anything here that is good but i am going to try....because we are the UNP i would like to see us making peace with as much people as possible and then if some one goes to war with one of our allies then look at who we can use best and decide on a side....i dont like the idea of no chosing a side because this effects our rep. and i dont want the hive killing everone off...

Do you think we should pursue an idealist or realist foreign policy?

[Frankychan]

*shakes in frustration*

Gaah! Looking back at all the posts, I wanna reply soo badly, but I gave my word I would stop.

Oh well, the price for honor is high....but it must be kept.

[GeneralTacticus]

Don't worry, everyone else has stopped too.