Of course it does. But you bring up society meaninglessly. Someone who is economically smart will affect things beyond just economics. Why not call him smart, in general? The point of the word existing isn't to describe some great human; it's simply to qualify someone as being over a certain threshold. If you're denying that, you're a dillusional, bitter person.

[QUOTE="theone86"]Context, please, you're calling the majority of the world's poulation lazy because they don't have the means to exploit others in order to attain wealth the way the wealthy have exploited the rest of the world to attain their wealth. Mentally lazy? So it's not because they can't afford to go to college, it's not because they have bills to pay, or a family to feed? It's not because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth and had to actually work to survive? This, again, is circular logic. The poor are poor because they are mentally lazy, but why are they mentally lazy? because they áren't educated? but why aren't they educated? because they're poor. Why would the wealthy not do it? Ethics,a sense of social resonsibility,a realization that they are where they are at least in part because of circumstance, belief that a united society can accomplish great things, take your pick.theone86

Providers are not all wealthy, that's a gross generalization. Even with the wealthy ones, does providing a certain amount of jobs make up for the damage they do to society? Does the pension money shareholders in BP got justify what was done in order to attain that profit? No. The wealthy in society take advantage in order to attain more wealth. Corporations force smaller employers out of business, keep superior products off the market for fear of competition, ship jobs overseas in the name of greater profit, ravage the environment for profit, manipulate politics for profit, fight wars for profit, do anything they have to for profit. That's not emotion, that's fact, and just because I have a sense of responsiblity about this oes not invalidate my argument. Why should certain people gorge themselves while others starve to death? Why should some have enourmous mansions while others live in the streets? Why should access to education and health care be upper cla$$ commodities? You can't even defend that using pure reason, you say it's because they deserve it in yet another display of circular logic. Emotion does not invalidate my argument, and its presence does not make my entire argument based simply on emotion.theone86

Large corporations force out small competition because consumers enable them to grow that big. If this magically doesn't make sense, watch "something wall-mart this way", the south park episode.

If you're going to form "moral" beliefs without understanding how things below it work, you're going to hold impractical, foolish views. In economics, you cannot grow without someone being willing to give up wealth. There's no way to. Even if you want to do it illegally, you'd need the power to do so. A poor person will never be able to do it. You'd need money to establish a reputation and trust. The economy is always the state between provider and consumer. Get that through your head. The implications are obvious.

You go where the money is or can be. That's basically it. Just like in a FPS: you go where potential kills can be opened to you. You're focusing on the minority of extremely wealthy people. Manipulate markets? That a) takes smarts, and b) takes leverage. There's nothing wrong with market manipulation in of itself. Besides, each individual market is formed by whoever takes part in it. You cannot manipulate anything without it letting you. Markets are no different. Shipping jobs overseas is the alternative to what? Job lossage. Also, that's the inherent risk of prioritizing money, on any level. If a business does not do well in any particular quarter, it's easy to figure out why jobs might be loss until profits recoupe. You emotionally react to everything before thinking, don't you?

[QUOTE="theone86"]The age of entrpeneurs is over, there is no such thing in America anymore. Large corporations have all the markets cornered, they can muscle anyone they want out of business, they can spend all they want on political campaigns, they can do anything. Furthermore, they control many of the systems used for advancement in our society including post high school education. Even the people in our society whose fortunes came from entrepeneurism are creating an environment that is extremely nonconducive to new entrepeneureal breakthroughs. McDonalds is a perfect example, it started out as a small restauarant and became a worldwide chain. However, the chances of someone else duplicating that success are far more slim than they were for the founder of McDonalds because of market saturation. There could be someone who is great with money and has an amazing restauratnt hat does everything McDonalds does only better, but he won't get anywhere near the success of McDonalds because McDonalds and similar restaurants have filled the market with similar chains that survive by spending millions upon millions of dollars on ad revenue and keeping the market devoid of as much competition as possible.theone86

The rich are not smart and assertive, the rich are profiteering and advantageous. Simply being rich does not mean they contributed something meaningful to society, it simply means they know how to make money by whatever means that might entail. Conversely, the poor are neither, weak, lazy, or stupid. The assertation that they are lazy is especially greivous, as the upper cla$$ relies on the labor of the poor to keep delivering them more wealth. The masses may be ignorant as a generalization, but that is not entirely their fault. The high cost of an education, something which again is controlled by the wealthy, and the necessity of higher learning for most high paying jobs, yet again another factor controlled in part by the wealthy, preclude the majority of society from pursuing education beyond high school. Furthermore, this is not a matter that the rich are devoid of involvement in, they have a choice to further the education and betterment of society and try to make education more accessible for those who can't afford it, they choose to do exactly the opposite because keeping people in ignorance makes them money. theone86

What the hell are you talking about"doesn't mean they contributed to society..."? Who said anything about that? Why does that matter? Economics is a sub-game of a society, which is a sub-game in life. I'm talking about economics, STRICTLY. I never indicated I wasn't....When I say lazy, I'm using a word in reference to its context. Mental exortion and physical exortion are both essential for real change. Most laborers are obviously mentally lazy. If they weren't, they'd obviously know it would be better for them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. The wealthy use the labor of the poor because the poor are willing to be controlled by him for money. Why would the wealthy not do it? A better question is why do so many "hard-workers" let so many big-shots control them?

The biggest fault of the people is that they are not willing to do what is necessary to topple this burgeoning oligarchy. They allow themselves to be wooed into submission by cheap products, or by flashy technology. They allow themselves to be dependent on jobs controlled by people who see them as lines on a budget, and do not treat their own labor with respect to its proper value. They allow themselves to be taken in by preachers who talk about humility while siphoning money out of their wallets, and despite the fact that this humility is exactly what allows opportunistic wealthy elites to continue to take advantage of them. They allow themselves to be taken in by lunatics like Beck who spout sensationalist rhetoric with no true substance. In some of the earliest slave rebellions in America, Native Americans and indentured servatns joined with slaves to rise up against their oppressors, and to prevent this from becoming widespread the white upper cla$$ offered opportunity for advancement in society for Native Americans and indentured servatns.Subsequently, most of them ceased participation in slave revolts, not willing to risk their newfound place in society even if it was still beneath the white ruling cla$$. The same holds true of American workers, they will not sacrifice their piece of the pie to get a larger one, even if their piece is dwarfed in comparison to the upper cla$$'and completely disproportional to teh work they put in.theone86

Frankly I found what you said a little naive. Of course some less fortunate people can be blamed for their own downfall, especially in capitalist societies. But really a lot of poor people have very few oppurtunities and are incapable of climbing the social ladder, no matter how talented or potentially talented they are, and through no fault of their own.the_new_neo

Also, not all rich people are self made. I know plenty of stiff upper middle class 'fat cat' types who, by virtue of a large inheritance, or a fluke dabbling in the property market suddenly think they're better than Mr. Joe Casual because his pockets are lined with dollar bills. They didn't 'adapt' to life.the_new_neo

If you want to adopt that kind of mentality and apply it to an economic system, the only way it can function fairly is with 100% equal oppurtunities to every social class. And unless someone has glued a pair of dollar bills over your eyes, that is simply not the case, in America or anywhere. The rich do get richer, and its there fault that there is a repressed lower class in almost every country.

the_new_neo

The game is dog-eat-dog. If you don't understand or accept that, you don't open yourself up to luck and causes.

It was mostly liberals who supported bailing banks and other firms out. Any real conservative was against it...

And actually, it's false, the rich don't get richer. The stats are there, but you have to look at them over a longer period than 1 year...Do some research then come back, k?

Also, many rich people get richer because they continue to do the things that made them rich in the first place, while many poor people stay poor because they continue to do the things that made them poor in the first place.

A very small percentage of high-income people started out rich.

SpartanMSU

Nailed it! A more concise version of what I said.

Also, your last statement is the strongest evidence for the universal ability to control your fate.

To quote Leonard Cohen,

'The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, that's just how it goes. Everybody knows'

This problem will likely never go away as there is no plausible solution. There will always be a bourgeoisie ready to assume control of the lower classes. As much as I support the notion of an egalitarian society, getting one to materialise is very difficult and getting one to function is practically impossible.

the_new_neo

There is an OBVIOUS solution, actually: do what the rich did to get rich. If your basis of life quality has to do with things specifically found through a society's economic system, you must adhere to that system. It's obvious.

Obviously, there isn't a natural balance of social power. But that's the weak-mindedness/ stupidity of the poor's fault. However, in many societies there is an electoral process. That can and is used by the weak (because of their significant mass) to possibly take charge from one end and trickle down.

The most likely reason the change won't happen is because most voters are stupid. For instance, they put an inept, incompetant, dummy into offic in the US because the voters allowed themselves to prioritize public personality over all. They put in a moron because he campaigned his social-awareness...

The poor don't help themselves. Therefore, even if we did give them a clean slate, their lack of aptitude would place them in a bad position again.

The rich are smart and assertive. The poor are weak, lazy, and excuse themselves for being higher on their made up "moral scale".

Ever hear someone say in a game," I don't want to do that. That's gay Those are the poor people of that game.

The rich are detatched from reality? Lol. I'd say just the opposite. The nature of economical gameplay is dog-eat-dog. The rich are only growing because others are stupid and/or weak-minded and aren't willing to do what it takes to counter another's growth. Like in any other game, if you want to win, you have to be willing to adapt and believe in only what that reality makes clear. If you don't, and go broke, there are many possible things you could have done.

The struggles of the poor have very little to do with the lack of wealth available. Generally, struggles are self-induced. And if they aren't directly, they are by like-minded people.

If you're going to commit to living in a particular society, you must do what its inhabitants require, to support yourself.

People are only rich because they are fully embedded in reality. That is, they observe and adapt to their environment.

Ultimately, "the more someone has, the less another can have at a given time" is the case. But it applies to everyone. If you want more, eat the competition.

It's not immoral. It's called accepting responsibility and adapting to life.

The rich get richer because they commit their lives to being able to. The poor stay where they are because they commit to other things, yet expect the same services and societal success that only exist through the economic system.

It's unfortunate, but those who stay poor deserve it. It's self-evident.

Whenever I try to insert a disk, it doesn't naturally accept it anymore. Occasionally, when I pound the **** out of it, something is triggered to accept it. However, when it reaches that point, it makes like a crunching, hyper-activity sound but nothing atcually happens.

Anything probably seem the case? Am I just screwed?

I'm looking forward to the game. The first one was good in my opinion just the online got bad pretty fast.

ShuichiChamp24

You're right. But part of that was due to seeing the same pool of players over and over (which, in some sense, is cool. but it can't be the case with the entire game). And that was due to people, for whatever reason, not buying the game in the first place. The game wasn't ever thriving. Thus, I'm assuming it's because people go where the marketing is.

I'm expecting the same lack of popularity, but increased replayability, overall ( more maps and weapons).

Mario Kart. Driving around the landscapes against other players for the first time online felt amazing. And playing its battle mode online was even more satisfying.