Such sceneic route, now but a vastness of devastation.

When we can just tone the down the incessant over consumption for the sake of driving up "economic growth" and not do a thing for the environment and concentrate of quality-of-life?

Well, according to this video
TLDW:
Pros: Less liver damage, more THC Absorption=more ^high^
Cons: Worse memory, less able to vomit in case of over-consumption (which is not a problem if you drink moderately)

Eh, not a terrible trade-off.

Your daily dose of depression is brought to you by the Guardian.

Okay so I know that sugar is bad in excess but seriously this is stupid. Technically sugar is more damaging to you than heroin, however the issue is not the sugar, it's our massive over consumption of it.

Sorry lil' guy, but we need your habitat to support our disgusting societal over-consumption! Don't worry, you'll be remembered by this internet video! Makes you feel better, hey?

I have to agree with Chaosengine. Being Portuguese I can assure you our problems are not a direct result of a socialist agenda. In fact, it's the direct result of governments borrowing more than we can pay, and leaving the tab for the next guy like the assholes that they are, and spending money on completely moronic things.

Did you know Portugal is actually one of the countries in the world with the best network of roads? There are no more, no less that 3 different roads, in parallel connecting Lisbon and Porto (the two biggest cities). You have the A1 (the most important highway), then the A17 (a newer highway) and the old N1 (just a regular 2 lane road). WHY? We don't need it.

A few years back, the then Minister of Defence (who is now the foreign affairs minister, a disgusting weasel) order 2 fucking submarines from Germany. They cost 500 million euros each (1 billion in total). Now... It's true that Portugal has an absolutely huge area of the Atlantic to survey, control, and administer, but anyone with half a brain knows that you do that with frigates and fast ships. That 1 billion euros could have been used to save a big famous shipyard which is on the brink of bankruptcy, and could have easily manufactured hundreds of smaller vessels. (oh.. and that shit head of a minister, when he was the defence minister actually told the people who worked at the shipyard that they would be building what I just said. Of course, they never did)

The previous government insisted against EVERYONE that Lisbon needed a new Airport. Of course, that is now on the shelf, be cause it was completely stupid and it would cost several billion euros.

Oh, did I mention the TGV? (the high speed train). Porto and Lisbon are connected by a train called the Pendular, which looks a lot like a tgv, and is supposed to reach speeds of 250 km/h (which is great really. At that speed the trip between the two cities would take no more than 2 hours) the problem is, greedy incompetent assholes always get their hands on government funded programs, and they built the whole line between Porto and Lisbon (which is about 350km's in lenght) and the only place the train can achieve the top speed is between my city and another one to the south, in a journey of no more than 50km's (it's not a safety thing mind you, it's just the track wasn't built like it was supposed to) The rest of the time, the train hops along a 150.. 170km/h. WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE NEED A TGV between the two cities when the existing train is already great IF it had been properly built. Thankfully that's also in the shelf.

The European Championship of 2004... it was great. Portugal almost won the championship, which would have been great, since we were the hosts. And everything went great. Several new stadiums were built, the festivities were very nice, etc. The problem is, most of these stadiums are now a maintenance nightmare, because the ones left with the bill are the cities and not the government. My own city is 200 million in the red because of all this shit (a city of less than 80,000 people. although the whole district has a lot more people. About 600,000).

These are just a few examples, and not ONE of them is a result of socialism, but of stupid management and capitalism, and wanting to buy shiny things.

AND then we also get fucked nice and royally in the ass by most atrocious capitalist system in the world, the american one, which has the 3 most notorious rating agencies spewing nothing but stupidity, speculation, lies, and anything that gets their fuck buddies some extra euros or dollars. The United States was 2 days away from going into default, and only came up with a ridiculous temporary measure. Yet, none of the agencies touched the american rating. How curious! Portugal was bailed out by the IMF, it has a majority government, consensus from the people that sacrifices must be done even though they suck and in some cases are completely unfair, was actually going beyond what the IMF requested, and still Moody's slashed the rating to junk.

In short... this whole financial crisis was caused by over-consumption, really shitty management, and a lot of business practices that should, quite frankly be a crime!

I actually think this is a smart satire of the over consumption and celebrity fever of this generation... HAHAHAHA.... almost made it.

First of all i'm not somehow in 'favor' of wasting food... nor is anyone... but this does seem like a very silly PSA...

It isn't like he is making a case against over-consumption... or taking food from someone who really needs it... it seems MUCH more like he is just really pissed off that it is HIS food going into the garbage...

Perhaps you would prefer these workers in India to have no jobs at all? We both know why they're being paid less, and why if they weren't able to be paid less, there wouldn't be a fraction of the economic and employment opportunities in India. Over time, these workers are able to send their children to get an education that earns them higher paying jobs, and so on, raising their incomes over time. The reason we don't see a Marxist alternative that lifts people out of poverty faster is because there isn't one.

http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/03/emerging-focus-rising-middle-class-in-emerging-markets.html

I'm not talking about some kind of extreme application of capitalism, I'm talking about the one applied by countries around the world. Even then, capitalism does not imply no regulation or oversight, read the bit that's labelled "Role of government", note the bit on competition laws, and standards of service in industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I would argue there were two reasons Australia got through the GFC mostly unscathed. Firstly, our Four Pillars policy which stopped the big 4 banks from merging and prevented the kind of excessive competitive pressure that arguably forced many banks in the US into risky securitised mortgages in the US in the first place. Secondly, because of a surplus of investment opportunities and a deficit of savings domestically, banks weren't put into a position where they had to invest funds abroad, such as disastrously how Iceland's banks did. The second was arguably luck, but the first is the kind of policy that fits squarely under the government's role in even a literal interpretation of capitalism.
>> ^Asmo:

>> ^RedSky:
You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.
Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.
Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.
I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.
I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.

re: emerging economies, which ones? India where US companies send US jobs that only cost them cents on the dollar?
You blame a culture of over consumption but that is exactly what capitalism creates and encourages. More consumption = more profits. You blame lack of oversight, but oversight is a socialist notion. Regulation is an inherently socialist policy. You regulate to protect those that cannot protect themselves, for the greater good. A failure of regulation is a capitalist victory.
edit: that is not to say that socialism is superior but there needs to be a tempered road between economic ideologies. Australia has a stronger regulation system on it's banking sector and we managed to ride out the GFC significantly better because we didn't have to bail our banks out (rather, our 'bailouts' were economic stimulus directly back to the people in the form of a one of cash payment and a number of infrastructure projects). Banks still make money, investors still get returns, far less average joes get screwed over.

>> ^RedSky:

You're confusing capitalism with a failure of regulation and general bad policy.
Yes, a large number of developed countries have seen middle class income stagnate, but many emerging economies with balanced policies have seen millions of people rise out of poverty into the middle class.
Capitalism doesn't force anyone to spend beyond beyond their means, bad policy which encourages easy credit and an overconsumption culture does. An imbalance in wage growth between the middle and upper class obviously also plays into this and can be addressed with effective policy changes.
I'm not going to even get into how hawkish foreign policy is far removed from anything we're talking about here.
I did look at the GFC, and I addressed it as a failure of regulation. Again, as I said to TheFreak, if you want to dispute that, instead of asking rhetorical questions, argue against my view that effectively regulation could have prevented the GFC.


re: emerging economies, which ones? India where US companies send US jobs that only cost them cents on the dollar?

You blame a culture of over consumption but that is exactly what capitalism creates and encourages. More consumption = more profits. You blame lack of oversight, but oversight is a socialist notion. Regulation is an inherently socialist policy. You regulate to protect those that cannot protect themselves, for the greater good. A failure of regulation is a capitalist victory.

edit: that is not to say that socialism is superior but there needs to be a tempered road between economic ideologies. Australia has a stronger regulation system on it's banking sector and we managed to ride out the GFC significantly better because we didn't have to bail our banks out (rather, our 'bailouts' were economic stimulus directly back to the people in the form of a one of cash payment and a number of infrastructure projects). Banks still make money, investors still get returns, far less average joes get screwed over.

I'm mostly vegetarian. I get most of my food from local sources. I have nothing against responsibly reared meat eating. I feel that the marketplace/consumer based logic that reduces food (and by extension, life) into a commodity is psychotic. It creates overpopulation and over consumption because the market must always expand, becoming more efficient and better tasting and cheaper (newer, sexier, younger). It can justify anything, no matter how horrific, to itself because it is inherently self centred and childish at the same time as being master of the environment. It has no respect for the cycles of nature and will therefore be consumed by nature.

westy, the topic of emotions / emotional connections is inherently subjective.

Quoting vclxrr: "Without that thanks, and without the understanding that comes with genuine gratitude for the sacrifice of another life for your own, a person begins to devalue the life of the creature they killed. The devaluation continues and grows in its own way, until eventually that person (and all people) come to believe themselves to be above less intelligent forms of life."

Quoting westy: "THIS IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE what if you have a neutral understanding and appreciation for everything not a hierarchical one?"

Perhaps not always. But too often true, nonetheless. The truth of it is apparent from my observation of Earth's civilization as a whole. How many world cultures live as one with the land? How many world cultures live in united harmony with each other? When was the last time some group of people wasn't at war with another? Were you aware that some of the people of China are finally dealing with one of the greatest ecological crises this world has ever known? A crisis brought about by their own lineage's lack of proper respect for the environment. Now, because of that lack of respect, China is running low on fresh drinking water. But the issue of fresh drinking water is an issue that affects many countries. A portion of California, USA, for example is low on clean water because of over-consumption. And when something like that affects one region of the world, it has a significant impact on the whole world.

We are all interconnected. There are layers of unity that humans share with each other, and layers of unity that all things share with all other things. Art is (among other things) a way of making us immediately aware of these layers of unity.

So, to quote you, westy:

"no i don't [misunderstand the nature of the situation] and nowhere in your response have you actually pointed to any misunderstanding of the situation on my behalf."

Your very first comment, and subsequent comments, indicate your misunderstanding.

Quoting westy: "If you cried At his death then you are seriously imbalanced person."

I'm being generous by saying that you misunderstand. Perhaps you understand perfectly, but choose to devalue other peoples' need to place emotional significance on social icons who mean something to them. Perhaps the feelings of others are meaningless to you, westy. I don't know you, so i don't know. But the attitude you have been demonstrating exhibits a lack of respect.


To KamikazeCricket - I care. I don't know the names of my city sanitation workers (aka: garbage men). I don't know the names of the people who keep my city water clean. I don't even know who planted the trees (as part of our urban beautification initiative) that have helped make my city a nicer place to live. I don't know them, but i most certainly acknowledge their sacrifice. I thank them in my own way, by trying to respect the work they do. By trying to be a better person each day. And by challenging apathy wherever i see it.

To roughy, and squeak - Right on! I too will miss George Carlin. He said a lot of things that made a lot of sense to me. He was able to say important things that people needed to be reminded of, but say them with a unique brand of caustic humor.

I will miss our 'Modern Man'.

"I'm hangin' in, there ain't no doubt; and I'm hangin' tough.
Over and out."

Build an economy on under-consumption, savings, and production?

Nonsense!

We're much better off with over-consumption, spending, and endless debt.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^dag:
If you take national pride out of the equation - the truth is that Nissan, Toyota and Honda have been making better cars on US soil for many years.

And GM and Ford have been making better cars in Australia and Europe for years.
The question here isn't about whether you like every car in a particular company's stable. What's Honda got that competes with the 'Vette? Why can't Toyota take the lead in pickup sales? What class is Nissan the sales leader in? Anything?
The big three need to restructure, and massively change their model mix in this country. The former is part of the bailout, and the latter was already part of their business plans.
I don't feel a lot of national pride about the way GM, Ford, and Chrysler have focused on gas guzzlers, and lobbied congress to reduce emissions standards.
However, I don't see why letting them fail would be a good thing for the country, either, and I don't see why people are more up in arms about $15bn than anyone seemed to be over the $700bn bank bailout, and those companies were grossly mismanaged on a scale that makes the big three look like paragons of wisdom.


Dude, for once dag said something intelligent...and you just had to try and mess it up. The big 3 failed miserably by flying in the face of common sense, they deserve to die EIA style. They were the manifestation of American foolish spending and over-consumption. Just stop.