Archive

DO WANT! (This is awesome)

  • I Wear Pants
    sleeper;1058777 wrote:When you have India churning out programmers like we churn out debt, you'll be out of work shortly. I'm surprised anyone still hires Americans to develop anything, India is much cheaper and they are just as good.
    You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back to yelling at people to keep fresh coffee in the pots.
  • sleeper
    I Wear Pants;1059100 wrote:You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back to yelling at people to keep fresh coffee in the pots.
    Actually I do. Enjoy!
  • I Wear Pants
    In regards to the level of skill required to be a high level web dev or programmer you do not.

    Someone being able to write some html or do some shit with python foes not a developer make.
  • justincredible
    I Wear Pants;1059140 wrote:In regards to the level of skill required to be a high level web dev or programmer you do not.

    Someone being able to write some html or do some shit with python foes not a developer make.
    sleeper has all the answers. Let him hire his developers from India. I'm sure he'll be happy with them.
  • O-Trap
    sleeper;1058966 wrote:I just find it odd you don't apply a literal sense to saving(because it doesn't fit your argument) but then chose a literal sense for buying/consumption.
    Actually, the reason I didn't apply the most literal view to saving wasn't because it didn't fit my argument.* It actually does.* Saving, in the most basic and literal sense (the simplest one) does not help the economy.* I used the sense I did because the statement of yours to which I was replying used it.* I was, essentially, appealing to your own terms.* You stated that saving was good for the economy because banks could invest the savings.* I was simply pointing out that it isn't the saving that helps the economy.* It's the spending and investing by the bank that helps the economy.

    The whole transfer of wealth throughout the economy can be applied to my view as well.* Either way, the flow of the currency is what sustains the economic cycle.
    sleeper;1058966 wrote:I guess when I think of savings, I take it is consuming less now to have the ability to consume more in the future.
    Why the need to consume more later, though?* Starve the economy now in order to gorge it later?* Why not just spend consistently and just stay within your means?

    Ultimately, the only problem that has resulted from spending in our country has been spending beyond our means.* So long as one spends within his means, whether it is to have the neighbor cut his lawn or the cougar across the street urinate on him, it does zero to hurt the economy and helps to varying degrees, because it continues to sustain the cash flow.

    Think of the economy like the cardiovascular system.* The system can have the same amount of blood throughout it at all times, but if a clot causes it to stockpile in a certain area, thus preventing it to flow through the rest of the body, the rest of the body suffers.
    sleeper;1058966 wrote:Saving is good for the economy because it raises available funds for more investment and cheaper loans to the doers of this country.
    What you're describing here isn't saving, though.* When you loan or invest money, you technically spend it (just with an agreement to receive a return).* Thus, it is the SPENDING of the saved money that benefits the economy.* Not the saving itself.
    sleeper;1058966 wrote:It also helps provide a buffer for people when they hit hard economic times ...
    This is good for the individual and his/her household.* It is negligable to the economy as a whole.

    In addition, if one has been responsible enough to have a savings, but he still has extra finances, why would it not then be acceptable to buy what he doesn't need?
    sleeper;1058966 wrote:... and lowers the burden on society to bail out unfunded debts from irresponsible lending.
    It isn't the society's responsibility to bail them out.* That's the problem with how things are happening at the moment.
    sleeper;1058966 wrote:Those shocks are much more detrimental to the economy than people not consuming as much as they possibly can.
    Oh, to be sure.* But the principle that we are obligated to bail anyone out is the flaw in the model ... the spending beyond the means, to keep with prior terms.* Spending the money one has is not the problem.* Spending the money one DOESN'T have is the problem.
    sleeper;1058966 wrote:It's unsustainable ...
    Spending the money one DOES have on anything is not unsustainable.* Ever.* That's not even economics.* It's math.
    sleeper;1058966 wrote:... it time we start changing the culture of this country.* I'm not saying let's be hard nose savers and only buy food and shelter, but a $500 computer window for your kitchen is a waste of money, which is my point.
    Why draw the line where you draw it?* You've just asserted that there is one by saying that it's okay not to be strictly necessity-spending driven, but that there is a limit.

    I would suggest that the limit to what we should spend is that which we can afford.* Safeguard yourself with some savings, if it helps you feel more secure.* Spend it all, if you think you can.* Either way, don't spend what you can't afford to spend, and don't expect a dime of help if you do.* People doing THAT is what is unsustainable.

    Ultimately, your point is subjective.* You are free to think that way and run your own house that way (under the belief that there is a line on how to spend your money, despite no empirical or philosophical facts to suggest as much), but your subjective opinion on the matter holds no logical merit to be adopted by anyone else.
  • justincredible
    Savings accounts are overrated. That's why I don't have one. Or a retirement account. I spend all of my money as soon as I earn it because fuck it, I'm going to die early.
  • O-Trap
    justincredible;1059188 wrote:Savings accounts are overrated. That's why I don't have one. Or a retirement account. I spend all of my money as soon as I earn it because fuck it, I'm going to die early.
    Self-fulfilling prophecy: You'll run out of money, ask me for some, and I will kill you for it.
  • justincredible
    O-Trap;1059207 wrote:Self-fulfilling prophecy: You'll run out of money, ask me for some, and I will kill you for it.
    Jeez. Such violence. A simple no would suffice.
  • O-Trap
    justincredible;1059215 wrote:Jeez. Such violence. A simple no would suffice.
    You gotta send a message by making an example of the first guy. :D
  • Heretic
    justincredible;1059215 wrote:Jeez. Such violence. A simple no would suffice.
    You said you're going to die early. O-Trap is just helping you make that happen.

    I swear, have to explain everything to you unemployable welfare cases...sheesh...
  • justincredible
    Heretic;1059224 wrote:You said you're going to die early. O-Trap is just helping you make that happen.

    I swear, have to explain everything to you unemployable welfare cases...sheesh...

    I didn't say I want to die early.
  • dwccrew
    O-Trap;1058255 wrote:Also, if people stick to only buying what they need, the economy cannot thrive at the same level as if people are buying more than just what they need.
    Stupid economics....always making sense and what not.
  • justincredible
    If I went through my house I could count the number of things I actually NEED on one hand.
  • dwccrew
    justincredible;1058538 wrote:You forgot to touch on your other concerns. I really do think they are valid. I doubt Samsung put much time into making sure this would function against the elements. I mean, who would think of something like that when developing a something in a window? I know I certainly wouldn't.
    Which is why you are an unemployed loser.
    sleeper;1058627 wrote:I don't know any web devs outside of Zuckerberg that have more than two nickels to rub together.
    Tom from MySpace? Groupon dude, Twitter guy, JJhuddle guy.
    O-Trap;1059207 wrote:Self-fulfilling prophecy: You'll run out of money, ask me for some, and I will kill you for it.
    Very christian of you.
    O-Trap;1059221 wrote:You gotta send a message by making an example of the first guy. :D
    Can I have some money? I just saved your life, Justin.
    justincredible;1059565 wrote:If I went through my house I could count the number of things I actually NEED on one hand.
    Yeah, that would BE your hand. You know, for the sex.
  • O-Trap
    dwccrew;1059550 wrote:Stupid economics....always making sense and what not.

    I know. Gets in the way of good ol'-fashioned ranting on people "these days."
    justincredible;1059565 wrote:If I went through my house I could count the number of things I actually NEED on one hand.
    Food, water, shelter, oxygen, and a way to sustain a livable stream of those.
  • O-Trap
    dwccrew;1059604 wrote:Very christian of you.
    Ezekiel 21:31 - "I will deliver you into the hands of brutal men, skilled in destruction."
  • I Wear Pants
    O-Trap;1059617 wrote:Ezekiel 21:31 - "I will deliver you into the hands of brutal men, skilled in destruction."
    Didn't know there was a part of the bible about Skyrim.
  • O-Trap
    I Wear Pants;1059646 wrote:Didn't know there was a part of the bible about Skyrim.
    More or less.
  • rmolin73
    I Wear Pants;1059646 wrote:Didn't know there was a part of the bible about Skyrim.
    Reps
  • Heretic
    I Wear Pants;1059646 wrote:Didn't know there was a part of the bible about Skyrim.
    I might need to get back into this religion thing if I can tie it in with my love of bashing Draugr over the head with a warhammer.
  • dwccrew
    O-Trap;1059617 wrote:Ezekiel 21:31 - "I will deliver you into the hands of brutal men, skilled in destruction."
    Your name is Ezekiel? You poor man.
  • O-Trap
    dwccrew;1060423 wrote:Your name is Ezekiel? You poor man.
    Technically, I believe the passage starts with something like "this is what the sovereign Lord says.". So technically, Zeke didn't say it. ;)