With ten trillion, you could:
The (totally un-biased and completely humerous) Somethingawful article on how better to spend the money that was spent on the war in Iraq prompted me to think up better ways to spend the money that has been spent on the war on poverty (for which there is no exit strategy, btw)
Hooray for welfare states, eh? Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-11-2006 at 05:01 AM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Pirotess:
That's $10,000,000,000,000,000,000, or $10^19With ten trillion, you could:
Buy every man, woman, and child in the United States a Ferrari Enzo with the trunk stuffed with diamonds. Build an amusment park ten times bigger than disney land in every state and fully fund it's operation for 10 years Build every county in the US it's own 3 billion dollar nuclear power plant. And still have enough left over to give every man, woman, and child in the united states $362,166,516.62! The (totally un-biased and completely humerous) Somethingawful article on how better to spend the money that was spent on the war in Iraq prompted me to think up better ways to spend the money that has been spent on the war on poverty (for which there is no exit strategy, btw)
Hooray for welfare states, eh?
Ten trillion? Hold on a second.
$10,000,000,000,000,000,000 is ten quintillion dollars. Trillion comes right after billion, which is right in the middle.
L2Count.
Excellent source, Maradon.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Captain Planet:
Trillion"Trillion" and "Quintillion" both describe a 1 followed by 18 zeros, asshat.
Well Slick, if you go over that site again and you might notice that the US, UK and more important, the US banking system is on short scale since I have never ever seen a Miliard, but sure have seen billion. It is like trying to use 16th centry english and grammer in modren times. You might as well used Roman Numrals.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Maradon! was naked while typing this:
Trillion"Trillion" and "Quintillion" both describe a 1 followed by 18 zeros, asshat.
Last time I checked, most first-world countries had switched over to the short scale. Meaning I'm right.
quote:
A sleep deprived Peter stammered:
Well Slick, if you go over that site again and you might notice that the US, UK and more important, the US banking system is on short scale since I have never ever seen a Miliard, but sure have seen billion. It is like trying to use 16th centry english and grammer in modren times. You might as well used Roman Numrals.
That's probably something not unlike the US and the UK's retarded refusal to use the Metric system. In other words, stubbornly sticking to the antiquated system and refusing to move on, not the other way around. Nina fucked around with this message on 07-11-2006 at 09:42 PM.
quote:
Nina had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
That's probably something not unlike the US and the UK's retarded refusal to use the Metric system. In other words, stubbornly sticking to the antiquated system and refusing to move on, not the other way around.
..So I am guessing you are pointing out another cases of 2 measuring systems? 
I mean if you read the article the long scale is the old antiquated one that is falling out of disuse were the short scale I the new system gaining favor.
And before you make a crack about the US of the UK holding onto an antiquated system, you really need to think about how much would be affected by a switch.
quote:
Verily, Peter doth proclaim:
And before you make a crack about the US of the UK holding onto an antiquated system, you really need to think about how much would be affected by a switch.
Oh, do tell.
Do tell what's so bad that only two major countries have failed to make this oh-so-drastic switch. Nina fucked around with this message on 07-11-2006 at 11:55 PM.
quote:
Nina had this to say about Cuba:
Oh, do tell.Do tell what's so bad that only two major countries have failed to make this oh-so-drastic switch.
There's really only one major country in the world anymore.
Oh yeah, I went there.
So whoever wrote it is retarded.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
Yeah, about what I thought. We've only spent around $300B total on the war.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Suddar:
I think that Maradon was refering to the money we've spent on "ending poverty" or something. Who knows if that's actually 10 trillion either, I'm too lazy to check.
Ah, you may be right. I'd really like to see those numbers, since there really isn't any such thing.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Fazum'Zen Fastfist who doth quote:
Which means it would only buy like 5,000 people Ferrari Enzos with trunks full of diamonds.
59,8802 Ferrari Enzos with trunks full of diamonds, actually.
The "War on Poverty" was declared by LBJ in 1964. Since then between $7 and $10 trillion has been spent on social welfare with absolutely no change in the poverty rate. In other words, those trillions of dollars have only kept people in poverty. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 07-12-2006 at 02:17 PM.
Also, your logic has huge holes in it, as the best way to reduce poverty rates is to adopt a more socialist system, which will inherently reduce the disparity between the richest people and the poorest. The ability to fail, or not to succeed, is integral to capitalism.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
x--BloodsageO-('-'Q) :
And the source of your numbers, along with verification that said program has continued through all the intervening administrations as such?
Though the duration and cost of the war on poverty is common knowledge, feel free to educate yourself here and here and here.
quote:
Also, your logic has huge holes in it, as the best way to reduce poverty rates is to adopt a more socialist system
Throughout history, no socialist system has ever done anything but propagate poverty. The American welfare state is an example of this. Socialist welfare has given us public housing projects, gang violence, and whole generations who not only have no clue how to provide for themselves, but believe that it is not their responsibility to do so.
quote:
which will inherently reduce the disparity between the richest people and the poorest.
The disparity between rich and poor is a very, very good thing and should be increased as much as possible. The bottom line never moves - the poor will always be poor - when the disparity between rich and poor becomes greater it means that more people are getting rich.
The idea that a disparity is a bad thing is based on the marxist fallacy that wealth is finite and must be distributed fairly, and that if a disparity exists it is because the "rich" are keeping more than their "fair share". In reality, wealth is created any time a human being acts on a resource. Wealth is infinite and people become wealthy by creating wealth.
quote:
The ability to fail, or not to succeed, is integral to capitalism.
When we pay able-bodied people to remain poor and unemployed, we rob them of the ability to fail or succeed.
quote:
Throughout history, no socialist system has ever done anything but propagate poverty.
You should read up a bit on Scandavia. Sweded and Norway in particular combine some of the highest standards of living in the world with some very socialist governments. Hell, developed Europe in general has a lower rate of poverty than the US.
Further, if it's your claim that capitalism reduces poverty, you're smoking rope. Capitalism provides the opportunity to succeed or fail. Nothing more, and nothing less. It produces an overall higher standard of living while maintaining a huge difference between the top incomes and the bottom.
I'm the biggest fan of capitalism you're likely to find, but I'm not about to claim it's a sure-fire way to reduce poverty. That's just stupid. The very things that make capitalism work force a certain amount of failure. Sure, it's easy to say let them starve, but the fact is that's not really an option.
Edit: OBTW, the "War on Poverty," as I thought, was simply an LBJ thing that didn't survive his administration. The only legacy being some systems like Medicare and Medicaid, whose continuation hardly represents the sustained adherence to a sustained effort to reduce poverty. Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 07-12-2006 at 04:12 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Maradon! obviously shouldn't have said:
59,8802 Ferrari Enzos with trunks full of diamonds, actually.
Ferrari Enzos don't really have trunks.
Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 07-13-2006 at 02:08 AM.
quote:
Tarquinn had this to say about Pirotess:
So, what's the catalogue price for a Ferrari Enzos with a trunk full of diamonds, anyway?
And is he factoring in the price spike that will ensure from the inevitable diamond shortage?
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Maradon! thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
The "War on Poverty" was declared by LBJ in 1964. Since then between $7 and $10 trillion has been spent on social welfare with absolutely no change in the poverty rate. In other words, those trillions of dollars have only kept people in poverty.
Wouldn't that statement be a little more meaningful if the definition and conditions of poverty were constants? It seems to me the purpose of social welfare programs isn't to eliminate poverty (someone has to be on the bottom), but rather make it so poverty doesn't suck so bad.
