eVo goes to Aussie land
•
8 Oct 2010, 23:39
•
Journals
As some of you know, our beloved 
eVo went to Perth, I was sent this photograph from his travels, but couldn't hold it back for much longer:
Looks gr8 there :-)))
eVo went to Perth, I was sent this photograph from his travels, but couldn't hold it back for much longer:Looks gr8 there :-)))
but ur wrong about my nationality, im german, living in germany ;P
but i was working in norway for one year not that long ago
then there was the landscape, which is just amazing. not to forget about their standing to social care. i.e. i was allowed to give a medicine to people that get epileptic attacks. here in germany, im not allowed to give this medicine, unless a have an education that takes 3 years.. in norway it was a thing about 10 minutes. its really not difficult to do it when its neccessary.
but somewhen it is neccessary, cause people could eventually die from a epileptic attack if they stop breathing and the attack lasts for a long time. here in germany, lets say ur out on a trip, your guy gets an epileptic attack for over 5 minutes. our papers say they NEED to have this medicine after an attack lasting over 5 minutes. but you, a guy thats not allowed to give the medicine because of "a lack" of information, have to call emergency, wait for it and then let them act.
thats just a thing i dont understand and cant take.
but they dont get warm when they`re drunk, they get angry and start beating up eachother
btw i didnt even know what Ballermann is, ppl here doesnt go out in places with germans
anyway on the other hand germany is indeed on of the best in europe too..
1 beer = 50-70 NOK (in a pub, a sixpac is like 120 NOK in store)
food = almost the same price as here in germany. guess finland has equal prices.
But since you earn almost as 3 times as much the average income here in germany, i`d say its not that expensive :P
kot agreeing with you shows his cluelessness even more. Almost entire Europe is lead by right-winged parties except for the Scandinavian countries.
Glaubst du tatsächlich ein Herr Westerwelle vertritt irgendwelche kommunistischen Vorstellungen?
lol, westerwelle und kommunismus. aber wer den gewählt hat is eh selber schuld
klar ist herr westerwelle ein arschlch, die csu klar rechts.
totaler quatsch dass ganz europa von rechten partein regiert wird.. deine linke einstellung in allen ehren, aber irgendwann is ja auch mal gut.
"In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies." = Conservative Parteien wie die CDU/CSU
"The term is also used to describe those who support free market capitalism [...]" = z.B. FDP
Anhand von den aktuell regierenden Parteien in Europa kommt man so zu dem Schluss, dass Europa vorwiegend rechts regiert wird.
Vielleicht kannst du mich nun erleuchten.
das sind ja echt verschwörungstheorien, das sollte man gleich mal an spielberg schicken. europa wird rechs regiert ich lach mich schlapp.
Leading? Nope. Increasing in popularity, yes.
It's still mostly parties from the centre forming the government. Liberals are still centre parties, not right wing.
Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy are all in that category.
not that i like socialists but id vote socialists b4 right winged, i rather vote some small left-winged minor politicians as in here they are the closest to society and most trustful
here the autonomous communities need more freedom.
But I understand that you are from Catalonia :). You, Basques, Galicia and perhaps Andalusia want more freedom, the rest of the country doesn't seem to.
but catalonia actually needs more freedom thats why the spanish constitution needs to be modified, by the moment catalonia has got more freedom than others. butwe had to ask for it alot and its still not enough by any chance
And theres those right-winged partie who hates us and if they get to the governement on the next elections (more likely they will) we are screwed again. tbh those ppl are the sons from the old dicator franco, they think alike.
I think Spain was ruled by left-wing because of the trauma of Franco's era. But the society will stop feeling guilt of Franco and the times of right-winged parties winning the elections will come back, I agree.
Yes that's too bad for those regions that want more freedom. I'm aware of that redistribution in Spain and that Catalonia is wealthier than the rest of Spain. I always hoped for Catalonia to become a free state. There is one big advantage coming out of it - I would be able to watch the final of World Cup: Spain vs Catalonia (or Barcelona :D). But I doubt you'll ever get that French part of Catalonia out of France.
yea well they dont really wanna get the french part, atleast there is no discussion going on about that. And why should they leave really, france is actually a good country:D but on the south is pretty cool that everything is in catalan too.
and ye catalonia would have a good national team, but spain only allows a match per year, so many catalan skilled players play on the spanish team, means many dont play in the catalan team since is not allowed but yet the team is not bad either, it could be a lot better though, evrybody understands them tho (xavi, pujol, etc...) after all they just wanna play football and since catalonia can only play once per year:(
and actually the right-winged here won just about the same times as left-winged. Its pretty equal. there is a lot of fascists in spain.
Btw, are you sure it is not allowed to play for both teams? I mean, I saw Bojan playing for Catalonia this year or the previous one, so how is he willing to play for Spain in the future (when he eventually stops being an eternal talent and starts playing good football :>)?
when he said you are clueless, he provided the information why.
Btw, you wrote hell of a lot today here. Cheers for that determination :).
Oh and you're studying law at Warsaw University? I'm studying politology there.
Uh... what?! Care to substantiate that?
Europe without Scandinavian countries: 675 million citizens
From those I knew beforehand those nations fall in my mentioned category:
United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy are in that category. (The four top economic nations in Europe) = 269 million citizens
Also Poland with 38.1 mio. citizens. Czech Republic with 10.5 mio. Russia (European side 104 mio) lead by the conservative party "United Russia" - "Jedinaja Rossija".
269
38.1
10.5
104
= 421.6 out of 675 mio. and I didn't even look up more countries because I ran out of motivation.
"In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies."
kot claimed "pretty much all european countries are full of those assholes (editor's note: he means "communists") but it doesn't mean it's a good thing "
Which is just not true because the governments of the current European countries don't share those thoughts but are rather more conservative.
Now could you tell me what that has anything to do with my opinion? I just stated a fact on the political currents throughout Europe.
First possibility: I'm wrong. Second possibility: I'm right.
It can be proofed by hard facts whether Europe IS lead by right-winged parties or NOT. So I simply don't see where there is an opinion involved? My statement is entirely objective. I don't "mean" it in some specific (socially, economically) way. You can just look up "right-winged politics" in your encyclopedia and then compare it to the governments of Europe. Germany for example is lead by the conservative party CDU/CSU and the FDP (supporters of free market capitalism) and thus is one of the European countries lead by rightists.
"In politics, Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies." "The term is also used to describe those who support free market capitalism [...]"
I hope I made it clear now that my statement was no subjective observation based on social, economical circumstances in European countries.
Edit: I just reread one of your earlier posts. "You'd probably describe Ireland as being right-wing, and, indeed, our ruling party describes itself as centre-right"
That's ridiculous that you claim _I_ would describe Ireland as being right-wing even though the government itself says so. So you want me to read all party manifestos of European governments and make sure they are no "impostor rightists"?
Also I could ask you in what way do you think their politics are interventionist? The USA (World Police) is interventionist concerning their foreign affairs since decades. Maybe you think they aren't rightists as well.
Your conclusion that they are not right-wing because they are taking extreme measures in a global financial crisis seems odd. Was it just an example based on economics or are you purposely neglecting all other political fields?
Merkel did indeed recognize that the economy needs more political interventions just as the political left praised for a long time. However that happened after the financial crisis and was just a logical thing. Not bailing out banks => everything collapses => we give them money but then we actually want to have more rights to a say and prevent a similar happening.
Conclusion: left-wing and right-wing are both getting more moderate and meet at the centre. However there still exist some differences which allow us to distinguish between them.
I don't think your point of the impostor rightists is right though. There also existed a right dirty history in the 20th century. It's obvious for the average voter that neither of them has something to do with them.
By the way, the ECB is basically an arm of the collective EU governments, and it is they who flooded the European economies with cheap credit. So there is a point to be made about "political interventions" in the economy having been present even before the financial crisis. Practically every aspect of the economy is either taxed or regulated by the government in some way, and this is not a right-wing, free-market thing.
doesnt that make it up?
but if u wouldnt pay taxes, how the government would be able to build schools, streets etc.
There is a field of argument about numbers (higher or lower), but you can't deny the whole system of taxes. Also, what is possible in Scandinavian countries would not be possible or would be hell of a lot of harder to achieve in other countries. Why? The amount of population. In Finland, Norway and Sweden - it generally works.
Besides, you get all services like transport (trains infrastructure, road infrastructure), health care, education and so many other things paid through taxes. In the US you still pay 20-30% taxes but you barely get any public services. You still have to pay a massive amount of money to go to uni (20 000$ easily a year), pay a lot more for healthcare (standard operations for 10 000$ or more), there's barely any investment in infrastructure, etc...
I rather pay a bit more tax and have better public services...
You really have no clue what your talking about.
In socialism your taxes are spent on 9000 things, some of which you never even heard of, while you should be spending your money on what you want and only that. If you're OK with your money being spent on things you never use you can always happily donate, but why force that upon people who disagree?
Private companies function better than those owned by the state and could usually offer their services at lower prices.
I'm not really worried about socialism in the EU because it's inevitably going to collapse, just take a look at what happened in Greece, yet another prime example of how great socialist countries are.
And did you honestly say the USA is run by socialists?? Do you call Obama a socialist?? lol!! Just because he wants a fairer health system where normal people don't have to pay 120$ for a stupid pill against fever?? Oh and by the way, who was in government in the previous 8 years?? Surprise, surprise, a republican. 8 Years of Bush destroyed the USA, not those 1 or 2 years of Obama. The fact is that implementing policies takes years to take it's effect and the results of those policies can be seen now.
I don't think you completely grasp what capitalism means. The rich want to get richer and richer and -like what is happening now- eventually the middle class will dissappear in the USA and without it, the economy will collapse. Not really sustainable that one...
The goal for companies is to wipe out competition because when they have a monopoly they can charge whatever they want, can push up their agenda towards others and have complete control about everything. A public company will give you the best quality/price ratio. Ok, quality can sometimes be lacking but you'll pay way less and the cost is divided by everyone. Sometimes, like in railway companies, a public company is needed otherwise only profitable lines would be deployed by private companies which would basically means the big lines between big cities and all the rest can fuck off then. Oh, yes a very good system!! The fact is the government needs to step up where the private companies fail. They still only care about profit and public transport is in general not profitable. Public companies _are_ needed here.
And why do you use Greece as a model? Why not Norway or Switzerland?? Countries topping every ranking on competiveness, environment, education, etc... those are socialist countries too huh? The fact is there's absolutely no evidence to suggest capitalist countries do better. It doesn't depend on the model, it depends on qualified persons in the right position (politics), level of corruption, culture of the country, level of education, etc...
Oh and look how great the USA is!! A deficit of 10% and the UK has a deficit of 11%. Public debt is going towards 100% within 2/3 years in the USA, only behind countries like Japan, Greece & Italy. Same story for the UK. Both are one of the fattest countries on earth, education costs massive amount of money (lots of students into debt) yet education is still massively underfunded in the US, health care in the US is only ranked around place 35 in the world, dollar is fading away, barely any investment in infrastructure, both have big trading gaps so are uncompetitive, both have probably the highest household debt in the world and I can go on and on. Yea, a very good situation huh?
The reason why Greece is in a mess is because the markets targeted them. Every country has debt but some pay a higher interest because those are smaller (and thus riskier) countries. The riskier, the more interest you pay. When you have a high public debt like Greece (allthough USA isn't _that_ far of from it anymore) you need to keep the confidence that you will be able to repay it. Without it you come into a negative spiral. It's all about confidence. If the USA had to pay 6% or 10% like Greece has to do on their debts they would be totally bankrupt.
Because without it, the middle class will dissappear. The normal people are the base of the economy. If too many of them become poor, your economy is fucked. Poor people will use (with benefits or not) that money back in the economy, either to buy food or hire an appartment. Rich people with already 10 million on their back account won't put that back into the economy. Without benefits many local shops would dissappear. Just look at all the 'for sale' signals in the UK & USA. I barely saw one in the last 2 years in Belgium.
Now stop reading or listening to some populist bullshit from republicans or from Fox news and try to do some research yourself and you'll see that socialism isn't as bad as you think.
Historically, yes, but not so much anymore. It's a stereotype.
It's not fairer at all, actually, as it's going to put every health insurance company out of business, and that will result in thousands of people losing their jobs. The bill doesn't make any sense at all, actually, as the penalty for not taking out health insurance is so miniscule that it it's worth the risk in not taking out any insurance, at all. The long-term implications of this are a massive financial burden on the state, and it'll be the middle class who will be footing the bill for it in the form of increased taxes. The increased tax rates will see the middle class shrink (somehow you blame capitalists for this, but I'm not sure how or why). If Obama really cared about driving down the price of health care then he would be trying to remove pointless regulations (like being required to use an insurance provider in your own state, as opposed to shopping around), instead of adding more layers of bureaucracy. Watch Richard Epstein tear apart a democract in a debate over the health care reform bill.
Can you explain how capitalism is responsible for the shrinking of the middle class, and not increased taxation? Perhaps you could also explain what's happening in China at the moment -- that their middle class and domestic market is expanding rapidly as they (slowly) liberalise their economy?
Can you give me some examples of these private companies that have "complete control about [sic] everything"? Practically every large corporation has such a large share of the market due to huge government subsidies.
Perhaps you're too young to remember what air fares were before Ryanair lead the siege against all of the state-owned airlines in Europe (many of which have now gone bankrupt).
Your arm must hurt after swatting at all of those straw men. It's possible to criticise social democracies without being a neo-conservative America supporter, you know.
The reason Greece is in a mess is because it had runaway public spending, and is a corrupt basket case. They even cooked their books just to get into the Euro. Their fiscal irresponsibility is the reason they're in a mess, not because of markets (that doesn't even make sense, by the way).
This clap trap again... can you explain how capitalism is responsible for the reduction in size of the middle class?
What complete and utter nonsense. If local shops are dependent on benefits then why don't we just go ahead and nationalise them, or pay them benefits directly? Wealthy people (entrepreneurs) create jobs, and those jobs expand the economy. It's just another vacuous stereotype that rich people store all their wealth in a huge vault and do nothing with it.
Public companies being less effective and more expensible than private corporations is a myth. It's not about an ownership, but about the existense of a monopoly. I guarantee you that if a private corporation is a monoplist, it would be as inefficient and expensive as a public corporation that doesn't need to fight with other companies of the market.
Polecam: Rzadzic inaczej - Osborne David, Gaebler Ted
Example. There is a public company dealing with trash. It's ineffective and expensive. Then, private companies are being allowed to compete with that public company for the contracts. Public company reforms itself and becomes competitive - just like private companies. On the other hand, if there is only a private company on some kind of market, it becomes ineffective and expensive, because there is no motivation for it to keep being competitve, cheap, with highest standards of service. These examples are in that book.
You can't fucking give a proper reason why socialism is bad. First of all their financial bill is a mix of some socialism aspects along with some liberal as-well which makes it good for each people.
Taxes is a must for each citizen some say it's high but you still get so much out of it that you wouldn't in a 3rd world country like Poland.
These countries should be an example for you not a fucking hate subject.
Come, let's see what you've got.
too bad your country and u are clueless:(
there is not much noticable diference between the rich and the poor in norway (there is such diversity but u dont notice it as much as u do in poland)
if ud pay high taxes perhaps ud do well like norway.
just take a look at norway and take another look at right-winged countries, socialism isnt that terrible after all seeing how norway does.
and ppl without jobs getting paid out of the state proves how awesome those taxes are and that the governemnt is not really stealing anything because if tehy would be stealing they woudlnt have such high quality life
So you don't think that it's completely fucked up?
I advise you to read some Bastiat or von Mises.
http://mises.org/etexts/ecopol.pdf You can start with that.
taxes in rich countrys are high and thats why the country looks so clean and its safer.
You should be in a norweigan skin for a week to understand what qualit tehy have there due to a "good" government
btw: Ludwig von Mises was born in a high class family no wonder he hates socialism, he prefers the high class families to keep getting richer;) like if it was 1600
id liek to see u there born in a shit family u would have 0 possibilities just because your family aint rich.
why the fuck u think that when u are there evrythign is so clean and so enviroment friendly. their world is just another world out of the reach for you. its just a whole new level.
That's also why road and railway infrastructure in the US is a joke. No one wants to pay individually for road infrastructure so it never happens. Some stuff is part of the 'general good'. We need it but individually no one would pay for it because it's either too expensive or because it's not profitable, yet it's necessary.
And what with the police, fire department, etc... Should we just all scrap those departments and lower the taxes? ridiculous. You need them in a society or do you want to go back to the middle ages? Let's see if you like that.
It never is a good idea to have too high taxes but the contrary is true too, too low taxes aren't good either. Well, at least not if you want an advanced country.
Almost every modern party can be considered "socialist" by general definition, and it has been a very productive development. So hating on "socialists" is about as dumb as it gets. I would understand if you hate those parties that want to do good for the masses and bend to their will, I hate those aswell. But say: I hate populists/populist parties, atleast that would make sense.
And yes Obama rose to power as a populist figure, but what he is trying to achieve is advance the social system to something more modern and something that looks more like what we have in Europe. Because clearly their current social structure doesn't suffice. Not surprising giving the history of the USA.
Anyway: Too long, didn't read. I know, I know.
Good comment.
Didn't expect anyone to read this :)
I don't really follow politics & my english skills aren't that good so i'm not going to participate in this discussion.
Regarding standards of living, in a normal country a small percentage of people are extremely rich and a small percentage are extremely poor. Such diversity is NORMAL. I'd even say that those who are poor serve an important educational purpose - they show what can happen to you if you don't work hard enough. People are less inclined to work if they're guaranteed a financial aid in case they're unemployed. In some of the European countries it became so ridiculous that they get more money than they would've made at an undemanding job. That's fucking retarded.
I want you to answer a simple question: would you like me to spend 30% of your earnings for you on some things you might or might not use and take another 20% for my efforts? If not, how on Earth can you defend socialism? Income tax and redistribution of wealth are a robbery and nothing else.
If you still don't understand why socialism is terrible I suggest you read some works by Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich Hayek. Bastiat probably explains it in the simplest possible way but if you've given it some thought and are still a socialist it might not be simple enough for you.
That aside, I would also think it's totally fair to pay a minimum for people who can't take care of themselves like the elderly or disabled.One day, you will be one of both. And do you honestly think a single mom who is working hard to pay for everything and gets a small sum to help her out, lacks the talent and skills to earn enough to pay for her family? How anti-social and egotistic do you have to be to think that you are one of the few people worthy of a decent living standard? Helping others who are old, disabled or temporarly disabled is a key element in any society, without it society would crumble. Survival of the fittest doesn't work so well when your a social species.
I agree, that's retarded, but how is that a defining characteristic of socialism? Unless the person recieving that money has alot of medical bills or children to take care of, no socialist would agree to that. In Belgium people who are unemployed and able to work, are forced to try and get regular work or do community service jobs.
And yes, I know some of those liberal works, I study/studied history. And no, they are not too difficult for me, I manage to get by.
In a capitalist society you are free to help elders or disabled whenever you wish. People have families who can help them out, there are charities. In a socialist society, your money is spent on that whether you like it or not, you have no choice whatsoever. I value freedom above anything else and that lack of choice is simply unacceptable.
No socialist would agree to that? Please explain how that happened then.
I'm not sure if you understand how society and economy works from what I'm reading here. No offense, but I would like to see you try and accumulate wealth all by yourself. A manager isn't a manager without anything or anyone to manage. A retail salesman is useless without someone actually producing and supplying the products. You can't be a part of a system and prefer to ignore everyone else in that system. A good educational, social and health system thus benefits everyone from top to bottom.
True capitalism is and always will be a flawed system, even its biggest supporters realised that. Problem is, there is no decent alternative yet, so we patched the flaws thanks to other liberal and socialistic trends. HAting on those trends is just so irrational.
And by education I meant higher education. In a true capitalistic society without these "socialists" you so loathe, alot of my friends who really made something of themselves, wouldn't have had that chance because they weren't from a wealthy family.
How it happened? If that's a fact in your country, three possibilites: 1) that it's either a bad comparison by overezealous right winged idiots 2) a flawed system 3) We are talking about someone who is taking advantage of the system
Also, please answer that: would you like me to spend 30% of your earnings for you on some things you might or might not use and take another 20% for my efforts?
Also, please answer that: would you like me to spend 30% of your earnings for you on some things you might or might not use and take another 20% for my efforts?
In this period the social provisions of the church, guilds and brotherhoods started dissapearing and investors were allowed to exploit their subjects with pretty much no regulations. But believe me when I say, that didn't end well. Riots, bad harvests, death, depression, very productive right?
I don't understand why you keep trying to make it look like not spending money on other people's needs will somehow isolate that person from the society, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I like how you're evading the answer to a simple question because you realize it shows how retarded socialism is.
In modern times even lower classes are fully aware of their importance to a functioning society (which I'm trying to explain here). So unless you can find enough retards who want to do the dirty work for you without sufficient compensation, find a decent patch of land and start your own country, I guess you have to deal with that. You could also do everything in the production process yourself ofcourse, seems a lot of work to me.
i totally agree with you, just like with fra and butchji below.
his argumentation and sentences like "I also know that his family is probably wealthier for a reason." just make me like LOL YOU CANT BE SERIOUS :_dddDd
What is the reason for a society?
P.S. Sorry for dragging you back to this old journal again.
So my reasoning is that a good working economic system is a requirement for wealth (or atleast a boost) and that a working economic system where you don't have to pay taxes or where you can work outside of this system, simpy does not exist. Perhaps someday it will though. And only wanting to cut welfare and medical care out of your taxes is irrational, almost all modern state structures give out part of their tax revenue to both.
If he really wants to hate on something, he should hate on the french revolution and growing litteracy :D
A more detailed explanation of what you quoted there can be found in the latter part of my comment where I said that : "...almost all modern state structures give out part of their tax revenue to both". I didn't not mean to imply that it could not work in a more intricate system than the current one. What I meant is we have progressed into a universally accepted culture in which every person has the same rights and is entitled to an increased standard of living. Whenever this standard of living is not met, there will be a social pressure to mend this situation. So in this day and age welfare and medical aid for everyone will have to be subjugated to some form of regulation to cancel out this social pressure. This has been a cultural revolution in our Western society, and in my opinion it has been an irreversible one. (I also think it's a rational one)
I'm sure that there are leading economists vouching for a different system, but they judge economics, I was merely observing cultural realities. Also, I never said the American system is worse or better than ours, but it generates more social pressure in times of recession. I consider it to be less stable, but that's not a fact, that's an opinion.
Yet again you make an enormous assumption when you say that "we have progressed into a universally accepted culture in which every person has the same rights and is entitled to an increased standard of living". Who is "we"? What does that "increased standard of living" entail? I, for one, do not subscribe to the idea that people are entitled to "free" things. Positive rights do not exist in reality, they are only things that people want to have. It's very noble of the U.N. to codify the declaration that everyone should have the right to free education, but it is not possible for them to follow through on this. They could also declare that everyone has the right to a house with a swimming pool, but it is not an achievable goal. The democratic socialist model that you advocate is very far from being universally accepted. The welfare state that you take as being an indisputable gospel is not universally accepted, either. Minimum wage laws create unemployment; social housing creates slums, and so on -- there is a plethora of literature out there that rubbishes the welfare state.
On the second part I will have to agree to disagree with you, because you just reiterated what has been said before in this topic. Which is basically a misunderstanding on what I wrote. I wasn't talking about political structures, I was talking about cultural evolutions and Nation-building. What I implied was that it's stupid to blame "socialism" for welfare and medical care taxes, because they are more a byproduct of Nation-building and cultural evolutions in the Western world than anything else. If this still sounds like bogus to you and you also studied history, we had a totally different education. I would love to read the works you studied or produced however, comparison is the bread and butter in this profession :)
I also thought it was obvious that "we" stood for the western countries that went through the same cultural and structural processes, which basically boils down to those who were responsible for the new imperialism. We should let this thread die in peace though, hit me up in pm if you like to continue this discussion.
And splitting humanity into either genius or retards, lmfao, first time I've seen something like that ...
Yes, I do know that. I also know that his family is probably wealthier for a reason.
Well, if you concluded that it was a dichotomous division then you're surely not a genius ;-)
So even IF that was true (which it is clearly not) what is your argument of preventing a proper chance for a child of those mentioned families in the society?
Thank god our society is moving past that.
:X
Long story!
You're suggesting that society's progress is obstructed by rich families keeping their wealth (which is incorrect, btw). The solution that you propose is taking some of their money and giving it to the poor to even out the disparity. Now, last time I checked taking someone's money against his will was theft. Therefore, what you're suggesting is stealing from the richer people which would apparently benefit the society.
Some serious retardation if you ask me.
and on a more serious note ! in the past, there were also families who made profits by exploiting the weaknesses of many people. And once you're rich, you tend to get even richer because you have enough money to hide it in tax havens, or to invest it in other companies, stock exchange etc
Okay, there are some people who starting out from nothing, who utterly broke their back to rake in huge amounts of money and who don't necessarily want to help unemployed people (especially THOSE who'd rather stay at home and do nothing)
But not every unemployed person is a lazy bastard! For me, it's important to share what you have with people having issues by finding a decent job ... especially when you earn more than € 100000 a year ...
Actually, I could just go on and on, but yeah... :(
and the lysefjord.. the most beautiful thing i´ve ever seen in my life. but i`m more like a guy that´s more into a landscape full of snowy mountains then a carribean, flawless beach.
Windir = best music to come from
+1 on the landscape, but wouldn't you prefer this over this :(? LOl
i actually would like some nice landscape too, we have some cool mountains too which get snow but its nothing compared to that:(
=[
ROFL :'D