You're going to college to study nothing? Education in the US really is quite different.

You only do nothing for the first two years, the second two you have to commit to a major.

I haven't. I've had so many chances though that I've fucked up because I didn't know how I was supposed to talk to girls. By time I brightened up, I was already well into high school and everyone I would have accepted was already taken. But now I'm going into college and I have the best opportunity to start fresh.

So yeah, I'm a kissless virgin. But at least I have abs not flabs, and most the forum probably can't say that.

That makes me wonder if someone is impersonating you on the plug.dj site.

I was out with 3 or 4 black kids

Oh shit this is going to be good

Yeah, jocks love it.

So you're telling me I can be cool if I go up to them and touch their butt?

Did you take an 8 o'clock class?

Yes... and on a Monday

t4r

Wealth inequality doesn't mean all that much, to be honest. Unless the top start buying the government - which they are.

But, after all, would you rather have a sixth of a small pizza, or a ninth of a big one?

I think you're trying to imply that having such a high fraction of wealth owned by such a small amount of people somehow increases wealth, but that's just not true. The only way to increase global wealth is by mining (or any other mean of collecting resources) or by inventing new technologies that allow the quality of life to maintain with a fewer resources (e.g. a computer chip that requires less copper). If your goal is to increase the quality of life for all people and not just the 1%, having the wealth distributed like that isn't helping.

That's most economists, to be honest. There's just a lot of them who disgaree on a lot of things. Economics isn't a science.

heh, you're telling me

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

The fact that they don't even seem to work all that well...

inb4moralfaggots

inb4 NSA and prison

I have three questions:
- Which economists do we listen to?

Good question. Probably people who are retired and do not benefit from certain market strategies to help eliminate bias. Scientific economists would be most preferable.

- How do you explain the global and dramatic reduction in violence throughout history? It would seem that a massive, one-world government would be prone to incredible instability and need to "section" itself, while giving the sections considerable autonomy.

The government type would probably have to be very adaptable and still allow for regional governments to set their own laws (much like the United States). And if does fail, people can fall back on their regional governments. If you have one government, you have more cooperation when it comes to dealing with problems. The main purpose of a one world government would be to increase efficiency (be that economic strategy or scientific research) and treat people more fairly.

- It may very well be true that scientists are not motivated by market forces when researching/inventing, but the market is the single best tool for innovation, which makes everybody wealthier. Do you deny the innovative powers of the market?

In order for scientists and engineers to research and invent, they need funding, and often times that can come from the private industry. It would also be wrong to say that there isn't a sizable amount of scientists and engineers who work mostly just for personal gain. My point isn't that the market doesn't help innovation, but that the market isn't solely responsible.

wat?

like in grand theft auto the cars can all the way up 220 speeds

>tfw rose makes sure you get tons of PM love