So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[Inkstainedwretch]

The 16th century German mercenary soldiers called landsknechts were heavily into ripped clothing. The style was called puffed-and-slashed. The clothing was layered and then slashed in various patterns and cloth of contrasting colors pulled through the slashes. Soon the aristocracy was wearing the style, which also featured huge and fanciful codpieces.

 

[HudsonHawk]

You an spend $5,000 for a new "relic" guitar that regularly sells for $1,200. Or if you're a little short on cash, you can pay someone $300 to scratch up the finish on your axe for you.

 

[Tiki Tom]

This conversation made me think about a recent television interview I saw where the host was talking to Gwyneth Paltrow about her "lifestyle website", Goop, which she uses to try and sell an upper class lifestyle to aspiring wanna-bes. When challenged, she maintained how ordinary she is and how she didn't have any advantages growing up. I had to turn her off.

BTW: I just googled her site, Goop, and found these $325 jeans.

http://shop.goop.com/collections/the-classics-shop/products/boy-skinny

Yes, trivial, but for some reason it does indeed tick me off. I probably need to see a $500 per hour therapist.

 

[Fading Fast]

You mean if we didn't maintain & exploit poverty, our prospects would be worse.

I'm not sure I'm following, but what I was trying to express was my sincere regret that while many of the jobs our imports engender in third-world countries are far from inspiring, without those jobs, the prospects for those countries and their people are, many times, even less fortunate.

Edit add: on the optimistic side, some countries, like Japan and South Korea for example, have used exports and those un-fun early jobs as a stepping stone to developing their economies and dramatically increasing the living standards of their people over many years.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Or one could work toward a society in which those workers produce goods intended for their own sustenance and development, instead of one which wastes labor and resources in the production of worthless gewgaws for a dissolute and decadent civilization on the other side of the world.

 

[Fading Fast]

Or one could work toward a society in which those workers produce goods intended for their own sustenance and development, instead of one which wastes labor and resources in the production of worthless gewgaws for a dissolute and decadent civilization on the other side of the world.

If their governments can organize their economies to work that way, then they should go for it. While bribes and other dirty dealings go on, most countries export "worthless gewgaws for a dissolute and decadent civilization on the other side of the world*" not because the dissolute and decadent civilization on the other side of the world force them to, but because those exporting countries haven't developed other better options to earn a living.


*You have a way with words.

 

[Trenchfriend]

I'm honest. I'm living a consumption-critical life, as best as I can.

But in the last two years, it seems, that I got a little tired of my alternative thinking. Actually, I'm halfway accepting, that I'm just "end-consumer". But, I'm still critical.

Of course, I thought and still think often about alternative living, but I never find a solution. I can see only these pseudo-alternative groups/milieus, which are just (critical) part of the regular society, same as I am.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Being "woke," as the kids put it, begins with simply realizing that wants and needs are two different things. And then you start asking yourself exactly why it is that you want what you think you want. And then the rest is up to you and your conscience.

Me, I just can't swallow the idea that the end purpose of all humanity is to serve as a self-replicating source of fuel for the rapacious maw of global capitalism. If that really is what it's all about, excuse me while I put a bullet in my head.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Being "woke," as the kids put it, begins with simply realizing that wants and needs are two different things. And then you start asking yourself exactly why it is that you want what you think you want. And then the rest is up to you and your conscience.

Me, I just can't swallow the idea that the end purpose of all humanity is to serve as a self-replicating source of fuel for the rapacious maw of global capitalism. If that really is what it's all about, excuse me while I put a bullet in my head.

The oft repeated adage is that "Whoever dies with the most toys, wins." I would counter that whoever dies with the richest life experiences, wins. And that richness can be measured in many ways, and can be played out on many different cosmic planes.

It's really those around you who enrich your life... not the toys that you're playing with at the time.

 

[swanson_eyes]

So here's something minor that turns my business away from clothing sites: not everyone in the '20s went around in evening gowns or those ridiculous costumey flapper dresses and feathered headbands. People did wear day clothes. Every time I go to a repro clothing site and punch in 1920s that's what comes up. If they would make true reproduction day dresses I'd pay whatever they wanted. I am not going to find nor fit into actual vintage and I don't have time to sew. I'm off today, but that's very rare. I normally work 7 days.

 

[GHT]

Me, I just can't swallow the idea that the end purpose of all humanity is to serve as a self-replicating source of fuel for the rapacious maw of global capitalism. If that really is what it's all about, excuse me while I put a bullet in my head.

What I can't swallow is how we Brits are so in love with having a monarchy. A democratic system like our's and we can't vote for our head of state. But what really sticks in my craw is the fact that the British Monarch owns one sixth of the entire globe's land mass.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

 

[Fading Fast]

What I can't swallow is how we Brits are so in love with having a monarchy. A democratic system like our's and we can't vote for our head of state. But what really sticks in my craw is the fact that the British Monarch owns one sixth of the entire globe's land mass.

It really owns one sixth the entire globe's land mass? Is there some quirk here - does it own a huge chunk of uninhabitable or useless land - or does it simply own all that viable land owing to the days of the Empire? And if so, that must bring in a pretty penny.

Second question: while head of state - does the Queen or King have any meaningful political / policy power or is it just a mainly figure head role owing to a historical nod?

 

[HudsonHawk]

It really owns one sixth the entire globe's land mass? Is there some quirk here - does it own a huge chunk of uninhabitable or useless land - or does it simply own all that viable land owing to the days of the Empire? And if so, that must bring in a pretty penny.

That is a bit of misrepresentation, often touted by the wingnuts out there. She is the monarch over the Commonwealth countries, and as such figuratively represents the "crown" in "Crown Lands" in all of those places. But she doesn't personally hold allodial title to those countries. It's not like she can decide to start charging Australia rent or sell Canada to Russia.

 

[Fading Fast]

That is a bit of misrepresentation, often touted by the wingnuts out there. She is the monarch over the Commonwealth countries, and as such figuratively represents the "crown" in "Crown Lands" in all of those places. But she doesn't personally hold allodial title to those countries. It's not like she can decide to start charging Australia rent or sell Canada to Russia.

Thank you. Very different from what I was thinking. He's referencing that has head of state she "owns" all the territory of the Commonwealth.

That I get, but the royal family also owns (or controls) directly many assets - right?

 

[HudsonHawk]

Thank you. Very different from what I was thinking. He's referencing that has head of state she "owns" all the territory of the Commonwealth.

That I get, but the royal family also owns (or controls) directly many assets - right?

They do. I'm sure there's a list of exactly what they actually personally "own" somewhere, and I'm sure it's extensive. I think I read where the Queen is estimated to be worth about $500MM, which placed her as "wealthy", but not "rich", at least not in the league of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett rich. Don't know how accurate that is though.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Second question: while head of state - does the Queen or King have any meaningful political / policy power or is it just a mainly figure head role owing to a historical nod?

The UK has what is known as a constitutional monarchy. The Queen, although head of state, has no real political power nor a say in government decisions.

 

[Fading Fast]

The UK has what is known as a constitutional monarchy. The Queen, although head of state, has no real political power nor a say in government decisions.

Thank you

 

[2jakes]

The UK has what is known as a constitutional monarchy. The Queen, although head of state, has no real political power nor a say in government decisions.

If possible... in a nut shell, when was it otherwise?
Thanks.


(Sent via iPhone waiting at the dental office.)


EDIT:
After a while...I'll be in la-la land!

 

[HudsonHawk]

If possible... in a nut shell, when was it otherwise?
Thanks.


(Sent via iPhone waiting at the dental office.)


EDIT:
After a while...I'll be in la-la land!

Well, it was sort of a process. The last monarch to have any real power was George III, and the power shifted quickly after him. It sort of went downhill for the king after that, and by the time of Victoria, the role was as head of state.