Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#102 Oct 19 2011 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Given the shenanigans private corporations play with pension funds it's not hard to imagine them screwing us over.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#103 Oct 19 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
gbaji wrote:
This is what makes me wonder at the mental faculties of Liberals.
So what exactly makes him the representative of all liberals? That's as crazy as anyone here believing you're the representative of all conservative thought or that varus was American.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104 Oct 19 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Given the shenanigans private corporations play with pension funds it's not hard to imagine them screwing us over.


Most private corporations don't provide pension funds (for pretty much exactly the potential for shenanigans). You're thinking unions, most of them public sector. So good job proving my point?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Oct 19 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Given the shenanigans private corporations play with pension funds it's not hard to imagine them screwing us over.


Most private corporations don't provide pension funds (for pretty much exactly the potential for shenanigans). You're thinking unions, most of them public sector. So good job proving my point?
No. No. No. Most private corporations don't provide pension funds because they're ridiculously costly. The potential for shenanigans is, almost certainly, never brought up in pros/cons discussions.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#106 Oct 19 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,048 posts
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
It's because, if given the option, the private sector will screw us over twice as hard and for twice the money.


So you've been told. Strange that you put more weight in the scary story of what might happen than the bad things you know are happening. And liberals think that Conservatives act on faith instead of reason! Smiley: lol


I believe the US healthcare system is a prime example of people getting screwed over by the private sector on a daily basis. Hell, I just experienced it myself in July. My family doctor left town and went to NC. His office found a new doctor within the same healthcare system, but he couldn't start until this past September. So they found a "temporary" doctor, also from within the system, but in a different town. Since our permanent doctor left and the new permanent doctor was the one who was registered as being the primary care physician, the temporary doctor ended up causing every single patient who visited him to get charged a $100 out of network fee, even though he was in-network, because he was not at his normal office. The practice screwed up, but we the customers had to eat the cost. We fought it for two months before we caved and paid the remaining balance just to avoid the stupid debt collectors screwing things up.

I'm not sure the government would have handled it any better, but the government based healthcare I had when I was a kid (Champus and later Tricare) didn't have any in-network/out-of-network bullsh*t. There was one network, the Army, and if you went to an Army hospital, you were covered. Simple as that.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#107 Oct 19 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is what makes me wonder at the mental faculties of Liberals.
So what exactly makes him the representative of all liberals?


Him specifically? Nothing. The statement he made about pushing for more government even while complaining about being screwed by the government is pretty typical liberal behavior though. Hell. Just look at the Occupy folks themselves. Government bails out banks, so do they blame the government? Nope. They blame the banks. Think about that.

All the while the same group is largely demanding the government provide them free education, housing, food, and bob knows what else. Who will they blame when the costs for all that free stuff put us even more in debt? The rich? Because they opposed spending the money in the first place and now refuse to pay for it? Those bastards!


Am I somehow wrong about what liberals want? Cause that sure seems pretty typical to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Oct 19 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
It's because, if given the option, the private sector will screw us over twice as hard and for twice the money.


So you've been told. Strange that you put more weight in the scary story of what might happen than the bad things you know are happening. And liberals think that Conservatives act on faith instead of reason! Smiley: lol


That MIGHT happen? It HAS happen. It's one of the most defining features of the 19th and 20th centuries. Karl Marx didn't write his works because he imagined that people could be taken advantage of--he worked because he SAW people getting taken advantage of EVERYWHERE.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#109 Oct 19 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,073 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is what makes me wonder at the mental faculties of Liberals.
So what exactly makes him the representative of all liberals?
Him specifically? Nothing.
It wasn't so much the "mental faculties of liberals" so much as "the mental faculties of rdmcandie" then? Kind of a sloppy method to take a potshot at liberals.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#110 Oct 19 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is what makes me wonder at the mental faculties of Liberals.
So what exactly makes him the representative of all liberals?
Him specifically? Nothing.
It wasn't so much the "mental faculties of liberals" so much as "the mental faculties of rdmcandie" then? Kind of a sloppy method to take a potshot at liberals.


I used the word "this", not "him". I'm not speaking of him specifically, but what he said. And what he said is pretty standard liberal fare. So while "he" is not representative of all liberals, "what he said" is.

Get it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Oct 19 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
They're mad at the banks for putting themselves in a situation where they needed to be bailed out.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#112 Oct 19 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,073 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is what makes me wonder at the mental faculties of Liberals.
So what exactly makes him the representative of all liberals?
Him specifically? Nothing.
It wasn't so much the "mental faculties of liberals" so much as "the mental faculties of rdmcandie" then? Kind of a sloppy method to take a potshot at liberals.
I used the word "this", not "him". I'm not speaking of him specifically, but what he said. And what he said is pretty standard liberal fare. So while "he" is not representative of all liberals, "what he said" is.
Summary thus far:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
rdm represents liberals?
No he doesn't.
So if he doesn't then it really had nothing to do with liberals in general.
It's what liberals believe.
Were you just upset finding out that I (and undoubtedly many others) don't consider your posts to represent an entire party and just had to be contradictory for the sake of it to vent your anger? I'd hate to think it was something inane like you just got confused. I think you're much smarter than that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#113 Oct 19 2011 at 4:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you've been told. Strange that you put more weight in the scary story of what might happen than the bad things you know are happening. And liberals think that Conservatives act on faith instead of reason! Smiley: lol


That MIGHT happen? It HAS happen. It's one of the most defining features of the 19th and 20th centuries.


I disagree. There were some abuses very early on (19th century), but those as much had to do with government corruption in business as the problems we're seeing today. In the 20th century, the defining feature was the amazing leap and bound improvements in quality of life resulting directly from the massive growth of private capitalistic industries and the wealth those industries created. Those things happened as a natural evolution of free market capitalism and modern industrialism and not because of communist/socialist movements.

Quote:
Karl Marx didn't write his works because he imagined that people could be taken advantage of--he worked because he SAW people getting taken advantage of EVERYWHERE.


Sure. And he assumed that condition would not change and would in fact get worse over time. He was wrong. Karl Marx did not understand that modern industrialism breaks the thousands of years old zero-sum nature of economics. And it's not unreasonable for him to have missed it. That rule had been the case for the entire history of human economic endeavors. For one person to get rich, someone else had to be poor.

He failed to see that the industrial revolution changed all of that. When he wrote his books, it was too early in that revolution to see clearly where it would lead. He saw the rich getting richer, assumed this would result in the poor getting poorer (because he applied a zero-sum assumption), projected the results going forward, and predicted disaster. He completely missed that even as the rich got relatively richer, they did so by massively increasing the availability and decreasing the cost of products and services. The net result is that the average working class person today enjoys a standard of living that is greater than the richest people in Marx's day.


He can be forgiven for not seeing what was happening. What's shocking is that so many people today still continue to make the same mistake. Despite over a century of incredibly strong evidence showing just how wrong Marx was, they still cling to his theories. They attempt to apply zero-sum assumptions to modern economies long long after it's become abundantly obvious that they can't possibly be correct. They drive modern liberal social theory as well. And those theories, and the movements they inspire, require that the same flawed economic assumptions must be true. So, in a massive case of cart-before-horse logic, they act as though they are, and teach people that they are, and wave signs which assumes that they are, all the while ignoring the fact that those things simply are not true.


Is there anyone who can honestly and objectively argue that when big businesses make lots of money that this results in a decrease in economic fortunes among the poor and working classes? If this were true, then why did a bunch of people lose their jobs when big businesses lost money a few years ago? Shouldn't the poor and working class folks have gained by this? And even if you don't accept that the corollary must be true, aren't the Occupy folks operating on exactly that assumption? They believe that the way to improve their own lives is to tear down the rich. Clearly, that can't possibly work. No one actually believes this, do they?


Yet, this is the message of the Occupiers. Hurt the rich and help the poor. But it doesn't work. You hurt the rich and you make more people poor. That's it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Oct 19 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
They're mad at the banks for putting themselves in a situation where they needed to be bailed out.


Well, that makes even less sense. Let me see if I've got this: So... they believe that the success and stability of our banking industry is so important that they are pissed when those running the banks don't take good care with the money they are handling that they require a bail out in order to avoid bankruptcy. And because they're pissed that the bankers did such a poor job that they want to destroy the banking industry.

Yeah, still not making much sense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Oct 19 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Summary thus far:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
rdm represents liberals?
No he doesn't.
So if he doesn't then it really had nothing to do with liberals in general.
It's what liberals believe.


You're having problems with pronouns. rdm is a person. "It" as a pronoun does not apply to "him". It applies to what he said. A person can say something which is representative of a group's philosophy without himself being representative of that group.

Why are you having so much trouble with this. If I say "A fetus is a living person from the moment of conception", that would be representative of a pro-life position. But *I* am hardly a representative of the pro-life position. In the same way, I have no clue how many of rdm's positions are lockstep liberal positions. Thus, I'm not talking about *him*. I'm talking only about what he said.

You honestly can't separate the person from what that person says? Thats... strange.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Oct 19 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,073 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're having problems with pronouns.
Nope, I just gave you much more credit than you demonstrably deserve. Even I can make mistakes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#117 Oct 19 2011 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,048 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
They're mad at the banks for putting themselves in a situation where they needed to be bailed out.


Well, that makes even less sense. Let me see if I've got this: So... they believe that the success and stability of our banking industry is so important that they are pissed when those running the banks don't take good care with the money they are handling that they require a bail out in order to avoid bankruptcy. And because they're pissed that the bankers did such a poor job that they want to destroy the banking industry.

Yeah, still not making much sense.


No. They believe that we'd be better off without major banks at all, and are flocking to local credit unions en masse as part of the protests. They don't believe that the success and stability of the banking industry is important. They want the whole system shut down.

(The OWS credit union flocking is also due to the new debit card fees announced by BOA and Wells Fargo. I'm about to do that myself, because I sure as heck am not paying $3 a month to use the money I so graciously let the bank hold in what I thought was a mutual benefit of convenience - they make interest off my cash, I get to pay my bills from that cash. Well, we do still thankfully live in a country without monopolies, and the local credit union is more than happy to let me have a Visa debit card with no fees.)

Edited, Oct 19th 2011 8:39pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#118 Oct 19 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
catwho wrote:
No. They believe that we'd be better off without major banks at all, and are flocking to local credit unions en masse as part of the protests. They don't believe that the success and stability of the banking industry is important. They want the whole system shut down.
So they're fucking nuts then. Got it. There is nothing wrong with your banks. It's the regulation that's an issue.





And no gbaji, not too much, just poorly done.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#119 Oct 19 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
catwho wrote:
No. They believe that we'd be better off without major banks at all, and are flocking to local credit unions en masse as part of the protests. They don't believe that the success and stability of the banking industry is important. They want the whole system shut down.


Ok. But that leads us around in circles. I originally questioned the logic of shutting the whole system down, while also complaining about jobs, given the pretty direct tie between job creation and liquidity in that very same system. Xsarus then said that they didn't want to shut the banks down, but were angry at them for needing to be bailed out. Which lead me to conclude that this made even less sense.

Either way, I don't think their position makes any sense (ok, not much sense anyway).

Quote:
(The OWS credit union flocking is also due to the new debit card fees announced by BOA and Wells Fargo. I'm about to do that myself, because I sure as heck am not paying $3 a month to use the money I so graciously let the bank hold in what I thought was a mutual benefit of convenience - they make interest off my cash, I get to pay my bills from that cash. Well, we do still thankfully live in a country without monopolies, and the local credit union is more than happy to let me have a Visa debit card with no fees.)


You do realize that $3/month savings will evaporate the first time you need to use an ATM, right? There are good reasons to switch to a credit union. Saving $3/month is not one of them. Unless you're ok with always walking into the bank to get cash, you will get charged for using ATMs (which you don't for Wells Fargo as long as you use their ATMs which are pretty darn ubiquitous). Most credit unions don't have their own credit/debit cards, and use other bank (or banking group) systems, so you're really not saving yourself much there.

On the plus side, I hear some credit unions are trying to take advantage of this by offering introductory deals where they'll waive some fees and even pay you to put your cash in their bank. That wont last long though, and I just don't see it being worth it in the long run.

I'm not saying this part to be argumentative, but to warn you ahead of time that the move you're contemplating isn't as great as it appears on paper. Credit unions are not nearly as convenient for day to day banking. Most of the people I know who use them *also* have accounts with larger banks. They use the credit union because there are some special deals you can get through them for some sorts of financial transactions (loans, investments, etc). They do that in addition to their normal banking though, not as a replacement for it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Oct 19 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
You're putting a hell of a lot of words in my mouth Gbaji.

I don't fully understand why people care about atm's. Are you guys still using real money these days? Everything possible I put on my credit card, which is paid via internet banking, as are all the rest of my bills. Even if I didn't want to use a credit card, I can use a debit card and I don't pay any fees for that either. I use a credit union because they had and still have better interest rates then the banks, and don't have any fees that I would trigger as long as I keep a small amount of money in the account.

Edited, Oct 19th 2011 8:17pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#121 Oct 19 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Quote:

Sure. And he assumed that condition would not change and would in fact get worse over time. He was wrong. Karl Marx did not understand that modern industrialism breaks the thousands of years old zero-sum nature of economics. And it's not unreasonable for him to have missed it. That rule had been the case for the entire history of human economic endeavors. For one person to get rich, someone else had to be poor.


Woah, buddy, stop right there.

Economics have never been a zero sum game, capitalism is no different from any other system in this regard. Increased utility has always been created by economic activity, or there would, by it's nature, be no economic activity.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#122 Oct 19 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
They're mad at the banks for putting themselves in a situation where they needed to be bailed out.


Well, that makes even less sense. Let me see if I've got this: So... they believe that the success and stability of our banking industry is so important that they are pissed when those running the banks don't take good care with the money they are handling that they require a bail out in order to avoid bankruptcy. And because they're pissed that the bankers did such a poor job that they want to destroy the banking industry.

Yeah, still not making much sense.


No, they see a system that is not working as intended, and want changes to be made so that it is.

Are you that blinded?
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#123 Oct 19 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You're putting a hell of a lot of words in my mouth Gbaji.

I don't fully understand why people care about atm's. Are you guys still using real money these days? Everything possible I put on my credit card, which is paid via internet banking, as are all the rest of my bills. Even if I didn't want to use a credit card, I can use a debit card and I don't pay any fees for that either. I use a credit union because they had and still have better interest rates then the banks, and don't have any fees that I would trigger as long as I keep a small amount of money in the account.

Edited, Oct 19th 2011 8:17pm by Xsarus


BoA pays me more money than a credit union, so I use them. I am happy with their performance, as long as they are not subsidizing their losses publicly, and therefore charging me (and the general public) more via a back-end route.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#124 Oct 19 2011 at 9:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,583 posts
@rdmcandie

They (people on the internet) are all doctors, lawyers and astronauts. Any real life job you might have is going to suck by comparison. No exceptions.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
#125 Oct 20 2011 at 2:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,188 posts
catwho wrote:


I'm not sure the government would have handled it any better


As someone who has never had to pay a dime for basic healthcare - the single payer system works.

(Oh and yeah I pay thousands of dollars in taxes a year, but I never have to budget for breaking my leg or getting the flu - if I get sick, the system is there for me, and when my grandma gets pnemonia, it doesn't matter how much money she has - she gets healthcare)

Edited, Oct 20th 2011 1:32am by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#126 Oct 20 2011 at 4:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
So ya I exagerrated, but the point still stands, my government takes money off my check for social programs, which they then denied me access too. (because I moved home? Made to much money before lay off? I don't really know) Then the turned around and bailed out corporations and banks (mostly american corporations in canada, and banks with dirty american assets.).



This is what makes me wonder at the mental faculties of Liberals. You acknowledge that it was the government which screwed you over, but then apparently think that the solution is more government. You can't make up stuff this absurd!



Where in my entire argument did I say that we need more government? At all? Evidently however even though I did get screwed over more government has worked here in Canada, we more or less came out of the American caused recession without out a very big scratch, while our unemployment rate climbed most of those jobs are back, we haven't gone tits up funds wise, and are still growing while America is stuck in Neutral. Guess big government is bad though.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#127 Oct 20 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:

Sure. And he assumed that condition would not change and would in fact get worse over time. He was wrong. Karl Marx did not understand that modern industrialism breaks the thousands of years old zero-sum nature of economics. And it's not unreasonable for him to have missed it. That rule had been the case for the entire history of human economic endeavors. For one person to get rich, someone else had to be poor.


Woah, buddy, stop right there.

Economics have never been a zero sum game...


That's almost a matter of semantics. I'd say that it was much more often a zero sum game prior to the industrial revolution than afterwards.

Quote:
capitalism is no different from any other system in this regard.


Can you spot what you did wrong there? I didn't say that "capitalism" changed economics to a non-zero-sum game. I said that "modern industrialism" (combined with capitalism to be sure) did.

Quote:
Increased utility has always been created by economic activity, or there would, by it's nature, be no economic activity.


Not "no economic activity", just less economic growth. Let me bottom line this, true economic growth only comes about in one of two ways:

1. You increase the total resources you have available to use.

2. You increase the efficiency with which you use those resources.


For most of the history of man, economic growth has mostly be affected by the first method. A country wages war on another country and takes stuff from them. Or it colonizes and utilizes new lands (which usually also requires making war on those who were formerly living there). Increases in utilization efficiency did occur, but were minor and rare. Every once in awhile, someone came up with a better way to make bread, or to construct ships, or forge metal. But only every once in awhile.

Also, for most of human history economies of scale have limited resource use. It requires progressively greater amounts of total resources the more of something you make. It's pretty easy to get someone to make a wicker basket for you. But try to buy a hundred million of them in a pre-industrial civilization and you'll find it impossibly expensive.

As a result of these factors, economics in the immediate term at least really could be thought of as zero sum. A given section of land will produce so much grain, or lumber, or wool, or whatever in a year of working that land. The total is all you have. If the land owner gets more it pretty much always means that the poor folks working on his land gets less. This is where the concept of the rich taking from the poor comes from btw. It's based on the sort of European land-use economic model which we had prior to the industrial revolution.

Industrialization changes all of that. Economies of scale reverse. It might cost a lot to build a wicker basket making machine, which means that the first basket is very expensive. But the more baskets you make the less expensive they are in terms of cost per basket. This allows for the production of massive quantities of things while decreasing the total resources per thing being consumed. The total production capable is no longer limited to land and labor (or not as much limited). In economic terms, it pretty much turns everything on its head.

Marx didn't realize this. And to be fair, it would have been easy to miss in the mid 19th century. He saw wealthy industrialists becoming increasingly more wealthy, without the workers earning more wages and since all his knowledge of economics meant that the workers wages must themselves be deflated because the wealth of the rich had to come from somewhere, he assumed a steadily degrading system in which the poor got poorer while the rich got richer. He simply didn't take into account the effect that the massive increase in productive output would have on the cost and availability of products *and* the introduction of new and never even dreamed of things.


He had an excuse for not seeing it. He didn't have the luxury of a century and a half of industrialization transforming our lives. But those living today shouldn't still cling to his mistake. He was wrong about the effects of industrialization and capitalism. He was wrong to assume that we required the creation of some new economic system in order to protect us from what was going on. We didn't. Capitalism worked with this new industrialism just fine and created a much better world than any system based on Marx's ideas did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Oct 20 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
wow that is a lot of words, you must not know much about this topic.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#129 Oct 20 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,261 posts
ITT: Gbaji insists trickle down works as intended.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#130 Oct 20 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Nilatai wrote:
ITT: Gbaji insists trickle down works as intended.


There's a pretty direct correlation in western nations over the last century between the increase in absolute and relative wealth among the rich and a rise in overall standard of living among the poor (and everyone else actually). I don't know what you think trickle down is or how it's supposed to work, but your statement about it is somewhat meaningless given the facts of history.

Edited, Oct 20th 2011 6:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Oct 20 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
ITT: Gbaji insists trickle down works as intended.


There's a pretty direct correlation in western nations over the last century between the increase in absolute and relative wealth among the rich and a rise in overall standard of living among the poor (and everyone else actually). I don't know what you think trickle down is or how it's supposed to work, but your statement about it is somewhat meaningless given the facts of history.

Edited, Oct 20th 2011 6:42pm by gbaji


That's true. The rich do keep getting richer. And while conditions of the poor, in general, get better (with the exception to the lowest bracket, whose conditions are largely unchanged), relative to the rich they are doing worse on average.

I can only ASSUME that's what you were getting at.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#132 Oct 21 2011 at 4:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
somehow gbaji has equated increases in just about every other part of society to proof that trickle down economics works. The poor do better now because the social programs, and support structures society has built allows them to do so. It has nothing to do with economics. If it had to do with economics and trickle down actually worked the way it was laid out to work, you wouldn't have poverty in the US, or really anywhere for that matter.

1% controls 99% of the money, the amount of money controlled by the rich elite has increased substantially since "Reagenocomics" (trickle down economics if you will) took hold.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#133 Oct 21 2011 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,073 posts
The poor have fridges, so they're obviously doing well.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#134 Oct 21 2011 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,048 posts
And CHAC! Don't forget that luxury. Anyone who can afford to rent an apartment with air conditioning is doing just fine.

*State regulations in most of the south prevent anyone from renting an apartment unit without some form of AC.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#135 Oct 21 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Gbaji, you appear not to know basic definitions, so you are even more misinformed and logically inconsistent then usual.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 4:39pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#136 Oct 21 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Gbaji, you appear not to know basic definitions, so you are even more misinformed and logically inconsistent then usual.


I disagree with the assumptions most people make about those definitions though. Which is why I prefer to talk about exactly what I'm talking about instead of just applying a label which may carry some assumptions and connotations which aren't applicable in all cases. People say that "trickle down doesn't work", but it's interesting just how inconsistent they are with what they think "trickle down" is. That or they're using a definition of trickle down, which is either not an agreed upon definition, or is one that is designed to be "true", but acts as a strawman in the context used (It's not what the other side argues will happen).

Conservatives predict that if we allow those who produce goods to become wealthy as a result, that this will cause improvements in the human condition for everyone, not just those producers (ie: the rich get rich, but the poor's standard of living increases as well). Countering that by saying "but trickle down doesn't work", when by "trickle down" you mean something completely different than what I was talking about, is at best meaningless and at worst deliberately deceptive.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Oct 21 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
That's true. The rich do keep getting richer. And while conditions of the poor, in general, get better (with the exception to the lowest bracket, whose conditions are largely unchanged), relative to the rich they are doing worse on average.

I can only ASSUME that's what you were getting at.


Sure. But what I don't agree with is the decision to care more about the relative condition of a poor person to a rich person *today* instead of the relative condition of a poor person today to a poor person in the past. Why does it matter if the rich guy has 10,000 times as much money than you instead of just 1,000 times? How does that hurt you?

IMO, it doesn't. All that should matter is if conditions at any given level have improved or not. And it's hard to argue that they haven't improved over the last century or so. Massively improved, in fact. If Marx could have seen into the future what the fruits of his works would be when adopted and what things would be like in societies which didn't utilize his theories (or avoided them as much as possible at least), he would have chosen to never write what he did.

He was just that absolutely 100% wrong. The scary thing is how many people today still cling to the promises and assumptions he made based on his completely wrong assessment of the world. Even with the proof of just how much conditions have improved as a result of using capitalism as the prime economic mover in the industrial age, and consistent examples of just how badly people do when communism (and to some degree socialism) are used instead, some people still continue to parrot his ideas. He was wrong then. He is still wrong today. Why does anyone think otherwise?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Oct 21 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Definitions don't include assumptions. They are all fully arbitrary specifications of specific ideas, agreed upon at large or set by the person who created the term.

A term that fails to describe anything of value (as in one that fails to describe anything that actually happens) can still have a definition. That definition cannot be false, unless it fails to properly identify the agreed-upon necessary and sufficient conditions the term demands.

Your definitions are false, because you use definitions that no one on the planet agrees with. Using these definitions to make your arguments is an incredibly absurd way to debate. Because you've intentionally chosen to put yourself in a position where you are working outside the framework that every other human being uses.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#139 Oct 21 2011 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Which is why I prefer to talk about exactly what I'm talking about instead of just applying a label which may carry some assumptions and connotations which aren't applicable in all cases.


Applying the wrong label is not the same as not applying a label.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#140 Oct 21 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Definitions don't include assumptions. They are all fully arbitrary specifications of specific ideas, agreed upon at large or set by the person who created the term.


People do have assumptions about how the definitions are to be applied though. If I speak very clearly about something, and someone responds by using a word or phrase with a definition which is either incorrect *or* does not address what I'm speaking of, they can (and do) still argue that their counter is successful. Just as with the "but trickle down doesn't work!" counter.

Quote:
A term that fails to describe anything of value (as in one that fails to describe anything that actually happens) can still have a definition. That definition cannot be false, unless it fails to properly identify the agreed-upon necessary and sufficient conditions the term demands.


Ok. But who gets to decide what the "agreed upon" definition is? How does that prevent one group from either inventing a definition for a term and applying it to another groups position/idea/argument and then using the word or phrase instead of the argument? Who decides what "trickle down" really means? And if it doesn't mean what conservatives mean (when it's their own economic argument), then isn't it wrong for anyone else to use it?

Quote:
Your definitions are false, because you use definitions that no one on the planet agrees with.


That's a circular argument though. I'm not using a definition of a word or phrase. I'm clearly defining all on my own what I'm talking bout. Someone else, when responding to me, equates what I said to a word or phrase which doesn't actually match what I said, and then by refuting their own word choice, attempt to refute what I said without ever actually addressing it directly.


I happen to *also* believe that trickle down economic theory isn't limited solely to the things which liberals often use to measure its success or failure, but if you are bothered by the discrepancy, then lets stop using the term. That's kinda what I'm trying to get across here. It's somewhat fruitless for us to argue about what the correct definition of a term is, with each side insisting that their interpretation is correct, if those interpretations really don't match the actual issue being discussed.

Quote:
Using these definitions to make your arguments is an incredibly absurd way to debate.


I didn't do that though. The poster who responded to me by saying "trickle down doesn't work" did. I didn't use that phrase. I clearly described exactly what I was talking about and avoided using anything which might include some definition which didn't match. Yet, someone else still decided to equate my statement with a phrase, then apply a definition which didn't match what I actually said, and then argued against his own phrase instead of what I said. Surely you can see how this is an even more absurd way of arguing?

Quote:
Because you've intentionally chosen to put yourself in a position where you are working outside the framework that every other human being uses.


A framework in which I clearly speak of broad economic outcomes over time resulting from wealth being gained by the rich within an economy, and someone counters that with a phrase which they interpret to mean that if a business owner makes more money, he'll pay his employees more, then insists that since this thing I didn't talk about at all doesn't happen, that my position must be wrong?


That's the "framework" I'm supposed to accept? Sorry. I'm not going to. If you're going to insist that we use accepted definition for terms, then you have to also insist that we use those terms only in cases where the accepted definition actually applies. But some people seem to want it both ways. They want to use the term in any case that vaguely follows a broad political ideology, but then only allow it to be applied narrowly when anyone refutes their claims. To me, that's pure BS.


Let me also point out that I'm not actually using the term incorrectly anyway. But let's not let that stop anyone.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Oct 21 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Which is why I prefer to talk about exactly what I'm talking about instead of just applying a label which may carry some assumptions and connotations which aren't applicable in all cases.


Applying the wrong label is not the same as not applying a label.


That's true. Now show me where I applied the wrong label to something.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Oct 21 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
ITT: Gbaji insists trickle down works as intended.


There's a pretty direct correlation in western nations over the last century between the increase in absolute and relative wealth among the rich and a rise in overall standard of living among the poor (and everyone else actually). I don't know what you think trickle down is or how it's supposed to work, but your statement about it is somewhat meaningless given the facts of history.

Edited, Oct 20th 2011 6:42pm by gbaji


^ is not trickle down economics at work. Its largely supported by the middle class that has been raped into oblivion, because trickle down economics has not worked, and in the capacity show in the USA can not work.

kinda shocked a a pubie such as yourself doesn't even understand the fundamentals of the "greatest republican administration's" core principles of trickle down economics, even more shocking is a staunch GOP supporter actually pointing to socialist style government policies as the evidence Trickle down economics has worked.


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#143 Oct 21 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
ITT: Gbaji insists trickle down works as intended.


There's a pretty direct correlation in western nations over the last century between the increase in absolute and relative wealth among the rich and a rise in overall standard of living among the poor (and everyone else actually). I don't know what you think trickle down is or how it's supposed to work, but your statement about it is somewhat meaningless given the facts of history.

Edited, Oct 20th 2011 6:42pm by gbaji


^ is not trickle down economics at work. Its largely supported by the middle class that has been raped into oblivion, because trickle down economics has not worked, and in the capacity show in the USA can not work.

kinda shocked a a pubie such as yourself doesn't even understand the fundamentals of the "greatest republican administration's" core principles of trickle down economics, even more shocking is a staunch GOP supporter actually pointing to socialist style government policies as the evidence Trickle down economics has worked.


What I just said *is* the relevant conservative economic theory. If that doesn't match your definition of "trickle down economics", then one of two things is going on:

1. Your definition of trickle down economics is wrong.

2. The label trickle down economics does not actually apply to conservative economic theories (and is thus a straw man).


It's pretty hysterical for you to insist that I don't understand conservative economic principles because they don't match what you've been taught is "trickle down economics". Very very hysterical, in fact.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Oct 21 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Which is why I prefer to talk about exactly what I'm talking about instead of just applying a label which may carry some assumptions and connotations which aren't applicable in all cases.


Applying the wrong label is not the same as not applying a label.


That's true. Now show me where I applied the wrong label to something.


If you are applying the label "liberal" to China, in any way, you aren't even REMOTELY using it correctly.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#145 Oct 21 2011 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's a pretty direct correlation in western nations over the last century between the increase in absolute and relative wealth among the rich and a rise in overall standard of living among the poor (and everyone else actually). I don't know what you think trickle down is or how it's supposed to work, but your statement about it is somewhat meaningless given the facts of history.

There's also a pretty direct correlation between population and standard of living. And time and standard of living. And the prevalence of Marxism and the standard of living, to a point. Etc, etc, correlation != causation.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 10:28pm by Majivo
#146 Oct 21 2011 at 9:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Ok, If it was over your head, you were talking about a zero sum system.

It's entirely obvious, even without a definition, A + B + C = 0.

You said that industrialism broke this equation to no longer be a zero sum system (A + B + C = X ; A + B + C + X = 0)

This is false because for this to be true, no net economic growth (and therefore, no wealth creation) could have ever occurred in the course of human history prior to the industrial revolution.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#147 Oct 21 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Furthermore, In the cases where economics can be considered a zero sum system, you are comparing percentile wealth holdings, not net wealth accumulation.

You can compare the %W(t₁) to %W(t₂), ΣW(t₁) to ΣW(t₂), or W(t₁) to W(t₂). It's never valid to compare a percentile to a net total, or to a value.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#148 Oct 22 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,188 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
no wealth creation could have ever occurred in the course of human history


Has any wealth truly been created? We have certainly gotten better at transforming the earth into objects, and created more garbage, but can anything that ultimately ends up in a dump or an incinerator (and thus into the atmosphere) be called wealth.

Like we "have" more gold than we ever had before, but the sum total amount of gold in and on our planet has not increased. We have dug up more coal and burned it - but the total amount of "coal wealth" (created by more than 300 million years of sunshine and geologic pressure) hasn't measurably increased in the time frames we are talking about.

I am inclined to believe wealth creation is a myth, created by a flawed economics that considers the earth's resources unlimited
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#149 Oct 22 2011 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,858 posts
Well, you sure are a special snowflake then.

Do you place any value on things that society has created and refined over time?

If your answer is yes, you believe wealth creation exists as a concept. If your answer is no, then go enjoy the simple pleasures of sticks and mud, and dance the dance of futility.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#150 Oct 22 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Excellent
If you don't believe in wealth, you really shouldn't own a computer. At least not until all of Gaia's children in Africa and what-not are well fed.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#151 Oct 23 2011 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,825 posts
In other news, the Occupy movement has reached the thriving financial mecca of Poughkeepsie, New York.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CDT