Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

For you PollstersFollow

#52REDACTED, Posted: Jun 24 2009 at 6:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Xarus,
#53 Jun 24 2009 at 6:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Canada has to have an economy before it can have economic problems.
That joke stopped being funny the same day Canda's dollar reached parity with the US dollar. It's fourteen cents off now but that's a cry from the $1.50-$1.60 levels it used to be at.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Jun 24 2009 at 6:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Canada has to have an economy before it can have economic problems.
That joke stopped being funny the same day Canda's dollar reached parity with the US dollar. It's fourteen cents off now but that's a cry from the $1.50-$1.60 levels it used to be at.
Apparently Varus is still living in the same decade that he reached puberty in.

Time to be a man of the 21st century, bud.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#55 Jun 24 2009 at 7:44 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
"down here in Canada"? Are you using an Australian globe?

Anyways, I'm beginning to think that varus is right about this. It's economic Darwinism. Anyone who is not able and willing to ***** over the other guy to make a million bucks should lose his job and his house and be forced onto the street and starve to death with his family.
____________________________
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.
#56 Jun 24 2009 at 8:01 AM Rating: Default
Debo,

Quote:
Anyone who is not able and willing to ***** over the other guy to make a million bucks should lose his job and his house and be forced onto the street and starve to death with his family.


***** over? That's how "you" liberals think. Just because someone is successful in no way means they "screwed" anyone over. "You" losers seem to want to place your f*cked up situations on anyone but yourself and the decisions you've made. Here's a thought if you can't afford a house don't buy one.
#57 Jun 24 2009 at 8:10 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
***** over? That's how "you" liberals think. Just because someone is successful in no way means they "screwed" anyone over. "You" losers seem to want to place your f*cked up situations on anyone but yourself and the decisions you've made. Here's a thought if you can't afford a house don't buy one.


Things I learned from this post:

1) Debalic was clearly referring to anyone who is successful, even though he never even implied that.
2) The problems throughout my life were clearly all my fault, none of that "it takes two to tango" *********
3) All my problems tie back to buying houses. As a college student, I plan on buying one of the nearby $800k homes. This explains family problems from 10 years ago. True story!

You're just a shining beacon of intellectual behavior.
#58 Jun 24 2009 at 8:27 AM Rating: Default
CBD,

Quote:
Debalic was clearly referring to anyone who is successful, even though he never even implied that.


Debo sarcasm,

Quote:
Anyone who is not able and willing to ***** over the other guy to make a million bucks should lose his job


Sounds to me like Debo is pegging every millionaire as a slimy businessperson willing to ***** over the "other guy".


CBD,

Quote:
The problems throughout my life were clearly all my fault, none of that "it takes two to tango" bullsh*t.


lmao...yes your problems are yours and no one elses and they are your fault.


Quote:
All my problems tie back to buying houses



How do you get that from this;

Quote:
Here's a thought if you can't afford a house don't buy one.



To summarize you are an idiot who wants to blame his problems on anyone but himself.





#59 Jun 24 2009 at 8:50 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
***** over? That's how "you" liberals think. Just because someone is successful in no way means they "screwed" anyone over. "You" losers seem to want to place your f*cked up situations on anyone but yourself and the decisions you've made. Here's a thought if you can't afford a house don't buy one.

And on the other side, anyone who happens to lose their job and takes some unemployment is a slack-*** welfare leech. Does that sound about right?
____________________________
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.
#60 Jun 24 2009 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Debalic wrote:
"down here in Canada"? Are you using an Australian globe?
Smiley: laughYeah, I don't know why I wrote that. oh well.
____________________________
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
#61 Jun 24 2009 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
What you people don't seem to grasp is that when you take from one person, who earned what you're taking, to give it to someone who hasn't earned it but you feel "needs" it you're undermining a free society.


Sure, that's what it looks like to you, and it would be pretty awful of me to steal **** from you that belongs to you.

What you don't seem to grasp, is that, in my eyes and understanding of what a society is, you didn't "earn" any of your stuff in the first place. You either stole it or coerced it out of people, the second you start dealing in money and not food and home-made textiles. "Self-reliance" is a joke in a modern society.
#62 Jun 24 2009 at 1:01 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Pensive wrote:
What you don't seem to grasp, is that, in my eyes and understanding of what a society is, you didn't "earn" any of your stuff in the first place. You either stole it or coerced it out of people, the second you start dealing in money and not food and home-made textiles. "Self-reliance" is a joke in a modern society.

BullShit, he has an okra garden, he is entirely self-sufficient. His job as an insurance salesman is purely philanthropic work.
____________________________
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.
#63REDACTED, Posted: Jun 24 2009 at 1:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
#64 Jun 24 2009 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Ah I get it, because I'm a successful salesman I must be ripping someone off. I must be taking advantage of someone; therefore what I make shouldn't really be mine to begin with so it's ok to tax the sh*t out of me. Sounds about par for liberals. Of course when people like me stop buying houses and cars that tends to put people like you out of work. Then you run to the govn to make it all better. Then the govn comes to me and I say f*ck you sell the business and slip out of the country with the money I have. Do you have any idea how long I could live off half a mil in thailand?

Hell, you could put together a harem of pre-pubescent male prostitutes with that kind of cash.
____________________________
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.
#65 Jun 24 2009 at 2:15 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Ah I get it, because I'm a successful salesman I must be ripping someone off. I must be taking advantage of someone


It's not because you're a successful salesman. it's because the very nature of capitalism is exploitation of other individuals in an attempt to better your own position. Assuming that capitalism is possible for a minute, I don't particularly like it, but there's nothing wrong with believing that those who work hard should be rewarded; it's a far more just system (ideally) than the alternatives certainly, in that you get back at least something proportional if not exactly what you put in. I don't exactly care about justice when something unjust could be more ethical though.

Either way,

It's just a lie to think that you're self-sufficient in any way in a modern society. You are constantly relying on the help of other individuals as well as the government in order to exist at all, and society is better for it.

I've honestly never understood why one of the main tenets of capitalistic thought was specialization in production. The very notion is antithetical to self-sufficiency.
#66 Jun 24 2009 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Pensive wrote:
It's because the very nature of capitalism is exploitation of other individuals in an attempt to better your own position.

It's far more accurate to say the exploitation of opportunities. I make a lot of semantic arguments, but I say this because capitalism is mostly about efficiently allocating resources and finding Nash equilibriums. It's not about ******** over other people to benefit yourself. It's not a zero sum game, not most of the time.

Business laws and regulations are about shifting those equilibriums into desirable places.

Edited, Jun 24th 2009 5:43pm by Allegory
#67 Jun 24 2009 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Go ahead and start explaining then.
#68 Jun 24 2009 at 5:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Alright. The goal of all players involved is to make money; to make the most money possible. This can involve exploiting people. It's possible to make money exploiting people. I can run a water company that charges abnormally high prices and uses unsavory tactics to keep out competitors. But it is also possible to make money without exploiting people. I can sell a good or service where the value to customers is more than the value of the money they spend (necessarily anything you voluntarily buy is) and the cost of the good or service to me is less than the value of the money I take in.

What I'm really looking to exploit is an opportunity. This may or may not involve exploiting people. It's not a zero sum game. It is possible for both the customer and business to gain in a transaction, because different good have different worths to different parties. It's the same general concept you learned about in macroeconomics. If The U.S. can produce cotton more efficiently than it produces corn, and China can produce corn more efficiently than it produces cotton, then the two benefit each other through trade.

Capitalism efficiently allocates resource sand achieves Nash equiliriums by have millions of people testing out millions of ideas. People constantly and naturally search out the best opportunities to exploit. Capitalism is about letting natural tendencies sort of the situation. If you shake up a bag of potato chips the whole ones will tend to rise to the top while the broken bits sink to the bottom, you don't need to manually sort the chips into the bag. It's about letting individuals figure out what's best for themselves. Each player is seeking his maximimum sustainable utility, Nash equilibrium.

Regulations and laws are about artificial interference. They're manually sorting the potato chips into the bag. The problem is that it's difficult to do that on anything less than a macroscopic level. Can you imagine instead of sifting flour you would have to pick up and examine each granule?

However, sometimes nash equilirbriums hit snags. It's important to understand the concept of "local maximum," and "absolute maximum," as the terms exists in mathematics. In capitalism people tend toward overall maxim utility through trading, but they can get caught on local maximums in the same a rock rolling down a hill might get caught in a hole within the hill. The hole is slighter lower than the immediate area, which keeps the rock from rolling out, but it's not the absolute lowest the rock could be.

In an economy with zero regulation you could have businesses like protection rings. They do provide some utility, and they are a nash equilibrium because the shop owner can't afford not to pay them and the mafia doesn't want to give up easy cash. But society would be better off without such operations.

Regulation and interference is about smoothing out the hill so the rock doesn't get caught on a local minimum, but it able to naturally roll down to the absolute minimum. It's about shifting the costs so that the Nash equilibrium equals the best outcome for all parties.

That why we invented shifters for flour. It'd be impossible to sort flour granules entirely by hand, but without shifting we still get lumps in the flour, even if we shook up the bag.

I hate using metaphors so extensively, because I feel it is a very weak way to make a point, but I'm hoping that you already know what I'm talking about and that all I have to do is give hint to what I'm trying to explain.

Edited, Jun 25th 2009 9:36am by Allegory
#69 Jun 25 2009 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,211 posts
Xsarus wrote:
How odd that the economic problems weren't as bad down here in Canada what with our healthcare and all that.


Well there are several reasons that Canadian economy didn't tank. One was our banking system being praised as the beacon/example. Harper's intervention being more effective and on a much smaller scale, and because of the dollar Alberta wasn't nailed to a cross (which is our only have province). We are still going to tank when USA does (and is) though.

Healthcare is expensive though, and less effective then USA. Socialist healthcare doesn't work, it has many problems. If you look at several other countries, they are far less effective (Not GB, look more South America like Argentina I believe). Waiting lists, costs etc. hurt them far more. A mix of both is best.
#70 Jun 25 2009 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
you think our healthcare is worse then in the USA? Smiley: laugh maybe if you're rich.
____________________________
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
#71 Jun 25 2009 at 9:39 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
but I'm hoping that you already know what I'm talking about


I have never purported to understand a lot about economics, but I do understand the idea which you are conveying.

I am having a harder time seeing how that does not involve the exploitation of people; a business doesn't have to make a single trade in order to exploit people. An owner or some intelligent upstart devises a way to make some sort of product which people may purchase, okay, but not everyone is going to be that guy, and in the process of that guy making his money, he's using the backs of laborers, exploiting them. Sure, the overall level of utility may rise, but that doesn't preclude the exploitation of people.
Quote:

Socialist healthcare doesn't work, it has many problems. If you look at several other countries, they are far less effective (Not GB, look more South America like Argentina I believe).


Why are you cherrypicking which country I'm allowed to examine? It's obviously not a problem with the method if it works, anywhere. Implementation? Sure.

Edited, Jun 26th 2009 1:40am by Pensive
#72 Jun 25 2009 at 11:51 PM Rating: Decent
Pensive wrote:
I am having a harder time seeing how that does not involve the exploitation of people; a business doesn't have to make a single trade in order to exploit people. An owner or some intelligent upstart devises a way to make some sort of product which people may purchase, okay, but not everyone is going to be that guy, and in the process of that guy making his money, he's using the backs of laborers, exploiting them. Sure, the overall level of utility may rise, but that doesn't preclude the exploitation of people.
The two are neither mutually exclusive nor dependent upon each other, though.

On that note, neither socialism nor communism preclude the exploitation of people, either.
#73 Jun 26 2009 at 4:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
manicshock wrote:
If you look at several other countries, they are far less effective (Not GB, look more South America like Argentina I believe).
Yeah, this probably wouldn't have anything to do with a long history of shakey governments and economic turmoil down there in the southeast corner of S. America.


Smiley: dubious


Seriously? You want to set aside the UK and try an apples to apples comparison between health care in the US and in Argentina?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Jun 26 2009 at 5:46 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
and in the process of that guy making his money, he's using the backs of laborers, exploiting them.
There is no need to merge people working and people being exploited. Sure sometimes people would be, but often they are simply working. I have a job, and I don't feel I am being exploited at all.
____________________________
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
#75 Jun 26 2009 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Pensive wrote:
Sure, the overall level of utility may rise, but that doesn't preclude the exploitation of people.

It's not exploitation if I gain fair return for my labor.

As a customer, when you buy a Coke from a vending machine, is Coca Cola exploiting you? It's a relatively elastic good that you are voluntary purchasing while not under any duress with a competing vending machine nearby. When you elect to purchase that beverage, are you not making the decision that the drink is worth more to you than the dollar you are spending?

As an employee, you could spend the day sitting at the park reading the paper, watching television at home, or doing whatever you want. But if you work for Coca Cola stocking their machines have you not made a completely voluntary decision that the amount Coca Cola is willing to pay you for your time and effort is worth more to you than what else you could be doing?

How are those examples of exploitation? The company gains a fair return. The customer gains a fair return. The employee gains a fair return.

Edited, Jun 26th 2009 10:01am by Allegory
#76 Jun 26 2009 at 9:00 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,211 posts
Jophiel wrote:
manicshock wrote:
If you look at several other countries, they are far less effective (Not GB, look more South America like Argentina I believe).
Yeah, this probably wouldn't have anything to do with a long history of shakey governments and economic turmoil down there in the southeast corner of S. America.


Smiley: dubious


Seriously? You want to set aside the UK and try an apples to apples comparison between health care in the US and in Argentina?


UK and Canada are still having problems, they are just far more apparent in other countries. Here, you could be waiting for several months for something while in the USA you could have it that afternoon. I can't say in the UK, I haven't looked at them really. A question of more spending and not having enough doctors (many move to the USA because they can make a lot more money in the private sector) is also a problem.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 335 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (335)