|
Post by Alex English on Sept 15, 2017 21:21:34 GMT
Rather than defending myself, I would like to go on the offensive; Alex, do you agree with everything Karl Marx said or did? I hope this was a joke, because it was funny, and I laughed. I'm not entirely sure it is a joke though, since you do seem to live in this republican world where everyone to the left of you will all just get grouped together with actual communists. As for what is a cult? When it comes to Donald Trump, here are some questions you can ask yourself: Did you like James Comey last November, but now hate him? Did you like the appointment of Robert Mueller at the time, but now think he's a liberal shill? Does some part of you believe the special investigation isn't actually about connections to Russia, but is really about the death of Seth Rich? Do you believe Mexico will actually pay for the wall? Is Breitbart a legitimate source of news? Is Alex Jones a legitimate source of news? Has your opinion of Vladimir Putin positively changed in the last year? How much of the following do you believe to be true, or find at least potentially suspicious: Michael Flynn's connections to RussiaPaul Manafort's connections to RussiaRex Tillerson's connections to RussiaJared Kushner's connections to RussiaCarter Page's connections to RussiaDonald Trump's own choice to lead the FBI, Christopher Wray, supports the special investigationThat's just focusing on one little thing, and it's a very incomplete list. Donald Trump stinks for many more reasons besides Russia. Here is a more complete list.Here is a big one: How did you feel about Hillary Clinton's use of a unsecured personal email server? Is your view on this issue consistent with your view on any of the news about Trump's connections to Russia? I assume that if you cared that Clinton's actions could have resulted in confidential data being disclosed, then you'll also care about all the implications on national security that would come from the result of any potential collusion with Russia? Likewise, if all this Russia stuff is also not a big deal to you, then you probably also have no problem with Clinton's server? After all, while she was careless and negligent, there is no real evidence of a breach of confidential info being known. I have no idea how far down the rabbit hole you are, I hope a lot of this stuff doesn't apply to you, but all of this shit is based on real followers of Trump who can really only be described as being in a cult. Facts mean nothing if you've gone this far. You're just building your own separate reality to live in if all of the above applies to you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 17:38:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 23:04:58 GMT
He said it himself, he can walk onto 5th avenue and shoot someone and not lose votes. Literally insulted their intelligence to their faces while they cheer.
The people that support him are blind, it's a necessity to have supported him this far. Don't bother even conversing with them.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Sept 16, 2017 8:11:40 GMT
Lol...I am really trying to be nice here, but you keep acting like a fucking moron. I'm sorry but towards Vlade, the bigger question looms - do you just perceive yourself to be that much more intelligent, that much more resilient to the forces of malevolent persuasion? At what point do you actually question whether it is YOU who has been brainwashed and not the rest of us?
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 16, 2017 16:10:09 GMT
Vlade Divac I'm aware that the Rick Perry thing was a weak accusation, but hey it still happened. But its funny that out of all of the facts I presented about each of his cabinet members you could really only use that as an example? Then why are you purposely being dishonest?
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 16, 2017 16:10:53 GMT
He said it himself, he can walk onto 5th avenue and shoot someone and not lose votes. Literally insulted their intelligence to their faces while they cheer. The people that support him are blind, it's a necessity to have supported him this far. Don't bother even conversing with them. Should we kill them? Are they the reason for all the world's evils?
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 16, 2017 16:12:51 GMT
As I have said 400000000000000000000000000000000 times, we disagree on facts. How can we have a real discussion if we disagree on facts?
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 16, 2017 16:53:51 GMT
Alex, you have admitted to being a communist before. You can call it socialism, Robin Hood, or redistributing the wealth, but you subscribed to that economic policy. While you are not a bad human being nor do I think you intentionally subscribed to political suppression, I am not going to take someone seriously who does not believe in the free-market. Keep in mind that communist is really economic policy rather than a form of government. - Did you like James Comey last November, but now hate him?
I do not hate James Comey now nor have I ever hated him before. While I think he mishandled the Hillary Clinton situation, I blame AG Lynch more for putting him in a tough situation where he felt like he had to decide the case due to her refusal to recuse herself in conjunction with her actions that at least created the appearance of corruption.
- Did you like the appointment of Robert Mueller at the time, but now think he's a liberal shill?
I have seen no evidence that leads to me to believe that Russia directly altered the results of the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Donald Trump. Therefore, I think the investigation is a waste of taxpayer's time and money. I will say, however, that Mueller's appointment is a creation of the combination of 1. Liberal obstructing the nomination process of Trump's cabinet forcing the Trump Administration to rely on Obama holdovers 2. Jeff Sessions' decision to recuse himself 3. Trump/Sessions/or both of their decisions to appoint Rod Rosenstein as Assistant Attorney General. #1 and #2 have been analyzed thoroughly, but why does the Trump Administrator allow themselves to be in this situation where Muller could potentially go after Trump for his personal finances? Despite disagreeing with the liberals, they are by far the better politicians in the non-policy sense of the word. Holder or Lynch would have NEVER recused themselves if the Obama Administration were in a similar situation. Let's all pray that I have a sports hernia, the latest hypothesis on my injuries, and can recover from it so I can save this country. Whether I like it or not, the Democrats outsmart the Republicans, Trump included, so much on the non-policy issues that we never get to talk about policy which is an area I think we can win on. Then again, I think the main-stream Republicans are really moderates that agree with the liberals more than Trump. - Do you believe Mexico will actually pay for the wall?
While I do not think it will be like the video below, I think the United States could renegotiate trade deals with Mexico to allow for the latter to pay for the wall over time. Video - - Is Breitbart a legitimate source of news?
I think they are as legitimate as anyone else. Seriously, how are we, the people, supposed to know things that go on in secrecy? Many of these alleged post-Obama scandals are legal matters, not policy matters, during which attorneys create a record and a judge or a jury decides what should happen to resolve that matter. How is anyone not in those courtrooms supposed to know what is going on?
- Is Alex Jones a legitimate source of news?
I am going to be honest with you, I have never heard of Alex Jones.
- Has your opinion of Vladimir Putin positively changed in the last year?
Yes, I think he has a sense of humor despite his flaws.
I am not going to answer questions about specific individuals involvement in matters that you, me, nor any of those sources really know anything about because I do not make assumptions unlike those sources. All I can say is that I have seen no evidence that leads to me to believe that Russia directly altered the results of the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Donald Trump.
- How did you feel about Hillary Clinton's use of a unsecured personal email server? Is your view on this issue consistent with your view on any of the news about Trump's connections to Russia?
Did I miss something? Is Trump using unsecured servers to receive official emails which includes things are deemed classified by the intelligence community? I really do not see the link between the two, but I am going to ask you questions as well so you can answer there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 17:38:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 17:11:45 GMT
He said it himself, he can walk onto 5th avenue and shoot someone and not lose votes. Literally insulted their intelligence to their faces while they cheer. The people that support him are blind, it's a necessity to have supported him this far. Don't bother even conversing with them. Should we kill them? Are they the reason for all the world's evils? Their willful ignorance is the reason for a lot of evil, yes. The other question is just stupid.
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 16, 2017 17:26:10 GMT
My turn Alex English. Anyone else can these questions if they would like to. 1. Was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 a good thing or a bad thing? Why? 2. Has your opinion of Joseph McCarthy's famous "Red Scare" changed as a result of the immediate danger that "Russian [which served as the major member of the Soviet Union] collusion" had on the 2016 American Presidential Election? Could more have been done since the end of World War II to prevent this menace from occurring 66 years later? 3. Do you agree with Mitt Romney (below) and Sarah Palin (below) that Russian served as the major threat to the United States in 2012 and 2008 respectively? If not, would a Romney or Palin foreign-policy done a better job of combating "Russian Collusion" than Obama's more accommodating policy? Romney: Palin: (sorry to use Glenn Beck, but YouTube filtered everyone else)
4. Do you agree with Hillary Rodham Clinton that we should have "reset" Russians relations in 2009 in light of "Russian Collusion" in the 2016 Presidential Election that allegedly, and allegedly ironically, cost Hillary Clinton that election? 5. Do you agree with President Obama's statement in 2014 when he called ISIS a "JV Team" and remarked that "just because you put on a Lakers Jersey, it does not make you Kobe Bryant?" 6. What is the best way for a society as a whole to create wealth for itself? I am not asking about class, race, gender, or anything like, but simply what is the best way for a society to COLLECTIVELY create wealth? Maybe Josh Barber can help you with this since I know you are not a big economics guy. 7. Do you believe the Constitution grants a state, like California, the ability to nullify a federal law simply because they disagree with it? How is this logic any different than John C. Calhoun's argument about nullifying "the Tariff of Abomination" from 1832 to 1837? 8. Is the notion of the classic nation-state an archaic concept? Do "countries" serve a useful purpose anymore? Similarly, does the concept of "federalism" serve a useful purpose anymore? 9. What is your favorite part of the American Constitution (1787-1791) today? Which clause, article, or amendments do you agree with the most? 10. Historically, what American decision, ideal, or principal do you agree with the most?
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 16, 2017 17:26:54 GMT
Should we kill them? Are they the reason for all the world's evils? Their willful ignorance is the reason for a lot of evil, yes. The other question is just stupid. You just told everyone to quit talking to me. If you had your way, I would be alone without any friends. What should happen to me then?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 17:38:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 23:48:01 GMT
Their willful ignorance is the reason for a lot of evil, yes. The other question is just stupid. You just told everyone to quit talking to me. If you had your way, I would be alone without any friends. What should happen to me then? Jesus fucking Christ
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Sept 16, 2017 23:56:32 GMT
My turn Alex English . Anyone else can these questions if they would like to. 1. Was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 a good thing or a bad thing? Why? -It was clearly not good for the people of Europe given how many civil wars/genocide they've had since then and is a likely contributor to the massive nuclear proliferation we've seen leading countries like Iran and NK into the atomic age. 2. Has your opinion of Joseph McCarthy's famous "Red Scare" changed as a result of the immediate danger that "Russian [which served as the major member of the Soviet Union] collusion" had on the 2016 American Presidential Election? Could more have been done since the end of World War II to prevent this menace from occurring 66 years later? The Red Scare was nothing but rich people trying to convince Americans tha all government regulation is bad. Which somehow didn't extend when regulations protecting corporations are passed but I digress. 3. Do you agree with Mitt Romney (below) and Sarah Palin (below) that Russian served as the major threat to the United States in 2012 and 2008 respectively? If not, would a Romney or Palin foreign-policy done a better job of combating "Russian Collusion" than Obama's more accommodating policy? Romney: Palin: (sorry to use Glenn Beck, but YouTube filtered everyone else)
The Red Scare was stupid, but Russia has always been a threat simply because they have a dick load of nukes. Having a relaxed relationship is never a good idea. (Literaly what Trump is doing) 4. Do you agree with Hillary Rodham Clinton that we should have "reset" Russians relations in 2009 in light of "Russian Collusion" in the 2016 Presidential Election that allegedly, and allegedly ironically, cost Hillary Clinton that election? Who knows, if Obama had been softer on Russia maybe Putin interferes on behalf of Clinton instead. Still doesn't make it right. 5. Do you agree with President Obama's statement in 2014 when he called ISIS a "JV Team" and remarked that "just because you put on a Lakers Jersey, it does not make you Kobe Bryant?" I don't really care about this at all. 6. What is the best way for a society as a whole to create wealth for itself? I am not asking about class, race, gender, or anything like, but simply what is the best way for a society to COLLECTIVELY create wealth? Maybe Josh Barber can help you with this since I know you are not a big economics guy. Put people to work in jobs that pay enough for people to have a decent standard of living. Give people free healthcare would solve a lot of the problems we have in the US. People shouldnt go bankrupt because they get sick. 7. Do you believe the Constitution grants a state, like California, the ability to nullify a federal law simply because they disagree with it? How is this logic any different than John C. Calhoun's argument about nullifying "the Tariff of Abomination" from 1832 to 1837? Like when tons of government officials refused to grant marriage licenses to gays after that law was passed? States rights are what they are. I honestly don't really agree with the federal government getting too much into the nitty gritty local law making. Federal should be establishing overarching guidelines. 8. Is the notion of the classic nation-state an archaic concept? Do "countries" serve a useful purpose anymore? Similarly, does the concept of "federalism" serve a useful purpose anymore? Based on the difference between our lives and say someonr living in NK or someone living in Sweden (our lives are worse than theirs) I would say that they matter. 9. What is your favorite part of the American Constitution (1787-1791) today? Which clause, article, or amendments do you agree with the most? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That life part should be the key to us having free health care. 10. Historically, what American decision, ideal, or principal do you agree with the most? Back when we taxed major corporations 90% and everyonr got paid well enough to buy a house.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Sept 17, 2017 0:00:37 GMT
Their willful ignorance is the reason for a lot of evil, yes. The other question is just stupid. You just told everyone to quit talking to me. If you had your way, I would be alone without any friends. What should happen to me then? Cutting friends off is my thing Vlade lol, no you need to keep talking but you have to actually read what I'm typing. You really see NO evidence of Russian influence? 250,000 Russian based Trump accounts on facebook means nothing to you? Whether or not Trump knew about it is the question, I think he's a crazy meglomaniac but I don't think hes a moron I think he knew about it. If he didn't know about it then he's clearly not as plugged in as he thinks and he might be an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 17, 2017 0:50:49 GMT
Alex, you have admitted to being a communist before. You can call it socialism, Robin Hood, or redistributing the wealth, but you subscribed to that economic policy. While you are not a bad human being nor do I think you intentionally subscribed to political suppression, I am not going to take someone seriously who does not believe in the free-market. Keep in mind that communist is really economic policy rather than a form of government. Admitted? Funny choice of word, like communism is a crime. But anyway, no I haven't, show me a post of where I've said so. I believe in the Nordic model of social democracy. That means a robust welfare state combined with free market capitalism. 6. What is the best way for a society as a whole to create wealth for itself? I am not asking about class, race, gender, or anything like, but simply what is the best way for a society to COLLECTIVELY create wealth? Maybe Josh Barber can help you with this since I know you are not a big economics guy. I'm going to skip right to here, because this question is the most interesting to me, and also I'm not American, so I don't have good opinions on a lot of your other questions. Your last sentence pretty funny too. First, if you've noticed most of the political things Andrei Kirilenko has said recently, I think you'd be surprised at what a no good, rotten, commie he is. I won't pretend to speak for him though, so I'll leave that there. Second, I earned my undergraduate degree in business and economics and last month I started working as an economic analyst at Statistics Canada. So... if you had to summarize me as just one thing, it would be as an economics guy. I don't like this game, since ideas should be considered and debated independently, and who holds the view shouldn't matter, but if you do want to play this game, you're going to lose. As an actual economics guy I think I know more than a history buff.
Anyway, the actual question. We're going to have to start with what you mean by "collectively create wealth" because that isn't as simple as it seems. What do you believe a country's goal should be when it comes to creating wealth? Just maximize GDP at all costs, like were trying to hit some high score in pinball? If that's what you want then there are some ugly, but effective, ways to go about it. Qatar has the highest GDP per capita in the world. Do you want to move there? I doubt it. GDP is a flawed measurement since it doesn't take into account inequality and how a country distributes it's wealth. Qatar may have the highest GDP per capita, but that's built on the backs of migrant workers who are slaves in all but name. The average person in Qatar is not one of the wealthy few that benefit from their #1 GDP ranking. The average person in Qatar is a slave labourer living in conditions of extreme poverty. In my opinion, we want to create an economically prosperous country. We want that prosperity to apply to everyone in that society, or at least as many people as possible. Measuring GDP is part of that, but keeping inequality in check is even more important. Basically we want to maximize the middle class. In the end, maximizing the middle class is what’s best for GDP too. Qatar isn’t #1 because their economy is effective at creating wealth. Their #1 because they are a resource based economy that is selling those resource to buyers from outside of the Qatari economy. Their wealth is imported in exchange for their oil and gas, primarily. So if you don’t control any of Qatar’s natural resources, then you don’t get to share in its wealth. Their internal wealth creation is basically non-existent. It’s the middle class that leads to creating wealth internally. How many cars can one rich person buy? How many toasters? How many pairs of socks? Ten people with a combined wealth of a million dollars with create more economic demand than one person worth a million dollars, even if both sides are identical on paper. Ok, let’s move on to the actual wealth creation. I believe the most efficient and effective way to create wealth is through a free market system. Read that sentence again if you’re confused about whether or not I actually said that. The free market is more efficient because it decentralizes power which allows quicker action and decision making. Large organizations, both public and private, become slow as a result of bureaucracy. It’s more effective because it allows individuals to make their own decisions instead of having a system of centralized decision makers like what you would see in communism. One guy saying “I want 6 apples” and his neighbour saying “I want 4 apples” is more effective than a centralized communist government saying “you both get 5 apples.” Obviously real life is way more complicated, but hypothetically speaking, you get the idea. Awesome right? I’m pretty sure we agree on everything so far. Let’s get to the other stuff. All that being said, the free market has serious problems. The free market is amoral, it doesn’t care or take into consideration the wellbeing those participating in it. All that matters is whether or not you are economically useful. Sometimes the economically useful thing to do is to cater to the wellbeing of society, but more often it’s not, and that’s because of the second problem with the free market. The second problem is that in a decentralized free market system, the market only acts on behalf of those who have the power to make the it act, and power is accumulated and measured with money. Money also has a gravitational pull that attracts more money. It takes money to make money, as they say. This idea of market power leads to the death of the free market. This is where regulation comes in. An unregulated market will inevitably lead to those with market power exploiting those without market power. To go back to real life, in Qatar, those with market power consist of a tiny number of gas and oil magnates plus those connected them. Those without market power are the poverty stricken migrant workers. If you’re wondering, those migrant slaves in Qatar make up 86% of their population. Those without market power far outnumber those with it. This exploitation will kill the middle class that make any economy a prosperous one. To empower the middle class instead, we need a well-regulated economy. To maximize the middle class, we need to maximize the job market. That’s pretty much what it all comes down to. Economically speaking, a government should concern itself with things that will lead to maximizing the number of good jobs that are available. In order to maximize the job market, you need to maximize aggregate demand. That’s pretty much it. That’s the secret. It’s on this point that the republicans go off the rails. Reaganomics, or trickle-down economics, or supply-side economics, is the exact opposite of what governments should do in order to create jobs. Jobs are not created by ‘job creators.’ Business owners don’t just think to themselves ‘I’d like to create a job today’ and then go out and hire a new employee. That’s not how it works. Supply is a response to demand. Demand must come first. Focusing on the supply side is idiotic. Supply will sort itself out in order to match demand. If you own a pizza shop that sells 10 pizzas an hour, and each employee can make 5 pizzas per hour, then you hire two employees right? If the government came to you and said ‘hey, take this $100k tax break for being a job creator’, would you then use that money to hire a new employee? No, obviously not. The market hasn’t changed. You can meet all of your demand with your current labour force. Hiring someone new just because you can is a waste of your money. So you obviously won’t do it. If the government actually wants to create jobs, they need to focus on demand. To do that, they need to start at the bottom of the economy. This is because of the concept of marginal propensity to consume. If you’re actually still reading this and don’t know what it means, then you can google it, I’m going to keep this post moving forward. You don’t want trickle-down economics, you want bubble-up economics, as I’ve heard it described. Instead of giving ‘job creators’ a tax break, the government could say, create universal health care, or universal public education, or universal day care, or just be even more direct, and give tax breaks to everyone that make less than X number of dollars. Doing any of those things will put a huge amount of extra money in the hands of those at the bottom of the economy, obviously all these people will take that extra money and spend it. Boom, more aggregate demand. Let’s go back to that pizza shop that you own. The government has just created universal health care, and now all the people that live in your neighbourhood no longer have to buy health insurance. They now have a significant amount of money to add to their disposable income budget. Some of that money will be spent on pizza. So now you notice that you can’t keep up with the additional demand and wait times are getting too long. Your two employees just can’t keep up. Only now will you hire a new employee. Only now is it worth it because there is extra demand for your product that you can capture to make the cost of a new employee worthwhile. So there you go, the government creating public benefits or wealth transfer programs to put more money in the hands of the working class and middle class has actually benefited everyone, including the wealthy that will bear the majority of the higher tax burden to pay for these programs. This process becomes a feedback loop. More money in the hands of the working and middle classes leads to higher demand for goods and services. Higher demand for goods and services leads to higher revenues for businesses and a need to add new jobs to keep up with demand. More available jobs leads to higher levels of employment and more wages being paid out. More wages means more money in the hands of the working and middle classes. The whole thing starts again from the beginning. It’s this system of an actively involved government that sets boundaries for the free market to prevent exploitation, and funds programs that offer widespread social and economic benefits to all, but especially those in the lower classes, that maximizes wealth creation and economic prosperity. In academics, this focus on demand is Keynesian economics. In real life, this system is a left wing economic ideology that you’ll see in many liberal countries, but best of all, in Scandinavia with their Nordic model.
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 17, 2017 0:54:31 GMT
Jeremiah Hill, your first answer was enough for me to say you are pathetic and hopeless. I, Vlade Skywalker, have killed Darth Jeremiah and will now focus on Emperor English.
|
|
|
Post by Chauncey Billups on Sept 17, 2017 1:26:37 GMT
It's pointless to debate (argue) with someone who has no intention of listening with an open mind.
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 17, 2017 1:33:40 GMT
For a "non-American" you sure have a lot of opinions about other things. Way to keep yourself from looking silly despite the fact I answered every single one of your questions.
I am just going to put my thoughts as I read your post, Emperor English, because the quoting stuff is getting too long.
^that sentence is the correct answer, good job! We can argue about class, gender, the way the wealth should be distributed, and things like that, but not enough people realize this fundamental principal of economics. I applaud you for your honesty and think much more highly of you.
Although I am not sure I would use the adjective "serious," I do not disagree about the problems capitalism creates as a result of it. While it is not perfect, it creates more wealth for everyone which is better than everyone having nothing. No disagreement on the fact we need regulations, but over-regulation kills the businesses incentive to produce efficiently.
Your Quatar thing is sort of silly to be honest with you, but I will agree that "slave" or "virtually no wage" labor is a major problem in today's economy. Where you and I disagree, I am sure, is who to blame for this problem. You want to blame businesses for doing what is in their best interest when, in reality, the governments of country like China, India, and Brazil in conjunction with international agreements, like the Bretton Woods Agreement and the World Trade Organization, encourage businesses to take part in the practice of exploiting workers.
Lol, should I start calling you Alex Trump? The United States opens its market for free to everyone around the world, yet we get nothing of benefit for it. Instead, other countries like China take our jobs and refuse to open their markets to us. Obviously, the United States needed to take part in this practice at the very end of World War II when it was basically the only functioning economy worldwide, but those days are over and we need to start looking after our own interests or we will not longer be the greatest superpower on earth...that excites you doesn't it?
Alright, you got to the part that I disagree with. You are obviously more familiar with economic theory than I am, but the gist of your argument is that you are trying to contain businesses by regulating the heck out of them. Basically, you do not trust them to make a logical decision. I disagree with this idea because the good decisions businesses make are the backbone of a stable economy. Yes, some business leaders will make decisions. You have to trust them as a whole to make the right decision because IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO DO SO. You can try to socially engineer the economy as you proposed in your post, but it will never work because it does not take into account human nature.
The other part of your argument is about the government providing a great deal of social services to people in order to help them do well within a capitalistic system. While I think there is some validity to this line of thinking and obviously people need some social services, I personally would rather have an individual or a corporation decide how to spend money rather than the government. In moderation, the government can and should provide social services. As I told several of my classes, lassie-faire and communism are extremes and possess their own problems; the former because the most efficient thing to do is kill unemployed people while the latter does not provide any incentive to members of its society. As a result, we try to strike some sort of balance between the two. The other problem I see with your idea is the fact that the government takes opportunity away from businesses when they start performing a service (IE: health care) I know this opens a totally different can of worms (I fully acknowledge that healthcare is different than most industries given its importance to people,) but it is something to keep in mind.
You talked almost exclusively about the domestic production within a certain society. I am curious, what do you think about my question "is the notion of the classic nation-state an archaic concept? Do "countries" serve a useful purpose anymore? Similarly, does the concept of "federalism" serve a useful purpose anymore?" International relations play a part in an economy, something you did not address, but maybe you feel like the traditional notion of the "nation-state" is outdated at this point in time?
I am going to be honest with you; while I disagree with some of what you said, you don't sound as totally nuts as you usually do. Why can't you be normal all the time? I think liberals have some good points but y'all are SO HYPERBOLIC!!!!!!!!!!! Just shut up and make your points; we get that you do not like Donald Trump.
PS. I know Josh Barber is a socialist as well, it was a joke more or less.
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 17, 2017 1:33:59 GMT
It's pointless to debate (argue) with someone who has no intention of listening with an open mind. I appreciate the support!
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 17, 2017 3:13:25 GMT
For a "non-American" you sure have a lot of opinions about other things. Way to keep yourself from looking silly despite the fact I answered every single one of your questions. Sure, I just don't want to look silly, that's it Honestly I just don't care. We should both know by now that neither one of us will change their mind. I can't be bothered to be interested in most of what you asked, knowing that it will go nowhere. Economics though? I could debate this all day. ^that sentence is the correct answer, good job! We can argue about class, gender, the way the wealth should be distributed, and things like that, but not enough people realize this fundamental principal of economics. I applaud you for your honesty and think much more highly of you. I think most people hold this view, especially in America where that view is nearly universal. It's just that right wing media does a great job of making you think you're under attack or something. The commies are coming a to take over america, blah blah blah. It's like 'the war on Christmas', it's a threat that doesn't exist. You want to blame businesses for doing what is in their best interest... No, I don't blame them. That's kind of the point, it's not about taking down these evil businesses, it's about realizing that they are what they are, and we should react accordingly. Businesses have no morals. They will do whatever makes them the most money. All that matters is maximizing the wealth of their shareholders. That's fine if we're talking about selling pizza. That's not fine if we're talking about healthcare, or prisons, or any number of other things where a decision could come down to people vs profits. We know businesses will choose profits, so let's just eliminate these toxic incentives from our society. Alright, you got to the part that I disagree with. You are obviously more familiar with economic theory than I am, but the gist of your argument is that you are trying to contain businesses by regulating the heck out of them. Basically, you do not trust them to make a logical decision. I disagree with this idea because the good decisions businesses make are the backbone of a stable economy. Yes, some business leaders will make decisions. You have to trust them as a whole to make the right decision because IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO DO SO. You can try to socially engineer the economy as you proposed in your post, but it will never work because it does not take into account human nature. No, again I trust them to make the exact kind of decision they will always make: maximize profit. Take Martin Shkreli for example, it was in his best interest to raise the price of that medication from $13.50 to $750. In economic terms he had a product with extremely inelastic demand. It didn't matter what the price of that pill was, if you were buying it it's because you needed to in order to maintain your health, therefore price is irrelevant, you're buying that pill no matter what. Shkreli noticed this situation and saw that he could profit from it. He simply followed his own interests, and by doing so he did real damage to those affected by his decision who had no market power to stop him. How could there be anything good about Shkreli's actions? Presumably you don't want to live in a society where that type of thing can happen. When the market comes to a fork in the road where it's either 'people' or 'profit' I think we'd all like to believe society will choose 'people'. But the thing is, we know free market capitalism will actually choose 'profit' nine times out of ten. I'm not saying that with any morality behind it, it just is what it is. So because we understand that, we need the government to step in and force the market to choose 'people' because otherwise nobody will. The government is the only thing that has enough market power to make it happen. The other problem I see with your idea is the fact that the government takes opportunity away from businesses when they start performing a service (IE: health care) I know this opens a totally different can of worms (I fully acknowledge that healthcare is different than most industries given its importance to people,) but it is something to keep in mind. This is an interesting thing to say. Why is the government performing some action a bad thing? Why do you have this adversarial view of governments and businesses? It's not like if the government performs the action that jobs are lost or something. They still need to hire people to do the work. Like if the government all of a sudden started doing everything that Walmart does then the x number of thousands of employees are put out of a job. The only people it would hurt would be the Walton family. Who gives a shit about them though? They're like a dozen people with more wealth than you or I could possibly imagine. Fuck them and their welfare, they'll be fine. Even in this hypothetical world where the government takes over Walmart they'll still be among the richest hundred or so people in America. It's not a thing worth considering. All that would be assuming Walmart and the government would have exactly equal performances. Which they wouldn't. I believe the free market would do far better running Walmart than the government would. So great, tell the government to piss off and let capitalism do it's thing. But what about the things where the government will perform better than the free market? What about the Martin Shkreli situations? Well now it's time to tell the free market to fuck off. Now it's time for the other side to step in a make sure the welfare of the people and general human decency is at the top of the priority list. There are a number of situations where this is evidently necessary. Do you want to police department of the fire department to be a for-profit service? Fuck no you don't. Some douchebag that would tell you to 'pay up or we'll let your house burn down' has no place in a modern and progressive society. That's pretty much it. Both sides have their strengths, and both sides should control the markets where they will create the best outcomes for society at large. The only debate that should be had, is who does best at what? You talked almost exclusively about the domestic production within a certain society. I am curious, what do you think about my question "is the notion of the classic nation-state an archaic concept? Do "countries" serve a useful purpose anymore? Similarly, does the concept of "federalism" serve a useful purpose anymore?" International relations play a part in an economy, something you did not address, but maybe you feel like the traditional notion of the "nation-state" is outdated at this point in time? No the nation-state is definitely not outdated. For tons of reasons that you can pick out from what I've said above. Unless you're trying to get at something else here? I think as the world becomes more connected we will inevitably see an amalgamation of government power. We've seen this begin with things like the EU and the UN. In the long run I think it's inevitable that we'll see some kind of world government. I don't really know what 'long run' means though, it could easily be hundreds of years, but I think it's human nature and there is nothing we can do about it. We will eventually merge into one unified society. Even in that world though, we'd still need more local forms of government. Bureaucracy is a real problem and it gets worse the bigger the organization gets. We need relatively quick and efficient decision making in order to have an effective government. Some amount of decentralization is necessary. I am going to be honest with you; while I disagree with some of what you said, you don't sound as totally nuts as you usually do. Why can't you be normal all the time? I think liberals have some good points but y'all are SO HYPERBOLIC!!!!!!!!!!! Just shut up and make your points; we get that you do not like Donald Trump. This is the nicest thing you've ever said to me lol. PS. I know Josh Barber is a socialist as well, it was a joke more or less. See, we're on such completely different pages that I read some of your statements as jokes, and your jokes as statements.
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 17, 2017 16:00:26 GMT
I have read most of the post but would like to say two things off the bat. #1: You are giving rational answers to these economics questions. I guess you have studied economics? I am probably not the best person to debate you on these topics considering I never even took basic economics because psychology is so much easier. While I regret it, psychology helped me quite a bit with the stuff I actually studied like history, English, education, government, and law. Anyways, my point is that we, as a nation/continent/world should be having these types of conversations rather than the garbage you asked me about. #2: I said liberals have a point but are hyperbolic which your change in attitude depending on the topics illustrates his perfectly. You sit there and call Trump a Nazi, yet he has not put anyone in an oven yet. I will want to impeach as much as you do the VERY SECOND he puts someone in an oven. Until then, can we refrain from making such crazy and outlandish statements? I thought a lot of negative thoughts Barack Hussien Obama, the only thing I liked about him was that he was black (by the way), but did not say those publicly because it made me sound crazy and lose credibility in a civil discussion. Ideas and principals are much more important than people, and I support Donald Trump primarily because his views on economics most closely align with mine. Historically I believe you are correct, but the younger people in the United States think elites within society stole and exploited lands from minorities. Obviously there is a kernel of truth to this, but it's not like every other country would not do the same thing if given the opportunity to do so. They want to punish wealthy people, but do not realize that without them 1. society as a whole will become weaker 2. they will not be able to get a job without wealthy people once they get out of college. I took classes in graduate school that looked at history through the eyes of China, Russia, and the Greeks and Romans. In none of those did the professor scrutinize the history of those countries the same way the professor scrutinize the history the United States. I personally think we need to cool it on the anti-American rhetoric and start talking about real solutions to the problems facing the nation and the world as a whole. I agree with you 1000% on healthcare and almost look at it as its own separate issue because of its constant high demand for the service. As far as prisons, why couldn't the private sector run them? If we let them, I beat they would put them to work instead of letting them mooch off the taxpayers. Seriously, we messed up getting rid of the Chain Gang; it could be a New Deal-like work program that could do things the private sector does not see the incentive to do in an efficient manner. If nothing else, the Soviet Union proved that virtual slave labor can compete for almost a decade with a free-market system. Another way to combat the problem you described above is to create competition amongst pharmaceutical companies. Shkreli makes that price jump while Alex's Advil lowers their price from $14 to $13. Who are you going to buy from? I know you are going to say to talk about the monopoly's on pharmaceutical drugs the person who invented the drugs get on it. While I do not know much about this to be honest with you, I think it is something to at least debate about and you may have a valid point in that regard. I just think the government makes the wrong decision more often than not despite having good intentions.' [/strike] I am going to mark out the parts that I am less interested in talking about, so you can know what I am focusing in on. To sum the top part that is struck out, you hate Walmart but agree that it does a better job than the free-market. While I do not hate Wal-Mart, I agree with your premise there. As far as the bottom part, I agree with you 1000%. I actually agree with your premise in the part that is not struck out, but I think we disagree when the public sector does a better job of running something. First of all, who decides when to tell them to "fuck off?" I think a lot of government employees, especially people on the left who want the type of arrangement you are talking about, are very reactionary. Case in point, the Washington Redskins mascot is racist. Therefore, why not take over the Washington Redskins? What sort of test do we have to decide when the private sector is not doing its job effectively? Next, you are using the medical examples because free-market does not do as good of a job at regulating them. Here my answer to the medical problem: - Create a new legal definition known as "critically ill."
- Give doctors the power to or come up with some sort of process to nominate someone as "critically ill." Once that label is established, the government provides for their healthcare at somewhere between 100% to 90% The critique for this must be strict, however, as many people will try to mooch off the government given how great of deal this is for the "critically ill" people. Current Medicaid or Medicare (which everyone is for poor people) should cover most it not all of this expense.
- Let the private sector run healthcare for everyone else. This should keep prices low since the people who bring it down are not part of the exchange process. I also think competition amongst insurance companies and health-savings accounts could further make this system better. Heck, we might even be able to make insurance companies go back to covering catastrophic injuries only and make it affordable where you can pay to go to the doctor if you have a cold or something minor.
To further illustrate my point, let me give you my thoughts on the current Public School Education Crisis in the United States. The people in charge of education, I call them "Big Education" along with college people, tried to educate "everyone" and have now abdicated their duty to teach the people that want to learn something. The world will never be perfect, so why worry about the kids that just want to cause problems? Instead of listening to common sense, they water down the curriculum to try and pass as many people as possible. I am not talking about any of kind racial or social-economic component (in fact, I wholeheartedly now believe that females are the superior gender because they will AT LEAST sit in their chairs and not cause problems if they do not like something) as it is apparent who does and does not want to learn something regardless of class. Let the problem kids go do manual labor or something, and see if their attitude does not change about education. If it does not, then they are in the right field for them.
I really think the private sector needs to get involved in education to help the middle-class kids that want to do something with their lives. I, as a product of school choice via the small place I grew up in Texas, am 1000% for the school voucher program because it is the only way that some kids can afford a decent education. What will happen, or at least I think, is public schools can become places to teach kids from terrible backgrounds how to function in society while private schools can educate kids from middle-class and poorer backgrounds that actually want to learn something. My situation right now is weird because I am teaching at a public school with a small school district due to the town it is in, yet 60% of the kids at that school are transfers from bigger school districts in the area. It is hard to obtain housing in the little town, so there are no major problem students unless they move to the little town. Anyways, I feel like I have taught like much more knowledge than I did all of last year. Obviously, my school is a public institution, but I would argue that it can and should be a model for either the way schools should be or how powerful private schools could potentially be in the right situation. No, I am not trying to get anything out of you with that question because some liberals honestly feel like we should have one world government. That is fine if you believe that but simply be honest about it. My personal opinion, I DO NOT want one world government in the slightest but almost feel like it would be better than quasi-one world government (with the UN, the EU, and things like that.) Either way, no one should have a problem with a nation-state protecting its border UNLESS you believe in one world government Yeah, I feel like we made progress throughout this argument. The only thing I would ask you and everyone is to quit being so hyperbolic about everything! Graduate school taught one thing if nothing else; we honestly are not as far apart as we think we are (although you and I are far apart,) but hyperbolic rhetoric (IE: Trump is a Nazi, Obama is a communist, or no one would convict Ted Cruz's killer if he got shot in the senate floor and the senate held the trial) gets in the way of coming up with solutions. Oh, and I am sorry about the Marc Gasol thing if I never said sorry before!
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Sept 17, 2017 16:26:15 GMT
What we really need to do is overthrow the dictatorial regime of Ian Noble. His reign as a fascist commissioner has gone on long enough. He has committed multiple crimes against humanity, including but not limited to the genocide of Phoenix Suns GMs, the internment of promising young talent, and even the destruction of his own team through ACL tears. Let's put aside our differences and band together brothers, combined we have the power to break these chains and create a new, fairer sim league, where everyone shares the good players and no one ever goes a week without a win! GMs of the world unite! EDIT: just realized this thread is about real world politics. Disregard the above.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 17, 2017 18:36:56 GMT
#2: I said liberals have a point but are hyperbolic which your change in attitude depending on the topics illustrates his perfectly. You sit there and call Trump a Nazi, yet he has not put anyone in an oven yet. I will want to impeach as much as you do the VERY SECOND he puts someone in an oven. Until then, can we refrain from making such crazy and outlandish statements? I thought a lot of negative thoughts Barack Hussien Obama, the only thing I liked about him was that he was black (by the way), but did not say those publicly because it made me sound crazy and lose credibility in a civil discussion. Ideas and principals are much more important than people, and I support Donald Trump primarily because his views on economics most closely align with mine. Ok, but where have I made crazy and outlandish statements? I've called Donald Trump many things, but I've never called him a Nazi. Just because one liberal says something doesn't mean all other liberals also believe it. I lean to the left for sure, but I think the extreme left is just as toxic as the extreme right. Yeah, I feel like we made progress throughout this argument. The only thing I would ask you and everyone is to quit being so hyperbolic about everything! Graduate school taught one thing if nothing else; we honestly are not as far apart as we think we are (although you and I are far apart,) but hyperbolic rhetoric (IE: Trump is a Nazi, Obama is a communist, or no one would convict Ted Cruz's killer if he got shot in the senate floor and the senate held the trial) gets in the way of coming up with solutions. Oh, and I am sorry about the Marc Gasol thing if I never said sorry before! I agree, we've had tons of arguments in the past, but I think this is the first one where we managed to find a decent amount of common ground, which was unexpected to be honest lol. I also think most liberals and conservatives are not as far apart as we might think, if only there could be open and honest debate. The news media doesn't do that anymore though, they stokes the flames and try to radicalize both sides, radicalization creates drama, and drama gets good ratings. The news media has forgotten they're supposed to provide the news, first and foremost. Shitholes like Fox News, Breitbart and others on the right demonize the left, while garbage outlets like MSNBC, Salon and others on the left demonize the right. Is there even a mainstream neutral source of news in America anymore? I think the state of the media is causing real political crises in the US. The Marc Gasol stuff has long since been water under the bridge. No worries about any of that.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Sept 17, 2017 20:37:54 GMT
What we really need to do is overthrow the dictatorial regime of Ian Noble. His reign as a fascist commissioner has gone on long enough. He has committed multiple crimes against humanity, including but not limited to the genocide of Phoenix Suns GMs, the internment of promising young talent, and even the destruction of his own team through ACL tears. Let's put aside our differences and band together brothers, combined we have the power to break these chains and create a new, fairer sim league, where everyone shares the good players and no one ever goes a week without a win! GMs of the world unite! EDIT: just realized this thread is about real world politics. Disregard the above. One week in Sweden and you're already coming quickly to the Left
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Sept 18, 2017 16:20:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Sept 18, 2017 16:27:36 GMT
I don't think Donald Trump is a Nazi. I do find it questionable that he refused to immediately denounce Neo-Nazis, the KKK and other white supremicists after they murdered a person. I mean, come on you aren't worried about that in the slightest?
Also in response to a random previous statement about world government.
If the human race lasts another hundred years we will be trending towards a global government. Thats just going to be the natural progression of our species I think.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Sept 18, 2017 22:12:27 GMT
Maybe being a peice of shit is necessary in order to become rich anymore. Well they do say that most psychopaths end up either in jail, or in the boardroom. I'd say becoming a powerful politician isn't much different from becoming a powerful businessman. Douglas Adams had it right when he said "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
|
|
Vlade Divac
Former Kings GM
Sophomore
Posts: 629
Feb 23, 2024 23:40:50 GMT
|
Post by Vlade Divac on Sept 20, 2017 2:44:40 GMT
#2: I said liberals have a point but are hyperbolic which your change in attitude depending on the topics illustrates his perfectly. You sit there and call Trump a Nazi, yet he has not put anyone in an oven yet. I will want to impeach as much as you do the VERY SECOND he puts someone in an oven. Until then, can we refrain from making such crazy and outlandish statements? I thought a lot of negative thoughts Barack Hussien Obama, the only thing I liked about him was that he was black (by the way), but did not say those publicly because it made me sound crazy and lose credibility in a civil discussion. Ideas and principals are much more important than people, and I support Donald Trump primarily because his views on economics most closely align with mine. Ok, but where have I made crazy and outlandish statements? I've called Donald Trump many things, but I've never called him a Nazi. Just because one liberal says something doesn't mean all other liberals also believe it. I lean to the left for sure, but I think the extreme left is just as toxic as the extreme right. Yeah, I feel like we made progress throughout this argument. The only thing I would ask you and everyone is to quit being so hyperbolic about everything! Graduate school taught one thing if nothing else; we honestly are not as far apart as we think we are (although you and I are far apart,) but hyperbolic rhetoric (IE: Trump is a Nazi, Obama is a communist, or no one would convict Ted Cruz's killer if he got shot in the senate floor and the senate held the trial) gets in the way of coming up with solutions. Oh, and I am sorry about the Marc Gasol thing if I never said sorry before! I agree, we've had tons of arguments in the past, but I think this is the first one where we managed to find a decent amount of common ground, which was unexpected to be honest lol. I also think most liberals and conservatives are not as far apart as we might think, if only there could be open and honest debate. The news media doesn't do that anymore though, they stokes the flames and try to radicalize both sides, radicalization creates drama, and drama gets good ratings. The news media has forgotten they're supposed to provide the news, first and foremost. Shitholes like Fox News, Breitbart and others on the right demonize the left, while garbage outlets like MSNBC, Salon and others on the left demonize the right. Is there even a mainstream neutral source of news in America anymore? I think the state of the media is causing real political crises in the US. The Marc Gasol stuff has long since been water under the bridge. No worries about any of that.Yeah, I agree with most of what you said. I think for the sake of sanity, we should just stop there as I have little time to continue the argument anyways.
|
|