Katrina victims are victims again. [Archive]

Jangang

06-09-2008, 08:02 PM

I remember when they gave out those trailers. They were meant to be temporary housing solutions. They were never meant to be lived in long term, they were just a stop gap so people had a roof right after the hurricane, but before they had time to consider moving, or figure out how they were going to get another house, or apt somewhere.

I can't really blame FEMA for this one though, even if you ignore that. They just ordered trailers, and wanted them done quick. They didn't create a lengthy sheet of regulations in order to speed things up. One shouldn't need to tell trailer manufacturers that trailers used to house people need to be up to code...

Some fault lies w/ the manufacturers, but lets not forget the people who lived in these things for periods much longer then they were intended for either. They can take some responsibility themselves. (Though they won't, thats whats wrong with people today.)

Jangang

06-09-2008, 08:03 PM

Slypieguy

06-09-2008, 08:03 PM

complete the argument please.

Matriel pretty much summed it up already, but they were:
1. Living in a geographic bowl beside the shore
2. Watching a category 5 hurricane approach
3. Too stupid to GTFO
4. Too stupid to have insurance

And now:
5. Crying because they don't get their lives of satellite TV and Escalades that they couldn't afford returned to them on the backs of the American taxpayers

Virtra

06-09-2008, 08:03 PM

Can 4 year vets even claim VA care? Even if I could, I wouldn't use the VA if it was life or death. That place is a fucking disaster.

I get health care from my place of employment. It's an internal system. Our hospital actually turns quite a profit.
Yeah I'm pretty sure you could, but whether you'd want to depends on which VA you were near by. Like you said, some are disasters, but there is a huge range and some are top quality health care facilities. There is one close to where I live that is the latter type.

I think you get VA benefits for like 5 years. Thats what I've been told anyway.Yeah that might be it... but I think there are some things that vets can use the VA for before the 5 year mark.

Viranth

06-09-2008, 08:06 PM

You can tell how advanced a civilization is by how they treat their poor.

Obama would fix that shit, by taxing Matriel some of course.

sawyerj66

06-09-2008, 08:11 PM

Matriel pretty much summed it up already, but they were:
1. Living in a geographic bowl beside the shore
2. Watching a category 5 hurricane approach
3. Too stupid to GTFO
4. Too stupid to have insurance

And now:
5. Crying because they don't get their lives of satellite TV and Escalades that they couldn't afford returned to them on the backs of the American taxpayers
QFT.

I'm not sticking it to FEMA on this one, sorry. The problem was with the manufacturers - they knew what the trailers were being used for. Secondly, the trailers were supposed to be temporary living spaces. And lastly...can we stress insurance again? Give me a break. Just a bunch of lower-class people who (sadly) lost their homes and now expect everything to be handed to them. Sorry, should've had insurance. If I'm driving around in a car with no insurance and someone else causes the car accident? Am I in any less trouble? No. Am I any less stupid? No.

The only people I have pity for are the children. It's not their fault they were born to such irresponsible parents.

Slypieguy

06-09-2008, 08:11 PM

You can tell how advanced a civilization is by how they treat their poor.

Obama would fix that shit, by taxing Matriel some of course.

Yes, treating them as helpless nobodies who will never have a chance to improve their situations on their own really does show a lot.

Slypieguy

06-09-2008, 08:12 PM

The problem was with the manufacturers - they knew what the trailers were being used for. Secondly, the trailers were supposed to be temporary living spaces.

Implied warranty of merchantability motherfucker, do you have it?

Matriel

06-09-2008, 08:14 PM

I think you get VA benefits for like 5 years. Thats what I've been told anyway.

Never checked into it. Didn't even want the shit.

Matriel pretty much summed it up already, but they were:
1. Living in a geographic bowl beside the shore
2. Watching a category 5 hurricane approach
3. Too stupid to GTFO
4. Too stupid to have insurance

And now:
5. Crying because they don't get their lives of satellite TV and Escalades that they couldn't afford returned to them on the backs of the American taxpayers

There are some cases of insurance companies trying to stick some people. Hopefully that shit gets handled in court properly or already was.

Yeah I'm pretty sure you could, but whether you'd want to depends on which VA you were near by. Like you said, some are disasters, but there is a huge range and some are top quality health care facilities. There is one close to where I live that is the latter type.

The VA here is right next to our University med center. I still ain't going to it though. :p

You can tell how advanced a civilization is by how they treat their poor.

Obama would fix that shit, by taxing Matriel some of course.

Says fucking who? How did you get to be the decider on advancement of civilization there George Bush?

Slypieguy

06-09-2008, 08:16 PM

There are some cases of insurance companies trying to stick some people. Hopefully that shit gets handled in court properly or already was.

Yea, and I think there were some situations where the insurers of the insurance companies went into default, which is weak. I don't blame the people that had that happen to them. At the same time, I still don't think it means they deserve a federal handout.

Matriel

06-09-2008, 08:18 PM

Yea, and I think there were some situations where the insurers of the insurance companies went into default, which is weak. I don't blame the people that had that happen to them. At the same time, I still don't think it means they deserve a federal handout.

Right. They just deserve civil justice.

ExiliuM

06-09-2008, 08:19 PM

Skeet

Skree

Yatenkaiohu

06-09-2008, 08:42 PM

Uzik

06-09-2008, 08:46 PM

I'm going to build my home next to the mouth of a volcano. Insurance? Why would I need that? I expect the government to build me a new house if anything happens!

GlacierFreeze

06-09-2008, 08:47 PM

Yes, treating them as helpless nobodies who will never have a chance to improve their situations on their own really does show a lot.

What whaa? I don't know how black people act in New Orleans, but up here they don't really do anything to better themselves. I dunno D:

Skree

Yeah if they can't get off their ass and help themselves then fuck'em (that goes to anyone, regardless of color).

And Yatenkaiohu, they are the same in the north as in the south? I figured they would be different.... lol

Yatenkaiohu

06-09-2008, 08:50 PM

Yeah if they can't get off their ass and help themselves then fuck'em (that goes to anyone, regardless of color).

And Yatenkaiohu, they are the same in the north as in the south? I figured they would be different.... lol

I've been told by some black friends that east coast black people are generally more lazy unproductive. That's a really scary thought as some of the ghetto neighborhoods around here are pretty fucked up.

sawyerj66

06-09-2008, 08:54 PM

I've been told by some black friends that east coast black people are generally more lazy unproductive. That's a really scary thought as some of the ghetto neighborhoods around here are pretty fucked up.
As a New Yorker, I was always under the impression that west coast black people were more violent, and all wear either blue or red.

Killuminati

06-09-2008, 09:02 PM

I've been told by some black friends that east coast black people are generally more lazy unproductive. That's a really scary thought as some of the ghetto neighborhoods around here are pretty fucked up.

Its mostly because New York is infested with Puerto Ricans which are the welfare leechers.

GlacierFreeze

06-09-2008, 09:04 PM

I've been told by some black friends that east coast black people are generally more lazy unproductive. That's a really scary thought as some of the ghetto neighborhoods around here are pretty fucked up.

So it must be the same everywhere?? (I know quite a few respectable black people, I see more lazy ones though. White people the same...)

Metal Wolf

06-09-2008, 09:14 PM

Don't worry Bush will save them!

skree

heroshade

06-09-2008, 10:07 PM

Why must black people always play the victim?

Skree

Matriel

06-09-2008, 10:16 PM

When 7% of the population accounts for like 33% of its murders you have to do something.

Xinnro

06-09-2008, 10:45 PM

Why must black people always play the victim?

Skree

They have to serve some purpose in society.

Slypieguy

06-09-2008, 11:01 PM

What whaa? I don't know how black people act in New Orleans, but up here they don't really do anything to better themselves. I dunno D:

Skree

That's my whole point... our current system of suckling the big government teat is the opposite of what they need to get off their asses, yet we have people running around suggesting that we need to go MORE in that direction

Thrill_KIll

06-09-2008, 11:09 PM

Being that I was born in the area, lived there for awhile, and worked there after katerina hit....let me clear a few things up.

First, a few insurance companies did deny people money. If you had flood coverage, they claimed wind damage was the culprit, and it let rain in. Or if you didn't have flood coverage, they cited that as the reason for damage, even though no flood waters reached their areas.

Now, having said that, most of the people who actualy had insurance were people on the Mississippi and Alabama coasts. Almost everyone on the Florida coasts had it, I guess from being used to hurricanes. Hardly anyone in the New Orleans area had insurance. Hell, anyone familiar with that area knows that most decent housing is in the outlying suburbs like Woodmere.

Secondly, the only government that failed those people was their local and state government. The biggest failure was by the dumb fuck bitch of a governor they had who told Bush she did not need any national guard units from other states to lend support. Bush offered her this BEFORE the hurricane hit.

And while I do feel bad for a few of those hurt by the hurricane, the majority of that populace can kiss my ass. I saw them turn down pot luck food and water brought by a church, and tell them they wanted "McDonald's and beer!". Then they told them they deserved it. They deserved Mickey D's and beer!

I can assure you, what you saw about that whole fiasco on the news, and what really happened there are two COMPLETELY different stories.

losinglife

06-10-2008, 08:02 AM

Moar people need to Skree it up around here...

Skree

heroshade

06-10-2008, 08:13 AM

Moar people need to Skree it up around here...

Skree

QFT

go skree your self, you skreeing skree

Pcheez

06-10-2008, 08:48 AM

QQ moar

Skree (we still doing that?)

WhiteGuy

06-10-2008, 08:54 AM

Gogo government!

Skree

losinglife

06-10-2008, 10:51 AM

QQ moar

Skree (we still doing that?)

Yes.. i totally slacked today tho and forgot to skree my posts.

Skree

Bolter

06-10-2008, 11:06 AM

Tough luck.

Skree

BlackVolgan

06-10-2008, 11:22 AM

looting karma.

Skree

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 12:06 PM

Slypieguy

06-10-2008, 02:28 PM

You're really inhumane

Those who advocate for unjust property transfers on such an enormous scale are the most inhumane of all.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 02:39 PM

Those who advocate for unjust property transfers on such an enormous scale are the most inhumane of all.

Bullshit.
Inhumanity is when you despite your property and wealth protests a wealth transfer to those worst of in a society. Those who are suffering.

Your arguments completely fail overall.
In a society as rich as yours (America) people should not need to suffer.
They should not need to live in poverty - especially if they work -
One job should be enough to provide each man and woman with a good standard of living in which she or he can afford a house, food on the table and still have enough money to take the kids to college, recive healthcare and things like this.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 02:42 PM

Bullshit.
Inhumanity is when you despite your property and wealth protests a wealth transfer to those worst of in a society. Those who are suffering.

Your arguments completely fail overall.
In a society as rich as yours (America) people should not need to suffer.
They should not need to live in poverty - especially if they work -
One job should be enough to provide each man and woman with a good standard of living in which she or he can afford a house, food on the table and still have enough money to take the kids to college, recive healthcare and things like this.

Fucking bullshit on you for not having a clue.

Americans donated a fucktton of money to Katrina victims in the form of private charity.

There is never an excuse to have property stolen for wealth redistribution. If you want to have compassion, give your own money to those that have trouble.

You Europeans crack me the fuck up. You always argue for wealth redistribution to take care of those people that are bad off and then yell at Americans for not doing it as much when Americans donate far more to private charities. How about if you give that much of a shit, you sell your fucking computer and donate that to poor people you damn hypocrites.

Mordhak

06-10-2008, 02:48 PM

They had it coming.

Skree

Brillen

06-10-2008, 02:50 PM

Two thing:

1. It's because Bush hates the black persons!!

2. Think this might be a way for god to say he wants New Orleans to just die? :ohno:

Brillen

06-10-2008, 02:51 PM

Fucking bullshit on you for not having a clue.

Americans donated a fucktton of money to Katrina victims in the form of private charity.

There is never an excuse to have property stolen for wealth redistribution. If you want to have compassion, give your own money to those that have trouble.

You Europeans crack me the fuck up. You always argue for wealth redistribution to take care of those people that are bad off and then yell at Americans for not doing it as much when Americans donate far more to private charities. How about if you give that much of a shit, you sell your fucking computer and donate that to poor people you damn hypocrites.

win! :D

Mordhak

06-10-2008, 02:54 PM

Matriel I'd appreciate it if you'd stop generalizing. I hate wellfare too.

Skree

Brillen

06-10-2008, 02:56 PM

Matriel I'd appreciate it if you'd stop generalizing. I hate wellfare too.

Skree

Bigger win :D

losinglife

06-10-2008, 03:01 PM

Matriel I'd appreciate it if you'd stop generalizing. I hate wellfare too.

Skree

stop crying :(

Skree

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 03:05 PM

Okey you greedy little bastard: Matriel.

First of all:
The only reason why America is in the state it is is because big corporations have realised that planned economy works better than competitive market economy.

The problem is that they utilize the planned economy they have created for their own good and the good of the other corporations in the massive cartells.
Your economy has become an economy of monopoly.

Small businesses and new businesses are being outcompeted by large existing ones through among other things massive price dumping, aggressive marketing, almost unconstitutional copyright laws and increasingly strict centralised control.

EA has moved almost all offices it has bought to one place and there are entire villages in america today completely owned by corporations.
General Electrics controlls so many different corporations in so many different sectors that they can directly manipulate the market by accepting high losses in one sector temporaly to outcompete an other company while supplying it with other sectors in its massive conglomerate.

This has led to that wages are no longer market-wages but manipulated wages that have been created by the big corporations in their race for profit.
Big corporations have realised that if they work together and control entire markets through a few big companies they can set the rules and set the wages. More to the CEOs and stockowners, less for the working man.

It's time to wake up and realise that your society is not healthy.
That there exists immense poverty among working class people while some individuals get richer and richer. Your society is sick...your country is sick - it's not well -. You need to force income-redistribution and take ahold of your nations economy like you did during the depression and after world war 2.

Through government regulations and price control you managed to increase production very rapidly and so the standard of living of the ordinary man.
You need force a distribution of wealth so that you don't have people suffering in your country because of the massive corruption.

IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT A WORKING MAN OR WOMAN CAN'T PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THEMSELVES IN AMERICA

Uzik

06-10-2008, 03:10 PM

Don't you all realize that the government is much more efficient at helping those in need than private charities?

....

L2Charity Europe

Brillen

06-10-2008, 03:14 PM

IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT A WORKING MAN OR WOMAN CAN'T PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THEMSELVES IN AMERICA

My sister dropped out of high school, moved out of the house cuz she got pissed off at my parents for making her clean her room. She then worked on her AAH (Adult High School) degree while cleaning beach houses (irony), took out a 1k loan and now leases a house with a friend.

People can pay for housing here in America if they use common sense and and stop paying for shit they can pay for.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 03:20 PM

You need to force income-redistribution and take ahold of your nations economy like you did during the depression and after world war 2.

Learn history or just go kill yourself. Our economy was stimulated by WWII because of the massive drafting and volunteering into the army and the MASSIVE amounts of jobs that opened up support the war effort. Drafting meant that men had to leave their jobs and women came into the work place earning the average family duel wages. Now that America has a fully voluntary military drafting is virtually a dead program. secondly mechanics has made it so that machinery can do what a normal work force within a factory can't and faster.

So stfu, you don't know what your talking about.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 03:20 PM

Matriel I'd appreciate it if you'd stop generalizing. I hate wellfare too.

Skree

My apologies. I do stereotype Europeans pretty hard, but there's a reason for that.

Okey you greedy little bastard: Matriel.

Lol, I love how wanting to keep your property makes you greedy. MATRIEL YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR HOUSE THAT YOU PAID FOR, HOW DARE YOU ASSSHOLE!!!!

First of all:
The only reason why America is in the state it is is because big corporations have realised that planned economy works better than competitive market economy.

The problem is that they utilize the planned economy they have created for their own good and the good of the other corporations in the massive cartells.
Your economy has become an economy of monopoly.

Small businesses and new businesses are being outcompeted by large existing ones through among other things massive price dumping, aggressive marketing, almost unconstitutional copyright laws and increasingly strict centralised control.

EA has moved almost all offices it has bought to one place and there are entire villages in america today completely owned by corporations.
General Electrics controlls so many different corporations in so many different sectors that they can directly manipulate the market by accepting high losses in one sector temporaly to outcompete an other company while supplying it with other sectors in its massive conglomerate.

This has led to that wages are no longer market-wages but manipulated wages that have been created by the big corporations in their race for profit.
Big corporations have realised that if they work together and control entire markets through a few big companies they can set the rules and set the wages. More to the CEOs and stockowners, less for the working man.

Oh look, you wrote an unrelated book to what I'm talking about. Corporations buying legislation via corrupt politicians has absolutely nothing to do with wealth redistribution. It also is not an argument for wealth redistribution.

It's time to wake up and realise that your society is not healthy.
That there exists immense poverty among working class people while some individuals get richer and richer. Your society is sick...your country is sick - it's not well -. You need to force incomedistribution and take ahold of your nations economy like you did during the depression and after world war 2.

Through government regulations and price control you managed to increase production very rapidly and so the standard of living of the ordinary man.
You need force a distribution of wealth so that you don't have people suffering in your country because of the massive corruption.

IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT A WORKING MAN OR WOMAN CAN'T PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THEMSELVES IN AMERICA

A working family can provide housing for themselves in America. In fact, we made it so easy that there was a backlash that nearly took the entire housing market down.

Wealth redistribution and government programs are arguably the reason that the Depression lasted as long as it did. Arguing that since corporations can buy legislation is a reason we need wealth redistribution is stupid. Why would more of a broken system fix what is broken? Just stop allowing corporations to buy legislation. Allow the market to actually control wages instead of crooked fuckers in power.

You don't even understand how basic economics work, you just like that the rich get fucked with wealth redistribution because you have a bunch of class envy and that makes you feel better on an emotional level.

Desperado[1G]

06-10-2008, 03:20 PM

If you have an IQ above room temperature and aren't fiscally retarded, you can support yourself and own your own home in America. This picture you continue to paint about legions of homeless hard-working Americans lining the streets is fucking retarded. Life is not hard here.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 03:35 PM

You don't even understand how basic economics work, you just like that the rich get fucked with wealth redistribution because you have a bunch of class envy and that makes you feel better on an emotional level.

I understand perfectly well how basic economics work.

Let's say that the 10 major carmanufacturers make a cartell.
These ten can now decide on wages. They can put wages quite low if they wish so that their profits get higher.

This means that the market has been manipulated and results in lower wages for anyone working with cars.

The same thing is then done in other economic sectors.
Suddenly you have a planned economy but not in the service of the people but in the service of the corporations. All because you had no regulations on corporations. Because you fucking removed regulations under the Clinton era and Bush era when it comes to for example how many newsoutlets a newscorporation can own.

That's why you today have corporate media and not free media.

You are not a free country and your wages aren't distributed fairly.
They are not distributed fairly from a moral point of view (that is "Fair" point of view)
And they aren't distributed fairly according to market laws.
They are distributed only according to what the big corporations want them to be.

So you are not a socialist country in any way and you are not a free-market country. You are very near being an oligarchy.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 03:43 PM

I understand perfectly well how basic economics work.

Let's say that the 10 major carmanufacturers make a cartell.
These ten can now decide on wages. They can put wages quite low if they wish so that their profits get higher.

This means that the market has been manipulated and results in lower wages for anyone working with cars.

And then Toyota comes along and offers better wages and a superiour product and kicks the shit out of the cartel. Oh man, reality is a bitch.

The same thing is then done in other economic sectors.
Suddenly you have a planned economy but not in the service of the people but in the service of the corporations. All because you had no regulations on corporations. Because you fucking removed regulations under the Clinton era and Bush era when it comes to for example how many newsoutlets a newscorporation can own.

That's why you today have corporate media and not free media.

Lol, like a government planned economy is in service of the people. Have you ever read any history?

And the reason that corporations can achieve legal control is because of regulations, not because of a lack of them. You obviously don't understand economics.

You are not a free country and your wages aren't distributed fairly.
They are not distributed fairly from a moral point of view (that is "Fair" point of view)
And they aren't distributed fairly according to market laws.
They are distributed only according to what the big corporations want them to be.

So you are not a socialist country in any way and you are not a free-market country. You are very near being an oligarchy.

Lol not distributed fairly by who's definition? Cause the last time I checked if you agreed to work for an unfair wage that's your fucking fault.

Drop the fucking class envy crybaby bullshit and stop making up crap.

Slaker

06-10-2008, 03:44 PM

Skree that!

Skree

Brillen

06-10-2008, 03:49 PM

Let's say that the 10 major carmanufacturers make a cartell.
These ten can now decide on wages. They can put wages quite low if they wish so that their profits get higher.

Correct me if I'm wrong and call me a jackass but...

Businesses are in business to make money. If a business is no making money and they will not be in business.

That said, secondly. ya there are people who get shit wages but it allows the company as a whole to be more competitive against those who would take their business. This means lower prices for the consumer. Look at the raise in minimum wage in America (since we're wanting to bash American economics). A two dollar raise in salary was a good sound for people until the price of generic soda when from 79 cents to a dollar and 10 cents. what happened there is that the grocery store was unable to give lower prices without making enough money. so to cover expenses, they raise their prices and hence forth everyone now pays a dollar more for milk.

So, you force big business to give money to the poor and they have to make that money back some how.

I personally don't think that people who work their way to the top show have to bring everyone up with them. If you want something (even if it means getting out of a trailer and into a good size home in the suberbs) then plan your action and work for it. People work their way out of the shit holes that life gives them every day. Only thing that makes it hard is the person to lazy to get off his ass and make something of him/herself.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 03:51 PM

You are not a free country and your wages aren't distributed fairly.
They are not distributed fairly from a moral point of view (that is "Fair" point of view)
And they aren't distributed fairly according to market laws.
They are distributed only according to what the big corporations want them to be.

there is a difference between "fair" and "even". Your thinking of the latter.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 03:56 PM

All I hear is: Lol, bitch, crybaby etc.
Words from someone who's already lost the debate.

And the reason that corporations can achieve legal control is because of regulations, not because of a lack of them. You obviously don't understand economics.
You tell me to watch to look on history?
I gave you a clear example of what HAPPEND as a DIRECT result of REMOVING regulations and you ignore it? Way to fail dude.

And then Toyota comes along and offers better wages and a superiour product and kicks the shit out of the cartel. Oh man, reality is a bitch.

What the fuck? "Offers a superior product?"
You don't get it do you?

GE owns General Motoros which owns several different carmanufacturing companies by itself. Let's say GE is the cartel itself (which indirectly it is). GE includes all current big car manufacturers in America in our fantasy world.

A new company emerges on the market. Call it "Bubblegum".
Bubblegum has a starting capital of half a billion USD.
It opens a couple of factories and starts producing its cars.

A fair car, looks pretty good, drives pretty good... just a next choice for the consumer.
It can only afford to hire X number of people from the start, say 5000.
The rest keep working at GE.

GE notices this and bribes the cardealers by offering them very cheap cars that they can sell for below the old price and still make huge profits.

People see the GE car, it looks good, drives good.
They see the bubblegum car...same thing.

Then they look at the price.
Because of the already much greater capital and the much lower wages GE is selling their car almost two times cheaper than what Bubblegum is selling theirs for.

The only chance for Bubblegums owner to do anything (because his capital is running out) is to either lower his wages to in which case GE will further underbid him and push him out of the market or he can sell his company to GE.

Either case, Bubblegum has been destroyed and wages stay low.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 04:03 PM

All I hear is: Lol, bitch, crybaby etc.
Words from someone who's already lost the debate.

Emotional arguments merit only contempt. Stop arguing like a woman and I'll stop making fun of your argument.

You tell me to watch to look on history?
I gave you a clear example of what HAPPEND as a DIRECT result of REMOVING regulations and you ignore it? Way to fail dude.

Show me an example of it then? Cause the last time we added regulations, it fucked up the entire health care industry (HMO act).

What the fuck? "Offers a superior product?"
You don't get it do you?

GE owns General Motoros which owns several different carmanufacturing companies by itself. Let's say GE is the cartel itself (which indirectly it is). GE includes all current big car manufacturers in America in our fantasy world.

A new company emerges on the market. Call it "Bubblegum".
Bubblegum has a starting capital of half a billion USD.
It opens a couple of factories and starts producing its cars.

A fair car, looks pretty good, drives pretty good... just a next choice for the consumer.
It can only afford to hire X number of people from the start, say 5000.
The rest keep working at GE.

GE notices this and bribes the cardealers by offering them very cheap cars that they can sell for below the old price and still make huge profits.

People see the GE car, it looks good, drives good.
They see the bubblegum car...same thing.

Then they look at the price.
Because of the already much greater capital and the much lower wages GE is selling their car almost two times cheaper than what Bubblegum is selling theirs for.

The only chance for Bubblegums owner to do anything (because his capital is running out) is to either lower his wages to in which case GE will further underbid him and push him out of the market or he can sell his company to GE.

Either case, Bubblegum has been destroyed and wages stay low.

Oh noes, then they have to compete with the market. God forbid. :ohno:

I love how your argument falls apart when you look at the reality of the US car market. GM, Ford, all the big names are fucking sucking right now because smaller Asian corporations are owning their faces.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 04:08 PM

What the fuck? "Offers a superior product?"
You don't get it do you?

GE owns General Motoros which owns several different carmanufacturing companies by itself. Let's say GE is the cartel itself (which indirectly it is). GE includes all current big car manufacturers in America in our fantasy world.

A new company emerges on the market. Call it "Bubblegum".
Bubblegum has a starting capital of half a billion USD.
It opens a couple of factories and starts producing its cars.

A fair car, looks pretty good, drives pretty good... just a next choice for the consumer.
It can only afford to hire X number of people from the start, say 5000.
The rest keep working at GE.

GE notices this and bribes the cardealers by offering them very cheap cars that they can sell for below the old price and still make huge profits.

People see the GE car, it looks good, drives good.
They see the bubblegum car...same thing.

Then they look at the price.
Because of the already much greater capital and the much lower wages GE is selling their car almost two times cheaper than what Bubblegum is selling theirs for.

The only chance for Bubblegums owner to do anything (because his capital is running out) is to either lower his wages to in which case GE will further underbid him and push him out of the market or he can sell his company to GE.

Either case, Bubblegum has been destroyed and wages stay low.

Definition of capitalism.

secondly, if you wanna make good business don't rely on one idea to carry you through past your competition. Entrepreneurship is hard as hell but very doable. People do it all the time.

Edit--- one just needs to be creative and imaginative on how those ideas are presented.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 04:09 PM

Stop arguing like a woman? Go evolve will you, then we can argue.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 04:11 PM

Stop arguing like a woman? Go evolve will you, then we can argue.

Run out of bullshit ideas have you. Come back later. ...or kill yourself I don't care. :D

Matriel

06-10-2008, 04:16 PM

Stop arguing like a woman? Go evolve will you, then we can argue.

I did evolve. That's why I use rational arguments instead of emotions.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 04:21 PM

I did evolve. That's why I use rational arguments instead of emotions.

No you haven't evolved. You've gone back to some barbarian state where every day is a battle for survival and where the elite in form of a cheiftan rules the many.

A stage where you don't really care if someone is suffering or not as long as you have meat on your table.

Instead of being a rational human being and understanding that for a civilization to prosper even those who are weakest must have their needs tended to. Also that those who are spinning the wheels of our economy must stay healthy and in good standing so that they may continue to spin the economy and provide wealth for us all.

Ultimo

06-10-2008, 04:27 PM

Heres the thing. Did any fellow wildlife across the country help out the wildlife injured in the hurricane? No. This is because evolution has a way of taking care of business. Humanity is an abstract feeling created by humans, which are the same animals that let even the most unfit live to procreate.

Am I for helping people that got screwed because they took all necessary steps to ensure their livelihood? Sure. Am I for helping people that should have already had their shit together in a situation like this since they live in the type of area where this was inevitable? No. If you are not capable of handling the environmental conditions of which you live, then you will be taken out. Survival of the fittest.

Eskareon

06-10-2008, 04:31 PM

Hey guys, Tharkon is a 19-year-old who lives in Sweden. Obviously, he understands how America works better than us. Who are we to question his knowledge and wisdom?

Matriel

06-10-2008, 04:36 PM

No you haven't evolved. You've gone back to some barbarian state where every day is a battle for survival and where the elite in form of a cheiftan rules the many.

Right, that's why I advocate for individual rights on a constant basis. Why I advocate for tools that allow everyone to be equal in force.

You're so emotionally attached to your class envy that you can't see the forest for the trees.

A stage where you don't really care if someone is suffering or not as long as you have meat on your table.

Right, I'm such an asshole that I donate to charity. :rolleyes: That'll teach me to give a shit about property rights and still care for people.

Instead of being a rational human being and understanding that for a civilization to prosper even those who are weakest must have their needs tended to. Also that those who are spinning the wheels of our economy must stay healthy and in good standing so that they may continue to spin the economy and provide wealth for us all.

Yes, it will surely keep civilization moving along if we prop up failures with thefts from successful people. That will keep up motivation to succeed. Must be why those social democracies keep providing so much shit to technology and the world. Oh wait.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 04:40 PM

Who can stand before the might of Matriel and his 22,000+ posts!! :D

sawyerj66

06-10-2008, 04:41 PM

No you haven't evolved. You've gone back to some barbarian state where every day is a battle for survival and where the elite in form of a cheiftan rules the many.

A stage where you don't really care if someone is suffering or not as long as you have meat on your table.

Instead of being a rational human being and understanding that for a civilization to prosper even those who are weakest must have their needs tended to. Also that those who are spinning the wheels of our economy must stay healthy and in good standing so that they may continue to spin the economy and provide wealth for us all.
It really seems like you're trying to lump everyone into two ends of the spectrum. Either we believe everyone must prosper (and be wonderful people like you) or we believe that people will reap success with proper planning and those that don't, fail (apparently you think this is the inhumane approach, but I see it as the middle ground). What you don't seem to realize is that it's impossible for everyone to prosper. There are too many people on this planet to have their individual needs catered to without lowering the overall standards for others. The weakest in society do not need to succeed. The ones that can CONTRIBUTE the most need to succeed. This is the rational approach. Your take on it is riddled with emotional outpouring - I have meat on my table. So what? I earned it.

Uzik

06-10-2008, 04:48 PM

Brillen

06-10-2008, 04:55 PM

Why doesn't the government pay for repairs for everyone from water damage? I mean, why should only certain people get reimbursed for natural disasters? What about those people who lose their homes to fires in California? Or all the previous hurricanes in Florida?

Fuck New Orleans IMO. We'd be better off without them.

The money comes from somewhere and my guess is it'll come from taxes which means we'd have to pay higher taxes for people choice on where they live... big turn off for me really. :(

EDIT---Which is why I am against welfare and free health care provided from the government. it all would be paid off through taxes. plus it eliminates the need/will for people to do well and better themselves if they get everything from someone else's hard work.

I do believe in private charities though. willingness to give to others is better then being forced to.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 05:00 PM

Uzik

06-10-2008, 05:10 PM

[QUOTE=sawyerj66;1395267]It really seems like you're trying to lump ....QUOTE]

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm just saying you haven't evolved.
You're uncapable of thinking in universal terms. Sadly the owners of corporations aren't. As I've said previously; the big ones in America no longer play by free market rules. They have realised that united decision making and cartels work alot better and bring them alot more money than free-market competition.

Their strength is the solidarity to one and other.
Your weakness is the lack of solidarity towards the man on the street assuming your not one of the top 0.01% of the population.

If the competition was enforced while at the same time forbidding cartels and conglomerates then you wouldn't need to share your meat with anyone. They would have enough money if they worked. There would be an automatic wealth redistribution because the market would force wages up.

Without corporations, our country would be fucked.

When will people just realize that certain individuals are worth more than others in an economic sense. Giving money to people at the bottom only keeps those people marginally better than they were before. Pumping money into corporations allows them to touch millions of people with that new money.

Give a crackhead $100, he will buy some crack. Give a corporation $1billion, they will hire people, expand their business, give business to other corporations etc.

If you like crackheads, vote Obama and give all our money to the poor. If you like corporations, vote McCain and give money to the rich.

OR, if you like freedom, write in Ron Paul and throw your vote away!

Brillen

06-10-2008, 05:10 PM

[QUOTE=sawyerj66;1395267]It really seems like you're trying to lump ....QUOTE]

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm just saying you haven't evolved.
You're uncapable of thinking in universal terms. Sadly the owners of corporations aren't. As I've said previously; the big ones in America no longer play by free market rules. They have realised that united decision making and cartels work alot better and bring them alot more money than free-market competition.

Their strength is the solidarity to one and other.
Your weakness is the lack of solidarity towards the man on the street assuming your not one of the top 0.01% of the population.

If the competition was enforced while at the same time forbidding cartels and conglomerates then you wouldn't need to share your meat with anyone. They would have enough money if they worked. There would be an automatic wealth redistribution because the market would force wages up.

99.99% of Americans are not living on the street. Do we have poverty in America? ya do, but so does every other country in the world. But wherever your getting this homeless crowd lining the streets of our metropolis bull from... whatever your source is that is feed you this shit is LYING' to you!

Brillen

06-10-2008, 05:16 PM

If you like crackheads, vote Obama and give all our money to the poor. If you like corporations, vote McCain and give money to the rich.

OR, if you like freedom, write in Ron Paul and throw your vote away!

I LOLed hard at this bit of your post!! :lmao::lmao:

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 05:18 PM

sawyerj66

06-10-2008, 05:19 PM

Tharkon's lack of quoting skills makes it feel like everyone is yelling at me :(

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 05:19 PM

[QUOTE=sawyerj66;1395267]It really seems like you're trying to lump ....QUOTE]

Nothing is wrong with it. I'm just saying you haven't evolved.
You're uncapable of thinking in universal terms. Sadly the owners of corporations aren't. As I've said previously; the big ones in America no longer play by free market rules. They have realised that united decision making and cartels work alot better and bring them alot more money than free-market competition.

Their strength is the solidarity to one and other.
Your weakness is the lack of solidarity towards the man on the street assuming your not one of the top 0.01% of the population.

If the competition was enforced while at the same time forbidding cartels and conglomerates then you wouldn't need to share your meat with anyone. They would have enough money if they worked. There would be an automatic wealth redistribution because the market would force wages up.

Why do you think they no longer play by free market rules? The funniest thing is you realize the problem but you believe the only solution is "enforcing competition" whatever that means. The problems are these regulations that are created for the sake of "fair" competition. Seriously just think about it. How can international cartels even exist?

Matriel

06-10-2008, 05:20 PM

Lol at the you'd have more free market competition with more regulations striking at corporations.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 05:20 PM

Not having a house at all is extreme poverty. That's Africa level.

Having a shack with no godo isolation and not being able to afford a car, healthcare or education is still poverty.

And it's not even important if you have poverty or not. If you would strike hard on cartels and conglomerates then wages for ordinary Americans - poor or not - would go up thanks to free-market competition becoming easier. Man you Americans are so stupid sometimes or just so so very greedy.

When was the last time you've been to America?? I wanna see your sources because it sounds to me like your taking bits of half truths from the media and warping them into some retarded bullshit excuse to say your better than everyone else.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 05:22 PM

Tharkon's lack of quoting skills makes it feel like everyone is yelling at me :(

Tharkon's an idiot, your fine. :D

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 05:22 PM

Why do you think they no longer play by free market rules? The funniest thing is you realize the problem but you believe the only solution is "enforcing competition" whatever that means. The problems are these regulations that are created for the sake of "fair" competition. Seriously just think about it. How can international cartels even exist?They exist because they are allowed to exist.

The owners of the corporations have meetings and then they decide to form cartels and play nasty with any new competitor that comes to the arena. Enforcing prices, wages etc.

That's only possible with a lack of regulations.

I gave you an example of what happend when Clinton de-regualted the media business.
You went from Free-media to corporate media within a few years.
That is almost all of the big media outlets are owned by a few handfull conglomerates.

Eskareon

06-10-2008, 05:23 PM

Yeah, guys, listen to Tharkon. Our economy is immoral! Only the richest of the rich have money, everyone else is oppressed! We should change our economy to match that other country that has the strongest middleclass in the world! Which country was that again... I can't remember. Which superpower has a "class system" so virtually seamless that people have decided to just lump themselves altogether as "middle class"? Which country was that again... hmm...

Well, whatever, we should be more like them.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 05:23 PM

They exist because they are allowed to exist.

The owners of the corporations have meetings and then they decide to form cartels and play nasty with any new competitor that comes to the arena. Enforcing prices, wages etc.

That's only possible with a lack of regulations.

I gave you an example of what happend when Clinton de-regualted the media business.
You went from Free-media to corporate media within a few years.
That is almost all of the big media outlets are owned by a few handfull conglomerates.

Hahaha. Because the exact same thing happened with those big players playing nasty with the Asian auto makers. Oh wait, it fucking didn't.

We had corporate media long before fucking Clinton de-regulated anything.

And again, serious fucking lol at saying we need regulations to increase free market competition.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 05:26 PM

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 05:31 PM

Eskareon

06-10-2008, 05:33 PM

Tharkon... I've resigned myself to just declair you retarded until I see some proof to your accusations. All of your whore shit is blow way out of proportion and I can't even fathom where your getting all this from. Good day. kill yourself. :D

Did you see his input in the thread about "spyware" and invasions of privacy? He's your typical bleedin' heart college kid. Fight the man, down with the big-wigs, equality for everyone! Everyone is suffering, we're just too blind and ignorant to realize it!

Tharkon should just join a terrorist network, get it all out of his system.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 05:36 PM

Did you see his input in the thread about "spyware" and invasions of privacy? He's your typical bleedin' heart college kid. Fight the man, down with the big-wigs, equality for everyone! Everyone is suffering, we're just too blind and ignorant to realize it!

Tharkon should just join a terrorist network, get it all out of his system.

There's a billion people in the world today that are starving or on the brink of starvation while the top 358 richest people in the world control almost 50% of the worlds wealth.

Go fuck yourself if you think that's right.

http://www.google.ch/search?hl=sv&q=%22358+people%22+wealth&meta=

Ok please? go fuck yourself you selfish bastard.

Eskareon

06-10-2008, 05:37 PM

I've made it as simple as I can, even a child would understand.

And that's why we're laughing at you. You're trying to dumb down our national economy - and now, running one of the world's most powerful countries - into a game of football.

Yes, it's so easy, even a child can understand it. That's why people go to school for a decade to learn how to manage monies. That's why people spend a lifetime learning how to run a business. That's why managers exist, because their job is actually pointless - everyone can run a business, it's that easy!

And that's why you're a 19-year-old, sitting in Sweden, not running a business... or a country, for that matter.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 06:00 PM

If putting up regulations to protect the free-market

not really a free market if you regulate it. Plus didn't you make an earlier post saying you were against controlling the market?

Brillen

06-10-2008, 06:05 PM

http://www.google.ch/search?hl=sv&q=%22358+people%22+wealth&meta=

First off all the statistics you gave me said a million different things. secondly statistics can be made to say what ever the person that is using them wants them to say. hell if you do the math right you can follows the rules of basic algebra to make 1=2. google it, quite interesting really.

thirdly a lot of your links were blogs from people who had not cited their information. but then again... who in the world would be dishonest on the internet. I've said it to a lot of people that when you wanna use a sorce to make a point, find one that is credible and and not made by some self-proclaimed know-it-all.

Weeking

06-10-2008, 06:08 PM

What do they need homes for anyway? It is like 20 degrees Celsius outside all year down there. Tents would have been enough.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 06:09 PM

Where the hell is Günther when you need him.
He would explain to you how regulations work.
An unregulated free-market economy will turn into a planned economy run by a corporate elite as it's starting to look in America. This corporate elite (the cartels) will push wages down to increase profits and push out small emerging business and then you will get the social crises that get people like Hillary (almost) elected.

The other part of your question is stupid to say the least.

Look up control and look up regulate/regulation.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 06:15 PM

First off all the statistics you gave me said a million different things. secondly statistics can be made to say what ever the person that is using them wants them to say. hell if you do the math right you can follows the rules of basic algebra to make 1=2. google it, quite interesting really.

thirdly a lot of your links were blogs from people who had not cited their information. but then again... who in the world would be dishonest on the internet. I've said it to a lot of people that when you wanna use a sorce to make a point, find one that is credible and and not made by some self-proclaimed know-it-all.

Shit dude it's like you don't want to belive it.
Why don't you read the report instead? Just doublecheck it yourself if you think there's something fishy about it.

"Using data from Forbes magazine's annual survey of the world's richest people, Keegan shows that Microsoft owner Bill Gates tops the list with personal wealth of US$ 18 billion, "enough to purchase half a dozen poor countries". "

For example.
According to those numbers (that are like 10 years + old)
Billgates would have more money than TODAYs ... those countries.

158 Maldives 1,049,000,000
159 Guyana 1,039,000,000
160 Burundi 1,001~etc.
161 Saint Lucia 958
162 Djibouti 841
163 Liberia 730
164 Seychelles 710
165 The Gambia 653
166 Zimbabwe 641
167 Grenada 590
168 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 559
169 Saint Kitts and Nevis 527
170 East Timor 459
171 Vanuatu 455
172 Comoros 442
173 Samoa 397
174 Solomon Islands 358
175 Guinea-Bissau 343
176 Dominica 311
177 Tonga 219
178 São Tomé and Príncipe 144
179 Kiribati 67

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 06:21 PM

And again, serious fucking lol at saying we need regulations to increase free market competition.

Some Basic laws are needed to make sure a corporation does not become too powerfull.

Imagine a corp with their own police force, military, etc.

It would get too much power and eventually political power and might turn a perfectly free market into an authoritarian state with a corp at it's head.

That's a perfectly reasonable path a completely free market can take. That's why libertarians/conservative liberals still want small government.

Ordoliberalism is even completely based on this idea and has many economists supporting it.

"the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential"

But Matriel is just afraid of too much regularization's. Which is also bad off course. Especially for starting businesses of smaller ones that have to follow laws that are made and build for large corps as we have the problem in the EU atm.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 06:30 PM

Brillen

06-10-2008, 06:31 PM

Shit dude it's like you don't want to belive it.
Why don't you read the report instead? Just doublecheck it yourself if you think there's something fishy about it.

"Using data from Forbes magazine's annual survey of the world's richest people, Keegan shows that Microsoft owner Bill Gates tops the list with personal wealth of US$ 18 billion, "enough to purchase half a dozen poor countries". "

For example.
According to those numbers (that are like 10 years + old)
Billgates would have more money than TODAYs ... those countries.

158 Maldives 1,049,000,000
159 Guyana 1,039,000,000
160 Burundi 1,001~etc.
161 Saint Lucia 958
162 Djibouti 841
163 Liberia 730
164 Seychelles 710
165 The Gambia 653
166 Zimbabwe 641
167 Grenada 590
168 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 559
169 Saint Kitts and Nevis 527
170 East Timor 459
171 Vanuatu 455
172 Comoros 442
173 Samoa 397
174 Solomon Islands 358
175 Guinea-Bissau 343
176 Dominica 311
177 Tonga 219
178 São Tomé and Príncipe 144
179 Kiribati 67

ok... so let me get this right.

you think Americans are selfish and greedy because the riches man in the world who could buy all those countries is american? would it mean we're not greedy that we don't buy those countries when we clearly could?

Secondly I've been to europe (parents are in the military). I've seen just as many beggers in the front of churches with people not even giving them a second glance as there are beggers and crackheads begging for money to get their next shot of takila or dose of heroin. and you presume to state that America is line with homless on every street and the 1% of Americans that have it made aren't doing shit...

stfu and gtfo

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 06:33 PM

Secondly I've been to europe (parents are in the military). I've seen just as many beggers in the front of churches with people not even giving them a second glance as there are beggers and crackheads begging for money to get their next shot of takila or dose of heroin. and you presume to state that America is line with homless on every street and the 1% of Americans that have it made aren't doing shit...

stfu and gtfo

You ever been to the area of the civic center in San Fransisco?

That's Hobo Heaven.

Most bums i ever saw on such a small piece of land hehe

Brillen

06-10-2008, 06:35 PM

I'd just like to put it in proportion so that you understand in western terms.
Iceland, a nation of 315 000 people...the 4th richest country in the world per capita has today as much wealth as Billgates had 10 years ago. That's 315 000 WESTERNERS for one Billgates.

- To that asshole Esk~ speaking negatively about being passionate about this.

Go ahead and google how many chairity events Bill gates has supported and sponsored. Just because he is the riches man in the world doesn't mean his is a comletely selfish jackass.

Ultimo

06-10-2008, 06:35 PM

I'd just like to put it in proportion so that you understand in western terms.
Iceland, a nation of 315 000 people...the 4th richest country in the world per capita produces today yearly as much wealth as Billgates had 10 years ago. That's 315 000 WESTERNERS for one Billgates.

- To that asshole Esk~ speaking negatively about being passionate about this.

And apparantly one rich man makes America greedy? There will always be a richest man. Also, Warren Buffet (from my EDIT: current, I almost slipped and called it home state) used to be the second richest man in the world, and wasn't too far behind Bill Gates. He recently donated most of his fortune to charity.

I guess one man being rich in America is enough to spoil us all, huh?

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 06:38 PM

ok... so let me get this right.

you think Americans are selfish and greedy because the riches man in the world who could buy all those countries is american? would it mean we're not greedy that we don't buy those countries when we clearly could?

I mean, wow...

I don't know where to begin...Are you uneducated or just plain stupid?
_______________
This is like the fucking spinzone. The point was that the idiot im quoting doesn't belive that there's this large income differentials in the world today. So then when I prove to him and you that there are you tell me that this doesn't make Americans greedy?

What the fuck has that to do with anything.
Not all of the 358 billionares are Americans. I doubt even a third of them are. Stop mixing up points.

And yes, Gates donates alot of money. He is even supportive of higher taxes. I'm not blaming gates...I'm blaming the system that's made it possible for Microsoft to control their market like a monopoly almost.

The sickest thing is you still keep defending your asses instead of even granting a little sentance to those people actually starving to death around the world and those living in poverty even in America. That's what makes you greedy, you don't care about these people. You don't care about each other.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 06:40 PM

You ever been to the area of the civic center in San Fransisco?

That's Hobo Heaven.

Most bums i ever saw on such a small piece of land hehe

and are they completely devoid of any kind of help what-so-ever? do they even try to find job? is there not a soup kitchen in san fransico?

just because it's hobo heaven doesn't mean the middle and upper classes have put them there. they either got up with the wrong shit, muched their way through life, or simply gave up because life gave them a lemon.

Every one has an oportunity to get back up on their feet in America. People do it all the time. there are programs and support group that help people do JUST that.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 06:41 PM

I mean, wow...

I don't know where to begin...Are you uneducated or just plain stupid?

I might've said the same thing about you. :D

EDIT---being successful does not make you greedy

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 06:44 PM

I might've said the same thing about you. :D

EDIT---being successful does not make you greedy

:bang: Have I said that? :bang:

Alright common, tell me what makes people greedy?

Matriel

06-10-2008, 06:45 PM

Stop being so fanatical.
To run a country you need to think what is best for the country.
If putting up regulations to protect the free-market from cartels then you are doing the free-market a favour.

It's like...what makes soccer or basketball work?
The rules...you have rules which everyone must obide by.
You are free to shoot the ball in any way you like, spin it, dribble it but you need to use your feet and you can't push people and then you even have rules like offside.

What you're advocating is allowing anyone to play in professional basketball or soccer. Yet not everyone has the skills.

And fuck what's best for the country. We're not an ant hive all working for the greater good. We're a bunch of individuals.

Some Basic laws are needed to make sure a corporation does not become too powerfull.

Imagine a corp with their own police force, military, etc.

It would get too much power and eventually political power and might turn a perfectly free market into an authoritarian state with a corp at it's head.

That's a perfectly reasonable path a completely free market can take. That's why libertarians/conservative liberals still want small government.

Ordoliberalism is even completely based on this idea and has many economists supporting it.

"the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential"

But Matriel is just afraid of too much regularization's. Which is also bad off course. Especially for starting businesses of smaller ones that have to follow laws that are made and build for large corps as we have the problem in the EU atm.

Bullshit. Lack of economic regulations never gives any corporation the power to infringe upon individuals. That's a fucking scare story made up by idiots that want regulations.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 06:50 PM

What you're advocating is allowing anyone to play in professional basketball or soccer. Yet not everyone has the skills.

And fuck what's best for the country. We're not an ant hive all working for the greater good. We're a bunch of individuals.

Wrong.
I clearly stated what I am advocating. Soccer with rules.
Then play on what ever level you can handle.
Have a small local shop or go global.

But play according to the rules. Free comptetion, no fucking cartels and if I would be the boss of it I'd say no conglomerates neither.
That's like being able to take up the ball in soccer or kick the ball in basketball.

You're the one wanting soccer without rules. All the sports (markets) without any regualtions, codes of conduct or anything ellse. Do what you want, how ever you want it without all the right in the world to exclude others from the market.

EDIT: And that's what's pushing prices up, wages down and getting people to vote for Hillary. When are you going to get it through your thick skull?

Brillen

06-10-2008, 07:03 PM

:bang: Have I said that? :bang:

Alright common, tell me what makes people greedy?

greed Audio Help (grēd) Pronunciation Key
n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: "Many . . . attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed" (Henry Fawcett).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed

and for your arguement about bill gate

The foundation had begun working toward an expansion more than a year before the Buffett gift was announced. The Gateses have long said they intend to give much of their fortune, pegged at $51 billion by Forbes magazine, to the foundation, and Mr. Gates is ceding day-to-day control of Microsoft to devote himself to foundation work.

EDIT--that is one greedy bastard isn't he.

NYTimes (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/us/13gates.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Anything else? :D

Matriel

06-10-2008, 07:10 PM

Wrong.
I clearly stated what I am advocating. Soccer with rules.
Then play on what ever level you can handle.
Have a small local shop or go global.

Bullshit you aren't. You're arguing for wealth redistribution and regulations that let small time players compete with the big time players. You're saying that any joe schmoe should have the ability to enter any market and succeed. Which is the equivalent of saying anyone should be able to play in the major leagues.

But play according to the rules. Free comptetion, no fucking cartels and if I would be the boss of it I'd say no conglomerates neither.
That's like being able to take up the ball in soccer or kick the ball in basketball.

Free competition and rules are an oxymoron. Only a fucking Swede would possibly suggest that they go hand in hand.

You're the one wanting soccer without rules. All the sports (markets) without any regualtions, codes of conduct or anything ellse. Do what you want, how ever you want it without all the right in the world to exclude others from the market.

EDIT: And that's what's pushing prices up, wages down and getting people to vote for Hillary. When are you going to get it through your thick skull?

No, I'm the one that wants the soccer league to determine its own rules. Therein lies the difference. I know that government will inevitably fuck everything up like they always do.

None of that gives anyone the right to infringe upon individual rights. There is no need for economic regulations.

Prices are going up because our existing regulations and fiat money are fucked. Not because of free market competition. Get with reality.

Baralis

06-10-2008, 07:31 PM

Every person in america that is willing to work full time can make a living if they choose to. The problem is alot of american expect to work there 40 hour min. wage job and have all that they want. If they dont get that then they whine about it.

Oh nose! I am unwed and have 4 children, I work 40 hours a week and I cannot support myself and my 4 kids! This isnt right! Someone should be required to give me handouts because I am stupid and screwed up my life. Now its someone elses job to bail me out!

Skree

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 07:34 PM

Bullshit. Lack of economic regulations never gives any corporation the power to infringe upon individuals. That's a fucking scare story made up by idiots that want regulations.

Ever heard of the industrial revolution?

LOL

No but really, if you can't even grasp the small example i give, i won't be even trying to explain it any further since you absolutely have NO FUCKING idea what you talk about Matriel.

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 07:36 PM

Free competition and rules are an oxymoron. Only a fucking Swede would possibly suggest that they go hand in hand.

Free competition with no anti-monopoly rules, no non-privatized military laws, etc will result into monopolies with no competition.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 07:40 PM

Baralis you're an idiot.
It's like you're one step behind all the time.
You ask me to confirm my sources that 358 billion people of the world own 50% of the worlds produced wealth. I do that and you do not even give the slightest confirmation.

Instead you turn on me saying that it doesn't make americans greedy if one person has more money than 315000 westerners or millions of Africans.

Then I confirm that saying that Gates isn't greedy and that he has donated alot and even in contradiction to those defending him here is for higher taxes.

And you still take it upon yourself to again prove to me that Gates isn't greedy by providing some source in NYT saying that when he dies he'll donate everything to his foundation which in goes against your own statement. Because if you would have just let it rest when I said it's the systems and the lacks of regulations letting microsoft make a monopoly out of the operative system market that's the problem and not Gates then you would have won.

But no...instead you had to destroy your own argument by literally saying that Gates has said that he won't part with the majority of his wealth untill he's dead.

Dude, take a deep breath and think about what you're trying to prove.
Actually, take a deep breath and perhaps even reconsider your position.

Brillen

06-10-2008, 07:44 PM

I actually believe in anti-trust laws, and breaking down and preventing monopolies. I don't however believe in redistribution because to me, it like rewarding others for someones hard work.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 07:48 PM

I actually believe in anti-trust laws, and breaking down and preventing monopolies. I don't however believe in redistribution because to me, it like rewarding others for someones hard work.

Great.

And yeah wealth redistribution is something ellse which I also belive is needed.
But if those antri-trust laws worked and if governments were hard on private monopoly's and cartels wages would be high enough that the wealth redistribution wouldn't be needed in such a high extent even in my eyes.
One must be able to argue for what is clearly best for the economy in a capitalist country without attacking each other based upon differences in socio-economic policy.

Baralis

06-10-2008, 07:49 PM

Baralis you're an idiot.
It's like you're one step behind all the time.

How is my statment being an idiot? It is true.

I could fully support myself right now working at min. wage job 40 hours a week. Would it be a life filled with things I want, no. But I could put a roof over my head and feed myself.

Edit to add - Perhaps you should take a trip to america and visit one of the government housing projects. Its full of lazy people that are often times adicts and unemployed yet they still have more then 70% of the worlds population.

Ultimo

06-10-2008, 07:50 PM

Great.

And yeah wealth redistribution is something ellse which I also belive is needed.
But if those antri-trust laws worked and if governments were hard on private monopoly's and cartels wages would be high enough that the wealth redistribution wouldn't be needed in such a high extent even in my eyes.
One must be able to argue for what is clearly best for the economy in a capitalist country without attacking each other based upon differences in socio-economic policy.

The more I hear you talk, the more I think you are talking about communism, not capitalism...am I the only one that thinks that?

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 07:50 PM

Great.

And yeah wealth redistribution is something ellse which I also belive is needed.

Wealth distribution my ass.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 07:51 PM

How is my statment being an idiot? It is true.

I could fully support myself right now working at min. wage job 40 hours a week. Would it be a life filled with things I want, no. But I could put a roof over my head and feed myself.

That statement isn't idiotic. I don't know about that, I don't live in America.
I somehow doubt it somehow but still.

The idiotic part was you being behind in the Billgates thing/358 thing.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 07:53 PM

Ever heard of the industrial revolution?

LOL

No but really, if you can't even grasp the small example i give, i won't be even trying to explain it any further since you absolutely have NO FUCKING idea what you talk about Matriel.

Oh, you mean that period of time when governments didn't protect individual rights, so obviously we need regulations on businesses even though they don't correlate in the slightest? Especially when Unions took care of most of it anyway.

Way to believe everything you're told there ovis canadensis.

Free competition with no anti-monopoly rules, no non-privatized military laws, etc will result into monopolies with no competition.

Right, because if a corporation is allowed to have a military force it's suddenly legal for them to shoot their competition.

And of course no one will challenge a monopoly by offering a service at a cheaper price.

:bang:

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 07:53 PM

Stop being so fanatical.
To run a country you need to think what is best for the country.
If putting up regulations to protect the free-market from cartels then you are doing the free-market a favour.

Wouldn't that negate the fact that it was once "free" altogether? The more you argue for increasing regulations the more you are attempting to benefit Oligopolies such as DaBeers who shouldn't have lasted so long as a business.

Baralis

06-10-2008, 07:53 PM

That statement isn't idiotic. I don't know about that, I don't live in America.
I somehow doubt it somehow but still.

The idiotic part was you being behind in the Billgates thing/358 thing.

Ahh that wasnt me :sly: Must have grabbed a wrong name.

I do agree with you that large corporations harm the little guy.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 07:54 PM

Wealth distribution my ass.

That's your opinion :)
But when I see people starving to death it kinda hurts me that there's people wouldn't want to distrbibute their wealth to them (even a little bit) and I'd like to force them to do that. Ain't I evil... :rolleyes:

@Baralis. Sorry then! Everyone seem to like this hammer thingy avatar :)

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 07:57 PM

Right, because if a corporation is allowed to have a military force it's suddenly legal for them to shoot their competition.

Strikes can be seen as damage of property and can be shot easily.

And a longstanding monopoly can have enough political power over time and abolish certain laws etc.

Matriel, this is a conversation that is so far ahead of you. You have not the brain capacity to even think about what i'm talking about.

And of course no one will challenge a monopoly by offering a service at a cheaper price.

I never thought you were this naive.

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 07:59 PM

That's your opinion :)
But when I see people starving to death it kinda hurts me that there's people wouldn't want to distrbibute their wealth to them (even a little bit) and I'd like to force you to do that. Ain't I evil... :rolleyes:

@Baralis. Sorry then! Everyone seem to like this hammer thingy avatar :)

Aww, poor baby.

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 08:00 PM

Matriel

06-10-2008, 08:00 PM

Strikes can be seen as damage of property and can be shot easily.

Wrong, why are strikes usually on fucking sidewalks? Cause it's public property.

And a longstanding monopoly can have enough political power over time and abolish certain laws etc.

You're talking about corporations buying regulations. If there were no regulations corporations can't buy regulations. Please try to comprehend basic English.

Matriel, this is a conversation that is so far ahead of you. You have not the brain capacity to even think about what i'm talking about.

Soon as you stop regurgitating what you were taught in a government run public school let me know. We'll have an actual conversation.

I never thought you were this naive.

Right, cause it's never happened before. Sorry for using history.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 08:01 PM

That's your opinion :)
But when I see people starving to death it kinda hurts me that there's people wouldn't want to distrbibute their wealth to them (even a little bit) and I'd like to force them to do that. Ain't I evil... :rolleyes:

That's precious. You feel so bad for them you want to take other people's money to help them. Yet you still have a nice computer you're posting on. You must feel real bad.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:03 PM

Aww, poor baby.

Not me...but perhaps he eh?: http://www.nkfreedom.org/fileadmin/Image_Archive/starving_baby.JPG

WizGamer

06-10-2008, 08:04 PM

those cheap bastards.

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:04 PM

Not me...but perhaps he eh?: http://www.nkfreedom.org/fileadmin/Image_Archive/starving_baby.JPG

Am I suppose to cry or something?

I hope you don't feel holier than thou.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:06 PM

Am I suppose to cry or something?

I hope you don't feel holier than thou.

You're supposed to feel empathy, if you are human.

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:07 PM

You're supposed to feel empathy, if you are human.

Its only a picture so no I'm not feeling empathy. You sound like you need less estrogen in your body.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 08:07 PM

You're supposed to feel empathy, if you are human.

So, did you buy it some food?

NightmareDragon

06-10-2008, 08:08 PM

forgive me if im wrong but doesnt free competition also allow for cartels? The larger companies can form a group together and the governing parties of the country will not know about it unless its brought to their attention. It happened with BA along with several other airline companies that fixed the prices of flights from america so that it basically "conned americans out of their money" they did this for quite along time without anyone outside knowing until they were finally caught. Now what if they hadn't made a mistake? what if they had continued their cartel? there would be no one who could prove that they had formed a cartel because it would be so well hidden that there would be no evidence against them until they made that mistake.

Another thing is that we are all able to do well if we just make the right choices, everything is down to your own decisions in the end. You CANNOT pin the blame for your problems on someone else if you obviously made a mistake in judgement, while there are many people that want to prevent you from taking their turf true dedication to further yourself will always be successful in the end.

If everyone was treated equally we'd all get killed off.... why? because those that refuse to work will have all the benefits of people that do genuinly want to improve their lives, eventually everyone will adopt this belief that someone else can pay for their expenses. There will be no economy because whats the point if everything you worked for is taken from you and divided amoung the people that havent got the dedication to help themselves.

In short, if we shared everything out amoung the people then those that worked harder would wonder why they bother and stop working so hard, there will always be someone who does nothing at all.

Theres always going to be someone better off than you, theres always going to be people at the bottom, thats just life! If everyone worked equally hard at trying to improve their lives then sure share the benefits, sadly this is not and will never be the case.

Survival of the fittest, let the people who dont work at all die off, so theres more room for the people that actually want to improve themselves.

P.S - Sorry for this wall of text, its hard for me to shorten it, and ive also most likely said a lot of things more times than needed, but hopefully someone will understand :rolleyes:

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:08 PM

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:08 PM

So, did you buy it some food?

He had some people come with guns and rob his neighbors to give the child some food. Man how thoughtful of him!

Ultimo

06-10-2008, 08:10 PM

He had some people come with guns and rob his neighbors to give the child some food. Man how thoughtful of him!

A modern day Robin Hood! Brilliant!

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 08:10 PM

Wrong, why are strikes usually on fucking sidewalks? Cause it's public property.

Strikes in the USA are pathetic. In belgium you got strikes that damage products, trash factories or even take the top managment hostage.

Fucking insane tbh.

You're talking about corporations buying regulations. If there were no regulations corporations can't buy regulations. Please try to comprehend basic English.

I said Monopolies will try to abolish laws if they get too much power.

Why are you bitching about individual rights? You mentioned individual rights are there to stop corporate abuse while you just said there are no laws???

Make up your goddamn mind.

Soon as you stop regurgitating what you were taught in a government run public school let me know. We'll have an actual conversation.

I never went to a state school :)

And I myself was raised by entrepreneurs/libertarians parents.

I have experienced first hand that even the most silly laws, for instance; illegal to sell products with loss, can mean the difference between a free market or a sector that will end up into a monopoly were there is no choice.

Right, cause it's never happened before. Sorry for using history.

When did we have a true free market? We never really did the last 100 years. So you are comparing apples with oranges.

That's why i said this conversation is miles ahead of your brain capacity as you just clearly showed by your ignorant replies.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:11 PM

He had some people come with guns and rob his neighbors to give the child some food. Man how thoughtful of him!

So...Did you feel any empathy?

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:13 PM

So...Did you feel any empathy?

if you give me some of those estrogen pills you take maybe.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:14 PM

if you give me some of those estrogen pills you take maybe.

I spit upon you.
Not willing to donate your personal wealth is one thing.
Not feeling any empathy is sickening.

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:15 PM

I spit upon you.
Not willing to donate your personal wealth is one thing.
Not feeling any empathy is sickening.

I swallowed your spit.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 08:18 PM

We (our family) donate a proportion of our wealth to charity each month and also gladly pay the taxes of which 2% goes to foreign aid.

If everyone would be willing to do this we could help many people.

My country donated almost the GDP of your country to private charity last year.

Strikes in the USA are pathetic. In belgium you got strikes that damage products, trash factories or even take the top managment hostage.

Fucking insane tbh.

Then they need to be arrested for destroying property. They have agreements with their employers for employment, not ownership of their property.

I said Monopolies will try to abolish laws if they get too much power.

Why are you bitching about individual rights? Why are you mentioning individual rights are there to stop corporate abuse while you now say there are no laws???

Right and if there were no regulations of business, how would monopolies abolish and buy laws? America's Constitution cannot be changed without ratification of 2/3rds of the states. Saying that a monopoly would be able to buy its way into legal murder is pretty much impossible.

Corporate abuse that actually affects individuals violates individual rights. Pollution, murder, whatever. Someone being successful in the market and making lots of money shouldn't be punished.

I never went to a state school :)

And I myself was raised by entrepreneurs/libertarians parents.

I have experienced first hand that even the most silly laws, for instance; illegal to sell products with loss, can mean the difference between a free market or a sector that will end up into a monopoly were there is no choice.

A monopoly that wouldn't last. If a company continues to lose money it will eventually go under. If it could maintain the loss from operating in other areas it's still going to lose profits and piss its shareholders off. Long term something like that is not going to create a monopoly that never goes away. It would fall apart.

In America, the only real monopolies are the ones legislated by governments.

When did we have a true free market? We never really did the last 100 years. So you are comparing apples with oranges.

That's why i said this conversation is miles ahead of your brain capacity as you just clearly showed by your ignorant replies.

What does the last instance of a free market have to do with anything? Just because it hasn't been around it doesn't change the principles. We haven't had dinosaurs in millions of years, but that doesn't change that they were big ass lizards.

You're refusing to even look at it from a different angle because you're too busy regurgitating answers that I'm not even talking about.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:21 PM

I'm not racing with anyone but you are a total fool like Günther said if you compare your country of 280~million people with one of 9 million. You might agree with it or not but your comparison is idioitic.

The % of your GDP which you donate to poor countries is among the lowest in the west.
(0.34%).

NightmareDragon

06-10-2008, 08:23 PM

African extremes of poverty are wrong, but a lot of the tribes will not accept aid from outsiders, so we should stop trying with those. I'd also say that their system of governement is wrong, but then id also say that the only system of governement that works is one that doesn't involve humans.... because there will always be someone who disagrees with what another person says, thats what being human is all about, being able to disagree.... in the animal kingdom if you step out of line something comes along and kills you, or at least puts you back in your place.

The natural order of things is that theres things at the bottom and things at the top things that do better than others will survive longer. I dont think and alpha wolf gives one about the guy at the bottom of the pack... hes put himself there by his own choices (or just that lifes been harsh to him but what can we do about that?)

There has to be rules put in place to ensure that people who want to improve themselves actually can do i wont disagree to that, but there also has to be rules that people who dont bother to do anything cant be equal to those that do well.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 08:25 PM

I'm not racing with anyone but you are a total fool like Günther said if you compare your country of 280~million people with one of 9 million. You might agree with it or not but your comparison is idioitic.

The % of your BNP which you donate to poor countries is among the lowest in the west.
(0.34%).

Okay, go ask any poor country if they'd rather have Sweden's slightly higher BNP or Americas.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:26 PM

Okay, go ask any poor country if they'd rather have Sweden's slightly higher BNP or Americas.

:bang:

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:26 PM

I don't really understand what posting some random starving kids picture was suppose to accomplish. The fact that you seem to think you are better than me and that I am worthy of being spit on because I don't swallow down your emotional argument is hilarious. There isn't anything ethical about what you propose. There isn't anything moral about coercive redistributions of wealth no matter how many people it might benefit in "theory" that is. When people decide to donate on their own terms then its actually something worthy of praise. You don't deserve to be praised for advocating the stealing of ones property. I even find it sad that you even acknowledged it was stealing but you are a typical socialist who believes that you are justified since its another mans property. It doesn't matter of course since the man we are stealing from is already well off.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 08:26 PM

:bang:

Percentages don't pay the bills chump.

NightmareDragon

06-10-2008, 08:27 PM

this seems to be a monopolised discussion so ill just watch from now on? :lmao:

both sides have valid points if you just put them together you'd have something great.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:28 PM

Percentages don't pay the bills chump.

This deserves something better. If you still don't get it I feel sorry for you:
The African countries will gladly accept all contributions they can get. The UN has set a standard of 1% of the GDP per country to combat starvation.
This is aid, not politics...These are starving people.

....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................� �-.,
.........................,/........................................ .......”:,
.....................,?................. .....................................\,
.................../........................................ ...................,}
................./........................................ ..............,:`^`..}
.............../........................................ ...........,:”........./
..............?.....__.................. .......................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`..... ...../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_.............. ......,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,.............. ......`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(..... .;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|, ./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|. .............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,........................... ......\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.... .......................`\.............._ _
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................ _\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

Gunther TheBlack

06-10-2008, 08:29 PM

Then they need to be arrested for destroying property. They have agreements with their employers for employment, not ownership of their property.

They should yup.

Right and if there were no regulations of business, how would monopolies abolish and buy laws? America's Constitution cannot be changed without ratification of 2/3rds of the states. Saying that a monopoly would be able to buy its way into legal murder is pretty much impossible.

Corporate abuse that actually affects individuals violates individual rights. Pollution, murder, whatever. Someone being successful in the market and making lots of money shouldn't be punished.

So there are laws they can "buy". The individual rights laws can easily be abolished.

That's why i said make up your mind. A individual right law can as easily be abolished as a corporate law (depends on country off course).

I'm thinking really long run and global level here. Try to think with me :)

It might be an extremely far viewpoint for you but for me it looks still practically close enough.

A monopoly that wouldn't last. If a company continues to lose money it will eventually go under. If it could maintain the loss from operating in other areas it's still going to lose profits and piss its shareholders off. Long term something like that is not going to create a monopoly that never goes away. It would fall apart.

In America, the only real monopolies are the ones legislated by governments.

Long enough to make the other business quit and then they can just start selling at a higher price as it was before they sold with loss.

Starting out in certain sectors is near impossible and just too expensive for regular people and even rich people with already dominating players or monopolies in it.

I've seen it happen and it's very bad for the free market.

What does the last instance of a free market have to do with anything? Just because it hasn't been around it doesn't change the principles. We haven't had dinosaurs in millions of years, but that doesn't change that they were big ass lizards.

You're refusing to even look at it from a different angle because you're too busy regurgitating answers that I'm not even talking about.

During the industrial revolution it also took laws to abolish child labor, physical harassment of people, etc.

Laws evolve and as i said above over time corps can have too many economic and as a result political power to get back into a state as we have been before and even worse.

The only option then is a revolution of the masses. Which will result in just another commie or socialist state.

So I rather have minor laws that will keep the free market as open as possible without having to risk of ending into an authoritarian state over time.

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:33 PM

This deserves something better. If you still don't get it I feel sorry for you:
The African countries will gladly accept all contributions they can get. The UN has set a standard of 1% of the GDP per country.
This is aid, not politics...These are starving people.

....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................� �-.,
.........................,/........................................ .......”:,
.....................,?................. .....................................\,
.................../........................................ ...................,}
................./........................................ ..............,:`^`..}
.............../........................................ ...........,:”........./
..............?.....__.................. .......................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`..... ...../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_.............. ......,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,.............. ......`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(..... .;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|, ./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|. .............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,........................... ......\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.... .......................`\.............._ _
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................ _\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

Speaking of foreign aid. Do you like how all the warlords and dictators in Africa usually just steal the food and it never reaches the poor of the country.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:35 PM

this seems to be a monopolised discussion so ill just watch from now on? :lmao:

both sides have valid points if you just put them together you'd have something great.

Nah mate. It's just that most of your points have already been discussed or aren't of interest to the discussion.

But I agree that governments need to be fixed in Africa.
The problem is the officials aren't really wealthy themselves so even small bribes from companies or bigger nations can get them to backstabb their people.

Like that oil drilling outside I think Nigerias coast.
It gives jobs and everything but it's just draining the oil.

None of the revenue except the wages stay in the country, everything is shipped away. They aren't even allowed to tax it. So they can't profit : They are being exploited.

Speaking of foreign aid. Do you like how all the warlords and dictators in Africa usually just steal the food and it never reaches the poor of the country.

No I don't. So instead of invading Iraq perhaps you could contribute to UN peacekeeping forces in some larger number so that they can actually engage these warlords.

You did that in Haiti and t hat's good.
That's the conflicts in where people need real help.

shnedit

06-10-2008, 08:35 PM

. Do you like how all the warlords and dictators in Africa usually just steal the food and it never reaches the poor of the country.

Whats wrong with that? If your a warlord you gotta do it right..

Brillen

06-10-2008, 08:37 PM

If you read my posts you'll see why I (Brillen) found your sources retarded. for one, a list of links from a google serch means bullshit to me.

secondly: I list of Blog links from a google serch means even more bullshit to me. (it's downright lazy and blogs are unrelyable)

Thirdly how does the fact that bill gates won't give up most of his fortune till he dead ruins my arguement? The fact that he's willing to give it up to charity is all that really matters. He could just say "fuck it! let the lawyers figure out where it goes."

Fourthly: If you wanna bash someone, Make sure it the right person. :D

really, excuse us for not wanting to reduce out lifestyle to the level of a cess pool to help others. Not wanting to live like trash is not my idea of being greedy. Say what you want that's my standing and I'm sticking to it.

NightmareDragon

06-10-2008, 08:40 PM

well if your a bad warlord a better warlord replaces you... thats how it works...

Aid should be given to those that deserve it, the problem is its almost impossible to tell in most cases who deserves it and who doesnt.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 08:41 PM

This deserves something better. If you still don't get it I feel sorry for you:
The African countries will gladly accept all contributions they can get. The UN has set a standard of 1% of the GDP per country to combat starvation.
This is aid, not politics...These are starving people.

I wasn't aware the UN had any authority to tell sovereign nations how much foreign aid they should be giving out.

And again, which amount of money would you rather have? America's slightly smaller BNP or Sweden's slightly larger BNP? Anyone that doesn't have some kind of political axe to grind knows which one is a bigger contribution. And at the end of the day, the contribution size is what matters. Meanwhile, America still wins in per capita private charity donations.

They should yup.

And none of that means that a corporation with a security force would be able to kill strikers.

So there are laws they can "buy". The individual rights laws can easily be abolished.

That's why i said make up your mind. A individual right law can as easily be abolished as a corporate law (depends on country off course).

I'm thinking really long run and global level here. Try to think with me :)

It might be an extremely far viewpoint for you but for me it looks still practically close enough.

No they aren't even close to the same in this country. It is very difficult to get anything resembling an infringement upon indivdiual rights to pass in this country. I could give a shit about the global level as there are no global laws outside of ratified treaties that hold any weight in my country.

Corporations buying laws is the exact reason we shouldn't have any corporate regulations. It just encourages more of the same.

Long enough to make the other business quit and then they can just start selling at a higher price as it was before they sold with loss.

And then when a new business comes along in a short time period they keep doing it on and off? Still wouldn't work long term.

Starting out in certain sectors is near impossible and just too expensive for regular people and even rich people with already dominating players or monopolies in it.

I've seen it happen and it's very bad for the free market.

So, the companies that spent massive amounts of capital should be punished because of a high market entry? That doesn't add up at all. Punishment for success is never long term good for an economy.

Look at nuclear energy in the US. It's regulated to the point of insanity so no company will try it. If not for the regulations companies would attempt to put it in place despite the very high startup costs.

During the industrial revolution it also took laws to abolish child labor, physical harassment of people, etc.

Oh noes, protection of individual rights. What governments should have been doing all along.

Laws evolve and as i said above over time corps can have too many economic and as a result political power to get back into a state as we have been before and even worse.

Which is another argument for no regulations. This is broken, so let's add more of what broke it is a lose lose situation.

The only option then is a revolution of the masses. Which will result in just another commie or socialist state.

So I rather have minor laws that will keep the free market as open as possible without having to risk of ending into an authoritarian state over time.

Eh, our revolution kept that shit off for about a 100 years. Which is longer than the generational revolution that ole Thomas Jefferson said would probably be necessary to maintain a free society.

Your country is a great example of minor laws not keeping the country with as free of a market as possible.

NightmareDragon

06-10-2008, 08:42 PM

in an ideal world everyone would be equal.... sadly everyone has a differant opinion on what "ideal" is so it will never be possible ;)

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:43 PM

No I don't. So instead of invading Iraq perhaps you could contribute to UN peacekeeping forces in some larger number so that they can actually engage these warlords.

You did that in Haiti and t hat's good.
That's the conflicts in where people need real help.

Man, I really feel like I'm developing a brain tumor. So, we shouldn't be in Iraq even though thats a "peace keeping operation" but we definitely should have troops sent immediately to Africa.

What makes the African people more important then Iraq? Both places have people living in extreme poverty and both have violent conflict going on as days go by. So I guess the only reason I could gather that would make you want to send troops to africa instead is that its the trendy liberaltard thing to propose. Oh ya I almost forgot keep in mind I don't support the Iraq war at all.

LETS SEND AID TO AFRIKA LETS SEND TROOPS TO SAVE TEH WURLD

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:46 PM

Corporations buying laws is the exact reason we shouldn't have any corporate regulations. It just encourages more of the same.

Corporations would be able to make their own laws when they create monopolies.
"If you want to work here you may not speak during these hours" for example.

Or "If you want to work here, you have to sign a contract of unquestionable obedience" .
And if this is a monopoly in a market for which an education is specified for then those workers would be forced to live by those rules without any alternative.

Well ofcourse.. not forced according to you.
They could choose not to work and live on the street untill they starve!

Oh ya I almost forgot keep in mind I don't support the Iraq war at all.

That's great!
stop feeling as I am going after you in anything than being an inhumane pig not feeling any empathy for a starving child. If you're against the war that's great, I guess since the economic cost it is and not because of the lives lost.

But I am just suggesting that instead of a war like that you could go and combat warlords that attack redcross lorries.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 08:48 PM

Corporations would be able to make their own laws when they create monopolies.
"If you want to work here you may not speak during these hours" for example.

When an employee agrees to work for an employer there are terms of that employment. If you want to talk during specific hours and your employer doesn't want you to, you have two options. Comply or find another fucking job. They don't owe you employment. It's an agreement.

Or "If you want to work here, you have to sign a contract of unquestionable obedience" .
And if this is a monopoly in a market for which an education is specified for then those workers would be forced to live by those rules without any alternative.

Bullshit they are. They can go into another market niche. They can find another company to work for when it inevitably fills the niche that the monopoly has.

Well ofcourse.. not forced according to you.
They could choose not to work and live on the street untill they starve!

Far be it for me to call an agreement force. Sorry, but I actually use definitions of words.

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 08:49 PM

Corporations would be able to make their own laws when they create monopolies.
"If you want to work here you may not speak during these hours" for example.

Or "If you want to work here, you have to sign a contract of unquestionable obedience" .
And if this is a monopoly in a market for which an education is specified for then those workers would be forced to live by those rules without any alternative.

Well ofcourse.. not forced according to you.
They could choose not to work and live on the street untill they starve!

Are you retarded? thats a contract not a law...

Also whats to stop the competition from offering jobs that don't suspend speech LOL

LOL UNQUESTIONABLE OBEDIENCE dude are you some kind of marxist. Man, you just made me nervous I should read the fine print before I get a part time job this summer it might say I must be their slave for eternity.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 08:51 PM

Are you retarded? thats a contract not a law...

LOL UNQUESTIONABLE OBEDIENCE dude are you some kind of marxist. Man, you just made me nervous I should read the fine print before I get a part time job this summer it might say I must be their slave for eternity.

Just an extreme example. Don't get all worked up about it.
You know, to "prove a point".

Also whats to stop the competition from offering jobs that don't suspend speech LOL

The lack of anti-trust laws and the formation of cartels.

Eskareon

06-10-2008, 09:11 PM

Just an extreme example. Don't get all worked up about it.
You know, to "prove a point".

Just like you, always painting the worst-case scenario. But, no, you aren't a fear-mongerer, right? You just use "extreme examples to prove a point."

Reading your posts is painful. You ramble on about subjects you know very little about. It's clear you've read some minimal text, and by text I really mean propaganda. You don't understand how businesses work, how corporations are regulated. You don't understand the basic principle of earning your own way.

All you do is get overly emotional and cry about how terrible things are or could be. You get all bleeding-heart and cry about how immoral and inhuman everyone else is. But not you, of course. You're doing everything in your power to make sure those hungry people in Africa get food. That's why you're down there right now, sacrificing all luxuries of the spoiled life and donating your time and money to raise others' standards of living. Right?

You're just another teenage hypocrite.

You started out this argument ranting about how America has great disparities in its standards of living, how only a small minority has "all the money." Do you realize that America has the strongest middle-class? Actually, we only call it a middle-class because we have virtually no class boundaries. Our wealth is distributed. Yet you point at the few exceptionally wealthy people and act like it's some kind of common occurance.

In any rich country, you will always have a few at the top tier. However, unlike almost every other country, America has its wealth very well distributed throughout all "tiers," if you can even find a tier here. But you'd have everyone believe that America is full of broke people, living sub-standard lives, wishing they could but have a crumb from the table of the wealthy.

And now you're somehow trying to twist your argument into some faux-morality punchline. Now you're all about helping the abysmally poor in other countries. I thought we were all debating America's economic disparities? Oh, no, now we're accusing big corporations of... not taking care... of poor Africans? No, wait, we're accusing big companies of suppressing smaller businesses... and not taking care of... poor people? No, wait, I know what you're arguing - that big corporations will always turn out to be evil, and that eventually everything is going to come crashing down in a huge cesspool of evil conspiracy and conglomeration.

Keep on rambling, Tharkon. Remember, what you feel in your gut is always right, even if you don't have knowledge of the subject at hand.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 09:20 PM

Again you're drawing the emotional card.
You want to it to make it out as if I'm attacking America here and you want to wake "american patriotism" in those I am debating with.

That corporations built America and that I am attacking the founders of America.
That's almost what you're trying to make it out to be.

But you said something I have to agree with!

how corporations are regulated
Precisely, how they are regulated...that the regulations make the market work.
The US supreme court sumarizes it quite well in a case listed on Wikipedia:

"Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation."

And so the destruction of anti-trust laws are a threat to the little American trying to make the american dream. They are what makes sure that the big corporations do not go together to push out the little guy.
If we agree that monopolies and cartels are bad then the only thing we need to agree upon is making regulations that makes it harder for them to form.

Only an idiot would say that murder is bad (owww... FEAR mongering.. comparing murder to corporations...eeek!) and not create laws to stop it.
It is the same principle in everything ellse in this world.
Regulations are needed.

Barbarossa

06-10-2008, 09:31 PM

Katrina victims?

Oh, those dumbfuckers who were given fair warning to get out of New Orleans while they had time and did not.

They were the same ones who who were holding signs while standing on their [rental housing] rooftops that said "SAVE MY STUPID ASS CUZ I WAS TOO IGNORANT TO LEAVE WHEN I WAS TOLD TO" or my favorite sign
"GET MY ASS OFF THIS ROOF SO I CAN LOOT THE TOWN DRY".

All joking aside, they should have put all these worthless fucks to work fixing all the broken and disabled shit in New Orleans to pay off all the shit the government was handing out to them. Nevermind that in the greater percentage of cases, most of these stupid shits were welfare cases to begin with. No, let's bring in busloads of mexicans to do the work that our welfare recipients should be doing.

Fuck `em...this should be lesson for all welfare scumbuckets, sometimes free handouts have a price after all.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 09:34 PM

Again you're drawing the emotional card.
You want to it to make it out as if I'm attacking America here and you want to wake "american patriotism" in those I am debating with.

That corporations built America and that I am attacking the founders of America.
That's almost what you're trying to make it out to be.

But you said something I have to agree with!

Precisely, how they are regulated...that the regulations make the market work.
The US supreme court sumarizes it quite well in a case listed on Wikipedia:

"Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation."

And so the destruction of anti-trust laws are a threat to the little American trying to make the american dream. They are what makes sure that the big corporations do not go together to push out the little guy.
If we agree that monopolies and cartels are bad then the only thing we need to agree upon is making regulations that makes it harder for them to form.

Only an idiot would say that murder is bad (owww... FEAR mongering.. comparing murder to corporations...eeek!) and not create laws to stop it.
It is the same principle in everything ellse in this world.
Regulations are needed.

Lol at using the body that brought America prohibition of alcohol as the reasoning for your argument.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 09:38 PM

Muse

06-10-2008, 09:42 PM

What's up with the skree?

Matriel

06-10-2008, 10:08 PM

Yeah screw the majority of (almost all) economists, scientists and goverments!
Be a looney libertarian and try something that evidently will work but never has been tried. Right?

And your argument for it is: Uhm...ahem.. I dun like Monopoly but it willz neevaah happen so we no need to make laws against it.

I wasn't aware Congress was full of economicists or scientists. And the fuck if government is ever an expert on anything.

And yes free market has been tried and used in many facets and areas. The drug trade is a good example. No one seems to maintain a monopoly there.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 10:11 PM

Congress isn't. But those who advocate anti-trust laws are. Like Adam Smith you know? Like the founder of the free-market.

a Free-market neeeeds anti trust laws...

Matriel

06-10-2008, 10:12 PM

Congress isn't. But those who advocate anti-trust laws are. Like Adam Smith you know?

Some libertarians support anti-trust laws. I'm just not one of them.

And you're also advocating more than just anti-trust laws. So really, it's a moot point.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 10:18 PM

Matriel

06-10-2008, 10:20 PM

I'm not advocating anything. I'm actually for a much more worker controlled economy (an anarcho-syndicalist economy).
We're discussing what is best for a free market economy which is probably the world I am going to live in. And in that world to much government involvment is baad...baaaad.
But regulations <3

I like taking sides that I don't fully support :)

And yeah, that's the non-looney libertarians.
You're the looney ones... thus the addition of "looney" infront of libertarian.

Government involvement bad.
Regulations good.

Do you realize how stupid you sound?

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 10:25 PM

Regulations= Regulations on how corporations should run.

Involvment= Government dictating what an industry should produce, how it should produce it, what materials it should use, in what what area it should produce it.

An example of this would be giving extra money to cornfactories/Farms but not giving it to the rest of the farmingsector. Because the government belives corn is good for the population.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 10:27 PM

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 10:37 PM

Indeed. I never said government was bad. Just (direct-add that if you wish) government involvment.

You need regulations dude.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 10:40 PM

Indeed. I never said government was bad. Just (direct-add that if you wish) government involvment.

You need regulations dude.

So, you understand that the government is the one that creates regulations.

So, you can understand my amusement at you calling for a lack of government interference and then a need for regulations I hope. Cause it's a god damn contradiction.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 10:43 PM

Definetly not. As it is not for the sane free-market advocates.
You need to learn not be so absolutist.

Government is good for sometimes and sometimes not.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 10:49 PM

Hundreds of millions of deaths in the last century or so make me believe government isn't good for really anything.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 10:52 PM

Like you give a shit.
I'll give you the last word.

Matriel

06-10-2008, 10:54 PM

Like you give a shit.
I'll give you the last word.

Nice emotional response to a factual statement. Better go change your tampon honey.

Eskareon

06-10-2008, 11:26 PM

Coming this summer...

One teenager...

Thousands of economists, entrepreneurs, accountants, and market researchers...

But one teenager...

Tharkon

Armed with conviction, emotion, and paranoia...

Backed with volumes of trustworthy Wikipedia sources...

Tharkon

One teenager swims against the current of today's ignorant elite.

Tharkon

Questioning everything, understanding nothing...

Trusting his gut...

Tharkon

He fears no fact.

Tharkon

Tharkon

Tharkon

[Fade to black]

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 11:31 PM

Thousands of economists, entrepreneurs, accountants, and market researchers...

Orly?
Tell me those people who advocate the removal of anti-trust laws and that are widely praised among those who study economics. Please do.

Or is all you can do talk shit about people?
Isn't the most humiliating thing here that a 19 year old is correct and you aren't?

GlacierFreeze

06-10-2008, 11:36 PM

It's funny how people can argue about something they know nothing about. IE: Foreigners arguing about America. lol

Ignorance.

Tiberias

06-10-2008, 11:40 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/25/ST2008052500124.html

I think people should be in jail.

Skree

MOAR OBAMESSIAH AMIRITE?!?

Skree

Slypieguy

06-10-2008, 11:43 PM

This became epic. We have a new Arius among us, less reason, more emotion plz!!

Skree

GlacierFreeze

06-10-2008, 11:51 PM

oh gtfo of here. I won't comment on that shit since it's completely off topic but what the hell?

First of all the discussion is about anti-trust laws or not in any free-market society.

But you are fucking bitching about me...a "foreigner" discussing about america?

You little arroggant bitch.
Americans put their nose everywhere. they have opinions about everyone and everything and try to force people their opinions if they don't manage to influence them/us.

And when someone comments about you, then we are ignorant?

Dumbass.

I got this little PM from Mr. LetsRobTheRichAndGiveToTheLazyAndUndeser vingPoor.

As me for being "arrogant," that's just your BS that other people having been feeding you about Americans.

You have an inferiority complex, son. Get over it.

Tharkon Fargor

06-10-2008, 11:58 PM

You want reason, I've already stated Adam Smith as an example.
Your side as always has just babbled. Same with when Günther gave real life examples Matriel kept talking about a fantasy land and didn't support his statements with any facts, neither has Eskareon. You know I am right because you cannot provide any sources or facts in their posts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a7WDnsrBls&feature=related

"He advocated market forces deal with supply and demand and was highly sceptical of government intervention but he does not agree with the radical views of market anarchists..."

...Adam smith writes: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion of their wealth but also something more."

He also spoke about that regulations are needed as long as there are reasonable grounds that this would achive an reasonable result.

On why it would achive a reasonable result and why it is needed on a continental (global scale) you can read in the following publication if you truly give a damn or want to learn something:

http://www.iue.it/PUB/law05-01.pdf

Now I'm reasonable. Untill people start pointing out direct falsehoods in the PDF file you can forget me replying anymore.

Killuminati

06-10-2008, 11:59 PM

I'm not advocating anything. I'm actually for a much more worker controlled economy (an anarcho-syndicalist economy).
We're discussing what is best for a free market economy which is probably the world I am going to live in. And in that world to much government involvment is baad...baaaad.
But regulations <3

I like taking sides that I don't fully support :)

And yeah, that's the non-looney libertarians.
You're the looney ones... thus the addition of "looney" infront of libertarian.

lmao, even if the poor had jobs you would still get angry cuz you would be yelling wage slavery!!!!

This became epic. We have a new Arius among us, less reason, more emotion plz!!

Skree

I'm sad that Arius got a job and is no longer with us :(

Slypieguy

06-11-2008, 12:00 AM

That's cute that you like Adam Smith, now go read some Nozick and get back to me.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 12:03 AM

That's cute that you like Adam Smith, now go read some Nozick and get back to me.

The funny thing is, we were going over these 2 guys in class today.

Baralis

06-11-2008, 12:40 AM

The biggest problem with trying to help the poor in any situation is most of the time it is abused. People that dont really need it will ask for it. People that could make a life choose not to because someone will give them a hand out. Alot of the time people that have recieved aid will come to rely on it and will never try to fully support themselves again.

I wouldnt mind donating to help the needy if people would do what is right. Take Africa for example. How many years have we been sending millions in aid and how much has it helped? I say we cut all aid and let them fend for themselves it long overdue. If about 90% of the population were to stave to death that should leave enough food for the remaining 10%.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 12:44 AM

People that could make a life choose not to because someone will give them a hand out. Alot of the time people that have recieved aid will come to rely on it and will never try to fully support themselves again.

This is the truth and is the reason why Tharkon's "you're evil because you don't give money to the poor" argument is bogus. If people are lazy, they don't deserve shit.

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 12:53 AM

Nah I actually agree. With you Glacier.
People who won't work without a valid reason should loose their welfare benifits.

It depends on a couple of things though. I wouldn't agree every time.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 01:01 AM

Nah I actually agree. With you Glacier.
People who won't work without a valid reason should loose their welfare benifits.

It depends on a couple of things though. I wouldn't agree every time.

A lot of the Katrina victims are those types of people though (lazy). I lived on the Mississippi coast , 1 hour away from New Orleans, when Katrina hit. There are 2 types of people down here (and everywhere else in the world). The people who work and get what they want and the people who are lazy, collect free hand outs (most of the time undeservedly), and bitch about everything (and want more).

The second type of people (and everyone) deserves SOME help, but need to be cut off after a certain time. If they are capable, they need to get a job and do stuff for themselves, not get put on a lifetime supply of free hand outs.

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:05 AM

Yo dude. We've been arguing about anti-trust laws that affect working men and women or/and small businesses and aid to Africa where people are starving to the point that they can't work.

I've not commented to much on the Katrina thing ;)

And no there are three types:

Those who work and get payed fairly for it.

Those who are exploited to the point that they cannot work anymore/become sick/hungry/die.

And those who are lazy.

Out of these, all 3 groups can be effected by drought, starvation, wars and natural disasters in which case all three groups should get help to get on the status where they were previously. You know, cause that's "justice" in the end.

The problem with Katrina I guess is that there's not really much work left in New Orleans now, right? Ellse people would take it.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 01:13 AM

Those who work and get payed fairly for it.

Those who are exploited to the point that they cannot work anymore/become sick/hungry/die.

And those who are lazy.

We dont' have the 2nd type in America, just the 1st and 3rd type. Sorry. If there was the 2nd type who were worked so hard that it would kill them (or whatever crap you said), they could improve their situation easily by getting an education. It's "The American Dream" after all, your lifestyle doesn't have to stay "shitty." It's your own fault if it stays that way.

The problem with Katrina I guess is that there's not really much work left in New Orleans now, right? Ellse people would take it.

There's plenty of work, I promise. If they say there's not, then they're just too lazy to look.

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:17 AM

We dont' have the 2nd type in America, just the 1st and 3rd type. Sorry. If there was the 2nd type who were worked so hard that it would kill them (or whatever crap you said), they could improve their situation easily by getting an education. It's American after all, your lifestyle doesn't have to stay "shitty. It's your own fault if it stays that way.

Right.
Swedish TV did a thing on Cleavland, how poverty was spreading there, how people couldn't afford their houses anymore, how jobs were moving and how people couldn't afford healthcare.

And I've seen some other videos/documentaries about it to.
But couldn't you do me a favour. Take a camera, go to some poor neighbourhood/city like Harlem or New Orleans or Cleavland and ask people and then tell me the *truth* and show me the full video clip?

Because you telling me everyone are lying makes you look like the liar.

Baralis

06-11-2008, 01:18 AM

There's plenty of work, I promise. If they say there's not, then they're just too lazy to look.

Agreed, anyone in america that is willing to do what they have to do can get a job. The people that say otherwise either a) dont want to work b)dont want to do the particular job available c) do not want to relocate to make a better life.

There are some instances of areas being very job poor but they are generally pretty local.

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:20 AM

I'm talking about people with a job getting exploited.
And soon we are back at square one.

Why they are exploited...because the massive corporations bla bla ... monopoly ... bla bla... cartels... bla bla .... no market wages.

Just browse through the thread~ I'm going to bed now anyway.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 01:22 AM

I'm talking about people with a job getting exploited.
And soon we are back at square one.

Why they are exploited...because the massive corporations bla bla ... monopoly ... bla bla... cartels... bla bla .... no market wages.

Sorry, you're full of shit and so are those videos you've been brainwashed by.

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:26 AM

Ya ya... Everyone are wrong except you and the little bunch of market anarchists on this forum.

Like some guy said...Adam Smith is cute. The worlds most respected man in free-market economics. Instead we should listen to the fool Nozick that nobody in their right mind listens to.

I bet you're like O'reily saying homeless vets don't exist. Even when they come knocking on your door.

What ever dude. I like sharpening my debating skills talking to radicals of both spectrums. One crazier than the other.

Killuminati

06-11-2008, 01:28 AM

That's cute that you like Adam Smith, now go read some Nozick and get back to me.

Rothbard > Nozick

Tharkon: Also LMAO, Nozick held one of the most respected positions at Harvard you retarded anarchist commie.

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:31 AM

What I said. Crazy Market anarchists.

Total radicals.
You're like Stalinists. What you crazy looneys want will result in the establishment of an oligarchy. Everyone are telling you that. Every state, every university recognizes the need for laws combating cartels and monopolies except your little cliché.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 01:32 AM

Ya ya... Everyone are wrong except you and the little bunch of market anarchists on this forum.

It's funny, the "market anarchists" are from America. Obviously, we see what works here. You can't see it because you've never been here. Have some experience before you spew nonsense.

I bet you're like O'reily saying homeless vets don't exist. Even when they come knocking on your door.

What ever dude. I like sharpening my debating skills talking to radicals of both spectrums. One crazier than the other.

O'Reily is a piece of shit and your debate skills will never be sharper than a pair of Kindergarten scissors. Sorry.

Killuminati

06-11-2008, 01:34 AM

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:35 AM

Austrians may be using the term "a priori" to mean logical proofs or axioms, such as "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C." But if Austrians were creating economic axioms that were true by logical force, then the Austrian School would become world famous overnight, whether mainstream economists liked it or not. In truth, Austrian journals are not filled with these kinds of axioms. Their arguments are really no more than theories that are guided or tested by logical proofs. Again, that's no different from what religions do. The fact that we have thousands of different religions in the world is remarkable evidence of the fallibility of this method.

If you don't recognize that this doesn't completely own you and your type of people then you're nothing more than a fool disguised.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aussm.htm

Killuminati

06-11-2008, 01:38 AM

If you don't recognize that this doesn't completely own you and your type of people then you're nothing more than a fool disguised.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aussm.htm

You're talking about economics when commies endorse the Labor theory of value...

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:40 AM

It's funny, the "market anarchists" are from America. Obviously, we see what works here. You can't see it because you've never been here.

Lol I have and I've seem the slums and the been to the elites houses in Los Angels suburbs. Don't ever fucking assume shit about me.

Desperado[1G]

06-11-2008, 01:40 AM

Right.
Swedish TV did a thing on Cleavland, how poverty was spreading there, how people couldn't afford their houses anymore, how jobs were moving and how people couldn't afford healthcare.

And I've seen some other videos/documentaries about it to.
But couldn't you do me a favour. Take a camera, go to some poor neighbourhood/city like Harlem or New Orleans or Cleavland and ask people and then tell me the *truth* and show me the full video clip?

Because you telling me everyone are lying makes you look like the liar.

I live in Cleveland and that simply isn't true. The only sizable layoff spree was when a large steel mill company (the name escapes me now) layed off about 3,200 workers due to bankruptcy back in 2001 (the same time 9/11 happened, which sent the economy into a tailspin). There is no poverty epidemic here. Far from it.

Frankly, I think your "Swedish TV" was most likely biased and was feeding you garbage to make you feel better.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 01:41 AM

Lol I have and I've seem the slums and the been to the elites houses in Los Angels suburbs. Don't ever fucking assume shit about me.

I assumed you were a dumbass when I read your first post. I was right. QQ

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:42 AM

You're talking about economics when commies endorse the Labor theory of value...

What the fuck do I care what commies endorse or not.
I pointed you to that your entire fucking belief system (because it isn't anything ellse) is based upon arguments and no scientific evidence or facts.

I've been asking you to provide facts to me supporting that for example anti-trust laws are bad and do not work. Can you do that?

Desperado[1G]

06-11-2008, 01:42 AM

Don't ever fucking assume shit about me.

that's quite the double-standard you have there

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 01:42 AM

;1396610']
Frankly, I think your "Swedish TV" was most likely biased and was feeding you garbage to make yourself feel better.

Pretty much what I said a few times. Brainwashed by biased sources, promoting ignorance. :D

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:43 AM

;1396610']I live in Cleveland and that simply isn't true. The only sizable layoff spree was when a large steel mill company (the name escapes me now) layed off about 3,200 workers due to bankruptcy back in 2001 (the same time 9/11 happened, which sent the economy into a tailspin). There is no poverty epidemic here. Far from it.

Frankly, I think your "Swedish TV" was most likely biased and was feeding you garbage to make yourself feel better.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Regional/Features/2006/september/poverty.cfm

Shows how much you knwo about your own city.

You people really fight with fantasy and not facts.

One simple type on google and you got owned. I mean do you feel good when you get humiliated? Are we a masochist perhaps?

Tharkon Fargor

06-11-2008, 01:46 AM

Now I feel content with myself. Good night :) see you tomorow again.

I hope you will have been able to provide a single factual source by then! -- Instead of the ramblings of a fool --

Desperado[1G]

06-11-2008, 01:52 AM

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Regional/Features/2006/september/poverty.cfm

Shows how much you knwo about your own city.

You people really fight with fantasy and not facts.

One simple type on google and you got owned. I mean do you feel good when you get humiliated? Are we a masochist perhaps?

http://cleveland.about.com/b/2007/08/28/cleveland-returns-to-the-top-of-the-poverty-list.htm

Here is a more up to date statistic.

Here is the laughable ranking system the US census bureau uses to classift people as "poor"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm

Here, I'll highlight some of them.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

There are your facts faggot. Our "poor" are living better than most european middle-class citizens.

I guarantee anyone living here can tell you that Cleveland isn't the crumbling poverty-stricken wasteland you've lead yourself to believe. When the average person thinks of "poor", they think of destitute. Someone who can't provide basic necessities for themselves. For some reason the census bureau loves to inflate that number.

In reality, the vast majority of residents here (and in every other city), live comfortable lives. None of this matters though. In your world American cities are run by a secret society of plutocrats, and are filled to the brim with starving homeless people and gun-toting gangsters.

Why do you even fucking bother? It's the same regurgitated bullshit over and over. AMERICA SUCKS SWEDEN IS BETTER WOOP WOOP WOOP.

We get it. Fuck off already.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 02:01 AM

fsffds

Eskareon

06-11-2008, 02:06 AM

Lol I have and I've seem the slums and the been to the elites houses in Los Angels suburbs.

So you've seen the two extremes of the economic spectrum in our country. Although you're undoubtedly lying (a Swede walking in a real slum, that was a good laugh), I'll humor you:

Did you just ignore the other 99.99% of your vacation? You know, when you rode in that airplane over tens of thousands of square miles of America that was stuffed with our middle class? What about when you were on the roads, driveways, and highways, surrounded by our middle class? Or when you were watching TV, sitting in a group of middle class Americans at the airport or hotel lobby?

No, of course you didn't experience any of this. When you visited America, you saw the tens of thousands of square miles we have of millionaires, and the other tens of thousands of square miles we have of pure poverty. Am I right? Because a Swede taking a vacation to America, who has read propaganda against America, who hasn't even graduated college yet, who has read only a handful of basic text on basic economic principles, this is a Swede who knows more about my country than I do. He's also a Swede who has a justified position to talk at length across the entire economic spectrum, from corporate business to poverty. This is the Swede who has managed, at a young age of only 19, to crack open the solution to a brilliant economy.

And all of this on the Darkfall forums.

We truly live in a glorious age, the age...

... of Tharkon.

GlacierFreeze

06-11-2008, 02:15 AM

Good post Esk. You forgot about his inferiority complex though.

Surly

06-11-2008, 02:18 AM

As constitutional scholar Roger Pilon has documented, even expenditures for the most charitable of purposes routinely were spurned as illegitimate. In 1794, future president James Madison wrote disapprovingly of a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." This view that Congress should follow the original intent of the Constitution was restated even more forcefully on the floor of the House of Representatives two years later by William Giles of Virginia. Giles condemned a relief measure for fire victims and insisted that it was not the purpose or the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

n 1827, frontiersman Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives from Tennessee. During his first term of office, a $10,000 relief bill for the widow of a naval officer was proposed. Crockett rose in stem opposition and gave the following eloquent and successful rebuttal: "We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not attempt to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."

In a famous incident in 1854, Pres. Franklin Pierce courageously vetoed an extremely popular bill intended to help the mentally ill, saying: "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, he argued, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon of which the Union of these States is founded." Pres. Grover Cleveland rejected hundreds of Congressional spending bills during his two terms in the late 1800s because, as he often wrote, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Were Jefferson, Madison, Crockett, Pierce, and Cleveland merely hard-hearted and uncaring penny-pinchers, as their critics often have charged? Were they unsympathetic toward fire victims, the mentally ill, widows, or impoverished refugees? Of course not. They were honor bound to uphold the Constitution. They perceived, as has become apparent over the years, that once the government genie was out of the bottle, it would be impossible to get back in.

With a few notable exceptions during the 19th century, Congress, the president, and the courts remained faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution with regard to government spending. As economic historian Robert Higgs noted in Crisis and Leviathan, until the 20th century, "government did little of much consequence or expense" other than running the military. The total expenditures for the Federal budget confirm this assessment. Even as late as 1925, the Federal government still was spending just four percent of national output.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2644_127/ai_53630951/pg_1

So what changed after 1925? Oh, right... terrorists, and the New Deal. Same thing, really.