eCONOMIC THEORY

[abandonconflict]

You know how people view Americans because of people like you?


[video=youtube_share;mgbSpmZyN7I]http://youtu.be/mgbSpmZyN7I[/video]

I woulda kicked that fat motherfucker in his mouth.

You shouldn't be insulting Americans, at least we won our revolution.

 

[Harrekin]

I woulda kicked that fat motherfucker in his mouth.

You shouldn't be insulting Americans, at least we won our revolution.

We won, even though we'd the full might of the British Empire at our doorstep.

You beat an enemy that lives 4000+ miles away before there were powered ships.

Yis pack of fucking elephants.

Spoiler alert! That fat prick dies of a heart attack at the top of the tower.

 

[cannabineer]

Understood, but it took us thousands of years to figure out a use for the steam engine and less than a century to make computers the center point of our world. Technology is increasing faster every year.

I wouldn't be surprised if the government already had artificial intelligence in a workable form in a lab. If not, it will soon enough. Once it has that, I can only imagine that it will be turned towards some of the challenges like creating virtual worlds. Without bad habits, hobbies, ect the artificial intelligence could create those things or a better artificial intelligence. I think at that point the world would be so different because of the new technologies that it would be nothing like today. I think I have heard it called technological singularity. How far do you imagine we are from it?

The aeolipile was not a steam engine, but a novelty, a spinnything. It was never made to do work, as far as we know.

The first successful steam engine was Lycomen's of 1712. Savery built one earlier (in 1698 ) but it had limited utility.

I see technology slowing down from the fevered pace of the last 150 years down to a more historically normal one. Too many moderns are blinded by the successes of info tech and don't see the limitations. Computers can schedule and mind the trains, but they cannot power them. Info tech cannot replace heavy industry. So my opinion in re technological singularity is that it is a pipe-dream of futurists who have been seduced into overestimating the power of computers to do stuff other than grind bits. I am pessimistic about an agile artificial consciousness ("artificial intelligence" is something much lesser) being produced any time soon. Other technologies that have more or less stalled, such as transportation (esp. offplanet) and energy generation need to do some catching up. Jmo. cn

 

[Carthoris]

As if anyone who isn't on the executive board of any fucking company could afford to buy anything that wasn't essential for survival.

by the way, did anybody go to jail over the pensions that were looted in the Hostess debacle?

Whether you get paid in money and spend it to survive or whether you get paid in stock in the company and trade it to survive the outcome is the same. What you seem to not understand is that if you put the power in a different place you just end up with a different person in charge(maybe lol.).

The median income in the United States is 46,000. That means even if we killed all the rich people and shared their incomes with everyone else there would still be people in poverty unless everyone was payed the same. Median means if everyone made the same amount. You would also be paying janitors and doctors the same thing. There would be no reward for motivation and hard work. I don't think this is what you are talking about and so you end up with the same situation as we have now. A significant portion of the country would be making minimum wage and they would be talking bad about whoever was towards the upper end of the scale. There quite simply isn't enough rich people/owners to do away with to pay for what we are doing now with our government. In Libertarian Socialism, how would housing and healthcare work? Would people still buy and sell houses and negotiate prices? How about food? Just being an idiot would cost you a lot of money and the smart people would end up with more leftover stock. Is the stock renewing? Does the company get a set amount of stock or just print new stock every week? You have to explain the stock system - the stock couldn't be just for that company because once they gave out their stock, they would have to take new stock in to pay the employees their share. This would mean taking other companies stock and make the stock be essentially just like money is now. If there is a fire at the factory does the original stock become worthless and do the employees not get paid if the company does poorly?

 

[Carthoris]

You're an embarrassment to the US education system if you think Ireland is part of the UK.

I guess you're just the typical fat, stupid motherfucker who gives a semblence of reality to the American stereotype.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK isn't it? There were plenty of fat people in Ireland, and I saw a surprising amount of people with downs syndrome.

 

[Carthoris]

All you potato eating gingers ought to be deported back into the ocean and out of British territory.

Racism? Good job.

 

[Harrekin]

Northern Ireland is part of the UK isn't it? There were plenty of fat people in Ireland, and I saw a surprising amount of people with downs syndrome.

Yeah we actually keep our retards alive and support their lives instead of submitting them to the private medical world.

And Northern Ireland is a distinct legal entity to the rest of the Republic, some idiots want it back whereas smarter people like me just know it'll be a potential extra 25% to pay for on the Welfare.

 

[abandonconflict]

Whether you get paid in money and spend it to survive or whether you get paid in stock in the company and trade it to survive the outcome is the same. What you seem to not understand is that if you put the power in a different place you just end up with a different person in charge(maybe lol.).

The median income in the United States is 46,000. That means even if we killed all the rich people and shared their incomes with everyone else there would still be people in poverty unless everyone was payed the same. Median means if everyone made the same amount. You would also be paying janitors and doctors the same thing. There would be no reward for motivation and hard work. I don't think this is what you are talking about and so you end up with the same situation as we have now. A significant portion of the country would be making minimum wage and they would be talking bad about whoever was towards the upper end of the scale. There quite simply isn't enough rich people/owners to do away with to pay for what we are doing now with our government. In Libertarian Socialism, how would housing and healthcare work? Would people still buy and sell houses and negotiate prices? How about food? Just being an idiot would cost you a lot of money and the smart people would end up with more leftover stock. Is the stock renewing? Does the company get a set amount of stock or just print new stock every week? You have to explain the stock system - the stock couldn't be just for that company because once they gave out their stock, they would have to take new stock in to pay the employees their share. This would mean taking other companies stock and make the stock be essentially just like money is now. If there is a fire at the factory does the original stock become worthless and do the employees not get paid if the company does poorly?

Cool story bro. Your arguments always start with bull shit and then I stop reading them. Just keep on pushing bull shit, everybody already believes it, they refuse to be open minded.

So how are you enjoying Ayn Rand's crappy books?

 

[Carthoris]

Yeah we actually keep our retards alive and support their lives instead of submitting them to the private medical world.

And Northern Ireland is a distinct legal entity to the rest of the Republic, some idiots want it back whereas smarter people like me just know it'll be a potential extra 25% to pay for on the Welfare.

Are you suggesting we kill our retards in the US? Usually when I say Ireland, I go on to make certain people know I mean the Republic.

 

[Carthoris]

Cool story bro. Your arguments always start with bull shit and then I stop reading them. Just keep on pushing bull shit, everybody already believes it, they refuse to be open minded.

So how are you enjoying Ayn Rand's crappy books?

Her books are very poorly written, I enjoy the ideas in them though.

Which part was bullshit and why can't you answer a single question about your own ideology?

 

[abandonconflict]

Her books are very poorly written, I enjoy the ideas in them though.

Which part was bullshit and why can't you answer a single question about your own ideology?

Kidding? I do nothing but answer stupid fucking questions all day about a very well defined internationally well known philosophy that has been around for over a century and a half. I'm sick of answering your stupid fucking questions. The bullshit was the bolded part. When the fuck has anybody suggested anything like that? You suggested it as a strawman. You are actively going out of your way to not understand it and then saying why "won't you answer questions?". The last thing I would want is for someone like you to embrace sanity. You do a far greater service to the views of anarchists by posing retarded fucking questions and juxtaposing Ayn Rand's ideas, which you enjoy.

 

[NoDrama]

Just so there is no confusion. Everyone dies alone.

 

[abandonconflict]

I'm just sick of all the BS. From complicated economic jargon to scare people away to out right strawmen about Marxism, this is really not sorcery.

I'll break it down. The message being sent in the actions, measures and rhetoric of the owning class, can be translated into the following:

"We want to own everything, we have the right to own everything and will continue to accumulate and consolidate until we own everything and if you don't own anything it is your fault and you should work for us and devote your life to such labor instead of what ever dreams you had. If you want to have a better life, you have to win in the competition that life has become, which we impose upon you. Even then what ever dreams and visions you had in life will come secondary to the pursuit of money. Money is your god. We have every right to defend the hegemony we impose and if you wish to obtain any of the privilege we have INHERITED, you will have to fight for it and become like us and exploit as many people as you can."

This cut throat philosophy would have you believe that there is no limit to acquisition and that there is still plenty which has not yet been acquired. They devote their entire lives to acquisition and therefore make other people's live devoted to acquisition. For if you do not devote your life to acquisition, you can not live. While there is indeed enough resources like food, water and materials for luxurious lives for everyone on the planet to live decently, there are a very small few who inflict utter poverty upon the rest.

It is not required that a violent redistribution take place. They just have to share a little.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~JFK

 

[Harrekin]

I'm just sick of all the BS. From complicated economic jargon to scare people away to out right strawmen about Marxism, this is really not sorcery.

I'll break it down. The message being sent in the actions, measures and rhetoric of the owning class, can be translated into the following:

"We want to own everything, we have the right to own everything and will continue to accumulate and consolidate until we own everything and if you don't own anything it is your fault and you should work for us and devote your life to such labor instead of what ever dreams you had. If you want to have a better life, you have to win in the competition that life has become, which we impose upon you. Even then what ever dreams and visions you had in life will come secondary to the pursuit of money. Money is your god. We have every right to defend the hegemony we impose and if you wish to obtain any of the privilege we have INHERITED, you will have to fight for it and become like us and exploit as many people as you can."

This cut throat philosophy would have you believe that there is no limit to acquisition and that there is still plenty which has not yet been acquired. They devote their entire lives to acquisition and therefore make other people's live devoted to acquisition. For if you do not devote your life to acquisition, you can not live. While there is indeed enough resources like food, water and materials for luxurious lives for everyone on the planet to live decently, there are a very small few who inflict utter poverty upon the rest.

It is not required that a violent redistribution take place. They just have to share a little.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~JFK

So you expect business owners to just "give up" ownership of their property?

Or do the workers buy stocks?

One of those can happen now, the other is Socialism.

Your philosophy is retarded.

 

[abandonconflict]

So you expect business owners to just "give up" ownership of their property?

Or do the workers buy stocks?

One of those can happen now, the other is Socialism.

Your philosophy is retarded.

You're retarded.

If you think policies are not being slowly but surely shaped toward wealth redistribution upward you are crazy. Union membership is dwindling and if minimum wage kept pace with CEO pay it would be 25 bucks an hour.

There is that stupid fucking strawman again, insisting that I expect business owners to give up their businesses completely. You always argue so black and white. There is no shade of gray and therefore you leave the correct answer off the list of choices. Then conclude with some fucking ad hominem. Secondly, you are using the word socialism wrong, you insist that it means nationalisation, it doesn't. Nationalisation means nationalisation. By the way, you live in state socialism and state socialism is growing steadily in the US already.

Sure workers can buy stocks, but they are already underpaid.

If things keep going the way they are going though, some "business owners" will be pressed to "give up" some of that excessive wealth.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[Carthoris]

The aeolipile was not a steam engine, but a novelty, a spinnything. It was never made to do work, as far as we know.

The first successful steam engine was Lycomen's of 1712. Savery built one earlier (in 1698 ) but it had limited utility.

I see technology slowing down from the fevered pace of the last 150 years down to a more historically normal one. Too many moderns are blinded by the successes of info tech and don't see the limitations. Computers can schedule and mind the trains, but they cannot power them. Info tech cannot replace heavy industry. So my opinion in re technological singularity is that it is a pipe-dream of futurists who have been seduced into overestimating the power of computers to do stuff other than grind bits. I am pessimistic about an agile artificial consciousness ("artificial intelligence" is something much lesser) being produced any time soon. Other technologies that have more or less stalled, such as transportation (esp. offplanet) and energy generation need to do some catching up. Jmo. cn

There was a steam engine in a temple where you put a coin in and it made steam shoot out of the temple statue and moved something. They were like a step away from the industrial revolution. Alexandria or something maybe.

 

[Carthoris]

Kidding? I do nothing but answer stupid fucking questions all day about a very well defined internationally well known philosophy that has been around for over a century and a half. I'm sick of answering your stupid fucking questions. The bullshit was the bolded part. When the fuck has anybody suggested anything like that? You suggested it as a strawman. You are actively going out of your way to not understand it and then saying why "won't you answer questions?". The last thing I would want is for someone like you to embrace sanity. You do a far greater service to the views of anarchists by posing retarded fucking questions and juxtaposing Ayn Rand's ideas, which you enjoy.

I never said that was your belief. My point was that even if we did away with rich people the Median income would barely move unless it went down due to no one having any clue being in charge anymore.

 

[Harrekin]

I never said that was your belief. My point was that even if we did away with rich people the Median income would barely move unless it went down due to no one having any clue being in charge anymore.

He didn't answer my point about his philosophy either being plain old capitalism or socialism.

 

[Carthoris]

I'm just sick of all the BS. From complicated economic jargon to scare people away to out right strawmen about Marxism, this is really not sorcery.

I'll break it down. The message being sent in the actions, measures and rhetoric of the owning class, can be translated into the following:

"We want to own everything, we have the right to own everything and will continue to accumulate and consolidate until we own everything and if you don't own anything it is your fault and you should work for us and devote your life to such labor instead of what ever dreams you had. If you want to have a better life, you have to win in the competition that life has become, which we impose upon you. Even then what ever dreams and visions you had in life will come secondary to the pursuit of money. Money is your god. We have every right to defend the hegemony we impose and if you wish to obtain any of the privilege we have INHERITED, you will have to fight for it and become like us and exploit as many people as you can."

This cut throat philosophy would have you believe that there is no limit to acquisition and that there is still plenty which has not yet been acquired. They devote their entire lives to acquisition and therefore make other people's live devoted to acquisition. For if you do not devote your life to acquisition, you can not live. While there is indeed enough resources like food, water and materials for luxurious lives for everyone on the planet to live decently, there are a very small few who inflict utter poverty upon the rest.

It is not required that a violent redistribution take place. They just have to share a little.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~JFK

First you start with a strawman. The evil business person who wants EVERYTHING. Then you make false assumptions so you can blame them for changing the world. The world has always been a competition since the beginning of life. If your dreams didn't involve getting what someone else has then you wouldn't have to work instead of devoting your life to your dreams. If the world was natural and eat or be eaten in a physical sense then you would cry that we should make it unnatural to make it better for those who are bad at that life. The honest truth is the world can never be all things to all people. There will always been winners and losers. They might be different people in different scenarios, but in order to have a winner, you have to have a loser.

You live in poverty? I don't. Define poverty in a way that doesn't involve little green pieces of paper.