Myths and Realities

Message boards : Politics : Myths and Realities
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 13 · Next

AuthorMessage
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1663381 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 3:31:56 UTC - in response to Message 1663374.  

Dena you don't address my question, I'm surprised that you don't use set theory when you make your statements.


I don't give a hoot for theory if it doesn't work. I work in facts. Look up theory and the description will be an unproven idea.

The problem may be I don't understand what you are asking as I already answered the question you ask twice.

The fact is a functional free market where everyone can succeed is not possible. We are not all born with equal skills or equal opportunity. If the government tries to make it so, it is no longer a free market because the government has their finger on the scale.

We were only promised Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (originally Wealth). In the "Free Market" that means we are rewarded for what we provide if the market wants our product. If the market doesn't want our product, we are free to fail.
ID: 1663381 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1663405 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 4:15:48 UTC - in response to Message 1663381.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2015, 4:16:15 UTC

Dena you don't address my question, I'm surprised that you don't use set theory when you make your statements.


I don't give a hoot for theory if it doesn't work. I work in facts. Look up theory and the description will be an unproven idea.

The problem may be I don't understand what you are asking as I already answered the question you ask twice.

The fact is a functional free market where everyone can succeed is not possible. We are not all born with equal skills or equal opportunity. If the government tries to make it so, it is no longer a free market because the government has their finger on the scale.

We were only promised Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (originally Wealth). In the "Free Market" that means we are rewarded for what we provide if the market wants our product. If the market doesn't want our product, we are free to fail.

Dena you are off topic and you seem to be incapable of being on topic as a debater or someone who uses logic, you choose to fail.
ID: 1663405 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1663407 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 4:22:20 UTC - in response to Message 1663405.  

Dena you don't address my question, I'm surprised that you don't use set theory when you make your statements.


I don't give a hoot for theory if it doesn't work. I work in facts. Look up theory and the description will be an unproven idea.

The problem may be I don't understand what you are asking as I already answered the question you ask twice.

The fact is a functional free market where everyone can succeed is not possible. We are not all born with equal skills or equal opportunity. If the government tries to make it so, it is no longer a free market because the government has their finger on the scale.

We were only promised Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (originally Wealth). In the "Free Market" that means we are rewarded for what we provide if the market wants our product. If the market doesn't want our product, we are free to fail.

Dena you are off topic and you seem to be incapable of being on topic as a debater or someone who uses logic, you choose to fail.

That is the response of somebody who lost an argument. Please restate your question because the answer I provide wasn't what you were looking for. We may have a failure to communicate so think carefully before you ask.
ID: 1663407 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1663435 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 5:47:24 UTC - in response to Message 1663429.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2015, 6:07:05 UTC

government works for all of the people

Best laugh of the day.

Glad I could brighten your day, and you have my sympathy.

No...

People who believe the above, need our sympathy.

Then who should Government work for if not all of the people?
Or are you purposely misunderstanding to fill your daily quota of posts.

What CLYDE means that a government that works for the people would be something unexpected. A government that exist for any amount of time exist to make government's life better and to buy votes so it can remain in the lap of luxury. We believe the only solution to government is to keep it small so it does as little damage as possible.

Find me a government where the government workers (including the leaders) receive the lowest wage paid in the country and I might become a believer.

It was so kind of you, Dena, to explain what CLYDE means,
since he so often misunderstands a set of words used in a larger context.
It's somewhat akin to how a clown like Glen Beck would try to force
a negative meaning on a positive word like Progressive.
Governments will continue to grow until the time there is a World Government.
It seems that some people are happy to throw ungodly amounts of money at
mediocre CEOs and corporate clowns, but they'd like to see people in government
work for minimum wage, and the unfortunate to starve.

What you don't understand is how evil the progressive movement is. Among some of the many gems are forced sterilization of minorities who were considered inferior, killing people who were not contributing to society, white people should rule over third world countries and they were very strong supporters of Hitler and Musilini before we entered World War II. Today they have the attitude that they are so much better educated than the population that only they should be selected as rulers.
Yes, Glen Beck did say much of that but I did my own research into the movement finding that and far more. They are some very dangerous people and if they have their way, some day you will be ruled by China or Russia if not the United States.

Also for your information, Progressive means to progress away from the free government to a Marxist government. It means nothing more so don't read advancement into the name.

Some of this information can be found on the internet with very deep searches but for the most part you need to get history books that document the movement. They are very aware the type of monsters they are and do a good job of cleaning their pubic image but so far the history of the movement is still available.

I hope there is never a World Government as from the current U.N the first act will be the destruction of Israel.

CLYDE understands far more about the world than you might think. The men who founded our government understood government and human nature. Our government was designed taking this into account. CLYDE understands this and as such knows the flaws of government created by man.
ID: 1663435 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1663439 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 6:05:22 UTC - in response to Message 1663405.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2015, 6:07:06 UTC

Dena you are off topic and you seem to be incapable of being on topic as a debater or someone who uses logic, you choose to fail.

Hi. Central Scrutinizer here.

There are no such thing as off topic in this thread:)

Desperate nerds in high offices all over the world have been known to enact the most disgusting pieces of legislation in order to win votes (or, in places where they don't get to vote, to control unwanted forms of mass behavior).
Environmental laws were not passed to protect our air and water... they were passed to get votes. Seasonal anti-smut campaigns are not conducted to rid our communities of moral rot...they are conducted to give an aura of saintliness to the office-seekers who demand them. If a few key phrases are thrown into any speech (as the expert advisors explain to these various heads of state) votes will roll in, bucks will roll in, and, most importantly, power will be maintained by the groovy guy (or gal) who gets the most media coverage for his sleaze. Naturally, his friends in various businesses will do okay too.

FZ
ID: 1663439 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1663501 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 8:27:55 UTC - in response to Message 1663294.  

That makes no sense. You have over the air, movie rental, Internet Dish and Direct TV service. Satellite TV has been competing with cable almost from the time the first cable was constructed. Remember the 6 foot receiving antennas? They picked up the raw feed until it was scrambled but if your were willing to pay for it you could get a descrambler. I don't know how it is in your country but if somebody sees a market opportunity we sell stock or get a venture capitalist to fund entry into the business. Bumping the price only works on the short term unless the government grants a monopoly exclusive rights to a product.

Satellite tv and cable tv are essentially two different markets. The fact that satellite tv exists does not mean that cable providers don't have a monopoly. And the fact that it are the cable companies that also have to provide internet just shows how bad this monopoly is for the consumer. Plenty of areas in the US just have one provider and they are known for their absolutely horrible service.

And technically, you try to sell stock or get a venture capitalist to fund you. There is absolutely no guarantee that anyone will buy your stock or that you get funding. Nor are those two indicators that you can successfully break a monopoly's hold over the market open. Its not that difficult for them to buy you out or just push you out of business.

As for entry into the oil business, look up the term wildcatter. Many oil fortunes have been made that way.

One, that maybe worked a 100 years ago, but today? And second, even if you drill on your own for oil and find it, you don't exactly break the monopoly. Finding oil does not mean you possess the capital to fund a proper well or the means to process it into something useful. As a wildcatter you are more likely getting rich by selling your land to an oil company.

You also know very little about our government as most of our citizens. We may not have your brand of socialism but we have it none the less. Marxist governments take many forms and we learned from the worst. Ours is based on 1890 socialist Germany but we eliminated the requirement for a revolutions. As I said before, our form of socialism is called Progressivism.

Riiiight....

Well first of all, I'm well aware what your government is and that it is socialist.

Second of all, you just called 1890's Germany 'socialist'. 1890's Germany was conservative. It enacted some social reform, implemented a few measures that could be described as socialist, but those were introduced by conservatives for the sake of robbing actual socialist movements of momentum.

As for progressivism, its kind of a useless term, given how much it changes meaning depending on when and where you are looking.
ID: 1663501 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1663503 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 8:30:34 UTC - in response to Message 1663435.  

Also for your information, Progressive means to progress away from the free government to a Marxist government. It means nothing more so don't read advancement into the name.

No it doesnt, but if you really think it does mean that, then discussing this with you any further is pointless.
ID: 1663503 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1663519 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 9:12:03 UTC - in response to Message 1663501.  

As for entry into the oil business, look up the term wildcatter. Many oil fortunes have been made that way.

One, that maybe worked a 100 years ago, but today? And second, even if you drill on your own for oil and find it, you don't exactly break the monopoly. Finding oil does not mean you possess the capital to fund a proper well or the means to process it into something useful. As a wildcatter you are more likely getting rich by selling your land to an oil company.

That's very true Mikel.
You can only buy and own a piece of land, that is the top of the land not whats under the land.
The state owns all natural resources no matter where it is.
ID: 1663519 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1663524 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 9:26:36 UTC - in response to Message 1663407.  

Myths "Capitalism and free markets is best"

Reality "Country's whom follow this theory now owe so much they are technically insolvent"

This one is also incorrect. The progressive movement has been pushing us toward socialism for over a hundred years. Only by studying history do we know what capitalism and free market was.

Dena when in our history was the market free of monopolies and oligopolies?
__

Dena this my original question. To spell it out for you once again,1 you concede that there never was a free market, 2 you state that by studying history we will know about something that never was. How do you reconcile fantasy with reality?
ID: 1663524 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1663530 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 9:54:14 UTC - in response to Message 1663526.  

You can only buy and own a piece of land, that is the top of the land not whats under the land. The state owns all natural resources no matter where it is.

That may be the case in Sweden but that is not the situation elsewhere. If you own the freehold of the land you also own the mineral rights underneath it as well. You can however assign those mineral rights to others whilst still keeping ownership of the land.

Land ownership

Land Rights

Very good links Chris:)
Even the Romans had such laws.
“Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos”
ID: 1663530 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1663561 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 12:26:38 UTC

Carlsberg stunts in Belgium with 148 bikers in a movie theatre.
Some innocent couples want to take their seat, but the room is filled with not-so- friendly gentlemen... How will they react?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS3iB47nQ6E
ID: 1663561 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1663585 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 13:28:30 UTC - in response to Message 1663582.  

Government, and ALL Authority, work for themselves.
Unless one believes Human Nature has changed, and History has nothing to teach us.

Now you're scating on thin ice.
That ALL Authority, work for themselves is simply not true.
Myth perhaps:)
ID: 1663585 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1663606 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 14:33:09 UTC - in response to Message 1663601.  

Government, and ALL Authority, work for themselves.
Unless one believes Human Nature has changed, and History has nothing to teach us.

Now you're scating on thin ice.
That ALL Authority, work for themselves is simply not true.
Myth perhaps:)

At The Start: Maybe not.
But, after awhile, most...
Just as History Instructs us.

Yes you are right.
Democracy is something you have to fight for.
Every day. It's not given.
Look at Europe today:(
ID: 1663606 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1663677 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 17:07:40 UTC - in response to Message 1663501.  

Second of all, you just called 1890's Germany 'socialist'. 1890's Germany was conservative. It enacted some social reform, implemented a few measures that could be described as socialist, but those were introduced by conservatives for the sake of robbing actual socialist movements of momentum.


She has been told this numerous times and still refuses to accept it. I find her attempts to counter the claim to be unconvincing. I have a half-baked theory that it comes from Ayn Rand's false dichotomy that back in the 1930s, Europe was choosing between fascism or socialism as if democracy/capitalism was an unknown or forgotten choice to them. I have found several websites claiming fascism and socialism are the same. Ask people that grew up in the 40s and 50s (or their parents) and I doubt most in the US would say the same.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1663677 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1663680 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 17:20:45 UTC - in response to Message 1663677.  

Second of all, you just called 1890's Germany 'socialist'. 1890's Germany was conservative. It enacted some social reform, implemented a few measures that could be described as socialist, but those were introduced by conservatives for the sake of robbing actual socialist movements of momentum.


She has been told this numerous times and still refuses to accept it. I find her attempts to counter the claim to be unconvincing. I have a half-baked theory that it comes from Ayn Rand's false dichotomy that back in the 1930s, Europe was choosing between fascism or socialism as if democracy/capitalism was an unknown or forgotten choice to them. I have found several websites claiming fascism and socialism are the same. Ask people that grew up in the 40s and 50s (or their parents) and I doubt most in the US would say the same.

To an anarchist they both look similar.
ID: 1663680 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1663686 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 17:56:28 UTC - in response to Message 1663381.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2015, 17:59:28 UTC

Dena you don't address my question, I'm surprised that you don't use set theory when you make your statements.


I don't give a hoot for theory if it doesn't work. I work in facts. Look up theory and the description will be an unproven idea.

The problem may be I don't understand what you are asking as I already answered the question you ask twice.

The fact is a functional free market where everyone can succeed is not possible. We are not all born with equal skills or equal opportunity. If the government tries to make it so, it is no longer a free market because the government has their finger on the scale.

We were only promised Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (originally Wealth). In the "Free Market" that means we are rewarded for what we provide if the market wants our product. If the market doesn't want our product, we are free to fail.

The idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed or fail based on hard work or ability is a myth that excludes effects such as racism, sexism, extreme poverty and psychopathic behaviours of those with power (that could and does at the moment include financial power).

The idea of the benevolent hand of the free market has had its day as it simply does not take into account all human behaviour and the fact that we are essentially a co-operative and social species.

I find the work of the Nobel Prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom particularly interesting as she had been studying how people organise resources in a communal fashion. Her ideas should be of interest to the anarchists amongst us (who by the way, Gary, do see a difference between Socialism and Fascism)

Here is her Prize lecture. I think you will find it very interesting.

Beyond Markets and states: Polycentric Governance of complex economic systems
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1663686 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1663700 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 18:20:58 UTC - in response to Message 1663692.  

The idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed or fail based on hard work or ability is a myth that excludes effects such as racism, sexism, extreme poverty and psychopathic behaviours of those with power (that could and does at the moment include financial power)

No doubt you will not agree with David Cameron then.

An economy that delivers for people who want to work hard and get on in life.

Chris an economy which has monopolies and or oligopolies very effectively puts limits on the fruits of hard labor.
ID: 1663700 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1663702 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 18:27:22 UTC - in response to Message 1663686.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2015, 18:33:48 UTC

I find the work of the Nobel Prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom particularly interesting as she had been studying how people organise resources in a communal fashion. Her ideas should be of interest to the anarchists amongst us
Here is her Prize lecture. I think you will find it very interesting.
Beyond Markets and states: Polycentric Governance of complex economic systems

I had some problem downloading the pdf document.
Anyway
Elinor Ostrom (Åström or Riverstream) was awarded the first woman Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences Alfred Nobel memory in 2009.
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was added in 1968.
As you can see Alfred Nobel has nothing to do with his testamony and the prize for Economic "Sciences".
ID: 1663702 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1663716 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 19:03:29 UTC - in response to Message 1663707.  

Chris an economy which has monopolies and or oligopolies very effectively puts limits on the fruits of hard labor.

Well that's the world written off then. Now what?

Gosh, I didn't know that there was an unlimited supply and an unlimited demand for anything .......
ID: 1663716 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1663720 - Posted: 10 Apr 2015, 19:09:44 UTC - in response to Message 1663716.  

Chris an economy which has monopolies and or oligopolies very effectively puts limits on the fruits of hard labor.

Well that's the world written off then. Now what?

Gosh, I didn't know that there was an unlimited supply and an unlimited demand for anything .......

Gary I think one could make a strong case for unlimited demand.
ID: 1663720 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 13 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Myths and Realities


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.