|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. A crony corporation is one that receives special favor from the government. If the government is less involved in industry, it should be harder for a player in that industry to receive special favor.
You're being intentionally obtuse. A crony corporation is one that exerts it's force on the government to affect the market. In a 'free' market it just does that directly. So yes, technically crony capitalism doesn't exist in the free market, because you're cutting out the necessity for a middleman. The problem remains the same or is exacerbated.
|
On June 20 2014 03:08 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 23:25 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 12:52 rod409 wrote:On June 19 2014 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 19 2014 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:13 mcc wrote:On June 19 2014 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:24 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 03:12 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No, I disagree. The problem is that conservatives have been without a sufficiently talented politician to lead the movement since first term W. As soon as one shows up, the ship will right itself. We'll just have to see what happens. My prediction has been that someone from the libertarian ranks will be next big conservative politician and help reshape the movement. The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population. No, the problem isn't the core ideology. Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservative argument for allowing gay marriage? There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives. I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will. Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such. You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people? McCain did not get more votes then Romney. Some Sources: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/mainhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2012http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008Some media sources don’t report all precincts for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives. If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820 Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885 Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005 Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219 Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case. Well this is disappointing to see. Good work, though. Disappointing or alarming?
A bit of both.
|
On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there.
Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example.
|
On June 20 2014 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example.
isnt google fiber doing exactly what market theory proponents champion?
|
On June 20 2014 04:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example. isnt google fiber doing exactly what market theory proponents champion?
for the five people that have access to google fiber, probably yes
|
On June 20 2014 04:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example. isnt google fiber doing exactly what market theory proponents champion?
Doing research on whether gambling on high risk long-term investments is profitable is what market theory proponents champion?
|
On June 20 2014 04:37 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 04:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 20 2014 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example. isnt google fiber doing exactly what market theory proponents champion? Doing research on whether gambling on high risk long-term investments is profitable is what market theory proponents champion?
what?
On June 20 2014 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example.
isnt google fiber doing exactly what market theory proponents champion?[/QUOTE]
for the five people that have access to google fiber, probably yes[/QUOTE]
true. i saw that it had an immediate effect in the few places it exists. other companies immediately increased the services provided without additional cost, and i expect this whole netflix-comcast thing is going to blow up things in the near future.
|
On June 20 2014 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example.
What about AT&T and Comcast are you referencing?
|
On June 20 2014 04:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example. What about AT&T and Comcast are you referencing?
Sorry, I mixed AT & T and Time Warner up, I was talking about the proposed merger.
|
On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations".
You couldn't be more wrong. As evidence, the New Leftist Gabriel Kolko showed in Triumph of Conservatism how Progressivism has been the useful idiot for Corporate power and privilege, not libertarianism who by way of fact are its main adversary (of which he also shows). At no other time in American history has competition and accordingly standards of living risen more than the period of 1890 to the early 1900s before the Progressive Era began. Of course, it wasn't perfect, and I fully expect you to implore the Nirvana Fallacy to shore up your rationalizations.
|
On June 19 2014 12:52 rod409 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:29 Jormundr wrote:On June 19 2014 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 04:13 mcc wrote:On June 19 2014 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:24 Nyxisto wrote:On June 19 2014 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 19 2014 03:06 Gorsameth wrote:On June 19 2014 03:02 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No kidding. That's his job. He's not a politician. He's a radio personality. It doesn't change the fact that he does a better job communicating conservative ideals than any current politician does and that his conservative ideas are more influential than any conservative politician's. And yet this "troll" is the best conservative leader they have. Shows the state of the movement, and if that's the sort of thing its followers want to hear I can see why. You know this whole "Candidates destroy themselves trying to appease the bigot base" happens because people like Limbaugh spoon feed these dumb smucks right? No, I disagree. The problem is that conservatives have been without a sufficiently talented politician to lead the movement since first term W. As soon as one shows up, the ship will right itself. We'll just have to see what happens. My prediction has been that someone from the libertarian ranks will be next big conservative politician and help reshape the movement. The problem aren't politicians, the problem is the ideology. As long as the gop doesn't come up with something better than "less government!! Free market is awesome!" and "we don't really like gay people and stupid atheists" this party is not going to convince a majority of the population. No, the problem isn't the core ideology. Let's play a little game. Who can articulate the conservative argument for allowing gay marriage? There are no conservative arguments for such. There are libertarian ones, but libertarians are not really conservatives. I disagree. Government (particularly federal) minimalism are important tenants of both libertarians and conservatives. There's also significant liberal support for it in certain aspects. This is why Rand Paul is the most interesting republican politician to watch right now. He's looking to bridge the gap between these different groups using this libertarian flag. I don't know if he'll be the one to do it, but someone will. Correction, Government minimalism are part of the RHETORIC of both libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives don't support limited government, they just support the status quo of crony capitalism. In the spirit of such, they want to deregulate some things while adding more regulations elsewhere. This does not make them different from the liberal POV, they just take different sides on different issues. Libertarians haven't really carried out any of their rhetoric (not that they've had a chance to) so it remains to be seen whether its anything more than such. You think the conservative base doesn't realize this? Why do you think Cantor was kicked out of office? Why do you think Romney got less votes than McCain of all people? McCain did not get more votes then Romney. Some Sources: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/mainhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2012http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008Some media sources don’t report all precincts for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/If you hover over Washington you see it only shows 90%. Other states have below 100 as well. Notice how they compare McCain to Romney here to show Romney with fewer votes, this is how the right wing media hides this basic fact from conservatives. If you compare Romney to Mccain in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania Ohio: R 2,661,437 M 2,677,820 Pennsylvania: R 2,680,434 M 2,655,885 Virginia: R 1,822,522 M 1,725,005 Florida: R 4,163,447 M 4,046,219 Only in Ohio did he do worse, and this is with lower voter turnout and Gary Johnson doing better than previous 2008 3rd parties. You can also see McCain did better in California and New York while Romney did better in Texas. There is nothing in the numbers that indicates Romney needed to be more conservative. There is also no reason he should have won the primary if that was the case. Yeah, a lot of us day-of saw the projections that showed an Obama victory, and circa 2million less total votes for Romney as McCain had received. The final tally did indeed reverse the predicted numbers, 4% gain for Romney over McCain, after 4 years of Obama. I don't see evidence of media hiding "this basic fact from conservatives" simply because of the way the numbers stood when we saw Romney had lost. Conservatives were perfectly fine had estimates given Romney a lead over McCain in the middle stages of counting. It's a boring candidate's lackluster campaign against voter's views on how Obama led the country 2009-2012. It's the easy tune-out once we hear side-notes to the breaking news that the Republican candidate lost.
|
On June 20 2014 05:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". You couldn't be more wrong. As evidence, the New Leftist Gabriel Kolko showed in Triumph of Conservatism how Progressivism has been the useful idiot for Corporate power and privilege, not libertarianism who by way of fact are its main adversary (of which he also shows). At no other time in American history has competition and accordingly standards of living risen more than the period of 1890 to the early 1900s before the Progressive Era began. Of course, it wasn't perfect, and I fully expect you to implore the Nirvana Fallacy to shore up your rationalizations.
One doesn't need some hokey fallacy in order to speak on the obvious connection between the policies of the years you mentioned and the worst economic event in the history of Western Civilization. Go ahead and keep praying to Spooner though.
|
On June 20 2014 05:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". You couldn't be more wrong. As evidence, the New Leftist Gabriel Kolko showed in Triumph of Conservatism how Progressivism has been the useful idiot for Corporate power and privilege, not libertarianism who by way of fact are its main adversary (of which he also shows). At no other time in American history has competition and accordingly standards of living risen more than the period of 1890 to the early 1900s before the Progressive Era began. Of course, it wasn't perfect, and I fully expect you to implore the Nirvana Fallacy to shore up your rationalizations.
Can you give me a contemporary example of such an economy or state? Good for the 1890's and all, but why would corporate structures from a time at which people didn't even own cars compare to today's economies?
|
On June 20 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 05:09 Wegandi wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". You couldn't be more wrong. As evidence, the New Leftist Gabriel Kolko showed in Triumph of Conservatism how Progressivism has been the useful idiot for Corporate power and privilege, not libertarianism who by way of fact are its main adversary (of which he also shows). At no other time in American history has competition and accordingly standards of living risen more than the period of 1890 to the early 1900s before the Progressive Era began. Of course, it wasn't perfect, and I fully expect you to implore the Nirvana Fallacy to shore up your rationalizations. Can you give me a contemporary example of such an economy or state? Good for the 1890's and all, but why would corporate structures from a time at which people didn't even own cars compare to today's economies?
The way humans interact between each other and our base emotions, instincts, and 'hard-wiring' is not any different than it was then. In other words, your post is a giant non-sequitur. I mean, at one time slavery was ubiquitous to every advanced Nation-State on the globe, but I don't see anyone arguing for its necessity, no? If you're going to chuck the whole of history and everything we can learn from our past, then I don't have much more to say. I guess you're a true blue Conservative.
PS: Corporations were very rare in those times. Hence, one of the reasons why competition was so high (beyond the fact that Government involvement via regulatory schema's were but a fraction of a fraction of today.). Regulatory schema's have always been used to destroy competition. It's not hard to see - but emotions are a fickle bitch. It sounds good - a benevolent entity to rule over unscrupulous practices, but it's an illusion. It's never been true and never will be. Only truly Lockean societies have reconciled liberty and equality. Social-Democracy is a pox.
|
On June 20 2014 05:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 04:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". I still have to disagree on that point. If the government is only lightly involved in a particular area, that should make it harder for a crony corporation to exist there. Well then let us spare the semantics discussion and just call it "mafia-like" instead of crony. Bottom line is big companies without government oversight are going to screw their customers customers hard. At & t and comcast again serve as an excellent example. What about AT&T and Comcast are you referencing? Sorry, I mixed AT & T and Time Warner up, I was talking about the proposed merger.
Haven't been following that. I'd have to look into the specifics before commenting. Cable companies don't really operate in a free market anyways, so they're a bit of a weird animal.
|
On June 20 2014 05:23 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 05:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 05:09 Wegandi wrote:On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". You couldn't be more wrong. As evidence, the New Leftist Gabriel Kolko showed in Triumph of Conservatism how Progressivism has been the useful idiot for Corporate power and privilege, not libertarianism who by way of fact are its main adversary (of which he also shows). At no other time in American history has competition and accordingly standards of living risen more than the period of 1890 to the early 1900s before the Progressive Era began. Of course, it wasn't perfect, and I fully expect you to implore the Nirvana Fallacy to shore up your rationalizations. Can you give me a contemporary example of such an economy or state? Good for the 1890's and all, but why would corporate structures from a time at which people didn't even own cars compare to today's economies? The way humans interact between each other and our base emotions, instincts, and 'hard-wiring' is not any different than it was then. In other words, your post is a giant non-sequitur. I mean, at one time slavery was ubiquitous to every advanced Nation-State on the globe, but I don't see anyone arguing for its necessity, no? If you're going to chuck the whole of history and everything we can learn from our past, then I don't have much more to say. I guess you're a true blue Conservative. PS: Corporations were very rare in those times. Hence, one of the reasons why competition was so high (beyond the fact that Government involvement via regulatory schema's were but a fraction of a fraction of today.). Regulatory schema's have always been used to destroy competition. It's not hard to see - but emotions are a fickle bitch. It sounds good - a benevolent entity to rule over unscrupulous practices, but it's an illusion. It's never been true and never will be. Only truly Lockean societies have reconciled liberty and equality. Social-Democracy is a pox.
Because I want a little more than a 10 year span one and a half centuries ago I'm denying the whole of history? Also no I don't advocate slavery because (firstly it's inherently awful and immoral) and because I'm not trying to compare todays society to those 200 years ago, which is exactly what you were doing.
Also maybe try to write your posts in a little less self-indulgent manner if you want people to respond to you.
|
Real talk Romney vs John kerry GO
Srs both were terrible canidates compared to obamas "I win the minority and women votes your move" bulletproofness. Even if bush didn't leave such a bad taste in peoples mouths and the tea party making it difficult obama has to be considered the strongest candidate of the modern age despite his administrative failings.
Even I couldn't not vote for obama compared to romney and I really don't like obama.
|
On June 20 2014 05:09 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:On June 20 2014 02:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 19 2014 09:52 SnipedSoul wrote:
A free market only exists if there's someone to enforce it and ensure it remains fair. Left to their own devices, corporations would immediately begin colluding, price fixing, and creating exclusive territories to avoid competition. i've never understood the hard on people have for condemning corporations. its people who are corrupt, not corporations, which are legal fictions. even if the world banned corporations and all other legal entities (LLC, LLP, partnerships, etc.), we would be in the exact same position. No one is "condemning corporations". We all know that without companies we wouldn't have a place to work. What people are pointing out is that if two much money is in the hand of two few and there is to little oversight by the (hopefully functional) governmental institutions, bad things tend to happen for the majority of people. Another big point of criticism was that the so adored libertarianism by a surprising amount of people here plays exactly into the hands of "crony corporations". You couldn't be more wrong. As evidence, the New Leftist Gabriel Kolko showed in Triumph of Conservatism how Progressivism has been the useful idiot for Corporate power and privilege, not libertarianism who by way of fact are its main adversary (of which he also shows). At no other time in American history has competition and accordingly standards of living risen more than the period of 1890 to the early 1900s before the Progressive Era began. Of course, it wasn't perfect, and I fully expect you to implore the Nirvana Fallacy to shore up your rationalizations.
I guess you would think that after reading ToC, but all of those points have been debunked by Danni Salvatrix in The Lusty Argonian Maid. In case you haven't caught on, telling people to believe in your ideology and then read your book does not really make for a good argument. -->YOU<-- need to present your argument, either by presenting the points from the book yourself or by presenting at the very least an abstract of the arguments contained within and their relevance to the current discussion.
Edit:
Apparently it's also the first rule in the OP and you've done this twice now.
|
On June 20 2014 05:32 Sermokala wrote:
Real talk Romney vs John kerry GO
Srs both were terrible canidates compared to obamas "I win the minority and women votes your move" bulletproofness. Even if bush didn't leave such a bad taste in peoples mouths and the tea party making it difficult obama has to be considered the strongest candidate of the modern age despite his administrative failings.
Even I couldn't not vote for obama compared to romney and I really don't like obama.
I don't know if I'd call him "strong." Coming into 2008, he had zero history, zero achievements, and zero qualifications. He simply rode the irrational hype train into town on the railway of post-Bush republican wreckage. He had a pretty bad record to run on in 2012, but won anyway because the opposition sucked. So yeah, I'd attribute his electoral success to serendipity and republican political malpractice.
|
On June 20 2014 05:32 Sermokala wrote:
Real talk Romney vs John kerry GO
Srs both were terrible canidates compared to obamas "I win the minority and women votes your move" bulletproofness. Even if bush didn't leave such a bad taste in peoples mouths and the tea party making it difficult obama has to be considered the strongest candidate of the modern age despite his administrative failings.
Even I couldn't not vote for obama compared to romney and I really don't like obama.
On its face, Romney wins but narrowly - 60,933,500 votes to 59,028,444.
In the swing states (both lost every state to their opponent):
Ohio - Kerry 2,741,167, Romney 2,661,433
Florida - Kerry 3,583,544, Romney 4,163,447
Colorado - Kerry 1,001,732, Romney 1,185,243
Virginia - Kerry 1,454,742, Romney 1,822,522
Iowa - Kerry 741,898, Romney 730,617
I didn't count the electoral college completely and it would be extremely close, but I think Romney would inch through.
I would note that 2012 Obama (66 million votes) would lose to 2008 Obama (69 million votes), while 2004 Bush (62 million votes) crushed 2000 Bush (50 million votes). So I would take exception to the narrative that Kerry and Romney were "terrible candidates". Kerry earned 9 million more votes than Gore but he just couldn't keep pace with Bush firing up the Republican base so much more. Romney did slightly better than McCain by 1.5 million votes but it wasn't enough to close the gap.
You could argue a Clinton or a Reagan could have fired up their respective bases much better and taken themselves to victory (and that's what they did in the 1992 and 1980 campaigns against incumbent presidents). And we should consider the politics and the ability to handle scandals. Kerry struggled to fight off the swift-boat thing while the efforts to paint Bush's national guard service based on falsified documentation backfired. He was also hurt by allegations of flip-flopping. Romney also struggled to contain problems with the "binders full of women" and hitting some bad notes in trying to thread the needle that he was governor of a liberal state but he was still a "severely conservative" Republican. The 47% thing and the long, ugly nomination election were also not good for him. You could contrast that Obama had an ugly nomination fight with Clinton in 2008 and still got out okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
