|
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 December 01 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 05:02 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 04:38 Sr18 wrote:
Isn't the idea of capatalism that it's the most effective system of increasing the total amount of wealth? So how can it be a zero sum game? Because the only people who think it's a zero sum game are the myopic ones who ignore the obvious second, third, fourth, etc order consequences of competition. Do you think human labour is infinite? What about physical resources? Capitalism works by making competing parties bid for finite labour and finite resources based upon the differing values they place on their own planned use for those. Higher value represents higher utility. Higher utility correlates with higher productivity. Higher productivity creates a greater amount of wealth. But none of that means that the underlying labour and resources being bid upon are infinite. They're finite. The winner wins them, the loser loses them. That's what is meant by it being a zero sum game. At any given discrete moment in time, available resources are obviously finite. However, I'm not sure why you're dwelling on the discrete moment in time when it's the long run that matters when discussing wealth generation. Great, so available resources at a given time are finite. Now let's say you and I both want the same thing. We both bid on it, and I bid more. Do we both get it, or does one of us get it and the other one lose it?
No one gives a shit about the first order consequences of capitalist transactions. That's not where the wealth generation comes from. Like I said before, if you're going to myopically ignore the all of the secondary, tertiary, etc consequences of capitalist transactions to prove that capitalism is a zero sum game, then there's really nothing to discuss with you.
|
On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out.
Has anyone said that?
|
On December 01 2017 05:42 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out. Has anyone said that?
He was making a comparison to what was posted as apart of his argument.
|
On December 01 2017 05:40 Kyadytim wrote:
Republicans voting against guarantees that at least something trickles down from their trickle down economics tax plan. Not a surprise.
Sounds just like the going-nowhere taking point amendment it is. Nice to see people still fall for them tho.
|
United States42283 Posts
On December 01 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2017 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 05:02 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 04:38 Sr18 wrote:
Isn't the idea of capatalism that it's the most effective system of increasing the total amount of wealth? So how can it be a zero sum game? Because the only people who think it's a zero sum game are the myopic ones who ignore the obvious second, third, fourth, etc order consequences of competition. Do you think human labour is infinite? What about physical resources? Capitalism works by making competing parties bid for finite labour and finite resources based upon the differing values they place on their own planned use for those. Higher value represents higher utility. Higher utility correlates with higher productivity. Higher productivity creates a greater amount of wealth. But none of that means that the underlying labour and resources being bid upon are infinite. They're finite. The winner wins them, the loser loses them. That's what is meant by it being a zero sum game. At any given discrete moment in time, available resources are obviously finite. However, I'm not sure why you're dwelling on the discrete moment in time when it's the long run that matters when discussing wealth generation. Great, so available resources at a given time are finite. Now let's say you and I both want the same thing. We both bid on it, and I bid more. Do we both get it, or does one of us get it and the other one lose it? No one gives a shit about the first order consequences of capitalist transactions. That's not where the wealth generation comes from. Like I said before, if you're going to myopically ignore the all of the secondary, tertiary, etc consequences of capitalist transactions to prove that capitalism is a zero sum game, then there's really nothing to discuss with you.
The wealth generation absolutely comes from the first transactions. I bid based upon my utility, you bid based upon yours, what the winner pays is called the "market value". Your "wealth" is the "market value" of all of your things. I obtain more utility out of it than you, and therefore generate more wealth.
|
On December 01 2017 05:45 Introvert wrote:Sounds just like the going-nowhere taking point amendment it is. Nice to see people still fall for them tho.
Cheer leaders got to post their cheerleader quota.
|
On December 01 2017 05:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:42 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out. Has anyone said that? He was making a comparison to what was posted as apart of his argument.
But if one of these things is happening, and the other is not, I don't see the relevance. Apart from the classic mass grouping of 'liberal' and 'conservative' which is entirely unhelpful for everyone.
|
I don’t get this tax bill or some people’s support for it. It doesn’t seem to promote a whole lot of growth as the most recent JCT estimate optimistically guesses 0.8% growth, it balloons the deficit by a huge amount which should be concerning for fiscal conservatives and doesn’t give a tax cut to anyone that isn’t earning well over six figures.
|
On December 01 2017 05:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 04:38 Sr18 wrote:
Isn't the idea of capatalism that it's the most effective system of increasing the total amount of wealth? So how can it be a zero sum game? Because the only people who think it's a zero sum game are the myopic ones who ignore the obvious second, third, fourth, etc order consequences of competition. Do you think human labour is infinite? What about physical resources? Capitalism works by making competing parties bid for finite labour and finite resources based upon the differing values they place on their own planned use for those. Higher value represents higher utility. Higher utility correlates with higher productivity. Higher productivity creates a greater amount of wealth. But none of that means that the underlying labour and resources being bid upon are infinite. They're finite. The winner wins them, the loser loses them. That's what is meant by it being a zero sum game.
From this also follows that the only way to reduce poverty is by redistribution. I'm always very annoyed when conservatives casually talk about hard work, low taxes and opportunity as a way to reduce poverty. Wrong!
|
On December 01 2017 05:50 doomdonker wrote:
I don’t get this tax bill or some people’s support for it. It doesn’t seem to promote a whole lot of growth as the most recent estimate guesses 0.8% growth, it balloons the deficit by a huge amount which should be concerning for fiscal conservatives and doesn’t give a tax cut to anyone that isn’t earning well over six figures.
what's not to get? it hands out a lot of money to rich donors, who will not donate if some sort of tax bill isn't passed.
do we know that the fiscal conservatives won't block the bill? I have'nt been following closely, and one of the long sticking points in making such a bill is that there are some republicans who simply will not accept a deficit increasing bill.
|
On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out.
Nevuk’s better than this. [Anecdote] [Wild Conclusion]! Wait a second, I thought that was The_Donald kind of stuff, and nice liberals like Nevuk would link n=1300 study of German immigrants from 192X to ...
Maybe he wants to bring back the good old “I’m friends with a lot of black People, and they told me (...) what do you say about that!”
|
On December 01 2017 05:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:50 doomdonker wrote:
I don’t get this tax bill or some people’s support for it. It doesn’t seem to promote a whole lot of growth as the most recent estimate guesses 0.8% growth, it balloons the deficit by a huge amount which should be concerning for fiscal conservatives and doesn’t give a tax cut to anyone that isn’t earning well over six figures. what's not to get? it hands out a lot of money to rich donors, who will not donate if some sort of tax bill isn't passed. do we know that the fiscal conservatives won't block the bill? I have'nt been following closely, and one of the long sticking points in making such a bill is that there are some republicans who simply will not accept a deficit increasing bill.
I’m talking about this thread specifically. You have some posters that don’t seem down on this bill and I have no idea. It’s not really left or right, it’s just so transparent what they’re trying to achieve that I don’t know why a single person wouldn’t condemn it right of the bat.
|
On December 01 2017 05:49 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:45 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 05:42 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out. Has anyone said that? He was making a comparison to what was posted as apart of his argument. But if one of these things is happening, and the other is not, I don't see the relevance. Apart from the classic mass grouping of 'liberal' and 'conservative' which is entirely unhelpful for everyone.
See when people are using their words for talking or debating they sometimes use the point bringing brought up by the other party and frame it in a new light in order to make their own point or argument about the topic being discussed. What you assume that someone else is saying may not be what you think they are saying. This is called "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" about what they're posting and is usually common curtsy when talking or debating with people.
|
It was curiosity. I was reading a politics thread on a very leftist forum, someone posted a twitter link to someone saying their 98 year old grandma said that Nazi Germany started out exactly like this. Then a one or two people freaked out about how we are doomed (also because of the tax bill). So I know what the far left reaction is (and think it is ridiculous), and was wondering about the reaction of those on the other side.
Personally, I don't think the GOP congressional leaders are competent enough to actually do anything. Trump is eh???? Basically a randomizer in the presidency.
|
On December 01 2017 06:00 Nevuk wrote:
It was curiosity. I was reading a politics thread on a very leftist forum, someone posted a twitter link to someone saying their 98 year old grandma said that Nazi Germany started out exactly like this. Then a one or two people freaked out about how we are doomed (also because of the tax bill). So I know what the far left reaction is (and think it is ridiculous), and was wondering about the reaction of those on the other side.
Personally, I don't think the GOP congressional leaders are competent enough to actually do anything. Trump is eh???? Basically a randomizer in the presidency.
Well devils advocate what can you do? You've already compromised your morals in some campaign to gain political power. Now you're whole life is trying to get the party to succeed in any way you can make it. Trump comes along and tanks the party for the next cycle and some. But you can't eject him because thats the base and if they go libertarian then you'll be hamstrung forever. The only competent thing for them in their position is to just meh around until they lose congress and the presidency and hope for the party to get gifted another Obama style recovery out of no where. All you can do is pack it in and start planning for what to make the party competitive when the trump stink goes the way of bush.
I think far leftists were really afraid that Trump was as competent as his supporters thought he was and that he was going to be able to do what he said he wanted to do. Dems are bad but are they really lose to trump twice bad?
|
On December 01 2017 05:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:49 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:45 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 05:42 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out. Has anyone said that? He was making a comparison to what was posted as apart of his argument. But if one of these things is happening, and the other is not, I don't see the relevance. Apart from the classic mass grouping of 'liberal' and 'conservative' which is entirely unhelpful for everyone. See when people are using their words for talking or debating they sometimes use the point bringing brought up by the other party and frame it in a new light in order to make their own point or argument about the topic being discussed. What you assume that someone else is saying may not be what you think they are saying. This is called "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" about what they're posting and is usually common curtsy when talking or debating with people.
I found his analogy extremely banal, condescending, and not conducive to making any sort of constructive point. You'd know a lot about that though I'm sure.
|
On December 01 2017 02:43 Velr wrote:
To be fair, Danglars seems like a probably nice person with strange views. xDaunt seems just like a comic book vilain of the worst sort, pure evil.
Yes, it's one reason why I can't really support this thread. You can't have a conversation with someone who casually supports genocide. I can recall multiple times just being viscerally revolted by him. I wish he would stop posting here and just enlist for the Saudi army and be done with it.
|
|
|
On December 01 2017 06:09 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:55 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 05:49 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:45 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 05:42 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out. Has anyone said that? He was making a comparison to what was posted as apart of his argument. But if one of these things is happening, and the other is not, I don't see the relevance. Apart from the classic mass grouping of 'liberal' and 'conservative' which is entirely unhelpful for everyone. See when people are using their words for talking or debating they sometimes use the point bringing brought up by the other party and frame it in a new light in order to make their own point or argument about the topic being discussed. What you assume that someone else is saying may not be what you think they are saying. This is called "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" about what they're posting and is usually common curtsy when talking or debating with people. I found his analogy extremely banal, condescending, and not conducive to making any sort of constructive point. You'd know a lot about that though I'm sure.
Yes I'm aware of all these conservatives and liberals being banal, condescending, and not constructive to making any sort of constructive point. You'd be a better expert on it judging from your posting history.
I mean your idea to respond to it being to look ignorant and obtuse is just silly really.
|
On December 01 2017 05:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:50 doomdonker wrote:
I don’t get this tax bill or some people’s support for it. It doesn’t seem to promote a whole lot of growth as the most recent estimate guesses 0.8% growth, it balloons the deficit by a huge amount which should be concerning for fiscal conservatives and doesn’t give a tax cut to anyone that isn’t earning well over six figures. what's not to get? it hands out a lot of money to rich donors, who will not donate if some sort of tax bill isn't passed. do we know that the fiscal conservatives won't block the bill? I have'nt been following closely, and one of the long sticking points in making such a bill is that there are some republicans who simply will not accept a deficit increasing bill.
What fiscal conservatives? If you think anyone in Congress who screamed about deficits under Obama is going to vote against this, I have a tired expression sarcastically suggesting gullibility you might be interested in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
