• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:13
CEST 07:13
KST 14:13
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5: Vote to Decide Ladder Maps!0[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt1: Mile High14Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments2[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon10
Community News
Weekly Cups (Sept 15-21): herO Goes For Four2SC2 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes + Sept 22nd update232BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch4Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1
StarCraft 2
General
SC2 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes + Sept 22nd update Question about resolution & DPI settings SC2 Why Storm Should NOT Be Nerfed – A Core Part of Pr Weekly Cups (Sept 15-21): herO Goes For Four Team TLMC #5: Vote to Decide Ladder Maps!
Tourneys
Prome's Evo #1 - Solar vs Classic (SC: Evo) Monday Nights Weeklies RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 Stellar Fest
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 492 Get Out More Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone Old rep packs of BW legends BW General Discussion [ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt1: Mile High
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro8 Day 2 [ASL20] Ro8 Day 1 [ASL20] Ro16 Group D BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile Borderlands 3 General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Big Programming Thread UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2026 Football Thread MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
[ASL20] Players bad at pi…
pullarius1
Kendrick, Eminem, and "Self…
Peanutsc
Too Many LANs? Tournament Ov…
TrAiDoS
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1677 users

Occupy Wall Street - Page 113

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 111 112 113 114 115 219 Next
Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
October 25 2011 02:31 GMT
#2241
On October 25 2011 10:59 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 04:30 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:
On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote:
On October 24 2011 23:39 aksfjh wrote:
On October 24 2011 15:01 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]

Are you you serious? He's talking about providing your children with a better life?

Do you believe in evolution? because a part of evolution is this thing called natural selection, and natural selection dictates that things that have the better chances of reproduction are the ones more likely to survive in the genetic sense...

It's in our genetics to try to create a better life for our kids, because if we didn't have that trait a long time ago we would have abandoned our kids and humans wouldn't have survived. This trait is one of the driving forces of the working class, or anyone for that matter, it's part of who we are as a society, and it has nothing absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.

You're just out of arguments so you're spouting garbage.

There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves.

I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences.


This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth!

They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone!



Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general.

And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality.

There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason.


Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base.

Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index


You guys have high taxes but very small amount of government interference in the market,which is good, but I'm not sure how that could be achieved in the US.

I agree that capitalism creates inequality, but I also think that on a whole real capitalism uplifts the standard of living. In true free market innovators can be reworded immensely, but they are only rewarded by the customers' money, which means that the customers were willing to buy their product, so when someone creates a product that everyone wants, yes he can be come absurdly rich from it, but overall the society has become wealthier, because now the people can get this new thing that they couldn't get before, and if that thing makes some items obsolete, then the prices on them drops and more people can afford those if the new one is too expensive, so on a whole more people get access to more stuff.


You're making two large assumptions which are often made by people who argue for free markets.

1. That people are only creative in order to aquire more capital.

2. That innovation is always rewarded in a capitalist system.

Both of these assumptions might be correct, but they are assumptions and it would behove any armchair philosopher to recognise that.

My own view is that they are over simplifications which are partially correct. Replace "only" and "always" with "sometimes" and the questions that arise are interesting.


I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true.

If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds.
DrainX
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
Sweden3187 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-25 02:43:35
October 25 2011 02:40 GMT
#2242
On October 25 2011 09:38 TanGeng wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 08:52 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 08:11 TanGeng wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:
Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index


Scandinavia countries have populations the size of New Jersey.

So?


Depends on whether you think it'd a good idea to pool your government resources with countries such as Greece and Italy. Or if you think it'll be a good idea to allow Germany's 80 million to constantly out vote yours. Or if you think politicians would be as responsive to the people's voice when it's diluted by 300 million instead of 8 million.

Sure, Scandinavia has a higher GDP and currently a more stable economy than many of the countries in southern Europe. With the European union I think we are slowly moving to a Europe more like the one you describe. I don't see any reason why the general principle I describe wouldn't work on a larger scale though. I don't think that Scandinavia is as unique as you believe. Maybe the US or the EU both have too large a population for one government. I see no reason why, but maybe that is true. Even if that is the case, why not just move the power to a more local(state) level in the US? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to make a similar system work over there.

Only having it working on a small scale over here doesn't disprove it's possible effectiveness at a larger scale elsewhere.
Dapper_Cad
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United Kingdom964 Posts
October 25 2011 03:05 GMT
#2243
On October 25 2011 11:31 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 10:59 Dapper_Cad wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:30 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:
On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote:
On October 24 2011 23:39 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
There we have it folks. Social Darwinism in the flesh. Kiarip, you have just been massively discredited. Social Darwinism is a farce created to pretty much crap on anybody who isn't in the "1%." I don't care how lightly you worded it or suggested it, you just basically labeled that those in the lower class are born inferior and must go through some "evolution" through generations of proving themselves.

I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences.


This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth!

They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone!



Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general.

And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality.

There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason.


Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base.

Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index


You guys have high taxes but very small amount of government interference in the market,which is good, but I'm not sure how that could be achieved in the US.

I agree that capitalism creates inequality, but I also think that on a whole real capitalism uplifts the standard of living. In true free market innovators can be reworded immensely, but they are only rewarded by the customers' money, which means that the customers were willing to buy their product, so when someone creates a product that everyone wants, yes he can be come absurdly rich from it, but overall the society has become wealthier, because now the people can get this new thing that they couldn't get before, and if that thing makes some items obsolete, then the prices on them drops and more people can afford those if the new one is too expensive, so on a whole more people get access to more stuff.


You're making two large assumptions which are often made by people who argue for free markets.

1. That people are only creative in order to aquire more capital.

2. That innovation is always rewarded in a capitalist system.

Both of these assumptions might be correct, but they are assumptions and it would behove any armchair philosopher to recognise that.

My own view is that they are over simplifications which are partially correct. Replace "only" and "always" with "sometimes" and the questions that arise are interesting.


I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true.

If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds.


If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
But he is never making short-term prediction, everyone of his prediction are based on fundenmentals, but he doesn't exactly know when it will happen... So using these kind of narrowed "who-is-right" empirical analysis makes little sense.
AttackZerg
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States7454 Posts
October 25 2011 03:25 GMT
#2244
On October 25 2011 12:05 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 11:31 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 10:59 Dapper_Cad wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:30 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:
On October 24 2011 23:45 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
I'm simply stating the obvious that most of those in the "99%" would probably prefer to be in the "1%" and they're not... that's all. I'm not making a conclusion of whether it's because they're not as good, or not as lucky, or whether it's because they don't believe in santa clause... I'm just stating the premises of what is normally considered social darwinism, not its consequences.


This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth!

They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone!



Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general.

And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality.

There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason.


Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base.

Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index


You guys have high taxes but very small amount of government interference in the market,which is good, but I'm not sure how that could be achieved in the US.

I agree that capitalism creates inequality, but I also think that on a whole real capitalism uplifts the standard of living. In true free market innovators can be reworded immensely, but they are only rewarded by the customers' money, which means that the customers were willing to buy their product, so when someone creates a product that everyone wants, yes he can be come absurdly rich from it, but overall the society has become wealthier, because now the people can get this new thing that they couldn't get before, and if that thing makes some items obsolete, then the prices on them drops and more people can afford those if the new one is too expensive, so on a whole more people get access to more stuff.


You're making two large assumptions which are often made by people who argue for free markets.

1. That people are only creative in order to aquire more capital.

2. That innovation is always rewarded in a capitalist system.

Both of these assumptions might be correct, but they are assumptions and it would behove any armchair philosopher to recognise that.

My own view is that they are over simplifications which are partially correct. Replace "only" and "always" with "sometimes" and the questions that arise are interesting.


I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true.

If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds.


If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?

When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.
Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-25 03:33:22
October 25 2011 03:27 GMT
#2245
On October 25 2011 12:25 AttackZerg wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 12:05 Dapper_Cad wrote:
On October 25 2011 11:31 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 10:59 Dapper_Cad wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:30 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 03:42 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 00:53 H0i wrote:
[quote]

This might be obvious for you from your selfish greedy point of view, but it's nothing like that. Have you even talked with some of the people in the movement? They don't want to be in the 1%! They want fairness for everyone, they don't want to live in a world where billions suffer because a few people have nearly all the wealth!

They're not protesting because they want to be in the 1%, they're protesting because the 1% is ruining it for everyone. They're not protesting mainly because they can't afford student loans or things like that... they're not just protesting because they individually feel they need to, they're doing this for everyone!



Ok, the point is they want more stuff than they currently have... How's that? I guess I misphrased it, the entire problem with the 99% vs 1% thing is that if you remove the top 1% there's just going to be another top 1%, maybe they don't necessarily want to be part of the 1% for the sake of having mroe stuff than the other 99% of the people, but they just want more stuff in general.

And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality.

There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason.


Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base.

Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index


You guys have high taxes but very small amount of government interference in the market,which is good, but I'm not sure how that could be achieved in the US.

I agree that capitalism creates inequality, but I also think that on a whole real capitalism uplifts the standard of living. In true free market innovators can be reworded immensely, but they are only rewarded by the customers' money, which means that the customers were willing to buy their product, so when someone creates a product that everyone wants, yes he can be come absurdly rich from it, but overall the society has become wealthier, because now the people can get this new thing that they couldn't get before, and if that thing makes some items obsolete, then the prices on them drops and more people can afford those if the new one is too expensive, so on a whole more people get access to more stuff.


You're making two large assumptions which are often made by people who argue for free markets.

1. That people are only creative in order to aquire more capital.

2. That innovation is always rewarded in a capitalist system.

Both of these assumptions might be correct, but they are assumptions and it would behove any armchair philosopher to recognise that.

My own view is that they are over simplifications which are partially correct. Replace "only" and "always" with "sometimes" and the questions that arise are interesting.


I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true.

If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds.


If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?

When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.


and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive.
If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?


I don't. I'm not saying that markets are only sometimes useful, I'm saying that yes:

1) People are not ONLY creative in pursuit of capital
and
2) Innovation isn't ALWAYS rewarded in a capitalist society.

But those two things don't take away anything from capitalism.

People aren't going to all of a sudden be more innovative for the sake of things other capital, if capitalism is removed, but there will be less people that are trying to be innovative for the sake of capital,

and yes not all innovation gets rewarded in a capitalist society, only the useful ones do. In addition, sometimes people can be cheated out of their reward (even without anything illegal happening,) but this is also just as likely in a non-capitalism society.
AttackZerg
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States7454 Posts
October 25 2011 03:45 GMT
#2246
[/QUOTE]

If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?
[/QUOTE]
When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.[/QUOTE]

and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive.
.[/QUOTE]

Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.

It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.

Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-25 03:51:56
October 25 2011 03:51 GMT
#2247
On October 25 2011 12:45 AttackZerg wrote:
Show nested quote +



If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?

When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.


and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive.
.


Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.

It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.


Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?
Ropid
Profile Joined March 2009
Germany3557 Posts
October 25 2011 03:54 GMT
#2248
On October 25 2011 12:51 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 12:45 AttackZerg wrote:



If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?

When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.


and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive.
.


Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.

It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.


Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?

Intel vs. AMD with Intel only giving PC manufacturers a good deal for CPUs, if they agree to not sell any PCs with AMD CPUs? It was about ten years ago, I think.
"My goal is to replace my soul with coffee and become immortal."
AttackZerg
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States7454 Posts
October 25 2011 04:02 GMT
#2249
I couldn't find any green vs gas instances to quote from that didn't include the governments involvement. I guess that puts me back to square one, where I must admit, my statement is incorrect ...... until someone else can find what I was looking for.
Kiarip
Profile Joined August 2008
United States1835 Posts
October 25 2011 04:06 GMT
#2250
On October 25 2011 12:54 Ropid wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 12:51 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 12:45 AttackZerg wrote:



If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?

When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.


and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive.
.


Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.

It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.


Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?

Intel vs. AMD with Intel only giving PC manufacturers a good deal for CPUs, if they agree to not sell any PCs with AMD CPUs? It was about ten years ago, I think.


But the consumers win here, because processors cost less, so PCs cost less, so more PCs can be sold to a higher number of people right?
ArvickHero
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
10387 Posts
October 25 2011 05:14 GMT
#2251
huh when I had first heard about this movement I dismissed it as something that would just fail but ... but that seems to not be the case?? I'm getting genuinely interested now ..
Writerptrk
mmp
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States2130 Posts
October 25 2011 05:30 GMT
#2252
Chris Hedges is a boss. SS4 bloodlusting stimpacked vorpal boss.

I (λ (foo) (and (<3 foo) ( T_T foo) (RAGE foo) )) Starcraft
Ropid
Profile Joined March 2009
Germany3557 Posts
October 25 2011 05:33 GMT
#2253
On October 25 2011 13:06 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 12:54 Ropid wrote:
On October 25 2011 12:51 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 12:45 AttackZerg wrote:



If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?

When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.


and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive.
.


Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.

It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.


Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?

Intel vs. AMD with Intel only giving PC manufacturers a good deal for CPUs, if they agree to not sell any PCs with AMD CPUs? It was about ten years ago, I think.


But the consumers win here, because processors cost less, so PCs cost less, so more PCs can be sold to a higher number of people right?

This is not what happened. Without AMD, Intel would never have built the type of x86 CPUs we have now. The following processor generation after the news broke about Intel's illegal machinations, Intel's offerings were performance and price wise behind AMD's. From an outsider's view, it looked as if Intel had invested in marketing and ruining the competition rather than building the better CPU. That they actually can instead design a better processor than the competition, can be seen from what happened the last few years.
"My goal is to replace my soul with coffee and become immortal."
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-25 09:07:58
October 25 2011 08:58 GMT
#2254
On October 25 2011 13:06 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 12:54 Ropid wrote:
On October 25 2011 12:51 Kiarip wrote:
On October 25 2011 12:45 AttackZerg wrote:



If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive?

When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies.


and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive.
.


Government regulation not involved until much later down the line, in fact it has nearly nothing to do with it. It has to do with a huge "market" doing everything it can to destroy a small one.

It is the competition with a larger and more powerful conglomerates versus small up-starts and labs across the world.


Crowding out the competition costs money, and a lot of times can even lead to the company's failure. Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped-up by the government. I understand that you're not talking about a monopoly, but if there's no monopoly, there's still competition, I find it difficult to believe that a company not supported by the government can engage in aggressively trying to destroy markets over any extended period of time, unless they're already delivering a significantly superior product... Has this ever happened?

Intel vs. AMD with Intel only giving PC manufacturers a good deal for CPUs, if they agree to not sell any PCs with AMD CPUs? It was about ten years ago, I think.


But the consumers win here, because processors cost less, so PCs cost less, so more PCs can be sold to a higher number of people right?



This is why you are an idiot. You don't even understand how monopolies work.

Or anything about human motivation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

User was warned for this post
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
TanGeng
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
Sanya12364 Posts
October 25 2011 12:45 GMT
#2255
On October 25 2011 11:40 DrainX wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 09:38 TanGeng wrote:
Depends on whether you think it'd a good idea to pool your government resources with countries such as Greece and Italy. Or if you think it'll be a good idea to allow Germany's 80 million to constantly out vote yours. Or if you think politicians would be as responsive to the people's voice when it's diluted by 300 million instead of 8 million.

Sure, Scandinavia has a higher GDP and currently a more stable economy than many of the countries in southern Europe. With the European union I think we are slowly moving to a Europe more like the one you describe. I don't see any reason why the general principle I describe wouldn't work on a larger scale though. I don't think that Scandinavia is as unique as you believe. Maybe the US or the EU both have too large a population for one government. I see no reason why, but maybe that is true. Even if that is the case, why not just move the power to a more local(state) level in the US? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to make a similar system work over there.

Only having it working on a small scale over here doesn't disprove it's possible effectiveness at a larger scale elsewhere.


The way I see it, you haven't put much thought into the scalability of the social welfare system or the political system. You are hoping that they will work on a larger scale without evidence. The welfare system may or may not scale well. The big challenge is scaling up the political systems, and you didn't address three basic ways it doesn't scale well and there are many more.

Even if that is the case, why not just move the power to a more local(state) level in the US? I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to make a similar system work over there.

Easier said than done.

A fair warning from the US, the EU will be a monster.
Moderator我们是个踏实的赞助商模式俱乐部
BioNova
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United States598 Posts
October 25 2011 13:52 GMT
#2256
On October 25 2011 09:38 TanGeng wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 08:52 DrainX wrote:
On October 25 2011 08:11 TanGeng wrote:
On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:
Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index


Scandinavia countries have populations the size of New Jersey.

So?


Depends on whether you think it'd a good idea to pool your government resources with countries such as Greece and Italy. Or if you think it'll be a good idea to allow Germany's 80 million to constantly out vote yours. Or if you think politicians would be as responsive to the people's voice when it's diluted by 300 million instead of 8 million.


Amazing times we are in, and think how many people reading this thread are going to sit and think...+ Show Spoiler +
Why oh Why didn't I take the Blue Pill


I'm kind with you Tan, on the scale perspective. Those 300 million voices in America are sounding like one of those nature-loops with every known animal scream sewn together. Quite unsettling.
I used to like trumpets, now I prefer pause. "Don't move a muscle JP!"
nukeazerg
Profile Joined June 2011
United States168 Posts
October 25 2011 14:07 GMT
#2257
Occupy Wall Street needs to learn that all the profits of the Fortune Five Hundred is not enough to pay the governments bills. Their profits are 400 billion a year. That will pay for one month of government.
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
October 25 2011 14:12 GMT
#2258
On October 25 2011 23:07 nukeazerg wrote:
Occupy Wall Street needs to learn that all the profits of the Fortune Five Hundred is not enough to pay the governments bills. Their profits are 400 billion a year. That will pay for one month of government.



How is that relevant?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Elroi
Profile Joined August 2009
Sweden5599 Posts
October 25 2011 14:12 GMT
#2259
On October 25 2011 14:30 mmp wrote:
Chris Hedges is a boss. SS4 bloodlusting stimpacked vorpal boss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAhHPIuTQ5k

That was a good interview! I'm going to try to find this guys books.
"To all eSports fans, I want to be remembered as a progamer who can make something out of nothing, and someone who always does his best. I think that is the right way of living, and I'm always doing my best to follow that." - Jaedong. /watch?v=jfghAzJqAp0
BioNova
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
United States598 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-25 14:38:42
October 25 2011 14:32 GMT
#2260
On October 25 2011 23:12 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 25 2011 23:07 nukeazerg wrote:
Occupy Wall Street needs to learn that all the profits of the Fortune Five Hundred is not enough to pay the governments bills. Their profits are 400 billion a year. That will pay for one month of government.



How is that relevant?


The point I think he was trying to make is along the lines of..

1.) Banks are troublemakers, Government Spending is the real problem.
2.) Corporations make up(byfar) the most federal income.
3.) At any tax rate, under any system, we spend too damn much to pay the rent(i know karate)(not)

Edit- To deter any tangents, I'm full aware of embeded cronyism, acutely aware. I know how much influence they have. Evidence of spineless policy decision, crappy regulations, as opposed to good regulations.
I used to like trumpets, now I prefer pause. "Don't move a muscle JP!"
Prev 1 111 112 113 114 115 219 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 48m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft610
Nina 196
RuFF_SC2 134
StarCraft: Brood War
PianO 340
Shine 57
sorry 49
Noble 31
sSak 23
ajuk12(nOOB) 17
Icarus 6
League of Legends
JimRising 701
Counter-Strike
m0e_tv1498
Stewie2K489
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor89
Other Games
summit1g8149
C9.Mang0328
XaKoH 212
NeuroSwarm121
semphis_27
Trikslyr27
SortOf15
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1021
BasetradeTV70
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH81
• practicex 14
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Diggity5
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1374
• Lourlo1104
• Stunt444
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4h 48m
Afreeca Starleague
4h 48m
Snow vs EffOrt
Wardi Open
5h 48m
PiGosaur Monday
18h 48m
LiuLi Cup
1d 5h
OSC
1d 9h
The PondCast
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
Maestros of the Game
4 days
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
4 days
[ Show More ]
[BSL 2025] Weekly
4 days
BSL Team Wars
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
RSL Revival: Season 2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

IPSL Winter 2025-26
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.