400 Americans

[The Rabbi]

Facts are inconvenient things, so they just ignore them.

Are you ignoring this fact?

The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth Economic Policy Institute

Simply explained by the fact that technological advances have allowed less skilled laborers to produce more.

You cannot think that a guy who runs an automatized machine is worth the same as a skilled craftsman who can make by hand what the machine makes

He might be.
The issue is unit labor cost. The skilled craftsman might be able to make only 5 widgets a day while the machine operator can crank out 1000. If they're comparable then the machine operator might be worth more money.

No the guys who make, program and keep the machine running are more important than the moron pushing a button.

You just moved the goalpost by saying "more important." That isnt the issue. You're comparing apples and orangutangs.
The issue is how much value the employee creates. Part of that calculus is how skilled he is. But not necessarily.

 

[JoeNormal]

I think it's great that you and Rabbi can excuse any level of immorality by wrapping it in the veil of capitalism and then raising capitalism to the state of a law of nature which cannot be violated. I'll bet that makes moral decisions really simple, just the way you like 'em.

Until recently Americans have enjoyed an increasingly higher standard of living. That's dropped off and you liberal socialist idiots think capitalism is at fault. Or Reagan. Or Bush, or anything but an honest assessment of the situation. Hurting business doesn't help economies, it illogical. Economies don't sprout up through government soil, it comes from productivity.

Big businesses do better today because they have merged and gone global, averaging in those numbers with worker salaries misses the point, probably on purpose. Capitalism is what made this country great and for some bizarre reasons liberals think destroying it will improve the economy.

No, not the average liberal, they are too dim witted to understand, they simply repeat what they see from leftist sources, but those pulling the strings know exactly what they are doing and useful idiots have never been more receptive.

You said it yourself but are apparently too stupid to realize it. Productivity has increased something like 3 fold since the 70's yet the average wage has stagnated. Not the top wage though, that's skyrocketed. Could that have something to do with the top wage earners diverting that productivity increase into their own hands? I'm sure that point will be lost on you as well.

You missed what I said so the stupid is all yours. Corporations are much larger today for the reasons mentioned and they can't take money away from anyone, only government can do that. Wages go up with the economy and right now there are more people looking for work than there is work. Competition for workers isn't playing much of a role in today's market and they aren't going to create work for the sake of hiring more bodies.

Corporations have much greater control over your life than you apparently realize. What you'll want to tell me is that you can choose to patronize a corporation or not but you don't have that choice with the government. So answer me this: I would love to boycott Koch Industries. How do I do it?

 

[The Rabbi]

I think it's great that you and Rabbi can excuse any level of immorality by wrapping it in the veil of capitalism and then raising capitalism to the state of a law of nature which cannot be violated. I'll bet that makes moral decisions really simple, just the way you like 'em.

Until recently Americans have enjoyed an increasingly higher standard of living. That's dropped off and you liberal socialist idiots think capitalism is at fault. Or Reagan. Or Bush, or anything but an honest assessment of the situation. Hurting business doesn't help economies, it illogical. Economies don't sprout up through government soil, it comes from productivity.

Big businesses do better today because they have merged and gone global, averaging in those numbers with worker salaries misses the point, probably on purpose. Capitalism is what made this country great and for some bizarre reasons liberals think destroying it will improve the economy.

No, not the average liberal, they are too dim witted to understand, they simply repeat what they see from leftist sources, but those pulling the strings know exactly what they are doing and useful idiots have never been more receptive.

You said it yourself but are apparently too stupid to realize it. Productivity has increased something like 3 fold since the 70's yet the average wage has stagnated. Not the top wage though, that's skyrocketed. Could that have something to do with the top wage earners diverting that productivity increase into their own hands? I'm sure that point will be lost on you as well.

You missed what I said so the stupid is all yours. Corporations are much larger today for the reasons mentioned and they can't take money away from anyone, only government can do that. Wages go up with the economy and right now there are more people looking for work than there is work. Competition for workers isn't playing much of a role in today's market and they aren't going to create work for the sake of hiring more bodies.

Corporations have much greater control over your life than you apparently realize. What you'll want to tell me is that you can choose to patronize a corporation or not but you don't have that choice with the government. So answer me this: I would love to boycott Koch Industries. How do I do it?

Since you're an idiot that will be tough.
Most people would research what Koch Industries does, what they sell, and who their competitors are. And then make sure to buy from their competitors.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' is wrong.

Why?

The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.

I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

 

[Iceweasel]

Corporations have much greater control over your life than you apparently realize. What you'll want to tell me is that you can choose to patronize a corporation or not but you don't have that choice with the government. So answer me this: I would love to boycott Koch Industries. How do I do it?

If they own all of toilet paper manufacturing you can use your hands. Honestly, I use products from many companies I don't care for or disagree with. If it's the best product I use it. GE is one example, I held my nose and bought their stove. I don't get my undies in a bunch over it. Liberals tend to be the boycott crazies and I don't really care how they deal with it.

 

[JoeNormal]

I think it's great that you and Rabbi can excuse any level of immorality by wrapping it in the veil of capitalism and then raising capitalism to the state of a law of nature which cannot be violated. I'll bet that makes moral decisions really simple, just the way you like 'em.

Until recently Americans have enjoyed an increasingly higher standard of living. That's dropped off and you liberal socialist idiots think capitalism is at fault. Or Reagan. Or Bush, or anything but an honest assessment of the situation. Hurting business doesn't help economies, it illogical. Economies don't sprout up through government soil, it comes from productivity.

Big businesses do better today because they have merged and gone global, averaging in those numbers with worker salaries misses the point, probably on purpose. Capitalism is what made this country great and for some bizarre reasons liberals think destroying it will improve the economy.

No, not the average liberal, they are too dim witted to understand, they simply repeat what they see from leftist sources, but those pulling the strings know exactly what they are doing and useful idiots have never been more receptive.

You said it yourself but are apparently too stupid to realize it. Productivity has increased something like 3 fold since the 70's yet the average wage has stagnated. Not the top wage though, that's skyrocketed. Could that have something to do with the top wage earners diverting that productivity increase into their own hands? I'm sure that point will be lost on you as well.

You missed what I said so the stupid is all yours. Corporations are much larger today for the reasons mentioned and they can't take money away from anyone, only government can do that. Wages go up with the economy and right now there are more people looking for work than there is work. Competition for workers isn't playing much of a role in today's market and they aren't going to create work for the sake of hiring more bodies.

Corporations have much greater control over your life than you apparently realize. What you'll want to tell me is that you can choose to patronize a corporation or not but you don't have that choice with the government. So answer me this: I would love to boycott Koch Industries. How do I do it?

Since you're an idiot that will be tough.
Most people would research what Koch Industries does, what they sell, and who their competitors are. And then make sure to buy from their competitors.

Guess what dumb ass, they own the refinery in the area where I live. They have a local monopoly - they have no competitors.

 

[JoeNormal]

The whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' is wrong.

Why?

The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.

I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

What happened in the case of Blackwater then? Just a case of hiring a bunch of thugs instead of guys who have some sense of responsibility and a cause greater than themselves?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Greenpeace not Blackwater ! Lol

 

[The Rabbi]

Until recently Americans have enjoyed an increasingly higher standard of living. That's dropped off and you liberal socialist idiots think capitalism is at fault. Or Reagan. Or Bush, or anything but an honest assessment of the situation. Hurting business doesn't help economies, it illogical. Economies don't sprout up through government soil, it comes from productivity.

Big businesses do better today because they have merged and gone global, averaging in those numbers with worker salaries misses the point, probably on purpose. Capitalism is what made this country great and for some bizarre reasons liberals think destroying it will improve the economy.

No, not the average liberal, they are too dim witted to understand, they simply repeat what they see from leftist sources, but those pulling the strings know exactly what they are doing and useful idiots have never been more receptive.

You said it yourself but are apparently too stupid to realize it. Productivity has increased something like 3 fold since the 70's yet the average wage has stagnated. Not the top wage though, that's skyrocketed. Could that have something to do with the top wage earners diverting that productivity increase into their own hands? I'm sure that point will be lost on you as well.

You missed what I said so the stupid is all yours. Corporations are much larger today for the reasons mentioned and they can't take money away from anyone, only government can do that. Wages go up with the economy and right now there are more people looking for work than there is work. Competition for workers isn't playing much of a role in today's market and they aren't going to create work for the sake of hiring more bodies.

Corporations have much greater control over your life than you apparently realize. What you'll want to tell me is that you can choose to patronize a corporation or not but you don't have that choice with the government. So answer me this: I would love to boycott Koch Industries. How do I do it?

Since you're an idiot that will be tough.
Most people would research what Koch Industries does, what they sell, and who their competitors are. And then make sure to buy from their competitors.

Guess what dumb ass, they own the refinery in the area where I live. They have a local monopoly - they have no competitors.

Bullshit.
Buy your gas elsewhere. Go to biodiesel.

 

[kaz]

The wars in the middle east have nothing to do with capitalism.

Exactly. Just like arms sales and oil sales have nothing to do with capitalism.

That's too ambiguous. Arms sales and oil sales don't define the system they are sold in. If government sells them, it's not capitalism. If they are sold in free markets than it is. You still seem confused by what is done and the system it is done in.

I think it's great that you and Rabbi can excuse any level of immorality by wrapping it in the veil of capitalism and then raising capitalism to the state of a law of nature which cannot be violated. I'll bet that makes moral decisions really simple, just the way you like 'em.

Strawman, I didn't excuse any immorality. I didn't say anything about arms or oil sales. You didn't make any case or present a scenario. The entire conversation you are having was conducted in your head.

You got anything for me?

 

[kaz]

I think it's great that you and Rabbi can excuse any level of immorality by wrapping it in the veil of capitalism and then raising capitalism to the state of a law of nature which cannot be violated. I'll bet that makes moral decisions really simple, just the way you like 'em.

no, they think of capitalism as their religion.

So you love and trust government and want it to make your choices for you. I don't want government to make my choices for me, I want to make my own choices.

And I am the one treating this as a "religion?" Not you when you worship government? Damn you're just stupid, Opie.

 

[Iceweasel]

Guess what dumb ass, they own the refinery in the area where I live. They have a local monopoly - they have no competitors.

You fill up at the refinery? They must let you in to snicker at all of your bumper stickers.

 

[kaz]

You know this because?
Oh yeah, you dont. It just sounds good so you say it.

The signs are there for all to see. I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line - or if there's even a line to be drawn. Hiring a hit man conforms to the rules of capitalism. There's demand and there's someone to meet that demand with supply. Do you find anything wrong with that type of transaction?

So in your scenario, government is the "hit man." And according to you, you want the hit man to make our choices for us. Because you don't trust the guy who hired the hit man, you trust the man who kills for the highest bidder. And it will be fine if you make the hit man stronger.

You really didn't think this one through. You never do.

 

[JoeNormal]

You know this because?
Oh yeah, you dont. It just sounds good so you say it.

The signs are there for all to see. I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line - or if there's even a line to be drawn. Hiring a hit man conforms to the rules of capitalism. There's demand and there's someone to meet that demand with supply. Do you find anything wrong with that type of transaction?

So in your scenario, government is the "hit man." And according to you, you want the hit man to make our choices for us. Because you don't trust the guy who hired the hit man, you trust the man who kills for the highest bidder. And it will be fine if you make the hit man stronger.

You really didn't think this one through. You never do.

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at answering the question I posed in post 219. Rabbi seemed to think it would be too incriminating.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know this because?
Oh yeah, you dont. It just sounds good so you say it.

The signs are there for all to see. I would be interested in knowing where you draw the line - or if there's even a line to be drawn. Hiring a hit man conforms to the rules of capitalism. There's demand and there's someone to meet that demand with supply. Do you find anything wrong with that type of transaction?

So in your scenario, government is the "hit man." And according to you, you want the hit man to make our choices for us. Because you don't trust the guy who hired the hit man, you trust the man who kills for the highest bidder. And it will be fine if you make the hit man stronger.

You really didn't think this one through. You never do.

Maybe you'd like to take a crack at answering the question I posed in post 219. Rabbi seemed to think it would be too incriminating.

No I thought it would be too stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' is wrong.

Why?

The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

What happened in the case of Blackwater then?

You understand that because a particular private paramilitary company may or may have operated without honor, restraint or discipline in no way means that all private paramilitary company will so operate -- right?

There's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor, restraint, or discipline, negating your argument.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

 

[JoeNormal]

The whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' is wrong.

Why?

The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

What happened in the case of Blackwater then?

You understand that because a particular private paramilitary company may or may have operated without honor, restraint or discipline in no way means that all private paramilitary company will so operate -- right?

There's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor, restraint, or discipline, negating your argument.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

Because the 'employees' of a paramilitary company are nothing more than mercenaries. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong with being a mercenary?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why?

The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

What happened in the case of Blackwater then?

You understand that because a particular private paramilitary company may or may have operated without honor, restraint or discipline in no way means that all private paramilitary company will so operate -- right?

There's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor, restraint, or discipline, negating your argument.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

Because the 'employees' of a paramilitary company are nothing more than mercenaries. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong with being a mercenary?

Can you define mercenary?
Can you describe what is wrong with it?

 

[JoeNormal]

The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

What happened in the case of Blackwater then?

You understand that because a particular private paramilitary company may or may have operated without honor, restraint or discipline in no way means that all private paramilitary company will so operate -- right?

There's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor, restraint, or discipline, negating your argument.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

Because the 'employees' of a paramilitary company are nothing more than mercenaries. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong with being a mercenary?

Can you define mercenary?
Can you describe what is wrong with it?

Soldier for hire. Basically a hit man.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why?

The answer was in the part of my post that you edited out.

Because "There's no honor or any of the restraint of standard military discipline:?
I dismissed this as your actual reasons because there's absolutely nothing necessary about those conditions.
That is, there's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor restraint or discipline.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

What happened in the case of Blackwater then?

You understand that because a particular private paramilitary company may or may have operated without honor, restraint or discipline in no way means that all private paramilitary company will so operate -- right?
There's absolutely no reason why a "paramilitary company" cannot operate w/ honor, restraint, or discipline, negating your argument.
I ask again: Why is the whole concept of a paramilitary 'company' wrong?

Because the 'employees' of a paramilitary company are nothing more than mercenaries. Do you believe that there is nothing wrong with being a mercenary?

Good to see you dropped the "cannot operate with honor, restraint, or discipline" argument.

If mercenaries operate with honor, restraint, or discipline, what's wrong with them?

Remember that you're arguing against "the whole concept" here - that the concept itself is inherently flawed.