Greatest thread to human civilization : capitalist greed - Stephen Hawkin

[Andylusion]

oh no. A peerless, unemployed professor draws curves that makes him conclude that protection doesn't include exports, no matter what reality says.

Protection doesn't include exports because of the definition of protection, nimrod. Who does limiting exports "protect?"

I'm referring to the trade restriction on exporting crude oil. This policy benefits US refiners and is part of our energy and national security policy. It's a very significant player when it comes to the price of energy. Our strategic oil reserves play roles from national security to currency here in the U.S.

How does restricting oil exports benefit U.S. refineries?

This promotes localizing refinement of our oil to the United States in the first place. There's always going to be competition for U.S. refiners, but there's always going to be a market. Essentially this makes BP a US refinery when they want to exploit our resources. Before this Rabbi guy got all crazy, I made the point that consumer economies (of which energy we are) favor contrary trade policy to export driven economies.

You failed to explain how it benefits refineries. What do they care if the oil they refine is domestic or imported? They make the same amount of money in either case. How does "making BP a domestic refinery" benefit BP? The distinction between "consumer economies" and "export driven economies" is entirely superfluous. Some countries have high tariffs. Some countries have low tariffs. Consumers in the former have to pay higher prices on imported goods. That's the only distinction.

Well the theory is........... If we allow oil to be exported, then refineries will lose business because people who buy US oil, will no longer be forced to use US refineries to refine it, because they are now able to export the raw oil.

So a tanker load from Alaska for example, right now, can't go to a refinery in China to be refined. It must come to a US based refinery.

If we allow oil to be exported, then a tanker load of oil from Alaska could be purchased by say... China, and sent to a Chinese refinery, instead of to the US.

Quite frankly, if that were really a big issue, the oil companies would not be pushing to end the ban.

And beyond that even...... crap guys... I've heard for 10 years, people screaming about how we have a trade imbalance with China, and how horrible and awful, and doom and gloom over trade deficit with China. Chicken little screaming in circles about trade with China, the sky is falling, we're all doomed.

To all you fruits out there, well here you go..... shut up and sell them some oil. That will change the trade imbalance for sure.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Otherwise you're just a sanctimonious thug.

its true, nothing justifies liberal violence more than their sanctimony!!

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."--- C.S. Lewis

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."--- C.S. Lewis

This is the founding principle of Isis and every religion on Earth.

But to then leap to 'robber barons are great, aka wealthy overlords, is ridiculous in its entirety. Neither is acceptable in any sense.

"Robber Barons" are a myth. The people labelled "robber barons" where the greatest benefactors of mankind that have ever appeared on this woeful planet.

Again, research 'superlative' and try to understand why you should use them very sparingly. All you sound like is some angry dullard devoid of fact.

Try again.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

The reason we have automobiles, isn't for the common good. It's for profit, and yet automobiles provide for the common good.

Farmers do not farm for the common good, and yet their food results in the common good.

Everything that exists..... does not exist for the common good. It exists because someone profited. And yet those things all provide for the common good.

Roads are paid for by everyone so that cars can benefit the common good. Research is done in Universities to provide better crops more resistant to disease and insects, for the common good.

There is this bizarre need for conservatives to believe they don't get help from, or are part of, any society. They live outside a population. You can only exist if other people do things both for profit and to benefit other people without profit.

The U.S. Senate is the embodiment of social socialism. Equal voice and power for the many and for the few. The House of Representatives represents political capitalism, the Senate political socialism. The founders understood the balance needed.

Naked capitalism is like a nuclear reactor, without control rods it quickly melts down because of the unbridled greed of the few. Hence we have laws against monopolies and anti-trust laws.

And if you think you pay for your part of the roads, please research how much it costs to pave 1/4 mile of road, then tally up all the taxes you've paid in your life. You won't be close.

Road, and all the materials in them, only exist because someone somewhere wanted to make a profit. Without profit, there would be no roads. There would be no machines to make the roads. There would be no supplies of sand, dirt, gravel, asphalt to make the roads with.

And quite frankly, without profit, you wouldn't need roads, because there would be no cars and trucks that need them.

Research is done everywhere. Last year, $675 Billion dollars was spent by companies into research and development for all kinds of things, from health care, to food crops, to energy, to transportation, and on and on and on.

Now that isn't to minimize, or ignore the benefits that do come from Universities. But this idea that somehow no one would do research if not for them, is garbage.

Further, you should look at how much money is blown on absolutely useless research. Try the Ignoble Awards for endless laughs of infuriating waste.

And lastly, even the research that does happen there..... still doesn't contradict my point. All of the research is placed into commercial.... read profitable products. Without which, you wouldn't benefit from any of the research.

Secondly, you are freaking nutz on your math. According to Ohio Department of Transportation, it cost about $60,000 to pave 1/4 of a mile of two lane road.

In my life time, I've paid about $80,000 in taxes in my life.

And by the way.... that's with expensive, wasteful, high cost Union contracts through the government.

You go with a private firm, you can get a 1/4 mile of two lane road built for about $26,000.

You people..... you say the most wacky stuff sometimes.

Nah, you are just entrenched in the narrowest of view of life. Every person on Earth participates in work, buying, paying bills.

It is just conservatives who think themselves heroes for it because it makes you feel good. And that is so sad.

Nothing of what you said, even came close to contradicting, or even addressing the points I made.

Of course that's not surprising because.... you can't. I'm right, and I know it.

Thanks for stopping by. Have a nice day.

You declare yourself 'the winner', where do you get your trophy? LOL

Turn the computer off and go outside now and then. There is real life out there.

 

[Conservative65]

It involves redistribution of wealth and that is a major tenet of socialism. Try looking it up.

I understand that taxpayers paid for it before. It was wrong then. Since Obamacare did nothing to change that fact, what good did it do to solve the problem of one person being forced to support another? Like I said, if you aren't willing to voluntarily do what you say is OK to force others to do, that's proof you're nothing more than a loud mouth bleeding heart good for nothing.
Tell me why taxpayers should be forced to fund healthcare for anyone? What's wrong with those of you who say someone that doesn't have getting it funding it yourself?

Your ideological beliefs are not in concert with the vast majority of our citizens; that you are a loud and proud callous conservatives is your right, but it is morally indefensible.

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

Capitalism provides for the common good. Your problem with it doing so it that someone might get rich doing it and you can't have that.

Do you consider Social Security as providing for the common good?

 

[Conservative65]

The reason we have automobiles, isn't for the common good. It's for profit, and yet automobiles provide for the common good.

Farmers do not farm for the common good, and yet their food results in the common good.

Everything that exists..... does not exist for the common good. It exists because someone profited. And yet those things all provide for the common good.

Roads are paid for by everyone so that cars can benefit the common good. Research is done in Universities to provide better crops more resistant to disease and insects, for the common good.

There is this bizarre need for conservatives to believe they don't get help from, or are part of, any society. They live outside a population. You can only exist if other people do things both for profit and to benefit other people without profit.

The U.S. Senate is the embodiment of social socialism. Equal voice and power for the many and for the few. The House of Representatives represents political capitalism, the Senate political socialism. The founders understood the balance needed.

Naked capitalism is like a nuclear reactor, without control rods it quickly melts down because of the unbridled greed of the few. Hence we have laws against monopolies and anti-trust laws.

And if you think you pay for your part of the roads, please research how much it costs to pave 1/4 mile of road, then tally up all the taxes you've paid in your life. You won't be close.

Road, and all the materials in them, only exist because someone somewhere wanted to make a profit. Without profit, there would be no roads. There would be no machines to make the roads. There would be no supplies of sand, dirt, gravel, asphalt to make the roads with.

And quite frankly, without profit, you wouldn't need roads, because there would be no cars and trucks that need them.

Research is done everywhere. Last year, $675 Billion dollars was spent by companies into research and development for all kinds of things, from health care, to food crops, to energy, to transportation, and on and on and on.

Now that isn't to minimize, or ignore the benefits that do come from Universities. But this idea that somehow no one would do research if not for them, is garbage.

Further, you should look at how much money is blown on absolutely useless research. Try the Ignoble Awards for endless laughs of infuriating waste.

And lastly, even the research that does happen there..... still doesn't contradict my point. All of the research is placed into commercial.... read profitable products. Without which, you wouldn't benefit from any of the research.

Secondly, you are freaking nutz on your math. According to Ohio Department of Transportation, it cost about $60,000 to pave 1/4 of a mile of two lane road.

In my life time, I've paid about $80,000 in taxes in my life.

And by the way.... that's with expensive, wasteful, high cost Union contracts through the government.

You go with a private firm, you can get a 1/4 mile of two lane road built for about $26,000.

You people..... you say the most wacky stuff sometimes.

Nah, you are just entrenched in the narrowest of view of life. Every person on Earth participates in work, buying, paying bills.

It is just conservatives who think themselves heroes for it because it makes you feel good. And that is so sad.

Nothing of what you said, even came close to contradicting, or even addressing the points I made.

Of course that's not surprising because.... you can't. I'm right, and I know it.

Thanks for stopping by. Have a nice day.

You declare yourself 'the winner', where do you get your trophy? LOL

Turn the computer off and go outside now and then. There is real life out there.

There is a real life out there. Many people, through capitalism, have made very lucrative livings by participating in it and providing things that has benefited the common good. Those who have benefited have educated themselves, taken chances, and took risks that paid off. Others have not. Now, those that did not see those who did reaping the rewards of that effort and think part of that is owed to them.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh, and I would like someone to detail how the private for profit sector is always better, cheaper and more effective than a government agency.

The private, for profit sector must constantly look out for waste. If they have a lot of waste, it cuts into their profit. A government agency only needs a politician to push for more funding and raising taxes to provide more money. A business can raise prices but only to a point. If the government raises taxes, what option do people have but pay them. For example, if the local school district wants more money, they raise the millage rate to get more money and it comes in property taxes. If you don't pay those property taxes, even if you own the property, it can be taken.

The private sector can collude with its competition to set prices and raise them with no explanation or only a flimsy excuse. The Private sector is not beholden to the people, a legislator who violates the trust of his constituency can be kicked out of office, a CEO can't be held accountable by The People; but The People's representatives can in terms of criminal and civil sanctions.

We live in a nation, as do most who live in Western Democracies, where the public and private sectors co-exist. They do so when it benefits The People.

There is no proof we get a better deal from the private sector than we do from the public one. There are more checks on public works than on private ones and most government brick and mortar projects are done by private firms who bid on the projects.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were tossed under the bus for good reason.

Wow thats quite a country you live. I should visit it sometime.
In the US companies compete with each other and do not collude on prices. The few examples that are publicized of collusion are publicized precisely because they are few. And the US is prosecuting them.
How many legislators are kicked out of office for violating public trust? Yeah none.
THere is no accountability in public works. How many people were fired in the Obamacare website fiasco? Yeah, none. There is your accountability.

Government contractors are Private Sector, not Public servants. And as a home owner (several in fact) and Public Service Manager I've found private sector contractors to be less responsible and more dishonest than the public employees.

ROFL! I've seen public employees sleeping on the job.

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your ideological beliefs are not in concert with the vast majority of our citizens; that you are a loud and proud callous conservatives is your right, but it is morally indefensible.

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

Capitalism provides for the common good. Your problem with it doing so it that someone might get rich doing it and you can't have that.

Do you consider Social Security as providing for the common good?

Capitalism restrained by the GOVERNMENT provides for the common good. Make all taxes voluntary and see what happens.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

Capitalism provides for the common good. Your problem with it doing so it that someone might get rich doing it and you can't have that.

Do you consider Social Security as providing for the common good?

Capitalism restrained by the GOVERNMENT provides for the common good. Make all taxes voluntary and see what happens.

It wouldn't be a tax then.

Based on the compassion you bleeding hearts CLAIM you have, one would think all the social programs you believe should be funded through mandated taxes would still be provided on a voluntary basis by those who CLAIM that compassion. If you say you care, why would a mandate be necessary for such programs to be covered. Wouldn't those of you who say one person without deserves something they can't afford have it bought for them by you guys voluntarily? No it wouldn't. If it would, we wouldn't have mandated taxes now funding them. When you saw a need, you'd meet it and the government isn't necessary for that. The government does that because you guys won't do voluntarily what you say needs to be done.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

Capitalism provides for the common good. Your problem with it doing so it that someone might get rich doing it and you can't have that.

Do you consider Social Security as providing for the common good?

Capitalism restrained by the GOVERNMENT provides for the common good. Make all taxes voluntary and see what happens.

No, capitalism, period, provides for the common good. Government provides for ticks on the ass of society and interferes with society to its detriment.

 

[Iceweasel]

Capitalism restrained by the GOVERNMENT provides for the common good. Make all taxes voluntary and see what happens.

I will never figure out why liberals can't understand the difference between anarchy and capitalism. They do not mean the same thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

Capitalism provides for the common good. Your problem with it doing so it that someone might get rich doing it and you can't have that.

Do you consider Social Security as providing for the common good?

Capitalism restrained by the GOVERNMENT provides for the common good. Make all taxes voluntary and see what happens.

No, capitalism, period, provides for the common good. Government provides for ticks on the ass of society and interferes with society to its detriment.

You should argue with iceweasel then. He doesn't like anarchy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Capitalism restrained by the GOVERNMENT provides for the common good. Make all taxes voluntary and see what happens.

I will never figure out why liberals can't understand the difference between anarchy and capitalism. They do not mean the same thing.

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

Capitalism provides for the common good. Your problem with it doing so it that someone might get rich doing it and you can't have that.

Do you consider Social Security as providing for the common good?

Capitalism restrained by the GOVERNMENT provides for the common good. Make all taxes voluntary and see what happens.

It wouldn't be a tax then.

Based on the compassion you bleeding hearts CLAIM you have, one would think all the social programs you believe should be funded through mandated taxes would still be provided on a voluntary basis by those who CLAIM that compassion. If you say you care, why would a mandate be necessary for such programs to be covered. Wouldn't those of you who say one person without deserves something they can't afford have it bought for them by you guys voluntarily? No it wouldn't. If it would, we wouldn't have mandated taxes now funding them. When you saw a need, you'd meet it and the government isn't necessary for that. The government does that because you guys won't do voluntarily what you say needs to be done.

Taxes must be mandatory so the people who don't care don't get off the hook.

 

[Iceweasel]

Taxes must be mandatory so the people who don't care don't get off the hook.

No shit Sherlock. Now what's that have to do with capitalism?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh, and I would like someone to detail how the private for profit sector is always better, cheaper and more effective than a government agency.

The private, for profit sector must constantly look out for waste. If they have a lot of waste, it cuts into their profit. A government agency only needs a politician to push for more funding and raising taxes to provide more money. A business can raise prices but only to a point. If the government raises taxes, what option do people have but pay them. For example, if the local school district wants more money, they raise the millage rate to get more money and it comes in property taxes. If you don't pay those property taxes, even if you own the property, it can be taken.

The private sector can collude with its competition to set prices and raise them with no explanation or only a flimsy excuse. The Private sector is not beholden to the people, a legislator who violates the trust of his constituency can be kicked out of office, a CEO can't be held accountable by The People; but The People's representatives can in terms of criminal and civil sanctions.

We live in a nation, as do most who live in Western Democracies, where the public and private sectors co-exist. They do so when it benefits The People.

There is no proof we get a better deal from the private sector than we do from the public one. There are more checks on public works than on private ones and most government brick and mortar projects are done by private firms who bid on the projects.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were tossed under the bus for good reason.

Wow thats quite a country you live. I should visit it sometime.
In the US companies compete with each other and do not collude on prices. The few examples that are publicized of collusion are publicized precisely because they are few. And the US is prosecuting them.
How many legislators are kicked out of office for violating public trust? Yeah none.
THere is no accountability in public works. How many people were fired in the Obamacare website fiasco? Yeah, none. There is your accountability.

Government contractors are Private Sector, not Public servants. And as a home owner (several in fact) and Public Service Manager I've found private sector contractors to be less responsible and more dishonest than the public employees.

ROFL! I've seen public employees sleeping on the job.

You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

I have twice, both times on graveyard and both times I recommended to the hiring authority that they be fired. They were.

You claim a lot of things which fit your agenda, sans documentary evidence. BTW, you've been gone for a while, when did you get paroled?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your ideological beliefs are not in concert with the vast majority of our citizens; that you are a loud and proud callous conservatives is your right, but it is morally indefensible.

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

So your morals are OK to force on others?

My morals? You don't get it at all. Callous disregard for the poor, aged, young and invalid is by its very nature immoral. It's not my morals, it was true and old when Socrates walked on the earth.

It's the left that has a callous disregard for the poor, not the right.

Conservatives routinely are more generous and charitable than the left-wing. The left wing assumes that government should help the poor, not them. Thus they rarely give to charity, or anyone.

Moreover, you don't see left-wingers ever saying that they themselves should pay more tax to fund these programs, but instead claim that "the 1% should pay more!".

So not only do they not support charity directly, but they don't even support the programs they claim are there for the poor.

In short, left-wingers are routinely, and consistently the least caring people on the planet.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Funny ain't it, liberals are called "bleeding hearts" out of one side of the mouth of crazy right wingers, and callous out of the other.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Capitalism: You have 2 cows, sell one to buy a bull

American Progressives: Someone has 2 cows, the government takes the cows and kills them so Bernie and Hillary can have a BBQ while the stupid, low information base starves to death

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberals hate it because capitalism is for grown ups.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It really has been fascinating to watch during Obama's term, as the hardcore Left has become FAR more comfortable with defending and promoting socialism.

His administration really has been a turning point.
.

Examples of "promoting socialism" seem to be missing. Please elucidate with examples.

Oh, and I would like someone to detail how the private for profit sector is always better, cheaper and more effective than a government agency.

The fact the USPS has a legal monopoly, and hasn't made a profit would seem to be one indication.

Another would be Amtrak that has never made a profit.

The largest bank bail out of the entire sub-prime crisis was Freddie and Fannie, would be another.

How many examples would you like?

I'd like some detail, which is what I asked. Not simplistic phrases. For example, the use of fuel in the increased number of cars added to the road without Amtrak has a cost. Parking in Metropolitan regions (Boston, NYC, Phildelphia, DC), is impossible today; pollution and grid lock.

USPS is not in business to make a profit. No government agency is.

Before you go off on wanting a balanced budget bill, try thinking about what a budget is.

In fact a budget is a plan, not rigid and set in stone, but modified as events change predictions. Anyone who has ever managed a project or an agency knows.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals hate it because capitalism is for grown ups.

Idiot-Gram ^^^

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your ideological beliefs are not in concert with the vast majority of our citizens; that you are a loud and proud callous conservatives is your right, but it is morally indefensible.

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

The reason we have automobiles, isn't for the common good. It's for profit, and yet automobiles provide for the common good.

Farmers do not farm for the common good, and yet their food results in the common good.

Everything that exists..... does not exist for the common good. It exists because someone profited. And yet those things all provide for the common good.

The sale of rock cocaine exists because someone seeks profit, the sale of used autos once covered under flood waters for profit, and the sale of tobacco products for profit don't do much for the common good.

The sale of bundled mortgages provided for the uncommon Great Recession which harmed everyone but the bundlers.

Unregulated Capitalism and the greedy isn't good for anyone but the morally corrupt.