It's Time: Which Candidate Do You Currently Favor?

[dcraelin]

{snip}

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

 

[Programmer]

{snip}

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

The U.S. is a very competitive business environment. One of the exceptions are unions which rarely compete among one another and are legally protected from competition in the open labor market.

 

[dcraelin]

{snip}

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

The U.S. is a very competitive business environment. One of the exceptions are unions which rarely compete among one another and are legally protected from competition in the open labor market.

the first part is a blanket statement for which you supply no evidence, "very"whats the measure and in what areas........ON the second, I believe there are competing unions.

 

[Programmer]

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

The U.S. is a very competitive business environment. One of the exceptions are unions which rarely compete among one another and are legally protected from competition in the open labor market.

the first part is a blanket statement for which you supply no evidence, "very"whats the measure and in what areas........ON the second, I believe there are competing unions.

We have anti-trust laws that came from experience with that. You may have bee underestimating the significance of the Monopoly game up to this point.

Because nobody who supports your world view will ever be president, we will continue to incentivize entrepreneurship and investment. As long as we maintain that element, it will be difficult to even challenge trust laws.

Unions compete, but rarely, like I said. The 'local' and trade-specific nature of them precludes likely competition. ie you want to do [trade] in [location] use [one union choice available].

 

[dcraelin]

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

The U.S. is a very competitive business environment. One of the exceptions are unions which rarely compete among one another and are legally protected from competition in the open labor market.

the first part is a blanket statement for which you supply no evidence, "very"whats the measure and in what areas........ON the second, I believe there are competing unions.

We have anti-trust laws that came from experience with that. You may have bee underestimating the significance of the Monopoly game up to this point.

Because nobody who supports your world view will ever be president, we will continue to incentivize entrepreneurship and investment. As long as we maintain that element, it will be difficult to even challenge trust laws.

Unions compete, but rarely, like I said. The 'local' and trade-specific nature of them precludes likely competition. ie you want to do [trade] in [location] use [one union choice available].

I think our anti-trust laws have been co-opted. They have been mutated in order to allow more and more mergers. It is like regulatory capture.

Perhaps no one with my views will ever be elected.....but I think that would go to show that our system has decayed into an oligarchy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

{snip}

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

 

[Toro]

If the vote were held today, I'd vote for Rubio.

 

[dcraelin]

{snip}

large disparities of income tend to show a breakdown in market mechanisms. I think most economists would agree, left or right.

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is a ass-backwards. Economists - anyone who's played monopoly - could offer a number of ways why the rich get richer in a healthy market.

It's ironic that your benchmark is in the 1950s. Once you take off the rosy historical lenses, you realize many Americans couldn't afford more than one set of pants back then.

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

 

[dcraelin]

so youre actually using the board game MONOPOLY as your defense of large disparities of wealth.......shm

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

 

[martybegan]

The SMOD has a rock solid, earth shattering plan to end political strife, war, terrorism, global warming, income inequality, and pretty much everything else.

"The Sweet Meteor of Death, the End of Politics as usual, and everything else"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

Who told you competition "evens out incomes". What the hell are you even babbling about? Who says large disparities are a sign of malfunction? Where the fuck are you getting this bilge? And why do you even expect me to comment on some vague reference to "a recent study" which is neither linked nor even specified? All that supports is the idea that you're a partisan ideologue hack.

 

[dcraelin]

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

Who told you competition "evens out incomes". What the hell are you even babbling about? Who says large disparities are a sign of malfunction? Where the fuck are you getting this bilge? And why do you even expect me to comment on some vague reference to "a recent study" which is neither linked nor even specified? All that supports is the idea that you're a partisan ideologue hack.

the idea that it evens out incomes is logic, ........I say that. didnt expect you to comment on the study, it has gotten a lot of tweet activity I am sure you can google it up if so inclined.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Trump - Cruz

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

Who told you competition "evens out incomes". What the hell are you even babbling about? Who says large disparities are a sign of malfunction? Where the fuck are you getting this bilge? And why do you even expect me to comment on some vague reference to "a recent study" which is neither linked nor even specified? All that supports is the idea that you're a partisan ideologue hack.

the idea that it evens out incomes is logic, ........I say that. didnt expect you to comment on the study, it has gotten a lot of tweet activity I am sure you can google it up if so inclined.

Oh, okay, so basically, "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".

In that case, you might as well not even have posted, because it sure as shit did nothing except waste time and space.

 

[Arianrhod]

"I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".

While you're doing that, here's an article about the study dcraelin referred to, from a source bizarre enough for y'all to trust:

America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds

Yes, o-li-gar-chy is a big, scary word, but maybe you can let it into your peabrain without too much discomfort.

After you're done watching the inflammatory videos and laughing your fat ass off at the creepy photos, you'll find the actual study here:

http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...95a.pdf&code=8086e20ef15d8179d36eebf438633b36

It's 18 whole pages and has lots more big, scary words in it, so you're not expected to read it before you mock it. But your mockery would be more on-point if you knew what you were talking about.

Please make certain your reply to this post contains the usual amount of inflammatory language absent content, mmkay?

 

[Programmer]

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

The U.S. is a very competitive business environment. One of the exceptions are unions which rarely compete among one another and are legally protected from competition in the open labor market.

the first part is a blanket statement for which you supply no evidence, "very"whats the measure and in what areas........ON the second, I believe there are competing unions.

We have anti-trust laws that came from experience with that. You may have bee underestimating the significance of the Monopoly game up to this point.

Because nobody who supports your world view will ever be president, we will continue to incentivize entrepreneurship and investment. As long as we maintain that element, it will be difficult to even challenge trust laws.

Unions compete, but rarely, like I said. The 'local' and trade-specific nature of them precludes likely competition. ie you want to do [trade] in [location] use [one union choice available].

I think our anti-trust laws have been co-opted. They have been mutated in order to allow more and more mergers. It is like regulatory capture.

Perhaps no one with my views will ever be elected.....but I think that would go to show that our system has decayed into an oligarchy.

It's American values, not oligarchy. The US would rank poorly among the world's havens for racketeering oligarchs.

The fact is, there's only a handful of you guys that want the American dream to be some mediocre handout. None of y'all will get into office because your utopia makes Americans want to vomit.

As for mergers: mergers aren't illegal, bud. It's monopoly that's illegal. We're very thoroughly regulated here. What mergers have created a monopoly in your lifetime?

I'll concede that union regulatory capture has lead to union monopolies over government and public use contracting. ...And that our auto industry is monopolized by those clowns, too.

 

[Programmer]

Yes. Monopoly's a legit economic model. Your bogus tax math and agreeing economists are bogus.

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

If you do capitalism correctly, there is no way NOT to have competition. However, individual competitors will come and go, get crushed or prosper. That's life.

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

This has to be a bullshit machine. Who programmed you?

 

[dcraelin]

IF you do it correctly. AND I think most economist would say if you do it correctly there would not be large disparities of wealth.

Well, that would be why "I think" is such an oxymoron where you're concerned. Not only do "most economists" in no way suggest that the natural state of mankind, economics, or capitalism is widespread income parity, but I would immediately distrust and discount any so-called economist who said such a patently nonsensical thing as a fraud.

It does not take a genius to figure out that because talents, skills, motivation, and desires are not exactly alike for every person, income and success are not going to be, either, and should not be expected to be. The only way to achieve income parity is for an outside agency - such as the government - to impose it by force.

well not talking about "parity" but wide, large disparities. Competition tends to even out incomes, large disparities are a sign you may have a malfunctioning economy. A recent study was done that shows America is close to an oligarchy.....this also supports idea that we have a malfunctioning system which needs to be revised.

Who told you competition "evens out incomes". What the hell are you even babbling about? Who says large disparities are a sign of malfunction? Where the fuck are you getting this bilge? And why do you even expect me to comment on some vague reference to "a recent study" which is neither linked nor even specified? All that supports is the idea that you're a partisan ideologue hack.

the idea that it evens out incomes is logic, ........I say that. didnt expect you to comment on the study, it has gotten a lot of tweet activity I am sure you can google it up if so inclined.

Oh, okay, so basically, "I'm just going to spout bullshit and make no effort to explain or substantiate".

In that case, you might as well not even have posted, because it sure as shit did nothing except waste time and space.

Its not bullshit...it is common sense.

 

[dcraelin]

the game monopoly does indeed show how economics can work when competition is deminished.......but we are supposed to have a system where competition exists......

The U.S. is a very competitive business environment. One of the exceptions are unions which rarely compete among one another and are legally protected from competition in the open labor market.

the first part is a blanket statement for which you supply no evidence, "very"whats the measure and in what areas........ON the second, I believe there are competing unions.

We have anti-trust laws that came from experience with that. You may have bee underestimating the significance of the Monopoly game up to this point.

Because nobody who supports your world view will ever be president, we will continue to incentivize entrepreneurship and investment. As long as we maintain that element, it will be difficult to even challenge trust laws.

Unions compete, but rarely, like I said. The 'local' and trade-specific nature of them precludes likely competition. ie you want to do [trade] in [location] use [one union choice available].

I think our anti-trust laws have been co-opted. They have been mutated in order to allow more and more mergers. It is like regulatory capture.

Perhaps no one with my views will ever be elected.....but I think that would go to show that our system has decayed into an oligarchy.

It's American values, not oligarchy. The US would rank poorly among the world's havens for racketeering oligarchs.

The fact is, there's only a handful of you guys that want the American dream to be some mediocre handout. None of y'all will get into office because your utopia makes Americans want to vomit.

As for mergers: mergers aren't illegal, bud. It's monopoly that's illegal. We're very thoroughly regulated here. What mergers have created a monopoly in your lifetime?

I'll concede that union regulatory capture has lead to union monopolies over government and public use contracting. ...And that our auto industry is monopolized by those clowns, too.

you're just babbling on about your straw man idea of a liberal (even though I consider myself a populist not really a liberal)

the meat processing industry is very concentrated I believe...... on a local level I've seen grocery stores bought out and closed. You have a point I think about the auto industry. Public use contracting? not sure what youre talking about there but contracting with local government is dominated by crony contractors often I think.