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

[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.

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

not some techno-fascist I tell you that.

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

 

[Iceweasel]

"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/download.php?file=/PPS/PPS12_03/S1537592714001595a.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?

A university finds we are not a Republic? That's laughable. But like most libturds, you didn't post any content, just lazy links.

 

[Iceweasel]

Public use contracting? not sure what youre talking about there but contracting with local government is dominated by crony contractors often I think.

What do you know about it? The government has their pet contractors and/or hoops to hop through in order for them to serve their public masters. And you want the blame to fall on contractors?

 

[Arianrhod]

...you didn't post any content, just lazy links.

Do you understand how links work? The content is at the links. You click on them and read the content. "Lazy links" may be alliterative, but the links are inanimate.

If I were to post 18 pages of content, would you read it? Dubious, if you're too lazy to click a link. But let me know and I will, so you can dismiss the content without reading it as well.

 

[Vigilante]

I favor her in the BIG HOUSE....NOT the White House!

 

[Dr Grump]

Clinton is the best candidate

 

[Programmer]

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?

not some techno-fascist I tell you that.

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

The journal itself doesn't go as far as the editorial or you, of course. There's a lot they attribute to the government itself, and from the beginning. They note that econ. elites have the same desire as the public in nearly all cases but wealth management.

Who am I to question some Princeton professors, but they didn't seem to account for voter participation disparity, which is totally voluntary. That's one elephant in the room. The other is time. From my west-coast education, it seems like they tailor the timeline to exclude the way major public desires tend to come to pass with time. Ballers weren't praying for obamacare.

EDIT: I love techno-fascist by the way. You mind if I make a t-shirt?

 

[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.

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

I think you exaggerate.......anyway if some dont work that accounts for the poor. But inventors and creative types are a small portion of the rich.....and are protected by government (I would argue in a lot of cases excessive) copyright and patent law.

a well functioning capitalist society would not have large disparities of wealth.

 

[dcraelin]

Public use contracting? not sure what youre talking about there but contracting with local government is dominated by crony contractors often I think.

What do you know about it? The government has their pet contractors and/or hoops to hop through in order for them to serve their public masters. And you want the blame to fall on contractors?

mostly yes, it is in a way a form of regulatory capture.

 

[jillian]

I think we're approaching the point in the campaign where the voters who aren't hardcore support bases and campaign workers are starting to get a feel for the candidates and leaning one direction or the other, although we obviously still have a lot of time before it's necessary to make a final choice.

So which candidate are you currently favoring, and why?

For myself, I'm currently throwing my support to Ted Cruz. As I've said in other places, he's smart, principled, conservative, and has shown himself to be willing and able to take on and oppose both the Democrats and the establishment of the GOP.

it isn't "time". the election is a year away.

ted cruz is far too smart to believe the stupid things he says... which explains why those stupid things make sense to someone like 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.

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

not some techno-fascist I tell you that.

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

The journal itself doesn't go as far as the editorial or you, of course. There's a lot they attribute to the government itself, and from the beginning. They note that econ. elites have the same desire as the public in nearly all cases but wealth management.

Who am I to question some Princeton professors, but they didn't seem to account for voter participation disparity, which is totally voluntary. That's one elephant in the room. The other is time. From my west-coast education, it seems like they tailor the timeline to exclude the way major public desires tend to come to pass with time. Ballers weren't praying for obamacare.

EDIT: I love techno-fascist by the way. You mind if I make a t-shirt?

people have given up on a system that never seems to work for the common good.

"Ballers weren't praying....." ?

No go right ahead with the t-shirt, you'd probably wear it well.

 

[Iceweasel]

...you didn't post any content, just lazy links.

Do you understand how links work? The content is at the links. You click on them and read the content. "Lazy links" may be alliterative, but the links are inanimate.

If I were to post 18 pages of content, would you read it? Dubious, if you're too lazy to click a link. But let me know and I will, so you can dismiss the content without reading it as well.

I made it clear I understand how links work, I also made it clear you are too lazy and stupid to post the relevant content. You don't need 18 pages to make a point, you aren't giving a presidential address. Why does that need to be explained?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

I think you exaggerate.......anyway if some dont work that accounts for the poor. But inventors and creative types are a small portion of the rich.....and are protected by government (I would argue in a lot of cases excessive) copyright and patent law.

a well functioning capitalist society would not have large disparities of wealth.

You keep making the claim but I've never heard of an example to back you up. Your argument about government involvement in the market place protecting wealth isn't a function of capitalism, it's a function of something going very wrong. When government picks winners and losers so it can pilfer from the winners to give to the losers, that ain't the market place in play.

 

[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.

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

I think you exaggerate.......anyway if some dont work that accounts for the poor. But inventors and creative types are a small portion of the rich.....and are protected by government (I would argue in a lot of cases excessive) copyright and patent law.

a well functioning capitalist society would not have large disparities of wealth.

You keep making the claim but I've never heard of an example to back you up. Your argument about government involvement in the market place protecting wealth isn't a function of capitalism, it's a function of something going very wrong. When government picks winners and losers so it can pilfer from the winners to give to the losers, that ain't the market place in play.

without government involvement in the market place there really could be no market place. That said it can be unfair or unwise involvement.

I think it is just common sense that competition in markets tends to even out incomes.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Horseshit! How many people do you know anyway? Some people wouldn't do a day's honest work at gun point. Others you could put a ball and chain on and barely slow them down. Then there are creative and inventive types. Capitalism will have massive income disparity because people are massively disparate.

Socialism leads to things dropping down to the lowest common denominator because there's no sense in busting your ass if the lazy fuck next door gets the same reward.

I think you exaggerate.......anyway if some dont work that accounts for the poor. But inventors and creative types are a small portion of the rich.....and are protected by government (I would argue in a lot of cases excessive) copyright and patent law.

a well functioning capitalist society would not have large disparities of wealth.

You keep making the claim but I've never heard of an example to back you up. Your argument about government involvement in the market place protecting wealth isn't a function of capitalism, it's a function of something going very wrong. When government picks winners and losers so it can pilfer from the winners to give to the losers, that ain't the market place in play.

without government involvement in the market place there really could be no market place. That said it can be unfair or unwise involvement.

I think it is just common sense that competition in markets tends to even out incomes.

We've gone over this many times in the 'unfettered capitalism' thread. Capitalism needs a stable marketplace so of course we need laws. No laws mean anarchy. anarchy means someone can simply kill you and steal your shit.

Competition leads to winners and losers, like any race, match or event. Government dicking with it in the interest of artificial fairness is what screws it up, leads to inferior products and services. Competition is what sets the bar. It doesn't mean 2nd, 3rd or whatever place has no niche though. Some people might prefer those for any number of reasons. It's called choice.

 

[Arianrhod]

^I agree with a great deal of that. However:

Competition leads to winners and losers, like any race, match or event. Government dicking with it in the interest of artificial fairness is what screws it up, leads to inferior products and services.

What about government dicking with it that has the opposite effect - i.e., giving some industries or some players in those industries special advantages that have a negative impact on fairness?

I'm thinking of legislation that denied consumers the right to shop for health insurance across state borders, for example, tax breaks to the oil industry, overturning Glass-Steagall to allowing big banks to merge with other big banks, creating virtual monopolies that would have given Teddy Roosevelt apoplexy and effectively caused the crash of '08.

It seems to me if you want the government to stay out of a competitive marketplace, that should apply across the board.

 

[Iceweasel]

^I agree with a great deal of that. However:

Competition leads to winners and losers, like any race, match or event. Government dicking with it in the interest of artificial fairness is what screws it up, leads to inferior products and services.

What about government dicking with it that has the opposite effect - i.e., giving some industries or some players in those industries special advantages that have a negative impact on fairness?

I'm thinking of legislation that denied consumers the right to shop for health insurance across state borders, for example, tax breaks to the oil industry, overturning Glass-Steagall to allowing big banks to merge with other big banks, creating virtual monopolies that would have given Teddy Roosevelt apoplexy and effectively caused the crash of '08.

It seems to me if you want the government to stay out of a competitive marketplace, that should apply across the board.

People not being able to shop across state lines for health insurance was/is a big problem and a good example of what I meant, i.e., government dicking around with private enterprise.

As far as mergers, it isn't a monopoly if there is competition. The size of the bank isn't the problem, creating virtual money and making a bunch of loans that can't be payed back was.

 

[Arianrhod]

^I agree with a great deal of that. However:

Competition leads to winners and losers, like any race, match or event. Government dicking with it in the interest of artificial fairness is what screws it up, leads to inferior products and services.

What about government dicking with it that has the opposite effect - i.e., giving some industries or some players in those industries special advantages that have a negative impact on fairness?

I'm thinking of legislation that denied consumers the right to shop for health insurance across state borders, for example, tax breaks to the oil industry, overturning Glass-Steagall to allowing big banks to merge with other big banks, creating virtual monopolies that would have given Teddy Roosevelt apoplexy and effectively caused the crash of '08.

It seems to me if you want the government to stay out of a competitive marketplace, that should apply across the board.

People not being able to shop across state lines for health insurance was/is a big problem and a good example of what I meant, i.e., government dicking around with private enterprise.

As far as mergers, it isn't a monopoly if there is competition. The size of the bank isn't the problem, creating virtual money and making a bunch of loans that can't be payed back was.

Fair enough, but Citigroup and Chase wouldn't have been allowed to bundle those loans under Glass-Steagall. No subprime bundles, no Recession of '08.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

No, sadly, he's just a stupid - but very real - person.