Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Its not bullshit...it is common sense.
The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.
So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.
well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.
This might pass for meaningful if my memory was too short to recall where the goalposts actually are.
But thank you so much for wasting my time championing an argument no one was having.
WTF...it is EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT WE WERE HAVING
You misunderstand. While it was the argument the rest of us were having, it was not the argument Cecilie1200 was having and, as the Center of the Universe, she gets to decide.
If you have any doubt, watch how she responds to this.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue the conversation. We don't need her permission.
I don't see anyone waving Snausages, so I can't imagine why you're speaking.
This has to be a bullshit machine. Who programmed you?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.
No, sadly, he's just a stupid - but very real - person.
Although perhaps unintended, this thread has turned into another shining example of facts verses loony left/liberal "logic" and regardless of the facts the loonies continue to double and triple down on their silliness.
It's like watching a train wreak.
"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." - Ronald Reagan
This has to be a bullshit machine. Who programmed you?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.
No, sadly, he's just a stupid - but very real - person.
Although perhaps unintended, this thread has turned into another shining example of facts verses loony left/liberal "logic" and regardless of the facts the loonies continue to double and triple down on their silliness.
It's like watching a train wreak.
"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." - Ronald Reagan
Well, maybe you don't support organized labor. The government grants monopoly power to unions which, in turn, gouge auto makers, etc... ultimately consumers.Its not bullshit...it is common sense.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.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.
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.
The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.
So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.
well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.
To the contrary, Americans have decided to tick up their interest in politics since the turn of the century. Credit to Obama's and Trump's popularity and the wars we've been in, regardless of people's opinions of them. Generally people are ambivilous to policy, completely by choice. Anything intellectual is boring to many if not most people.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.This has to be a bullshit machine. Who programmed you?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.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.
not some techno-fascist I tell you that.
Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News
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.
Well, maybe you don't support organized labor. The government grants monopoly power to unions which, in turn, gouge auto makers, etc... ultimately consumers.Its not bullshit...it is common sense.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.
The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.
So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.
well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.
Perfect competition flattens prices, but this is not desirable in a labor or main street market like we live and work in. See 'dead end job' and 'dollar store bullshit' for reference.
To the contrary, Americans have decided to tick up their interest in politics since the turn of the century. Credit to Obama's and Trump's popularity and the wars we've been in, regardless of people's opinions of them. Generally people are ambivilous to policy, completely by choice. Anything intellectual is boring to many if not most people.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.This has to be a bullshit machine. Who programmed you?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.
not some techno-fascist I tell you that.
Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News
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.
Perfect competition is what you must have been referring to when you said that competition flattens prices. Part of perfect competition is having a uniform product. This is great for trading crude oil, but is a disaster in a labor market where people want to promotions or at a mall where people aren't looking for the best price on mao suits.Well, maybe you don't support organized labor. The government grants monopoly power to unions which, in turn, gouge auto makers, etc... ultimately consumers.Its not bullshit...it is common sense.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.
The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.
So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.
well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.
Perfect competition flattens prices, but this is not desirable in a labor or main street market like we live and work in. See 'dead end job' and 'dollar store bullshit' for reference.
the government does not grant monopoly power to unions. In certain highly concentrated markets such as auto manufacturing unions may have some effect as you say, but it is really due to the concentrated markets rather than the unions.
So you dont think competition is desirable in a labor of main street market?, I dont understand you here.
Perfect competition is what you must have been referring to when you said that competition flattens prices. Part of perfect competition is having a uniform product. This is great for trading crude oil, but is a disaster in a labor market where people want to promotions or at a mall where people aren't looking for the best price on mao suits.Well, maybe you don't support organized labor. The government grants monopoly power to unions which, in turn, gouge auto makers, etc... ultimately consumers.Its not bullshit...it is common sense.
The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.
So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.
well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.
Perfect competition flattens prices, but this is not desirable in a labor or main street market like we live and work in. See 'dead end job' and 'dollar store bullshit' for reference.
the government does not grant monopoly power to unions. In certain highly concentrated markets such as auto manufacturing unions may have some effect as you say, but it is really due to the concentrated markets rather than the unions.
So you dont think competition is desirable in a labor of main street market?, I dont understand you here.
Main street competition drives diversity in the market, rather than price parity.
I think most of what you said is just gibberish. "where people want to promotions'?
mao suits....cute
Let me chew this for you: A perfectly competitive job market has a single job description; a perfectly competitive fashion market has a single, uniform product. The stuff you made up does not apply in either of these scenarios. Otherwise, how many more participants are required in the clothing market to flatten prices? Only a mandate to produce mao suits, the only time your bullshit's been put into application, will flatten price through more perfect competition.Perfect competition is what you must have been referring to when you said that competition flattens prices. Part of perfect competition is having a uniform product. This is great for trading crude oil, but is a disaster in a labor market where people want to promotions or at a mall where people aren't looking for the best price on mao suits.Well, maybe you don't support organized labor. The government grants monopoly power to unions which, in turn, gouge auto makers, etc... ultimately consumers.The more you continue to think simply saying, "It's logic. It's common sense. I'm right" constitutes an argument - or even a worthwhile post - the more obvious it becomes that you're wrong and an idiot.
So by all means, reply with, "No, I'm right. That's all. Take my word for it." I dare you.
well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.
Perfect competition flattens prices, but this is not desirable in a labor or main street market like we live and work in. See 'dead end job' and 'dollar store bullshit' for reference.
the government does not grant monopoly power to unions. In certain highly concentrated markets such as auto manufacturing unions may have some effect as you say, but it is really due to the concentrated markets rather than the unions.
So you dont think competition is desirable in a labor of main street market?, I dont understand you here.
Main street competition drives diversity in the market, rather than price parity.
I think most of what you said is just gibberish. "where people want to promotions'?
mao suits....cute
Let me chew this for you: A perfectly competitive job market has a single job description; a perfectly competitive fashion market has a single, uniform product. The stuff you made up does not apply in either of these scenarios. Otherwise, how many more participants are required in the clothing market to flatten prices? Only a mandate to produce mao suits, the only time your bullshit's been put into application, will flatten price through more perfect competition.Perfect competition is what you must have been referring to when you said that competition flattens prices. Part of perfect competition is having a uniform product. This is great for trading crude oil, but is a disaster in a labor market where people want to promotions or at a mall where people aren't looking for the best price on mao suits.Well, maybe you don't support organized labor. The government grants monopoly power to unions which, in turn, gouge auto makers, etc... ultimately consumers.well it is obvious to most that the reason to oppose the formation of monopolies in business is that they can gouge customers. The flattening out of product prices that results from competition is also a process that applies to wages.
Perfect competition flattens prices, but this is not desirable in a labor or main street market like we live and work in. See 'dead end job' and 'dollar store bullshit' for reference.
the government does not grant monopoly power to unions. In certain highly concentrated markets such as auto manufacturing unions may have some effect as you say, but it is really due to the concentrated markets rather than the unions.
So you dont think competition is desirable in a labor of main street market?, I dont understand you here.
Main street competition drives diversity in the market, rather than price parity.
I think most of what you said is just gibberish. "where people want to promotions'?
mao suits....cute
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
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.
I didn't say it was time to vote for someone, you ignorant twat. Try to understand English.
I said it's time to discuss who you're leaning toward, because we've seen enough to start having definite preferences. I ALSO said that these preferences might change as time passes, and we should discuss that too.
Do you need me to draw a picture, or might you possibly fire up both of your brain cells and get them working on comprehending this?
Third option: continue to object to thread and fucking leave, because your opinion is almost as valueless as your objections.
I have no doubt you'll be voting for Hillary. Irrelevant hags should stick together.
So getting back to the thread subject, I consider defeating the Dems in this election to be almost as important as which Repub is elected.
As such I think a moderate, smart, well-spoken, youthful, Hispanic Floridian to be a real threat to Dems in that swing state (Florida) and if paired with the right demographic (black, female) and/or geographic (Ohio, another large swing state) VP candidate could win.
Yeah ... I'm talkin' Rubio/Fiorino,Kasich,Carson.
and I consider trying to help your wingers lose a moral obligation. but if you really think you have a shot, you might want to run as far as humanly possible from Fiorino or Carson. your faith in their limited appeal is optimistic at best. you're closer with Kasich but your wingers hate him because he's rational and not vile.
I still really like Trump.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.
I like him because he's made a success of his life independent of professional politicking. I think he is genuinely interested in helping the US and I trust his ability to get stuff done.
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.
I didn't say it was time to vote for someone, you ignorant twat. Try to understand English.
I said it's time to discuss who you're leaning toward, because we've seen enough to start having definite preferences. I ALSO said that these preferences might change as time passes, and we should discuss that too.
Do you need me to draw a picture, or might you possibly fire up both of your brain cells and get them working on comprehending this?
Third option: continue to object to thread and fucking leave, because your opinion is almost as valueless as your objections.
I have no doubt you'll be voting for Hillary. Irrelevant hags should stick together.
So getting back to the thread subject, I consider defeating the Dems in this election to be almost as important as which Repub is elected.
As such I think a moderate, smart, well-spoken, youthful, Hispanic Floridian to be a real threat to Dems in that swing state (Florida) and if paired with the right demographic (black, female) and/or geographic (Ohio, another large swing state) VP candidate could win.
Yeah ... I'm talkin' Rubio/Fiorino,Kasich,Carson.
and I consider trying to help your wingers lose a moral obligation. but if you really think you have a shot, you might want to run as far as humanly possible from Fiorino or Carson. your faith in their limited appeal is optimistic at best. you're closer with Kasich but your wingers hate him because he's rational and not vile.
Well, this is what happens when dipshits with no conscience start trying to invent their own "morality": we get treated to the grotesque display of being told that doing whatever gives them what they want is a "moral obligation", and we're expected to take it, and them, seriously, instead if disdaining and shunning them as they deserve.
People said the same about Lincoln, and Reagan. Trump is 100x the diplomat that Obama is. And trump earned his position....Obama was placed.I still really like Trump.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.
I like him because he's made a success of his life independent of professional politicking. I think he is genuinely interested in helping the US and I trust his ability to get stuff done.
I can appreciate all of that, but the truth is, I think many of the qualities that have served him so well in business would make him an utter disaster in the areas of politics and diplomacy. I think they kinda already have, and only the fact that the people being polled are so VERY anti-establishment, anti-PC, anti-politician right now is saving him.
This state you're in indicates that you should leave economics to people with at least a high school understanding of it. Being math history and science, it doesn't comply with your unique make it up as you go technique.Let me chew this for you: A perfectly competitive job market has a single job description; a perfectly competitive fashion market has a single, uniform product. The stuff you made up does not apply in either of these scenarios. Otherwise, how many more participants are required in the clothing market to flatten prices? Only a mandate to produce mao suits, the only time your bullshit's been put into application, will flatten price through more perfect competition.Perfect competition is what you must have been referring to when you said that competition flattens prices. Part of perfect competition is having a uniform product. This is great for trading crude oil, but is a disaster in a labor market where people want to promotions or at a mall where people aren't looking for the best price on mao suits.Well, maybe you don't support organized labor. The government grants monopoly power to unions which, in turn, gouge auto makers, etc... ultimately consumers.
Perfect competition flattens prices, but this is not desirable in a labor or main street market like we live and work in. See 'dead end job' and 'dollar store bullshit' for reference.
the government does not grant monopoly power to unions. In certain highly concentrated markets such as auto manufacturing unions may have some effect as you say, but it is really due to the concentrated markets rather than the unions.
So you dont think competition is desirable in a labor of main street market?, I dont understand you here.
Main street competition drives diversity in the market, rather than price parity.
I think most of what you said is just gibberish. "where people want to promotions'?
mao suits....cute
Perfect Competition Definition | Investopedia
I have no idea what your talking about.......gibberish....designed to fool yourself into thinking you know something..
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.
I didn't say it was time to vote for someone, you ignorant twat. Try to understand English.
I said it's time to discuss who you're leaning toward, because we've seen enough to start having definite preferences. I ALSO said that these preferences might change as time passes, and we should discuss that too.
Do you need me to draw a picture, or might you possibly fire up both of your brain cells and get them working on comprehending this?
Third option: continue to object to thread and fucking leave, because your opinion is almost as valueless as your objections.
I have no doubt you'll be voting for Hillary. Irrelevant hags should stick together.
So getting back to the thread subject, I consider defeating the Dems in this election to be almost as important as which Repub is elected.
As such I think a moderate, smart, well-spoken, youthful, Hispanic Floridian to be a real threat to Dems in that swing state (Florida) and if paired with the right demographic (black, female) and/or geographic (Ohio, another large swing state) VP candidate could win.
Yeah ... I'm talkin' Rubio/Fiorino,Kasich,Carson.
and I consider trying to help your wingers lose a moral obligation. but if you really think you have a shot, you might want to run as far as humanly possible from Fiorino or Carson. your faith in their limited appeal is optimistic at best. you're closer with Kasich but your wingers hate him because he's rational and not vile.
Well, this is what happens when dipshits with no conscience start trying to invent their own "morality": we get treated to the grotesque display of being told that doing whatever gives them what they want is a "moral obligation", and we're expected to take it, and them, seriously, instead if disdaining and shunning them as they deserve.
poor mentally ill S&M queen.
