CDZ What are you worth?

[RodISHI]

And it's like mercury in your drinking water, a little of it is more than you want.

Frankly, I think it's more like salt than mercury, but too much salt in my food is still not something I want, but it's something I can deal with. I say "salt" because I know better than to think I can completely eliminate its existence and it's going to take a hell of a lot of "over salting" before it's deadly. (Strictly speaking, it's more a matter of circumstances that makes salt deadly.)

I can't sit here long enough to answer your previous curiosity inquiries today. Maybe tomorrow or another time. I do think I can address your statement below.

"I'm saying that a third way to overcome the so-called "exploitation our system" is for us to as a society to embrace and accept nothing less than a higher set of personal ethical mores. Since it's adults who run society, we need to instill those standards so that by the time one becomes an adult, it's anathema to one to violate them. The more well inculcated among individuals be the mores, the lower the quantity of folks who act in violation of them."

This statement reminds me of a situation when I hired a private tutor for one of my children and the phrase the shirt had on it the tutor wore the first day to meet us. "You gotta wanna". Until society gets back to the point where people want that integrity throughout it is stuck with all of those who do not and will not follow the rules. "Lower quality people"? Who determines who those lower quality people are and who sets the standards of who is "lower quality"?

 

[SingleVoyce]

??? Say what? Do you outright reject capitalism? What is the point of owning a profit-making enterprise if one won't, within the confines of the law, apply the full extent of one's ability and resources to be as profitable as one can?

Capitalism can take many forms. I reject crony capitalism (corporatism) because it's NOT free market capitalism. In fact, it is more of a threat to free market capitalism than socialism.

Of course the principles of free market capitalism is to be as profitable as one can but it's in the confines of market demand and material supply to form a price-driven natural equilibrium. Corporatism uses the power of government to drive profits through manipulation and regulation. It takes the true free market out of the hands of consumers and puts it in the hands of power brokers and politicians.

Socialists will point to this and say... Ahaa... Capitalism FAILS! You need centralized government authority overseeing everything to make it work! But that simply exacerbates the problem and breeds corruption. The ANSWER is to return to true free market capitalism. We know that works, there is no question about it. Individual liberty, free enterprise, constitutional rights, private property and free markets have been responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires and lifting more out of poverty than anything man has ever devised.

"The ANSWER is to return to true free market capitalism. We know that works, there is no question about it."

Whoa!!!!!! That is absolutely false. Pure free market capitalism is totally unworkable and anybody who has taken more than a few seconds to think about it can name many reasons why it is not practical as a real world system. What universe do you occupy?

 

[320 Years of History]

??? Say what? Do you outright reject capitalism? What is the point of owning a profit-making enterprise if one won't, within the confines of the law, apply the full extent of one's ability and resources to be as profitable as one can?

Capitalism can take many forms. I reject crony capitalism (corporatism) because it's NOT free market capitalism. In fact, it is more of a threat to free market capitalism than socialism.

Of course the principles of free market capitalism is to be as profitable as one can but it's in the confines of market demand and material supply to form a price-driven natural equilibrium. Corporatism uses the power of government to drive profits through manipulation and regulation. It takes the true free market out of the hands of consumers and puts it in the hands of power brokers and politicians.

Socialists will point to this and say... Ahaa... Capitalism FAILS! You need centralized government authority overseeing everything to make it work! But that simply exacerbates the problem and breeds corruption. The ANSWER is to return to true free market capitalism. We know that works, there is no question about it. Individual liberty, free enterprise, constitutional rights, private property and free markets have been responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires and lifting more out of poverty than anything man has ever devised.

"The ANSWER is to return to true free market capitalism. We know that works, there is no question about it."

Whoa!!!!!! That is absolutely false. Pure free market capitalism is totally unworkable and anybody who has taken more than a few seconds to think about it can name many reasons why it is not practical as a real world system. What universe do you occupy?

Red:
??? It certainly worked before in the U.S. Laissez faire capitalism saw its heyday in the 1870s. I can assure you that it worked quite well for the people who availed themselves of its bounty by acting to be innovators instead of followers. Indeed, we would never have become the great nation we are but for those innovators, those great barons of capitalism. One may not cotton to the ruthlessness of unrestrained capitalism, but does it "work?" Oh, it most definitely does. It just doesn't work for folks who lack the will to grab hold of it and use it for the benefit.

Of course, what too many folks these days want is "lazy fare" capitalism...That's the integrated form of capitalism and politics whereby one innovates not at all, contributes nothing but their mere brute labor, and expects to somehow "make it."

But then isn't that the "American Way" for so many of our countrymen? You know whom I mean, right? The 'Mercans, most whom don't speak French, are barely literate with English and won't read a damned thing of worth in either language -- but of course they heard something about it on a radio show, which naturally qualifies them as experts on the matter, notwithstanding that they've not once applied any of their "vast stores" of "wisdom" to accomplish a damn thing anyone would call successful, that is unless one counts breeding a bevy of brigands who will achieve no better than they who begot them -- so as a result, they do the so-called "best they can" and as with even just a simple term, they bastardize it in every way imaginable via some sordid series of mental machinations of rationalized depravity and convert the idea into some meager shadow of itself so that it becomes useful to no one. That is the "American Way" these days, though.

 

[Boss]

"The ANSWER is to return to true free market capitalism. We know that works, there is no question about it."

Whoa!!!!!! That is absolutely false. Pure free market capitalism is totally unworkable and anybody who has taken more than a few seconds to think about it can name many reasons why it is not practical as a real world system. What universe do you occupy?

It's absolutely NOT false. First of all, there is no such thing as "pure" free market capitalism. It's like saying "pure freedom" ...it doesn't exist. The words "true" and "pure" are not synonyms and you need to read my quote again. I said we need to return to true free market capitalism. There is nothing "unworkable" about true free market capitalism.

Free market capitalism is the voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services for remuneration between parties with minimal government interference. Take as many seconds as you like to think about that and you cannot find a reason why it's not practical as a system of economic commerce. Sounds like you've been sold propaganda from people who don't know what they are talking about or are confused regarding what free market capitalism is.

As I articulated previously, our free market system works in unison with free enterprise and a constitution. The constitution addresses several areas where the free market is not practical. For example, the military. It's not practical to provide a military through the free market because the incentives are all wrong. The framers of the constitution understood there were areas which free market capitalism couldn't adequately address the needs and that's why they wrote Article I Section 8.

Free enterprise is a system where businesses are not under government control. Again, there is no such thing as "pure" free enterprise... I can't create a business to sell you inferior unsafe products or cause damage to the environment. The idea is to have a system with minimal government control and that's precisely what we've gotten away from in this country, hence my comment... we need to return to true free market capitalism which we know will work.

 

[SingleVoyce]

How you define "true free market capitalism"? You mentioned several areas where government "interference" is necessary and there are certainly others. Who defines which areas are appropriate and how do you evaluate the necessity of this "interference".

When did we attain this perfect state that you want to "return to". On what do you base your assertion that it "worked" at that point in time?

 

[Boss]

How you define "true free market capitalism"? You mentioned several areas where government "interference" is necessary and there are certainly others. Who defines which areas are appropriate and how do you evaluate the necessity of this "interference".

When did we attain this perfect state that you want to "return to". On what do you base your assertion that it "worked" at that point in time?

Well, in the context I was using in the quote you posted from me, it was a differentiation from "crony" capitalism which is often times passed off as free market capitalism. True free market capitalism is not controlled or regulated by government other than the basic necessities of protection outlined in the constitution.

Who defines? The Constitution... Article I Section 8. It's all right there in black and white.

I never said we achieved a perfect state. I clearly said that it's not a perfect system but it's the best system man has ever created. In recent years, we've moved away from a true free market system in favor of more and more government backed crony corporatism.

Free market economy clearly worked to bring our young nation from it's upstart to the largest superpower in the world. And you can look at any nation that is economically prosperous and growing and you find a free market system.

Look... there is not a damn thing in the world wrong with free market capitalism. It is simple... I have something you need, you need something I have... we agree on a price determined by supply and demand and make a voluntary exchange. Someone else may also have what I have that you need and they are free to offer it to you at a lesser price... that's competition. This is how free markets work. There's not a problem with it, there's nothing wrong with it, both consumer and supplier benefit by it. Economies are grown with it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Who defines? The Constitution... Article I Section 8. It's all right there in black and white.

In all fairness, the Constitution rarely is enumerative about what is, isn't, may/may not be permitted. It may seem that way to some folks, but the battle between loose and strict construction of the document, whether it is binarily proscriptive/permissive or thematically so, has raged since before the thing was ratified.

 

[SingleVoyce]

How you define "true free market capitalism"? You mentioned several areas where government "interference" is necessary and there are certainly others. Who defines which areas are appropriate and how do you evaluate the necessity of this "interference".

When did we attain this perfect state that you want to "return to". On what do you base your assertion that it "worked" at that point in time?

Well, in the context I was using in the quote you posted from me, it was a differentiation from "crony" capitalism which is often times passed off as free market capitalism. True free market capitalism is not controlled or regulated by government other than the basic necessities of protection outlined in the constitution.

Who defines? The Constitution... Article I Section 8. It's all right there in black and white.

I never said we achieved a perfect state. I clearly said that it's not a perfect system but it's the best system man has ever created. In recent years, we've moved away from a true free market system in favor of more and more government backed crony corporatism.

Free market economy clearly worked to bring our young nation from it's upstart to the largest superpower in the world. And you can look at any nation that is economically prosperous and growing and you find a free market system.

Look... there is not a damn thing in the world wrong with free market capitalism. It is simple... I have something you need, you need something I have... we agree on a price determined by supply and demand and make a voluntary exchange. Someone else may also have what I have that you need and they are free to offer it to you at a lesser price... that's competition. This is how free markets work. There's not a problem with it, there's nothing wrong with it, both consumer and supplier benefit by it. Economies are grown with it.

I never said there was anything wrong with free market capitalism but it doesn't work in the absence of some level of regulatory control. Your original statement seemed to imply that there was some agreement on a well-defined definition of "true free market capitalism" that we had attained at some time in the past and needed to return to. If that's not what you meant, then we don't really disagree.

 

[Boss]

In all fairness, the Constitution rarely is enumerative about what is, isn't, may/may not be permitted. It may seem that way to some folks, but the battle between loose and strict construction of the document, whether it is binarily proscriptive/permissive or thematically so, has raged since before the thing was ratified.

I disagree wholeheartedly, I think the power of government is clearly enumerated and defined in Article I Section 8. It's not up for debate, if you wish to give the government more power you must do that through the Amendment process. Has this idea been subverted through the years? Of course! THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

 

[Boss]

I never said there was anything wrong with free market capitalism but it doesn't work in the absence of some level of regulatory control. Your original statement seemed to imply that there was some agreement on a well-defined definition of "true free market capitalism" that we had attained at some time in the past and needed to return to. If that's not what you meant, then we don't really disagree.

It can ONLY work in absence of government regulation and control because that's precisely what it is by definition. Introducing government regulation and control makes it NOT free market capitalism. I gave you the definition before, did you not read it?

Free market capitalism is the voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services for remuneration between parties with minimal government interference.

It certainly DOES work... it has worked for 250 years! It built the greatest and most powerful nation man has ever known. It sent men to the moon and won two world wars. It has enabled people who came here with nothing to become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. It didn't just suddenly STOP working!

 

[320 Years of History]

In all fairness, the Constitution rarely is enumerative about what is, isn't, may/may not be permitted. It may seem that way to some folks, but the battle between loose and strict construction of the document, whether it is binarily proscriptive/permissive or thematically so, has raged since before the thing was ratified.

I disagree wholeheartedly, I think the power of government is clearly enumerated and defined in Article I Section 8. It's not up for debate, if you wish to give the government more power you must do that through the Amendment process. Has this idea been subverted through the years? Of course! THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

Are you disagreeing with the assertion that the fight between loose and strict construction is as old as the nation itself? That is the only point I made, so if you're disagreeing with something else, I want to make sure I know what it is you're disagreeing with.

 

[Boss]

Are you disagreeing with the assertion that the fight between loose and strict construction is as old as the nation itself? That is the only point I made, so if you're disagreeing with something else, I want to make sure I know what it is you're disagreeing with.

I don't accept the rhetoric of "loose and strict construction" because it's nothing more than whiny retort from people who don't want to follow the constitution. Any civilization or large group of individuals are constantly going to have disagreement. Indeed, since the inception of our nation, we've had those who disagree with our constitution. The framers knew that people would disagree and times would change, that's why they built in a mechanism to change it. What they didn't anticipate were idiots who want to bypass the mechanism of change by simply redefining things in the constitution to mean what they never intended.

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you disagreeing with the assertion that the fight between loose and strict construction is as old as the nation itself? That is the only point I made, so if you're disagreeing with something else, I want to make sure I know what it is you're disagreeing with.

I don't accept the rhetoric of "loose and strict construction" because it's nothing more than whiny retort from people who don't want to follow the constitution. Any civilization or large group of individuals are constantly going to have disagreement. Indeed, since the inception of our nation, we've had those who disagree with our constitution. The framers knew that people would disagree and times would change, that's why they built in a mechanism to change it. What they didn't anticipate were idiots who want to bypass the mechanism of change by simply redefining things in the constitution to mean what they never intended.

What? The framers themselves were among the folks in each of the two camps we're discussing.

 

[Boss]

What? The framers themselves were among the folks in each of the two camps we're discussing.

Yes, and they held 12 years of deliberation on what was eventually adopted. They were Federalists and Anti-federalists. They both wrote their own series of papers arguing the specifics from their perspectives. We adopted the Federalist plan.

 

[Lewdog]

I'd be a mattress tester and I'd work 10 hours per day 7 days per week.

 

[Asclepias]

Actually you have unwittingly provided a great solution. You get bonus points for that. That was an excellent suggestion. We could reset the system every 20 years. for say a century. That way people could prepare for each reset and learn via reinforcement the way to break out of cycles of poverty. That would educate the maximum amount of people and those people could teach their kids how to prepare.

The point was to be able to help others and leave your children a legacy of how to acquire/grow wealth and how to give back to people less fortunate. No I wouldnt be better off working as little as possible because doing something constructive brings rewards apart from material gain. You gain in knowledge as well for example. I have never seen such a society. I doubt its even possible that you could create such a society as people naturally want to learn and do things.

People do not inherently want to do pointless and useless things. There is no reason to teach children how to "break out of poverty" if the system provides a mechanism of reset that ensures it. What they inevitably learn (knowledge) is to bide their time and wait for the next great reset. There would also naturally be LESS appeal in helping the needy, after all, they are eventually going to benefit the most from the reset and if they are needy it means they simply squandered their resources through their own choices. We both had an ice cream sandwich, you ate all of yours, why should I now give you half of mine?

We could reset the system every 20 years. for say a century.

The system would last no longer than 40 years. After the first reset, people would learn that it's pointless to gain wealth. That it is FAR better to not gain wealth, enjoy your time relaxing and waiting for the next redistribution where all of your wealth will again be restored through no effort on your part. It would become "the norm" to skim by doing as little as possible because, what is the point of gaining wealth that will be confiscated and redistributed? If anyone did manage to gain wealth, they would be foolish to hold on to their wealth until the redistribution. They would start spending their wealth on anything they could think of before the reset. The "objective" in such a system would be to have NO wealth when reset time came. Another bizarre point in time would come just before the reset when it would be virtually impossible to spend your wealth because no one would want to gain your wealth.

Youre contradicting yourself. You said that a reset would be useless so how would waiting for the next reset be something someone would rather sit back in poverty and wait for? People would see that a reset was simply bringing everyone back to the start of the race and they would prepare themselves to be better runners. Humans inherently want to succeed and feel they have the opportunity to succeed. Hope is a very tangible and important part of the human psyche. Without it you get trailer parks and ghettos. I should know from first hand experience. I grew up in the ghetto and one of the major issues I saw was a prevalent hopelessness. Its not lost on those people that the "haves" possess and incredibly large head start. They also understand intuitively that the head start they possess is then passed onto their children.

 

[Boss]

Youre contradicting yourself. You said that a reset would be useless so how would waiting for the next reset be something someone would rather sit back in poverty and wait for? People would see that a reset was simply bringing everyone back to the start of the race and they would prepare themselves to be better runners. Humans inherently want to succeed and feel they have the opportunity to succeed. Hope is a very tangible and important part of the human psyche. Without it you get trailer parks and ghettos. I should know from first hand experience. I grew up in the ghetto and one of the major issues I saw was a prevalent hopelessness. Its not lost on those people that the "haves" possess and incredibly large head start. They also understand intuitively that the head start they possess is then passed onto their children.

I didn't contradict a damn thing, you just have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say a reset would be useless, I said it would be pointless to gain wealth. What is the point if it's going to be confiscated? You say humans want to inherently succeed but what does "succeed" mean in such a system? You can't succeed, the fruits of your success are taken from you. Why would you want to compete in a game you cannot win? Hope means nothing... you have no hope... your wealth is going to be confiscated and redistributed.

Contrast this imaginary redistribution system with OUR system and you do have hope... it doesn't matter if you live in poverty. People have risen from the ghetto to become uber-wealthy in our system. There are countless examples. It's not a fluke, they didn't just get lucky... they applied themselves and had the determination and motivation to succeed. You see poverty as hopelessness but poverty can be a great motivator. You see it as sad that some people are starving but an empty belly is a great motivator.

 

[Asclepias]

Youre contradicting yourself. You said that a reset would be useless so how would waiting for the next reset be something someone would rather sit back in poverty and wait for? People would see that a reset was simply bringing everyone back to the start of the race and they would prepare themselves to be better runners. Humans inherently want to succeed and feel they have the opportunity to succeed. Hope is a very tangible and important part of the human psyche. Without it you get trailer parks and ghettos. I should know from first hand experience. I grew up in the ghetto and one of the major issues I saw was a prevalent hopelessness. Its not lost on those people that the "haves" possess and incredibly large head start. They also understand intuitively that the head start they possess is then passed onto their children.

I didn't contradict a damn thing, you just have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say a reset would be useless, I said it would be pointless to gain wealth. What is the point if it's going to be confiscated? You say humans want to inherently succeed but what does "succeed" mean in such a system? You can't succeed, the fruits of your success are taken from you. Why would you want to compete in a game you cannot win? Hope means nothing... you have no hope... your wealth is going to be confiscated and redistributed.

Contrast this imaginary redistribution system with OUR system and you do have hope... it doesn't matter if you live in poverty. People have risen from the ghetto to become uber-wealthy in our system. There are countless examples. It's not a fluke, they didn't just get lucky... they applied themselves and had the determination and motivation to succeed. You see poverty as hopelessness but poverty can be a great motivator. You see it as sad that some people are starving but an empty belly is a great motivator.

Youre not making sense and getting emotional. If you get better at acquiring wealth when the resets are over with you are set and so are your descendants. The resets are not pointless. They are building blocks of learning. Knowledge and opportunity are the main ingredients. Succeeding in such a system is acquiring wealth and passing on the knowledge of how to do so to the next generation. How could you miss such an obvious benefit?

You completely ignored my first hand experience and countless studies showing the same. You do this by pointing out those few that came from such circumstances and pretending their journey and knowledge is the same. Thats false logic. Hopelessness is prevalent. Those that make it out are a small minority that were somehow able to obtain the knowledge before giving up.

No I dont see poverty as hopelessness in of itself. There are plenty of people that are poor that are not hopeless. The hopelessness comes from a combination of things. The dirt poor kid that grows up on a failing farm is not the same as the dirt poor kid that grows up in the inner city ghetto. Think carefully before you make wild claims if you understand that most situations are the result of more than one dynamic.

 

[Boss]

Youre not making sense and getting emotional. If you get better at acquiring wealth when the resets are over with you are set and so are your descendants. The resets are not pointless. They are building blocks of learning. Knowledge and opportunity are the main ingredients. Succeeding in such a system is acquiring wealth and passing on the knowledge of how to do so to the next generation. How could you miss such an obvious benefit?

You completely ignored my first hand experience and countless studies showing the same. You do this by pointing out those few that came from such circumstances and pretending their journey and knowledge is the same. Thats false logic. Hopelessness is prevalent. Those that make it out are a small minority that were somehow able to obtain the knowledge before giving up.

No I dont see poverty as hopelessness in of itself. There are plenty of people that are poor that are not hopeless. The hopelessness comes from a combination of things. The dirt poor kid that grows up on a failing farm is not the same as the dirt poor kid that grows up in the inner city ghetto. Think carefully before you make wild claims if you understand that most situations are the result of more than one dynamic.

Honestly, I don't believe you know what you're talking about.... you are living in some fantasy universe where people behave the way you think they will behave and common sense plays no role. What is the point of all the knowledge and learning to gain wealth that is going to be stripped away from you? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There is no benefit to that... what is the benefit? Here son, let me show you how to work your ass off all your life and become wealthy so that it can be taken away from you and given to someone else who didn't work.

Man, I knew you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed but... dear lord, you actually believe this? You think people would learn and work and gain wealth just for the fun and pleasure of it? Just so they could turn everything over to the government every 20 years? To hell with that noise... I would budget my wealth so that I didn't gain any and at the end of 20 years would have none. My time would be spent doing things I enjoy that didn't cost much and I would be as unproductive as hell. Others would join me and eventually there would be no more production of wealth happening, so a reset would be pointless... there's no more wealth to redistribute. No one is productive anymore... Then society collapses in poverty. It wouldn't last 40 years.

 

[Asclepias]

Youre not making sense and getting emotional. If you get better at acquiring wealth when the resets are over with you are set and so are your descendants. The resets are not pointless. They are building blocks of learning. Knowledge and opportunity are the main ingredients. Succeeding in such a system is acquiring wealth and passing on the knowledge of how to do so to the next generation. How could you miss such an obvious benefit?

You completely ignored my first hand experience and countless studies showing the same. You do this by pointing out those few that came from such circumstances and pretending their journey and knowledge is the same. Thats false logic. Hopelessness is prevalent. Those that make it out are a small minority that were somehow able to obtain the knowledge before giving up.

No I dont see poverty as hopelessness in of itself. There are plenty of people that are poor that are not hopeless. The hopelessness comes from a combination of things. The dirt poor kid that grows up on a failing farm is not the same as the dirt poor kid that grows up in the inner city ghetto. Think carefully before you make wild claims if you understand that most situations are the result of more than one dynamic.

Honestly, I don't believe you know what you're talking about.... you are living in some fantasy universe where people behave the way you think they will behave and common sense plays no role. What is the point of all the knowledge and learning to gain wealth that is going to be stripped away from you? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There is no benefit to that... what is the benefit? Here son, let me show you how to work your ass off all your life and become wealthy so that it can be taken away from you and given to someone else who didn't work.

Man, I knew you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed but... dear lord, you actually believe this? You think people would learn and work and gain wealth just for the fun and pleasure of it? Just so they could turn everything over to the government every 20 years? To hell with that noise... I would budget my wealth so that I didn't gain any and at the end of 20 years would have none. My time would be spent doing things I enjoy that didn't cost much and I would be as unproductive as hell. Others would join me and eventually there would be no more production of wealth happening, so a reset would be pointless... there's no more wealth to redistribute. No one is productive anymore... Then society collapses in poverty. It wouldn't last 40 years.

I'm not really concerned with what you believe. I guess you completely missed the part where I said that the resets end. I guess thats what happens when you get emotional, dont read the entire post and start calling people names out of frustration in the CDZ.