Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Ben Franklin was a very, very exceptional man. Applying his moral life to the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet shows a disregard for reality and an inability to see those "shades of gray" I mentioned. You're a utopianist and misguided.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Free markets are absolutely guided by self-interest. It's how we're to be incentivized to do good around us. In fact, Ben Franklin in the Poor Richard's Almanac termed the phrase, "doing well by doing good." Which is to mean profiting from doing good for others.

Allow me a Franklin tangent: he amassed great wealth from creating various services and goods (printing press, fire fighting services, etc.), and then in his 40s he spent his remaining years creating scientific accomplishments without asking for financial compensation. Some of the things he gave back for free were bifocals, lightening rods, and he even created the modern map of the gulf stream. Go figure.

Self-interest gave us those things. Now, certainly you cannot rely on individuals ALWAYS doing these sort of things, but through profit you guarantee people work very hard to offer a service others care about. That includes benefits to your neighbor, single mothers, libraries or the environment if there's a market for it. And there's always a market for clean water, fresh air, taking care of others, etc. Always. Political discourse today shows us there's a market for it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's just a useful metaphor for the combination of self-interest and the mechanism of supply and demand.

In a completely free market- self-interest is the only guiding rule. You can count on individuals to always do whatever provides them with the maximum benefit- too bad for the environment, your neighbors, single mothers and libraries.

Free markets are absolutely guided by self-interest. It's how we're to be incentivized to do good around us. In fact, Ben Franklin in the Poor Richard's Almanac termed the phrase, "doing well by doing good." Which is to mean profiting from doing good for others.

Allow me a Franklin tangent: he amassed great wealth from creating various services and goods (printing press, fire fighting services, etc.), and then in his 40s he spent his remaining years creating scientific accomplishments without asking for financial compensation. Some of the things he gave back for free were bifocals, lightening rods, and he even created the modern map of the gulf stream. Go figure.

Self-interest gave us those things. Now, certainly you cannot rely on individuals ALWAYS doing these sort of things, but through profit you guarantee people work very hard to offer a service others care about. That includes benefits to your neighbor, single mothers, libraries or the environment if there's a market for it. And there's always a market for clean water, fresh air, taking care of others, etc. Always. Political discourse today shows us there's a market for it.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's just a useful metaphor for the combination of self-interest and the mechanism of supply and demand.

In a completely free market- self-interest is the only guiding rule. You can count on individuals to always do whatever provides them with the maximum benefit- too bad for the environment, your neighbors, single mothers and libraries.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's just a useful metaphor for the combination of self-interest and the mechanism of supply and demand.

In a completely free market- self-interest is the only guiding rule. You can count on individuals to always do whatever provides them with the maximum benefit- too bad for the environment, your neighbors, single mothers and libraries.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I don't like the term "invisible hand". It implies a singular unseen designer guiding the market. The market is made up of a large mass of individuals, so the free market is more like a "great number of visible hands".

To me, people who believe markets cannot be left to natural selection (evolution), and think central planning (design) is required in the marketplace, are demonstrating a similar fear-based need for a guiding, loving hand I see in Creationists.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Then I guess I don't understand how you could think it's statist or akin to creationism? This isn't doctrine- this is the free-wheelin', unfettered supply and demand that you free-marketeers love. It also has no heart. Ask the kids working in Nike sweatshops. The invisible hand doesn't care if they get an education.

I don't like the term "invisible hand". It implies a singular unseen designer guiding the market. The market is made up of a large mass of individuals, so the free market is more like a "great number of visible hands".

To me, people who believe markets cannot be left to natural selection (evolution), and think central planning (design) is required in the marketplace, are demonstrating a similar fear-based need for a guiding, loving hand I see in Creationists.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Then I guess I don't understand how you could think it's statist or akin to creationism? This isn't doctrine- this is the free-wheelin', unfettered supply and demand that you free-marketeers love. It also has no heart. Ask the kids working in Nike sweatshops. The invisible hand doesn't care if they get an education.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Then I guess I don't understand how you could think it's statist or akin to creationism? This isn't doctrine- this is the free-wheelin', unfettered supply and demand that you free-marketeers love. It also has no heart. Ask the kids working in Nike sweatshops. The invisible hand doesn't care if they get an education.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I knew which invisible hand you meant.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Dude. I'm talking about THE invisible hand.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
And that is where you and I disagree. Competition ensures we care for each other. You mentioned Time-Warner as if it's the 'Going Galt' example of free markets, but I'd dare argue that if you're incorporated you're no longer part of the free market but instead part of the collusive crony market.

Only statists think of societies in terms of having a guiding hand, much like Creationists think history of life had one. There's no invisible hand. Only people.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Not evil, no. Just driven by a voracious invisible hand that cares not for me and thee.

Out of curiosity, what was your friend/employer's business?

Also, if he was employing that many people, it's almost certain that he owned a corporation. You can't get workers comp as a sole proprietor & you don't have limited liability.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Like Frisk said.
Minimum wage kills jobs. Basic supply and demand.
If you set a fixed price, you throw of equilibrium which results in a shortage i.e. unemployment
My former employer and friend had to close his small business because his mandatory license fees doubled and minimum wage rose just two bucks in two years.
He employed 8 people and barely broke even each month.
The 24% wage increase cost him an extra 5,000 a year.
Can't say the same for corporations tho.
Walmart's minimum wage should be at least 8 or 9 with all the money they save twisting producers arms & using slave labor.>> ^gwiz665:
Make tipping illegal, raise minimum wages.

Like Frisk said.

Minimum wage kills jobs. Basic supply and demand.
If you set a fixed price, you throw of equilibrium which results in a shortage i.e. unemployment

My former employer and friend had to close his small business because his mandatory license fees doubled and minimum wage rose just two bucks in two years.

He employed 8 people and barely broke even each month.

The 24% wage increase cost him an extra 5,000 a year.

Can't say the same for corporations tho.
Walmart's minimum wage should be at least 8 or 9 with all the money they save twisting producers arms & using slave labor.



>> ^gwiz665:

Make tipping illegal, raise minimum wages.

supply and demand.

There's no Relationships education in schools yet.

[Hell, they make you wait 'til you're a senior before they introduce Economics. for cereal.. wtf]

>> ^NordlichReiter:

This is exactly why I will never marry again. Simply because there is an industry built on greed that preys on divorcees.

ahem, i think you need to read this

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Actually, I have yet to blame wall street for the single collaspe of the economy. You must be confused. But then again, there are shiny objects nearby.
And where would we be without wall street you ask? Glad you did, although, I doubt you will ponder the answer any more than the time it takes me to flush a turd.
We would be just fine so long as GDP, trade and jobs are secure. Just fine indeed. We would have ups and downs, turn arounds and rebounds, but none caused by a few bad mistakes or intentional greed. It would not be, like you said I think, a utopia. Where did you get that silly statement from?
To think we need a select few people running the ups and downs of this nation's economy, to think that their gambles and that of the banks can tax the American people to death, and to think that one day wealth can be gained and lost in the trillions, that is insane. Now you see it, now its in the pocket of one or two people. I mean, 401Ks are just the irresponsibilty of people who invested in them. Must be socialism's fault, better, socialism security...
So, if the government crashes with federal debt, you will be saying, "What!? The government is the single collaspe of the economy? I mean, wall street was not responsible at all and no one entity can cause such mass economic devastation! Get over it!"
I will find that amusing.
>> ^thinker247:
There you go again, blaming Wall Street, as if they willingly destroyed the economy! Where do you think you'd be without Wall Street? Some utopia where businesses thrive just on supply and demand? I don't think so! There's always someone in the mix to mess with the machinery of progress. You just like to blame the current version for your problems. Try again.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^thinker247:
Food Stamps, what a joke. I wish they'd quit taking my taxes and giving them to lazy ass poor people. If you want to eat, get a fucking job and quit living on welfare, deadbeats!

Or better, make people work for the stamps. Your way starves children out, because, after all, who will parents bum out on? Themselves? Nope, they will start with those that cannot protect themselves.
Even if a person collecting food stamps doesn't have children, it is still a good idea to offer them a "job" as you state. In this economy, caused by wall street greed that sucked the nation's wealth dry and Punished the middle class and poor alike, or in other words, imposed a Tax on the middle class and poor, it is the least their tax dollars could do to help out.
Oh, and unless you make like the top 95%, I would not complain... They pay the bulk, not middle class people like me. Of course they cause the bulk of our resources to be used, so tis only fair.

Actually, I have yet to blame wall street for the single collaspe of the economy. You must be confused. But then again, there are shiny objects nearby.

And where would we be without wall street you ask? Glad you did, although, I doubt you will ponder the answer any more than the time it takes me to flush a turd.

We would be just fine so long as GDP, trade and jobs are secure. Just fine indeed. We would have ups and downs, turn arounds and rebounds, but none caused by a few bad mistakes or intentional greed. It would not be, like you said I think, a utopia. Where did you get that silly statement from?

To think we need a select few people running the ups and downs of this nation's economy, to think that their gambles and that of the banks can tax the American people to death, and to think that one day wealth can be gained and lost in the trillions, that is insane. Now you see it, now its in the pocket of one or two people. I mean, 401Ks are just the irresponsibilty of people who invested in them. Must be socialism's fault, better, socialism security...

So, if the government crashes with federal debt, you will be saying, "What!? The government is the single collaspe of the economy? I mean, wall street was not responsible at all and no one entity can cause such mass economic devastation! Get over it!"

I will find that amusing.

>> ^thinker247:
There you go again, blaming Wall Street, as if they willingly destroyed the economy! Where do you think you'd be without Wall Street? Some utopia where businesses thrive just on supply and demand? I don't think so! There's always someone in the mix to mess with the machinery of progress. You just like to blame the current version for your problems. Try again.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^thinker247:
Food Stamps, what a joke. I wish they'd quit taking my taxes and giving them to lazy ass poor people. If you want to eat, get a fucking job and quit living on welfare, deadbeats!

Or better, make people work for the stamps. Your way starves children out, because, after all, who will parents bum out on? Themselves? Nope, they will start with those that cannot protect themselves.
Even if a person collecting food stamps doesn't have children, it is still a good idea to offer them a "job" as you state. In this economy, caused by wall street greed that sucked the nation's wealth dry and Punished the middle class and poor alike, or in other words, imposed a Tax on the middle class and poor, it is the least their tax dollars could do to help out.
Oh, and unless you make like the top 95%, I would not complain... They pay the bulk, not middle class people like me. Of course they cause the bulk of our resources to be used, so tis only fair.

There you go again, blaming Wall Street, as if they willingly destroyed the economy! Where do you think you'd be without Wall Street? Some utopia where businesses thrive just on supply and demand? I don't think so! There's always someone in the mix to mess with the machinery of progress. You just like to blame the current version for your problems. Try again.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^thinker247:
Food Stamps, what a joke. I wish they'd quit taking my taxes and giving them to lazy ass poor people. If you want to eat, get a fucking job and quit living on welfare, deadbeats!

Or better, make people work for the stamps. Your way starves children out, because, after all, who will parents bum out on? Themselves? Nope, they will start with those that cannot protect themselves.
Even if a person collecting food stamps doesn't have children, it is still a good idea to offer them a "job" as you state. In this economy, caused by wall street greed that sucked the nation's wealth dry and Punished the middle class and poor alike, or in other words, imposed a Tax on the middle class and poor, it is the least their tax dollars could do to help out.
Oh, and unless you make like the top 95%, I would not complain... They pay the bulk, not middle class people like me. Of course they cause the bulk of our resources to be used, so tis only fair.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I disagree that the government needs to "create a market for something". If it is one thing governments are very poor at doing is creating markets for things. People do this better and faster than government think tanks. I do however support new understandings in pollution in how it interacts with property rights. If you clog my air with filth, there has to be some legal ramification to that. It is due time to assess how property is defined in terms of air, water, and the like, I welcome that conversation.
(edited: Spelling, dear god man spelling)


I don't mean "create a market" meaning "we're going to use subsidies and taxes to make something that isn't economically viable on its own popular", I mean literally create a market as in "we're going to stop people from taking other people's stuff".

Read up more on the theory and practice of cap and trade. For real-world results, look at the sulfur cap-and-trade they implemented in the 70's to combat acid rain.

The basic idea is that we get an independent read on how much CO2 capacity there is in the environment, and then auction off tradeable permits for emissions. The market sets the price via supply and demand.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.
-@NetRunner

Read the history of my comments and you may find that I harbor no love for the enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex. I find the creation of the F-22, and C-17 a little like creating weapons platforms just so money can be wasted. In reality, is it really necessary to have a F-22 when there are Nuclear devices?

I guess it's fine to violate a nations sovereignty in the pursuit of justice, but to use military force is another thing completely. - Sarcasm. I point to the US and its relation ship with South America.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war? I also have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is the saint that he's made out to be.
-@NetRunner

It is quite clear that the Republican party is pro war. I can't argue that and to do so would betray my opinion of a corrupt party so bathed in neo-conservative foolishness.

You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.
-@NetRunner

EDIT: I shouldn't have to remind you of my stance on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Corporations are not people, they are conglomerations of people. But that's the problem with this country isn't it? The root of the problem, is that this country's policies are dictated by the almighty dollar, and who has the most; corporations.

What is clear to me about the Supreme Court is that it is divided by partisan ideology. They are not impartial, and pragmatic about laws. They constantly make decisions based on political ideology. For example, the 2nd ammendment. I wonder if anyone from the Judicial Branch has taken a good look at unbiased statistics (I'm not concerned with how the statistics point now, for gun or against gun). If arguments could be put in a more emotionally independent fashion, perhaps that would make a difference. To often is politics a game of ideology and emotion. Although I wonder if this solution is simply evil arbitrarily.

The military industrial complex does not demand war. Supply and Demand. The Military Industrial Complex exists out of a need to meet supply, and make a profit on it. For this I point you to Germany, a Documentary called "Bullet Proof Salesman". How do you stop supply and demand? Stop the wars, no war at all. Cut military spending. I think that would have been the best way to deal with Terrorism with good police work and diplomacy. The military is, by design, not for police work; they exist to fuck shit up.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.
-@NetRunner

The elimination of one party would leave only the other party. A situation rife for Majority Rule, which is counter to a Democratic Republic, or a Republic at all.

But know this, I agree with you that it's time for a change of scenery; republicans need the boot.

The US hasn't declared war since 1944. Congress has simply authorized the use of force. "War does not decide who is right, only who is left" - George Bernard

The Turgler comes to the rescue! "Mine safety is as silly as global warming: They are both deadly serious and not silly at all."Is that not what he said? Perhaps you and I did not watch the same video.

I don't agree with the guy in the video below.

But he said, "The very idea that they care more about coal miner safety is as absurd as global warming."

Given that these coal miners make money on the supply and demand for fossil fuels, in this case the remains of plant life, would probably put them on them on the global warming is absurd side of the argument."

This entire post is very, misleading, aside from the titles apparent shock value. I think Burdturgler had something to say about shock value on the WikiLeaks video.

>> ^cybrbeast:
I thought choggie was a radical free market person, I guess not.
I really see no big problem with there being fast food. It's the responsibility of parents to eat well and feed their children well. But I guess most people are just to lazy, poor or uneducated.


I am radical free-market cyberbeast-the world of the now resembles nothing akin to a free market economy, the definition most wankers understand it as is a theoretical concept at best, as every country on the planet has been groomed to march in lock-step to something completely removed from such a noble idea. Supply and demand can only work when masses of monkeys are not constantly indoctrinated by corporate fucks and bombarded with lies and deceit by a geopolitical machine which works to concentrate resources and labor to benefit the few-The so-called new world order or future of mankind or whatever the fuck you wanna call being herded into cattle cars involves a few people controlling the vast majority of well-groomed imbeciles, who have been taught from the cradle to follow orders-The only country who is not willing to necessarily follow the European Aristocratic/Corporate model is China, but they have a small group of criminals there who would that they be worshiped as gods as well-it's simply not occidental.

In an actual "free market", there is no bullshit-I give you a "dollar" or some service, entertainment, or product, you compensate me in-kind. I can deal in arms, cocoa, opium, cotton-candy, pussy, or whatever the fuck I care to taking whatever risk or leisure there is is involved, and I answer to no-one but natural law-more of a free-market anarchist if you will.

By all means, make as many laws as you care to regarding commerce or the exchange of goods and services: The wise man will prosper who is willing to risk all or nothing to accomplish his will within any system-only abrupt changes from outside of contrived systems will help the individual at this point in history...like maybe a comet or some worldwide upheaval.