Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by taks

  1. sure, and people often do. it is absurd, of course, just like when collectivists talk about things like wage slavery. taks
  2. how does this support any of lof's failed logic? companies fail. people lose their jobs. that's life. nobody ever said it was supposed to be easy. taks
  3. to be left without ideology is to be truly capable of free thought. think about it, what is ideology? the belief in a collection of related ideas originated by someone else. taks
  4. that wasn't implied. what was actually implied is that those that do blindly follow it are hypocritical. taks
  5. it is impossible to blindly follow any ideology without hypocrisy. taks
  6. no i don't. and i agreed and noted that i originally took your statement about "government intervention" to be more than just protection of rights. as for the middle bit, i didn't say that there shouldn't be laws, but i've already noted that i misread your original "government intervention" comment so the rest of what you say in that regard is not on point. IMO, i'm sure we can dig up a legitimate legal case: if someone negligently creates a work environment in which people die, that's negligent homicide, correct? i think you missed my point. there was actually two. first, the little old lady and mcdonald's is actually rare compared to the total number of suits filed. most get tossed. second, her lawyer has actually said that they originally only wanted them to pay medical damages. they "went for the throat," which they were certainly allowed to do, only because the mcdonald's lawyers refused to pay for her medical bills. i think that's a cop-out "reason," but it really has no bearing on the validity of the case in the first place. re-reading what you originally posted regarding the little old lady, and my response, i think it is clear that my response wasn't really on point anyway. i.e., i agree that punitive damages are there for a reason. they are the punishment that needs to be there, though there are some ridiculous cases that make it through. i don't have a complete solution, though i do have a first step. get government out of business. many of these problems come up because government officials are in the pocket of big business. the likewise pass laws that benefit big business, even if such benefits are not apparently obvious. yes, our system is corrupt, but only because we allow it to be. it is not utopian to think we can eliminate the connection between business and government. take away the need for business to pay government (metaphorically, it is actually rarely a direct bribe) and a lot of these problems go away. i never said, however, that all the problems would go away, just many. i think it could easily be better than what we have now (certainly communism isn't better). taks
  7. that's not something all christians believe from what i understand. taks
  8. uh, you tried to compare conditions in the US with conditions in bangladesh - an apples to oranges comparision which i clearly stated, as if that is some sort of refutation of the validity of the free market. it is not, it is proof of supply and demand, nothing more, counter to your flawed opinion. sigh... none of this has anything to do with how supply and demand work in a free market. anyway... equality of information: the consumer does not have to buy something if a company does not disclose its practices. if the seller lies, or otherwise provides incorrect information, he has committed fraud for which laws exist (government's job is to protect individual rights - fraud is theft). equality of access: last time i checked, if you can afford something, you can buy it. equality of price: this one is fundamentally untrue. price is determined by supply and demand, which is not required to be homegenous across the globe. really, how? i at least gave an example of how you were being disingenuous - sounds sort of like "i'm rubber and..." hehe. disingenuous: i do not think it means what you think it means. if the laws were good, we wouldn't have illegal immigrants, or at least, not the problem we have now. but either way, it is a red herring. what do illegal immigrants have to do with capitalism? nothing. how are they a result of capitalism? they aren't. so why bring them up in reference to comments about capitalism unless you intend to misdirect? ah, a red herring, as i've noted. i've said no such thing. prove it if you can. what? i think you should look up linear, and in your particular example, homegeneity. you clearly did not understand what i said. you're the one that said you did not think wages were fair, which directly implies that you would benefit when wages were fair. prove i'm motivated by greed, btw. another strawman. i didn't say you wanted it all, or even a lot, just that you would benefit. you can't prove it because it is not true. you don't understand the concept of production. there's actually a balance point that maximizes profits (not unlike the laffer curve, but many more dimensions) for the amount of overhead spent. you can't simply say "paying them less reduces overhead." it does not, at least not unless you were already severely overpaying your people. if your premise were true, why not simply take their pay down to zero? then you'd have NO overhead? why not? this is what is known as a thought experiment (i know, tough for you). this also highlights the non-linearity (again, look it up) of the behavior. your understanding of economics is one-dimensional and lacking. in order for your ideas to work money will have to appear from nowhere, btw. taks
  9. strawman, gromnir. i didn't say idealized, i said functioning. the only way to have an idealized legal system is to have an idealized system in general, but then we'd also have ideal people, which means they'd never break laws, so we wouldn't need the legal system in the first place... etc. utopia! i wasn't really going down that path since capitalism does require a government to protect the rights of its people. i was perhaps misreading your government intervention comment as something greater than it is. i'll forgoe the line by line commentary since it does get difficult after a while... first, regarding the legal problems with big business: in a system with a much less intermingling between government and business, this situation would not be nearly as bad as it is now. i think, too, that something meshugger said once a while back may actually be likely (or probable): we wouldn't necessarily have all these monster conglomerates due to competition. indeed, insurance is another area that is hopelessly compromised by waaay too much government interference. i mean, really, insurance companies can't sell insurace across state lines because of the commerce clause? insanity. certainly the number of silly lawsuits thrown out far outweighs those that make it to trial, let alone those that result in such ridiculous awards. i've read, btw, that the reason she and her lawyers went for the throat was they originally stonewalled even requests for insurance payments, but i don't buy that as a legitimate excuse. i also think it is doubtful that democracy by itself holds any solutions. democracy tends to lead to what we have now, not the other way around. i'm not sure what the true government solution is. the republic slows the process, i think, but ultimately you end up with what we have in the US: two factions of the same ideology filling in all the leadership positions. it doesn't matter which candidates we get to vote for, they ultimately drive the bureaucratic bandwagon into despair for us. in a system that was not as intermingled as ours is the shirt factory guy would have been charged with negligent homicide for creating the conditions that resulted in the fire (uh, i'm assuming people died - i don't otherwise know the details). either way, this is not a result of capitalism. it is, if anything, a result of the corruption of capitalism by allowing government into business affairs. if government does not create the rules for business, business has no reason to influence government policies. in our current system, the legal system is not fully capable of resolving these tragic cases. get government out of business and yes, it will as well as it can. keep in mind, nobody, not me in particular, is claiming some perfect system that always results in a good outcome from pursuit of self-interest. all systems are flawed, the point is to find the one that works best on average. that would be capitalism, both historically and theoretically. taks
  10. i should note, btw, that LoF said this: "Companies which treat their workers poorly, through low wages, no benefits, et cetera, have an advantage over those that do: they have less overhead costs." and i likewise asked him to prove it. still waiting for proof that this results in lower overhead - simply saying that paying someone twice is much won't result in twice as much production is hardly proof. he can't prove this statement because it is not true. taks
  11. show me where i said it was perfect? strawman alert. a) you are comparing apples and oranges. besides the fact that the US has laws about wages (there is a minimum here, not so in bangladesh), there are also unions. both of these interfere with the free market. companies move into bangladesh because there is a greater supply of workers, which again, supports my point. you aren't very good with this, either. no, it is not only theoretically true, but empirically true, too. where do you people get these silly notions? so what? your example above is two completely different economic systems, so applyiing "free market" to them equally is disingenuous. um, read the point. illegal immigration is not a problem of capitalism, it is a problem of bad immigration laws. this doesn't even make sense. nor did i say it was true, another strawman. either way, it is not a linear function - for you to assume so is indication of your lack of understanding of basic economic theory. define "fair." who decides "fair?" you? me? the government? how exactly will they determine "fair?" lottery, coin flip, maybe draw straws? the market-set wages are the most fair possible. they are set based on demand. the more people that want a certain job relative to the positions available determines how much it is worth. generally speaking, this means positions requiring skills or education pay more. the more difficult the skill, or degree, the higher the pay. ahhh, now we get to your motivation. YOU aren't happy with what you make, so YOU get to decide what is fair for the rest of us? figures. lare seems to be a person that would benefit from collectivist policies, too, so his defense of them is equally understandable. pretty hypocritical. taks
  12. i disagree with this point, but it is also connected to your comment that capitalism does not take into account human nature. actually, it does, which is why it works the way it works. it relies on human nature to correct itself. of course, neither of these two are actually mistreatment. i'm not saying that was your implication, just pointing out that lare and LoF and other supporters of collectivist systems think low wages amount to mistreatment. they don't. they are the result of high supply and low demand. if someone gets hurt, and you get sued, yes. of course, the system in many countries is broken to the point there is no recourse, as lare has conveniently pointed out (which proves MY point, einstein) for us. even in the US the red tape involved (a result of government interference) severely limits workers' ability to effectively respond to such situations. i don't think this is true except in the most severe of circumstances. we aren't there yet, and i'm not sure we have ever been there other than the late 1800s (the depression was made worse by government intervention - at the very least, it did not help). i don't think this is true, either. at least, define "flawed" as you use it? there is no such thing as "ideal," since ideal systems cannot work. ideal systems require ideal conditions, which makes them flawed since they can't work in bad conditions. it's a circular argument sort of like sayin you have to have credit to get credit. all we are left with are what would be termed a "flawed" system: capitalism, which does work in bad conditions, just not as well as during good conditions. it recovers on its own, albeit with some pain in the process. taks
  13. sigh... really, care to prove that? seriously, proof, not just your beliefs. no they do not have lower overhead, it is higher, simply because worker productivity is lower. in other words, they have to hire more people to get the same work done. wages are set by demand from the market, period. companies have no choice but to pay what the market demands else they will have empty buildings producing nothing and, guess what? they won't be able to earn any of that money that drives them. yet walmart willingly pays its people more than its competition, including benefits... interesting that you bring that up. not sure how this is a problem of capitalism... yes i have, something that is easy to show if you've ever worked anywhere: higher productivity. pretty simple. besides that, supply and demand sets workforce wages. offer less money than the market demands, and you won't get any applicants. they'll go elsewhere. anybody that has ever been involved with the hiring process knows this, even if they don't understand it. taks
  14. it was against the law then, too. assault is illegal, and always has been in the US. labor laws did nothing but make what was already illegal, well, illegal. there simply did not exist any means to deal with the problems of 30% per annum population increases, mostly of unskilled laborers. the reason LoF only posts pictures from the 1800s (or other extreme cases) is because that is when everything was clearly broken. the US had a HUGE influx of people that left europe in search of a better life, i.e., the supply skyrocketed in a few centuries. there was no way to accomodate this, not with capitalism, socialism, fascism, or any other economic system you can imagine. LoF's assertions, as well as lare's, rest on these extreme cases. without them, i.e., a study of what happens during a quasi-equilibrium (there is rarely a true "equilibrium" in economic cycles), he has no case. taks
  15. i'd pick a different link for analysis of the "emails" and what is wrong with them, if i were you. i skimmed it and noted several innacuracies rather quickly - the first was the repetition of the "hacked" meme in the title. there is no evidence to support this, and in fact, CRU has laid low on that meme as well - so far, the evidence appears to imply someone working within CRU released the file. another is a discussion of the "trick," and this author misses the point as does every other "analysis" attempting to smooth things over. besides that, there is a deeper problem that none of the defenders of the faith want to admit: there was 150 MB of data released, too. that's where the substance lies, particularly when coupled with the emails in the context in which they were written. taks
  16. anecdote. two parts that you need to reconcile in order to prove your point: a) widespread, not just isolated cases, b) connect it to captalism. oops. oooh, there you go, you disproved yourself in your second sentence. "don't have a working justice system." see, in a capitalist society, there is a working justice system since that's government's sole job: to protect the rights of the people. really, you're not doing very well. so they're breaking the law? how is that the result of capitalism? you think? again, you're using evidence of a broken system against capitalism. try to apply evidence of capitalist failures to prove your point. i realize you don't understand how silly your comments are, but they are. whether you directly support communism or not is immaterial since everything you have said is in support of collectivism, or in opposition to the only counter, capitalism. what have i actually said about communism that is innacurate? show me, or shut up. furthermore, exactly what have i been taught since childhood? if the shoe fits. post something legitimate rather than something you simply made up, and i'll treat you with respect. till then, act the part of the fool and i'll call you a fool. taks
  17. of course. we're talking about an extreme circumstance in which the demand for goods dropped to almost nothing, and the supply of workers shot through the roof. when 20%+ of your workforce is suddenly on the streets, there will be problems with any system. exactly. this, of course, has nothing to do with capitalism. taks
  18. bull****. you have no proof of this, nor can you find any. there is not even a theoretical reason it should be true. you simply make things up and declare them as some "fact" simply because your ideology tells you so. if you had a reason, you'd be able to show it. taks
  19. and workers can't sue? in a communist society they cannot. the whole point is that companies do NOT intentionally "mistreat" their workers since that would ultimately lead to a lack of workers. you think they do, but cannot offer up any proof of widespread mistreatment. it fits your ideology, therefore it must be true? taks
  20. so many you couldn't even point them out. hint: simply making claims about someone's logical failures does not make it so. you don't get any points just for using the terms in a sentence. taks
  21. what, you don't believe in supply and demand? even socialists understand that one, they just think they can thwart it. never did figure you as a bright one, however. taks
  22. keep in mind, hurlshot is probably on some very serious drugs right now. it does seem like more than just a "thank you," however. taks
  23. no, it's just third world. taks
  24. i certainly did not enjoy it when i was on zoloft. got rid of the anxiety, for the most part, but totally sucked otherwise. now i'm drug free and anxiety free (for the most part) and much happier overall. unfortunately, withdrawal from zoloft caused tinnitus, which has yet to disappear (over a year now). "it's ringing in my ears" sung to the tune of "singing in the rain." taks
  25. uh, kyoto wasn't successful, at least, it has not accomplished what it set out to accomplish. even if the copenhagen summit were "successful," neither would it have really accomplished anything, either, other than funding 3rd world despots with our money. interesting that you acknowledge that it was a trick in the first place. taks
  • Create New...