Politics First Contact

[Gfted1]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

What an enemy, imagine having to actually suggest meaningful and sustainable policies and or laws to defeat " the neoliberal corporatist establishment " 

Can  we at least identify this foe so we all on the same page, who exactly are this group that we need to win against. For me this is just another sweeping statement that is common in populist groups, anarchists and anti-establishment people but when it comes to reasonable outcomes and strategies these comments lack constructive suggestions 

 

 

Im about to say two things that you will probably find hard to believe:

1) I don't have a foe. Im just trying to improve my lot in life.

2) I really really like money and the things that money does for me. In fact, Ive found "the more, the better" to be accurate with regards to money. So with that understanding, I am inclined to vote early and often for a candidate that is offering 1k / per adult / per month in my household.

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

 

Im about to say two things that you will probably find hard to believe:

1) I don't have a foe. Im just trying to improve my lot in life.

2) I really really like money and the things that money does for me. In fact, Ive found "the more, the better" to be accurate with regards to money. So with that understanding, I am inclined to vote early and often for a candidate that is offering 1k / per adult / per month in my household.

There is nothing unusual or difficult to believe about your views, I would argue its  not uncommon and is what most people  believe or aspire to achieve 

[Guard Dog]

Hmmmm.... my house is paid for. My retirement is paid for. I can grow my own food. I make use of solar power so my utility expenses are minimal. My only entertainment expenses are SiriusXM, my Kindle, and my WiFi. I could totally live on $1k a month and have money left over. You know what? Put me down for some Yang too!

 

If these lazy Millennials want Socialism then God bless them. I'll just quit my job, kick back and let THEM support  ME!  

 

[Gfted1]

Freedom Dividends are not socialism. They are "trickle up economics". We tried "trickle down economics" in the 80's, why not try this?

 

[Guard Dog]

Didn't watch the video but no, UBI is NOT socialism. In fact socialism kind of breaks down when people want to do what I suggested. Not that I'd care.

[Volourn]

So, Don Cherry, once Kanada's most beloved bigot before Turdu showed up was ****canned because of his 'insensitive' words. This, btw, in the same country that just reelected a known racist who enjoys wearing black face and brownface while making fun of a bunch of cultures.

 

Funny thing is I have never been a fan of Cherry and get a lot of flack when I've trashed him but he should not have been fired over this nonsense. RIDICUOLOUS.

[Malcador]

4 minutes ago, Volourn said:

So, Don Cherry, once Kanada's most beloved bigot before Turdu showed up was ****canned because of his 'insensitive' words. This, btw, in the same country that just reelected a known racist who enjoys wearing black face and brownface while making fun of a bunch of cultures.

 

Funny thing is I have never been a fan of Cherry and get a lot of flack when I've trashed him but he should not have been fired over this nonsense. RIDICUOLOUS.

30 years overdue.  Always hoped he would get run over by a Volvo bus driven by a Russian. :P

There was a protest of sorts here in Toronto supporting him, although it seemed a bunch of insane people showed up as well.  Protesting the CBC for some reason, communists.

https://twitter.com/UncleRee1/status/1194698000406237184

 

 

[Volourn]

Like I said, I've always been anti Cherry but, again, it is ridiculous he got fired for this while we just reelected Mr. blackface.

[Malcador]

1 minute ago, Volourn said:

Like I said, I've always been anti Cherry but, again, it is ridiculous he got fired for this while we just reelected Mr. blackface.

Yep, but also think people were just tired of Cherry's constant bull**** so wasn't fired so much for this as opposed to it being the last strand on a rope.  Also, Sportsnet has been trying to trim their budget apparently, so maybe this was golden opportunity to cut payroll :)

[213374U]

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

No mate, I live in Poland where unemployment rate is circa 5%, expected to hit below 4% next year and if I remember correctly you live in US where it's 3,6%. This is the employee market. I mean the level of struggle my current company goes through to hire a good employee is ridiculous. We needed 4 people in January, managed to get two till now. There is no one to choose from.

I worked in Poland a couple of years back when the unemployment rate exceeded 20%, yes mate, over 20% unemployment. THAT was the time when there were literal labor army sitting in front of companies looking for work and the words "I have 20 guys on your place" wasn't a figure of speech, but an understatement. So if I would have to say which one of us lives in paralel universe and don't know a thing about real word I would point to you. It seem to me you live quite a comfy life under a comfy bubble.

I actually live in Spain, which has a 14% unemployment rate now, down from ~26% in 2013-14. It's sadly not an exception in Europe. Honestly, the way you talk reminds me a lot of the tune many business owners would sing, before the economy crashed in 2008. The fact that you may not see the reserve army of labor now is not a rebuttal of the concept, much like not being currently electrocuted does not mean that electricity is a fiction. Your reference to the nominally low US unemployment rate betrays, as if on cue, your ignorance of the underemployment rate, and what it means. And again, the fact that you are using your inability to find employees for your company shows that you do not understand what structural unemployment is. Educate yourself a bit -- you know, what you keep saying people should do to find a job?

 

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I'm sorry air condition in warehouses is somehow "basic condition" now? No, sorry, it's not. Because I'm familiar with labor laws in Europe I can tell you the most common one is heating when the temperature drops below certain temperature and the down limit of temperature you can work in. In most countries there is no upper limit of temperature it's mostly need to provide employees with water when the temperature is higher than average. So no mate, AC is not "basic" and not "common", so they are fighting for better conditions (i.e. "more comfy chair") and that's ok, but don't paint this as a fight for basic human rights. It's ridiculous and insulting to people who really are fighting for their lives.

In the US, there is unsurprisingly a higher temp limit which should not to be exceeded as per the OSHA. So yeah, basic conditions. Similar recommendations exist across Europe, and yet somehow I'm not surprised you're unaware of this.

Obviously, that is not prescribed by law, because If it were, Amazon's employees wouldn't have to strike when they could just sue, duh. I'm not surprised that your stance is "well go change the law then because they are sticking perfectly to it!", even though a large part of worker-employer relationships are not handled by labor law, but collective bargaining. It's also baffling how attached you are to the letter of the law, while also bemoaning taxation, which is fundamentally the basis of any lawmaking.

 

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

First of all you invent some statement and then accuse me of saying them. This is not a way to have conversation. Never talked about hard work, it was you. I said if you work smart, have something to offer (like valuable skill set) you will be doing fine. I never said it will give you billions or that anyone can be billionaire. I even said the opposite. 

You still seem to be fixated on the notion billions or bust. That's not how world or economy works. But it can be done as a quick read of billionaire list will show us, it can be done in one lifetime, no inheritance required.

 

It was actually Guard Dog, to whom I was originally replying. Then you moved the goalposts:

On 11/13/2019 at 6:58 AM, Skarpen said:

The point is not to work hard it's to work smart and efficient. You can dig a hole with a spoon or with excavator. Which would earn more? Which one is harder work?

You can't seriously expect me to walk you through your own comments all the time. The discussion was about how greed supposedly motivates people to work hard, and therefore achieve results. So harder work = better results. Seems simple enough. You do not need to explicitly say something, something may be directly derived from what you have said by following its implications. This is called deductive reasoning.

I'd also suggest you read up on black swan theory, and how it relates to the large numbers of businesses that not only do not make billionaires of their owners, but simply fail (~50% make it to their fifth year, and about one in three survives past ten) and land people in debt. It's not that it's "billions or bust", but if you cannot provide a clear, definite, and reliable path from zero to billionaire within your lifetime and without inheritance, by detailing exactly what "working smart and efficient" means, you are just blowing hot air. To use an easy to understand analogy. If I say that all I need to read your mind is "focus" and just happen to guess what you are thinking, am I really reading your mind? Let's of course discard the many tries when I failed, and only consider the one lucky guess when I actually did it, as "proof" that mind-reading is possible and all that's needed is "focus". That's magical thinking. Also read up on it.

 

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I was making a quick example not writing a dissertation or business plan here. I didn't forgot about anything, just given a simple example, it seems it's too complex of an idea to comprehend by some. There are literally hundred of thousands of people getting loans and starting their businesses every day around the world. 99,9999999999999% of those are not corporations and don't require billions of $ in loans. You can open a restaurant, it don't have to be multinational franchise. Poking around an example will not make your claim, that only billionaires can open a business and it's out of reach for average Joe to be anything other than Bezos minion, less ridiculous and detached from reality.

No, you just made up a story that may or may not be true because you didn't give any hard figures or sources. Even your ballpark figures do not support your conclusion if you take into consideration what should be basic concepts for a business owner, e.g. running costs and loan interest payments. You don't need to write a dissertation, just a link or two should be enough. See, I'd be more inclined to take you at your word of it if you hadn't consistently displayed a glaring detachment from reality and ignorance or misunderstanding of basic facts.

And while there are indeed millions of people starting up small businesses, the difficulties facing starting a co-op mine in Africa by former slave miners who just happened to get a small loan of ten million dollars are so insurmountable that the few that exist are sadly far from the norm.

Edited November 14, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Skarpen]

29 minutes ago, 213374U said:

I actually live in Spain, which has a 14% unemployment rate now, down from ~26% in 2013-14. It's sadly not an exception in Europe. Honestly, the way you talk reminds me a lot of the tune many business owners would sing, before the economy crashed in 2008. The fact that you may not see the reserve army of labor now is not a rebuttal of the concept, much like not being currently electrocuted does not mean that electricity is a fiction. Your reference to the nominally low US unemployment rate betrays, as if on cue, your ignorance of the underemployment rate, and what it means. And again, the fact that you are using your inability to find employees for your company shows that you do not understand what structural unemployment is. Educate yourself a bit -- you know, what you keep saying people should do to find a job?

I also pointed to Poland unemployment rates which you "cleverly" omitted because it doesn't fit into your fantasy. 2008 economy crash wasn't due to companies screwing their employees or crash in demand supply chain. It was a banking crisis based on the dumb socialistic in origin notion that everyone should have a house even if they cannot afford one. It was also the failure of the laws and state to just do nothing and allow institutions responsible to fall on their faces and new and better institutions rise up. Instead we got bailout schemes that allowed those institutions to still function and getting back to their old ways. And I have a feeling you were among those who cheered when those institutions got government help to "save jobs".

I'm not rebutting of concept of army of unemployed, I even gave you a real life example of how that was a reality for me. It isn't a reality anymore right now thanks to a free market approach. 

I know what a structural unemployment is and it's an issue worth taking care of, but claiming that all unemployment is structural unemployment or that is a driving force right now is just not true.

Quote

In the US, there is unsurprisingly a higher temp limit which should not to be exceeded as per the OSHA. So yeah, basic conditions. Similar recommendations exist across Europe, and yet somehow I'm not surprised you're unaware of this.

Obviously, that is not prescribed by law, because If it were, Amazon's employees wouldn't have to strike when they could just sue, duh. I'm not surprised that your stance is "well go change the law then because they are sticking perfectly to it!", even though a large part of worker-employer relationships are not handled by labor law, but collective bargaining. It's also baffling how attached you are to the letter of the law, while also bemoaning taxation, which is fundamentally the basis of any lawmaking.

OSHA recommendations are not basic conditions. Those are as the name suggest recommendations. And I even said that's ok to fight for a better conditions, but it's still a fight for "more comfortable chair" not a fight to structurally change the job market because the employers are screwing us over. 

I'm a little confused how you can simultaneously claim that my stance is "go change the law" and "stick to the law", those are opposite statement. The first one is my stance, please do so and propose your demands. It's funny because you just said that the employer employee dynamics prevents employees for giving demands and then you give an example of employees doing just that. So which is it?

I'm all for better working conditions, but I'm also not willing to pay 10.000$ for shipping so there have to be some place where demands face basic reality of cost efficiency of running a business and you being a know it all in all things business should know this.

Quote

It was actually Guard Dog, to whom I was originally replying. Then you moved the goalposts:

You can't seriously expect me to walk you through your own comments all the time. The discussion was about how greed supposedly motivates people to work hard, and therefore achieve results. So harder work = better results. Seems simple enough. You do not need to explicitly say something, something may be directly derived from what you have said by following its implications. This is called deductive reasoning.

Depends on how you define "hard work", you yourself gave an example of slaves working in extreme conditions. So I assume you claim that "hard work" means work in extreme conditions. I don't think GD had in mind dragging tons of rocks on your back as a path to success and wealth. I think he had something more in line with putting a good effort into your job, produce results and excel at what you are doing and you will see the profit. So yeah, harder work = better result, but always in comparison to the same work done with less effort. So if you are an electrician putting more work with greater attention to detail and optimizing the electrical lines will get you more than electrician who don't, being a chef giving more time in picking the product, polishing your skills and giving more attention to details will give you more profit than a chef who just flips the pan etc. Nobody is saying that working harder as a chef will give you more money than being a CEO of Bank of America, those are not comparable positions and have different requirements and profit rates.
 

Quote

I'd also suggest you read up on black swan theory, and how it relates to the large numbers of businesses that not only do not make billionaires of their owners, but simply fail (~50% make it to their fifth year, and about one in three survives past ten) and land people in debt. It's not that it's "billions or bust", but if you cannot provide a clear, definite, and reliable path from zero to billionaire within your lifetime and without inheritance, by detailing exactly what "working smart and efficient" means, you are just blowing hot air. To use an easy to understand analogy. If I say that all I need to read your mind is "focus" and just happen to guess what you are thinking, am I really reading your mind? Let's of course discard the many tries when I failed, and only consider the one lucky guess where I actually did it, as "proof" that mind-reading is possible and all that's needed is "focus". That's magical thinking. Also read up on it.

That's life. So you will just not try because you can fail? How are you even able to get out of bed with such attitude? Nothing in life is clear, definite and reliable path. You are born and you die, everything in between have indefinite variables that affect the outcome. 

I don't see what you are fighting for here as socialism also don't give you clear, definite and reliable path to success but it takes away almost any opportunity. Besides the ruling class there are no winners in socialism as was proven time and time again in history. I'm taking my chances in free market in this case, sorry but not sorry.

 

Quote

No, you just made up a story that may or may not be true because you didn't give any hard figures or sources. Even your ballpark figures do not support your conclusion if you take into consideration what should be a basic concepts for a business owner, i.e. running costs and loan interest payments. You don't need to write a dissertation, just a link or two should be enough. See, I'd be more inclined to take you at your word of it if you hadn't consistently displayed a glaring detachment from reality and ignorance or misunderstanding of basic facts.

And while there are indeed millions of people starting up small businesses, the difficulties facing starting a co-op mine in Africa by former slave miners who just happened to get a small loan of ten million dollars are so insurmountable that the few that exist are sadly far from the norm.

I don't think I need to give links, just walk out and go around your city you will see hundreds on businesses running and people making their lives and achieving their business success.

And while we are talking free market and western countries how is Africa where the laws, values and structure hardly exist? How is western model failing based on things happening outside of it? We again come to the same arguments that capitalism is failing because people not living in capitalism are starving. It's ridiculous notion.

[213374U]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I also pointed to Poland unemployment rates which you "cleverly" omitted because it doesn't fit into your fantasy. 2008 economy crash wasn't due to companies screwing their employees or crash in demand supply chain. It was a banking crisis based on the dumb socialistic in origin notion that everyone should have a house even if they cannot afford one. It was also the failure of the laws and state to just do nothing and allow institutions responsible to fall on their faces and new and better institutions rise up. Instead we got bailout schemes that allowed those institutions to still function and getting back to their old ways. And I have a feeling you were among those who cheered when those institutions got government help to "save jobs".

So the excessive speculative activity in the mortgage sector coupled with loose requirements and insufficient checks when lending and selling financial products (i.e. deregulation) leading to a housing bubble was somehow the commies' fault because, um, housing is a right? That's some impressive mental gymnastics, perfect 5/7.

And no, I would have been perfectly happy with the whole system being allowed to crash and burn. I didn't have a mortgage and my savings were guaranteed by the state in the case of a bank run (which is as close as an actual guarantee as you'll get, otherwise I would just have bought gold bars), so seeing a few banksters land behind bars would have been totally worth it. Alas, no such luck.

 

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

OSHA recommendations are not basic conditions. Those are as the name suggest recommendations. And I even said that's ok to fight for a better conditions, but it's still a fight for "more comfortable chair" not a fight to structurally change the job market because the employers are screwing us over. 

Did you read the link at all? It clearly says, "should be standard procedure where applicable". This is from a federal agency. The reason it's "just" a recommendation is because there is no statute to make them mandatory, even though there's pressure for just one such statute to be drafted. In the US, and elsewhere. For example, in Germany (that commie hellhole!) employers are required by law to take measures if temperatures inside exceed 26 ºC. Not necessarily air conditioning, though. Here, warehouse work would have to stop if temperatures exceed 25º C, which isn't hard (and which isn't always observed). If you think doing physical work in excessive heat shouldn't be regulated under "basic" labor conditions, I have to wonder whether you have done a single day of physical work under such conditions in your life.

You are right on one thing. It's not "employers" in a broad sense. It's mostly the transnational corps. Small businesses rarely have the kind of leverage that allows them to put competitors out of business, manipulate the labor market and abuse corporate personhood to put special interests above the general interest.

 

4 hours ago, Skarpen said:

That's life. So you will just not try because you can fail? How are you even able to get out of bed with such attitude? Nothing in life is clear, definite and reliable path. You are born and you die, everything in between have indefinite variables that affect the outcome. 

I don't see what you are fighting for here as socialism also don't give you clear, definite and reliable path to success but it takes away almost any opportunity. Besides the ruling class there are no winners in socialism as was proven time and time again in history. I'm taking my chances in free market in this case, sorry but not sorry.

Thank you. So hard work will then not always yield better results, and neither will "smart work" or any other adjective put before "work", because life just doesn't work that way. Yep, not even dumb work, or lazy work. Which is what I've been saying all along. We all know that one guy who's a total waste of company resources and yet, against all common sense, will not get fired no matter what. Hell, they may even promote him. The notion that in order to succeed you just need to keep pulling at your bootstraps is an idiotic feel-good fantasy. Of course staying in bed will not work either, but that's not what people trying to survive on a burger flipper's wages are doing, so moot point. Now, with that out of the way, perhaps we can go back to analyzing precisely how "greed is good".

I'm not fighting for anything other than, maybe, intellectual honesty. If we can at least get there, we may be on track to inventing a scientific approach to economics that will not be dragged down by centuries of dogmatic junk and torn bootstraps. I have no idea what that would look like.

 

4 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I don't think I need to give links, just walk out and go around your city you will see hundreds on businesses running and people making their lives and achieving their business success.

And while we are talking free market and western countries how is Africa where the laws, values and structure hardly exist? How is western model failing based on things happening outside of it? We again come to the same arguments that capitalism is failing because people not living in capitalism are starving. It's ridiculous notion.

Pretty sure that no one around these parts got a small loan of ten million euros to get their businesses going. And I've seen a lot of small businesses close over the years because they simply couldn't compete with the likes of Carrefour, Amazon, Inditex, etc.

As for capitalism in Africa, that's probably as close to "free" markets as you can get in the real world. Very little to no state intervention resulting in veritable AnCap paradises in places like Somalia, South Sudan, DRC, and a few others. If you have sufficient money, the lack of regulation is a boon rather than a problem, as illustrated by the coltan extraction operations in DRC that I mentioned before, for example. The "western model" (another meaningless buzzword btw) works despite capitalism, rather than thanks to it.

[Skarpen]

7 hours ago, 213374U said:

So the excessive speculative activity in the mortgage sector coupled with loose requirements and insufficient checks when lending and selling financial products (i.e. deregulation) leading to a housing bubble was somehow the commies' fault because, um, housing is a right? That's some impressive mental gymnastics, perfect 5/7.

And no, I would have been perfectly happy with the whole system being allowed to crash and burn. I didn't have a mortgage and my savings were guaranteed by the state in the case of a bank run (which is as close as an actual guarantee as you'll get, otherwise I would just have bought gold bars), so seeing a few banksters land behind bars would have been totally worth it. Alas, no such luck.

Where did I say anything about commies fault? I said it was a socialist in origin idea. You trying very hard to pin things I did not say on me. Probably in the name of intellectual honesty 

 

Quote

Did you read the link at all? It clearly says, "should be standard procedure where applicable". This is from a federal agency. The reason it's "just" a recommendation is because there is no statute to make them mandatory, even though there's pressure for just one such statute to be drafted. In the US, and elsewhere. For example, in Germany (that commie hellhole!) employers are required by law to take measures if temperatures inside exceed 26 ºC. Not necessarily air conditioning, though. Here, warehouse work would have to stop if temperatures exceed 25º C, which isn't hard (and which isn't always observed). If you think doing physical work in excessive heat shouldn't be regulated under "basic" labor conditions, I have to wonder whether you have done a single day of physical work under such conditions in your life.

You are right on one thing. It's not "employers" in a broad sense. It's mostly the transnational corps. Small businesses rarely have the kind of leverage that allows them to put competitors out of business, manipulate the labor market and abuse corporate personhood to put special interests above the general interest.

So, it's a recommendation. The wording of a recommendation doesn't change the thing it's a recommendation. And it says "where applicable". 

 

Yes, I've worked both outside and inside when temperature was high. Nothing very special unless there is 30-35+ Celsius. But again nowhere did I say I think it shouldn't be regulated. I said AC is not basic or common, which is just a fact. Again trying to put words in my mouth in the name of intellectual honesty 

Oh and thank you for proving you don't read my posts, because I did mentioned exactly that there are measures to be taken over certain temperatures. Also it's not so strict laws in Spain or Germany as you claim it to be:

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2016/07/117224/workplace-temperature-limit-around-world

8 hours ago, 213374U said:

Thank you. So hard work will then not always yield better results, and neither will "smart work" or any other adjective put before "work", because life just doesn't work that way. Yep, not even dumb work, or lazy work. Which is what I've been saying all along. We all know that one guy who's a total waste of company resources and yet, against all common sense, will not get fired no matter what. Hell, they may even promote him. The notion that in order to succeed you just need to keep pulling at your bootstraps is an idiotic feel-good fantasy. Of course staying in bed will not work either, but that's not what people trying to survive on a burger flipper's wages are doing, so moot point. Now, with that out of the way, perhaps we can go back to analyzing precisely how "greed is good".

I'm not fighting for anything other than, maybe, intellectual honesty. If we can at least get there, we may be on track to inventing a scientific approach to economics that will not be dragged down by centuries of dogmatic junk and torn bootstraps. I have no idea what that would look like.

Oh, so in the name of intellectual honesty you claim my answer to the "path to billions" question was the answer to "is working better gives results" question. Right on.
No mate. Just because you don't have certainty of achieving THE BEST result it doesn't mean you will not get BETTER results. I'm pointing you to my previous post and ACTUAL response to the "work better = better results".

 

8 hours ago, 213374U said:

Pretty sure that no one around these parts got a small loan of ten million euros to get their businesses going. And I've seen a lot of small businesses close over the years because they simply couldn't compete with the likes of Carrefour, Amazon, Inditex, etc.

So what if they took less than that? EU was giving (and still is) grants left and right for starting your business which you didn't had to return even under certain conditions (usually business had to stay open for 2 years). So they took hundred thousands to a million.

 

8 hours ago, 213374U said:

As for capitalism in Africa, that's probably as close to "free" markets as you can get in the real world. Very little to no state intervention resulting in veritable AnCap paradises in places like Somalia, South Sudan, DRC, and a few others. If you have sufficient money, the lack of regulation is a boon rather than a problem, as illustrated by the coltan extraction operations in DRC that I mentioned before, for example. The "western model" (another meaningless buzzword btw) works despite capitalism, rather than thanks to it

No, mate. In the name of intellectual honesty I must point out that lawlessness and anarchy are not free market. 

[ktchong]

 

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by ktchong

[213374U]

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Where did I say anything about commies fault? I said it was a socialist in origin idea. You trying very hard to pin things I did not say on me. Probably in the name of intellectual honesty 

Once again: excessive speculation and deregulation leading to a housing market bubble is somehow the commies or the socialists or the lefties' fault, is what you're saying? Because... some socialist somewhere at some point said something about homes? Keep grasping at straws.

 

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

So, it's a recommendation. The wording of a recommendation doesn't change the thing it's a recommendation. And it says "where applicable". 

Did I at any point say it wasn't a recommendation? The fact that it's "just" a recommendation and as close to a mandatory rule without actually being enforceable does not change that it's dealing with basic working conditions. Again: If it wasn't a recommendation and was instead a statute, Amazon workers wouldn't have to go on strike. They could just sue and we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is without losing sight of the fact that it's basic working conditions as regulated by law in places such as Germany:

https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Rechtstexte-und-Technische-Regeln/Regelwerk/ASR/pdf/ASR-A3-5.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

and Spain:

https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1997-8669#aniii

Next time maybe try looking past the first link Google gives you. Or, I don't know, maybe just read the link Google gives you and you're supposedly using to debunk a position.

 

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Oh, so in the name of intellectual honesty you claim my answer to the "path to billions" question was the answer to "is working better gives results" question. Right on.
No mate. Just because you don't have certainty of achieving THE BEST result it doesn't mean you will not get BETTER results. I'm pointing you to my previous post and ACTUAL response to the "work better = better results".

So now it's working "better"? Not harder, not smarter just... better? What does that even mean now? Sounds like more circular logic. Working better is what gives better results, so to get better results you must work "better"? It's 0 = 0. Meaningless. Useless. Barring gross incompetence or open sabotage, "work better = better results" is more of the same hot air you've been blowing for the last few pages. You even admitted it yourself, something something indefinite factors. Bribery, embezzlement, influence trafficking, all of those things tend to have direct results. "Better" work? Not so much, not always, not consistently. And this is because in a capitalist system, the proceeds from a worker's labor are appropriated by whoever owns the means of production, without obligatory proportional compensation.

 

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

So what if they took less than that? EU was giving (and still is) grants left and right for starting your business which you didn't had to return even under certain conditions (usually business had to stay open for 2 years). So they took hundred thousands to a million.

But we're not talking about grants by the EU to open businesses where I live. We're discussing your story of a magical land where black slaves could get a small loan of ten million dollars to start a mining co-op. Just admit that, like 95% of what you post, you literally made it up on the spot.

And by the way, the EU does not directly lend money to prospective small business owners. They do it through, surprise, your local financial institutions (i.e. banks), who have the last word on whether to lend. And the largest amount you can get is 150k. A far cry from the ten million you claim is needed to get a coal mine started. Is playing fast and loose with numbers and facts part of the skillset needed to "work better"?

 

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

No, mate. In the name of intellectual honesty I must point out that lawlessness and anarchy are not free market. 

How so? No regulation to get in the way of business. Supply and demand isn't artificially manipulated by the government. Anything you want you can buy it provided you have enough money. Taxes are not an issue if you grease the right palms. Sounds like a perfectly free market to me. It's only a lawless environment if you're a have-not. But if so, you should just "work better", right? Problem solved!

Edited November 15, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Guard Dog]

BREAKING NEWS........

 

Three judges get into drunken brawl at White Castle. Two are shot.

 

I see not one, not two, but three potential Supreme Court nominees! 

[Guard Dog]

DHS Confirms no new border wall has been built

Ummmm.... how much money did we spend on this? I seems to recall it was diverted from military projects?  Sometimes I think the federal government is a criminal enterprise. Sometimes just that it is criminally incompetent. I guess no reason both can't be true. The only thing it does well is kill people and make taxpayer money disappear.  And you guys want to give them MORE power over you. It just.... just boggles the mind!

Edited November 15, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Malcador]

45 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

DHS Confirms no new border wall has been built

Ummmm.... how much money did we spend on this? I seems to recall it was diverted from military projects?  Sometimes I think the federal government is a criminal enterprise. Sometimes just that it is criminally incompetent. I guess no reason both can't be true. The only thing it does well is kill people and make taxpayer money disappear.  And you guys want to give them MORE power over you. It just.... just boggles the mind!

"Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan told reporters that 78 miles of wall has been erected under Mr. Trump, but all of it has replaced outdated fencing or barriers that had previously existed.   None of it has blocked off a portion of the border where there wasn’t previously some type of barrier.  Mr. Morgan, though, said the replacement wall is so good that he calls all of it “new.”  “Every mile of wall that’s being built is a new mile of wall,” he said." 

Well, have to give him credit for creativity in his defense.  Also is every position in the US government being held by an Acting head ?

 

[Guard Dog]

45 minutes ago, Malcador said:

"Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan told reporters that 78 miles of wall has been erected under Mr. Trump, but all of it has replaced outdated fencing or barriers that had previously existed.   None of it has blocked off a portion of the border where there wasn’t previously some type of barrier.  Mr. Morgan, though, said the replacement wall is so good that he calls all of it “new.”  “Every mile of wall that’s being built is a new mile of wall,” he said." 

Well, have to give him credit for creativity in his defense.  Also is every position in the US government being held by an Acting head ?

 

Pretty much. That way none of your selections have to be confirmed by the Senate. I don’t recall any other president squeezing through that legal loophole to deprive the Senate of its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent

[smjjames]

19 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Pretty much. That way none of your selections have to be confirmed by the Senate. I don’t recall any other president squeezing through that legal loophole to deprive the Senate of its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent

and @ShadySands

Plus theres several that are effectively acting acting or acting acting acting because the acting has been replaced several times.

[Maedhros]

https://www.thelocal.se/20191115/china-threatens-sweden-over-prize-to-dissident-author

Good job Sweden!

[ktchong]

"Shady Pete" aka the Gay Obama...

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by ktchong

[Hurlshort]

A doctor friend of mine posted this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-can-slash-health-care-costs-75-with-2-fundamental-changes-and-without-medicare-for-all-2019-08-15?mod=mw_share_facebook&fbclid=IwAR1pQ2VvtfuGYzsCXZlZ8iRslIvFqFfcPZ-oLslXk53utrWvLucPyi7vGHs

While she expressed some reservations about fixed prices for complex medical procedures, she thinks it would be a huge step in the right direction.

I like it. I don't care how we fix our broken health care system in this country, I'm just tired of it getting worse every year. We need change.

[Skarpen]

On 11/15/2019 at 1:54 PM, 213374U said:

Once again: excessive speculation and deregulation leading to a housing market bubble is somehow the commies or the socialists or the lefties' fault, is what you're saying? Because... some socialist somewhere at some point said something about homes? Keep grasping at straws.

Never said any of that. But since you are aiming at intellectual honesty it's understandable you are trying to invent a false statements I did not made.

On 11/15/2019 at 1:54 PM, 213374U said:

Did I at any point say it wasn't a recommendation? The fact that it's "just" a recommendation and as close to a mandatory rule without actually being enforceable does not change that it's dealing with basic working conditions. Again: If it wasn't a recommendation and was instead a statute, Amazon workers wouldn't have to go on strike. They could just sue and we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is without losing sight of the fact that it's basic working conditions as regulated by law in places such as Germany:

https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Rechtstexte-und-Technische-Regeln/Regelwerk/ASR/pdf/ASR-A3-5.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

and Spain:

https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1997-8669#aniii

Next time maybe try looking past the first link Google gives you. Or, I don't know, maybe just read the link Google gives you and you're supposedly using to debunk a position.

Yes you tried to state it's actual laws which it isn't. And thank you for stating what I stated in the first place.

On 11/15/2019 at 1:54 PM, 213374U said:

So now it's working "better"? Not harder, not smarter just... better? What does that even mean now? Sounds like more circular logic. Working better is what gives better results, so to get better results you must work "better"? It's 0 = 0. Meaningless. Useless. Barring gross incompetence or open sabotage, "work better = better results" is more of the same hot air you've been blowing for the last few pages. You even admitted it yourself, something something indefinite factors. Bribery, embezzlement, influence trafficking, all of those things tend to have direct results. "Better" work? Not so much, not always, not consistently. And this is because in a capitalist system, the proceeds from a worker's labor are appropriated by whoever owns the means of production, without obligatory proportional compensation.

I provided an actual examples which you ignore. I think it's not the adjectives you have problem with, but the word "work". You have no idea what work is. Did you actually worked a day in your life or do you live of of someones else? It would explain your attitude towards "parasites who expolit the working people", guilt.

On 11/15/2019 at 1:54 PM, 213374U said:

But we're not talking about grants by the EU to open businesses where I live. We're discussing your story of a magical land where black slaves could get a small loan of ten million dollars to start a mining co-op. Just admit that, like 95% of what you post, you literally made it up on the spot.

And by the way, the EU does not directly lend money to prospective small business owners. They do it through, surprise, your local financial institutions (i.e. banks), who have the last word on whether to lend. And the largest amount you can get is 150k. A far cry from the ten million you claim is needed to get a coal mine started. Is playing fast and loose with numbers and facts part of the skillset needed to "work better"?

Why do you claim all black people are slaves and cannot own anything? Is that the official moderators attitude?

On 11/15/2019 at 1:54 PM, 213374U said:

How so? No regulation to get in the way of business. Supply and demand isn't artificially manipulated by the government. Anything you want you can buy it provided you have enough money. Taxes are not an issue if you grease the right palms. Sounds like a perfectly free market to me. It's only a lawless environment if you're a have-not. But if so, you should just "work better", right? Problem solved!

Lawless environment is not free market, just a fact. 

[213374U]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Never said any of that. But since you are aiming at intellectual honesty it's understandable you are trying to invent a false statements I did not made.

Sigh.

On 11/14/2019 at 5:27 PM, Skarpen said:

2008 economy crash wasn't due to companies screwing their employees or crash in demand supply chain. It was a banking crisis based on the dumb socialistic in origin notion that everyone should have a house even if they cannot afford one.

You didn't say this either? Did someone hack your account and post this? Was it somebody else operating under your identity?

So it was a banking crisis that happened because of a socialist idea!!11oene

 

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Yes you tried to state it's actual laws which it isn't. And thank you for stating what I stated in the first place.

Look, I know you make a point of pulling the trigger without knowing even the basics, but I really don't have time to ELI5 for you all the time. The German regulation I linked is a development of the Verordnung über Arbeitsstätten (Arbeitsstättenverordnung - ArbStättV). It's an ordinance. It's issued by the government. It's enforceable. Yes, ordinance is in this context interchangeable with law.

Similarly, the Royal Decree I linked to is the way our government dictates enforceable regulations when pertaining to certain matters as provided for by the Constitution (or as a development of parliamentary acts if specified therein), without parliamentary involvement. Yes, a Royal Decree is law. Law is "actual law". Clear now?

 

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

I provided an actual examples which you ignore. I think it's not the adjectives you have problem with, but the word "work". You have no idea what work is. Did you actually worked a day in your life or do you live of of someones else? It would explain your attitude towards "parasites who expolit the working people", guilt.

You didn't provide ****. Your examples are things like moving rocks with a truck instead of by hand, which is profoundly stultifying even for the kind of content you have us accustomed to. Of course mechanization increases efficiency, duh. How does one increase work efficiency without the massive injection of capital needed to mechanize tasks? If what you mean by "work smart" is "get a small loan of ten million dollars and get machines to do everything", then you may be on to something, but I get the idea that you'll be shifting the goalposts soon enough again, because that doesn't jive so well with tugging at bootstraps.

And for the record, I've been working since I was 17. Much of it physical work too. Which is why I know, unlike you, that the demands of Amazon warehouse workers are perfectly reasonable.

 

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Why do you claim all black people are slaves and cannot own anything? Is that the official moderators attitude?

I didn't claim anything of the sort. Please report any posts where anyone said that.

Coltan forced labor mining operations in central Africa is the example you chose to debunk with your fictional story of a small loan of ten million dollars which could easily be obtained by asking the EU to then get a mining co-op going. That's another of your "work smart" solutions, I take it?

 

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Lawless environment is not free market, just a fact. 

"Nuh-uh! It's not! It's just a fact."

Okay. Recess is over. Back to class.

Edited November 16, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯