TakeYouToTasker

The book is a conceptual economic argument, and is precisely about what happened in the Soviet Union (and other centrally planned economies). But you wouldn't know that, because you're not bright enough to interpret underlying themes, aren't interested in economic arguments, and actually don't understand what economics are. Actually, I'm becoming convinced that you don't actually understand the lion's share of what you do read anyway, so save yourself the trouble. Oh, and while I have your attention, if you can muster even a drop of intellectual courage: Explain: - How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position. - How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position. - How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position. - How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position. - How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position. Once you're done with that, explain how as these things failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued.

So much unintentional awesome in this post. I wish I could jar this and sell it.

A major conflict like the Viet Nam War, or a major conflict like I'll have to record the VT/Florida State game? Jokes aside, 8 PM on Monday would be fine for me.

I'd be game for the weekend. I'd prefer to accommodate Doc so he can try to defend.

Well, yeah. It's a moral question. I'm opposed to theft, and you aren't. Any system which systematically strips away the justly acquired property of the individual without their consent is immoral. Taxes themselves are nothing more than a necessary evil required for the implementation of services of shared utility vital to the survival of a nation. Anything beyond the costs associated with those shared utilities is a gross imposition on natural rights. Wait, what? Please provide a detailed analysis. I reject your assertion of "common sense" equity. There is nothing sensible about the implementation of a system which rewards poor habits and bad outcomes, lead to the decline of the nations which attempt it, and subvert the sanctity of the individual to the will of the state. And it is mutually exclusive to property rights, which are the foundation for capital formation, which the creation of wealth is 100% dependent upon. Empty hyperbolic rhetoric, and a strawman to boot. What conservatives and libertarians believe is that theft is immoral, the incentivization of poor choices leads to an abundance of poor choices, and that market economies produce the most good results for the majority of the population. I suppose the proper view is to endorse bankrupt Ponzi schemes imposed at the barrel of a gun? Monopolies are a creation of the state. They are. That would be libertarians and conservatives. What you're suggesting is a leap backwards. That's just another lie. Like I said before, you're just an intellectual coward who can't handle having his ideas scrutinized because it usually exposes how poor and morally bankrupt they are. You can't even defend your premise. Intellectual. Coward.

Everyone directly involved with the violation of the 10-day rule resulting in the judges (correct) decision should be fired immediately. The prosecutors had better start working on the grand jury post haste.

Who "needs help" isn't the point. First of all, it's the millionaires and billionaires money. They earned it, or more accurately put, they created it by combining capital with labor which they purchased. So, again, the wealth you're talking about doesn't even exist, except for the fact that bright and industrious people summoned it into existence through their vision and execution of a business model; which was only possible because of a system of property rights which protects their right to the fruit of their labor, which they in turn can sell to others if they choose. The whole system of wealth creation literally depends on an individuals expectations that what he earns belongs to him. Undoing that concept is an absolute recipe for disaster, as has played out all over the world. As to "businesses that can't pay 15 bucks an hour" nonsense, this shows an incredible lack of understanding about how supply chains work, and exactly what it takes to bring a product to market, along with what profit margins look like for businesses, and how they might be impacted by the introduction of elastic labor costs. @The_Dude Any updates on this?

I am, quite honestly, in a minor state of disbelief that anyone would set that aside as an unusual achievement conferring some sort of special status in 2018 America. I'm always surprised when I run into someone who doesn't have a degree of some sort. In my field it's unusual to meet people who don't have a graduate degree further backed by piles of additional credentialing. It's like he's bragging that he was born with lips, and trying to use it to differentiate himself from other humans based on that claim. If he wasn't such an in-your-face dickbag, I'd actually be embarrassed for him.

@The_Dude Any updates on this?

Unfathomably stupid. Keep going... You're winning...

He punctuated it by restating that the deaths caused by Marxism weren't caused by Marxism because "historians" with Marxist sympathies wishing to sanitize the record say they weren't. Unfathomably stupid.

To summarize: "I'm right because approved historians with Marxist leanings wish to sanitize Marxism's actual death toll by not attributing the millions of starvation deaths caused by Marxism to Marxism, and I'm dumb enough to believe them." Christ you're stupid.

Listen, everyone here knows you're a moron at this point. You can stop advertising it whenever you'd like.

This might be my favorite meltdown since NDBUFFCUSE of whatever his name was. "I HAVE A DEGREE GODDAMNIT!!!!" Reminds me of my favorite scene from Office Space. Soooo... You aren't going to address any of the post? I'll try again: Explain: - How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position. - How the execution of class warfare against the Kulaks wasn't an economic position. - How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position. - How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position. - How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position. Once you're done with that, explain how as these things all failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued. Or, allow me to save you some time: Genocide was the eventual outcome of the progression of the failure of Stalin's brand of Communism. It was inevitable because the policy was unworkable, but Stalin insisted on pursuing it. The same thing happens every God damned time, and the outcomes are always the result of the policy. It's cause and !@#$ing effect, or, you know, economics.

So, in other words, this is your mea culpa. kitty.

If you really believe this, then you don't understand what happened in the Ukraine, and as an aside, could really stand to read The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek. Explain:　 　 - How Stalin's desire to put down budding nationalist sentiment in the Ukraine to bring it under tighter Soviet control wasn't an economic position. 　 - How　the execution of class warfare　against the　Kulaks　wasn't an economic position. 　 - How the forced collectivization of farms wasn't an economic position. 　 - How the putting down of the Ukrainian rebellion when they resisted collectivization wasn't an economic position. 　 - How the sale of Ukrainian grain to foreign markets in pursuit of Stalin's Five Year Plan wasn't an economic position. 　 Once you're done with that, explain how as these things all failed because the people resisted, Stalin taking increasingly brutal action in pursuit of his goals was not the result of the economic policy he pursued. 　 Or, allow me to save you some time: 　 Genocide was the eventual outcome of the progression of the failure of Stalin's brand of Communism.　 It was inevitable because the policy was unworkable, but Stalin insisted on pursuing it. 　 The same thing happens every God damned time, and the outcomes are always the result of the policy. 　 It's cause and !@#$ing effect, or, you know, economics. No, you lost the argument because you're trying to disassociate interlocked sequences of cause and effect. Stalin didn't set out to commit genocide. He set out to assert economic and national control over the Ukraine. Genocide resulted because his policies failed and he became more and more brutal in insisting that human nature would not be human nature, demanding instead the emergence of "socialist man" which would never materialize. Here's the paragraph in question: "You don't even understand what the terms mean, I mean... you don't even comprehend what economics are, and you're subscribing to a ridiculous brand of psycho-history under which you've chosen to disassociate the centralizing policies of Marxists from the objectives of those policies, which means you don't understand why it failed." Which big word were you struggling with? "Comprehend" or "centralizing"? I think we can let the reader decide.

I think you know the answer to that. This was the very predictable next step.

What alternative reality are you living in?

You wouldn't even consider it. I mean, you might try to slip some arsenic into my drink, but beyond that, you'd be docile. What kind of half-assed critique is this? I mean, I thought the "I struggle to meet you on the intellectual playing field, so instead I'll make threats of violence," was hilarious, but you've now topped yourself. The best insult you could come up with is literally "When you don't know something, you know how to access the information you need so that you can articulate it to others." That's !@#$ing awesome. I play with gifs to mock you on the internet, because, by and large, that's about the peak of what you deserve. What you call "semantics" is what literate people call "preciseness of language", and it's incredibly important in any medium where people are trying to communicate ideas. Words are tools, and it's no one's fault but your own that you want to smash everything with a hammer while others are doing fine carpentry. As to the points I make? I'll put the quality of my body of work here against yours any day, as the community judges what merits consideration. No I didn't, you illiterate muppet. I said you support a traitor. For someone who claims to read a lot, you seem staggeringly unsuited to the task.

Holy actual ****. I go away for a few hours, planning to come back and have this argument with you, and when I get here I see you've already lost the argument to yourself. You don't even understand what the terms mean, I mean... you don't even comprehend what economics are, and you're subscribing to a ridiculous brand of psycho-history under which you've chosen to disassociate the centralizing policies of Marxists from the objectives of those policies, which means you don't understand why it failed. This whole conversation is a hot mess, and you're hilarious.

No, he's right. You made up a definition for a term which already had one, and are trying to impose it on the conversation; and it's hilarious to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about. If you'd like a lesson about the social and economic underpinnings of the French Revolution, again, I'm happy to give you a condescending lecture about the confluence of populism, emergent utopian socialism themes opposing European serfdom, and the revolutionary breezes sweeping Europe in 1800s all couched in the ideals of the Enlightenment if your response isn't completely moronic. If I'm being honest I'm not all that optimistic about your chances. It's on you, big boy. Come surprise me. Edit: I'll add a response to your post addressed to me as well: You've already betrayed yourself. Everything is economics. Everything. That at you don't understand that is very telling.

Because I'm talking to a Marxist about extermination and starvation caused by applied Marxism. If you want to talk about neo-liberalism, that's grand, and I'm happy to do so; but you'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the laissez-faire implications of the term in the early 20th century, or are you speaking to it's post-linguistic metamorphosis where it came to describe economies governed by state interventionism? Actually, looking back, if you're talking about a death toll, you'd have to be talking about Pinochet, though I'm not really sure why you'd bring that up, as it's totally of topic, unless you're just simply looking to regurgitate unrelated factoids? Soooo... [/golfclap... I guess?

When has Marxism led to the starvation of millions of people? I though you said you studied history?

Why not? It pairs perfectly with your irrational and emotional response:

Again, you're substituting emotion for reason. I'm almost surprised that you didn't come right out and say that you want to kill them with poison.