TakeYouToTasker

Because it's easy to make campaign statements when you don't have all of the facts. Once in office, now educated about those held in Cuba, he realized the necessity.

How do you determine how much of each good to produce, and what locations it should be sold in and in what quantity? How do you determine prices?

It all comes back to incentivization, and the path of least resistance.

I think they're two sides of the same coin.

It's even worse than that. He'd have to breed out the survival instinct of the hunter-gatherer which has been developed over the entirety of human history.

At this point in his career I think Altidore is what he is. He's not instinctive in front of the net, he's not a poacher, he's not creative enough to create his own goals. What he is, is a hold up play target man, and while he's strong in that role when he's on and partnered with more pace players and ball winners, but he needs that strong, well suited supporting cast to be effective, and he's just not consistent enough; especially against world class opposition.

No, it doesn't look good on paper. It's a moral travesty as well.

That's the point. You don't get to determine my worth, or dictate terms to me. I decide that, and if you disagree, then you don't get to enjoy my labor. That's not nearly the same. You don't suffer when I suffer. I care about me, and mine. I am responsible for me, and mine. I am not my brother's keeper, nor are you mine. Collectivism in economics as a greater positive ignores human motivation. It's as if you for some reason believe that you can enjoy the unique economic engine of capitalism while at the same time removing all incentive to produce. In this you're not much different than Robert Owen, postulating that with the advent of Socialist Man roasted chicken would fly down out of the sky and present themselves on the dinner table. All socialism is slavery to one degree or another. When you strip men of freedoms, that's what you wind up with.

Then if you want me to drive it, you'll pay me accordingly, or I won't. I have something you need. When I get cut, the country doesn't bleed. When I lose a loved one, the country doesn't cry. When I am hungry, the country doesn't feel the pangs. Every individual is an individual, seeing the world through the prism of their own feelings, emotions, strengths, and weaknesses. We are not a group, we are not a monolith, we are not a function of intersectionality. I value myself, my loved ones; both friends and family. I am loyal to my country insofar as it represents the values I believe in. I am not more loyal to any particular stranger because of where they reside or originate. I don't place any value at all on ethnicity, race, or nationality; as an individual does nothing to earn those sorts of labels. As for your assertion that I'd be more comfortable taking? I reject the premise of your questioning. If you set up a society in which you have eliminated free association and exchange and the core of property rights and self ownership, making me not much more than a slave, I'm more than comfortable leading a moral resistance by setting down my plowshare.

Because it's not worth the sacrifices I make, the hours I work, the responsibilities I have, without the financial rewards. I work longer, smarter, and harder than most people. It's people like me who drive the economic engine of this country. I got into my profession because of the financial rewards, as do most people in the professions which drive the economy, and if I'm not compensated appropriately for my effort, ethic, and skill set I'm more than content to collect a check for simply existing. The truth is that the world needs people like me, because there are very few of us, relative to the size of the population, who can do what we do, where as there as roughly 7.5 billion people who can flip a burger. Flipping burgers is easy, and stress free, and doesn't require me to make any sacrifices. Pay me the same for both, and I'm flipping burgers.

That's fantastic. You still haven't addressed the very real problem of motivating the "doers" to do. What you propose will bring the world to a grinding halt. Jobs which require expertise and education, long hours, or dangerous conditions will not attract labor. I'd quit tomorrow under these conditions. So would everyone I know. You're also setting your boot on the throat of innovation and entrepreneurship. It sounds as though you have no concept of the role capital formation plays in business and innovation; and even less of an understanding of the risk taking that drives business growth.

There is no conservative argument for UBI. Milton Freidman made a case for the idea in his book Capitalism and Freedom, as a reform of the welfare state, but his reasoning wasn't imbedded in conservatism, rather reform.

Existence does not confer value. There is zero merit to simply existing.

Pulisic is certainly the crown jewel right now, but the US is really starting to generate talent. John Brooks, Gyasi Zardes, Booby Wood, and DeAndre Yedlin are examples of this. Marry that to accomplished veterans like Geoff Cameron, Clint Dempsey, Fabian Johnson and Tim Howard; and you really have to like where men's soccer is headed in the US.

I've never funneled a beer, used an apple as a pipe, or banged a chick in front of her roommate at work, so no.

He's a communist. He's said as much in prior posts. You're not arguing against his argument.

Given that the system I advocate is responsible for nearly ever single innovation in human history, you're wrong. And it's not a value placed on human motivation, it's that your philosophy completely disregards the things that motivate humans. I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that without the earnings potential my career path has provided, I wouldn't have been in any way interested in the work. Neither would anyone else I know. I'd have been perfectly content to take the path of least resistance, and being paid to do something easy, while you paid me as much as the next guy to simply exist.

No, it's not "as good a baseline as any". It's a lousy baseline which attributes zero value to human motivation. To the other: Absolutely. Capitalism and freedom of exchange is naturally forced altruism. I am required to produce something others want or need if I am to have the ability to acquire the things that I want and need; and the more I am able to produce things which others want and need (benefiting society) the greater my value. And at the same time, this system uniquely encourages innovation and production where other systems do not.

Honorifics aren't currency, and have zero value in and of themselves. No one, or close enough to no one to make any difference whatsoever, has interest in doing the hard work you describe without commensurate reward. The sacrifices made are too great. The time spent away from family, away from doing the things that you love, in favor of lonely nights on the road, weeks on end, 70+ hour work weeks... Existence is not meritorious.

Hehe

How does that happen? Did it come back negative?

92 pages on a guy we haven't signed, coming off a 44 catch, 536 yard season, boasting a single Pro Bowl appearance in 7 NFL seasons... September 10th can't get here soon enough.

Which is fine, but still problematic given due process; but even then, history shows that being under surveillance or on watch lists doesn't stop terror attacks.

That's just grand. One minor problem: being radicalized isn't criminal activity in America. We don't do thought policing.

I'll engage you because, despite your best efforts lately, I still don't have you on ignore, and you keep responding to me directly. I'm holding out hope that you'll pull your now **** encrusted head out of your ass, and stop being part of the problem; though I'm becoming less hopeful, as you seem to now be relishing your role as "!@#$ing ass-clown who makes the board a worse place, totally disregarding the community and the purpose of the community". If you'd like to have fewer interactions with me, I suggest exhibiting a modicum of self-restraint, and stop commenting to me or about me. I hope that's not too much for you.