Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[4merper4mer]

You're not familiar with the term freed markets, and you're trying to have this conversation with me. You're beyond laughable.

 

What will happen is the exact same thing that always happens: the business models will adapt. Stop being a backwards hack who believes business practices are static, and uneveloving.

 

As to your nonsense about scarcity: real physical scarcity is the entire reason a market driven price system evolved. Things available in great abundance, to the point of rendering them valueless or near valueless is a good thing for consumers. It allows us to focus our wealth on other things and in other areas. Creating artifical barriers to abundance is nothing short of morally bankrupt. It is anti-freed market in every sense of the word.

 

The term freed markets is taught by people with beards, in other words commies, to people who are easily duped, otherwise known as you. The bearded wonders like it even better when their useful idiot students get arrogant about their own knowledge. There are literally hundreds of useful little hints at this.....you have missed every one.

 

And the scarcity your silly model ignores and will be unable to conquer is the scarcity of people willing to put in years of study and hard work to become productive, only to have their production net them no gain at all. That is something which will always be scarce no matter how many unproductive guys with beards say it won't be. Hint: Trying to refute this by pointing to a linux programmer will make you look even more idiotic so please avoid it for your own credibility.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The term freed markets is taught by people with beards, in other words commies, to people who are easily duped, otherwise known as you. The bearded wonders like it even better when their useful idiot students get arrogant about their own knowledge. There are literally hundreds of useful little hints at this.....you have missed every one.

Your ignorance is astounding. The etymology of the term "freed markets" can be traced to libertarian philosophy and classical economic capitalism. The term, at its core, means to set markets free from intrustion and manipulation by governments and central banks. The term was popularized to make the distinction between the steered market's of today's neo-mercantilist corporatism and an actual state of market place freedom, which we do not have. Hence, market's that have yet to be "freed" from central control.

 

The term was later co-opted by nitwit intellegensia intellectuals who insisted that markets, once freed, should reject capitalism and immediately reliquish their freedom in favor of even more onerous direction. This, of course, is nothing more than red revolutionary talk, and is both regressive and impractical; as it relies on the abolishment of tangible private property. A concept which an ageing Max Eastman addressed most eloquently:

 

"It seems obvious to me now- though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion - that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free and equalness that Marx hoped to render infinite by abolishing this institution. Strangely enough, Marx was the first to see this. He is the one who informed us, looking backwards, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms. It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market."

 

In other words, go back to eating crayonz. You're out of your depth here.

 

And the scarcity your silly model ignores and will be unable to conquer is the scarcity of people willing to put in years of study and hard work to become productive, only to have their production net them no gain at all. That is something which will always be scarce no matter how many unproductive guys with beards say it won't be. Hint: Trying to refute this by pointing to a linux programmer will make you look even more idiotic so please avoid it for your own credibility.

And this is why you aren't a business visionary, paving the way; and rather are just along for the ride making poor arguments on the internet. The market always prevails, and always adopts when given the chance.

Edited July 2, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[4merper4mer]

 

 

 

And this is why you aren't a business visionary, paving the way; and rather are just along for the ride making poor arguments on the internet. The market always prevails, and always adopts when given the chance.

 

Is business visionary the new term for people don't produce anything but glom on to the innovation of others, or outright take it and re-sell it for their own benefit? Back in the day those people were called thieves.

 

And all your blah blah blah is truly confusing you. Keep it simple:

 

Beard

A desire to co-opt from everyone's abilities, in this case intellectual capital, and give based on needs, in this case free music, porn and medicine.

Long winded explanations that explain nothing

No actual work being done.

 

Conclusion: commie.

 

P.S. In case you haven't picked up on commie tendencies.... Much like your Econ 102 prof, many of them call themselves capitalists, libertarian, free thinkers, and other sundry bs. That's because they can't trick anyone if they call themselves what they are. Another trick they use is to call themselves "visionaries" and convince easy dupes that they too can be "visionaries". There is a natural human condition to desire being a visionary, but very few truly are. Those who are not and believe that they are, really just have a much more common trait.............laziness.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Is business visionary the new term for people don't produce anything but glom on to the innovation of others, or outright take it and re-sell it for their own benefit? Back in the day those people were called thieves.

 

And all your blah blah blah is truly confusing you. Keep it simple:

 

Beard

A desire to co-opt from everyone's abilities, in this case intellectual capital, and give based on needs, in this case free music, porn and medicine.

Long winded explanations that explain nothing

No actual work being done.

 

Conclusion: commie.

 

P.S. In case you haven't picked up on commie tendencies.... Much like your Econ 102 prof, many of them call themselves capitalists, libertarian, free thinkers, and other sundry bs. That's because they can't trick anyone if they call themselves what they are. Another trick they use is to call themselves "visionaries" and convince easy dupes that they too can be "visionaries". There is a natural human condition to desire being a visionary, but very few truly are. Those who are not and believe that they are, really just have a much more common trait.............laziness.

So you're assertions hang, most precariously, on the notion that libertarians, classical liberals, members of the Austrian school, classical economists, and anyone else who opposes the modern neo-mercantilist structure is a "bearded commie"? Brilliant.

 

Equally "brilliant" is your hillariously flawed belief that force of law should be put in place to protect antiquated business models that can't compete with the advent of new technology which undermines the scarcity of their products.

 

You've yet to attempt to mount a defense of the merits of scarcity for scarcities sake. This leads me to the conclusion that you lack the ability.

 

You should have just led by saying that you don't have the intellectual threshold to differentiate between wildly different political and economic philosophies because you're an abject fool. Atleast then you would have saved me some time.

[4merper4mer]

So you're assertions hang, most precariously, on the notion that libertarians, classical liberals, members of the Austrian school, classical economists, and anyone else who opposes the modern neo-mercantilist structure is a "bearded commie"? Brilliant.

 

You've yet to attempt to mount a defense of the merits of scarcity for scarcities sake. This leads me to the conclusion that you lack the ability.

 

You should have just led by saying that you don't have the intellectual threshold to differentiate between wildly different political and economic philosophies because you're an abject fool. Atleast then you would have saved me some time.

 

When real life interjects itself and makes you realize how ridiculous you are being here, I am fine with it if you come back and apologize or just let it go without saying anything. It really doesn't matter to me either way. For your sake, I hope the epiphany happens sooner rather than later as it will allow you to produce and stop you from complaining about being "stifled" from stealing the production of others. Anger and envy are rarely productive in the long run.

 

My "assertions hang" on the notion that an economic model that tells people whatever they innovate will be immediately taken from them, will never work because human nature will simply not allow it. Of course that assumption has held true for all of human existence but you know.....now that they have innovated some really nice trimmers and commies beards look all dapper, maybe everyone on the planet will up and decide to get with the program. The defense for scarcity is called incentive. Or reality. Take your pick.

 

As for intellectual threshold, I have found that people that talk about their own tend to be compensating. It's sort of like a Napolean complex of the mind, which makes you the Michael Blomberg of PPP. Can I call you Mike?

 

 

Equally "brilliant" is your hillariously flawed belief that force of law should be put in place to protect antiquated business models that can't compete with the advent of new technology which undermines the scarcity of their products.

 

Please cite one example of the "new" economy/technology producing something which the old economy could not/did not produce.

 

 

From you:

 

that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free and equalness...

 

It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market

 

And your solution is to make everyone's thought and innovation public and let them keep their land? Okey dokey.

Edited July 2, 2013 by 4merper4mer

[TakeYouToTasker]

Again, I'll simplify.

 

The intangible is not private property. In fact, it's not property at all, as I cannot physically remove it from your possession by possessing it myself. The intangible, in it's natural free-market state, is absolutely unquanifiable, and limitlessly abundant.

 

Only by removing freedom from markets can scarcity of the intangible be generated.

 

Just admit that you don't respect the concept of free markets and we can be done here.

Edited July 2, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor? or just plain stupid?

 

my vote - just plain stupid

 

Snowden is upset that "Obama" revoked his passport. What did this jackoff think was going to hapen to him? Unless you have Millions stashed in banks you screw yourself.

Edited July 2, 2013 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[DC Tom]

Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor? or just plain stupid?

 

my vote - just plain stupid

 

Snowden is upset that "Obama" revoked his passport. What did this jackoff think was going to hapen to him? Unless you have Millions stashed in banks you screw yourself.

 

Welcome to Generation Narcissism.

[4merper4mer]

Again, I'll simplify.

 

The intangible is not private property. In fact, it's not property at all, as I cannot physically remove it from your possession by possessing it myself. The intangible, in it's natural free-market state, is absolutely unquanifiable, and limitlessly abundant.

 

Only by removing freedom from markets can scarcity of the intangible be generated.

 

Just admit that you don't respect the concept of free markets and we can be done here.

 

LOL back to square one I see after your stark inability to defend/explain/show an example of how "limitlessly abundant" resources will ever find their way to market if the generators of them are precluded from incentive.

 

Check back in after next semester when it is possible that one of your profs will have supplied you with a circuitous and unrealistic example of how things should work and you can defend it will a laughably arrogant/ignorant set of made up crap.

 

I would suggest that if you really have so much pent up guilt over stealing music and porn just put your nose to the grindstone, work hard, earn money and go out and buy your music and porn.

[GG]

Again, I'll simplify.

 

The intangible is not private property. In fact, it's not property at all, as I cannot physically remove it from your possession by possessing it myself. The intangible, in it's natural free-market state, is absolutely unquanifiable, and limitlessly abundant.

 

Only by removing freedom from markets can scarcity of the intangible be generated.

 

Just admit that you don't respect the concept of free markets and we can be done here.

 

The beauty of arguing from a textbook is that you can't see how wrong you are because the textbook doesn't cover that chapter. Yet 3 out of the top 5, and 10 out of top 20 companies with the largest global market caps are ones with high intangible assets.

 

But I know, you are more right than the people who are paid to analyze and make money in this crap.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The beauty of arguing from a textbook is that you can't see how wrong you are because the textbook doesn't cover that chapter. Yet 3 out of the top 5, and 10 out of top 20 companies with the largest global market caps are ones with high intangible assets.

 

But I know, you are more right than the people who are paid to analyze and make money in this crap.

Actually, GG. That's exactly what I do for a living, and my understanding of the real value of these "assets" is one of the major reasons I'm so darned successful at it.

[GG]

I used to take comfort in this, and if all they're doing is tracking phone traffic I'm not as concerned, but it appears that's not really the case. Also, I don't trust that they're not recording more than we know about. Where this gets scary is if they are recording all of this info in a massive database. If that's done then the process of picking that conversation, email, etc. out of the haystack is no longer so far-fetch. A targeted key word search could be quite effective for navigating that vast database just as Google conveniently takes you to the needle that is your chosen website in the haystack that is the internet. This doesn't concern you at all?

 

The other tangible issue that no one is discussing is the nature of that telecom traffic. I imagine that people don't have as big of an issue with NSA monitoring all international traffic, especially anything destined to & from Afghanistan, Pakistan & Yemen. Yet, people are still stuck in the old mindset that Ernestine connects individual calls from one party to another. The reality is that most telephone traffic now goes over IP networks, with a lot more international traffic being IP only through Skype, Vonage, etc. All that traffic is more likely than not to go through USA based switches & routers, even if the traffic doesn't originate or end in the US. Plus, since the whole nature of Internet is designed as a distributed network, it's impossible to focus in only on the traffic that you care about without capturing all traffic data and then filtering out what you need. It's that basic distinction that people get all up in arms about, without understanding the underlying technology and why all data is being collected. And no, I don't care about them storing the data, because you still have the same issue of massive quantities that you won't be able to do anything with it until you have something truly actionable and need to devote a team of people to fish out the needle in that telecom haystack.

 

But it does make for a decent movie of the week as a break from the Kardashians.

 

Actually, GG. That's exactly what I do for a living, and my understanding of the real value of these "assets" is one of the major reasons I'm so darned successful at it.

 

Of course you are and that's why asset intensive industries have outperformed the stock market over the last 20 years?

[TakeYouToTasker]

LOL back to square one I see after your stark inability to defend/explain/show an example of how "limitlessly abundant" resources will ever find their way to market if the generators of them are precluded from incentive.

 

Check back in after next semester when it is possible that one of your profs will have supplied you with a circuitous and unrealistic example of how things should work and you can defend it will a laughably arrogant/ignorant set of made up crap.

 

I would suggest that if you really have so much pent up guilt over stealing music and porn just put your nose to the grindstone, work hard, earn money and go out and buy your music and porn.

You're ineptitude lies with the fact that you don't believe businesses can innovate and find new ways to deliver their products without sharing their ideas. I believe that businesses can and will, as they always have. You'd rather protect the antiquated with absurd logical inconsistancies, and the abolishion of free-markets.

[GG]

You're ineptitude lies with the fact that you don't believe businesses can innovate and find new ways to deliver their products without sharing their ideas. I believe that businesses can and will, as they always have. You'd rather protect the antiquated with absurd logical inconsistancies, and the abolishion of free-markets.

 

Ever consider why there's always less innovation in market where there's little protection of intellectual property? Those markets are wonderful in copying and enhancing existing ideas. They are craptastic in producing new ones.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Of course you are and that's why asset intensive industries have outperformed the stock market over the last 20 years?

How the !@#$ have you possibly conflated my belief that antiquated models that don't keep up with technology, and are merely protected by bad law, with the fact that those bad laws do still actually exist, and market conditions are actively subject to them?

[4merper4mer]

You're ineptitude lies with the fact that you don't believe businesses can innovate and find new ways to deliver their products without sharing their ideas. I believe that businesses can and will, as they always have. You'd rather protect the antiquated with absurd logical inconsistancies, and the abolishion of free-markets.

 

"My are" ineptitude is what? Huh?

 

Anyway, there is a large difference in a business/person sharing ideas and innovations of their own free will and one being subject to every innovation being immediately commandeered by the rest of the world.

[GG]

 

How the !@#$ have you possibly conflated my belief that antiquated models that don't keep up with technology, and are merely protected by bad law, with the fact that those bad laws do still actually exist, and market conditions are actively subject to them?

 

I could have sworn that I just read a treatise on how intangible assets aren't real property and are not entitled to legal protection, and now you are claiming that laws are outdated? Which specific laws are you talking about?

[4merper4mer]

I could have sworn that I just read a treatise on how intangible assets aren't real property and are not entitled to legal protection, and now you are claiming that laws are outdated? Which specific laws are you talking about?

 

The laws which protect intangible assets. Also known as the laws that make him feel guilty for stealing porn.

Edited July 2, 2013 by 4merper4mer

[TakeYouToTasker]

I could have sworn that I just read a treatise on how intangible assets aren't real property and are not entitled to legal protection, and now you are claiming that laws are outdated? Which specific laws are you talking about?

Stop being obtuse.

[GG]

 

Stop being obtuse.

 

Is that a standard response when you can't answer a question?