John McCain Discontinuing Medical Treatment

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Standard of living was drastically lower when CEO's made 30 times the worker? Seems arbitrary. 

 

There's no question overall economic numbers are terrific. They've been trending that way for awhile now, especially for folks who were already wealthy. It's safe to say deregulation accelerated that growth, environment be damned. I wouldn't think a $15 basement wage is some kind of radical proposal. Companies won't suddenly overhaul the hiring process. They'll continue to employ as few humans as possible. They'll eliminate as many jobs as possible. That's how capitalism works. If you can't pay somebody 15 bucks an hour, maybe you should re-evaluate the business model.

 

I don't think millionaires and billionaires need any help. They're doing just fine. I worry about the lower skilled folks increasingly left behind. Modern technology is a blessing and a curse. Some drastic measures will be needed in the very near future as labor becomes more obsolete.

Yet there is a need for people in the "trades". I've seen advertisements looking for apprentices in the electrical and plumbing fields. I read an article recently that lamented the scarcity of tradesmen. The article mentioned that top flight welders were commanding 250k per year in and around the larger cities. Makes that 150k student debt look pretty silly when the best they can make is a social services job at 16k per year.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

17 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yet there is a need for people in the "trades". I've seen advertisements looking for apprentices in the electrical and plumbing fields. I read an article recently that lamented the scarcity of tradesmen. The article mentioned that top flight welders were commanding 250k per year in and around the larger cities. Makes that 150k student debt look pretty silly when the best they can make is a social services job at 16k per year.

 

That's all well and good for young people. But for people aged 40+, not so much.

 

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

He still has a degree, dammit!

 

Tom, if you can’t understand murder isn’t economics, then I’ve given you too much credit. 

 

If you cant separate an ecological disaster from killing sparrows from economics then I’ve given you far too much credit. 

 

To argue what Stalin did was an accident is revisionist history. Russians do that. Are you Russian?

 

Clearly communism is a proven failed commodity. Because that’s so, one doesn’t need to make craziness up to prove it. The facts themselves are quite clear. I deal with what really happened because doing anything else supports conclusions that are wrong. 

 

Im not arguing with you on it, old man. What Stalin did was murder. Murder isn’t economics. I know how/why it fit into his five year plans. Call it domestic policy for all I care. But not economics. 

 

The book on the failure of communist economics is extensive enough without trying to slip bull **** into it. 

 

Stalin = murderous thug. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Standard of living was drastically lower when CEO's made 30 times the worker? Seems arbitrary. 

 

There's no question overall economic numbers are terrific. They've been trending that way for awhile now, especially for folks who were already wealthy. It's safe to say deregulation accelerated that growth, environment be damned. I wouldn't think a $15 basement wage is some kind of radical proposal. Companies won't suddenly overhaul the hiring process. They'll continue to employ as few humans as possible. They'll eliminate as many jobs as possible. That's how capitalism works. If you can't pay somebody 15 bucks an hour, maybe you should re-evaluate the business model.

 

I don't think millionaires and billionaires need any help. They're doing just fine. I worry about the lower skilled folks increasingly left behind. Modern technology is a blessing and a curse. Some drastic measures will be needed in the very near future as labor becomes more obsolete.

 

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.

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

 

@The_Dude

 

Any updates on this?

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

That's all well and good for young people. But for people aged 40+, not so much.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I would think that a person 40+ would have developed some kind of plan to make him/her valuable in the workforce so employment would not be a problem,

[LSHMEAB]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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?

It always boils down to "they earned it," doesn't it? Without government intervention, capitalism falls on it's face. We've seen that time and time again in this very country.

 

The concepts of common sense equity and merit based wealth are not mutually exclusive. 

 

If Republicans believe in a Lord of the Flies economy, they should just be honest about it. If you want to strip away Medicare, Social Security, monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc., just be honest. Some of us think a few steps forward could actually be beneficial.

 

[The_Dude]

27 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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 don’t respect you enough to continue in this. 

 

You’re googling. You’re a phony. I’m educated. But keep up with that Russian propaganda?

 

Stalin is revered in Russia. Did you know? Of course you did. You know everything. 

9 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

It always boils down to "they earned it," doesn't it? Without government intervention, capitalism falls on it's face. We've seen that time and time again in this very country.

 

The concepts of common sense equity and merit based wealth are not mutually exclusive. 

 

If Republicans believe in a Lord of the Flies economy, they should just be honest about it. If you want to strip away Medicare, Social Security, monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc., just be honest. Some of us think a few steps forward could actually be beneficial.

 

 

I read an incredible article arguing against the invisible hand and basically stating what your stating. I wish I could remember where I read it. 

 

I think you’re right. To a limit. Bismarck’s liberal reforms did great things for Germans. And Bismarck was no liberal. His reasons weren’t really benevolent. But the results were good. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

54 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

It always boils down to "they earned it," doesn't it?

 

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.

 

Quote

Without government intervention, capitalism falls on it's face. We've seen that time and time again in this very country.

 

Wait, what?

 

Please provide a detailed analysis.
 

Quote

The concepts of common sense equity and merit based wealth are not mutually exclusive.

 

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.

 

Quote

If Republicans believe in a Lord of the Flies economy, they should just be honest about it.

 

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.

 

Quote

If you want to strip away Medicare, Social Security

 

I suppose the proper view is to endorse bankrupt Ponzi schemes imposed at the barrel of a gun?

 

Quote

monopoly laws

 

Monopolies are a creation of the state.

 

Quote

minimum wage laws, unemployment, etc. just be honest.

 

They are.

 

Quote

us think a few steps forward could actually be beneficial.

 

That would be libertarians and conservatives.  What you're suggesting is a leap backwards.

 

 

45 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I don’t respect you enough to continue in this. 

 

You’re googling. You’re a phony. I’m educated. But keep up with that Russian propaganda?

 

Stalin is revered in Russia. Did you know? Of course you did. You know everything. 

 

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.

Edited August 29, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
Even this idiot didn't deserve the stolen valor quip. Thank you for your service, jackass.

[/dev/null]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

The fourth...

May the fourth be with you

[DC Tom]

39 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I don’t respect you enough to continue in this. 

 

You’re googling. You’re a phony. I’m educated. But keep up with that Russian propaganda?

 

Stalin is revered in Russia. Did you know? Of course you did. You know everything. 

 

Good Lord.  How did you ever get any sort of diploma?  Stop digging, chucklehead.

[4merper4mer]

4 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

Oh, should I read the book by “Hayek?” 

 

Hows about Ive read a great deal on Russia, especially the late 19th-mid 20th century because that’s what people with history degrees do. They read. And I don’t believe I ever read “Hayek.” 

 

But yeah, let me put that to the top of my list to appease you. 

 

Youre so obnoxious. It’s obvious you’re a ‘googler.’ 

 

Dont confuse use your google search bar with my degree. 

I rather read Hayek than listen to her annoying voice, that's for sure.

[The_Dude]

15 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Good Lord.  How did you ever get any sort of diploma?  Stop digging, chucklehead.

 

I know in economics class ain’t nobody ever brought up genocide. Foolish old man. 

14 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I rather read Hayek than listen to her annoying voice, that's for sure.

 

I’m unfamiliar with the author. Actually, I rarely consider the author when reading unless I’m a fanboy of the author. Right now I’m reading a phenomenal book on WWI, The Guns of August, and I couldn’t tell you the authors name. Some woman. British I’d wager too based on the constant, repetitive theme of the book that the whole shindig got started because of the Kaiser being a dick, and trying to compensate for his little hand. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I know in economics class ain’t nobody ever brought up genocide. Foolish old man. 

 

I’m unfamiliar with the author. Actually, I rarely consider the author when reading unless I’m a fanboy of the author. Right now I’m reading a phenomenal book on WWI, The Guns of August, and I couldn’t tell you the authors name. Some woman. British I’d wager too based on the constant, repetitive theme of the book that the whole shindig got started because of the Kaiser being a dick, and trying to compensate for his little hand. 

 

So much unintentional awesome in this post.

 

I wish I could jar this and sell it.

[The_Dude]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

 

 

I just googled because I was curious about your "book." Ya know why I'm not familiar with it? Because it's not a history book. I mean, if Hayek stays relevant for a couple hundred more years you could cite it as a primary source and such, but it's not a !@#$ing history book. 

 

See, the title intrigued me because if the book was about Stalin starving folks, based on the name I figured 'maybe the author is arguing that Stalin's actions continued the serfdom that the Bolshevik's promised to rid Russia of.' And that's an argument I could enjoy. But that's not what the book is about. It's not even about Stalin. 

 

So your book, is not a book on what happened during the incident we're talking about. It's a man arguing his thoughts. And what's really funny is that if you click on the reception on Wikipedia the first name that comes up is the very neo-liberal economist who I pointed to in the beginning debating your know-nothing-dumbass, Keynes. Keynes who's economic thought was influential on FDR and whose theories helped bring the country out of the Great Depression (que the rapid conservatives who mention WWII -- and they're not wrong accept when they try to take credit from Keynes) and Obama used Keynesian economics to bring us out of the great recession. 

 

You're a know-nothing with a google search engine. Sure, you're clever, but you're a know-nothing. 

 

Great book to back your point about what happened, lol. !@#$in' idiot. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by The_Dude

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

I just googled because I was curious about your "book." Ya know why I'm not familiar with it? Because it's not a history book. I mean, if Hayek stays relevant for a couple hundred more years you could cite it as a primary source and such, but it's not a !@#$ing history book. 

 

See, the title intrigued me because if the book was about Stalin starving folks, based on the name I figured 'maybe the author is arguing that Stalin's actions continued the serfdom that the Bolshevik's promised to rid Russia of.' 

 

So your book, is not a book on what happened during the incident we're talking about. It's a man arguing his thoughts. And what's really funny is that if you click on the reception on Wikipedia the first name that comes up is the very neo-liberal economist who I pointed to in the beginning debating your know-nothing-dumbass, Keynes. Keynes who's economic thought was influential on FDR and whose theories helped bring the country out of the Great Depression (que the rapid conservatives who mention WWII -- and they're not wrong accept when they try to take credit from Keynes) and Obama used Keynesian economics to bring us out of the great recession. 

 

You're a know-nothing with a google search engine. Sure, you're clever, but you're a know-nothing. 

 

Great book to back your point about what happened, lol. !@#$in' idiot. 

 

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.

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So much unintentional awesome in this post.

 

I wish I could jar this and sell it.

 

Seriously.

 

How the !@#$ do you get a college degree and maintain the attitude "I rarely consider the author?"  Most of my library, I don't even know the titles.  I know they're written by Ericson, Werth, Clark, Applebaum, Solzhenitsyn, Glantz, House....

 

How do you get through college not being taught that practice?

 

Goddammit...and Chucklehead is reading Tuchmann now, too.  Now he's going to be irretrievably stupid on yet ANOTHER subject.  I sense ignorant rants about tanks vs. Machine guns and battlecruiser designs in our future.  It's already pissing me off.

[The_Dude]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

 

No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Economic thought and criticizing communism may entail some examples but it’s not a history book. You deserve no respect and you’ll get none from me. By the way, if you’re ever in Atlanta let me know — I’d love to meet you. And down here — we carry! 

 

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

 

 

You're only figuring that out now?  I've known it for months.

 

You've either been ignoring him, or giving him far too much of the benefit of the doubt.  

[The_Dude]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Seriously.

 

How the !@#$ do you get a college degree and maintain the attitude "I rarely consider the author?"  Most of my library, I don't even know the titles.  I know they're written by Ericson, Werth, Clark, Applebaum, Solzhenitsyn, Glantz, House....

 

How do you get through college not being taught that practice?

 

Goddammit...and Chucklehead is reading Tuchmann now, too.  Now he's going to be irretrievably stupid on yet ANOTHER subject.  I sense ignorant rants about tanks vs. Machine guns and battlecruiser designs in our future.  It's already pissing me off.

 

You’re an idiot. 

 

I know and have studied WWI from a diplomatic perspective and I asked a professor friend of mine for a book on the monarchal aspects of the conflict. 

 

I dont care to debate a man on battle tactics who’s never heard the clap or zing of a bullet as it just barely misses him. I have no desire to talk tactics with a man who has never heard the sound of indirect fire making that “swooshing” sound — “silent death” my ass. You can hear it. And I have. You are an old man who’s read about things I’ve done. Nothing more. 

 

Ya know Tom, I’d never ask you to reveal you’re real name — but I’d LOVE to read one of your books to see how good ya really are. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by The_Dude

[meazza]

19 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

There are no better examples than Holodomor or the Great Leap Forward.

 

Did you even read your own post?

Hold the door ?