The_Dude Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 25 minutes ago, DC Tom said: What retarded definition of "economics" are you using that dekulakization wasn't an economic decision? You are truly, deeply stupid. The part where it was willful genocide and not a byproduct of economic stupidity, you old fool. ‘Hey Tom, grow grain, and if I see you eat any I’m gonna kill you!’ That’s not an economic failure. An economic failure was when Churchill went back to the gold standard. Do you see the difference? Stalin was being a dick. On purpose. Intentionally starving people isn’t economics.
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 i'm not even going to bother reading that, you stoner knucklehead.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 26 minutes ago, The_Dude said: The part where it was willful genocide and not a byproduct of economic stupidity, you old fool. ‘Hey Tom, grow grain, and if I see you eat any I’m gonna kill you!’ That’s not an economic failure. An economic failure was when Churchill went back to the gold standard. Do you see the difference? Stalin was being a dick. On purpose. Intentionally starving people isn’t economics. 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. 1
The_Dude Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 49 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: 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. Dude you’re a jackass. Willful genocide is NOT an economic position. But let’s break down your post here. Your first paragraph states: ‘you lost the argument.’ That’s a definitive statement that you just concluded. In that case, clouds are made out of pancakes because I said so. Your second paragraph is what people like you do. You don’t know what you’re talking about so you pack your paragraph with “big” words to try to sound smart but in the end you said nothing. Your paragraph could read: “You’re wrong cause I say you’re wrong.” That’s all you ever write. That’s all you’re capable of. The funny thing is you tut-tutting around acting like you’re in the know. You’re not. You’re a jackass with a keyboard and a digital thesaurus. ???
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: Dude you’re a jackass. Willful genocide is NOT an economic position. 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. Your first paragraph states: ‘you lost the argument.’ That’s a definitive statement that you just concluded. In that case, clouds are made out of pancakes because I said so. 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. Your second paragraph is what people like you do. You don’t know what you’re talking about so you pack your paragraph with “big” words to try to sound smart but in the end you said nothing. Your paragraph could read: “You’re wrong cause I say you’re wrong.” That’s all you ever write. That’s all you’re capable of. 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"? The funny thing is you tut-tutting around acting like you’re in the know. You’re not. You’re a jackass with a keyboard and a digital thesaurus. I think we can let the reader decide. Edited August 29, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 4 minutes 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[/I], 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. And lets not forget: he didn't originally say "genocide," he said starvation.
The_Dude Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 3 minutes 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[/I], 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. Oh my god, kid. This message board is really important to you, huh? Look at how much time you just spent to convince people who don’t know you that you know what you’re talking about! That’s really sad. I really feel bad for you. Wow. That’s sad. Scary actually. Wow. How long did that take you? Is that how much you need this “community?” Anyways, don’t confuse your google search bar with my degree.
The_Dude Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 15 minutes 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[/I], 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. 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.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 12 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Oh my god, kid. This message board is really important to you, huh? Look at how much time you just spent to convince people who don’t know you that you know what you’re talking about! That’s really sad. I really feel bad for you. Wow. That’s sad. Scary actually. Wow. How long did that take you? Is that how much you need this “community?” Anyways, don’t confuse your google search bar with my degree. So, in other words, this is your mea culpa. kitty.
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: So, in other words, this is your mea culpa. kitty. Because no one else, in the history of anything, ever had a degree.
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Because no one else, in the history of anything, ever had a degree. 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. 15 minutes 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. 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. Edited August 29, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: This might be my favorite meltdown since NDBUFFCUSE of whatever his name was. "I HAVE A DEGREE GODDAMNIT!!!!" I have THREE degrees, so I must be three times as smart as him. Soon I'll have a fourth, then I'll be even SMARTER.
Koko78 Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 11 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I have THREE degrees, so I must be three times as smart as him. Soon I'll have a fourth, then I'll be even SMARTER. Yeah, but are any of them advanced degrees in history? Or just that useless crap like physics? 1
The_Dude Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 25 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: So, in other words, this is your mea culpa. kitty. Ya know, I only know a little latin. I bet without google translate, that’s all you know. Don’t use a language you don’t know. But you can’t help it can you? You like to pretend to be all-knowing and you don’t even know what we’re talking about. I’ve written research papers on it. Ya know what I do when I don’t know something? I ask questions if I’m interested to learn more. I usually say ‘hi, I’m not familiar with this subject. Can you tell me a bit?’ You, you google and pretend to be able to lecture. Phony. 8 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I have THREE degrees, so I must be three times as smart as him. Soon I'll have a fourth, then I'll be even SMARTER. I never used that logic. Degrees do not equal intelligence. They do indicated an academic familiarity and training.
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: Yeah, but are any of them advanced degrees in history? Or just that useless crap like physics? The fourth...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 1 hour 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?
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: @The_Dude Any updates on this? He still has a degree, dammit!
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: He still has a degree, dammit! 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.
LSHMEAB Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 21 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You aren't "naturally opposed to it". You've chosen to be opposed to it because you've chosen to subscribe to a set of economic theories which have directly led to the extermination and starvation of millions of people over the last century; while at the same time ignoring the fact that the standard of living of the poorest Americans was drastically lower during the time when CEOs made 30 times what laborers made. 85% of the cuts went to the top 1% because that's who pays all the taxes. The top 1% pays more than 40% of all taxes, and more than the bottom 95% of tax payers combined. Relief naturally goes to the emburdened. Where else could it go? And the results? Consumer confidence at an 18 year high Record low black unemployment US jobless rate at an 18 year low.[/I] US "real" unemployment rate at a 17 year low, and falling faster than the official rate. The falling away of pre-employment drug testing as employers struggle to find enough qualified candidates. The DOW stabilizing near a record high. 401k savings at a record high. 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.
Recommended Posts