Momahr Kadaffy Duck, the dick tator bye bye, see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Momahr Kadaffy Duck, the dick tator bye bye, see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

If the Libyan dictator is still alive, he is sure to be on the run or in hiding. Tripoli AND his compound have been taken over. It is safe to say he is no longer in control.

Bye bye you human piece of shit, glad to see you go.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Kapkao

Beyond Saving wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

I already knew about those, though it did not occur to me that they were Keynesian. Any others?

And that is kind of my point. Keynesian theories have become so mainstream that they are almost universally accepted as immutable. To even discuss changing SS, medicare or the income tax is highly controversial and the questions of whether or not the government even should be doing these things is a realm left only to the most "extreme" wings of politics. 

 

We have simply accepted that government should have an active role in the economy. Our government has taken an active role in trying to force unemployment to low levels, trying to maintain a high level of consumerism to avoid recessions and the idea that it is possible and desirable to control/limit the swings inherent in the free market business cycle. Our political argument has gone from "should the government be involved" and "should the government spend money" to how much it should be involved and what it should spend money on. The republicans pushing for a ridiculously large military, the democrats for a ridiculously large welfare state. Both of which are justified through keynesian theory while in reality, both are driving us to bankruptcy.

 

Even the tax argument, it has almost been conceded that it is necessary to tax the more successful at a higher percentage which has the practical result of taxing those sectors of the economy that are booming at a high rate (therefore slowing the boom), while reducing taxes (and often subsidizing) those areas that are in recession. It also serves the keynesian belief that demand is best driven by increasing the funds available to the lower classes. Republicans and democrats argue over the exact rates, but very few- and no President in living memory- suggest a flat fixed rate or that incomes ought not be taxed at all. 

 

We have accepted consistent inflation as inevitable and desirable, government deficits as the normal course of business and the federal reserve controlling our currency without question. I guess the real question is exactly which fiscal policies have we pursued that aren't keynesian? 

 

If you are interested in more on how keynesian theories have brought about our current welfare(ish) state I would refer you to a very good essay written by Gregory Bresiger- http://mises.org/journals/essays/bresiger.pdf 

 

Although, it is noteworthy that some economists argue that Keynes himself was not keynesian in the sense that many of the policies that his theories (or misunderstanding of his theories) are used to justify would not necessarily have been supported by the man himself. 

 

 

What would make you happy Beyond? We already have a crappy minimum wage. Why not keep the cost of living high and pay workers 25cents an hour?

And how the fuck do you think the Hoover dam got built? Private contractors working in concert with GOVERNMENT. And for what? Electricity which is a public utility run by private contractors. But what the hell, lets not build anything collectively because that might make things better for all classes.

Your Yellow Brick road utopia bullshit walk through economic history and theory wont wash here. WE are in our current conditions because of ONE CLASS. We are not in this condition because of the poor or middle class mooching off government. We are in this because the top two percent have bought off both parties so they can drive down wages, explode profits and sit on their money and ship jobs overseas.

AGAIN, NO ONE HERE WANTS a Stalin like government. EVERYONE HERE values the idea of competition and an open market.

What we are headed for and will end up looking like is the same slave wages of India and China. We are a society of indentured slaves because of your bullshit attitude of "every man for themselves".

Until the top two percent start giving a shit about the middle class and poor and quit blaming them for the bubbles they create and dump the losses on the rest of us. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO BITCH ABOUT THE OTHER TWO CLASSES asking for help from government.

THE SOLUTION IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FUCKING FACE. START GIVING A SHIT AND THAT, AND THAT ALONE WILL CREATE the environment in which less people will depend on government.

But if all you want to do is cry "ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE" we will look like the sweat shops of India and China. THAT may be your idea of competition, but it damned sure will never be my idea of competition.

Egypt is a perfect example of what happens when a monopoly is created. The only difference between Mubarack's monopoly and America's monopoly is one monopoly was run by a dictator and our monopoly is run by one class paying off both parties make the rules that have created the cost of living and pay gaps.

MONOPOLIES of power, can and do happen in BOTH the public and private sector. OUR government has a Constitution that has a First Amendment, that is an anti monopoly law. Why the fuck you think big money (not as individuals, but as a climate) in this country has not had a detrimental affect is absurd.

You want less regulation and less government, THEN START GIVING A SHIT.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Go study some world

 Go study some world economics. China, Egypt and Libya are all examples of large scale government intervention in the economy. The polar opposite of what I advocate.

 

India used to be such an example but since the late 80's government began to withdraw from economic intervention. While there is still a large amount of government regulation and intrusion in some sectors and states, the economy of India has been rapidly improving as it turns to free market solutions. GDP has been increasing rapidly, poverty has been dropping, income has been rising, education rising and life expectancy rising. If India continues on its current course it will be an economic power to be reckoned with and the upcoming generation will experience a much more comfortable life than their parents. No matter how you look at the data, India's economy is headed in the right direction and as I understand it, India has made great strides in personal freedom as well.

 

There is also a very direct correlation between the states/economic sectors with the most freedom and those that have been growing the fastest.

 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/8/48108317.pdf

 

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=23117

 

http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/news/prmar07.pdf

 

If you want to attack my position using other countries you should focus on singapore or hong kong which are much closer to my economic views but fail spectacularly in some areas. I wouldn't recommend their systems but at least they have some similarity to what I propose instead of being opposite.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, where did you get the idea that the first amendment is in any way related to monopolies?

 

Perhaps you meant the Sherman Act, which does not block monopolies from forming so much as how they may behave when they already exist.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I you all won't mind a

If you all won't mind a little pointless pedantry...

 

1st World=technically the old Comintern

2nd World=Allies

3rd World=Neutral territory that Allies and Commies fight a covert or "Cold" war over.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Go

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Go study some world economics. China, Egypt and Libya are all examples of large scale government intervention in the economy. The polar opposite of what I advocate.

 

India used to be such an example but since the late 80's government began to withdraw from economic intervention. While there is still a large amount of government regulation and intrusion in some sectors and states, the economy of India has been rapidly improving as it turns to free market solutions. GDP has been increasing rapidly, poverty has been dropping, income has been rising, education rising and life expectancy rising. If India continues on its current course it will be an economic power to be reckoned with and the upcoming generation will experience a much more comfortable life than their parents. No matter how you look at the data, India's economy is headed in the right direction and as I understand it, India has made great strides in personal freedom as well.

 

There is also a very direct correlation between the states/economic sectors with the most freedom and those that have been growing the fastest.

 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/8/48108317.pdf

 

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=23117

 

http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/news/prmar07.pdf

 

If you want to attack my position using other countries you should focus on singapore or hong kong which are much closer to my economic views but fail spectacularly in some areas. I wouldn't recommend their systems but at least they have some similarity to what I propose instead of being opposite.

Here you go again.

You want to take the success of countries who advocate slave wages as a model for the "free market"?

Again, by your standard, if we just fuck all regulation, fuck any social safety net, and let business "compete" we can do as well as India and China?

All you are advocating is money equals power. You hate the rights of the workers to bargain with business owners.

MY hours have been cut despite that the new owner is making record profits prior to the last owner.

That is what China and India are doing. Their market is the same as ours "whatever the market can get away with".

You love India's and China's success so much, I dare you to work for one month on the pay of their poor.

It is a race to the bottom and you are too fucking blind to see it.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16422
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, where did you get the idea that the first amendment is in any way related to monopolies?

 

Perhaps you meant the Sherman Act, which does not block monopolies from forming so much as how they may behave when they already exist.

 

Oh,ok so monopolies are ok?

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

If they allowed monopolies why write it like that? If they didn't care about monopolies why not say, "Smear the queer, whomever gets the ball wins the prize'?

 

If monopolies were ok, then whomever got on top could write the laws to oppress others. But, I guess that is not a monopoly.

Bullshit, what you are saying is that it is ok for majorities to exist. DUH, but the entire First Amendment, while allowing for flexing in majority/vs majority. Is also written so that the minority doesn't always have to get stuck in that role "just because" the majority says so.

"The right to petition the government for a redress of grievance"

I don't know how you cannot see the First Amendment as being the anti-trust law it clearly is.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

While it does not say it will play favorites to the majority or minority, it clearly says that no one is entitled by proxy of " I have power" or "majority rules" automatically maintains their power.

THAT is an anti-trust law. Something the republican party shits on as an idea.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Brian, I don't get why you are saying that monopolies are automatically impermissible. There are lots of monopolies in existence. Microsoft is a monopoly as are many phone companies and utilities. Mass transit systems, state run liquor stores and so forth. The list is actually pretty long.

 

The basic idea is that one player so dominates a market that they can control prices of products and services with a heavy hand and shut out economic competition by effectively limiting new players from entering the market.

 

Religion in America is effectively not that specifically because of the establishment clause. Think about what could happen if the establishment clause were not there. One religion could come to dominate a legislature and pass a law mandating itself to be the official religion. Then follow on with that that you could only vote if you were a regular attendee and their weekend party. I suppose that in that limited sense it keeps the field open to all players.

 

The issue that we face is not that there is an official religion but rather that dipshits from a broad spectrum of religions, many of who are fairly bitter rivals, can come together on the idea that we somehow live in a christian nation.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I think I know how Khadaffy

I think I know how Khadaffy keeps getting away....

 

Rebel leader: Alright Rabbit, Where's Momahr?

Loyalist: He's not in this Stove!

RL: Oh, so he's hiding in the stove, eh?

Loyalist: Would I turn on the gas, if my pal Momahr was in there?

RL You Might rabbit, you Might.

Loyalist: would I have the tamarity to toss in a lighted match, if my bosom chum Momahr was encased therin?

RL: Alright rabbit, You've convinced me.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Dont count out the Military ..

 

Quote:
Beyond Saving wrote: Guess I am a cynic, but I would put my money on a new dictator, oligarchy or other authoritarian government taking over. Libya does not have the groundwork to implement anything that approaches a western democracy.

 

 

 These bastardy types dont do it alone. Usually the military wheels alot of power (the 'one' needs the other). The analog is ancient history (literally).

 

p.s. -- Rich Woods .. too funny; luv that.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Go study some world economics. China, Egypt and Libya are all examples of large scale government intervention in the economy. The polar opposite of what I advocate.

 

India used to be such an example but since the late 80's government began to withdraw from economic intervention. While there is still a large amount of government regulation and intrusion in some sectors and states, the economy of India has been rapidly improving as it turns to free market solutions. GDP has been increasing rapidly, poverty has been dropping, income has been rising, education rising and life expectancy rising. If India continues on its current course it will be an economic power to be reckoned with and the upcoming generation will experience a much more comfortable life than their parents. No matter how you look at the data, India's economy is headed in the right direction and as I understand it, India has made great strides in personal freedom as well.

 

There is also a very direct correlation between the states/economic sectors with the most freedom and those that have been growing the fastest.

 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/8/48108317.pdf

 

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=23117

 

http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/news/prmar07.pdf

 

If you want to attack my position using other countries you should focus on singapore or hong kong which are much closer to my economic views but fail spectacularly in some areas. I wouldn't recommend their systems but at least they have some similarity to what I propose instead of being opposite.

Here you go again.

You want to take the success of countries who advocate slave wages as a model for the "free market"?

Again, by your standard, if we just fuck all regulation, fuck any social safety net, and let business "compete" we can do as well as India and China?

All you are advocating is money equals power. You hate the rights of the workers to bargain with business owners.

MY hours have been cut despite that the new owner is making record profits prior to the last owner.

That is what China and India are doing. Their market is the same as ours "whatever the market can get away with".

You love India's and China's success so much, I dare you to work for one month on the pay of their poor.

It is a race to the bottom and you are too fucking blind to see it.

 

 

Did you even read the fucking post? The whole point of it was to show how neither India nor China HAVE a free market although India is slowly moving in that direction (and the improvement of their poverty problem is strongly correlated with their movement towards a free market). India is far less free than the US economically, so I would vehemently oppose becoming "more like India" because I believe we should be more free than we are now. You can find countries ranked by relative economic freedom here http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking, I support moving the US higher on that list. You will note that all the countries you randomly compare my views to are way down the list.

 

FFS, if your going to compare my views to something, at least compare them to something with a few similarities. I even gave you a little hint as to which countries you might want to focus your attacks on that have real similarities to what I argue for, because anyone with an ounce of familiarity with the economics of India, China, Libya etc. knows that their systems bear virtually no resemblance to what I argue for and in many ways are the exact opposite. 

 

Race to the bottom? Fucking prove it. You throw around more naked assertions than an old man in a nudist colony. If all you have is to throw out CHINA!......INDIA!....... ANARCHY!!!, your argument is arbitrary, baseless and pointless. Show me exactly what policy I would support that has been implemented with negative results.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X