Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:People can be dicks, within the bounds of the law,

How do you enforce these laws? Because the government currently can't even manage to do that, so I don't think decreasing the government is a good idea.

Snorri1234 wrote:And the nature of humans ensures that no truly free market will ever exist.

Nice to see you admit that humans have a sin nature.

DangerBoy wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:And the nature of humans ensures that no truly free market will ever exist.

Nice to see you admit that humans have a sin nature.

Without human nature there wouldn't be wars, religion, oppression, slavery, genocide and all that.

But then again neither would there be charity, healthcare, love, people who treat other people nicely and so on.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Think of it as Darwinian natural selection: for companies and business. Sure, it won't be perfect, but empirically, throughout history, the freer the economy, the more prosperous society becomes.

right, but that's assuming everyone remains on a level and fair playing field.

as soon as one company gets big enough (say, Walmart for example) they have the ammo and war chest to stomp on all of the mom and pop shops that have ably served the community for ages.

that ceases to be a free market economy. which is why regulation is necessary. Snorri was and is absolutely right.

and look, i've read Adam Smith (required to in college) -- and i like his ideas the same as i like the ideas i was exposed to in the Marx-Engels Reader. but like Snorri said, it's all idyllic. put into practice, modifications and regulations must be enforced.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:People can be dicks, within the bounds of the law,

How do you enforce these laws? Because the government currently can't even manage to do that, so I don't think decreasing the government is a good idea.

You enforce them by stopping the huge wastage of time, effort and money that goes into enforcing the retarded ones (eg the ones on not carrying the post for profit, on restricting trade, on TV lincenses, on rent control, on "fair" minimum wages, on drugs, etc...).

The only role of government is to guarantee thatone man's freedom won't impinge on anothers. The governments role, in short, as one US Supreme Court Justice put it, is to guarantee "my right to move my fist through space, but to limit in so far as it doesn't threaten your chin's right to exist within that space."

Reminisco brings up the issue technical monopolies: true, they exist, but better the private than public sector has that monopoly, or it will never be broken whereas the circumstances ensuring that a certain technical monopoly exists change constantly, leading to the eventual return to a "level" playing field. Wal-Mart only survives by providing low-cost service, it stopped doing that, smaller and medium-sized retailers would quickly swamp it.

Pick up some of Friedman's boy anarcho-capitalistic info. Can't say that I buy in completely, but this consumeristic society that we are in now with government-protected/subsidized capitalism is for the fukcing birds. Every large company waddles up to the trough, and the tax n' spend neo-cons and Democrats are using our tax money to fund the whole operation. Either the government needs to get out of the economy or control it more, this haphazard system is dragging the American economy to the shithouse. Give me Ron Paul or Obama , but McCain is more of the same.

Napoleon Ier wrote: "my right to move my fist through space, but to limit in so far as it doesn't threaten your chin's right to exist within that space."

Fantastic quote.

Snorri1234 wrote:Well the main thing about humble beginnings and all that is that would make ceo's care more about their workers. I gather you're familiar with companies who lay off (or fire as normal people say) a few hundred workers but have CEO's who aren't suffering anything?

If they didn't lay off people they wouldn't be able to stay in business. You're acting as if these CEO's are sitting high up in an office and laughing as they hand out pink slips. You're stating this as if you know what's going on while the companies are downsizing. People do not have a right to employment despite what the Democrats would tell you.

Snorri1234 wrote:Because those companies rule this globe.

If that were true then nobody would be allowed to speak up against them.

Snorri1234 wrote:It's not the preventing a negative image, it's preventing that image by doing rather immoral things. Bribing former workers so they won't tell the press and all that.

Where? When? Dates? You're making a general statement again without providing a source. Hell, I could do that. I'm not saying it never happens but that it is rare because eventually they get caught and above all it's bad for business! Hardly anybody goes to Sears automotive repair anymore because they've been caught lying. You seem to not trust people to have the common sense to not do business with companies that are dishonest.

If you automatically think of big companies as the bad guys then I would ask why you have such a bigoted view against them? I'll ask this again - provide specific instances where big companies are hurting people from reputable sources, not left-wing papers or internet sites.

Snorri1234 wrote:Bullshit, the reason for it is that insurance-companies like big profits. For this reason they hire people whose job it is to deny their costumers money due to them not having disclosed all information about their health ever.

Like I'm so sure during the interview they are asking them, 'So, one of our requirements here at Big Profit Insurance is to deny customers their money that they are owed. In the job description you'll have to make sure that these customers are never allowed to access all their health information. How can you help us accomplish this?' They wouldn't be allowed to do business in the U.S. if this was actually happening. I think you have a real distorted view of how businesses operate and a real mistrust of people in general. It's never good business to screw over customers.

Snorri1234 wrote:Your problem is that you think "for profit" is always a good idea. You don't recognise instances that are unique and work better without free market thinking. This thinking has led to the closing down of almost every postoffice in my country and the privatizing of that sector for example, because managers think it's a company like any other without recognising the unique function of mail delivering. Some things are not meant to be profitable in themselves but merely help other things make profit. The service they provide is unique and essential, trying to squeeze money out of it will only cause problems.

I'm going to shock you and agree with you. There are services such as mail delivery and defense which are unique. Don't have a fucking heart attack.

reminisco wrote:the government built and maintains the interstate highway system in the USA, and although it was built for the purpose of defense, it stimulated entirely new "free economies". the same way the Postal Service aided information economies.

No way! They came up with the plan and helped fund it along with the states. They subcontracted out the work in a majority of cases in order to build it because private companies could do the job better. There was govt. oversight and standards but the actual work was done mostly by general contractors & private construction firms. It was a partnership. Our defense dept. does the same thing by subcontracting out work to companies who build our ships, tanks, etc.

But if the govt. wanted to be a competitor in any area then I would be all for it. Let's see who does the best job of providing whatever the product is to the people efficiently.

Autotoad wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: "my right to move my fist through space, but to limit in so far as it doesn't threaten your chin's right to exist within that space."



Fantastic quote.

Especially if you have seen his chin. . .

bradleybadly wrote:

reminisco wrote:the government built and maintains the interstate highway system in the USA, and although it was built for the purpose of defense, it stimulated entirely new "free economies". the same way the Postal Service aided information economies.

No way! They came up with the plan and helped fund it along with the states. They subcontracted out the work in a majority of cases in order to build it because private companies could do the job better. There was govt. oversight and standards but the actual work was done mostly by general contractors & private construction firms. It was a partnership. Our defense dept. does the same thing by subcontracting out work to companies who build our ships, tanks, etc.

But if the govt. wanted to be a competitor in any area then I would be all for it. Let's see who does the best job of providing whatever the product is to the people efficiently.

okay, this is called missing the forest for the trees. of course the WORK was contracted out. but the conception of and funding for came entirely from the gov't. but who collects the tolls? who is in charge of maintenance, expansion, law enforcement, etc? -- the gov't. if they contract out to fills specific roles, that's one thing, but the gov't is still in charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/busin ... ref=slogin

good essay by Ben Stein.

reminisco wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

reminisco wrote:the government built and maintains the interstate highway system in the USA, and although it was built for the purpose of defense, it stimulated entirely new "free economies". the same way the Postal Service aided information economies.

No way! They came up with the plan and helped fund it along with the states. They subcontracted out the work in a majority of cases in order to build it because private companies could do the job better. There was govt. oversight and standards but the actual work was done mostly by general contractors & private construction firms. It was a partnership. Our defense dept. does the same thing by subcontracting out work to companies who build our ships, tanks, etc.

But if the govt. wanted to be a competitor in any area then I would be all for it. Let's see who does the best job of providing whatever the product is to the people efficiently.

okay, this is called missing the forest for the trees. of course the WORK was contracted out. but the conception of and funding for came entirely from the gov't. but who collects the tolls? who is in charge of maintenance, expansion, law enforcement, etc? -- the gov't. if they contract out to fills specific roles, that's one thing, but the gov't is still in charge.

Right...so (as a general example, I reckon roads are one offew instances in which the government, in the name of National Security, can step in) the government raises taxes, inhibiting productivity and trampling rights, to build things which could just as easily be built and maintained for profit by private companies (notice how if the operation is profitable, the best equipped and able private institution can step in and provide the service at marginal cost), which borrow the money as an investment from independant banking authorities (no need for any governmental FRS or *shudder* European Bank, and this acts as an etra barrier, as sensible banks which know they can't rely on being bailed out by a socialist government won't invest in shaky assets/loan money to irresponsible corporations) and return it as the profits roll in. If they don't, that company goes bust, and amore efficient one steps in. Even better: rather than giving the profits to welfare slackers/arab immigrant leeches, they give it to banks to re-invest in new & exciting sectors, and to improve their existing infrastructure to keep staving off competition. Hey presto: you have your expanded economy and new & better infrastructure. Sans bond-printing tax-raising government taking your hard-earned money.

reminisco wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business/06ben.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Ben+Stein+In+the+Boardroom&st=nyt&oref=slogin

good essay by Ben Stein.

Aye...but if he fucks up, he loses it all. If anything, his higher pay makes him all the more likely to be extra-super-caerful with how he manages the economy.

Besides, do you think the government doesn't have this kind of corruption infesting it? I mean, last I checked, managed economies weren't abound with shining examples of virtuous directors

reminisco wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business/06ben.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Ben+Stein+In+the+Boardroom&st=nyt&oref=slogin

good essay by Ben Stein.

::hiss::

Neoteny wrote:

reminisco wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business/06ben.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Ben+Stein+In+the+Boardroom&st=nyt&oref=slogin

good essay by Ben Stein.

::hiss::

You're...you're...a...capitalist?!

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

reminisco wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business/06ben.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Ben+Stein+In+the+Boardroom&st=nyt&oref=slogin

good essay by Ben Stein.

::hiss::

You're...you're...a...capitalist?!

Well, yes, though not as full-blown as you. I'm just anti-Steinist

reminisco wrote:okay, this is called missing the forest for the trees.

No it's called making you present the truth instead of trying to make it look like the govt. did it all by itself. If it was so fucking obvious then you could have made that point but you didn't.

reminisco wrote:the conception of and funding for came entirely from the gov't. but who collects the tolls?

Even a basic google search would show you you're wrong on that. The private sector also came up with ideas for how to construct the highway system.

reminisco wrote:if they contract out to fills specific roles, that's one thing, but the gov't is still in charge.

Look, the whole point I'm making but you won't accept is that the govt. was unable to carry out the construction of the highways. They had to use private companies to help complete the project because they do a better job at it.

Yes, the govt. should have oversight. I don't disagree with that and perhaps this is where I'd agree with Snorri about making them accountable.

take a few deep breaths.

stop hyperventilating.

reminisco wrote:take a few deep breaths.

stop hyperventilating.

open up a history book

read it and stop making up shit

bradleybadly wrote:

reminisco wrote:take a few deep breaths.

stop hyperventilating.

open up a history book

read it and stop making up shit

and you were doing so well up until that post, bradley

McCain is a Nazi loving bastard!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFFOQ1gV84Y&NR=1

Napoleon Ier wrote:

reminisco wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business/06ben.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Ben+Stein+In+the+Boardroom&st=nyt&oref=slogin

good essay by Ben Stein.

Aye...but if he fucks up, he loses it all. If anything, his higher pay makes him all the more likely to be extra-super-caerful with how he manages the economy.

Besides, do you think the government doesn't have this kind of corruption infesting it? I mean, last I checked, managed economies weren't abound with shining examples of virtuous directors

True. But at least with government you can put in regulations limiting their pay.

Like I'm so sure during the interview they are asking them, 'So, one of our requirements here at Big Profit Insurance is to deny customers their money that they are owed. In the job description you'll have to make sure that these customers are never allowed to access all their health information. How can you help us accomplish this?' They wouldn't be allowed to do business in the U.S. if this was actually happening. I think you have a real distorted view of how businesses operate and a real mistrust of people in general. It's never good business to screw over customers.

It isn't that they're not allowed to acces all their health information, it's that they are denied payment because they didn't disclose their full serious medical history. The insuree has to tell what serious injuries he/she's had and the insurance-company then calculates the premium, after which they send someone to track down any information on which they can deny payment. This means that if you didn't list a yeast-infection (wtf?) as a serious injury, you're screwed.

The health-care insurance is different from other insurances because a.) they have lots of way to deny payment, and b.) they can deny people insurance because they know they will cost too much!

Also guys, you're thinking a little too two-dimensional here. In my country universal healthcare isn't solely government funded. It's about 60% taxpayer money and 40% private money. It's a little weird but it seems to work better than the US-system...

Neoteny wrote: I'm just anti-Steinist

Me too, but sometimes he has a point.


(As long as he isn't talking about evolution it's okay.)

Snorri1234 wrote:

Neoteny wrote: I'm just anti-Steinist

Me too, but sometimes he has a point.


(As long as he isn't talking about evolution it's okay.)

right. the guy knows what he's talking about when he's on the topic of economics and economic policy.

just like that Bjorn guy who wrote a book on Global Warming, Ben Stein is kind of out of his element talking about Evolution.

No doubt he's an intelligent guy. Bud damn, he's irritating as hell... I actually used to enjoy his game show though. I loved watching him get pissed off.