Politicians and Union bosses are going to own GM and Chrysler. LOL
Read here.
The article calls it the "reshaping of American capitalism". LOL. IT'S SOCIALISM! Some things are just so absurd all you can do is sit back and laugh LOL. I feel bad for the poor individuals who get stuck working for these gangsters. I feel bad for the American tax payers who will have to subsidize all of their failures over the next 10 to 20 years. But I can't stop laughing. LOL.
UPDATE: I feel bad for myself because Canada just bought a 3% stake in Chrysler, and now I'm a taxpayer subsidizing their failures.
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(524)
-
▼
April
(75)
- CHRYSLER FILES CHAPTER 11
- HR1207 Hits 100 Cosponsors
- Daily Dr. Paul Quote - Inflation
- Sam Dobson vs. The State
- Ottawa Won't Rule Out Buying Stake In GM
- Russia To Cut 200,000 to 355,000 Military Officers...
- Adam Kokesh Of Iraq Veterans Against War
- LOL
- Obama Asks Congress To Send Aid To Palestinians Vi...
- Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Not in Canada.
- Daily Dr. Paul Quote - Education
- 4 CONFIRMED CASES OF SWINE FLU IN WINDSOR, NOVA SC...
- This Gave Me Very Real Chills
- Ron Paul @ Wake Forest University
- Chuck Baldwin On CIFTA: Back Door Move To Control ...
- Daily Dr. Paul Quote
- "Obama Disappoints Civil Libertarians By Seeking T...
- Quote - Ron Paul
- One Business Still Growing During The Recession
- Him.
- Hillary Impressed By Ron Paul's Following
- Comic: Pirate Bay
- Jim Carrey On Vaccines
- A Reminder
- Ron Paul On Secession
- Heavy Budgetary Cuts (Not Really)
- The Pledge Of Allegiance
- "Fascism By Any Other Name"
- Western Envoys Walk Out On Ahmadinejad
- Quote - Thomas Jefferson
- "If you pay people to be poor, you'll never run ou...
- Blowback from 1953
- For Liberty Trailor
- Friedrich Hayek - The Pretense of Knowledge
- Jon Stewart Called Out On Deceitful Edit
- How An Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't
- Young Girl In Wisconsin Gives Stirring Speech
- Dr. Rand Paul In Bowling Green, KY
- Behind The Scenes Of CNN's Tea Party Coverage
- Congressman Barrett Booed At For 5 Straight Minutes
- The Successes of Regulation . . .
- The Onion: Obama's Double Homicide
- Campaign For Liberty In Albany, NY
- NASA Study: Clean Air Regulations Warm Earth
- My Garden
- Congressman Shimkus on HR1207
- Quote - John Maynard Keynes
- Ron Paul On The Drug War
- Quote - Alan Greenspan
- Rachel Maddow on Bagram
- Right-Wingers are RADICAL DUDE
- Disney Tax Propaganda
- Police Brutality in Maine
- Pirates and Emperors
- Inflation: The Tax Everyone Shrugs Off
- Prime Minister Brown Gets Ass Handed To Him
- Ron Paul
- Obama Continues to Disappoint Part 4
- Obama Continues to Disappoint Part 3
- Bruce Fein On Liberty
- Over Regulation
- Didn't They Get Rid Of This Guy?
- Ron Paul: Obama Backed By Neocons
- Disney: Cheaters or Resourceful?
- Obama Continues to Disappoint Part 2
- Obama Continues To Disappoint
- Quote - Deng Xiaoping
- I Miss Rick Moranis
- Pat Buchanan On The Fed
- If Anyone Was Doubting China's Rise As A World Pow...
- Peace
- Main Stream Media Begins To Worry of Collapsing Do...
- Quote
- Ignatieff Dissapoints
- Peter Schiff Interviews Marc Faber
-
▼
April
(75)
46 comments:
Okay little Rush.
Difference between Rush and I (among many other things) is that if Bush had done this, he would support it.
BTW, I looked up the word "socialism" before using it this time :).
Maybe so, but I was commenting more on your rhetoric, which 100% Rush.
Good, but even here you are wrong, because it is in the context of capitalism. The workers haven't revolted and taken over the factory. They are being granted ownership because of prior contractual agreements. Should be interesting to see what they do with such power, though.
From our friends at Merriam-Webster: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
If they're good enough to define Fascism, they're good enough to define Socialism.
That definition has recently been changed. OH NOES! A RANDIAN MORON IS IN CONTROL OF MERRIAM WEBSTER!
How you refute Webster-Merriam when it doesn't fit your perspective, and then use them to support your other perspectives is rather discouraging.
"A RANDIAN MORON IS IN CONTROL OF MERRIAM WEBSTER!"
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!
No, I'm pretty sure it has been changed. I've been making this argument for the last two years and have used the dictionary numerable times. Sounds like Big Brother conservative is in control of the dictionary!
LOL!
Yes, it is funny. It seems that it has been redefined to fit the conservative's outlook as to what socialism is.
LOL
Yeah, it's funny. I already got that.
"It" isn't funny. YOU are funny.
Maybe Merriam-Webster simply changed the definition to match how the word is commonly used. Most people who are not political science majors use it the same way I do.
:) But it is customary to keep the primary definition along with an academic definitions. My complaint over the word "scarce" was not that they added the academic definition, but that it LACKED the common usage.
You're still picking and choosing when this source is reliable to support an argument and when it is not, which destroys any credibility you might think you have.
Not at all, Josh. Your credibility is shot by your latent authoritarianism apparent in your unquestioning use of the dictionary. ;) My critique of the dictionary further increases my legitimacy. The dictionary is, after all, merely an invented guide.
Right, which you use to thoroughly support your argument when it suits you. Its amazing how the criticism you claim to have over the dictionary which supports your credibility suddenly disappears when you wish to attack me for the supposed misuse of words like "fascism" and "scarcity".
That your criticism is not constant is what destroys your credibility. If your criticism was constant, than you'd recognize the dictionary as an inaccurate source for any argument.
If I were to use such logic, I would never be able to use any travel guide on an adventure. Because they could be wrong in some instances, they must all be inaccurate sources of information. Anyway, such a conclusion is as absurd as your assertion that the dictionary should not be used in argument because it is sometimes wrong.
"If I were to use such logic, I would never be able to use any travel guide on an adventure. Because they could be wrong in some instances, they must all be inaccurate sources of information."
You're right, you wouldn't. I think always referring to the dictionary is a mistake, because it could be wrong, vague, and misinterpreted. I'm not saying I'm right to constantly use the dictionary, I'm saying you're wrong to use it as an absolute source to prove me wrong (scarcity).
While it's not a bad guide, it does not provide definitive support for any argument, as no travel guide can provide any definitive material for a trip.
Given the conciseness of our arguments, more definitive sources that carry more authority are required.
So stop using the dictionary, and stop complaining about definitions.
If you don't understand what I mean when I use a particular word, instead of attacking me, simply ask me to clarify.
"You're right, you wouldn't. I think always referring to the dictionary is a mistake, because it could be wrong, vague, and misinterpreted. I'm not saying I'm right to constantly use the dictionary, I'm saying you're wrong to use it as an absolute source to prove me wrong (scarcity)."
I didn't. I argued that 1. the dictionary was deficient and 2. that the academic concept does not make sense. I did this with the 100 people wanting an apple example. If 100 people want one apple each, but there is only 99 apples, is that scarcity? I don't think so. YOU SEE! Two arguments.
"While it's not a bad guide, it does not provide definitive support for any argument, as no travel guide can provide any definitive material for a trip."
Where do you think you are going to find "definite material"?
"Given the conciseness of our arguments, more definitive sources that carry more authority are required."
All other sources have the same problem. Remember, dictionaries are some of the most researched sources of information on the planet and Merriam-Webster is one with a good reputation..
"So stop using the dictionary, and stop complaining about definitions."
No! Your definition of scarcity makes NO sense. If 100 people want an apple each, and there are only 99 apples, then is it scarce? LOL, by your definition it is..
"If you don't understand what I mean when I use a particular word, instead of attacking me, simply ask me to clarify."
I am not attacking you. I am attacking the definition you are using.
"I did this with the 100 people wanting an apple example. If 100 people want one apple each, but there is only 99 apples, is that scarcity? I don't think so."
It probably seems pretty fucking scarce to the one person that doesn't get one. As well, you now have 100 people fighting over who doesn't get the apple because they're SCARCE, and when time (aka reality) enter the picture, they're even more scarce because when the apples go bad or are eaten there are even fewer.
"Where do you think you are going to find "definite material"?"
Not sure, why are you asking about definite material?
"All other sources have the same problem. Remember, dictionaries are some of the most researched sources of information on the planet and Merriam-Webster is one with a good reputation.."
Although they seem to be unable to properly define socialism and scarcity, as you say.
"I am attacking the definition you are using."
Then stop. Ask me to clarify. Say, "what do you mean by scarce?" or "what do you mean by socialism?" or "what do you mean by fascism?"
"It probably seems pretty fucking scarce to the one person that doesn't get one. As well, you now have 100 people fighting over who doesn't get the apple because they're SCARCE, and when time (aka reality) enter the picture, they're even more scarce because when the apples go bad or are eaten there are even fewer."
Let's change the example slightly:
Food is plentiful. Bananas, oranges, and strawberries are easily aquired. Is the one person not getting an apple still going to behave the same way? I don't think so. Are apples scarce? I don't think so. Is there a deficiency of the supply of apples in relation to the demand? Sure. BUT A SMALL DEFICIENCY IS NOT THE SAME AS SCARCITY>
Lol, what does it matter if there are bananas? We're talking about 100 people who each want an apple of which there is only 99. This is scarcity. The way this scarce resource is properly allocated in reality is through the free market; through voluntary exchange.
You brought up that they might fight for the apples, which is absurd. In the real world there is no such thing as limited deficiency or scarcity. There are always alternatives. Bananas, oranges, and strawberries are alternatives.
Yes, but who knows how many banana's it will take to convert one of those 100 people away from wanting an apple anymore, and if the owner's of the bananas is willing to trade that many bananas to ensure he gets an apple. This is why economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources; all resources are scarce.
Who knows? Well obviously those who study behavior. Duh. This isn't magic, Josh. People generally won't die over an apple.
Nope, not everything is scarce. Everything might be deficient or less than the aggregate demand, but not all is scarce. The old economists made this argument two hundred years ago and have been thoroughly proven wrong. The Austrian school's need to talk as if everything is hard to get just showcases their attempt to take us back to the 17th century.
"Who knows? Well obviously those who study behavior. Duh. This isn't magic, Josh. People generally won't die over an apple."
Lol. This is the problem to the core. You think academics have all the answers, and then with those answers they can shape society appropriately. However, the invididual will decide how many bananas it will take for him to give up his opportunity of having an apple.
The Austrians recognize demand is infinite and resources are finite, therefore resources are scarce.
"Lol. This is the problem to the core. You think academics have all the answers, and then with those answers they can shape society appropriately. However, the invididual will decide how many bananas it will take for him to give up his opportunity of having an apple."
Don't project your assumptions on my discourse, please. I didn't say "academics". I merely said those who study behavior, which could be anyone. I, for one, am not an academic; and, I, for one, know that people ain't going to fight over an apple when there is plenty of other fruit around.
"The Austrians recognize demand is infinite"
Well then, the Austrians are idiots, because demand is not infinite. It is limited by the desires of the individual.
"and resources are finite,"
Yes.
"therefore resources are scarce.'
Scarcity and finite are not the same concepts, Josh.
"Well then, the Austrians are idiots, because demand is not infinite. It is limited by the desires of the individual."
Desires can change and new desires are created. If demand wasn't infinite, than rich people wouldn't want to get richer, we'd all just accumulate to a certain level of wealth until all desires and demand is met and then stop.
If you understand human nature, you know this is false. Therefore demand is infinite.
If demand is infinite and resources are limited, than there are never enough resources to meet all demand at any one time, therefore resources are scarce.
"and, I, for one, know that people ain't going to fight over an apple when there is plenty of other fruit around."
Who said anything about fighting?
"Desires can change and new desires are created. If demand wasn't infinite, than rich people wouldn't want to get richer, we'd all just accumulate to a certain level of wealth until all desires and demand is met and then stop."
No, sorry. It is not the demand that changes, but the people. And, again, even if desire can expand, it doesn't mean it is infinite. There is a logical limit to all demand. It may seem limitless look up into from a lower position, but it is mostly for show, because people value status as well. A cow can only chew so much grass in one day; a rich person is exactly the same.
"If demand is infinite and resources are limited, than there are never enough resources to meet all demand at any one time, therefore resources are scarce."
Demand is not unlimited.
The argument that the old economist use to use to prove that aggregate demand is no longer applicable to modern existence: that the nature of human beings is to reproduce more people than the current supply of resources can satisfy. Hence, if the balance between resources and the number of people gets too unbalanced, scarcity results (and here I mean the common definition of scacity), with all the bells and whistles of poverty. Malthus argued that scarcity was a fundamental law of economics, because the population always increases faster than the supply of basic necessities. Condoms, have, of course, eliminated this model of thinking.
"There is a logical limit to all demand."
Have fun trying to logically define this limit. If you think you can dis-prove that demand is not infinite by saying the rich value status is a non-sequitor; one has nothing to do with another in this regard.
"that the nature of human beings is to reproduce more people than the current supply of resources can satisfy."
LOL...you're saying this argument is no longer applicable because of condoms? LOL And yet the population continues to increase. . .why again is demand not unlimited?
"Have fun trying to logically define this limit. If you think you can dis-prove that demand is not infinite by saying the rich value status is a non-sequitor; one has nothing to do with another in this regard."
Nice cherry-picking job: "A cow can only chew so much grass in one day; a rich person is exactly the same. "
"LOL...you're saying this argument is no longer applicable because of condoms? LOL And yet the population continues to increase. . .why again is demand not unlimited?"
Actually, the populations of the Western economies, South Korea, and Japan are in decline: ALL places where condoms and other birth control is readily available. It is only a matter of time before this is the standard globally.
""Nice cherry-picking job: "A cow can only chew so much grass in one day; a rich person is exactly the same.""
Sorry, I thought we're talking about human nature, not cow nature. You're defending your position with an irrelevant analogy?
"Actually, the populations of the Western economies, South Korea, and Japan are in decline: ALL places where condoms and other birth control is readily available. It is only a matter of time before this is the standard globally."
Canada Population
2000 - 31,000,005
2008 - 33,506,421
United States Population
2000 - 281,421,906
2008 - 303,824,640
"Sorry, I thought we're talking about human nature, not cow nature. You're defending your position with an irrelevant analogy?"
All people are limited in their consumption the same way a cow is limited by the amount of grass it can eat.
"Canada Population
2000 - 31,000,005
2008 - 33,506,421
United States Population
2000 - 281,421,906
2008 - 303,824,640"
Yup, very low increases in population. Again, in relation to the overall number of people we are in decline. There may have been an increase, but that is only in the short term. The yearly percentage growth in population needed to maintain a population of 303 million people is well below what is needed. Korea and Japan are even lower.
And comparatively speaking, the annual birthrate from 1985 up is nothing compared to the early decades of the 20th century.
"All people are limited in their consumption the same way a cow is limited by the amount of grass it can eat."
People are limited by their consumption because that which is consumer is scarce, i.e. limited in supply.
"Yup, very low increases in population. Again, in relation to the overall number of people we are in decline. There may have been an increase, but that is only in the short term. The yearly percentage growth in population needed to maintain a population of 303 million people is well below what is needed."
If you want me to acknowledge what you're trying to say here, please say it in a way that makes sense. Low increases in population are still increases.
"People are limited by their consumption because that which is consumer is scarce, i.e. limited in supply."
No, they are limited by the limitations of their consumptive organs, duh. For example, I can only eat so much pizza before I get sick or full. THIS SHOULD BE FUCKING OBVIOUS.
"If you want me to acknowledge what you're trying to say here, please say it in a way that makes sense. Low increases in population are still increases."
Once the boomers start passing away the 1 to 2 percent increase in population will not be enough to replace the population. There, is that concise enough for you?
"No, they are limited by the limitations of their consumptive organs, duh. For example, I can only eat so much pizza before I get sick or full. THIS SHOULD BE FUCKING OBVIOUS."
I would think it would be fucking obvious that consumption is not simply what you eat. Funny how I can only drive 1 car at a time, but some people still own 100 cars.
"Once the boomers start passing away the 1 to 2 percent increase in population will not be enough to replace the population. There, is that concise enough for you?"
Yes, that makes sense. But in the US the birth rate has been increasing over the past 5 years. But again, its funny I can only drive 1 car at a time but some people own 100. Demand is infinite.
"I would think it would be fucking obvious that consumption is not simply what you eat. Funny how I can only drive 1 car at a time, but some people still own 100 cars."
Yes, and there is also a limit to that form of silly, overconsumption. And no, some people owning 100 cars does not equal infinity. NO. Demand is so OBVIOUSLY not infinite that it is boggles the mind to think an entire school of thought can think that it is. To prove this, I'd have to examine the individual who bought the 100 cars and analyze why he or she bought them. Then I'd have a better idea as to the limit of their car buying. BUT YES THERE IS A LIMIT!
I still think demand is limitless. But even with your line of thought, aggregate demand in the world will always far outstrip the available resources, whether those be land, labour, energy, raw materials, time, etc. So in relation, demand is essentially infinite. As an individual, if I was king of the world, I would still want more than what I have and my ability to have more would only be limited by the given resources and my ability to manage those resources, as it has been for all societies that have always been driven to have MORE.
"I still think demand is limitless."
Based on faith, not reason.
"But even with your line of thought, aggregate demand in the world will always far outstrip the available resources, whether those be land, labour, energy, raw materials, time, etc."
I dont think so, or the price of apples would be infinite as well. Think about it, if the demand for apples is infinite, then it follows that there would be a corresponding infinite increase in the price for an apple, because there would be infinite demand. This doesn't happen in the real world, because, of course, demand ISNT INFINITE>
"Think about it, if the demand for apples is infinite, then it follows that there would be a corresponding infinite increase in the price for an apple, because there would be infinite demand."
Wrong. Non-sequitur (my new favorite term). You misinterpret what it means for demand to be infinite. Price is determine by a producers ability to profit from selling an apple at price which meets the largest portion of the demand possible. It has nothing to do with the amount actual demand which exists. Demand itself does not determine price.
You could fill the world with apples, stop growing them, and you still wouldn't have enough to meet all future demand. This is because demand is infinite.
Post a Comment