Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

In my experience, and I do have actual experience of working in industry, making things, having things made abroad and imported, prices don't fall, the benefit is taken up with additional profits - often declared abroad and untaxed, at the same time as a subset of local people see themselves getting fired. The effect is not instant, it takes years to roll through to the local economy.

'Libertarianism' is as stupid and unworkable as 'communism', neither are what they purport to be and I can't be bothered arguing with either.

That and Jay is possibly the most hypocritical and intellectually dishonest person I have ever encountered, spouting Libertarianism having spent his formative years doing workfare for the government, had his education paid for by a govt he despises using taxes he objects to, and sitting in a highly regulated and well-protected industry which faces no threat from foreign competition in probably the highest taxed, most highly governed and least Libertarian part of the tax-and-spend experiment in mass-delusion which is America.
You are being unfair to communism. At least they meant well and wanted to improve things. Libertarianism is just a philosophy of selfishness
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.

Jay wrote:

I seriously can't believe that I have to argue that prices tend to fall over time in established industries. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever had on this forum.

Supply / Demand.
Supply up, demand down, cost down.
Supply down, demand down, cost flat or decreasing.
Supply up, demand up, cost flat or increasing.
Supply down, demand up, cost up.

Literally macro 101.
So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted? Or does this mean that the free market makes established industries continue?

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?  I also have experience in manufacturing both commodities and specialty goods.  I am using my experience to provide insight.  You're giving arcane examples and trying to use economic theory to explain something that doesn't happen IRL.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England
Mac, the philosophy you adhere to claims that you should submit to your intellectual and cultural superiors who, due to their superior intellect, are better able to make decisions for you than you yourself are capable of. I'm an engineer with an IQ that qualifies me for MENSA if I wanted to join (zero desire to join that wankfest). You disagree with me on the regular, yes? Why would you want to submit to my whims and social experiments? How could you possibly know better than I?

Frankly, libertarianism boils down to the belief that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives. Everything else is just window dressing and rhetoric.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.

Jay wrote:

I seriously can't believe that I have to argue that prices tend to fall over time in established industries. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever had on this forum.

Supply / Demand.
Supply up, demand down, cost down.
Supply down, demand down, cost flat or decreasing.
Supply up, demand up, cost flat or increasing.
Supply down, demand up, cost up.

Literally macro 101.
So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted?

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?
Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.

Last edited by Jay (2015-07-14 17:03:44)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5615

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

In my experience, and I do have actual experience of working in industry, making things, having things made abroad and imported, prices don't fall, the benefit is taken up with additional profits - often declared abroad and untaxed, at the same time as a subset of local people see themselves getting fired. The effect is not instant, it takes years to roll through to the local economy.

'Libertarianism' is as stupid and unworkable as 'communism', neither are what they purport to be and I can't be bothered arguing with either.

That and Jay is possibly the most hypocritical and intellectually dishonest person I have ever encountered, spouting Libertarianism having spent his formative years doing workfare for the government, had his education paid for by a govt he despises using taxes he objects to, and sitting in a highly regulated and well-protected industry which faces no threat from foreign competition in probably the highest taxed, most highly governed and least Libertarian part of the tax-and-spend experiment in mass-delusion which is America.
You are being unfair to communism. At least they meant well and wanted to improve things. Libertarianism is just a philosophy of selfishness
they meant so well that they impoverished hundreds of millions and forced people to live under a police state.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.

Jay wrote:

I seriously can't believe that I have to argue that prices tend to fall over time in established industries. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever had on this forum.

Supply / Demand.
Supply up, demand down, cost down.
Supply down, demand down, cost flat or decreasing.
Supply up, demand up, cost flat or increasing.
Supply down, demand up, cost up.

Literally macro 101.
So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted?  Or

Can we also say protectionism creates barriers to entry for new competition, whereas a free market removes and/or accelerates entry for new competition

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?
Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.
So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5615

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.
So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted?

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?
Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.
So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?
just look at prices of cars in australia. good example of protectionism of motor dealerships when people can't do any parallel importing.

there are other methods of protectionism than strictly tarrifs or caps. design rules, licensing, regulations etc.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Free trade increases the standard of living because prices fall. When you have a protectionist economy you throw up tariffs to protect favored industries. So let's say we go back a hundred years and throw up a tariff on automobiles to save Detroit. We set the base cost of a vehicle at $30,000 new and tack on X amount to the cost of a Honda Civic. Chevy then prices their Cobalt at $25,000 to undercut the Honda and gain market share. Ford does the same with their Focus. So now you have two car options at a cost well above the current sticker price. Who wins? Both the car manufacturer and their union labor. Who loses? Honda, Toyota and You. You are now paying higher prices for less desirable vehicles. Over time, the impetus to innovate disappears and quality declines because you're stuck buying from them anyway, so who cares? Does this sound familiar? Because it's already what destroyed GM and Ford. Foreign companies built manufacturing plants here to get around our tariffs and they've destroyed the original players. The only people still advocating for protectionism are unions.
So prices fall over time, regardless of whether or not free market policies are enacted? Or prices fall over time only when free market policies are enacted?

Seeing as the U.S. has had a blend of protectionist and free market economies over the last 50 years, and according to you the CPI shows the overall cost of goods has declined over that period, can't you make the argument that the free market has little to no effect on the cost of goods?

Do you understand why I am asking for an explanation now?
Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.
So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?
Not necessarily. There may be enough native industries to force prices lower over time. More than likely they will form a cartel with the governments blessing in order to keep prices up. A prime example is the NYC taxi industry. There are many companies that own taxi medallions, but prices are set by a taxi commission and are universal. They keep (kept, thanks Uber) out competition by limiting the number of medallions in circulation and cracking down on unauthorized taxis (the commission has their own police force for this). This is all done under the banners of protecting citizens from unlicensed drivers, who are presumably more dangerous, and making it so the drivers make enough money to live. In reality, it generates so much profit for the taxi companies that before Uber arrived, medallions were selling for $1.5 million+.

There's plenty of other examples too:

How many ISPs do you have access to? I have access to Verizon, Cablevision, Direct TV and Dish Network. Most of the northeast just has Comcast and the satellite companies.

How many companies can you purchase electricity from? I can purchase from exactly one. I also happen to have the highest utility rates in the entire country.

How many companies can you purchase water from? One for me.

How many companies can you purchase natural gas from? One for me.

How many companies can you purchase health insurance from? Trick question, all their policies are dictated by HHS

Anyway, you get my point
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:


Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.
So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?
just look at prices of cars in australia. good example of protectionism of motor dealerships when people can't do any parallel importing.

there are other methods of protectionism than strictly tarrifs or caps. design rules, licensing, regulations etc.
Right. Established businesses almost always try to protect themselves from new or existing competition by increasing the cost of entry for new businesses via regulations. H&R Block, the premier tax preparer in the US, wrote a regulation for the IRS a few years ago that required all tax preparers to be licensed in order to prepare taxes. For H&R Block it's no big deal, they can stick 1,000 people in a seminar for peanuts per person and call it a day. For the mom and pop shop, it's an added expense, one that may be prohibitively expensive. Of course the regulation was enacted under the guise of protecting people from preparer errors that would get people audited It's always to protect the consumer, or for the children.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:


Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.
So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?
just look at prices of cars in australia. good example of protectionism of motor dealerships when people can't do any parallel importing.

there are other methods of protectionism than strictly tarrifs or caps. design rules, licensing, regulations etc.
Cybargs, I mean this in the nicest way possible - that comment adding nothing of value to this conversation, but I guess it demonstrates that you know what protectionism is?
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Price decreases are dependent on there being sufficient competition within the industry. Protectionism decreases competition and thus keeps prices high. There's no impetus for price reduction without said competition.
So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?
Not necessarily. There may be enough native industries to force prices lower over time.
But wait - so then price decreases aren't necessarily tied to free market forces?  Is it just the fact that there are enough business entities within a given industry that forces prices lower over time?  What stops those native industries from forming a cabal to protect their margins, like you alluded to?

Jay wrote:

Established businesses almost always try to protect themselves from new or existing competition by increasing the cost of entry for new businesses via regulations
So then businesses will always seek out ways to protect themselves, and one form they use is the government as a tool to do that right?  So established businesses (industry) are diametrically opposed to a free market, whereas new players want a free market so there are no artificial barriers to entry?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+450|2619

Jay wrote:

Mac, the philosophy you adhere to claims that you should submit to your intellectual and cultural superiors who, due to their superior intellect, are better able to make decisions for you than you yourself are capable of. I'm an engineer with an IQ that qualifies me for MENSA if I wanted to join (zero desire to join that wankfest). You disagree with me on the regular, yes? Why would you want to submit to my whims and social experiments? How could you possibly know better than I?

Frankly, libertarianism boils down to the belief that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives. Everything else is just window dressing and rhetoric.
You went to a naval college on government aid. You can do math but your school wasn't a high society center of learning. Reading about Hegel in history books doesn't make you anyone's intellectual and cultural superior.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

there's a direct correlation between people who mention their ability to join MENSA and people who love dicks for breakfast.  Saying "I have a high IQ" is the basest form of self-adulation.  Please don't say that any more Jay, it makes my head hurt soooo bad.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
Supply/Demand works to reduce prices in any kind of economy, including communism, through efficiencies, economies of scale etc.

Competition works to reduce prices in a free market, this is what Jay is probably thinking of.

Honestly, its schoolboy misunderstandings like this which show Jay doesn't even understand the words he's saying or the arguments he's copy/pasting.

America does not operate a free market and never has. If it ever does and it works (I doubt both) then maybe people like Jay will be able to lecture the rest of the world.
#FreeBritney
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


So then by that logic any industry with protectionism shouldn't see price decreases and any industry without should see price decreases right?
Not necessarily. There may be enough native industries to force prices lower over time.
But wait - so then price decreases aren't necessarily tied to free market forces?

Jay wrote:

Established businesses almost always try to protect themselves from new or existing competition by increasing the cost of entry for new businesses via regulations
So then businesses will always seek out ways to protect themselves, and one form they use is the government as a tool to do that right?  So established businesses (industry) are diametrically opposed to a free market, whereas new players want a free market so there are no artificial barriers to entry?
To the latter, generally, yes.

For the former, can you provide an example where artificially limited competition led to a decrease in prices without creating shortages? They've been nationalizing industries left and right in Venezuela, instituted strict price controls, and they can't keep things as basic as toilet paper stocked on the shelves. The smuggling of dirt cheap toilet paper into Columbia (where it's sold for a profit) has exploded, however.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
My IQ puts me in the top 1% of university graduates - this was back in the day when the intellectual top 10% of the population went to university.

Now bow down and accept my half-baked opinions.
#FreeBritney
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

there's a direct correlation between people who mention their ability to join MENSA and people who love dicks for breakfast.  Saying "I have a high IQ" is the basest form of self-adulation.  Please don't say that any more Jay, it makes my head hurt soooo bad.
Which is why I never mention it. It doesn't mean anything anyway besides being able to learn at a faster pace than most people. I was just using it to point out the absurdity of his ubermensch beliefs. There's always someone smarter than you. My own father is more intelligent than I am, and yet he's also one of the dumbest people I've ever met. He can't unfuck his own life, asking him to govern others is absurd. And yes, you can partially attribute my embrace of libertarianism and loathing for progressivism to daddy issues.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,906|5531|949

Free markets also mean a company can pollute the fuck out of an environment then close shop and fuck over their "customers", then move on to another industry.  The whole idea is to create a system of checks and balances whereby the people and industries don't get screwed over.  The government is supposed to be a tool of the people in virtually any non-authoritarian system.  It's somewhat synonymous to labor unions: something to even the playing field between two groups with unbalanced power.  This is my point - it's not the systems that are failing or succeeding - it's the execution and injection of human nature that corrupts.  This goes for any system - pressure flows to the weakest part of the system. 

Free markets mean that generically, anyone with enough concentrated capital can enter an industry with an obscene cost-based barrier to entry and control the market absolutely.  Surely, the creation of a watchdog (like government regulatory agencies) that have absolute control over industry will lead to corruption.  So will the lack of a watchdog entity because most companies operate on near term profit-motive goals.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Free markets also mean a company can pollute the fuck out of an environment then close shop and fuck over their "customers", then move on to another industry.  The whole idea is to create a system of checks and balances whereby the people and industries don't get screwed over.  The government is supposed to be a tool of the people in virtually any non-authoritarian system.  It's somewhat synonymous to labor unions: something to even the playing field between two groups with unbalanced power.  This is my point - it's not the systems that are failing or succeeding - it's the execution and injection of human nature that corrupts.  This goes for any system - pressure flows to the weakest part of the system. 

Free markets mean that generically, anyone with enough concentrated capital can enter an industry with an obscene cost-based barrier to entry and control the market absolutely.  Surely, the creation of a watchdog (like government regulatory agencies) that have absolute control over industry will lead to corruption.  So will the lack of a watchdog entity because most companies operate on near term profit-motive goals.
Yep, that definitely has happened in the past.

I have no problem with voluntary private labor unions.

Human nature is definitely the problem, absolutely. I simply disagree that inserting more humans into the mix decreases the problem.


As for concentrated capital dominating, I disagree. There's plenty of examples of well-funded startup companies that failed to make any impression at all in their industry. It's also part of human nature to rebel against the dominant market player. Just look at the fashion industry: companies become popular, they rise, they become too popular, they crater. Or, why hasn't Tesla taken off and become anything more than a bauble? Money helps, but it still comes down to management adeptness and being nimble enough to adapt to changing conditions. Companies that dominate an industry inevitably fail. They become too bureaucratic, too conservative, have too much dead weight, too many silo'd departments etc. You know this. I'm sure you see it every day.

Anyway, I'm not anti-government, I just feel it should be limited. I believe the primary mission for the government should be carrying out justice and settling disputes between people and groups. In your example of the polluter, ideally, in a world that is not this one, he would end up in jail (in the really real world, a campaign donation makes it go away).

I'm off to bed now, night
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5615

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Free markets also mean a company can pollute the fuck out of an environment then close shop and fuck over their "customers", then move on to another industry.  The whole idea is to create a system of checks and balances whereby the people and industries don't get screwed over.  The government is supposed to be a tool of the people in virtually any non-authoritarian system.  It's somewhat synonymous to labor unions: something to even the playing field between two groups with unbalanced power.  This is my point - it's not the systems that are failing or succeeding - it's the execution and injection of human nature that corrupts.  This goes for any system - pressure flows to the weakest part of the system. 

Free markets mean that generically, anyone with enough concentrated capital can enter an industry with an obscene cost-based barrier to entry and control the market absolutely.  Surely, the creation of a watchdog (like government regulatory agencies) that have absolute control over industry will lead to corruption.  So will the lack of a watchdog entity because most companies operate on near term profit-motive goals.
nobody can control the market absolutely ken. there is always someone somewhere that will outcompete you with newer tech or innovation. restricting people unnecessarily through regulation (like uber and taxis) pushes prices up. it's just a simple example of regulations that does nothing to benefit the consumer nor society, but only the the taxi companies.

Tarrifs have never ever helped drive prices down. the ENTIRE premise of a tarrif is to drive prices up to FORCE OUT any outside competitor. that's the entire point of their existence ken.

it's complete bollocks that free trade has 'hurt' people's lives. goods are A LOT cheaper because of it. prices for EVERYTHING bar land has been falling especially when accounting for newer added technology. if the american workforce can't compete with someone from overseas it's got more to do with lack of skill and competitiveness.

German and Japanese wages aren't cheap yet their factories are still able to churn out quality products.

Last edited by Cybargs (2015-07-14 18:45:18)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,730|5005|eXtreme to the maX
The next President will divert tax dollars away from their competitors power base to their own power base.

I am glad the free market works so efficiently.
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+393|2351

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Mac, the philosophy you adhere to claims that you should submit to your intellectual and cultural superiors who, due to their superior intellect, are better able to make decisions for you than you yourself are capable of. I'm an engineer with an IQ that qualifies me for MENSA if I wanted to join (zero desire to join that wankfest). You disagree with me on the regular, yes? Why would you want to submit to my whims and social experiments? How could you possibly know better than I?

Frankly, libertarianism boils down to the belief that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives. Everything else is just window dressing and rhetoric.
You went to a naval college on government aid. You can do math but your school wasn't a high society center of learning. Reading about Hegel in history books doesn't make you anyone's intellectual and cultural superior.
this is music to my ears, jay. does that mean you admit defeat in every argument you've had with me, or dilbert, or Ken, for instance, because we are vastly better educated than you? bow down to the hierarchy, worm.

also, there's a correlation between people who join MENSA and people who went to shitty colleges. it provides the certificate of validation that their crappy state college or university of Phoenix never could. how many Yale dons do you think discuss their MENSA scores?

Last edited by uziq (2015-07-15 01:21:09)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Mac, the philosophy you adhere to claims that you should submit to your intellectual and cultural superiors who, due to their superior intellect, are better able to make decisions for you than you yourself are capable of. I'm an engineer with an IQ that qualifies me for MENSA if I wanted to join (zero desire to join that wankfest). You disagree with me on the regular, yes? Why would you want to submit to my whims and social experiments? How could you possibly know better than I?

Frankly, libertarianism boils down to the belief that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives. Everything else is just window dressing and rhetoric.
You went to a naval college on government aid. You can do math but your school wasn't a high society center of learning. Reading about Hegel in history books doesn't make you anyone's intellectual and cultural superior.
You went to New Jersey State University, a college most famous for being the STD capital of the US, and still failed at getting laid.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4257|London, England

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Mac, the philosophy you adhere to claims that you should submit to your intellectual and cultural superiors who, due to their superior intellect, are better able to make decisions for you than you yourself are capable of. I'm an engineer with an IQ that qualifies me for MENSA if I wanted to join (zero desire to join that wankfest). You disagree with me on the regular, yes? Why would you want to submit to my whims and social experiments? How could you possibly know better than I?

Frankly, libertarianism boils down to the belief that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and run their own lives. Everything else is just window dressing and rhetoric.
You went to a naval college on government aid. You can do math but your school wasn't a high society center of learning. Reading about Hegel in history books doesn't make you anyone's intellectual and cultural superior.
this is music to my ears, jay. does that mean you admit defeat in every argument you've had with me, or dilbert, or Ken, for instance, because we are vastly better educated than you? bow down to the hierarchy, worm.

also, there's a correlation between people who join MENSA and people who went to shitty colleges. it provides the certificate of validation that their crappy state college or university of Phoenix never could. how many Yale dons do you think discuss their MENSA scores?
Oh please. Your tie pin doesn't mean anything. Not a soul on this side of the Atlantic has heard of Royal Holloway. You might as well have gone to Rutgers with Mac.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5615
so a university's weight is based on what people have heard of? lol.

im sure most americans havent heard about kings or imperial either.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard