Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/20/13 12:47 PM, UltraHammer wrote:

At 3/19/13 03:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Take nvidia corporation and AMD they represent the epitome of why the freemarket sucks.

Elaborate.

In case my posts are getting too short for people's tastes, I'll explain why elaboration is important even if the reason is obvious.
Anyone can simply site names and say "there is my argument" and call it a day. But you're not actually making any sort of case until you explain.

Trickle down and the holding back of technology while still charging full price for a crippled product. Apple is also a great example of this.

At 3/20/13 03:03 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Trickle down and the holding back of technology while still charging full price for a crippled product. Apple is also a great example of this.

And in the air of free market competition, the first company to lower its prices or bring out that new innovation is the one that makes scores of cash.

Let's also not forget that a free market does not just entail freedom to giant business owners. It (more prominently, in fact!) includes freedom to small business owners, to employees, and to consumers.

At 3/21/13 06:52 PM, UltraHammer wrote: And in the air of free market competition, the first company to lower its prices or bring out that new innovation is the one that makes scores of cash.

It's not that simple. Things such as location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing, and others play a HUGE role that can, and often does, easily distort the supply and demand metric. Merely having low prices is not a recipe to market success. Merely havng a new innovtion is not a recipe for market success. Heck, even bth together is no guarantee of market success.

Apple is a very good example of this. They are often not the first to their sector, but because of brand loyalty, and a brilliant marketing campaign (Apple was once the most known brand in the world even though their non-computer products are subpar at best) even though their products are often noticeably worse than the competition, and priced WELL above the competition. By your logic (which we all know is completely wrong) Apple should be failing, massively. But they're not. In fact it's quite the oppostie.

Let's also not forget that a free market does not just entail freedom to giant business owners. It (more prominently, in fact!) includes freedom to small business owners, to employees, and to consumers.

Extra freedom for customers and employees? How exactly?

At 3/21/13 07:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's not that simple. Things such as location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing, and others play a HUGE role that can, and often does, easily distort the supply and demand metric

...and? Your point?

Oh, becoming successful because of any of those things is bad, I see.

>Location
Ah, it sure is nice being a successful company in this town. We invested into this area, and because of that, we were able to offer the lowest prices around. But wait, there are lower prices somewhere else in the country, that the citizens here can't afford to travel to! Noo! Now we're an evil corporation!

>Brand Loyalty
Ah, it sure was nice having all of our units get sold so fast. Our customers really like us. Wait a second... they're buying our products... because they bought our products before... and really liked them! Noo! We're an evil corporation! Curse you, capitalism!

>Marketing
Ah, it sure is nice being successful. Oh wait... one huge factor in our success is... spending money informing the public of our products, services and selling points! Noooo!!! That's not the right way to do it!

>Timing
Ah, it sure is nice being successful. We did it because we knew exactlywhat the public wanted, exactly whenthey wanted it. Wait, that's bad! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

But let's set all that aside and generously assume that premise is correct; that any business is pooling its capital the BAD way if it isn't through discounts and new products. For now we ask the next question: just how bad is this? How much damage does this cause to society?

Could you please give me a very good example of this?

Apple is a very good example of this

Okay, sweet. Let's hear it.

Apple was once the most known brand in the world even though their non-computer products are subpar at best

So there's a bunch of subpar electronics products out there. Oh no! Are they going to attack me? Are they going to break into my house? Are they going to ruin my life with mediocre media consumption?

Or can I just not buy them?

even though their products are often noticeably worse than the competition, and priced WELL above the competition. By your logic, Apple should be failing, massively. But they're not. In fact it's quite the opposite.

You know I bought an iPod classic for myself six years ago and I still have it. I don't use it anymore, but I thoroughly enjoyed it for a number of years. Product quality is subjective. But assuming I would have been much better off if I had gotten a Zune, and that I made the wrong decision; who had to pay the consequences for that decision? No one but me.

Anyone who doesn't like Apple can refuse to buy their products and not be ripped off by them for as long as they live. Anyone who likesApple can get the next iPhone and continue being happy with it. This is the 'consumer rights and consumer freedom' I spoke of previously. So I refer you to my question from before: how much damage does this cause to society?

What would happen in your version of the un-free market? Would Apple be shut down? Or would Apple be forced to stop doing the cool, flashy things that public likes about Apple? Millions of people around the world will have stripped away from them a company and line of products that they like because you've decided that they're not good products?

Here's my question

What is your version of the awesome, kick-butt market?

At 3/12/13 11:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You didn;t even make an attempt to find a reputable source. Some random guy's blog is not a reputable source.

;;;;
I seen this & I had to share it
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-the-100-000-
trazillion-gaquillion-plan.aspx?article=1931436676G10020&red irect=false&contributor=David+Bardallis

It was too funny ( & probably pretty close to the truth in the coming couple of years)

enjoy the laugh, even if the premise isn't all that funny

At 3/21/13 06:52 PM, UltraHammer wrote:

And in the air of free market competition, the first company to lower its prices or bring out that new innovation is the one that makes scores of cash.

I think you must do some looking into the ideal of Controlled or "Planned Obsolescence" and how it actually works against efficiency, long term durability, and quality in the name of max profit to the shareholders. Further I believe one must consider how often sleazy and misleading marketing can make the masses believe that they are getting what they paid for when in reality they where in fact sold an item that was designed to be inferior and replaced in short order with another item that does the same things.

Let's also not forget that a free market does not just entail freedom to giant business owners. It (more prominently, in fact!) includes freedom to small business owners, to employees, and to consumers.

Your opinion ?

At 3/22/13 09:56 AM, UltraHammer wrote:

At 3/21/13 07:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's not that simple. Things such as location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing, and others play a HUGE role that can, and often does, easily distort the supply and demand metric

...and? Your point?

I don't speak for Camarohusky. But I think the point is that the free market doesn't mean more competition, and it doesn't mean more innovation, and it's also not fair. What does location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing have to do with increasing competition, being innovative, or being fair? More often than not, the opposite is true. All you free market fan boys present as the main reason for having a free market in the first place. It's just goes to show that in either system, you have to pay to play.

Honestly, I feel the "free market" suffers from the "no true scotsman" fallacy. It's ambiguous and takes positive sounding words for it's own that I feel are really independent from free market, like innovation, competition, and fairness. A free market is none of those things, yet it wants to be, so its more palatable. I think, it's not the free market people like yourself want but the much hyped about features.

Innovation is independent of the market, but certain innovations thrive while others fail depending on the system, certainly. Yet we had massive innovations coming from NASA and the military. But there will always be people trying to innovate, whether in a free market, or a government run operation.

There can be competition and fairness in a free market, if everyone behaves. Just like there would be a utopia if everyone acted nice and worked toward the good of others. Can rules and regulations get out of hand? Certainly. These must be identified, and loosened. But, there are some good rules and regulations that promote a fair and competitive market.

At 3/27/13 06:43 PM, MOSFET wrote:

At 3/22/13 09:56 AM, UltraHammer wrote:

At 3/21/13 07:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's not that simple. Things such as location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing, and others play a HUGE role that can, and often does, easily distort the supply and demand metric

...and? Your point?

I don't speak for Camarohusky. But I think the point is that the free market doesn't mean more competition, and it doesn't mean more innovation, and it's also not fair. What does location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing have to do with increasing competition, being innovative, or being fair? More often than not, the opposite is true. All you free market fan boys present as the main reason for having a free market in the first place. It's just goes to show that in either system, you have to pay to play.

Honestly, I feel the "free market" suffers from the "no true scotsman" fallacy. It's ambiguous and takes positive sounding words for it's own that I feel are really independent from free market, like innovation, competition, and fairness. A free market is none of those things, yet it wants to be, so its more palatable. I think, it's not the free market people like yourself want but the much hyped about features.

Innovation is independent of the market, but certain innovations thrive while others fail depending on the system, certainly. Yet we had massive innovations coming from NASA and the military. But there will always be people trying to innovate, whether in a free market, or a government run operation.

There can be competition and fairness in a free market, if everyone behaves. Just like there would be a utopia if everyone acted nice and worked toward the good of others. Can rules and regulations get out of hand? Certainly. These must be identified, and loosened. But, there are some good rules and regulations that promote a fair and competitive market.

Oh please don't make me laugh... NASA and technology that comes "from" the military are government owned enterprises. It's the same as if a company would have been owned by stockholders and big investors only in this case the government or other public entity owning all of the stocks of a PRIVATE corporation. The employees there work for the exact pay and conditions they would have in other 'normal' companies, they're not state public servants. This is most that all an example of the superiority of the private enterprise - the government owning a private company that's behaving exactly as one and built as one to get that innovation the public sector can't provide.

Playing not fair in the market can only occur because of flawed regulation in the first place. Like throwing away food to keep prices high - why does this happen? Well if you really go into details you'll find out that the places it happens in are places where the local government placed food quotas to protect fat farmers that formed unions and lobbies to influence the local government to make up those quotas. I have enough of those example around just from my own country, I'm sure there are much more in America.

At 3/29/13 11:35 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote: Playing not fair in the market can only occur because of flawed regulation in the first place.

This statement is completely false. Unfair business practices happen all the time. Part of competition isn't just succeeding over your competition, it's destroying your competition. Once competition has been destroyed there is NO incentive to play fair. Understand?

At 3/29/13 03:48 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/29/13 11:35 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote: Playing not fair in the market can only occur because of flawed regulation in the first place.

This statement is completely false. Unfair business practices happen all the time. Part of competition isn't just succeeding over your competition, it's destroying your competition. Once competition has been destroyed there is NO incentive to play fair. Understand?

No, you don't understand. There is no such thing ever as killing all possible competition. Wherever there is a place to enter the market and make more profits than your competitors people will always do so unless there is a government crippling regulation like giving monopoly to a certain company by law. You will ALWAYS have people who won't sell their business for anything and you will ALWAYS have new faces once old ones are gone so long as there isn't a special licence-based regulation that prevents new companies to enter markets.
Mark Zuckerberg always kept receiving offers to buy facebook from him while still wasn't the monster that it is today and he never sold it nor even intended to negotiate over it. You will always have people like that statistically.

At 4/1/13 10:17 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote: No, you don't understand.

No, you're the one not understanding ere. So I'll use my example again.

Titan Gas is a national gas station chain with revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars. They are the #1 gas station in Townville.

Joe's Gas is a local gas station with 4 locations and has been a staple in Townsville since about 2 decades before Titan came into town.

Titan is tired of losing customers to a Joe's Gas. So Titan lowers their prices to ten cents a gallon below cost to wrest all of Joe's customers away. Titan takes a loss, but with their incredible size they can easily eat a loss in one market (or numerous markets for that matter). Joe's customers slowly become little more than a trickle. After a year of criplling loss due to no customers Joe's closes up shop. Titan, now the only gas station in town decides to make back its investment in destroying Joe by charging a thirty cent premium on all of its gas. There is nowhere else for anyone to go so the itizens of Townville grin and bear it.

Alex, seeing what he thinks is a screw job mortgages his house and get numerous loans both personal and bank in order to open Alex's Gas. Alex charges the market rate, which is 30 cents cheaper than Titan. For a couple months Alex is flodded with customers. Titan sees this and again drops to ten cents below cost. Alex, like Joe, goes out of business. Alex loses his house and declares bankruptcy losing near all of his possessions.

After a couple repetitions of this story it becomes well known in Townville that opening your own gas station is not only going to be a failed venture, but will likely send you to the poorhouse. Titan no longer has to worry about competition starting in Townsville and returns to the thirty cent premium forever.

Titan's competitive practices have not made the customers better off, in fact Titan's competitive practices, combined with their sheer size has destroyed all competition and left Titan as the only player in town free to do whatever they wish with prices as they have all the supply and there are no other practical options. This is the nature of unfettered capitalism.

While capitalism begins with beneficial competition, once a company goes over the hump from market player into market titan the rules of competition being to erode very quickly as they have the size to not play fair.

At 4/1/13 10:17 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote: No, you don't understand. There is no such thing ever as killing all possible competition. Wherever there is a place to enter the market and make more profits than your competitors people will always do so unless there is a government crippling regulation like giving monopoly to a certain company by law. You will ALWAYS have people who won't sell their business for anything and you will ALWAYS have new faces once old ones are gone so long as there isn't a special licence-based regulation that prevents new companies to enter markets.
Mark Zuckerberg always kept receiving offers to buy facebook from him while still wasn't the monster that it is today and he never sold it nor even intended to negotiate over it. You will always have people like that statistically.

But you can have natural monopolies; I.e. rare earth minerals. Monopolies by definition don't just have to be government supportive, it just needs to have a high enough sink cost the dissuades other suppliers from trying to enter the market. For example, I could be in some high tech computer chip guy, and my special (so no substitutes) computer chip is made from a rare mineral. Since I'm the only person selling this chip, I'm making fat profits. Now, everybody can see I'm making fat profits, yet most hesitate to try to enter the market. Why? Because it costs too much. As a result of making this very specialized product my costs are high enough in comparison it becomes not worth it to most people. However, because I'm all ready invested in the process of making this product, it's still worth it to me, because while my product margins are a lot thinner I can still make it up in gross quantity. I, as an owner of this monopolistic good, could probably drive up that price even more somehow if I wanted, whether it would be through development, labor, technology, etc. So yes, you can kill competition by either buying it out, or just discourage people from ever entering the market.

At 3/26/13 09:37 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: I think you must do some looking into the ideal of Controlled or "Planned Obsolescence" and how it actually works against efficiency, long term durability, and quality in the name of max profit to the shareholders.

Yep. That's totally true. I mean a lot of the times it's designed to also lower prices; benefiting consumers as well, but yes businesses get to do things like that (but only to the extent that it won't make them get beaten out by their competition), because their goal is to enrich themselves, and not to enrich anyone else.

But whenever people set up a society with the goal-in-mind being "enrich everyone else", it fails horrifically because human beings are by nature and by default greedy and selfish. Freedom and liberty is the system that acknowledges man's way of life and makes it work for good as best as possible. Bondage and control could theoretically work... if humans didn't have to be in control of it. If some ethically flawless alien race that came along, a ton of the human population would probably be willing to work for them before long.

Further I believe one must consider how often sleazy and misleading marketing can make the masses believe that they are getting what they paid for when in reality they where in fact sold an item that was designed to be inferior and replaced in short order with another item that does the same things.

Blah blah blah the free market system isn't perfect, blah blah blah. It's given us most of the comfort and wealth we're living in right now. Businesses will always do what they can to make it sting along the way but the point still stands; private enterprise has invented, produced, and distributed most of the awesome things we're living with today.

People talk about how the internet was invented because of government research. Well, forgetting that it wasn't ever going to go anywhere until private entrepreneurs saw the potential in it, let's keep in mind that the government is funded by the market.

So not only can we credit the free market with cars, phones, TV, OIL AND ELECTRICITY and all the rest, but we can also credit it with basically every decent government in the world.

And you know, the reason that reading this message might make you feel uncomfortable is because you might have an image in your head of what 'businesses' are. You might be thinking of some special, elite class of people. Some group of old, white greedy robber barons with twirly mustaches.

That's the kind of classism that we would do good to purge from the collective subconscious. I'ma member of my family cleaning business, I'm trying to start a new game design business on my own. A free market has no rules as to who is legally allowed to get which job or occupation; it's just a matter of wanting the job and the employer wanting to hire you.

So when I talk about 'businesses', I'm not talking about the multi-billion dollar corporations, they'll be just fine in a world with oppressive government (big business and big government go together like bread and butter); I'm talking about middle-income families who run a seafood restaurant.

When I talk about 'the free market', I'm not talking about millionaire business owners, they'll be just fine under an oppressive anti-freedom government (buying out politicians, anyone?); I'm talking about assembly line workers and stay at home moms and college students and presumably you.

Take a look at what society is like without freedom. You can go back a few hundred years, or you can go to other places in the world right now. Things are still relatively okay for the big, rich-butt billionaires, and things are way, way worse for everyone else. The modern western world has more freedom, and has a lot more wealth and prosperity.

Why are you advocating the abolition of freedom? Why not move to a country where businesses aren't allowed to start up whenever they want, sell whatever they want and set whatever prices they want? There's plenty to choose from!

Oh, right, you think you aren't advocating anti-freedom. You think that we can somehow live in a world where people are severely restricted with what they can do with their money, yet still somehow have power and autonomy over their lives. Sorry, but money is power.

What does location, brand loyalty, marketing, timing have to do with increasing competition, being innovative, or being fair?

You should go and read what I already posted about this topic.

in either system, you have to pay to play

Well duh!
If you want to accomplish something, you have to do it on your dime, because that's how freedom and responsibility work.

Yet we had massive innovations coming from NASA and the military

Where did NASA and the military get their billions of dollars with which to do all the sweet things they've done?

Where does NASA and the military get their money?

Where does the government get its money?

Where does the government's money come from?

Where do you think all that money comes from?

Who do you think makes that money?

What do you think the government could do if it didn't have any money?

This needs to be hammered in because you can only give the government so much credit for doing (at best) great things with other people's money.

But there will always be people trying to innovate, whether in a free market, or a government run operation

And in a free society, people have a (much!) better chance of getting rewarded for their innovations.

The guy who first invented and programmed Tetris should be set for life. The guy who invented the AK-47 should be a multi-millionaire (at least). But tough luck, they were both Russians in the Soviet Union; an anti-free market paradise where evil, nasty profits weren't allowed.

These must be identified, and loosened. But, there are some good rules and regulations that promote a fair and competitive market

I don't disagree with that.

In fact, I've already made that argument in this very thread!

Congratulations, you are the ONE QUADRILLIONTH liberal who thinks that any free-market advocate wants to purge 100% of all regulations!

How many liberals have I come across who ALREADY know that free-market types agree that certain important regulations are in order? Zero! That's right, none. They all start off with the misinformed idea that they're arguing against total anarchy. Why do they always cling to that tired, tired strawman?

At 4/1/13 11:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Blah blah blah stuff about big corporations tightening the belt to chop smaller competition out of the market blah blah blah

That can happen, that does happen, but if it happened all the time, or even mostof the time, or even some of the time, the (relatively) free market world we live in would be totally different.

People flocked to Apple despite Microsoft's huge dominance of the computer market.

Kids in the 90's started playing Sega games despite Nintendo's 90% control of the games market.

You can find dozens of family owned restaurants in any given town that can last for decades.

Tiny upstart companies still make it big on a regular basis.

College students start websites and become millionaires.

That's the kind of prosperity that freedom entails. You just have to deal with the fact that freedom also allows things that you don't like, like the advantage big businesses have.

At 4/1/13 12:24 PM, UltraHammer wrote: That's the kind of prosperity that freedom entails. You just have to deal with the fact that freedom also allows things that you don't like, like the advantage big businesses have.

Or you can have a free marekt on a leash that allows for the good things while actively preventing the bad things. This is important as when a business suceeds it helps the economy a bit. It take a lot of widespread succes to help the economy a great deal. However, a few small bad acts by large players can severly hurt the entire economy.

When the bads of business hurt far worse than the goods help, it pays to have some watchful oversight of the sector.

I cant believe how some people have been mislead to think that learned behaviors such as greed is an inherent faculty of the human condition LOL. To be greedy and selfish will in time actually work against the sustainability and prosperity of the individual, the family unit, household, community, town, city, province, state, country and world in the name of instant gratification which was a condition that was indoctrinated into the socioeconomic zeitgeist of recent generations influenced by modern decadent, immoral, western filth.

The best way to do things is to combine all the greatest minds together to create the best, most economical, longest lasting and most environmentally efficient products that are possible in regards to the technology and knowledge available at the time. Competition, controlled obsolescence and the pursuit of money as a commodity puts the kibosh on environmental efficiency/protection/preservation/growth/health and innovation. Example would it not be better if the best and brightest from Apple and Microsoft worked together ?

At 4/1/13 01:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I cant believe how some people have been mislead to think that learned behaviors such as greed is an inherent faculty of the human condition LOL.

Greed is a product of instinct. As animals who require a lot of space and resources, we naturally our greedy in order to survive and propogate. In fact, those who were the most successful at being greedy ended up surviving and propogating the best.

At 4/1/13 02:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/1/13 01:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I cant believe how some people have been mislead to think that learned behaviors such as greed is an inherent faculty of the human condition LOL.

Greed is a product of instinct.

LOL is that in your professional Medical and Scientific opinion or was it tested and certified by the actual certified Scientific community and found to be true and factual.

and As animals who require a lot of space and resources, we naturally our greedy in order to survive and propagate. In fact, those who were the most successful at being greedy ended up surviving and propogating the best.

That sounds like a matter of opinion not backed by facts that were tested and re tested by the scientific and medical community of professionals.

Self preservation is an inherent faculty of any Human with a functioning brain but greed is actually the opposite of self preservation as greed will get you and your greedy society killed in time as history has proven over and over.

At 4/1/13 02:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: LOL is that in your professional Medical and Scientific opinion or was it tested and certified by the actual certified Scientific community and found to be true and factual.

Speaking of, where is your scientific and medical evidene that greed is not instinctual, but a learned trait?

How many liberals have I come across who ALREADY know that free-market types agree that certain important regulations are in order? Zero! That's right, none. They all start off with the misinformed idea that they're arguing against total anarchy. Why do they always cling to that tired, tired strawman?

A free market means different things to different people. The cacophony of ideas coming out from free-market types as a group seems to want anarchy. While you, personally, may see some sense in some laws and regulations, there will be another free-market advocate who doesn't share your feelings.

At 4/1/13 04:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/1/13 02:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: LOL is that in your professional Medical and Scientific opinion or was it tested and certified by the actual certified Scientific community and found to be true and factual.

Speaking of, where is your scientific and medical evidene that greed is not instinctual, but a learned trait?

I am not a Scientist but I do know that Greed is not an inherent human faculty so the issue here is your wild claims.

At 4/1/13 09:12 PM, MOSFET wrote: A free market means different things to different people. The cacophony of ideas coming out from free-market types as a group seems to want anarchy. While you, personally, may see some sense in some laws and regulations, there will be another free-market advocate who doesn't share your feelings.

Who are they? Show them to me! They need to be talked to.

At 4/1/13 01:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Or you can have a free market on a leash that allows for the good things while actively preventing the bad things. This is important as when a business suceeds it helps the economy a bit. It take a lot of widespread succes to help the economy a great deal. However, a few small bad acts by large players can severly hurt the entire economy.

That's not how freedom works. Having laws like "do not steal" "do not cheat" or "do not lie" are important and vital and 100% legitimate, and a few other, more specific "don't do this because it's kinda dickish" regulations are feasible at times...
At the end of the day you can't just say "be free and autonomous" then crack down when they do anything bad with it. It's like freedom of religion. You're ALWAYS going to get semi-crazy cults set up shop, and you don't get to violate their right to religious practice just because it's too weird.

When the bads of business hurt far worse than the goods help, it pays to have some watchful oversight of the sector.

Well, ARE they? Are businesses doing more harm than good? Must I remind you that 90% of the supplies, devices and resources you are using and living off of right now come from businesses*? Wouldn't corporate America have to be, like, dipping you in boiling acid to do as much harm as they have good?

(*And remember, when I say 'businesses', I don't just mean the CEO's and chairmen. I also mean the assembly-line workers and the janitors, too. I'm referring to EVERYONE who contributes to a business when I say 'businesses'.)

All the medical technology? The magic digital distribution that we're using right now? The cheap food? The warm shelter?

For the most part, all of the bull crap that they do boils down to making these amazing luxuries more expensive than they should, or selling them relatively unfairly, or making them sound 10% better than they really are, ext. They're still furnishing you with an abundant lifestyle the likes of which has never before existed in human history.

At 4/1/13 01:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I cant believe how some people have been mislead to think that learned behaviors such as greed is an inherent faculty of the human condition LOL. To be greedy and selfish will in time actually work against the sustainability and prosperity of the individual, the family unit, household, community, town, city, province, state, country and world in the name of instant gratification which was a condition that was indoctrinated into the socioeconomic zeitgeist of recent generations influenced by modern decadent, immoral, western filth.

Yep. At the end of the day, there have to be enough selfless, caring people living in a society or else the society will collapse. I'm trying (trying) to live more and more by Judeo-Christian morals in my life, because I know that--even if The Bible isn't scientifically factual--it's still a damn-near flawless moral compass and incredible instruction guide on how to navigate your life.

When I say, "we can't use government to ban simple things like greed and selfishness", I'm not saying that because I want there to be greed. I'm saying that because we literally cannot ban greed and selfishness. You can try, but it doesn't work. Every society that has tried just ends up becoming corrupt with greed on the government level.

Because greed (and sin) is a natural trait of human behavior. Yeah I don't buy what you say. If greed is a 'learned trait', then you can make the same argument about walking. As in, yeah, you have to learn it, but it still comes naturally. And that's all that matters.

...this is... one of the most convoluted and confusing political debates I've ever been in. Because... it's really hard to tell what side anybody is on!

Leanlifter; you sound like you're advocating we do away with the free market greed and restrain corporations... yet your signature image is a bunch of Obama-bashing propaganda.

Camarohusky; you're saying the same things, yet you're arguing against leanlifter and constantly backing up my statements.

It's as if... we're all people who try our best to not fall into the "two team political sport" that modern day two-party American politics have hardwired our American brains to follow and go along with.

That's... a very very good thing.

At 4/2/13 12:32 AM, UltraHammer wrote: That's not how freedom works. Having laws like "do not steal" "do not cheat" or "do not lie" are important and vital and 100% legitimate, and a few other, more specific "don't do this because it's kinda dickish" regulations are feasible at times...

The problem is that in business the lines between bad things like cheating, stealing, and other shady acts and good business sense is extremely wide and extremely blurry.

Are businesses doing more harm than good?

You missed the point of my comment. Business as a whole do fr more good than bad. However, one single bad act by one person, or entity, can easily unravel hundred upon thousands of good benefits provided by an entire economic sector.

In business, good acts are like 2x4s. Alne they're pretty useless, but get thosands of them and you suddenly have a structure. However, one fuckup by one person can burn that entire pile of 2x4s regardess of how good those other 2x4s are. This recent financial crisis is a very good example of how a few bad actors and can sink the entire economy. It only took a few thousand douchebags being reckless with their businesses to harm the other 200+ million productive Americans.

For the most part, all of the bull crap that they do boils down to making these amazing luxuries more expensive than they should, or selling them relatively unfairly, or making them sound 10% better than they really are, ext. They're still furnishing you with an abundant lifestyle the likes of which has never before existed in human history.

Actually it was unions and worker's rights laws that allowed for much of that lavish lifestyle. Otherwise non-professional workers would be paid next to nothing and would hardly be able to afford any of those luxuries.

Nope. Poor people are poor because they are ignorant mongoloid that want to leech off of the rich, and the people that have wealth have it because they are the only people that have ever worked hard in their lives. Obviously.

sarcasm

The removal of the safety net (omg socialism) is what has gotten us into such a mess.

At 4/2/13 04:22 AM, Cootie wrote: Nope. Poor people are poor because they are ignorant mongoloid that want to leech off of the rich,

The ultra rich power elite leach off each other the middle class and the poor. Poor people are poor monetarily speaking because of subjugation but that does not mean that they are not well advanced and very rich in Physical, mental and Spiritual health and relationships with the people around them. I rather be poor and in excellent health with my wife than be monetarily rich and be empty in the areas of relationships, health, spirituality and knowledge. You can't put a monetary notation on health because health is priceless.

and the people that have wealth have it because they are the only people that have ever worked hard in their lives. Obviously.

I work way harder than Bill Gates and I know how to construct and build things much much much better than him. Your point is ill informed and just plane ignorant and childish. Unless you are in command of an Oil corp or GE etc I am sorry but you are financially irrelevant or poor as you say. Money means nothing but what means everything are ideals such as good health, Strength, discipline, and respect which are things you made clear that you are in desperate need off.

At 4/2/13 04:22 AM, Cootie wrote: Poor people are poor because they are ignorant mongoloid

You would be singing a different tune if you were born in the slums of Dhaka.

I'm thinking of a word that starts with an 's', rhymes with 'sarcasm', and is completely out of reach for many people here, even when the presence of it is expressly stated.

At 4/2/13 02:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: sarcasm

noooo, i've been had