They were asking for it.

Fuck you. What a stupidly immoral thing to say.

What a fucking nonce. According to him, if you're in Brighton Pavilion you should vote Green, if you're in Scotland you should vote SNP and if you're anywhere else you should vote Labour.

What an intellectually dishonest, uninteresting phenomenon of a drug-addled, narcissistic brain. I knew, fucking knew, he would turn this into some class warfare bullshit between the righteous and open-eared Ed Miliband and the Tory toffs.

Fuck you Russell Brand. Fuck you and all the un-principled bullshit you so happily stand for.

>thinking someone other than you should have any say whatsoever over what you put into your own body

Why do all of your considerations about libertarianism begin with what's being put in people's bodies?

It gives the impression you're a faggot cokehead with a persecution complex.

So the Democrat's stated official policy is to block anything the other party proposes?

No, but it's naive to think voting doesn't take place across party lines for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

And, not to mention, it was after all George Bush who increased Medicare by 131pc.

Bush.

Sanders is a fucking joke.

But how is Obama shitting on the USA's federalization?

I'll reply to this tomorrow.

There are more capitalist/ultracapitalist societies like China, India, and the US

wat

None of those are "ultracapitalist". Not to mention, the US has fallen down competitiveness ratings since 2009 and various bullshit legislation like the Dodd-Frank Act.

At least give me time to respond.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 02, 2015, 10:00:20 AM

How could you even possibly price things meritoriously? You either do it by supply and demand, or not at all. Supply and demand is the only system of allocating scarce resources that actually makes sense. Trying to price things on some other notion has led to depravity every single time it has been tried, and no, it's not just a case of not being tried correctly, it just doesn't work.

please explain

I'm not sure how to elaborate further. Having prices determined freely on the basis of how much of something there is and how much demand there is for that something is the only system that makes sense and has worked. You can't price things meritoriously; it doesn't even make sense.

The economy operates on productivity, not merit. At least you can measure productivity and other variables like supply and demand. Pricing things any other way would fail due to informational deficits; it's the reason the government can't set prices, it just doesn't have enough information to do it properly.

Quote

The rich contribute disproportionately to the public coffers; often at the expense of productivity growth, I might add.

and what's productivity growth

developing a new iPad?

Depends on the model you're using; but put simply it's a growth in our ability to convert inputs to outputs.

if your new product isn't a fucking breakthrough in technology, it's probably not worth it

What makes you the arbiter of "worth" in this situation? If you don't like a product, you're free to not buy it and to persuade others why they shouldn't buy it. But it's exactly this system of free consumer demand which means we aren't living off the land with no time for philosophy, literature, art or anything else of higher value than a new iPad.

(part of the evil of capitalism is that it's self-sustaining, like a cancer)

Except it isn't; capitalism will end itself eventually. Capitalism is unsustainable in the very long run precisely for the reason that it's too innovative.

Quote

Since capitalism is about competition, I don't see how this is a function of capitalism. Most competition is stifled by government regulations which restrict entry into a specific industry. Especially when it comes to intellectual property reform.

it's a function of capitalism, obviously, because if you're the only one making products on the market

Which is a monopoly. Which is very rarely a function of capitalism. The only monopoly I've ever known to sustain itself without legislative help was the De Beers Diamond Corporation. Funny thing is, after the market was opened up, diamond prices went up.

you've never met someone who "prefers" apple to samsung?
you've never met someone who prefers xbox to playstation?
you've never heard of terms like "brand loyalty"?

Yeah, and I think they're all retarded. But, again, you're misapplying something as being a function of capitalism; people are loyal about all manner of things from sports to skin colour. It's a fairly common cognitive bias, regardless of whatever economic system you have set up.

there are people who won't even buy products made out of country, like it should matter

Which is a function of protectionism, which absolutely isn't a function of capitalism. I agree that people who go on about 'muh domestic industry' don't know what they're talking about.

the fresh refers to those individuals who are just out of high school and are either going to college or are trying to get themselves a job--the next generation of hapless consumers, if you will

Knowledge and information is becoming ever more important in the modern economy; it's not surprising that younger people are therefore somewhat disadvantaged.

Not a function of capitalism; it's mostly a function of mental illness, Ronald Reagan and the shocking mental health infrastructure in America.

would building homes for the homeless be a function of capitalism?

no, that would be socialism
because i believe everyone--EVERYONE--is entitled to a home[/quote]
That wouldn't be socialism, at all. Unless you count state socialism as a form of socialism, which I don't, but that's a judgement call. Nonetheless, people are entitled to nothing; and even then it would be unfair to call one programme out of a whole economy "socialist". There's no moral principle which dictates people must have a home.

It's only worth it insofar as it has a net positive outcome, and I should point out many libertarian and capitalist economists are in favour of providing 'trailer parks' for the homeless where they can receive therapy and look for a job. Supporting capitalism doesn't mean you're against any kind of welfare scheme imaginable.

Which is a result of companies responding to consumer demand.

which should probably raise a red flag in your mind telling you that supply & demand is a broken system[/quote]
It's a broken system because people don't like what you like?

I'm not claiming the outcomes are always as efficient as possible, I'm saying the system of pricing and resource allocation is more efficient than any other system you could name. There are numerous ways of correcting externalities (like pollution) by simply manipulating the price system (via taxes most of the time) instead of throwing the entire capitalist structure out with it too.

Hell, it's why I support policies like the EITC which subsidise low wages.

Not to mention, if this ever does change it will most likely be as a result of the development of synthetic meats--which is a function of capitalism.

capitalism breeds innovation[/quote]
It does. It's why the capitalist systems in the world are the most innovative, it's why capitalism has been the most productive system in human history. Competition works.

hostile

refuse to assimilate

are disgusted by things which don't conform to their barbaric values

and they always hide their true number

Halfway through the video and so far his only "proof" that god exists is "it's unlikely that the universe formed this way so there's got to be a god who created it". Should I continue watching?

No.

I'm not all that interested in Stephen Fry's original claims, but Russell Brand is just a joke.

He's an uninteresting, unintelligent fumbling moron who has no grasp of philosophy, metaphysics or epistemology. There are so many fucking fallacies and poor arguments. Goddamn I hate him.

even if your message is that capitalism is evil (and it is)

On what grounds?

It's the most productive system in the history of human economics, and will only die once it commits suicide by innovation. Even if you don't like the faults of capitalism (and yes, it has faults), there are no alternatives. Morality isn't an intellectual plaything to be mired in unrealistic counterfactuals; it's a very real and objective account of macro- and micro-social well-being.

I have never seen a system proposed that could even reach the levels of wealth and prosperity--for everybody involved--as capitalism does, in either practice or theory. The private accumulation of capital, wage labour and competition are what allowed us (and is still allowing us) to drag ourselves out of millennia of darkness and barbarism. To say it's an "evil" system is to do it a massive injustice.

Child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the West Midlands had "significant similarities" with patterns of abuse in Rotherham, a report said.
West Midlands Police's report said 210 young people had been identified as victims or at risk of CSE between January and June 2014.
It was put together last year, but has just been released following a freedom of information request.
Last month, a separate report said the figures could actually be much higher.
Led by Stephen Rimmer, a former Home Office director general, and commissioned by seven local authorities in Birmingham and the Black Country, as well as the police, it found up to 500 children could be at risk.
David Jamieson, West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner, said Mr Rimmer's report included more up-to-date figures on victims, although both reports acknowledged abuse was usually "hidden" and the true figure could be much higher.
West Midlands Police published its report after it received an FOI request from the Birmingham Mail.
Multiple abusers
The force has charted CSE victims and offenders over recent years and said there had been a "consistent profile" of both since 2010.
The report said victims were typically white women aged 13 to 16, with about a third living in care.
"There are significant similarities to the Rotherham victim/offender and location profiles," it states.
It also detailed that of those victims living at home, about 25% had lived in care at some point, while up to 60% had a case worker.
Many of the victims were transported across the West Midlands by organised gangs and abused by multiple men, the report found.
Meanwhile, it said suspects and offenders were "typically Asian, of Pakistani heritage and aged from 17 to 40".
However, online abusers are more likely to be white males, it said.
Mr Jamieson said police were working with communities across the area to tackle the problem, while local authorities in Birmingham and the Black Country were now taking a more coordinated approach.
"I totally agree that more could and should have been done in the past, there's no question of that, and that's true right across the country," he said.

So Rotherham and Rochdale, then Parliament, then Scotland Yard and now the West Midlands.

And, as a society, we seem to be more concerned with the non-existent gender pay gap and whether or not to keep the green belt as it is.

I'm genuinely surprised people haven't rioted over this; it really is endemic.

I'm calling it right now Meta. I'm betting my hat. PSU's comin'. He's comin' for this thread.

"Swiggidy swoody, I'm comin' for ya moody."

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 01, 2015, 05:07:43 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on May 01, 2015, 05:05:30 PM

I don't believe people should be making money off of healthcare.

Does it really matter if it works.

There's a lot of things that work but are ultimately seen as pretty bad, hence why we shouldn't and don't do it.

What? If something works then you do it.

If people don't like it, then fuck them.