lol Verbatim got rekt by Meta.

Also Russel Brand's face alone makes me want to punch him

yeah i got wrecked so hard, he didn't even respond to my last post

oh

You really are delusional enough to think that the lack of a reply means you win, despite the fact nobody wants to deal with your retardation any further. He proved you wrong on all counts.

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 03, 2015, 09:29:27 AM

You really are delusional enough to think that the lack of a reply means you win

is that what i said?

No

"he didnt even reply to my last post"
HURRRRR
It was massively implied you dolt

"he didnt even reply to my last post"
HURRRRR
It was massively implied you dolt

except it wasn't

you said i got "wrecked"

which implies not only that he "won", but he "WRECKED" me

one basic, easily rebutted response does not constitute getting "wrecked"
sorry

lolk

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.

So Verbatim, if capitalism is so full of "teh evulz", what other system do you propose? Something that wouldn't work in reality, I'd imagine.

At least give me time to respond.

i'm not blaming you, i'm just saying, it's sort of silly to pretend as though i've been "REKT" when the one question that i'm asking hasn't yet been adequately answered

and by "adequately answered", i mean i should be a capitalist by the end of this conversation

I'm not sure how to elaborate further.

exactly, right

i mean, i'm not gonna sit here and tell you that i know how it would work, either, but one's own inability to understand something does not necessitate any sort of argument against it

"You can't price things meritoriously; it doesn't even make sense. "

maybe to you and i
but to say that it can't be done because a couple of teenagers are unable to grasp it is simply myopic

this is something i've discussed with aria before, but it was only under the token that all the world's commodities and resources are infinite

so, if you work for a week, you earn a week's worth of food--i think that's pretty simple, and i fail to see how that kind of system wouldn't work even with finite resources

the informational deficits you speak of diminish when you take animal products out of the equation
if anyone has allergies to any of the food provided, there would be alternatives
what informational deficits are there

The economy operates on productivity, not merit.

productivity is inherently meritorious
but only if it's, you know, actually productive--you have to use that word carefully and precisely

saving cancer patients is productive; making a new ipad with 1 or 2 new redundant features is not

no matter how many drooling idiots want that ipad, it's never gonna be worth it
saving sick people is worth it 99.99% of the time

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

that was a rhetorical question; i know precisely what productivity growth is
and i was saying that it's kind of oxymoron, in the way that we define our productivity

because the new iPad really isn't that much different from the previous model
maybe it's a little bit lighter, i don't know

and people will spend hundreds of dollars on them by the tens of millions

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.

of course, but you see, that's missing the point

it's not that i'm the arbiter of value--i just don't think you're going to be able to argue that a cancer patient is worth less than your iPad

you cannot believe in an objective morality if you don't have an objective system of values, can you

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.

perhaps, but now we don't have to live off the land anymore

we've built civilization, and the only reason it would collapse if capitalism were to end is because people are greedy, selfish, petty cunts

(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.

Which is a monopoly. Which is very rarely a function of capitalism.

which is just the thing
monopolies aren't inherently bad--they're only bad once they start abusing their position

a polypoly (or whatever you'd call it) is WORSE, in my opinion, because we start wasting resources on redundant products--this video game console thing is a good example

does there really need to be three consoles on the market
why don't we just have one console and improve upon that model

oh, it's because people are greedy cunts... that's right

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.

so why exploit it further

i don't think i said this, in particular, was a function of capitalism--merely that those are the type of people that capitalism breeds

which is a fact
we breed mindless consumers who "pick sides"

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.

fair enough

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

>somewhat disadvantaged

a little bit glib, coming from someone who hasn't quite made it to that point yet
but i guess it's better than saying we're not disadvantaged

There's no moral principle which dictates people must have a home.

i look at it as compensation for being born
i didn't ask to be here, meta--i'm only here because a couple of fucknuts thought it would be a good idea

and it's been the same for all one hundred billion of us

i think we're entitled to some form of compensation in the form of a comfortable life
and yeah, having a home is one of the must-haves

call it a "trailer park", i don't give a shit, it's the same idea

It's a broken system because people don't like what you like?

No, what I like has nothing to do with it. I like video games, but I'm still able to make the basic concession that it would be better to donate to a good cause than it would be to waste money on a game. All capitalism does is make us spoiled brats with mixed priorities. Just because you see the stupidities of brand loyalty doesn't change the fact that there's millions of brand loyalists, and they wouldn't be brand loyalists if there was no such thing as a "brand" to begin with.

I'm not claiming the outcomes are always as efficient as possible

It should be, though. That's my argument. If your system isn't always as efficient as possible, it's a broken system. That's the very definition of brokenness. If something is inefficient, it's broken.

I'm saying the system of pricing and resource allocation is more efficient than any other system you could name.

But not one that I could imagine.

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

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.

I don't think anyone said it didn't work. It just doesn't work well. Or, well enough, I should say. It's inefficient. Socialism, from all that I've read about it, just seems so much better in theory.

And by the way, I fail to see how giving everyone the right to a comfortable home (without mortgage, of course) isn't socialism, or at least, an example of it in practice.

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 03, 2015, 01:37:24 PM

So Verbatim, if capitalism is so full of "teh evulz", what other system do you propose? Something that wouldn't work in reality, I'd imagine.

socialism

didn't work in the past =/= can't ever be done correctly

Still not working in the present.

Case and point: Venezuela

i don't know anything about venezuela

It's actually fascinating.  They just nationalized the food industry and raised the minimum wage 30%.  Place is a shit hole.

It's safe to say capitalism works the best when you are taking human nature into account.

Depends on which sort of capitalism you have. There are more capitalist/ultracapitalist societies like China, India, and the US and then you have sort of hybrid capitalist/socialist systems like in several European countries.

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.