This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 103104105 106107 ... 502
3121
« on: October 03, 2015, 06:21:41 PM »
fu k
3122
« on: October 03, 2015, 07:52:44 AM »
like, you should be a conservative by 40.
Why?
>missing the point
3123
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:09:36 PM »
A prescriptive sense, I... guess.
Well yeah, that seems to be the primary way people take: like, you should be a conservative by 40.
3124
« on: October 02, 2015, 07:42:54 PM »
BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
3125
« on: October 02, 2015, 03:12:28 PM »
The bookworm/intellectual who is a voice of reason in a violent culture.
3126
« on: October 02, 2015, 03:08:16 PM »
Associates liberalism with naivety
Well, no it doesn't. It associates socialism with youthful attitudes, which may indeed include naivety.
3127
« on: October 02, 2015, 02:09:08 PM »
I like the quote from a descriptive sense.
3128
« on: October 02, 2015, 12:49:08 PM »
No.
3129
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:52:02 AM »
LOL TOO BAD IT WON'T HELP YOU, YOU MISERABLE FAT SHIT
3130
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:47:41 AM »
 Did this for our Chancellor.
3131
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:24:49 AM »
The existence of rationing makes it seem a little less impractical to me.
The whole reason we have a price mechanism is because, informationally, it's far superior to some kind of governmental rationing system.
3133
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:12:07 AM »
Goods.
Which is utterly impractical; the point of money is that it is fungible, it represents the goods and services you can consume with it.
3134
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:11:25 AM »
Is that in reference to public, private, or both types of loans? Both, IIRC.
I'd like to see the source.
WSJ actually had a piece on it pretty recently.
3135
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:10:05 AM »
We'd get paid in real wealth.
What does that even mean?
3136
« on: October 02, 2015, 10:08:58 AM »
Thank you for helping my point. See how that red part exists? It shouldn't exist.
Nothing about this makes capitalism look appealing in any way whatsoever. In fact, it makes me hate it even more. Thank you.
Hey, if you want to hate capitalism on the basis of some utterly ridiculous notion of how economic development ought to occur, then fine. I just think it's a stupid lens through which to view economics, and it doesn't accomplish anything.
3137
« on: October 02, 2015, 08:12:08 AM »
Is that in reference to public, private, or both types of loans? Both, IIRC. (Not defending Verb's point), but to me, this image only shows that the rise of capitalism hasn't helped reduce the number of people in severe poverty (Which still hovers around 1 billion) - it does show a reduce in the percentage as more and more people are born into capitalist nations (Or those nations convert throughout the 1800's to early 1900's) and generally do well.
It's actually quite an interesting graph; a lot of the reduction in poverty has come from (as you say) people being born into capitalist nations, but there has been genuine development since the 1970s in both China and India which has been responsible for the genuine decline of poverty. Even if this kind of "genuine" development hadn't occurred, we would still find ourselves in a world with an economic system capable of sustaining living standards unimaginable only a century ago. The stubbornness of the 'bottom billion' mostly arises from population growth in Africa.
3138
« on: October 02, 2015, 07:37:06 AM »
You can piss on socialism all you want--there's no way you can make capitalism look appealing.
3139
« on: October 02, 2015, 07:35:21 AM »
and the very bottom of our economy gets more and more pushed out, struggle, and told to suck it up and put themselves in unpayable debt.
That's just not true; there were evidence of credit constraints for ~4pc of the population prior to federalisation, but that phenomenon hasn't survived. If there's an issue with student debt post-hoc, it's the fact you can't declare bankruptcy on them.
3140
« on: October 02, 2015, 07:14:31 AM »
like, you don't list a long series of great, wonderful things and then say "why do you want this"
Because they're literally all bullshit.
3141
« on: October 01, 2015, 06:34:12 PM »
This is so fucking dumb.
Says the guy with 'fuck' in his name.
OMG SUCH A GOOD BURN YOU SURE SHOWED ME JOIN MENSA, YOU FUCKING INTELLIGENT CUNT
3142
« on: October 01, 2015, 06:27:40 PM »
This is so fucking dumb.
3143
« on: October 01, 2015, 05:28:28 PM »
why not? Free shit is awesome.
Somehow I think structuring a government and implementing economic policy is a bit more complex than being "awesome".
3144
« on: October 01, 2015, 05:14:24 PM »
TFW I am actually voting for Bernie.
MUH FREE STUFF $15/HR MIN WAGE COLLEGE SHOULD BE FREE BREAK UP THE BANKS INEQUALITY IS BECAUSE OF GREEDY RICH CUNTS Why would you vote for this?
3145
« on: October 01, 2015, 02:33:56 PM »
I'd say smokers are worse. There's only one reason why smokers become smokers: They made the stupid decision one day to pick up a cigarette. Obesity isn't as black and white, there are more causes and conditions that can contribute to a person getting an eating disorder, and so they're more worthy of my pity.
>implying smoking isn't an addiction >implying there aren't factors which lead one to become a smoker >implying we have free will OT: Smokers, at least in the US, produce fewer negative externalities in terms of healthcare and public services than lardbuckets.
3146
« on: October 01, 2015, 01:39:19 PM »
Just to put it out there: I agree with you guys. It gets annoying to have people constantly expect me to be on-call to tell them what's what about the economy, primarily because the chances are I won't actually know and then I have to take the time to research it and formulate a response. I'd rather people formed there own opinion and then engaged me in a debate. At least that way I don't feel like a fucking lecturer.
3147
« on: September 30, 2015, 11:09:20 PM »
just tell us if it's a good plan or not
I don't trust the tax foundation, and 11pc growth over ten years despite huge budget cuts to (presumably) things like welfare, education, other services etc. seems unrealistic. The TF is pretty well-known for its pro-business bias.
3148
« on: September 30, 2015, 10:38:19 PM »
An extinct middle class
Did you read it:
"The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs.
The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income."
I'm not as economically literate as you, so I didn't follow after the larger capital stock stuff.
It would basically help everybody. Although, to be honest, I wouldn't trust the Tax Foundation.
3149
« on: September 30, 2015, 10:35:24 PM »
An extinct middle class
Did you read it: "The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs. The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income."
3150
« on: September 30, 2015, 05:48:32 PM »
Outsourcing has ruined America.
See, we fundamentally disagree on this question. I'd go into this further, but I've been drinking and am about to go out with my flatmates. I think you attribute problms to outsourcing whcich are actually the result of other poor policies; regardless, we can both agree that things like education needs to be improved, the war on drgus needs to be ended etc. I also have no problem making America more competitive in terms of exports, insourcing and all that jazz. I just disagree on the impact outsourcing has had on US workers.
Pages: 1 ... 103104105 106107 ... 502
|
Show Posts