Capitalism is hindering innovation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Overhead:

negronomicon:
Opinions with nothing to support them.

Paragraph 1: You did not think there were any innovations by a socialist country. You were wrong. You try and change the subject and reframe the issue.

Paragraph 2: You claimed the USA grew through the free market rather than protectionist policies of high tariffs. You were wrong. You ignore this and just restate your opinion because otherwise you'd have to admit your ideology is wrong.

Paragraph 3: You make more claims which are either incorrect or miss the point or both. You're wrong but these are new claims so I haven't actually explained how at any point in this thread. Based on your reactions to evidence as shown in the previous two paragraphs and you previously literally saying you won't look at any evidence, there's not much point in me doing so.

It's the same as saying "government innovated the Internet". It was nothing like the Internet we know today, nothing. Socialist innovation is minimal at best. True.

No I said innovation grew through free market in spite of failed policy and regulation and tariffs were a disaster. Just like today, our economy is stagnate due to dumb policy but we still innovate every single day. True.

I consider your evidence to prove nothing at all.

negronomicon:
It's the same as saying "government innovated the Internet". It was nothing like the Internet we know today, nothing. Socialist innovation is minimal at best. True.

This seems to me like you're admitting you're wrong and you've been grudgingly forced to accept this, but you're trying to minimise how wrong you were and make some kind of point by only eking out the bare minimum concession.

You know that you were claiming zero innovations, even though they obviously did innovate? That means proportionally no matter how small you you try and minimise the innovation as being it as being (And some of their innovations - like the ones which were mentioned - were major and are still relevant today) you were off by infinity percent.

No I said innovation grew through free market in spite of failed policy and regulation and tariffs were a disaster. Just like today, our economy is stagnate due to dumb policy but we still innovate every single day. True.

I consider your evidence to prove nothing at all.

And things you consider and say without evidence or reason to back them up aren't relevant.

Do you admit that you can't point to a single piece of actual evidence to show that anything I've said is wrong? And that after being asked again and again you have failed to produce a single piece of evidence to support your position?

Edit: And you've already admitted in this thread that you haven't looked at the evidence. How can you judge it and say it proves nothing if you've never looked at it? I think that just shows once again that you've got a very narrow and ideological point of view that is based around ignoring evidence and reality.

@overhead
I've given reasoning and examples, just not links. The train thing for example, I said even though people are paying for it twice they still don't make enough to match what we put into it. Is this an essential service? No, fuck trains. Trucks destroy them even though they are held down with regulation. If it can't survive privately then good riddance. That's just my opinion, it makes sense. Why do we give this life line that puts debt on the next 50 years? Why?

Yes as I've said its history. I think your version is skewed to fit your current points. You think there is a lack of regulations and taxes. You think tariffs that lead to civil wars and trade wars are a good start up for a developing country. You use examples of post war success to make your points when production goes up in a big way. You justify agencies that do nothing but sabotage markets like coal and subsidize ethanol when it wouldn't survive in the market since it fucks engines up. All because "alternative fuel" laws, pure hippy stuff. I guess that's what happens when it's the 60s burnouts turn in congress. The next generation will be a disaster. BUT if it's complete anarchy then I can see your view... So depending on the circumstance, I'll regretfully accept your fascism as a way to develop (or save) a nation. Would you agree that it's not a long term solution for anyone?

In your history lesson you mention the relaxation of tariffs in 1913 and I countered with ford making the assembly line in 1913. The thing about power is that when you give it up then it's very hard to get back as a society. Government doesn't promote growth, the government grows period. That's all it does and it costs money to do that. Too much. Thats my opinion and our current state of affairs is my evidence. All of us no matter where you are from. Open border welfare state. It goes beyond arithmetic my friend. That is pure speculation, theory, philosophy or in my personal view, fantasy. This is why I don't care what your link or economist says. I didn't change the subject I asked what innovations have socialists made and which nation didn't end in a disaster. I agreed, Tetris is awesome and the dude who made it is awesome. Socialism is not.

Edit: I've already agreed on a basic safety net, the library of congress and museums, nasa space, the military, intelligence, air traffic, etc.. I can understand these things because it's not something a small flat lined economy can do. It's not something the average citizen needs. It is a responsibility though and I have already said so. That is why I reject socialism. To pay for socialist shit that produces nothing lol. Unless it's the military industrial complex. Which you support to make your economics sound sustainable lol.

negronomicon:

Thank god. I was beginning to think you ignored me.

I managed for a while. Give it a go, it's very refreshing. All you do is not respond when a thread is going nowhere.

So, no talking about poo, like a toddler. No pretending to fail to understand the quote function, in the hope others will overlook your response and you'll get the last word.

negronomicon:
Opinions

Random claims are neither facts nor examples. Do you think things likes "No, fuck trains" is really some kind of iron clad fact or piece of logical reasoning that no-one can dispute? It's just your opinion, which is all you've had and all you've ever had.

The only times you mention things which are acceptable are when they're irrelevant and you're trying to change the subject because even you know that what you said was wrong.

As you've once again failed to bring even the tiniest iota of evidence to back up your claims, all you're doing is showing how incorrect your opinions are.

Overhead:
Snip.

Actually, you have no credibility on this. I've explained. Like I said, I have eyewitnesses and you have nothing trustworthy. All your certified experts count for naught if the source is a liar. That's all. It doesn't matter how many times you insist and claim on these particular circumstances, because they are not normal circumstances. There is reasonable doubt of your information, and you do not have the means to change this.

FalloutJack:
Unsupported opinion

Your information is "Some dudes told me their unevidenced opinions". In terms of evidence value, it's garbage. To actually prove your point, there's basically nothing worse than pure opinion which is all you're offering.

At the same time you're completely disregarding expert peer reviewed and sourced academic studies, which are the most valuable forms of evidence, because they "cannot be trusted", although why they can't be trusted is something you can't explain.

It's clear you don't have anything to support your views and the weight of evidence is on my side.

@overhead
Can you dispute that trains are losing their ass right now? No one uses them. Not enough to survive publicly anyway. Do you think they are "essential" if so why? Yes "fuck trains" is my opinion. I literary said that right after I said that and gave my reasoning.. You have nothing else to say? Ok.

I'm not wrong. You said I didn't give reasoning or examples and I just showed you how you are wrong. If you don't think it's relevant than that's your problem. If you take away your "well thats like your opinion man" posts then you have surprisingly little substance and thought behind your posts. Not that I can blame you, you think you are in a debate and you chose socialism to defend. Why talk about substance when you can just trash someone's character and avoid history. You'd make a fine politician.

Laughable. I'm done with this one, I submit. Talking to you is pointless. I'm going to take a cue from my boy silvanus and fuck off.

@sulvanus
How does not quoting something to get the last word work exactly lol?

negronomicon:
@overhead
Can you dispute that trains are losing their ass right now? No one uses them. Not enough to survive publicly anyway. Do you think they are "essential" if so why? Yes "fuck trains" is my opinion. I literary said that right after I said that and gave my reasoning.. You have nothing else to say? Ok.

I'm not wrong. You said I didn't give reasoning or examples and I just showed you how you are wrong. If you don't think it's relevant than that's your problem. If you take away your "well thats like your opinion man" posts then you have surprisingly little substance and thought behind your posts. Not that I can blame you, you think you are in a debate and you chose socialism to defend. Why talk about substance when you can just trash someone's character and avoid history. You'd make a fine politician.

Laughable. I'm done with this one, I submit. Talking to you is pointless. I'm going to take a cue from my boy silvanus and fuck off.

What is there to dispute about railways? You've offered nothing. I can dispute your claims the same way I dispute all of your opinions, by pointing out that they're just opinions and lack evidenciary worth.

As it happens, although I'm not going to waste time putting together solid arguments when you've admitted you just ignore them, I've in fact shown in relation to my own country that the free market is a failure for rail and it needs to be privitised. As it's just a case of C+Ping I'll put it here for everyone perusal (except yours, because as you've admitted you won't actually look at the evidence).

In the UK we've had decades of privatisation thanks to the paradigm shift in political policies following the leadership of Margaret Judas Beelzebub Thatcher. Even now we're having the NHS and our schools privatised, with massive warning signals that this is a bad idea at every turn like Lansley and the "most transparent government ever" refusing to publish the risk register showing the dangers of his policies while at the same time a report was published showing the UK has one of the most efficient health systems in the world with its current nationalised set-up which directly undermines the government's argument for these radical right-wing changes.

But that's not so much what I want to talk about, because although it is really important if you're from the UK and pay attention to the news then you'll likely already know about it and concur that these changes are a tumour.

What I want to talk about is the privatisation of yesteryear, the ones that have already been swept through and we have been living with for years or decades.

Railways

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235402001879
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=778698
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/blaecaffa/v_3a24_3ay_3a2004_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a32-38.htm
http://www.kouvola.lut.fi/files/download/Tutkimusraportti169_OP_B.pdf

Sample quote from the above studies: "Generally all of the analyzed literature from UK railway sector considers (see Table 2) that railway deregulation as a major failure, and identifies that market forces are just too short-term oriented, as social implications and replacement investments are needed to be considered through longer-term perspective. Numerous different reasons are mentioned; mostly market forces are experienced to be too crude for complex and fragmented transportation system, which European railway typically represents."

Railways are the area where it is probably clearest that privatisation has completely failed. Already one of the most efficient rail networks in the world when it was privatised, although suffering from funding, British Rail now lags behind the rest of the continent by almost every metric. For instance privatisation was supposed to keep ticket prices low at RPI-1 (RPI being a measure of inflation), but had to instead be limited to RPI+1 and are now being upped to RPI+3 so they're increasing faster than inflation. Government subsidies are now ten times higher than they were (5 times accounting for inflation, I believe).

One of the reasons that even hard-core right-wingers have to sometimes admit that privatisation of the railways doesn't work is that there are just too many monopolies involved. It's way too expensive for there to be competing rail networks and the company responsible for the Uk network, Railtrack, had to essentially be nationalised and turned into Network Rail after a series of disasters like the Hatfield train crash showed how inept the privatised alternative was.

Then the train operating companies have monopolies over sections of the network because there is only a limited amount of space. The fabled competition never has a chance because there isn't competition, just different monopolies in different regions. This has also eroded the formerly integrated service, with rail companies applying for the most beneficial contracts possible and then rigorously enforcing them. For instance Virgin West Coast got a ban on anyone competing with them, which meant other services like First North Western pulled the plug on a lot of their trains as they're be unable to collect or set down passengers at big stations which were now Virgin exclusive. Competing companies are often outright banned from stopping trains at cities in this manner and it means connections which are socially beneficial and profitable (Supposedly the driving motivator in free-market reform) aren't run because they're profitable for a competitor of the company which makes the decision of whether or not they happen.

Then there's even more monopolies as in essence the train operating companies have to take whatever the Rolling Stock Leasing Companies offer. Due to the fragmentation of the rail network with some places being electrified and some not, some being at a cant which stops some trains from operating and some not, etc, there are all types of different trains required all over the country so that the Train Operating Companie (which don't actually own trains themselves because they only operate on the railways for a contracted period and what do you do with 500 trains if you don't win the contract next time) have little choice but to shut up and accept what they are offered.

Combine all this with the captive market, because if you're using the train then often driving or taking a bus isn't an option, and you have a recipe for disaster as companies fail to compete with each other to drive down costs but do compete so see who gets the most lucrative monopolies so they can exploit ordinary people.

I'll leave you with the McNulty report, a review from a little while back into the rail industry. If you have a look through it then make sure to read it in detail because the summary and conclusion have little detail to the body of the report. If I could work out how to C&P from protected PDFs I'd cut out the juicy bits here for you, but sadly I can't. It also ignored evidence from individual reports which were commissioned to provide info for the overall McNulty report, such as the Arup review of rolling stock which sets out how an independent regulator is needed to deal with the problems that the free-market has caused.

@overhead

With all of that copy and pasting you still don't say much. I'm starting to think you don't have an original thought in your ammo bag. I never said it would work better privately, not once. I said if it failed privately then it shouldn't exist. Period. Do you consider railways "essential"? Why? Maybe it is for the UK I have no idea but why? For the US it is not "essential" and it's not worth the billions we lose on it. Period.

Overhead:
Zoop

Hmmm? Oh, you're still using same invalid argument. Sorry, Overhead, but you're the one without evidence. You're basically stuck until you accept that.

negronomicon:
@overhead

With all of that copy and pasting you still don't say much. I'm starting to think you don't have an original thought in your ammo bag. I never said it would work better privately, not once. I said if it failed privately then it shouldn't exist. Period. Do you consider railways "essential"? Why? Maybe it is for the UK I have no idea but why? For the US it is not "essential" and it's not worth the billions we lose on it. Period.

Is 'originality' how you judge the merit of your wild claims? By the standards of "Is this accurate, correct or backed up by evidence" then your wild claims fail. By the standards of "is it something original that no-one else beleives ebcause there's nothing to support it" you do really well. Seems to be the main problem is an issue with your priorities.

Also you have explicitly claimed several times that the government does not produce anything and cannot contribute anything of value, nothing at all, only "stealing" from the private sector. By your own claims not just railways but every service or product could be improved by privatising it. You didn't need to specify individual industries like rail.

You saying that something shouldn't exist if it meets some nebulous and subjectively determined criteria of failure is your own personal opinion, hence why I'm ignoring it now and criticising it as you again offering nothing but opinion - just as I did when you said it the first time. You're completely unable to adapt and offer any criticism.

I'm not even sure what your last point is meant to mean. Are railways essential? I don't know, is eating anything but a thing tasteless gruel that contains all the nutrinnts a a body needs essential? Are cars essential? Planes? Are houses, clothes or entertainment essential? Hell, is humanity even existing essential? In the pig picture, no to all questions What a weird and inconsequential question to ask.

Nothing is essential. Is rail good and useful and something that is needed to be kept and is better done publicly than privately? That's the question that needs to be asked and the answer is yes. Due to its size the USA doesn't use trains for public transport as much as other countries, because the distance is often much larger and planes are more competitive in that geographical scenario, but it does make massive use of them for freight transport - more so than any other industrialised nation. It needs to move massive amounts of freight large distances inland in amounts where reliance on roads and air isn't viable, meaning rail is incredibly important to the transport infrastructure of the USA if you don't want the country to economically collapse and become much more unproductive.

FalloutJack:

Overhead:
Zoop

Hmmm? Oh, you're still using same invalid argument. Sorry, Overhead, but you're the one without evidence. You're basically stuck until you accept that.

Hmmm? Oh, you're still using same invalid argument. Sorry, FalloutJack, but you're the one without evidence. You're basically stuck until you accept that.

Overhead:

Are houses, clothes or entertainment essential? Hell, is humanity even existing essential? In the pig picture, no to all questions What a weird and inconsequential question to ask.

Nothing is essential. Is rail good and useful and something that is needed to be kept and is better done publicly than privately? That's the question that needs to be asked and the answer is yes. Due to its size the USA doesn't use trains for public transport as much as other countries, because the distance is often much larger and planes are more competitive in that geographical scenario, but it does make massive use of them for freight transport - more so than any other industrialised nation. It needs to move massive amounts of freight large distances inland in amounts where reliance on roads and air isn't viable, meaning rail is incredibly important to the transport infrastructure of the USA if you don't want the country to economically collapse and become much more unproductive.

You're the one who brought up "essential" services, not me.. I've listed the ones I thought were the responsibility of the Feds. Only socialists claim everything is essential, I congratulate you on saying that nothing is. That must have been a giant leap for you to think outside your box. Houses, clothes and entertainment do just fine in the private sector. There is "economic demand" as you pointed out.

If rail is as important as you say then it could survive privately. What is the difference between a private monopoly and a public monopoly? The loss of billions of tax payer dollars. If it's important to your country and general public then that's fine but it doesn't apply to mine. It is an outdated service that is held on life support. The costs far outweigh its "usefulness". It is not essential government responsibility. Which is what I said in my first post. Saying we would collapse without public rail is a complete joke.

negronomicon:

Overhead:

Are houses, clothes or entertainment essential? Hell, is humanity even existing essential? In the pig picture, no to all questions What a weird and inconsequential question to ask.

Nothing is essential. Is rail good and useful and something that is needed to be kept and is better done publicly than privately? That's the question that needs to be asked and the answer is yes. Due to its size the USA doesn't use trains for public transport as much as other countries, because the distance is often much larger and planes are more competitive in that geographical scenario, but it does make massive use of them for freight transport - more so than any other industrialised nation. It needs to move massive amounts of freight large distances inland in amounts where reliance on roads and air isn't viable, meaning rail is incredibly important to the transport infrastructure of the USA if you don't want the country to economically collapse and become much more unproductive.

You're the one who brought up "essential" services, not me.. I've listed the ones I thought were the responsibility of the Feds. Only socialists claim everything is essential, I congratulate you on saying that nothing is. That must have been a giant leap for you to think outside your box. Houses, clothes and entertainment do just fine in the private sector. There is "economic demand" as you pointed out.

If rail is as important as you say then it could survive privately. What is the difference between a private monopoly and a public monopoly? The loss of billions of tax payer dollars. If it's important to your country and general public then that's fine but it doesn't apply to mine. It is an outdated service that is held on life support. The costs far outweigh its "usefulness". It is not essential government responsibility. Which is what I said in my first post. Saying we would collapse without public rail is a complete joke.

Lol

"Houses do fine in the free market" - A dude living in a world where there is a large housing bubble that leaves even poor housing out of reach of many full time workers in Western countries (let alone developing countries) and which was the key factor in a massive free-market fuelled global economic meltdown that we're still reeling from even years after the fact.

Also I've already explained in details and with evidence just a few posts above why the free-market is trash at running things like railways especially.

I've provided evidence, just a few posts above. Not just a little bit, comprehensive and overwhelming evidence based on exert analysis shown in peer-reviewed journals. Meanwhile you have nothing. You can't muster even a single scrap of evidence to support anything you say.

@overhead
I already went over that. That's one of the examples you conveniently ignored and then said I don't show my reasoning. Claiming that was a free market bubble is the dumbest thing I've seen you say so far. I'd love a lengthy detailed post of "Nobel winning economists" and "peer reviewed studies" to explain that genius statement. I will actually read that one, I swear. I think that would be hilarious.

And your lengthy post of details means dick to the substance of the conversation. It does not prove socialism is more innovative in any way. It proves that it can survive longer when it's subsidized. Well no shit that's obvious. Anything can when you're not worried about debt. I said that in my first post also. The "worth" of losing money can differ from country to country but it doesn't counter what I have said in any way. You traded one monopoly for another and consider it value. Congrats. You can say that without peer reviewed journals. Your links add nothing to the question at hand.

Again, your peer review studies mean shit to the substance of our conversation. Why can't you answer the questions without resorting to your "cornered" line? Do you actually keep typing that or do you keep it on the ready in notepad?

negronomicon:
Unevidenced opinions made with nothing to back them up

You think my evidence backed statements based on the peer reviewed work of academic experts is wrong? Well then, have you finally managed to scrape together even a single shred of proof to back up your claims that I'm wrong after failing to do so time and time again?

Nope.

So why should I pay attention to your empty claims with nothing to support them? Honest question. Why should a position based on evidence be reversed based on no evidence whatsoever? It's ludicrous.

That's what I thought..

You evidence says that a rail system can be more easily funded by trading a private monopoly for a public one. You say that public funds can support a failing trend long after its use has peaked. I never disagreed with either of those points. Not once. Your lengthy drawn out "evidence" adds nothing to the conversation. You're proving me wrong on stuff I never said or actually agreed on. My opinions are more substantial than anything you have said without peer reviewed studies. You don't have to trust my claims just tell me how I'm wrong without getting so hostile.

negronomicon:
That's what I thought..

You evidence says that a rail system can be more easily funded by trading a private monopoly for a public one. You say that public funds can support a failing trend long after its use has peaked. I never disagreed with either of those points. Not once. Your lengthy drawn out "evidence" adds nothing to the conversation. You're proving me wrong on stuff I never said or actually agreed on. My opinions are more substantial than anything you have said without peer reviewed studies. You don't have to trust my claims just tell me how I'm wrong without getting so hostile.

Don't try and revise history when you've been proven wrong.

In fact my evidence goes right back to the heart of the debate, the very issue we were contending on to begin with, where I asked you to prove your far-out claims.

Your very first post in the thread was the radical claim that the government couldn't produce anything, not products and not services, and you consistently argued in favour of this.

"The government doesn't produce anything, they steal things and keep failed obsolete things on life support" you said.

Multiple times when I challenged you, you specifically said that I was not mistaken, this was your belief that the government could not produce anything and then if it did produce things it was only because "government can produce things AFTER they steal private industry" according to you.

These are outrageous claims that you have never once offered an iota of evidence for.

Railways came up because in my very first paragraph of my very first reply to you. I used them as an example of where the government clearly does produce a service - an easy example of your claims being false. You avoided and avoided the point and just kept on giving opinion after opinion after opinion with no proof.

You've now finally conceded you were wrong.

Also, your opinions have no substance at all - that's the point. Anyone's opinions are worthless when they are backed up by absolutely no evidence, hence why I've put together lots of evidence on my side of the argument and why my argument is superior.

@overhead
I have not contradicted myself on anything. The government doesn't produce anything. The government can provide services. If they operate that service at a loss then what is it actually producing? Nothing. I have agreed that some "losses" are acceptable. Trains were not one them. I never said the free market could do it better in an area where the market doesn't want it. That's obvious. I said if it couldn't then it shouldn't exist. So yes, your lengthy detailed post was pasted for nothing. It doesn't prove me wrong on anything, it's just a bunch of words. It has nothing to do with the conversation. You have shown no innovation in rail due to public control, only a way to keep it operational at the expense of your citizens. While it might be worth it in the UK it says nothing about the system generally.

negronomicon:
@overhead
I have not contradicted myself on anything. The government doesn't produce anything. The government can provide services.

lol

"I'm not contradicting myself" - Dude who then instantly contradicts himself

Does the government produce services or not? If they do, your first claim is wrong. If they don't, your second claim is wrong. Either way you're making two mutually contradictory claims right next to each other.

Also again, zero evidence to support anything you say.

Produce and provide are two different things.

negronomicon:
Produce and provide are two different things.

Which aren't mutually exclusive and all services which are used are produced.

Production is a very basic economic term, one of the fundamental ones, which refers to the provision of any type of commodity - goods OR services. "Production is a process of combining various material inputs and immaterial inputs (plans, know-how) in order to make something for consumption (the output). It is the act of creating output, a good or service which has value and contributes to the utility of individuals."

So once again you don't know basic terminology but still expect everyone to automatically believe that you don't need to use evidence of facts your opinion is informed and to be trusted. I don't think so.

Not to mention it was clear from the very start that it included services, seeing as that was a point I brought up in the first paragraph of my first post to you and you accepted it - only turning around and trying to change your mind now, a dozen or so posts later, because you've had to concede the point but don't want to admit you were wrong.

Correct. A basic economic term. A consumable good or service that creates value. Your feelings are not value in an economic sense. Governments do not produce goods or services, they provide services at a loss of value.

There is nothing wrong with what I said. You just unknowingly posted my source for me.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Correct me and I'll accept it no problem. You haven't yet.

negronomicon:
Correct. A basic economic term. A consumable good or service that creates value. Your feelings are not value in an economic sense. Governments do not produce goods or services, they provide services at a loss of value.

There is nothing wrong with what I said. You just unknowingly posted my source for me.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Correct me and I'll accept it no problem. You haven't yet.

So you don't know what value is either? I should be charging you for the lessons I'm handing out!

"Economic value is a measure of the benefit provided by a good or service to an economic agent. It is generally measured relative to units of currency, and the interpretation is therefore "what is the maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and able to pay for the good or service"?"

This might shock you to your core, but consumers pay money to use trains and don't use "feelings" as you seem to be suggesting. Therefore they have value. Therefore are a service that is produced.

This is basic stuff.

Also government run railways can be and often are very profitable. Hell, when the UK privatised their railways (thus forsaking their own profits to be used for the nation) why do you think foreign government like France and the Netherlands even now have their state-owned companies coming in and and running the UK's trains for them? Because it's profitable, as is recorded in black and white on their annual balance sheets!

@overhead

Lmao! Intentional humor?! Wow, I'm impressed. Who knew?!

It's cute when you think you are telling me something I don't know. It goes away when you think it contradicts anything I said though. I'm not willing to pay billions of dollars on a desolate service. I am willing to pay for police. They have economical value but they are not a consumable service. Legally anyway... We provide cops we don't produce them.

It's not a shock actually. I already told you a long time ago that we pay twice and still can't match what we put into it. There is no value, it operates at a loss. It is a provided service, one we don't need and haven't for a long time.

If you outsourcing to small countries then you still aren't producing anything. You're providing a service that you lose on. Giving up profits for country is fine but that's not what we are talking about. If nationalized companies are making money on your laziness then yes I would say they are producing a service. Thats not socialism though, you are paying their country to run your shit. It's not a loss for them. That's just smart.

Overhead:
Snip

More deliberate instigation. Not a proper discussion. This is why you don't get anywhere. I've seen you doing it with others and it still has no effect.

negronomicon:
@overhead

Lmao! Intentional humor?! Wow, I'm impressed. Who knew?!

It's cute when you think you are telling me something I don't know. It goes away when you think it contradicts anything I said though. I'm not willing to pay billions of dollars on a desolate service. I am willing to pay for police. They have economical value but they are not a consumable service. Legally anyway... We provide cops we don't produce them.

It's not a shock actually. I already told you a long time ago that we pay twice and still can't match what we put into it. There is no value, it operates at a loss. It is a provided service, one we don't need and haven't for a long time.

If you outsourcing to small countries then you still aren't producing anything. You're providing a service that you lose on. Giving up profits for country is fine but that's not what we are talking about. If nationalized companies are making money on your laziness then yes I would say they are producing a service. Thats not socialism though, you are paying their country to run your shit. It's not a loss for them. That's just smart.

I've already shown how I've proven you wrong with evidence and links to your posts to prove this is the case.

If you wish to dispute this, feel free to present a reasoned argument backed up by evidence. All I'm seeing here is you lurching back to opinion after you've realised you had made a losing argument and it was clear you didn't actually understand the economic terms you were using.

At this point it's been shown that you don't understand economics well as you misunderstand basic economic terms like 'production' and 'value' and your knowledge of history is poor as you weren't aware of some of the most well known events of the 20th century like the launch of Sputnik. Even if someone randomly decided they would base their beliefs of some random dude's opinion, which is a bad idea but let's put that aside just for the sake of a 'what if', why would anyone at this stage trust you over anyone else when it comes to economic history? It's an area where you've shown you're not informed.

FalloutJack:
More deliberate instigation. Not a proper discussion. This is why you don't get anywhere.

My evidence is peer reviewed academic studies which I have provided in this thread. If you think you have at any stage proven then as liars then you are completely in the wrong as throughout this entire thread you haven't offered even the tiniest iota of evidence to show that.

Full Metal Bolshevik:
Gosh Overhead I admire your patience.
I find that some people are not worth discussing with, FalloutJack repeats the same thing ad nauseum without anything to back it up and you insist on arguing with him, move on, he'll never learn, or maybe he already knows he's wrong and doesn't have anything to back up his claims and is just to proud to admit it.

I'd agree with you but the thing is because he just makes the same 'point' over and over again, the valid rebuttals I made pages back are just as valid now as when I originally posted them.

Because of this I can make valid points by just C+Ping. For instance my latest response to him is just C+Ped from this post a couple of weeks ago.

I haven't actually typed even a single letter in response to him in at least half a dozen posts, it's all just C+Ping my old posts :D

You haven't proven me wrong lol. I'd admit it. Did I not accept your fascism under dire circumstances on a short term basis?

I went back to my old opinion to explain how it hasn't changed. You had claimed it did so why wouldn't I go back? I didn't use those terms incorrectly, that's why my opinion hasn't changed. I think it was a reasonable argument whether you trust my opinion or not. You see my reasoning and even if you strongly disagree you still haven't proven me wrong. You just keep claiming I haven't proven myself right.

If "not losing billions of dollars on failed services because of 20 trillion in debt and a 500 billion deficit" isn't a reasonable argument then what is? No amount of data would convince you, friend. It's because you have your sources lined up and ready to rock. Sources that say it's cheaper to pay other countries to do your work apparently. I'm totally cool with that but it doesn't void my argument at all lol. You say my views are baseless opinions when you replace basic economics with feel good academics. I don't care about your sources, it's nothing personal. I don't trust academics and intellectuals who make a living on other people's ideas. The intellectual is not held accountable for failed ideas, the citizen is held responsible. Sometimes the world pays for their dumb ideas, like you mentioned. I believe picking winners and losers goes beyond the expertise and/or authority of my government. The next 3 generations of Americans paid for that bailout, not the intellectuals with a bright idea to lower loan standards for "equality". That's political academia not economics. I don't deny the pathetic joke my country has become. It still doesn't change my economic preference because that wasn't the problem. I don't want to give these useless idiots even more power through a dumb failed philosophy. That's reasonable.

You talk like I'm asking for worship over here lol. I don't care if you believe me or not honestly, I'm just sharing my opinion. You "proved" I used those terms wrongly by pasting the definitions. You didn't tell me how I was wrong. In fact you argued that I was saying a service in general can't be produced when I already gave Uber as an example. Why did you think that? I have no idea bro. You read what you want I guess. You think I wasn't aware of the space race when I said I'm willing to waste billions on NASA space? Another dumb assumption based on nothing. I asked for innovations in socialism and that's what you get: A theory, a dude shot into the atmosphere, some tank design and a video game that has nothing to do with socialism, it's just one awesome dude. Then done, finished as a nation lol.. I had already accepted space and military as acceptable expenses but even they are more innovative in the private sector. Military weaponry and tech is still designed by private industry.

I forget the name but I believe there is a "private NASA" now since Obama cut funding and turned our NASA into a Muslim outreach center. I couldn't say how they are fairing as a private corporation though. The Mars stuff is great, same with the fly bys. If you want to credit that stuff to socialist innovation then ok. I guess... I was wrong on ZERO innovations, you caught me lol.. The scales didn't shift much though. It's not even close. Profit will always be more innovative and motivational, it's nature of the beast. For the record I thought Tetris was a great answer anyway. I laughed.

Overhead:

My evidence is-

Faulty. Untrustworthy. Provided by liars at the source. Just words. And you resort to insults when you don't have anything else. Still won't work.

FalloutJack:

Faulty. Untrustworthy. Provided by liars at the source. Just words.

He at the very least gave studies, which is a great deal more than you've done. "My mate sez"!

negronomicon:
You haven't proven me wrong lol.

...

I was wrong ... you caught me lol

Contradicting yourself again?

Aside from pointing that out, your post is just a whole mess of opinion without even a single scrap of evidence to back it up so it can easily be ignored.

FalloutJack:

Overhead:

My evidence is-

Faulty. Untrustworthy. Provided by liars at the source. Just words. And you resort to insults when you don't have anything else. Still won't work.

Unlike you I don't build my argument on assumptions.

I provided peer reviewed expert studies. The entire point is that the studies can actually be looked at and the points they make judged on their merits, something you have never done.

Yes lol. I was wrong on my exaggeration of ZERO socialist innovations, you win. Capitalism is still more innovative though, it also wins. By miles bruh, fucking miles. Or kilometers ;)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked