Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.

Were you wrong?

You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas so I tend to ignore you after trying to carry a conversation w/ you on other threads. Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility. Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you--as evinced by your signature--is a good way to ensure you view yourself as right. Too bad real world academics doesn't work out that way but when you shelter yourself I guess you found a way around it.

But I want to thank you for pointing out the Jefferson Quote. However, he made similar remarks and so while the quote likely isn't his, we know where he stood on the banks. You just detract rather than add to discussion. You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.

Coca-Cola spends X on Ads
Big Pharma spends X on Ads

I ask that you to click those links so you can begin to put a picture together of advertisement.

You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas

Yeah, I tend to call you out on your bullshit claims, and then you tend to run away.

Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility.

Nothing personal, but pointing out your errors (lies?) makes me more credible than you.

Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you

That's a safe assumption, when you're my opponent.

You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.

When you make ridiculous claims, with no proof, where am I supposed to research?
Thanks for providing a few links.
Your actual claim was:

The fact that most major corporations spend more money on advertisement than the production of their products clues us in.

Were you wrong?

 

[Antares]

Wealth inequality.

**** you people.

You want more, earn more.

It is just that simple you dumbshits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.

Were you wrong?

You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas so I tend to ignore you after trying to carry a conversation w/ you on other threads. Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility. Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you--as evinced by your signature--is a good way to ensure you view yourself as right. Too bad real world academics doesn't work out that way but when you shelter yourself I guess you found a way around it.

But I want to thank you for pointing out the Jefferson Quote. However, he made similar remarks and so while the quote likely isn't his, we know where he stood on the banks. You just detract rather than add to discussion. You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.

Coca-Cola spends X on Ads
Big Pharma spends X on Ads

I ask that you to click those links so you can begin to put a picture together of advertisement.

Coca-Cola advertising budget (2010): $2.9 billion

In 2010, their "Cost of Revenue" was almost $12.7 billion.

KO Income Statement | Coca-Cola Company (The) Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

I know that's math, which is a weak spot for you.

 

[bripat9643]

I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....

The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board. I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.

There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.

If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral being—they are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.

The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory

That explains why you are often (always?) unemployed.

It also explains why he is always wrong. He's been pumped full of statist propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

You claimed yesterday that corporations spend more on advertising than on producing their products. You never provided proof.

Were you wrong?

You tend to produce mental backwash rather than ideas so I tend to ignore you after trying to carry a conversation w/ you on other threads. Nothing personal but your ideas lack credibility. Plus assuming your opponents are dumber than you--as evinced by your signature--is a good way to ensure you view yourself as right. Too bad real world academics doesn't work out that way but when you shelter yourself I guess you found a way around it.

But I want to thank you for pointing out the Jefferson Quote. However, he made similar remarks and so while the quote likely isn't his, we know where he stood on the banks. You just detract rather than add to discussion. You mostly ask red herring questions and refuse to do your own research.

Coca-Cola spends X on Ads
Big Pharma spends X on Ads

I ask that you to click those links so you can begin to put a picture together of advertisement.

Coca-Cola advertising budget (2010): $2.9 billion

In 2010, their "Cost of Revenue" was almost $12.7 billion.

KO Income Statement | Coca-Cola Company (The) Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

I know that's math, which is a weak spot for you.

The soda market is one with an exceptionally high cost of advertising. Since all sodas are little more than sugar and carbonated water, it takes a lot of advertising to make your brand stand out. On the other hand, products such as automobiles have a relatively low cost of advertising. Housing is probably the lowest cost of all.

 

[P@triot]

First of all, I graduated from college junior.

Some relevant degree on social theory, huh? My apologies for inducing from your continual ad hominem attacks that you lack formal academic education.

No sir. I would not waste my time on a degree like that with no practical applications. I know this is shocking to liberal students, but in the real world you do not get paid for philosophizing while stoned.

Second, you continue to display your appalling arrogance. So you paid some institution to hand you a piece of paper. You really believe that makes you authorized to tell the world what it needs and what it doesn't need? Really?

Show me where I said I know what the world needs. I was discussing theories that I specifically said did not apply to our current state of affairs.

They weren't "theories" chief. When you tell people they are (and I quote) "mistaken" if they believe that they can have liberty and private property at the same time, you are making an arrogant and authoritative claim.

I have two BAs (Sociology and Philosophy with a minor in History at OWU). I meant to emphasize the education I received, not the degrees. Pardon my poor language choice, but your unwarranted odium towards me (not my beliefs) incites anger, so I react naturally. I'll remain more calm from here on out when addressing your Alpha Dog Ego. If only you could do the same we might get somewhere. But you can't, it feels to good to your ego to sacrifice name calling for genuine exchange of ideas.

With all due respect, your beliefs are pretty appalling. If I told you that I believe it is ok to molest and murder small children, would you respect that? There are something that are just too appalling to accept. Telling the world that nobody deserves, has a right to, or should have private property is just sick. I'm sorry, go liberal stoned philosopher all you want, but that is really sick.

All you're doing is trying to sell communism in a different way than it has been sold before. But it is still communism. Just like a pig with lipstick on is still a pig.

Ah but here lies yet another key difference. You aren't here to discuss ideas, as evinced by your incessant ad hominems. You are here to feel like a big man--what kind of name is Rotw.... if it isn't an attempt to subconsciously assert dominance? Well, don't let my ******* stupid ideas (which is to say they don't appear on TV) prevent you from feeling like the big man you are, Senior Alpha Dog. I don't want to attract your vitriol so let me say plainly, you are better than me. You are smarter than me.

Communism is not "an idea". It is a failed ideology. It has been tried (many times) and it has failed (many times). It always ends the same - with mass murder.

And I must repeat again and again - I'm not the one telling the world they are (and again I quote) "mistaken" if they believe they can have private property, weapons for security, etc. I advocate that nobody has a right to tell others what they should do or how they should do it - thus freedom is the only answer. Leave people the **** alone to live their lives (and no, I'm not a despicable anarchist so I don't believe that people are free to rape and murder).

No matter what you think, you did not pitch that entire diatribe as an "idea". It was an authoritative "I know best and **** you if you don't agree with me". You never once said "here is an idea", "what do you think about this", etc.

Now that wasn't so hard was it? Do you feel better? Good. Because only inflated egos are receptive to such praise, which proves my point.

Unfortunately you believe you have a deep insight into my psyche and you don't. Probably because you are left-wing, you just can't imagine someone not wanting to control/dominate others. Well, I don't. I want freedom. I want you to be able to do whatever the **** you want, and I want to be left alone to do whatever the **** I want.

I won't dispute you have read more than me. That wasn't my point--of course you took it personally as egos tend to do instead of realizing it as a legitimate question about your background. Having graduate college doesn't tell me you have rigorously studied the relevant concepts.

But I don't need to study "social theory" to understand that "everyone needs to share everything (ie communism) is a ****'n nightmare. I just need a basic overview of history. It's well documented and it's full of human horrors.

My point is regarding the topics of liberty, private property, justice, government, the state, etc. etc. I am almost guaranteed to have read more, wrote more essays, anaylzed and took more notes on those subjects than you. End of story. And I'm not talking about some contemporary partisan horse shit. I mean really getting into the nitty gritty of what these terms mean and how they function. SO I'll ask again, have you read Hegel? Marx? Webber? Durkheim? Locke? Bertrand Russell? Hume? (not Brit Hume but David Hume). Those people broke the door of its hinges when it comes to understanding society and the relevant concepts. You probably have never even heard of half of them let alone read their texts like I have.

And herein lies your problems. You're so caught up in the very immature and idealistic liberal "philosophy" that you can't see the forest for the trees. I don't need to read Marx. All I need to do is read history to know that the man didn't have a ****'n clue and his entire philosophy is a failed one. Now, do I blame Marx? No. At the time, he had an original idea that on paper does sound good. Everyone is cared for, everyone has food, shelter, etc. But then it goes from on paper into "production" and it is an epic ****'n disaster that ends with mass murder.

Since you're so into writing and philosophy, I've got a few for you that far exceeds anything these people ever wrote and which you should really think about:

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive" - William F. Buckley Jr.

"Some ideas are so preposterous only an intellectual could believe them" - George Orwell

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." --Winston Churchill

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" - Margaret Thatcher

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." -Frédéric Bastiat

 

[gnarlylove]

bri says I am full of "statist propaganda" when I am as anti-Obama as he is. The sad thing is he thinks conservatives have the answer. News Flash: both sides are stuffed to the brim of lying rhetoric. If you think either party has the answer, you are selecting propaganda that fits your pre-conceived ideas.

 

[freedombecki]

The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board. I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.

There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.

If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral being—they are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.

The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory

That explains why you are often (always?) unemployed.

It also explains why he is always wrong. He's been pumped full of statist propaganda.

That's really sad.

 

[freedombecki]

bri says I am full of "statist propaganda" when I am as anti-Obama as he is. The sad thing is he thinks conservatives have the answer. News Flash: both sides are stuffed to the brim of lying rhetoric. If you think either party has the answer, you are selecting propaganda that fits your pre-conceived ideas.

I don't think so, gnarlylove. Some people base their posts on facts that are in accordance with accepted accounting principles and not on which way the political winds are blowing. You seem to think that unimportant when it is the basis of sound business practice. If you had read Toddsterpatriot's link to the low down on Coca-Cola, you'd realize he is in accordance with business principles on the highest level. Bri Pat more than holds his own. I hope you have a change of heart and go with principled business scholarship. You will not be sorry in the long run.

 

[gnarlylove]

No sir. I would not waste my time on a degree like that with no practical applications. I know this is shocking to liberal students, but in the real world you do not get paid for philosophizing while stoned.

I swear it's impossible to exchange ideas without you multiplying in red herrings. I suggest you look up red herring if you don't know what it means.

Fact: I did not sit around philosophizing in college stoned. In fact, I was an obsessed Christian Philosopher at the age of 16 till 21. Philosophy preceded any of my adult experiments. I have been a lover of philosophy and critical thinking skills before I turned 18. Logic and philosohpy teaches you how to think properly.

By the fact of you thinking other people are wrong you are subtly acknowledging some ideas are better than others. But how do we determine this? By trusting you that you're telling me the truth? How do we evaluate one anothers claims?

The only genuine evaluative tools for thinking is found in logic primarily and the discipline of philosophy. Although you assume it has no real world applications (and indeed, it isn't directly marketable w/o a PhD) philosophy is meant to solve problems. Critical thinking skills are essential to weeding through the BS rhetoric made by humans and understanding what they are saying and being able to determine whether it is valid or not, whether it's true or not.

No other discipline is so finely tunes to address our questions of who is right and who is wrong than philosophy. Science was born out of philosophy in Greek society. Indeed, science back then was called "Natural Philosophy." ******* look it up if you want to say I'm wrong.

But I see you refuse to respect the fact that I didn't use pot as part of my education and decide to embellish you narrative so you still feel like a champ. Are you going to continue being childish in your approach or are we going to discuss ideas?

I learned a long time ago those who act like you are virtually incapable of cutting through their own BS to simply discuss the merit of ideas. SO I don't have much hope for us.

They weren't "theories" chief. When you tell people they are (and I quote) "mistaken" if they believe that they can have liberty and private property at the same time, you are making an arrogant and authoritative claim.

You take the word "mistaken" to mean I know what's needed in this world? That is a stretch if I ever saw one.

For ***** sake, I'm not even saying we should take away private property in today's world. Such is functionally impossible. My point was that if we truly wish to live in a 100% COMPLETELY FREE SOCIETY the idea of private property tends to encroach on the liberty of others because it takes away available resources and gives it to others WHETHER THEY NEED IT OR NOT. In order to have a 100% free society, it must be based in meeting the needs of every human, not meeting the greed of a few humans.

The fact I've had to repeat this over the past 5 pages points to the fact you don't want to listen to what I'm saying. If you don't want to genuinely discuss ideas, let me know so I can stop so we can get out of the kitchen.

But hold on a second. Before you go saying I'm totally wrong about private property please heed these words: We do not live in a completely free society. Would you agree?

We would like to increase liberty for all (except those who wish to take away our liberty). Would you agree?

In order to achieve 100% liberty, we need to remove all barriers to liberty. Would you agree?

Private property is a barrier to liberty IF and ONLY IF it prevents others from realizing their own complete liberty.

Private property as it exists today is based upon the liberty of some founded upon the lack of liberty (slavery) of the rest. So it does indeed prevent others from realizing their own liberty (the quenching of Maslow's 1st and 2nd Hierarchy of Needs). Would you agree?

How can we consider a society 100% free that treats some individuals with liberty and excludes others. The reason so many are excluded from being able to meet their basic needs (fundamental component of exercising liberty) is we live on a finite planet with limited resources. So when all those resources are "owned" by a few wealthy folks then it prevents other humans from exercising liberty.

I know you want to insert the concept having to "earn" the right to property, I'll stipulate that with you. But on one condition: we make opportunities available equally across the board so that each human being has the ability to choose liberty or not. If those who own property prevent others from basic needs, then how do we expect them to earn anything? Plus, inheritance muddles the idea of earning since you become rich simply by being born into a rich family. So you can buy property without having to earn it. Seems foul.

In no way does our society offer opportunity all-across-the-board. Our society is based more on inheritance than merit. Please don't read this to mean 1) that I'm complaining (b/c I'm merely making a point); 2) that it's impossible to attain better status despite being poor. My point is that even though some can in fact earn their way out of poverty, a majority of those in poverty MUST remain there because opportunities are not sufficiently offered to them. Opportunities abound among the rich whether they earned them or not. But a significant portion of the population cannot climb out of poverty because the requisite of adequate opportunity to earn one's way out of poverty is lacking.

With all due respect, your beliefs are pretty appalling.

Show me where I made an appalling claim.

I know when I say "in order to have a 100% free society we must totally eradicate violence" I am making appalling claims. How is that appalling?

You can't because I am very sincere in ensuring EACH AND EVERY human being has their needs met. And you call this appalling? Where do you get off calling my beliefs appalling when my entire aim is to create a free society for each and every human being?

According to you, that is communism. But using the fallacy of equivocation, you sneak another definiton in the back door and define communism as the mass murdering done by Stalin. Which is it? Am I aiming to create a free society for each human being or am I saying I wish to murder everyone?

Actually your ideas are rather appalling. You think that people should be allowed to die from starvation if they can't pay for the food. This is the society we live in today and it's not changing for the better. More and more people are suffering each year at the hands of excessive greed. And yet you go along with this and call my ideals appalling? WTF?!

I know you somehow attempt to justify the fact these people deserve to die because they didn't earn their share but if you think a human only has rights when they have a job that is appalling. You honestly have no soul. No empathy. No sympathy. No care.

I'm NOT saying everyone should be taken care of and do nothing. That is ******* stupid too. It's a strawman version of my argument, which is yet another fallacy common on media networks.

No, what I'm saying is that we must offer these people adequate opportunities so they can afford the food they need. Currently greed virtually controls half the planet (1% own 40% of global wealth) and this in turn prevents poor people from accessing the education, love, opportunity and proper nutrition which are all essential if you want them to be productive members of a free society.

But if our aim is not a free society, than fine. Let them die as they will.

And I'm the one that has appalling beliefs?

All you're doing is trying to sell communism in a different way than it has been sold before....
Communism is not "an idea". It is a failed ideology.

When you define an idea as necessarily impossible, I have no choice but to agree with you.

However, this is the fallacy of the loaded question. So now that's two fallacies you've committed regarding communism. The only reason you think my idea is like communism is because communism is the attempt to create a just society. Take a look at this link if you have any concern for hearing about communism from a source other than fox news.

You are the mass media news specialist. I am the social theory specialist. I know what I'm talking about and if you refuse to think communism is anything but mass murder than you are simply shutting down discussion and making debate impossible.

It has been tried (many times) and it has failed (many times). It always ends the same - with mass murder....But I don't need to study "social theory" to understand...

It has never been tried before. Stalin was aiming to industrialize and win wars, these are not part of communist ideals. The fact you think communism requires no reading means you have no concern for what communism really is. You want to win a debate so you define communism how you like. Communism was not invented by you and it was not followed by Stalin.

...that "everyone needs to share everything (ie communism) is a ****'n nightmare.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?

We live on ONE planet. If we do not share it, how do we survive? If one persons owns it, where do we turn for life?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Disclaimer: this post is intended to apply to a genuinely free society, not the one we are currently in. Such principles would be too great a shock in our current system to be viable.

Disclaimer: GL's absurd is actually intended to sell communism in a "softer" light.

Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist. If violence, which is a form of coercion is tolerable between humans, then there simply is limited/no genuine freedom for that society. Some would be free while others would not. This isn't genuine liberty or we would be right back to needing laws and government. We all agree government tends to allow certain freedoms but terminates others. Hence, not a genuinely free society.

Quite the contrary, liberty can only exist where private property exists. I have no freedom when I'm standing on someone else's land. I'm only truly free when it's my land and nobody else has any rights to it.



Once again, pure stupidity. I only have liberty when I have the means to defend myself. Once I "put down my weapons" I'm at the mercy of someone who wasn't dumb enough to set theirs down.



We already addressed this above. All you're doing here is trying to push asinine communism by using a different pitch. This is so far beyond the bounds of logic or reason that there really is no proper adjective for it. ****'n stupid just doesn't quite cover something this ****'n stupid.



There is no "strife" or "conflict". The U.S. is sovereign property and nobody disputes that. My land is my land - I have all of the documents to prove it. And nobody disputes that as well.



No - freedom is defined by not allowing idiots like you to tell me I don't have the right to purse "ownership", or "wealth", or anything else I choose to purse which is in conflict with your pot-smoking, kumbaya form of communism.



In short - you want what other people have but you're too lazy to work for it. So instead, you're going to claim that "true freedom" means you are entitled to what everyone else has (including their property, wealth, etc.)? You're a special kind of imbecile. You're the warped "leader" who tries to convince his followers that God wants you to **** their wives. Sadly, there are a few that are going to follow you're special form of insanity. Thankfully, it is a very few. The rest of us laugh at your buffoonery.



The fact that you just acknowledged that the time frame of liberty coincides with the time frame of private property pretty much proves what I said at the beginning - that liberty is literally impossible without private property.



No asshole - I want private property to ensure that I have unfettered space between myself & my family and assholes like you. It has nothing to do with "ego" and everything to do with privacy. We all need a place to get away from people like you.



The only ego here is yours and your arrogant belief that you know best for everyone and you know why people want what they want and do what they do. Check your ego first chief before you preach to others about theirs.



So my children are not mine? Really stupid? And the things that I labored for are not mine? And my property - which I purchased and have the legal documents proving it is mine - is not mine?

Once again, this is just you wanting what others have but being far too lazy and too deviant to pursue it through honest means. You want to play David Koresh and hope to convince everyone that you can **** their wives since they aren't really their wives to begin with...

When we get more, we want even more. This is either encouraged by society or discouraged--it is not a part of our fundamental essence. We can choose to be satisfied with what we have AS LONG AS ITS MEETING OUR NEEDS. This viscous cycle of wanting more must cease in a society that boasts genuine liberty. Otherwise one will always take more than their fair share and we will require governments or power structures OUTSIDE ourselves to make sure its fair and everyone is getting their NEEDS (not wants) met.

Ok - then immediately surrender every possession you have to me. And I mean everything. Even your food. Even your clothes. After all, they aren't yours and the only reason you want either is for your absurd ego. So I want you standing outside my door naked and possessionless in 45 minutes....

(Wait a second, I better rethink that with this wackadoo)

Conclusion: Our current society has warped our understanding so bad that we cannot create a society with genuine liberty. Until we recognize this we will flounder and many needs will be trampled underfoot so that we can attain our fleeting desires. From birth Christmas instills this idea.

I know people will be up in arms about my post but if you are don't just respond with disingenuous glibs. I want some genuine challenges to my basic two premises: Violence/Coercion must be removed from all as well as private property as its conceived of today. Maybe there will be a different version of property in this ideal world but not like the one we have today.

Conclusion: you're a typical snake-oil salesman who thinks he can sell the people on communism through kumbaya. Sorry chief, America is not buying what you're sellling.

GL is an example of a farleft wing extremist. It is imperative that he and those like him be marginalized.
Or, more fun would be to give a person with those ideas "the count of three to run"...
If ya know what I mean. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What happens without government?

Freedom and prosperity.

ROFL Who's gonna force your neighbor to take care of his trash? Who's gonna put your neighbor on trial when he shoots you for trying to force him to take care of the trash?

Ok Strawman. Let's not be naive.
No one is claiming "no government"...
The focus here is limit government to its essential functions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....

The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board. I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.

There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.

If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral being—they are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.

"I hold two degrees in social theory"..
Yeah...THEORY. good thing that spew you've been regurgitating on this forum will never come to fruition.
So back the **** off. You useless elitist slob.
People like you are a drain on society.
You have two degrees, neither of which is of any use in the real world.
BTW, what kind of person gets TWO degrees in the SAME discipline?
Perhaps you are not as bright as you lead others to believe.
From here, I see a person who believes they have accomplished all they have to and now it is time to cash in. And you are willing to change the rules to benefit yourself.
You are full of shit.
Get a job, you bum.

 

[gnarlylove]

I don't think so, gnarlylove....

I take out the rest because it's really superfluous. You don't know the communication trail of Todders and I. So I'd ask you to step off my toes. Everyone on this message board is about saying to one another, "nope, you are wrong. Turns out, I know reality better and you are a sad excuse for a human being."

I use to solely function in that realm and still struggle with it today but recognize its ultimate futility-we are all made of the same material and all die just the same. But you know what....pretending to be the better human being does nothing but causes strife and division among humanity. The reason it's so prevalent is people are so assured of themselves and do not give a shit about other human beings. They want to feel superior and assume anything about some screen name post just to feel better.

Great job on accomplishing your need to feel superior. Few people come here to discuss genuine matters. I admit I falter at times too but my aim to is create a flowing dialogue of respect. Instead, nearly everyone is out to gain something for themselves at they aren't happy if it isn't at the expense of someone else.

maybe instead of acting like we have a clue who each other are, maybe we can re-introduce common decency to debate?

Naw. That would mean turning off the ego and treating each other with respect. That was tossed out the window some odd years ago. I'm glad America and indeed the global economy has helped produce such colorful haters. Without any aim for unity or mutual understanding, we lambaste one another like we have some special insight to the eternal secrets of life.

News Flash: No one understands this world. What we do understand should not be taken as how reality is. All our sources reveal is a tiny part of reality, and just like the feeling a small section of a gigantic elephant in a dark room, our sources do not reveal the total picture. The only thing we can be sure of about the Big Picture is that we don't know. So why don't we quit our incessant domination of one another and be a bit more respectful? is it that hard? Why yees it is because capitalism has taught us to either eat or be eaten. Maybe that lesson is harmful for communities (and ultimately society) since it leaves us divided without a hope of any reconciliation. If we toss out logic and philosophy as our guides to understanding our the particular details of this world, we are also tossing out the hope of common ground and being able to reach conclusions cooperatively. holding tight to our egos means we push others away, as if our brains have rewired to intentionally distant ourselves from others so that we may feel superior. Our brain rewards us for spiting another human being (not based on calling out ideas but based on hurling insults at one another)

Count me out. What's the point if no one cares to listen to each other? For the third time I admit I'm not perfect but at least I make an effort, most everyone else is lost in their superiority complex. Good luck creating a society for liberty and justice for all. It isn't possible if we start with our current assumptions of irreconcilable strife. Especially when we feel good when we do it. Never in my decades of living have I noticed such incessant division for the sake of division.

 

[gnarlylove]

Todders, the point I made about more money spent on advertising was heard from TV. I spent 3 seconds googling it trying to find additional evidence and I found pharma spends more money on ads than research. I also found Coke spends more money on ads than Apple and Microsoft combine, which you clearly didn't read my links.
Coca-Cola advertising budget (2010): $2.9 billion

Microsoft advertising budget (2010): $1.6 billion

Apple advertising budget (2010): $691 million



Read more: 15 Facts About Coca-Cola That Will Blow Your Mind - Business Insider

That's why I was saying your ideas have no credibility, you don't do basic reading; notice i said your ideas were without credibility. However, when you reply it's natural for you to flip that and say that I have no credibility. That is different from saying ideas. It's a lore more hostile and is a personal attack rather than an dispute about ideas. You probably didn't even notice the difference but it is a big one. it's the difference between respect and total disrespect. you gladly admitted every opponent is way dumb/that you are smarter than every opponent. these are extraordinary statements that would require extraordinary support. i know you believe them deep down in the deepest core of your being but can you ever prove that? no. but you stop at no lengths to make opponents seem stupid for no other reason but smearing. This is not genuine debate.

my point was advertising is a massive portion of spending on behalf of corporations. the fact that only big pharma is technically the only source I could find to support this doesnt mean I'm completely wrong. My point about advertising being a sizable portion of the profits of a company means it is valuable to them to spend literally billions each year. this supports the idea that I promoted saying advertising affects us in subtle ways otherwise they would discontinue such extreme spending. it doesn't prove it, but it does support it.

but you do give a **** about that; you're seemingly on concern on this thread is to attack your opponents saying they are stupid rather than discussing the ideas and actively participating in the larger issues. that's why i don't really find your posts helpful, they focus on more hostile concerns about feeling superior.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I advocate freedom. You advocate a communist utopia where you get to take from everyone else. Now tell me again how I'm "asserting dominance" over you....

The difference between us is I hold two degrees in social theory and you are some HS grad on a message board. I'm not on USMB to deal with tautologists like you, we were having a theoretical discussion about complete and genuine liberty in an ideal society. Though my degrees have nothing to do with whose a better person, when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of society I know what I'm talking about and you spout TV ads. Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem.

There is yet another difference in what's possible in America and what's ideal. Apparently you cannot conceive of there being a difference since you are so sure of yourself.

If you want a debate about liberty, my sig is the official definition of genuine liberty:
I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it the condition under which intelligence, dignity & human happiness can develop; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out & regulated by the State, an eternal lie which represents the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic liberty extolled by Rousseau and bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all represented by the State, which limits the rights of each. No, I mean the only kind of liberty worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator above us, but are inherent, forming the basis of our material, intellectual & moral being—they are the real & immediate conditions of our freedom.

" Have you read John Locke? David Hume? Hegel? Kant? Rousseau? Max Webber? Durkheim? Marx? Anyone? Oh you get your info from TV? There's your problem."

No. That is YOUR problem. You sought out those who agree with your line of thinking and your political agenda, read books and you decided to regurgitate that which you have read.
Only thing is, you are unable to think for yourself. You took these authors and decided THEY are correct and everyone else be damned.
You may believe you are the smartest most enlightened person in the room, but i have news for ya, those who are able to think outside the box are far more intelligent than those who believe intelligence lies in a book.
You are not interested in debate. You are telling us what you believe we should think.
I'm disappointed. Someone with as much time as you've spent throwing cash at some ivy wall covered institution and all you have are theories.
Great.
Oh, i can see you collecting your thoughts. Just drooling at the opportunity to strike back at one who tyou believe less human than you. You can stand down. We're done.
I have stated my piece. I'm not interested in anything with which you may reply.
Now you may have the last word...Go ahead. You cannot help yourself.

 

[gnarlylove]

You've never read those folks so you can say they all agree with each other. Big Hint: They all have opposed each other as one proceeds the next. Hegel opposed Kant. Marx opposed Hegel. Locke opposed those guys who debated Hume and Russell came after these guys accepting some of what they say and opposing other things. Durkehim and Webber are sociologists who conducted research at the turn of the century. The most famous of Durkheim is his writings on suicide. Ah but what do I know? "They all confirm my ideology" despite they oppose one another in serious fundamental ways. And they do not confirm my ideas, I used their ideas to formulate my own. Why? Because those men have dedicated their lives to understanding these concepts. You seem to think that has no value.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todders, the point I made about more money spent on advertising was heard from TV. I spent 3 seconds googling it trying to find additional evidence and I found pharma spends more money on ads than research. I also found Coke spends more money on ads than Apple and Microsoft combine, which you clearly didn't read my links.
Coca-Cola advertising budget (2010): $2.9 billion

Microsoft advertising budget (2010): $1.6 billion

Apple advertising budget (2010): $691 million



Read more: 15 Facts About Coca-Cola That Will Blow Your Mind - Business Insider

That's why I was saying your ideas have no credibility, you don't do basic reading; notice i said your ideas were without credibility. However, when you reply it's natural for you to flip that and say that I have no credibility. That is different from saying ideas. It's a lore more hostile and is a personal attack rather than an dispute about ideas. You probably didn't even notice the difference but it is a big one. it's the difference between respect and total disrespect. you gladly admitted every opponent is way dumb/that you are smarter than every opponent. these are extraordinary statements that would require extraordinary support. i know you believe them deep down in the deepest core of your being but can you ever prove that? no. but you stop at no lengths to make opponents seem stupid for no other reason but smearing. This is not genuine debate.

my point was advertising is a massive portion of spending on behalf of corporations. the fact that only big pharma is technically the only source I could find to support this doesnt mean I'm completely wrong. My point about advertising being a sizable portion of the profits of a company means it is valuable to them to spend literally billions each year. this supports the idea that I promoted saying advertising affects us in subtle ways otherwise they would discontinue such extreme spending. it doesn't prove it, but it does support it.

but you do give a **** about that; you're seemingly on concern on this thread is to attack your opponents saying they are stupid rather than discussing the ideas and actively participating in the larger issues. that's why i don't really find your posts helpful, they focus on more hostile concerns about feeling superior.

Todders, the point I made about more money spent on advertising was heard from TV.

Typical lib. Mishear something on TV and misrepresent it here.

I also found Coke spends more money on ads than Apple and Microsoft combine, which you clearly didn't read my links.

I read your silly link, that's why I was able to show it didn't prove your claim, with my link to Coke's financials. Math, I know.

That's why I was saying your ideas have no credibility

Says the guy who makes silly claims that I refute in minutes. With actual facts.

you gladly admitted every opponent is way dumb

At this point, just you. As shown on this very thread.

my point was advertising is a massive portion of spending on behalf of corporations.

You should have stopped there, instead of lying about the amount of that spending.
And then claiming that somehow makes consumers unable to resist.

but you do give a **** about that; you're seemingly on concern on this thread is to attack your opponents saying they are stupid rather than discussing the ideas

I just attack the stupid ones, after showing their claims and "ideas" are stupid.
There you are!

that's why i don't really find your posts helpful

Of course they don't help you, because I puncture your claims and make you sad.

 

[Andylusion]

So what? I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.

Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.

If Wall St. is like you in ANY WAY they MUST oppose socialism tooth and nail. But why don't they?

Because only Wall St acts as profit-maximizers on the planet--they have no allegiance to policy and ideology, they follow where the money flows--and money flows with financial arbitrage. They don't care where they get the money, the fact is all they care about is making more of it.

This is not a positive contribution to society. This is arbitrage seeking ever increasing profits without the concern for how it effects society. Yet you shovel me complete BS about the ideals of the stock market.

Wall St. and the stock market were established under the pretense that it would help society, but in reality, there's a fair amount of harm resulting from this system. Many on Wall St. are money machines who only benefit those within the money business. The rest of society is left to pay for its negative contribution to society--its vacuum cleaner of money.

What you are doing is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Wall St. should deny socialism if they are to be exemplary capitalists. But like you said, they are just trying to make money and so they have no allegiance to principles, they have allegiance to money.

This damages the integrity of society. This is made worse by the fact those with an allegiance to money often harm rather than contribute to society. Some do make valuable contributions to society but they aren't the ones making the most money. The Stock Market is broken by the fact that egotistical shit holes seek profits above humanity. profits over the advancement of society. TO them the advancement of society is growing their wealth. This is by no means sustainable model for growth--infinite growth is not possible with a finite earth/resources.

Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality. You hypocrites go first.

You throw your hands up when it comes to explaining Wall St. motives but are so quick to put blame on lefttards. You are so hypocritical in your analysis you can't even see it because it's so dang obvious. I know you don't care but god you're posts are completely ignoble in the context of genuine debate. I guess that's not what we are trying to accomplish here anyway.

You like to make up stuff, and then attack what you made up.

If Wall St. is like you in ANY WAY they MUST oppose socialism tooth and nail. But why don't they?

They are like EVERYONE in that EVERYONE wants to make money. Socialists want more wealth and money, like everyone else. So logically, being on Wall St doesn't change that, nor must they oppose socialism.

In fact, in many ways socialism benefits the wealthy.

Because only Wall St acts as profit-maximizers on the planet--they have no allegiance to policy and ideology

There are many people on Wall St that are in fact very loyal to policy and ideology. You are lumping everyone into a group, and assuming that none of them have particular view point, because the group as a whole doesn't.

But very few large groups that are loyal to a specific belief system. The low-income people are not all devoted to a single ideology. Nor is the middle income people, nor the high income people. Nor even the top 1%.

And there is nothing wrong with 'profit maximizers" anymore than there is something wrong with *YOU* wanting a higher wage, to maximize your profit from working.

Wall St. and the stock market were established under the pretense that it would help society, but in reality, there's a fair amount of harm resulting from this system.

Two completely different things. The stock market, is a market where stocks are sold. The Fish Market, is a market where fish are sold. The fruit market is a market where fruit are sold. There is nothing wrong, and there no harm to society from the stock market, but many benefits.

Wall St, is a physical street, where there are a bunch of banks. I'm no fan of banks. But the fact is, our government, and it's invasive policies, are the reason we have a banking problem. If you look at Canada where they have a tiny faction of the bank controls, regulations, and mandates that we do, they have a far more stable system. Less control... less regulations.... less mandates.... more stable. They didn't have bank crashes during the great depression, nor did they in the sub-prime melt down. We did. And we have far more controls than they do.

Socialism is the cause. Not the solution.

Wall St. should deny socialism if they are to be exemplary capitalists

Where did I say that Wall St was, or even should be, exemplary capitalists? You just like to make up stuff? Wall St is made up of people, and people like to earn money. Some like to earn money by being productive. Others like to earn money by collecting money from tax payers.... whether that's through green-energy grants, or welfare.

Socialism often benefits the super wealthy. There's no reason to suspect that they would be entirely capitalist ideologues, any more than anyone else. There's a reason Warren Buffet supports the leftists belief system. It benefits him.

Some do make valuable contributions to society but they aren't the ones making the most money

Prove that. You prove that all the ones making the most money, are not benefiting society.

You throw your hands up when it comes to explaining Wall St. motives but are so quick to put blame on lefttards. You are so hypocritical in your analysis you can't even see it because it's so dang obvious. I know you don't care but god you're posts are completely ignoble in the context of genuine debate. I guess that's not what we are trying to accomplish here anyway.

Nah, you just have your head shoved so far up your politics you can't see.

I never made a claim either way, in regards to Wall St, because there are thousands of people there, and they are all over the political spectrum. Nor have the companies on Wall St ever made open claims to their support of a ideology. You are the one that wants to paint everyone with a broad brush, and then claim hypocrisy.

Hollywood on the other hand, has... and done so many many times. To list all the quotes from all the hundreds of actors and movie execs, and directors, all proclaiming the virtues of socialism, would take pages on pages on pages to cover.

This is a group that gave an Academy Award for a Documentary, to Michael Moore, who has consistently throughout ALL of his 'doc' films, lied and fabricated footage.... because he was a leftist. We're talking about a guy who in his very first film, Roger & Me, completely lied. The entire premise of the whole film was a lie.

They directly promote this equality, and socialism view point, and yet do they live that way? Do they practice ANYTHING AT ALL THAT THEY PREACH? No. Tell Chevy Chase, who said 'sometimes socialism works, and Cuba is proof', that he should have been paid the same as the movie extras. See how that goes.

They are hypocrites. Wall St is not. In order to be a hypocrite you have to first advocate a view point, and then do the opposite there of. Hollywood has, Wall St has not.

Now if you want to deny that, then you are admitting that you have your head shoved so far up your own politics, that you can't see out your own hole. Just a fact dude. If you can come up with a real counter point, let's hear it. But you can't, and we both know it.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.

Who said he was perfectly right about everything?

Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.

I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.

The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.

Nah. It didn't almost blow up, or anything of the sort.

Capitalism favors the capitalist, but in Free-market capitalism, everyone is a capitalist. I own my labor. I can choose who to sell my labor to. I can do with my capital, whatever I want.

I have sold my labor (my personal capital) to a company, which pays me an agreed amount. Of that money capital, I place some of it into investments, which have grown by 26% last year.

I'm a capitalist. I earned $18,000 taxable income last year.

Yes capitalism favors me. The biggest problem with capitalism, is that it allows the freedom to be stupid with your own capital.

If you blow all your money, you'll be poor. If you choose to not advance the value of your labor, you'll be poor. If you choose to work for the lowest bidder, you'll be poor.

An example of this just happened at my company. It's a small company. We don't have tons of money to pay high wages, even to trained engineers.

We had an engineer who decided to go work for a larger corporations. Double their income. Doubled. But... long hours, less flexibility in the scheduled. At our company, she worked 4 days a week, and only 8 hours a day.

The other company wanted 45 hours a week, and some Saturday work when required. But they paid DOUBLE her income at our company. Over six figures.

She decided to come back, and work for less.

Was it capitalism that cut her wage? No it was choice.