Eye kint red. But I can support my positions.
Is your college socialized?
Is your college socialized?
61: I hereby challenge your assertion that you can support your positions.
Surely, can explain how "Capitalism tries to get away with the most it can", attributing a consciousness and will to a theoretical construct when you also claim not to anthropomorphize it.
And how "US capitalism depends on US socialism."
And how "People are forced to make false choices"
Maybe how I engaged in "pompous gaslighting" by my use of established economic rationale, perhaps?
Or maybe, just maybe, you can explain how my persistant use of economic theory and mathematics is invalid in an economic argument, and equates to my avoiding issues.
I doubt you can answer my questions though, because you have yet to give me a straight answer. You just seem to keep spouting buzzwords associated with environmentalism and anti-capitalism. Even hard core socialists recognize that capitalism has its merits. Even environmentalists recognize that capitalist means have decreased pollution to a degree through tradeable permits.
The real question I have, though, is this:
What is your goal in all of this? Is it actually to piss people off? Are you just a malcontent? We both know there is no way in hell that your vague claims can trump economic theory and data-- even if they could, I am now far too philosophically opposed to agree with you-- your use of insults has killed any potential pathos, and you have no ethos remaining, so it can't be to persuade me. You haven't given any facts, so it's not educational. Are you entertained by your being wrong?
Surely, can explain how "Capitalism tries to get away with the most it can", attributing a consciousness and will to a theoretical construct when you also claim not to anthropomorphize it.
And how "US capitalism depends on US socialism."
And how "People are forced to make false choices"
Maybe how I engaged in "pompous gaslighting" by my use of established economic rationale, perhaps?
Or maybe, just maybe, you can explain how my persistant use of economic theory and mathematics is invalid in an economic argument, and equates to my avoiding issues.
I doubt you can answer my questions though, because you have yet to give me a straight answer. You just seem to keep spouting buzzwords associated with environmentalism and anti-capitalism. Even hard core socialists recognize that capitalism has its merits. Even environmentalists recognize that capitalist means have decreased pollution to a degree through tradeable permits.
The real question I have, though, is this:
What is your goal in all of this? Is it actually to piss people off? Are you just a malcontent? We both know there is no way in hell that your vague claims can trump economic theory and data-- even if they could, I am now far too philosophically opposed to agree with you-- your use of insults has killed any potential pathos, and you have no ethos remaining, so it can't be to persuade me. You haven't given any facts, so it's not educational. Are you entertained by your being wrong?
1. You're still trying to float the counterargument that I think the economy has human traits? That's your best counterargument? It's similar to gun proponents saying people advocating for gun control think guns are animate objects. It's a disingenuous straw man argument. Nobody with a decent grip on reality thinks the economy or guns have human traits , are alive, animated, etc.
2. How US capitalism depends on socialism: Taxation. Command economy. Bailouts.
Taxation pays for most(?) spending, which sets up the infrastructure, military, and so much more, as we're rediscovering. The caveat is that foreign loans might not be paid back, and therefore not funded by tax revenues.
Taxation pays for most(?) spending, which sets up the infrastructure, military, and so much more, as we're rediscovering. The caveat is that foreign loans might not be paid back, and therefore not funded by tax revenues.
#64: When did "Pompous gaslighting" become a compliment
#65: It's a fairly solid argument for what I am saying: You don't know what you are talking about, and you enjoy the use of misdirection to try to get you out of your jams. For example:
"You're still trying to float the counterargument that I think the economy has human traits? That's your best counterargument? It's similar to gun proponents saying people advocating for gun control think guns are animate objects. It's a disingenuous straw man argument. Nobody with a decent grip on reality thinks the economy or guns have human traits , are alive, animated, etc."
For reference, my initial point was: An economy is not a living being, and cannot make decisions.
You continue to show a complete lack of understanding of economics.
You can just use a single post, by the way. You don't need to spam
--------------------------------------------
EDIT#66:2. How US capitalism depends on socialism: Taxation. Command economy. Bailouts.
Taxation pays for most(?) spending, which sets up the infrastructure, military, and so much more, as we're rediscovering. The caveat is that foreign loans might not be paid back, and therefore not funded by tax revenues.
----------------
I asked you to prove how capitalism depends on socialism. Your response consists of buzzwords and an anecdote about taxation.
---------------------------------
68: Take it or leave it is a choice. But, for once, you actually stayed somewhat on topic, without resorting to deception or nonsense, so I can accept that this could boil down to a difference of opinion.
#65: It's a fairly solid argument for what I am saying: You don't know what you are talking about, and you enjoy the use of misdirection to try to get you out of your jams. For example:
"You're still trying to float the counterargument that I think the economy has human traits? That's your best counterargument? It's similar to gun proponents saying people advocating for gun control think guns are animate objects. It's a disingenuous straw man argument. Nobody with a decent grip on reality thinks the economy or guns have human traits , are alive, animated, etc."
For reference, my initial point was: An economy is not a living being, and cannot make decisions.
You continue to show a complete lack of understanding of economics.
You can just use a single post, by the way. You don't need to spam
--------------------------------------------
EDIT#66:2. How US capitalism depends on socialism: Taxation. Command economy. Bailouts.
Taxation pays for most(?) spending, which sets up the infrastructure, military, and so much more, as we're rediscovering. The caveat is that foreign loans might not be paid back, and therefore not funded by tax revenues.
----------------
I asked you to prove how capitalism depends on socialism. Your response consists of buzzwords and an anecdote about taxation.
---------------------------------
68: Take it or leave it is a choice. But, for once, you actually stayed somewhat on topic, without resorting to deception or nonsense, so I can accept that this could boil down to a difference of opinion.
3. People are forced to make false choices: We pretty much have to participate in the economy and taxation to survive. Most of us have a choice between jobs we don't really want (and some people can't work). The overwhelming majority of employers have power and the overwhelming majority of employees have no power, except to quit: take it or leave it.
"Nobody with a decent grip on reality thinks the economy or guns have human traits , are alive, animated, etc."
-Doodbro
"The main problem is that the economy does not value the qualities that support sentient beings. In fact, it devalues the qualities that support life- it sucks as much out (extracts) as it can with the only quality concern being: Is it profitable?"
-Doodbro
QED
-Doodbro
"The main problem is that the economy does not value the qualities that support sentient beings. In fact, it devalues the qualities that support life- it sucks as much out (extracts) as it can with the only quality concern being: Is it profitable?"
-Doodbro
QED
4. Pompous gaslighting: It comes across that you think you're an authority on economics. You gaslight at the same time. I could dig up some examples. "Pompous gaslighting" isn't an insult. You've called me a troll (I don't care, it just shows how weak your argumentation is) while it's actually you that acts like a troll.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.