Merkins 2012

[ubs]

nkb wrote

No, he could be comparing you to Mussolini, which is probably a more appropriate comparison, based on what he said about corporate fascism.

Are you being funny?

[ubs]

Victus wrote

Yep.

Now swap out school and education for grocery store and food. I think the market can handle the operation of grocery stores without food being the exclusive privileged of the wealthy. Same goes for education.

Especially now. In California kids can opt out of regular school and do their work online - an option that more and more of them are taking. In another 20 years the very idea of going to a special geographic location to learn will be as strange as rotary phones and silent films.

[Kate]

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Pretty horrible!

It seems like a good reason to supplant democracy with markets wherever possible. I want people to be get what they want out of life, don't you?

You're full of shit. There are dozens of postings by you on this forum that attest to that. You don't give a shit about anybody but Victus. You've made that abundantly clear to me and a lot of other people who post here.

Victus wrote

What kind of terrible human being would support a system that doesn't give people what they want when alternatives systems exist that do? Certainly not I.

Again, there is no Earthly system that gives every human being everything they want.

Victus wrote

And the outcomes would be the same regardless of whether you voted for the party you wanted, the party you hated, or stayed at home that day.

Repeating this crap is not going to make it any more true.

Victus wrote

I am under the illusion that when I can get what I want on my own or by voluntarily interacting with others, I shouldn't need others' input on the matter.

No shit. Like you haven't been preaching this nonsense for months now.

Victus wrote

Nope. You're the equivalent of a guy pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. That you're too ignorant to know that it's empty doesn't win you any points.

More bullshit that's not worth my time defending. Next.

Victus wrote

If my thinking were binary, I wouldn't be able to provide point estimates.

Your thinking is very black-and-white.

Victus wrote

What kind of person doesn't try to minimize their wins and minimize their losses?

What kind of person, who is not a candidate running for office, thinks that all elections in which he participates are about his personal wins and loses? Hmm?

Victus wrote

Then the label sticks, fundie!

Why, because Victus says so?

Victus wrote

That doesn't answer my question at all.

I know. It was a very childish question: "Why do I need anybody else when I can just do anything I want, mommy?" It doesn't deserve an answer.

[Rhinoqulous]

ubs wrote

Especially now. In California kids can opt out of regular school and do their work online - an option that more and more of them are taking. In another 20 years the very idea of going to a special geographic location to learn will be as strange as rotary phones and silent films.

They have that in Wisconsin and one other state too (Ohio? Indiana? One of those easterly-mid-west states no one really cares about). What I've read has been all over the place, some people love it, others hate it. I seem to recall seeing something about a high turnover rate in WI with the program (as in people using it and then sending their kids back to regular school after one semester). There was some controversy in the last WI elections with campaign donations by the company that runs these online public schools (K12), but don't recall off-hand what it was (nothing huge iirc).

Online education is a very interesting idea, but even if that becomes the norm (and I'm not sure it would) you'd still need regulation of it (in the form of some sort of a board of education) otherwise your Geography Lesson by KFC Kicker Snacks might be lacking in facts (a problem we're already facing today, most textbooks for elementary students are rife with errors).

[ubs]

Rhinoqulous wrote

They have that in Wisconsin and one other state too (Ohio? Indiana? One of those easterly-mid-west states no one really cares about). What I've read has been all over the place, some people love it, others hate it. I seem to recall seeing something about a high turnover rate in WI with the program (as in people using it and then sending their kids back to regular school after one semester). There was some controversy in the last WI elections with campaign donations by the company that runs these online public schools (K12), but don't recall off-hand what it was (nothing huge iirc).

A lot of the draw here comes from parents concerned about safety, but the states love it because of the money it saves. You film someone teaching the class once.

The homeschoolers (Christians and atheists alike) set their own curriculum with some minimum state standards.

Rhinoqulous wrote

Online education is a very interesting idea, but even if that becomes the norm (and I'm not sure it would) you'd still need regulation of it (in the form of some sort of a board of education) otherwise your Geography Lesson by KFC Kicker Snacks might be lacking in facts (a problem we're already facing today, most textbooks for elementary students are rife with errors).

I think you overestimate the level of corporate control there would be if there really weren't any corporate transfers or laws protecting monopolistic practices.

For instance a lot of Walmart employees receive food stamps and Walmart enjoys great benefits from the Chinese pegging their currency to our fiat reserve currency. Politics has made them a behemoth. Same with the banks. Same with Monsonto, Cargil, KFC and McDonalds, whose cheap shitty food could not exist without farm subsidies. Same with Pfizer, and AIG.

[nkb]

ubs wrote

Are you being funny?

No.

Since you are reading my posts, care to answer my question about how things would be different in libertarian utopia, as far as corporations owning everything?

[ubs]

That's a very broad question. Can you narrow it down?

For what it's worth, corporations - the idea of a corporate veil that protects you from the consequences of stupid decisions - is anti-libertarian. Corporations would exist, but they would only serve the purpose of ownership transfer.

[Philboid Studge]

Yup, Pizza Guy is nuts too.

In some cases the digits 4 and 5 are only part of a figure, like the times when one of Cain’s weekly commentaries ran to 645 words or when the final leg of a campaign trip took place on Flight 1045 traveling at 45,000 feet. At times the 45 in question is only tangentially related to Cain ...

But this ad (real?), is the best campaign pitch I've seen so far. The guy talking looks like my bookie. Watch to the very end, and tell me Pizza Guy isn't having a great laugh on everybody as he goes on his extended book tour and traveling grifter circus. Nuts like a fox...

Best campaign ad ever made

[nkb]

ubs wrote

That's a very broad question. Can you narrow it down?

This is going back to a thread you started with the startling news (not really) that corporations control large amounts of the market.

My question was, what would be different in a libertarian utopia? Without all those pesky regulations that you want removed in order for the invisible hand of the market to do its magic, what would prevent us from having the exact same, or worse, scenario?

ubs wrote

For what it's worth, corporations - the idea of a corporate veil that protects you from the consequences of stupid decisions - is anti-libertarian. Corporations would exist, but they would only serve the purpose of ownership transfer.

So, corporations would be heavily regulated on what they can and can't do?

[ubs]

nkb wrote

This is going back to a thread you started with the startling news (not really) that corporations control large amounts of the market. My question was, what would be different in a libertarian utopia? Without all those pesky regulations that you want removed in order for the invisible hand of the market to do its magic, what would prevent us from having the exact same, or worse, scenario?

I think covered this in my response to Rhinoq. I challenge you to find a member of the 147 that isn't a heavy political donor/ lobbyist. For that matter any corporate behemoth that isn't a political player.

Interestingly, to find a bottom limit of what they gain from that manipulation take their rate of return and multiply total political contributions by 1 + ROR. So for Goldman, the ROR is 25% and their total political expenditures for 2008 are estimated conservatively at 15 million, so at a minimum they received a political benefit above 18.75 million for that year. Of course if they had received anything less, they would have reinvested it in their regular business. May guess is that the perks are quantified at considerably more than 19 million.

nkb wrote

So, corporations would be heavily regulated on what they can and can't do?

No. Individuals who enjoy empire created protection from litigation via incorporation would no longer enjoy that protection. You could sue Jamie Dimon for mortgage fraud. Dimon could purchase private insurance to cover legal damages, but those costs would no longer be absorbed by the public as they are now.

[nkb]

That's all nice and good, but you still didn't explain how you would avoid big corporations owning everything. Without any government regulations, how do you keep them from creating monopolies, or is that not possible in your libertarian paradise?

[ubs]

nkb wrote

That's all nice and good, but you still didn't explain how you would avoid big corporations owning everything. Without any government regulations, how do you keep them from creating monopolies, or is that not possible in your libertarian paradise?

Which big corporations, nkb. Give me an example.

[nkb]

The ones you listed in your other thread.

It doesn't really matter which ones. Any corporation that decides it wants to corner a market.

[ubs]

nkb wrote

The ones you listed in your other thread.

It doesn't really matter which ones. Any corporation that decides it wants to corner a market.

That's just it. I don't think any of them would be very big or even exist without government assistance. The thirteen banks that received bailouts would be gone for instance. Lockheed? Boeing? With minimal defense spending how is that going to work?

Let's say suddenly that the market is wide open and AT&T wants to maintain dominance. There's no regulatory agencies so anyone can own a phone company. Now a behemoth who is notorious for treating their customers like shit must suddenly face the low costs and fabulous customer service of ubs phone.

Their current infra structure will keep them alive for a year or two, but they have to maintain those lines and they have to do it facing a mass exodus that will make the squealing of t-mobile customers faced with an AT&T merger look like a lullaby. Meanwhile ubs phone is making friends with other small carriers that share the common enemy that is AT&T and leasing each other their assets.

AT&T's past dependance on unjust rules has created a corporate culture that won't survive a competitive market. You think Stephenson would accept a low six figure or *gasp* work for nothing when the shit hits the fan? I should think not?! I'd give them eight years tops before it's lights out.