CEO raises minimum wage to $70000, takes $70000 wage himself until profits are met.

[Jamezz]

Roach is a farmer?

He doesn't have to be lonely though...

 

[NAOS]

You've popped the easy hole in Dr.'s side of the coin. Your blind side is a failure to recognize cumbersome over-regulation that's rained down upon us by big government. I'm no fan of the state controlling certain things (your land development point is a huge pet peeve of mine) but there definitely needs to be some moderation the other way as well. I enforce EPA regulations and can go on all day long about how bat **** crazy many of our bureaucratic regulations have become. We need balance.

I would never disagree with any of this. I had hoped that my points strongly implied that what you've wrote here is entirely consistent with my position.

One runs into problems any time he/she tries to justify regulations on strictly economic terms... because that is the language of business, and thus calls forth all the tendencies toward mass-production and accumulation which the business community embodies. But non-economic arguments for regulation are met with a deaf ear (look at what has happened to Aboriginal Australian land in our lifetimes): they're either seen as wildly "liberal" (in a complete blasphemy of the term) or written of as mere noise (again, look at Australian politics). So, we're forced to use economic terms.

Usually when I seem imbalanced in these conversations it's because I've weakly dismissed the noneconomic terms in order to just get to the calculations with the neoliberals (PKM, for example). The imbalance you've pointed out here is just due to a lack of verbiage from me at this point... it isn't really there.

Good to see you, btw.

 

[Jamezz]

He sucks milk out of cow **** and ****s Florida shaped chocolates for a living. Elf doesn't even need a milking stool to stool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAi1005K71g

 

[Harambe]

He sucks milk out of cow **** and ****s Florida shaped chocolates for a living. Elf doesn't even need a milking stool to stool.

It's true. I suck milk out of franklin's mom and get paid to have intercourse with Florida shaped chocolates.

I've been doing it so long the stool has become part of me.

 

[RandyForRubio]

We need government. We need regulations. Without them people abuse the system, that's proven. Unfortunately, the government abuses the power it has as well. I don't think simply adding more regulations/money for the government is going to solve more problems than it creates. We have to remember we're dealing with people here, and well, people are always going to screw something up.

What I've often seen with the govt is that it's people who have no clue what they're impacting or talking about that are making laws concerning many things. Why should I trust them to fix it? We need a complete overhaul on many things, but I think the idea that just adding more regulations or laws is a pretty poor one. Very idealistic.

 

[Harambe]

You're a farmer. You should realize the economic benefit of all these profligate programs. Waste isn't always wasteful. It's fun to bitch about the downside but it's not in our nature to praise the unseen upsides. I'm the same way, but dammit what a waste of time it is complaining about stuff that benefits me in one way or another.

Darn tootin.

 

[Harambe]

What I've often seen with the govt is that it's people who have no clue what they're impacting or talking about that are making laws concerning many things. Why should I trust them to fix it? We need a complete overhaul on many things, but I think the idea that just adding more regulations or laws is a pretty poor one. Very idealistic.

Thank you. This is fair.

Do you mean "more regulations or laws" in general, or "more regulations or laws from people that don't know where franklin starts and PKM ends"?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Show me a non-biased study that doesn't have a built in 'US penalty' for not having socialized medicine (even though effectively do and have for decades). Preferably one, unbiased, that shows our health care system isn't elite at keeping people alive.

LOLOL, this is a very selective measure on how to appraise the health of a nation-- care to elaborate as to why you chose this to be your criteria? Why not choose life expectancy, infant mortality, disease rates (whether acute, chronic, etc.)?

Another example of academia failing to recognize the positive effects of the US economic engine pulling the world up by their bootstraps. We subsidize world healthcare and drug research with our relatively high drug costs. Can you explain to me how this is a bad thing that needs to be eliminated in the name of fairness and equality?

The US/Big Pharmaceutical engine that spends most pharmaceutical dollars re-developing drugs that already exist so they can cash in on the latest treatable 'disease' (that might not even exist for that matter)-- or providing 'cutting-edge' treatment that ends up bankrupting 30% of the amount of people who file for bankruptcy on an annual basis. Gosh, I haven't the slightest clue as to how any of this could be a bad thing.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I admit my views are biased by my successes within the status quo. For me it works well.
I will also admit that although I am fairly confident on my positions, I am also lazy toward the topic and not as passionate about it all as I once was.

My apologies if that has resulted in somewhat reckless statements and, similar to NAOS said, I just don't feel like writing a book to explain it all in the detail required for someone to truly understand my points of view.

 

[Jamezz]

I admit my views are biased by my successes within the status quo. For me it works well.
I will also admit that although I am fairly confident on my positions, I am also lazy toward the topic and not as passionate about it all as I once was.

My apologies if that has resulted in somewhat reckless statements and, similar to NAOS said, I just don't feel like writing a book to explain it all in the detail required for someone to truly understand my points of view.

*yawns

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'm not sure we can... because I have higher standards for what a real disagreement is. I hear you promoting what is essentially a magic, one-size-fits-all fix: smaller, localized governing bodies. It's as if they have a functional adaptability that will tailor itself to the given situation. It's almost like some nostalgic throwback to a tribal politics: if only we'd be left alone on our land, then we'd reach some sort of homeostatic balance with it. It's romantic rubbish.

We'd be having a more productive disagreement if we were addressing the same phenomena with our analyses. That's why I offered up states' environmental record. And, by the way, that's not some outlying issue: I'm saying that states are incredibly poor judges of the true cost of production; it's a condemnation of the way that states have conducted business, through and through.

That point is clear enough throughout US History, but it's just screamingly clear in any place west of Chicago after the civil war. There was a tidal wave of US-backed capital which extracted from the west pretty much at the fastest rate possible (a rate that was set more by the technology for extracting things than it was by any regulatory do-gooding). Bundy fits into this history sooo easily. He's the offspring of a genealogy which was corrupted by a cattle industry bent on over-grazing the land out west after the central plains were closed in by fences and industrial-agriculture. They wanted free grazing on publicly held land and where they ran into problems they bitched about federalism and demanded local representation (which they were busy taking over by other means). The people who had controlling interests in the huge cattle industry were also invested in mining, etc. They were literally in the business of extracting; cattle were just one way they were sapping the west of its resources.

Anyway, it's a low standard for "disagreement" you're setting.

Actually, you're right. We aren't agreeing to anything at all. In order to have any real debate I would have to read what you wrote. Perhaps not fair as this is a different thread than the others, but I have learned your only contributions have been to say stupid things with a sharp slant to the demeaning.

I liked it better when you were PM'ing me whining about how I make your experience on the board almost unbearable because others pile on you when I do. Lulz..
As if it's me being persuasive rather than your tired dick schtik that people tire of.

You've maybe been better in this thread, but benefit of the doubt is denied.

 

[NAOS]

Actually, you're right. We aren't agreeing to anything at all. In order to have any real debate I would have to read what you wrote. Perhaps not fair as this is a different thread than the others, but I have learned your only contributions have been to say stupid things with a sharp slant to the demeaning.

I liked it better when you were PM'ing me whining about how I make your experience on the board almost unbearable because others pile on you when I do. Lulz..
As if it's me being persuasive rather than your tired dick schtik that people tire of.

You've maybe been better in this thread, but benefit of the doubt is denied.

^what a ****ing bitch^