Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2014, 02:47 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 02:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 02:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid...

Will every place have the same economic and geographic advantages that Hong Kong has? No? Then you cannot hold them up as the shining example for your bullshit that you want to replace it with everywhere else. Hong Kong was going to be successful precisely because of it's prime location. Facepalm
If you expect me to magically divine what economic and geographic advantages Hong Kong has, or what does the bubble mean, you're the one stupid here. I thought atheists don't believe in telepathy.

As far as I am concerned, the biggest economic advantage is simply no taxes or regulations and no government and no fighting or activist idiots trying to become the government. Ta dah! Instant tax paradise where people take their business. Every country should be a tax paradise, every zone a free trade zone. Because taxes don't increase productivity or life standard, taxes are like a slow theft, they make you wonder if you can move your business elsewhere, and the money with it.


If this laughable infantile reductionist theory is correct why is Somalia not a burgeoning paradise? They have no government at all, whereas Hong Kong still had one, corrupt as it was.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
18-08-2014, 02:48 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 02:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 02:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid...

Will every place have the same economic and geographic advantages that Hong Kong has? No? Then you cannot hold them up as the shining example for your bullshit that you want to replace it with everywhere else. Hong Kong was going to be successful precisely because of it's prime location. Facepalm
If you expect me to magically divine what economic and geographic advantages Hong Kong has, or what does the bubble mean, you're the one stupid here. I thought atheists don't believe in telepathy.

As far as I am concerned, the biggest economic advantage is simply no taxes or regulations and no government and no fighting or activist idiots trying to become the government. Ta dah! Instant tax paradise where people take their business. Every country should be a tax paradise, every zone a free trade zone. Because taxes don't increase productivity or life standard, taxes are like a slow theft, they make you wonder if you can move your business elsewhere, and the money with it.

If every country was a 'tax paradise' there would be no 'paradise', and there goes the incentive to move to Hong Kong. Once again, they are not in a bubble. You cannot operate the rest of the world like you would Hong Kong, because Hong Kong would cease to work like Hong Kong if it wasn't so unique and instead surrounded by Hong Kong's.

Coastal port cities have a long and illustrious history of being some of the most prosperous cities in the world, because they are hubs of trade and commerce. They are the gatekeepers between the interiors of nations and international trade; owing entirely to their geographical locations. Coastal port cities have been prosperous under every government yet devised by men; so singling out Hong Kong's prosperity as being unique to it's governance is unbridled bullshit and you know it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-08-2014, 03:11 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 02:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If every country was a 'tax paradise' there would be no 'paradise', and there goes the incentive to move to Hong Kong. Once again, they are not in a bubble. You cannot operate the rest of the world like you would Hong Kong, because Hong Kong would cease to work like Hong Kong if it wasn't so unique and instead surrounded by Hong Kong's.

Coastal port cities have a long and illustrious history of being some of the most prosperous cities in the world, because they are hubs of trade and commerce. They are the gatekeepers between in interiors of a nation and international trade; owing entirely to their geographical locations. Coastal port cities have been prosperous under every government yet devised by men; so singling out Hong Kong's prosperity as being unique to it's governance is unbridled bullshit and you know it.
I don't have a problem with geography. If you think geography disproves economy, you're wrong. In a free market society, backwater holes will offer lower prices to stay competitive. There will still be Hong Kongs besides the one, just elsewhere. It may surprise you, but even in capitalism wealth can spread out, isn't that a socialist dream? Extreme wealth and extreme poverty, that's government business. Governments with taxes and embargos create an artificial geography that costs us all dearly to get around.

With governments, the best places for business turn out to be mostly barren islands like Japan. Tropical paradises like Nigeria or Brazil are the worst hellholes, because American government destabilizes local regimes and sponsors dictators, to get at the natural resources. Bananas, oil, gold and coltan...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 03:43 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 03:11 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 02:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If every country was a 'tax paradise' there would be no 'paradise', and there goes the incentive to move to Hong Kong. Once again, they are not in a bubble. You cannot operate the rest of the world like you would Hong Kong, because Hong Kong would cease to work like Hong Kong if it wasn't so unique and instead surrounded by Hong Kong's.

Coastal port cities have a long and illustrious history of being some of the most prosperous cities in the world, because they are hubs of trade and commerce. They are the gatekeepers between in interiors of a nation and international trade; owing entirely to their geographical locations. Coastal port cities have been prosperous under every government yet devised by men; so singling out Hong Kong's prosperity as being unique to it's governance is unbridled bullshit and you know it.
I don't have a problem with geography. If you think geography disproves economy, you're wrong. In a free market society, backwater holes will offer lower prices to stay competitive. There will still be Hong Kongs besides the one, just elsewhere. It may surprise you, but even in capitalism wealth can spread out, isn't that a socialist dream? Extreme wealth and extreme poverty, that's government business. Governments with taxes and embargos create an artificial geography that costs us all dearly to get around.

With governments, the best places for business turn out to be mostly barren islands like Japan. Tropical paradises like Nigeria or Brazil are the worst hellholes, because American government destabilizes local regimes and sponsors dictators, to get at the natural resources. Bananas, oil, gold and coltan...


Lumi, we've already explained that 'magic' is not a reasonable answer.

Capitalism is great at generating capital and wealth, there is nothing you've proposed that would in any way prevent massive unequal wealth distribution. The closest we ever got to wealth equality in the United States was during and after the progressive period surrounding FDR's record breaking popularity and 4 terms in office. The New Deal, massive public works projects, the introduction of unemployment compensation, the Hoover Damn and TVA water authority, the Interstate Highway system, the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), and I could go on.

What would your system do to prevent the exploitation of banana republics by multinational corporations? Near as I can tell, absolutely nothing. Somehow the people, by the nature/magic of the market, will somehow magically know about it and prevent it through their purchasing power. This is entirely ignorant of how real world factors like misinformation and geography can easily prevent this from taking place and operating as intended.

Corporations can buy the media now for their own propaganda purposes. What makes you think less or no regulation will improve that?

Where would the individual or corporate incentive be to research the effect of lead in paint, or the link between cigarettes and lung cancer?

How would our food get safer with the abolition of the FDA?

You've yet to ever offer a reasonable answer, that didn't rely on magic and feels, for these very simple questions. And you wonder why we all think you're full of shit...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-08-2014, 03:55 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 03:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Corporations can buy the media now for their own propaganda purposes.

Hence the number of trashy newsaper rags and totally ridiculous crap that comes on TV. e.g. Discovery Channel is now apparently distorting researchers' own words to fit them into the stupid shit they vend as 'science'.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 03:56 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 01:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
[Image: gmLOb.jpg]
...

That's a very telling picture.

Socialism gives us minimal progress; calm and order and a peaceful and quiet life.

But...

Capitalism gives us dramatic progress; congestion, light pollution, high-stress, competitive, Darwinian lifestyles.

I'm biased... I've yet to enjoy a trip to HK. I get claustrophobia.

Drinking Beverage

Or was it just to highlight that colour photography is independent of socio-economic mechanisms?

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like DLJ's post
18-08-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 02:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 02:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid...

Will every place have the same economic and geographic advantages that Hong Kong has? No? Then you cannot hold them up as the shining example for your bullshit that you want to replace it with everywhere else. Hong Kong was going to be successful precisely because of it's prime location. Facepalm
If you expect me to magically divine what economic and geographic advantages Hong Kong has, or what does the bubble mean, you're the one stupid here. I thought atheists don't believe in telepathy.

You silly douchebag, Hong Kong is your example - you fucking justify it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
18-08-2014, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2014 08:00 AM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 06:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 02:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you expect me to magically divine what economic and geographic advantages Hong Kong has, or what does the bubble mean, you're the one stupid here. I thought atheists don't believe in telepathy.

You silly douchebag, Hong Kong is your example - you fucking justify it.

Don't worry, he's just an idiot regurgitating warmed-over libertarian copypasta.

I previously wrote - in this very thread - a summary of how bullshit the example is.

But I find that perhaps another set of images will be of interest here:
Singapore in 1950.
[Image: aerial+view+of+the+waterfront+and+fuller...950_sm.jpg]
Singapore today.
[Image: 0304_singapore-skyline_1024x576.jpg]
And unlike ol' Lumi I took the five seconds necessary to find a shot at the same angle.

The astute observers among you might note that Singapore was never run laissez-faire. And yet somehow a city with a strong initial position and an amazing location managed to become a successful economic citystate under a protectionist authoritarian regime. IT BOGGLES THE MIND.

I'm totally sure that being embargoed by the largest, nearest trade partner (responsible for the vast majority of Cuban foreign trade before the revolution) had nothing to do with Havana's economic history. NOTHING AT ALL.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
18-08-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 03:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Lumi, we've already explained that 'magic' is not a reasonable answer.

Capitalism is great at generating capital and wealth, there is nothing you've proposed that would in any way prevent massive unequal wealth distribution. The closest we ever got to wealth equality in the United States was during and after the progressive period surrounding FDR's record breaking popularity and 4 terms in office. The New Deal, massive public works projects, the introduction of unemployment compensation, the Hoover Damn and TVA water authority, the Interstate Highway system, the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), and I could go on.
Fuck wealth equality. Money is not a mother's milk, it's an industrial resource needed in large amounts at one place. There is a whole ecology of money, big animals like IBM or Microsoft are needed to develop new technologies and mass produce them. On that mass production, countless thousands of middle sized business is running and lots of small business too, programmers and inventors who work with the mass-produced parts.
Nobody gets the upper hand, because no matter how big a company gets, there are always competitors of the same weight category.
Income equality is bullshit, a person is generating all the wealth and he is paying a big chunk of the industry from the wealth he generated. And that person is needed to decide how to invest that. If you ever watch rich person statistics, they go up and down in wealth over the years pretty often. Warren Buffet was repeatedly millions in debt and a millionaire in plus.
But that sort of gamble is necessary in order to produce things and feed people. Redistribution destroys production and in the end both welfare and productivity runs out.

(18-08-2014 03:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What would your system do to prevent the exploitation of banana republics by multinational corporations? Near as I can tell, absolutely nothing. Somehow the people, by the nature/magic of the market, will somehow magically know about it and prevent it through their purchasing power. This is entirely ignorant of how real world factors like misinformation and geography can easily prevent this from taking place and operating as intended.
"My system" would protect the banana republics by making it impossible to print money to buy weapons. All the banana republics and dictatorships set up by the U.S. were based on weapon industry funded by quantitatively eased (endlessly printed) dollar. Bitcoin and its derivates puts an end to that, together with central banking that fuels the military-industrial sector. In a free society, every gun and bullet will have to be paid by someone's hard work, not by fiat currency. That will literally end wars as we know them, which is a blood mill with lots of ammunition coming seemingly out of nowhere and guns lying around in heaps.

(18-08-2014 03:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Corporations can buy the media now for their own propaganda purposes. What makes you think less or no regulation will improve that?
Let's see how they will buy media if they can't get free printed government money on subsidies and advantageous govt regulations.

(18-08-2014 03:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Where would the individual or corporate incentive be to research the effect of lead in paint, or the link between cigarettes and lung cancer?
Insurance companies will want that very much to decrease their costs. Sick or injured people cost them money, so they would sponsor this research and offer discounts to people who go along with safety measures such as regular health checks.

(18-08-2014 03:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How would our food get safer with the abolition of the FDA?
What makes you think corporations don't want to produce safe food? If they can't get money from government subsidies, which they do today, they will orient themselves on customers. And if some corporation produces unsafe things, and customers still buy it (they likely won't), and it causes real problems, then insurance companies would up the fees and people would reconsider if it's worth it to them.
Of course, a DRO could punish a company severely by stopping to insure their contracts, so anyone could break the deal with them without punishment, if they wish so. Or by upping the price on contract insurance, until they get the products checked.
FDA has no economic motivation to keep the food safe, if there's a problem with food, FDA will just say, that's why you need FDA. If food was all safe, FDA would find itself with lower funding and that can't happen.

(18-08-2014 03:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You've yet to ever offer a reasonable answer, that didn't rely on magic and feels, for these very simple questions. And you wonder why we all think you're full of shit...
I provide reasonable answers. Your answer is fiat currency and rules for people who have immunity in courts.
My answers are economic interests. If you want money but have no government violence to back you up, you must do a good job, make safe products, try to be better than competition and win a customer over, that's how you make money. If you don't, people will go to competition and you lose money. On free market, nobody is too big to fall, even the biggest corporations shrink or go under fast, if they provide a bad service that nobody wants. On free market, everyone is taken care of, as long as they are willing to go where the money are and do what customers want and not wait in one place for the money.

On free market, everyone is free to invent and try a hundred other and better solutions than I just wrote. Government doesn't need to change when it makes costly mistakes, it can always tax or print more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2014, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2014 01:56 PM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Bitcoin and its derivates puts an end to that, together with central banking that fuels the military-industrial sector. In a free society, every gun and bullet will have to be paid by someone's hard work, not by fiat currency.

Uh, hold on there, ol' Lumi...

(18-08-2014 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Bitcoin and its derivates...
(18-08-2014 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... not by fiat currency.

(18-08-2014 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Bitcoin and its derivates...
(18-08-2014 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... not by fiat currency.

Do you have even the slightest idea what words mean?

Bitcoins are fiat currency.

Read.
A.
Book.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: