Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Opinion Polls

Opinion Polls Political Opinion Polls - Polls created by the community


View Poll Results: Is a "Free Market" System Sensible?
Yes 9 52.94%
No 6 35.29%
Other 2 11.76%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Thanks Tree71Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 31st, 2017, 09:14 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
Also,you are being a bigot. You are making assumptions about whom you are addressing without any knowledge of who they are. You have failed to address anything I have said but instead decided to define me, then attack me. In short, you are using the elitist eye roll argument by grandstanding about how educated you are.
This encapsulates a near perfect projection of everything you have managed to do on this thread (which others have noticed as well)

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
That is the part about you making assumptions that you know nothing of.
Actually, no (as I explained in my last post--at least not nearly to the extent that you are charging). Based on reading your previous posts, you are unaware of as to how much information you are revealing about yourself due to the reasons I cited before. Actually, you were behaving very much like justoneman who is similarly oblivious (happily so I would add) although he "cuts right to the chase". Collectively, this suggests you do not understand what a highly competitive intellectual environment would even look like, much less how to "behave" properly in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
This is the part where you pump your self up and demand that you are correct on all matters.
No, actually, it is the part where I explain to you what is fundamentally so unscientifically minded and unsophisticated about your approach. Did you even read post? I will reproduce it here for your benefit:

History, politics, ect. ect. are very worthy areas of study, research, debate, ect. however there is a problem with the lack of objective truths that are found in STEM...the Humanities...lacks the direct confrontation with reality that STEM demands, thus people think they can simply run away with their bullsh't, ignorant nonsense, as you and a couple others have done here.


I would encourage you to place yourself in competitive STEM environments (even highly friendly ones) that you have immediate, free access to (e.g. the PhysicForums.com, ect.) in order to gain further insight into this dynamic--it should be quite eye-opening for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
Keep pumping yourself up. Still waiting for you to actually address what I had to say in regards to the subject.
Again, this is merely your perception of the situation since you are not accustomed to being called on your gratuitous offenses of reason. Any person who has even some contact with STEM (e.g. has taken a Natural Science or Calc course say) would be exquisitely aware of the dynamic I discussed previously.

As for you claiming "Still waiting for you to actually address what I had to say in regards to the subject", is laughable at best. I have provided many detailed posts regarding my positions (yes of course there is a lot to explore still, as it is a very large topic and I can only reasonably write so much in finite allotments of time --however, you are still caught up on Stage 1, if not Stage 0 such as justoneman, level misunderstandings/lack of comprehension. Its not my job to hold your hand through political/economic structure 101 in order to achieve the pre-requisite knowledge to begin to address the topic further--which it has become clear to me you are not prepared to do).

You, justoneman, Sabacat, just continue to give each other high-fives that you are able to perpetuate your echo-chamber against all odds.. This is why imaginethat's question concerning if you were "trolling" was not Ad Hominem, but rather legitimate given the extreme out-of-proportion lack of comprehension on your respective parts as compared to the relative simplicity of the subject matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
After your bigoted personal attack...
Calling you out on your obvious bullsh't is not a "personal attack". Interesting you turn to victim based, SJW-style tears the moment you feel "personally offended" that others don't bow down to your canards/pseudo-arguments (while this is simultaneously exactly what you detest/make fun of, as I have already pointed out to justoneman).

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
I have not made up my mind if I should grant you that privilege or not...I have much to weigh on rather or not you are worthy of such a honor to address me on subjects.
LMAO (smh).. I'll shortcut the process for you--I see no utility in further engaging you on this matter and will be quite hesitant before engaging you in the future, as it is my goal on forums such as this to have legitimate disputation with sober-minded, intelligent, educated, ect. individuals from all manner of varied backgrounds and perspectives (luckily, I have already found at least some on this forum that fit that criteria), not exceedingly low standards of discourse (such as what you and a few others have presented here)..
xMathFanx is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 09:31 PM   #82
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
I enjoy how you included me in here yet your only response to my post was that you disagreed w/ my use of the term fascism.

Carry on.
@Sabcat

You have comported yourself like a semi-troll and applied distasteful "buzz words" in the hopes of eliminating the need to marshal actual arguments in opposition to my submitted position (as I have already previously explained--which in fact, is entirely consistent with the thesis of my post you quoted and took issue with)..

One legitimate point you have raised is the "pricing issue" which I have begun to explain, and will expand upon (although it is necessary to argue about/establish more fundamental points before moving on to this issue--which is why I haven't addressed it more yet; as well as obvious time constraints). However, even this was entrenched in your deep, fundamental failure to understand what is being proposed. You stated:

"You must address the pricing problem. As you are proposing you seem to be having the state confiscate the means of production and leaving it in the hands of state controlled corporations. This will require a strong, militarized state subjecting the people. Make up whatever pretty little word you like. Sounds like fascism to me."

I have proposed no such thing. Furthermore, I will refer to an earlier post originally intended for justoneman, now directed at you (Sabcat), reproduced below with one minor adjustment:

"Actually, you got that completely wrong. Furthermore, your lack of comprehension was due to your own pre-conceived notions and internal biases that hijacked your higher order mental faculties, ultimately led you toward jumping to an erroneous conclusion. (There are plenty of very valid criticisms of the argument/system I suggested (the pricing issue in certain respects is one such issue), however your argument is fundamentally based on your own misunderstanding of the model)."


I hope this cleared up some confusion for you as to why you were included in my post
Thanks from Camelot

Last edited by xMathFanx; December 31st, 2017 at 09:56 PM.
xMathFanx is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 10:03 PM   #83
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
@Sabcat

You have comported yourself like a semi-troll and applied distasteful "buzz words" in the hopes of eliminating the need to marshal actual arguments in opposition to my submitted position (as I have already previously explained--which in fact, is entirely consistent with the thesis of my post you quoted and took issue with)..

One legitimate point you have raised is the "pricing issue" which I have begun to explain, and will expand upon (although it is necessary to argue about/establish more fundamental points before moving on to this issue--which is why I haven't addressed it more yet; as well as obvious time constraints). However, even this was entrenched in your deep, fundamental failure to understand what is being proposed. You stated:

"You must address the pricing problem. As you are proposing you seem to be having the state confiscate the means of production and leaving it in the hands of state controlled corporations. This will require a strong, militarized state subjecting the people. Make up whatever pretty little word you like. Sounds like fascism to me."

I have proposed no such thing. Furthermore, I will refer to an earlier post originally intended for justoneman, now directed at you (Sabcat), reproduced below with one minor adjustment:

"Actually, you got that completely wrong. Furthermore, your lack of comprehension was due to your own pre-conceived notions and internal biases that hijacked your higher order mental faculties, ultimately led you toward jumping to an erroneous conclusion. (There are plenty of very valid criticisms of the argument/system I suggested (the pricing issue in certain respects is one such issue), however your argument is fundamentally based on your own misunderstanding of the model)."


I hope this cleared up some confusion for you as to why you were included in my post
Best post so far in 2018. Sabcat is a troll who summons the spirit of the disgraced Ayn Rand.
Thanks from xMathFanx
Camelot is online now  
Old December 31st, 2017, 10:50 PM   #84
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 27,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.
Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
A. http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries//page/1
B. Minimum Salary Scales under the 2017 CBA

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:
A. NFL Minimum Salaries for 2017 | The Daily Spot
B. https://www.pro-football-reference.c...ers/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

My basic argument is this:

The people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model). In order to ensure this, we would still operate under a "Market" system, but simply constrain the Market by switching off of a "preference based" value to a "utility based" value structure. Practically, this would be enforced by regulatory incentives.

The argument for a "Free Market/quasi-Free Market" is basically:

"If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this ("this" being the dynamic I described before), then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?" (Note: That is not a straw-man of what is being promoted
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
@Sabcat

You have comported yourself like a semi-troll and applied distasteful "buzz words" in the hopes of eliminating the need to marshal actual arguments in opposition to my submitted position (as I have already previously explained--which in fact, is entirely consistent with the thesis of my post you quoted and took issue with)..

One legitimate point you have raised is the "pricing issue" which I have begun to explain, and will expand upon (although it is necessary to argue about/establish more fundamental points before moving on to this issue--which is why I haven't addressed it more yet; as well as obvious time constraints). However, even this was entrenched in your deep, fundamental failure to understand what is being proposed. You stated:

"You must address the pricing problem. As you are proposing you seem to be having the state confiscate the means of production and leaving it in the hands of state controlled corporations. This will require a strong, militarized state subjecting the people. Make up whatever pretty little word you like. Sounds like fascism to me."

I have proposed no such thing. Furthermore, I will refer to an earlier post originally intended for justoneman, now directed at you (Sabcat), reproduced below with one minor adjustment:

"Actually, you got that completely wrong. Furthermore, your lack of comprehension was due to your own pre-conceived notions and internal biases that hijacked your higher order mental faculties, ultimately led you toward jumping to an erroneous conclusion. (There are plenty of very valid criticisms of the argument/system I suggested (the pricing issue in certain respects is one such issue), however your argument is fundamentally based on your own misunderstanding of the model)."


I hope this cleared up some confusion for you as to why you were included in my post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Regardless you are going to run into the same pricing problem that you do w/ socialism and the allocation of resorces. Beauracacies will need to be created to determine where and how resorces are best used. These will not only be inefficient but take on a life of their own devouring the very resorces that they were created to divy up. This will funnel more and more wealth away from the people and into the hands of the state and the special interest groups that they serve. The dreaded .10% (or whatever number is en vogue today)

Looks good on paper, if you dont mind fascism, that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
Social Democracy = Fascism.. Got it. Thanks for your "insight"

Notice, this system could potentially apply to de-centralized forms of governance as well, although I do not think that could at all be plausibly implemented given the current climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
You must address the pricing problem. As you are proposing you seem to be having the state confiscate the means of production and leaving it in the hands of state controlled corporations. This will require a strong, militarized state subjecting the people. Make up whatever pretty little word you like. Sounds like fascism to me.

So instead of addressing the point you create a long post avoiding it, furthermore i have not actually witnessed you address any of the points that have been proposed.

For someone with very few posts, therefore no established credibility or POV you seem to be awfully full of yourself.

The pricing issue and the allocation of resorces is fundamental to any economic debate and IMO cornor stone to any proposed concept.

Sounds like guy may have nailed it on the head.

Thats to bad, i had hopes for a different perspective other than the boring old half assed Keynesian regurgitated crap.
Thanks from guy39 and justoneman
Sabcat is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 10:54 PM   #85
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 4,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
Imaginethat has already addressed this in full..
...[/I]
Well I am glad you have a mouth piece here.

Look if you make a thread about whether we should have a free market or one that re-engineers who gets paid what, then you have to expect that conservatives will assume you want a big central government controlling everything.
justoneman is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:02 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 4,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
..
One of the largest issues I find in attempting to discuss such matters with people such as you, is that [I]uneducated people that lack real intellectual training, nor challenges in a highly competitive arena do not know how to engage and abide by the rules of civil discourse .
What level of education do you have and from where, that you should assume you are better educated than those with which you are converssing, oh exalted one?
justoneman is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:10 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
So instead of addressing the point you create a long post avoiding it, furthermore i have not actually witnessed you address any of the points that have been proposed.

For someone with very few posts, therefore no established credibility or POV you seem to be awfully full of yourself.

The pricing issue and the allocation of resorces is fundamental to any economic debate and IMO cornor stone to any proposed concept.

Sounds like guy may have nailed it on the head.

Thats to bad, i had hopes for a different perspective other than the boring old half assed Keynesian regurgitated crap.
Post count is nearly irrelevant as the merit of ideas is not based upon reputation. For the record, I have seen nothing in the least bit impressive out of you to establish your "credibility". Now, on your claim of being "full of yourself", I have actually already addressed this at length. Calling a spade a spade is not "arrogance", however attaching "buzz words" to arguments in an effort to high-handedly wave them off (on a consistent basis--such as you engage in) is breath taking arrogance of the sort that would never fly in STEM or any legitimate, competitive academic/intellectual arena (and the purpose of forums such as these are to encourage sober-minded discourse).
Thanks from RNG
xMathFanx is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:30 PM   #88
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
This encapsulates a near perfect projection of everything you have managed to do on this thread (which others have noticed as well)



Actually, no (as I explained in my last post--at least not nearly to the extent that you are charging). Based on reading your previous posts, you are unaware of as to how much information you are revealing about yourself due to the reasons I cited before. Actually, you were behaving very much like justoneman who is similarly oblivious (happily so I would add) although he "cuts right to the chase". Collectively, this suggests you do not understand what a highly competitive intellectual environment would even look like, much less how to "behave" properly in it.



No, actually, it is the part where I explain to you what is fundamentally so unscientifically minded and unsophisticated about your approach. Did you even read post? I will reproduce it here for your benefit:

History, politics, ect. ect. are very worthy areas of study, research, debate, ect. however there is a problem with the lack of objective truths that are found in STEM...the Humanities...lacks the direct confrontation with reality that STEM demands, thus people think they can simply run away with their bullsh't, ignorant nonsense, as you and a couple others have done here.


I would encourage you to place yourself in competitive STEM environments (even highly friendly ones) that you have immediate, free access to (e.g. the PhysicForums.com, ect.) in order to gain further insight into this dynamic--it should be quite eye-opening for you.



Again, this is merely your perception of the situation since you are not accustomed to being called on your gratuitous offenses of reason. Any person who has even some contact with STEM (e.g. has taken a Natural Science or Calc course say) would be exquisitely aware of the dynamic I discussed previously.

As for you claiming "Still waiting for you to actually address what I had to say in regards to the subject", is laughable at best. I have provided many detailed posts regarding my positions (yes of course there is a lot to explore still, as it is a very large topic and I can only reasonably write so much in finite allotments of time --however, you are still caught up on Stage 1, if not Stage 0 such as justoneman, level misunderstandings/lack of comprehension. Its not my job to hold your hand through political/economic structure 101 in order to achieve the pre-requisite knowledge to begin to address the topic further--which it has become clear to me you are not prepared to do).

You, justoneman, Sabacat, just continue to give each other high-fives that you are able to perpetuate your echo-chamber against all odds.. This is why imaginethat's question concerning if you were "trolling" was not Ad Hominem, but rather legitimate given the extreme out-of-proportion lack of comprehension on your respective parts as compared to the relative simplicity of the subject matter.



Calling you out on your obvious bullsh't is not a "personal attack". Interesting you turn to victim based, SJW-style tears the moment you feel "personally offended" that others don't bow down to your canards/pseudo-arguments (while this is simultaneously exactly what you detest/make fun of, as I have already pointed out to justoneman).



LMAO (smh).. I'll shortcut the process for you--I see no utility in further engaging you on this matter and will be quite hesitant before engaging you in the future, as it is my goal on forums such as this to have legitimate disputation with sober-minded, intelligent, educated, ect. individuals from all manner of varied backgrounds and perspectives (luckily, I have already found at least some on this forum that fit that criteria), not exceedingly low standards of discourse (such as what you and a few others have presented here)..


Good luck with that kid
guy39 is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:33 PM   #89
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 27,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
Post count is nearly irrelevant as the merit of ideas is not based upon reputation. For the record, I have seen nothing in the least bit impressive out of you to establish your "credibility". Now, on your claim of being "full of yourself", I have actually already addressed this at length. Calling a spade a spade is not "arrogance", however attaching "buzz words" to arguments in an effort to high-handedly wave them off (on a consistent basis--such as you engage in) is breath taking arrogance of the sort that would never fly in STEM or any legitimate, competitive academic/intellectual arena (and the purpose of forums such as these are to encourage sober-minded discourse).
Thats all well and good long winded gobbledygook that you are tossing around likely wouldn't hold up well in a pool hall or a barroom. The fact of the matter is we are in neither of those places. We are on an anonymous chat rooom.

Now that that has been established would you like to attempt to continue with your premise or do you want to keep chucking shit at the wall hoping something sticks?
Thanks from guy39 and justoneman
Sabcat is offline  
Old December 31st, 2017, 11:39 PM   #90
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Thats all well and good long winded gobbledygook that you are tossing around likely wouldn't hold up well in a pool hall or a barroom. The fact of the matter is we are in neither of those places. We are on an anonymous chat rooom.

Now that that has been established would you like to attempt to continue with your premise or do you want to keep chucking shit at the wall hoping something sticks?
I do believe he got upset at me. I am pretty sure it was when I discussed every talking point he was going to throw out. So, as you just noticed, he stopped talking about Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism. He did not even bother to try to demonstrate why they were different than one another. Just got mad, went on some tirade about how great he is in a university somewhere and never actually discussed his economic idea's. Guess I should have acted like I never heard the same ole sales pitch over and over again. I am afraid the strain of it all may be more than the lad can handle.
Thanks from Sabcat and justoneman
guy39 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Opinion Polls

Tags
free market, system



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Free speech" no longer free anymore? Or... Panther Education 125 November 26th, 2017 08:56 AM
German police in Cologne "protect" christmas market with mp5's without magazines Beasty Political Humor 2 December 23rd, 2016 04:22 AM
More Evidence Of Wage Theft In A "Free Market" (snick) Camelot Current Events 4 April 30th, 2014 09:34 AM
Did bill get "I have to do something big" out of Obama's system? leighredf Healthcare 56 March 23rd, 2010 07:51 PM
"I wouldn't call that a broken system." aMFliberal Crime and Punishment 24 February 12th, 2006 07:06 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.