The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Oh lord, there's that poor "us" (a refreshing pause from "we" and "they").

Did you read my last post in this thread? Yeah? Then shut up. Cock. :p

Not before I posted this reply. So you shut up. Pussy.

[classicman]

Wow! Cock and pussy all in one thread - this may have to get a NSFW designation.

[Shawnee123]

lol

Fine, dinglebutt.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Well, DanaC, you're reduced to complaining at my tone. That tells me you are completely out of persuasive arguments for your point of view contrasted with mine. Capitalism wins out over socialism again, Right trumps Left. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn summed it up: "Right is right." He left his reader to draw the conclusion about the Left.

This is usually the outcome when someone tangles with me on this field. I am not lacking in intellect myself -- and like you, my intellect leads me to the stances I take, and shows me what's wrong with the others. I'm able to articulate what's wrong, too. Frankly, very few of my opponents get that far. You can read what they wrote, and they just can't do it. As the observation has it, recorded in various forms from the late nineteenth century through Clemenceau and Churchill: "If you aren't a socialist [earlier: liberal] at twenty you have no heart; if you're still a socialist [earlier: aren't a conservative] at forty you have no brain." By this standard, I've always been blessed with a brain. This is why my opposition ends up in a corner.

I disagree. I've found you lacking in the intellect department on a few occasions, and I have yet to see your intellect or debating skills back anyone into a corner. While we can agree that socialism is always a failure and pure capitalism is always a success, this to me is merely stating the obvious.

As far as "right is right" goes, I also disagree with that. I don't think any polarized position is tenable. This is why libertarians are accused of being leftist by those on the right and of being right-wingers by those on the left. I support freedom in all cases. I support the non-initiation of force in all cases, which isn't to say I am against the use of force...just not initiating it. It's ok to use force against those who are using force to infringe upon your property, person, or rights.

This is why your foreign policy views are so backwards. You support the initiation of force to enforce your own personal view of what freedom means. You support misusing our military for actions that are not in our own defense. You support going around the world bullying people into submission and making enemies, and keeping us in a perpetual state of unnecessary war.

[Shawnee123]

But but...I thought you guys liked each other in this thread.

[Radar]

I don't think we like each other in any thread, though we occasionally agree on an issue or two. I'm sure even you and I agree on a few. I tend to have points of disagreement or agreement with people at different times, though it seems more of the prior than the latter.

[Shawnee123]

I do think there was one thing I agreed with you about; can't for the life of me think of what it was.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

While we can agree that socialism is always a failure and pure capitalism is always a success, this to me is merely stating the obvious.

Albania
Albania
You border on the Adriatic
Your land is mostly mountainous
And your chief export is chrome.

Albania: the place that sucks so hard even Capitalism didn't work. What you say, I thought Capitalism was perfect. We have to revise that: *nearly* perfect.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Results of Albania's efforts were initially encouraging. Led by the agricultural sector, real GDP grew by an estimated 11% in 1993, 8% in 1994, and more than 8% in 1995, with most of this growth in the private sector. Annual inflation dropped from 25% in 1991 to single-digit numbers. The Albanian currency, the lek, stabilized. Albania became less dependent on food aid. The speed and vigor of private entrepreneurial response to Albania's opening and liberalizing was better than expected.

Beginning in 1995, however, progress stalled, with negligible GDP growth in 1996 and a 9% contraction in 1997. A weakening of government resolve to maintain stabilization policies in the election year of 1996 contributed to renewal of inflationary pressures, spurred by the budget deficit which exceeded 12%. Inflation approached 20% in 1996 and 50% in 1997. The collapse of financial pyramid schemes in early 1997 - which had attracted deposits from a substantial portion of Albania's population - triggered severe social unrest which led to more than 1,500 deaths, widespread destruction of property, and an 8% drop in GDP. The lek initially lost up to half of its value during the 1997 crisis, before rebounding to its January 1998 level of 143 to the dollar. The new government, installed in July 1997, has taken strong measures to restore public order and to revive economic activity and trade.

50% inflation. Pyramid schemes. 1500 deaths. Bouncing currency values. Widespread destruction of property. These are not the signals of success you were expecting. These are extreme market failures. Capitalism almost always works... although sometimes it doesn't. But that's the human condition in a nutshell.

[jinx]

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Albania
Albania
You border on the Adriatic
Your land is mostly mountainous
And your chief export is chrome.

Albania: the place that sucks so hard even Capitalism didn't work. What you say, I thought Capitalism was perfect. We have to revise that: *nearly* perfect.



50% inflation. Pyramid schemes. 1500 deaths. Bouncing currency values. Widespread destruction of property. These are not the signals of success you were expecting. These are extreme market failures. Capitalism almost always works... although sometimes it doesn't. But that's the human condition in a nutshell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Albania a former Eastern block nation? My guess is any kind of attempt they made at capitalism, wasn't really capitalism. They probably didn't even understand what capitalism really means. Pyramid schemes aren't capitalism and nor is any system that requires government force to exist. My guess is they had some form of highly regulated system with capitalist leanings that didn't work because it was stifled.

Capitalism is the free and voluntary exchange of goods or services on a value for value basis. Any third party involvement on the part of the government in these exchanges disqualifies this from being capitalism.

[headsplice]

Here's a real-life question: since America has, for the past decade or so, meandered down a path of deregulation, and since Radar argues that deregulation is inherently good (I could be wrong, please feel free to correct me), why is that the United States is economically falling behind those countries who have more socialist-type governments, specifically the European Union?

[lookout123]

Regardless of which side of that argument you want to be on ten years is far too short to measure the true economic effect of policies. There is a considerable lag between cause and effect.

[DanaC]

Regardless of which side of that argument you want to be on ten years is far too short to measure the true economic effect of policies. There is a considerable lag between cause and effect.

I would agree with that. Historically speaking the time lapse between changes in real wages and corresponding societal changes (such as the effect on age at first marriage etc) is about 30 years.

[Happy Monkey]

That may be true, but I would expect that the lag between deregulation and the resumption of activities that instigated regulation in the first place is not very long at all.

[Radar]

America has not been deregulating. It has been re-regulating. De-regulation means not regulated by the government. Some people stupidly claim that we had rolling blackouts in California or suggest the Enron scandal happened due to deregulation in the power industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If we had truly de-regulated the power industry consumers could choose who they bought their power from in the same way they choose who they buy their long distance from. I'll admit the phone companies are still regulated, but not to the degree they were before Bell split up.

If consumers could pick who they purchased power from, we'd never have a single blackout, and our service would greatly improve. When you compare laser eye surgery to the rest of medicine in America you see a stark contrast. Due to a high amount of regulation in the insurance and medical industries, the prices are higher and the quality of service sucks.

Compare that to laser eye surgery which is voluntary so it has almost no government regulations associated with it. Over the years laser eye surgery has gotten better and better and cheaper and cheaper.

The same is true of the computer business. It's largely unregulated.

True de-regulation is great. It means better products and services, and better prices, with more features, more competition in the marketplace, and more innovation. It's the reason a long distance phone call has greater quality with lower prices than we had 30 years ago. The same is true of computers. The same is true of laser eye surgery.

If power companies were truly de-regulated, ANYONE could get into the power business, and consumers could choose who they bought their service from. Also, it would mean hemp was legal because it's the only currently available source of power that could make us 100% self-sufficient without the need of a single drop of foreign oil.