I am the 1%

An open area for free-thinkers and believers to slug it out.

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:36 pm

"As for who writes the laws, most in washington would argue that it is corporate lobbyists that write the nations buisness and trade laws. Internationally developing nations have their trade rules forced on them by the World Bank, and IMF. "

I totally saw this one coming soon after posting my last post. The fact that I can predict what your responses will be is a very strong indicator that this isn't a conversation, but rather me responding to pre-packaged arguments and echoed viewpoints. Corporations write the laws the same way a child pays for a movie ticket by asking his parents to take him to the movies and buy it for him. Does Walmart get Levi to subsidize sweat shops oversees? No, it piggybacks off the power of the state to fulfill its interests rather than its competitors in order to stay in business and survive their competitors commandeering the state to put them out of business. Guys like James Jerome Hill refused any government assistance when making his transcontinental railroad and outcompeted all his competitors who did use government power to try and sabotage the market in their favors. His rail line was faster, safer, more durable and less likely to be attacked by Indians because he paid them off instead of getting the army to fight them. Cornelius Vanderbilt did a number of things similar despite government trying to sabotage the industries he participated in. The days where it's possible to outcompete the government are over because it's reach leviathan proportions. Although, the spokeswoman of Cocacola recently denounced government subsidizing them with ethanol as fuel because it messes with the industry. So this mentality among businessmen isn't dead yet, but it is eroding quickly and being replaced by people who would rather use the political means of obtaining things instead of the economic means. At this point in time, businesses are more likely to get the government to threaten to shoot people instead of providing value to people.

I don't give a shit about this thing about it being 1/25 people in executive positions being psycho instead of 1/100(of course, I can't analyze this study any further because you didn't cite it, but the information you provided me is sufficient anyway). The term psychopath is a meaningless buzz word the way you are using it. The study that was linked in the article you linked showed that they tended to be narcissistic and histrionic and somewhat compulsive. These are leadership and workmanship qualities pathologized to some degree, but are not nearly as harmful as all the other sub-categories of psychopath. Btw, this contradicts the guy's assertion that being in those positions is as haphazard as getting a monkey to do it. The study cited how these managers and executives were ruthlessly hardworking. That thing about accomplishment/failure in psychology is a red-herring. In this case, these guys were actually really hard working. Speculators who end up getting into the 1% of income (again, I'm not saying it's about fucking income, I'm saying the 1% vs the 99% is about a mentality of venturousness vs dependent entitlement) and do so with as much skill as a monkey are not very likely to stay in the 1%. As I've stated previously, the 1% fluctuates wildly. Half of the top 1%ers in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. Yet more examples of you ignoring my points and posting crap that I've already addressed but just haven't spoon fed to you. But of course, I could give you my points in a feeding tube and you still probably wouldn't understand their relevance to this topic.

You get pissed off when the government does something you don't like, but you have never gone so far as to smear politicians and pigeon hole them into vague, slandering categories like psychopaths. Your mentality is that we need to use government to do things we and force people to pay for and do things we like instead of what we don't like. As for businesses, you think they are evil and need to be severely controlled over. Yes, you do think they are evil. Calling them psychopaths is calling them evil. It's not that we need to get businessmen we like instead of don't like as is your view with politicians, it's that they are evil. My position is that the incentives are screwed and that is what causes problems. But I think you'd be able to relate to me better if I said we just need to get the right kind of businessmen just like we need to get the right kind of politicians.


I'm not going to watch that documentary. I looked it up on wikipedia (which is a huge leap of intellectual honesty compared to what you would do with someone like Ayn Rand or something you disagree with) and it has the flavor of leftist activism. I humored you and analyzed a link you posted already, which is far more courtesy than you would offer to opposing viewpoints. I already pointed out to you how the current system is diametrically opposed to Ayn Rand's views on how capitalism ought to be, but you spew the same crap about her. And I already took the liberty(I am a libertarian fundie fucktard after all. Taking liberty is kind of my thing) of going onto the wikipedia article on Ayn Rand and control F'd "neoclassical". Neoclassical appears nowhere in the article. I guess the burden is still on me, however, to search everywhere on the internet and every library everywhere to try and find any instance where Ayn Rand supports neoclassical liberalism and that her views on economics are based on them. Post something with science and reasoning, not brain candy that's so obviously intellectually dishonest with all the buzz words you can think of trying to pin the problems of the world on a lack of government intervention. Trade liberalization, privatization, deregulation, etc are rarely if ever defined and mainly used to obfuscate meaning and thought rather than clarify and convey ideas.

As for putting words in your mouth, I was exaggerating to be a bit lulzy, but it turned out that I wasn't very far off anyway. If it wasn't obvious enough to you that I was deliberately going over the top by saying that you would say Steve Jobs tortures children in his yacht and airplane dungeons, then let me go even farther. You think that Mark Zuckerberg eats and drinks nothing but the flesh, blood and tears of starving children in Africa and maybe makes a spaghetti and meatball dish with the ovaries and fallopian tubes of women gang raped by his board of executives as an occasional delicacy and then makes a profit off of it. The ironic thing here is that I'm still not that far off, try as I may to get it wrong, because you'd probably say "well, yeah, he'd totally do that if he could make a profit off of it". My point was that if I presented you with an argument that supports your position, you would be highly receptive and agreeable to it regardless of how weak of an argument it was. I just might troll you sometime and post a link to an online phonebook and say it proves that the system is screwed up because the market is too free.

Maybe Ford did push a lot of Jew hate, but if it weren't for the power of governments, you wouldn't get a goddamn holocaust. A psychopath making cars and exploiting the proletariat by paying them wages they agree to work for and don't have to accept is much safer than the most civil, moral, convicted politician with 10k nuclear warheads.

And I absolutely love this Orwellian notion that because I advocate the removal of the state in economic affairs that I am for the removal of rules. Because the state has the veneer of making, enforcing and interpreting the rules that it actually does so. The state is the removal of rules. It's power allows it to arbitrarily, as it sees fit, to manipulate and control the market according to its own interests. It does so by removing rules that people create by interacting in the market. When you go onto ebay and somebody isn't honest and sells you a broken video game, do you protest the government for regulation of e-commerce? No, the guy's reputation is spoiled and you can do business with countless other people over the website who are reputable businessmen. That is an example of how rules emerge. If I wanted to be an e-bay tycoon without providing people any value, I would lobby the state for favorable regulations that would screw over my competitors (oh yeah, and exploit the poor for teh lulz) and favor my business by eliminating the rules that are set in place to make the market fair. I would use the state to create an environment of lawlessness and would do so under the guise of making the market fairer and providing laws for consumers to gain political support. It would work so well because when the system that I got the government to implement fucks up, no one would say we need to just allow the market to function on its own. The political inertia would make people default to wanting different corruptions of the market that favor their interests instead of what favor my interests. Thing is that I have quite an advantage given how I have more power to buy off politicians. This would be troll logic in a more sane world, but it's the established views of almost everybody today because of the political prisms were are taught to look through. When you have the state involved in anything, the sole arbiter of law is the assault rifles, helicopters, tanks, drones, and yes, nuclear submarines. By removing this, I remove the ability for one person to impose their will onto everyone else regardless of anyone else's well-being.

You are correct, I hate the poor and love it when evil corporations use those nasty politicians to design laws that favor their business. Exploitation of the proletariat. And I embrace my character flaw of accepting reality and understanding that corporations are tools for doing business and people using them will act based on their interests as do politicians and I think it's futile and insane to try to get them to act against their interests.
"But I'm sure you would say its the governments fault and that those western capitalists are just doing what we should expect them to do given the system they exist in."-willow.
Ok, finally a proper representation of my position. Although, I doubt you would take this to the same conclusions I would.

Oh yeah, the cherry on top. I can't resist. "Generally Im willing to accept the work of a nobel prize winning economist who says that in finance its about as accurate as a coin toss."

What if a nobel prize winning economist said these things? http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... edman.html

Or these things?http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/friedrich_august_von_haye.html

Or these things?http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_maynard_keynes.html
Not a nobel laureate, but still a giant in economics no less.http://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/20 ... y-than-us/
Last edited by Intercourseman72 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:27 pm

Also, I want to take a little time to defame you and shame you for your opinions. All of these people you direct your hate towards are whites. Not just whites, but white men as well. There are some Jews mixed in there, but they all look pretty white anyway. You go so far as to say they are more likely to be psychopaths. Psychopath is a highly emotionally charged word that makes people think of Jeffery Dahmer and other insanely antisocial people. You are a racist and misandrist son of a bitch with an agenda to cheapen the accomplishments of white men and only focus on things they do that you don't like. This is outright bigotry aimed at white men. It's not Asians, blacks, Puerto Ricans, Arabs, Papua New Guineans, women, etc who found and create companies like Google and invent things like the light bulb. It's more than 99% white men. Hate speech is not free speech. If you wish to have any dignity, you should delete all your racist, sexist posts and apologize for being so hateful. You deny equal rights under the law and equality for all in society by unfairly treating white men like this. We live in a society where we need to all get along, and it's primitive bigotry like this that's holding us back and preventing progress and change. If you were to take a sample of a bunch of Jewish bankers and lawyers and label them as psychopaths, you would be called an anti-semite and rightfully so. This is the same kind of hate mongering the Nazis waged against the Jews in order to get everyone else to think they weren't entitled to the property they owned or the money they earned and that it was the rest of the people who deserved in Germany. Get some sensitivity training. I can only pity you and hope that you get help and get better as a person.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby willow » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:48 pm

You get pissed off when the government does something you don't like, but you have never gone so far as to smear politicians and pigeon hole them into vague, slandering categories like psychopaths. Your mentality is that we need to use government to do things we and force people to pay for and do things we like instead of what we don't like. As for businesses, you think they are evil and need to be severely controlled over. Yes, you do think they are evil. Calling them psychopaths is calling them evil. It's not that we need to get businessmen we like instead of don't like as is your view with politicians, it's that they are evil. My position is that the incentives are screwed and that is what causes problems. But I think you'd be able to relate to me better if I said we just need to get the right kind of businessmen just like we need to get the right kind of politicians.

I don't think buisness is evil, I think its amoral. I think that as corporate size increases and they become transnational there is a positive correlation with unethical and immoral behaviour. I reject the notion of free market economics as enabling corruption. You make attributions to human nature and I would argue that it's human nature and its inclination to greed which drives that corruption in the absense of rules which dictate behaviour. The major distinction between politics and buisness, is that politics is atleast nominally answerable to the citizenry and should have as its goal the protection of and provision for the public good. Buisness is in most milton friedmenesque fasion entirely about maximization of profits. I suppose you think government is evil then :P

Its not like this is a new dispute between us, I reject the notion that in the absense of rules buisnesses will for the sake of fair competition act in an ethical manner. Instead its inviting a form of corporate oligarchy. again social justice vs personal freedom blah blah blah...

I'm not suprised you can predict my comment to such a bogus line of inquiry. It's not like I havent stated that point specifically several times in the last few weeks. You accept that buisnesses engage in political means to achieve economic goals but refuse to admit that they influence politics. You instead seem to blame politics for being influenced by industry despite the fact that many in politics come from or exit into high ranking buisness positions, often in fields directly related to their section of governance.

coca cola is most likely upset about the rise in corn prices caused by US mandating ethanol content in gasoline, which consumes massive quantities of US corn production. It is making their product more costly to produce, coke has never had a problem with its heavy government subsidies before.

The fundimental attribution error doesnt give a shit how hard you work, it looks at how you percieve the outcomes. The fact that they are hard working supports the notion they will misattribute the cause of their success or failure. Because I worked hard, it must be due to reasons outside my control that I failed. Because I worked so hard I'm directly responsible for my success. The ammount of effort applied does not equate to skill or effectiveness.

your point about the change in top 1% changing since the late 1990's is understandable but caused by the same issues. The change was driven by the collapse of the dot com bubble during the end of the millenium. I expect that after the recession is over the arrangement of the top 1% will have changed again.

I didnt realize that psychopath carried such a strong conotation for you ICM. Generally its just another disorder as far as I am concerned. As for the results showing high rates of narcisism and histronics traits are common in psycopathy. Politicians I would broadly paint as narcisists and given time to think about it more a few other things depending on teh government system but thats not the point.

I know your not going to watch the documentary, but your going to insist that governments get to determine on their own the policies that they enact on their people, and praise the value of freemarket principles. Its like arguing against communism with a communist, you can provide example after example of how communism failed and they will insist, 'well that wasnt really communsim' and 'it works on paper'. free market theory failed.

as for rand, IIRC she is in favour of laissez-faire economic policy, which is consistent with neoclassical liberal economics. I havent read any rand in quite some time, and really dont care what she has to say about anything really since I don't know any randian objectivists.

I know what privatization means, trade liberalization and deregulation. Ive defined the practices in general terms several times already, the removal of "barriers to the free working of the market". barriers like subsidies to industry, tarrifs and taxation, removal of protected markets, and the encouragement of 'free competition'. Perhaps since you misunderstand neoclassical liberal economics, does the term chicago school of economics mean more? It seems from the select reading ive had time to do that neoclassical principles underly libertarian thought.

If you want to complain about buzz words try to explain how you would change the 'incentives' and how the 'market' is worthy of controling all facets of society.

dont get started on the 'power of governments' in causing the holocaust, it side tracks the issue into ideology. besides if it wernt for corporate organizational mechonisms like IBM and their punch card machines it wouldnt have happened either. I really dont want to drag WWII into this but a number of major transnational organizations got very very rich off the holocaust.

I asked you several times if you were in favour of removing rules and as you never addressed the point, or pretty much an entire post of mine in this thread, I assumed you werent contesting it. What kind of rules would you suggest? Ive made no secret of my favour for regulation.

When the guy on ebay gets enough negative feedback he just makes a new ebay account or 'finds a new market' on kijiji. I dont accept that consumer demand is powerful enough to control and direct industry and you dont really argue that point well but insist its true. I provide examples of the opposite being the case and you brush them off as 'what do you expect given the system'

the crux of your argument as far as I can tell is that government is bad because it can force compliance through physical violence. I dont see how this form of coercion is any different from other forms of coercion like economic or social coercion. You reject coercion by force, I reject coercion by economics.

as for the quotes from Friedman and Hayek I reject their economic theory, I have said this over and over and over again, however nice it is as a theory, neoclassical liberal economics has failed in practice.

not going to bother with that bullshit you posted about your a eurocentric misogyny.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby willow » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:06 am

for the lulz..


dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:31 pm

I reject economic coercion as well. I have to. Economic coercion is a contradiction in terms. It's an oxymoron. Ok, so what if Kevin O'Leary thinks that business is war. The fact of the matter is that dollars are not soldiers. They are means of voluntarily acquiring goods and services. I think of this guy as kind of an asshole, but it's not like he's some kind of epitome of businessmen. So I don't really care about and he's not at all representative of my views.

Not only do I think the state is far more horrible and psychotic than businessmen, it's also more disgusting than overt criminals.

And I tend to think of philosophers as being a few steps up from pedantic social commentators as far as substance goes. Not saying Hedges hasn't done good work, but I think his ideas are kind of lame. Same goes with O'Leary.

Another thought I haven't stated outright but have provided some pieces for is that government could kick any of these corporations to the curb if they no longer benefited them politically. If it was no longer politically feasible, politicians would no longer give corporations any more privileges. This is what happened to the railroad companies when cars became more popular, and it can happen to financial gambling as well.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby UnwantedSunbeam » Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:58 pm

So I like simplicity, would you? :

Image
One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know", Alice answered. "Then", said the cat, "It doesn't matter.”
User avatar
UnwantedSunbeam
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:31 pm
Reputation point: 1287

Previous

Return to Rational Thought vs Irrational Beliefs



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
[Valid Atom 1.0]