|
asdf32 posted:It's not physics because you made it up. The plastic ones don't even try to stick in the ground because they'd have to be heavy and sharp and survive hitting rocks, which either means they're metal, or they're just as strong as metal. Hence why they're just round weights on sticks and why they're about as much "the same" as Velcro darts. This is why everyone declaring them the same has been an idiot all along. I want my kids toys to be able to impale people, c'mon man!
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
it's incredibly dumb to invoke "think of the CHILDREN!" as overblown hysteria when we're talking about an actual child's toy that injured children "you know, the design on this nipple has lead to an awful lot of cases of infants choking..." "don't you DARE tell me how to regulate milk flow in a nipple! as a grown rear end adult i have a RIGHT to blah blah blah"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's incredibly dumb to invoke "think of the CHILDREN!" as overblown hysteria when we're talking about an actual child's toy that injured children Sounds like you just hate freedom, liberty, and apple pie to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Wow, there are a lot of new posts in the Libertarian thread. Did JRod finally come b-- jesus loving christ shut up about lawn darts. EMERGENCY MISES DUMP! How Truly Free Markets Help the Poor Discussing poverty as an advocate of free markets is tricky business in today’s world. If one takes poverty seriously and points out the very real plight of the impoverished, it is often assumed that one must therefore be advocating for government “solutions” to the problem. The knee-jerk reaction of many defenders of free markets is to simply deny that poverty exists much at all, or that if the poor just try a little harder, or aren’t so lazy, they won’t be poor anymore. This sort of reaction is natural for one who labors under the mistaken impression that the American economy is a free-market economy. Since the American economy is so free and filled with opportunity, they think, there’s really no excuse for being poor. But, of course, the American economy isn’t even a mostly free economy. The entire financial sector is heavily subsidized and regulated. The regulatory costs imposed on small businesses are enormous. Trade of all types is regulated, and many goods are prohibited outright. Minimum wages make many entry-level jobs illegal, and one can’t even drive people around for money without facing a bevy of government regulations — and sanctions. With all these millstones tied around the necks of poor and low-skilled workers, it’s a bit nonsensical to declare that poor people should just try harder. Perhaps they did try, and the government sent them the message loud and clear: “just give it up, because we’ve made everything you’re qualified to do illegal.” Yes, it’s true that, to the extent markets are still free, they have led to an abundance of conveniences that even the poor can afford: air conditioning, television, household appliances, cell phones, and more. But at the same time, it would be wrong to sit back and say “they have enough” when an even greater abundance is to be had if the poor were simply given the freedom to work and own businesses without navigating a myriad of government requirements and regulations that often pose an insurmountable opportunity cost. There are several ways that a turn to freer markets would open up a whole world to low-income families and unskilled workers immediately. End the Minimum Wage This is one of the worst offenders since it renders jobs illegal for the most unskilled workers, and hits the poor the hardest. As explained in the pages of mises.org here, here, and here, the primary effect of the minimum wage is to make the lowest-skilled workers legally unemployable. In other words, if the minimum wage is $10 per hour, and a worker only produces $8 of goods or services per hour, he will never be hired. Naturally, with a little experience, an unproductive (in the economic sense of the word) worker becomes more productive with job experience. But with a minimum wage, how is the worker supposed to get his first job? He can’t. As a result, many workers caught up in this catch-22 become long-term welfare recipients or they turn to black markets where they are branded criminals by the legal system. Abolish All Income Taxes (Including Payroll Taxes) Even low-income wage earners pay taxes on income. Social Security and Medicare taxes are nothing more than income taxes that go straight to the general fund — the “social security trust fund” does not exist. That claim by Mitt Romney that half the country doesn’t pay income taxes was never anything more than disingenuous political hair-splitting. Payroll taxes are income taxes, and we all know they take a big bite out of our paychecks, at all income levels. Thus, even the poor pay taxes to finance TARP and various bailouts of the ultra-rich. As if this insult were not enough, the federal government then punishes the poor further with a central bank that punishes them for saving what little they can. End the Fed The Federal Reserve — and central banks in general — have in recent decades functioned largely to push down interest rates and devalue the currency. The Federal Reserve — in addition to giving us the gift of the boom-bust cycle — has been key in bailing out huge too-big-to-fail corporations and has facilitated endless government spending on wars, corporate welfare, and social programs. Whether the amount of money poured into low-income households via social programs rivals the amount of money sucked out of them — in the form of devalued currency and below-inflation interest rates for low-income savers — remains to be seen. What we do know is that the Fed’s commitment to low interest rates has made it almost impossible to save money through savings accounts and other low-risk traditional investments. Once upon a time, it might have been possible to put money in a savings account or CD and receive a respectable amount of interest on those funds, and at least earn an interest rate that exceeded the inflation rate. That certainly isn’t possible today. If you’re poor and try to make any returns off a savings account or CD, you’re out of luck. You’ll be very lucky to get 0.9 percent, and you’ll probably get lower than that. Meanwhile, the official low-ball inflation rate is well above that. So, your savings lose value in real terms constantly. You might as well keep that money in your mattress — where your money will also constantly lose value. On the other hand, if you have $100,000 to put in a CD right now, you might be able to get 1.5 percent at some banks. But poor people rarely have that kind of money lying around. People with more money are able to hire financial advisors and stock brokers and better keep up with an inflationary economy. The poor are just on their own. Stop Regulating Small Businesses Starting small businesses are often the preferred way for low-income, non-white workers to find work and build capital. Immigrants often turn to small businesses because they offer flexibility and work for people who are unattractive to larger established operations. While the wages and incomes associated with small businesses are often lower than they are in larger businesses, many turn to small business employment because they offer many non-monetary advantages over other types of income. Governments work to crush small businesses on a daily basis. Every small business owner must deal with a myriad of government agencies from the IRS, to OSHA, to the EEOC, Obamacare, and beyond. Every new regulation and every new tax makes it harder for a small business owner to make payroll and to turn a profit. The net effect, of course, is to both restrict growth of small businesses and to restrict the number of small businesses. The decrease in competition then lessens benefits for both consumers and wage workers in the communities where these businesses are likely to spring up — in low-income communities. Instead, governments make sure that only large, well-capitalized companies can afford to open new businesses in many cases — probably miles away in higher-income areas. Legalize Poverty Everywhere the government intervenes to “help” we find not more choice, but less. Not more jobs, but fewer. Do you want to start up your own taxi service by driving people around? Forget about it if you have not obtained all the applicable (and costly) government licenses. Do you want to rent out your converted garage to tenants for cash? Too bad. Zoning laws don’t allow it. Do you want to get a job at five bucks per hour for your teenage son who has no skills? Sorry, that’s illegal too. Do you need a loan, but you’re a high risk borrower? Get lost. We’d have to charge you a high interest rate. That’s usury, and it’s not allowed. We’re told every day that the only solution to poverty is more government power, more government regulation, more central planning, bigger deficits, and less freedom. The true solution, however, is better described by a left-wing slogan: “Legalize Poverty.” The left usually says this when homeless people are being thrown off government property, but it’s better applied to the many types of free enterprise that are placed out of reach to the poor by government edicts. So many low-income workers must turn to black markets and low-wage semi-legal work because that’s all that’s open to them. It’s simply illegal for them to find entry-level work in mainstream enterprises, keep all of their meager wages, or start up small enterprises. Needless to say, these assaults on free markets help no one but the government agents paid to enforce them. The ECB Fears Deflation, But You Should Not The European Central Bank (ECB) is planning to pump 1.1 trillion euros into the banking system to fend off price deflation and revive economic activity. The ECB president and his executive board are planning to spend 60 billion euros per month from March 2015 to September 2016. Most experts hold that the ECB must start acting aggressively against the danger of deflation. The yearly rate of growth of the consumer price index (CPI) fell to minus 0.2 percent in December 2014 from 0.3 percent in November, and 0.8 percent in December 2013. Many commentators are of the view that the ECB should initiate an aggressive phase of monetary pumping along the lines of the US central bank. Moreover the balance sheet of the ECB has in fact been shrinking. The yearly rate of growth of the ECB balance sheet stood at minus 2.1 percent in January against minus 8.5 percent in December. Note that in January last year the yearly rate of growth stood at minus 24.4 percent. ECB balance sheet — monthly The Fear: People Might Save Instead of Spend Why is a declining rate of inflation bad for economic growth? According to the popular way of thinking, declining price inflation sets in motion declining inflation expectations. This, in turn, is likely to cause consumers to postpone their buying at present and that in turn is likely to undermine the pace of economic growth. But, in fact, in order to maintain their lives and well-being, individuals must buy present goods and services. So from this perspective a fall in prices as such is not going to curtail consumer outlays. Furthermore, a fall in the growth momentum of prices is always good for the economy. A Fall in Prices Can Mean an Expansion of Real Wealth For example, an expansion of real wealth for a given stock of money is going to manifest in a decline in prices (remember a price is the amount of money per unit of real stuff), so why should this be regarded as bad for the economy? After all, what we have here is an expansion of real wealth. A fall in prices implies a rise in the purchasing power of money, and this in turn means that many more individuals can now benefit from the expansion in real wealth. What If Prices Fall As a Result of a Bust? Now, if we observe a decline in prices on account of an economic bust, which eliminates various non-productive bubble activities, why is this bad for the economy? The liquidation of non-productive bubble activities — which is associated with a decline in the growth momentum of prices of various goods previously supported by non-productive activities — is good news for wealth generation. The liquidation of bubble activities implies that less real wealth is going to be diverted to malinvestments from wealth generators. Consequently, this will enable investors to lift the pace of wealth generation. (With more wealth at their disposal they will be able to generate more wealth.) So, as one can see, a fall in price momentum is always good news for the economy since it reflects an expansion or a potential expansion in real wealth. Hence, a policy aimed at reversing a fall in the growth momentum of prices is going to undermine — not strengthen — economic growth. We hold that the various government measures of economic activity reflect monetary pumping and have nothing to do with true economic growth. An increase in monetary pumping may set in motion a stronger pace of growth in an economic measure such as gross domestic product. This stronger growth, however, should be regarded as a strengthening in the pace of economic impoverishment. It is not possible to produce genuine economic growth by means of monetary pumping and an artificial lowering of interest rates. If this could have been done, world poverty would have been erased by now. Is Russia Planning a Gold-Based Currency? The “perfect-storm” of geopolitical instability, diplomatic isolation, severe currency depreciation, and economic decline now confronting Russia has profoundly damaged Moscow's international standing, and possibly for the long-term. Yet, it is precisely such conditions that may push the country’s leadership into taking the radical step that will secure its world-player status once and for all: the adoption of a gold-exchange standard. Though a far-fetched idea at first glance, many factors suggest that remonetization in gold may be a logical next step for Moscow. First, for years Moscow has been expressing its unwillingness to remain at the monetary mercy of the US and its NATO allies and this view has been most vehemently expressed by President Putin’s long-time economic advisor, Sergei Glazyev. Russia is prepared to play strategic hardball with the West on the issue: the governor of Russia’s central bank took the unusual step last November of presenting to the international media details of the bank’s zealous gold-buying spree. The announcement, in sharp contrast to that institution’s more taciturn traditions, underscores Moscow’s outspoken dismay with dollar hegemony; its timing suggests coordination with the top rungs of government to present gold as a possible currency-war weapon. Second, despite international pressure, Russia has been very wary of the sell-off policies that led the UK, France, Spain, and Italy to unload gold over the past decade during unsuccessful attempts to prop up their respective ailing economies — in particular, of then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s sell-off of 400 metric tons of the country's reserves at stunningly low prices. Moscow’s surprise decision upon the onset of the ruble’s swift decline in early December 2014 to not tap into the country’s gold reserves, now the world's sixth largest, highlights the ambitiousness of Russia’s stance on the gold issue. By the end of December, Russia added another 20.73 tons, according to the IMF in late January, capping a nine-month buying spree. Third, while the Russian economy is structurally weak, enough of the country's monetary fundamentals are sound, such that the timing of a move to gold, geopolitically and domestically, may be ideal. Russia is not a debtor nation. At this writing in January, Russia’s debt to GDP ratio is low and most of its external debt is private. Physical gold accounts for 10 percent of Russia’s foreign currency reserves. The budget deficit, as of a November 2014 projection, is likely to be around $10 billion, much less than 1 percent of GDP. The poverty rate fell from 35 percent in 2001 to 10 percent in 2010, while the middle class was projected in 2013 to reach 86 percent of the population by 2020. Collapsing oil prices serve only to intensify the monetary attractiveness of gold. Given that oil exports, along with the rest of the energy sector, account for 45 percent of GDP, the depreciation of the ruble will continue; newly unstable fiscal conditions have devastated banks, and higher inflation looms, expected to reach 10 percent by the end of 2015. As Russia remains (for the foreseeable future) mainly a resource-based economy, only a move to gold, arguably, can make the currency stronger, even if it does limit Russia’s available currency. In buying as much gold as it has, the country is, in part, ensuring that it will have enough money in circulation in the event of such fundamental transformation. In terms of re-establishing post-oil shock international prestige, a move to gold will allow the country to be seen as a more reliable and trustworthy trading partner. The repercussions of Russia on a gold-exchange standard would be immense. Above all, it would mean the first major schism in the world's monetary order. China would quite likely follow suit. It could mean the threat of a severe inflation in the United States should rafts of unwanted dollars make their way back across the Atlantic — the Fed's ultimate nightmare. Above all, the country will avoid the extreme debt leverages which would not have happened had Western capitals remained on gold. “A gold standard would be politically appealing, transforming the ruble to a formidable currency and reducing outflows significantly,” writes Dr. Enrico Colombatto, economics professor at the University of Turin, Italy. He notes that the only major drawback would be that the imposed discipline of a gold standard would deprive authorities of discretionary political power. The other threat would be that of a new generation of Russian central bankers becoming too heavily influenced by the monetary mindset of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Fed. As Alisdair MacLeod, a two-decade veteran of off-shore banking consulting based in the UK, recently wrote, Russia (and China) will “hold all the aces” by moving away from any possible currency wars of the future into the physical gold market. In his article, he adds that there is currently a low appetite for physical gold in Western capital markets and longer-term foreign holders of rubles would be unlikely to exchange them for gold, preferring to sell them for other fiat currencies. Mr. Macleod cites John Butler, CIO at Atom Capital in London, who sees great potential in a gold-exchange standard for Russia. With the establishment of a sound gold-exchange rate, he argues, the Central Bank of Russia would no longer be confined to buying and selling gold to maintain the rate of exchange. The bank could freely manage the liquidity of the ruble and be able to issue coupon-bearing bonds to the Russian public, allowing it a yield linked to gold rates. As the ruble stabilizes, the rate of the cost of living would drop; savings would grow, spurred on by long term stability and lower taxes. Foreign exchange also would be favorable, Mr. Butler maintains. Owing to the Ukraine crises and commodities crises, rubles have been dumped for dollar/euro currencies. Upon the announcement of a gold-exchange, demand for the ruble would increase. London and New York markets would in turn be countered by provisions restricting gold-to-ruble exchanges of imports and exports. The geopolitics of gold also figure into Russia’s increasingly close relations with China, a country that also has made clear its preference for gold over the dollar. (Russia recently edged out China as the world's top buyer of the metal.) In the aftermath of the $400 billion, 30-year deal signed between Russian gas giant Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Company in November 2014, China turned its focus to the internationalization of its own gold market. On January 15, 2015, the Shanghai Gold Exchange, the largest physical gold exchange worldwide, and the World Gold Council, concluded a strategic cooperation deal to expand the Chinese gold market through the new Shanghai Free Trade Zone. This is not the first time the gold standard has been seen as the ultimate cure for Russia’s economic problems. In September 1998, the noted economist Jude Wanninski predicted in a far-sighted essay for The Wall Street Journal that only a gold ruble would get the the country out of its then-debt crises. It was upon taking office about two years later, in May 2000, that President Putin embarked upon the country’s massive gold-buying campaign. At the time, it took twenty-eight barrels of crude just to buy an ounce of gold. The gold-backed ruble policy of those years was adopted to successfully pay down the country's external debt. As a pro-gold stance is, essentially, anti-dollar, speculation about how the US would react raises the question of whether an all-out currency war would follow. The West would have to keep Russia regionally and militarily marginalized, not to mention kept within the confines of the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England (BOE). Nor is that prospect too far-fetched. As Dutch author Willem Middelkoop has written in his 2014 book The Big Reset: War on Gold and the Financial Endgame, "A system reset is imminent. Even before 2020 the world's financial system will need to find a different anchor. ... In a desperate attempt to maintain this dollar system, the United States waged a secret war on gold since the 1960s. China and Russia have pierced through the American smokescreen around gold and the dollar and are no longer willing to continue lending to the United States. Both countries have been accumulating enormous amounts of gold, positioning themselves for the next phase of the global financial system."
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because this would make it immensely more difficult to look for employment and thus not need or need less assistance. I meant more as a policy that would take effect after normal unemployment runs out. It seems a touch better than not getting any money at all, which I assume is what happens at a certain point. Personally, I have very little experience with the issue as I have never been on unemployment. I hear people talk about "welfare queens" and people who live permanently on disability and government aid, but honestly I have never met someone who does. I have plenty of poor friends however who would love to know how one apparently does this, I usually roll my eyes when I hear people talk about it. RuanGacho posted:In america at least there's standards for workmanship so there's legal liability and if you haven't noticed the people theyre targeting with this program are not generally very experienced. This is pretty much an overt call for the same kind of labor that allows the US to pay prison workers 20 cents an hour. Not to mention all the downsides of putting these workers career development on hold. Nothing helps you with skills for employment like "literally everyone has to do this because the government made them do it" I don't know what Cameron specifically has in mind when he says "community service" but, I assume if they are doing service then it is in exchange for whatever government aide they are receiving. Now if this policy is crafted by a conservative mind it likely means working on slave wage, but if that weren't the case would the general idea behind it be bad still?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's not physics because you made it up. The plastic ones don't even try to stick in the ground because they'd have to be heavy and sharp and survive hitting rocks, which either means they're metal, or they're just as strong as metal. Hence why they're just round weights on sticks and why they're about as much "the same" as Velcro darts. This is why everyone declaring them the same has been an idiot all along. Do you routinely play lawn darts in vacant concrete lots or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Do you routinely play lawn darts in vacant concrete lots or something? Childhood head trauma would explain a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't think asdf32 is a libertarian, he just acts like one sometimes Infinite demand is something not even a libertarian would argue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:Childhood head trauma would explain a lot. Heh, well I am the only one in the thread who'se actually used them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh, well I am the only one in the thread who'se actually used them. do you mean like in the last few months, or cause i wondered who was behind the local Adult Coed Lawn Dart League posters i've seen, i thought those were jokes
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh, well I am the only one in the thread who'se actually used them. I owned a set as a child that my parents picked up at a garage sale. Considering all the stupid poo poo I got up to as a child I'm frankly lucky I didn't end up dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:I don't know what Cameron specifically has in mind when he says "community service" but, I assume if they are doing service then it is in exchange for whatever government aide they are receiving. Now if this policy is crafted by a conservative mind it likely means working on slave wage, but if that weren't the case would the general idea behind it be bad still? Even in the best case scenario they end up doing tasks that require no real training or so common a training that it will do nothing to improve their employability, just like most service sector jobs. I have thousands of hours of work that could be done by volunteers in my local government department but I want volunteers, not the desperate to exist or those trying to avoid criminal prosecution. Even better tax payers would be willing to fund work that needs to be done but that requires an informed electorate instead of people whom would vote for Cameron in the first place Which is the real problem, its not a work program, its a way to try to punish people for existing. A minimum income system and this couldn't coexist which indicates at least at a humanitarian level there's something rotten about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
The plastic darts work fine unless you are: A) too stupid to use them properly B) live in an area with rock hard ground It is dumb to complain about B because that is like complaining that you can't swim laps in your outdoor swimming pool in Boston right now. It is also easy to solve by tilling the soil in the target spot and wetting it, or by making a sandbox. That leaves us with A.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Is ideological opposition to lawn darts really required?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't think asdf32 is a libertarian, he just acts like one sometimes It's an easy mistake to make, since he is profoundly dense and being so is almost a requirement for libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Is Russia Planning a Gold-Based Currency? Mises-ites fetishize shiny yellow metal to the point where they fantasize about oppressive foreign powers using said shiny metal to gain ascendancy over their own drat country. I imagine these guys in the Old Testament telling Moses to gently caress off with his fiat stone tablets, a golden calf is all the god anyone could ever need.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Mises-ites fetishize shiny yellow metal to the point where they fantasize about oppressive foreign powers using said shiny metal to gain ascendancy over their own drat country. With the way the GOP is semi-idolizing Putin, and the addition of Russia purchasing gold at a crazy rate, how long until Mises proposes Russia as a Libertrarian paradise?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is ideological opposition to lawn darts really required? It is if you know what is good for you comrade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is ideological opposition to lawn darts really required? If you want to blend in I suggest cloaking in the scent of lawn dart dissent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If you want to blend in I suggest cloaking in the scent of lawn dart dissent. How about I cloak myself in chain mail instead, where's your dart penetration god now. e: except by putting on chain mail, I will in that moment become libertarian
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:With the way the GOP is semi-idolizing Putin, and the addition of Russia purchasing gold at a crazy rate, how long until Mises proposes Russia as a Libertrarian paradise? They're murdering gays, so it's already halfway to Libertopia!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Watch Putin mint a loving coin
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How about I cloak myself in chain mail instead, where's your dart penetration god now. 23,000 psi bitch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And just to repeat, "Safety! The Children!" as an argument makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It should do the same to you. Personally, I love that you think all it takes to ban a product is going in front of the Consumer Safety Commission bleating "Won't someone think of the CHILDREN!", and they'll just ban it without looking at any statistics or alternatives. It's so beautifully, perfectly libertarian 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh, well I am the only one in the thread who'se actually used them. Wrong again, dipshit. As kids we didn't give a gently caress whether the darts were pointy metal-tipped potentially deadly weapons, we just wanted to throw stuff around. You and I turned out fine, but thousands of other kids, many of whom weren't even involved with the game at all, wound up seriously injured or dead. The fact that these items are no longer advertised and sold as children's toys is undoubtedly a good thing And if you really want to, you can still buy metal darts and give them to your kids. No one is going to stop you from doing that. You just can't sell a product marketed as a child's toy that's actually just a box full of heavy metal throwing darts archangelwar posted:The plastic darts work fine unless you are: Kids are stupid. Regardless of relative intelligence, they are as dumb as bricks. I don't care if every child in the world is properly instructed on the proper and safe use of sharp metal darts, a bunch of those fuckers are going to wind up flying over a fence and hurting someone (as actually happened, many times, while sharp metal lawn darts for kids were still being sold)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Look guys I know someone who smoked and didn't get lung cancer so obviously the claimed health effects of cigarettes are statist lies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How about I cloak myself in chain mail instead, where's your dart penetration god now. Mail doesn't protect very well against piercing or stabbing blows. So you'll still get impaled and have broken links digging into your skin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
chain mail is for poors anyway, buy plate if you have even a little bit of class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Haha, as if poors could afford armor of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Well a lawn dart is more of a peltast's weapon. You gotta be willing to take what you dish out. In a cotton tunic
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Infinite demand is something not even a libertarian would argue. "If we give people more money they will probably spend it" is something I can see basically anyone saying. Do you even recall what your opposition to this was?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:"If we give people more money they will probably spend it" is something I can see basically anyone saying. Do you even recall what your opposition to this was? I believe the argument was that phrase doesn't represent what anyone with an understanding of economics would refer to as infinite demand, since demand as an economic concept is limited by a buyer's ability to pay. Saying "If we give people infinite money they will want infinite things" is not a concept any more useful than arguing that if we had infinite things the price would eventually be zero as supply smothers demand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
If giving people money is what causes them to present market demand by spending it, then demand is obviously not infinite and can be stimulated with policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Ok, what if it's combined with the separate but related "we can print as much money as we want" as a way to point out that demand isn't actually the key to understanding economic growth?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Then it's still a dumb thing to say because "demand is functionally infinite" is not true regardless?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok, what if it's combined with the separate but related "we can print as much money as we want" as a way to point out that demand isn't actually the key to understanding economic growth? The demand curve is not a function defined in terms of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok, what if it's combined with the separate but related "we can print as much money as we want" as a way to point out that demand isn't actually the key to understanding economic growth? Hey, I remember this argument! The one where you repeatedly refused to define your terms (what does "demand" mean to you?), rendering everything you said nonsense because none of the terms you used were in accordance with general economic parlance! Those were good times. JRod is on one of his sabbaticals, so if you want to volunteer to take his place in compulsively posting nonsense for a while, we'll all be in your debt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok, what if it's combined with the separate but related "we can print as much money as we want" as a way to point out that demand isn't actually the key to understanding economic growth? Then I'd explain that you fundamentally do not understand how currency works, as well as fundamentally not understanding how demand works. I mean, ignoing the fact that if we just printed unlimited money our entire economy would poo poo itself, all you'd be acomplishing is devaluing the currency. You'd make each dollar worth less and less, and whatever number you ultimately stopped on would become the new norm. If you gave everyone a trillion dollars demand wouldn't be 'infinite' because everyone would now have a trillion dollars and prices would go up to match that new reality. If you gave everyone arbitrarily large amounts of money demand would still be finite because demand is a function of both desire and ability to purchase a good. That is what you still fail to understand, Demand as an economic concept has a very specific meaning, and it isn't what the layman thinks it is. And to be clear, this doesn't mean that supply side economics drives the economy. All this rediculous thought experiment tells us is that we do not live in a post-scarcity society, in which case.... no loving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand These are not hypothetically but literally free and yet clearly there is not infinite demand to read them. Caros posted:Then I'd explain that you fundamentally do not understand how currency works, as well as fundamentally not understanding how demand works. I mean, ignoing the fact that if we just printed unlimited money our entire economy would poo poo itself, all you'd be acomplishing is devaluing the currency. You'd make each dollar worth less and less, and whatever number you ultimately stopped on would become the new norm. If you gave everyone a trillion dollars demand wouldn't be 'infinite' because everyone would now have a trillion dollars and prices would go up to match that new reality. If you gave everyone arbitrarily large amounts of money demand would still be finite because demand is a function of both desire and ability to purchase a good. Also even if you accept the fantasy that because the Treasury could print an unlimited number of Weimar Marks without devaluing the currency, there are a finite number of people on earth with only so much time and desire for consumption. In fairness I suppose that isn't actually germane to the point he's trying to make with this nonsense which is "companies make things I like so we should give money to them." Which would be perfectly reasonable coming from the mouth of a child who didn't know that it doesn't work a fraction as well as giving it to people who do not have an infinite amount of money and would spend extra money they received to afford luxuries like orthodontic services or blow dry bars (women, right??). Why an adult who is ostensibly at least partially literate would say such a thing, I haven't the foggiest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Ok, what if it's combined with the separate but related "we can print as much money as we want" as a way to point out that demand isn't actually the key to understanding economic growth? Actually the majority of people will save about a quarter of their income past a certain amount of dollars (~$30,000 iirc?). The ratio of saving to spending will also increase with income, I think. It's been a few years since I've taken an economics class, so I can't quite recall what the rule is called.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 15:00
|
|