Should we move to local communities/economies?

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:59 pm

mr reasonable wrote:You guys make the distinction between philosophy and politics painfully evident.
And you make philosophy difficult and boring.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:01 pm

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
mr reasonable wrote:Why wouldn't that work?
First, Why would it? I am asking you to show it does work, not to make statements and demand I disprove it works. Second, because I made the first statement, that Redistribution of wealth doesn't work, I will work to prove it. Lets start with examples; Russia, India and China. The poor suffered under them, luckily they did a great job of making everyone, except the very rich and well connected, very poor. Russia killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. China killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. India and China are now realizing that, "Let some get rich first." - Deng Xiaoping (Deng Xiaoping is a Chinese reformer that has worked to increase the wealth of China and better its people.) India is slowly working to allow its people to simply do as they wish, resulting in success for everyone. Interesting fact: After the introduction of TV in the distant poor sections of India has resulted in the reduction of wife abuse, significantly.
The reason it does not work is two fold, one it undermines the incentives to work harder, two it creates deadweight loss. By taking the wealth earned by one person, it takes away the willingness for that person to work. As part of this it creates a price ceiling, that creates surplus demand. This creates inequities, people want something, but there is no reason on the part of the suppliers to fill that demand, they cannot make more than a set amount, so selling more means nothing to them. Real world example is Rent Control laws, the places with the strongest rent control are the ones with the highest amount of homeless... Supply and Demand at work. Redistributing wealth is effectively a price ceiling. Deadweight Loss is the effective reduction in production and wealth created by any attempt to mess with the economy, usually done by politicians that have no reason to understand said economy.


Virtually every major economy on the planet practices redistribution on some scale. That's what taxes do. Pointing to communist states to say that redistribution of wealth doesn't work is like pointing to the Nova or the Edsel to say that automobiles don't work.

And the whole Marx/Communism thing you guys love to harp on is just like what you're saying trickle down economics is - a politically motivated strawman. Yes, certain liberal ideas are represented in some of the things Marx said, but outside of academia, you'll be hard pressed to find many prominent liberals pointing to Marx to back up or justify their ideas. You act like showing Marx to be wrong about something is showing the left to be wrong about everything.

Meanwhile are you willing to elucidate a little more the connection between rent control and homelessness? Because i don't see it based on what you've said.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:19 am

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Virtually every major economy on the planet practices redistribution on some scale.
This is not a counter argument to anything I said. It is at most a Tu quoque fallacy.
uglypeoplefucking wrote:That's what taxes do.
Yes, and they accomplish all the things I just said, I could even show you if you wanted. But, yes, Taxes create deadweight loss and a disincentive to work. Which is one reason why lower taxes are better, it limits the amount of damage done. I am not a supporter of no taxes. I acknowledge that some loss is acceptable when the exchange is necessary. Note: this information is part of what creates the Laffer Curve. It's why the more you tax the less taxes you get. At a point the disincentive and deadweight loss counter any other gained value.
uglypeoplefucking wrote:Pointing to communist states to say that redistribution of wealth doesn't work is like pointing to the Nova or the Edsel to say that automobiles don't work.
No, it would be like pointing to cars built using the exact model of the nova, basically the same thing by a different name, and showing why they continue to not work. Or how some design elements in the Nova caused it not to work, and why they don't work in other model cars.

uglypeoplefucking wrote:And the whole Marx/Communism thing you guys love to harp on is just like what you're saying trickle down economics is - a politically motivated strawman.
At least you acknowledge that "trickle down economics is a strawman. :-)
uglypeoplefucking wrote: Yes, certain liberal ideas are represented in some of the things Marx said, but outside of academia, you'll be hard pressed to find many prominent liberals pointing to Marx to back up or justify their ideas.
My understanding of the partial source of the poor ideas does not mean that they are not the source. Just as a non-academic not understanding the partial source of those ideas does not stop them from being the source.
uglypeoplefucking wrote: You act like showing Marx to be wrong about something is showing the left to be wrong about everything.
Nope, just the stuff that came from him. Everything else they are wrong about comes from other places. Without saying they are wrong about everything that is considered "left." I am talking about a very specific issue, around the progressive economics of people like Marx, who worked at economics and used them in his writing or Keynes, who was also wrong about a lot of things, but in a different way and was not wrong about everything. Keynes writing on cyclical cycles is amazing!

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Meanwhile are you willing to elucidate a little more the connection between rent control and homelessness? Because i don't see it based on what you've said.
I will gladly do so, but I shall in a different thread, if you don't mind. I'm sorta working right now, so it might not be until Friday or so...
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:01 am

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
uglypeoplefucking wrote:Virtually every major economy on the planet practices redistribution on some scale.
This is not a counter argument to anything I said. It is at most a Tu quoque fallacy.


Ugh. Nevermind your fallacies. In the real world, almost every successful economy ever has involved some sort of taxation and social spending, which is redistribution of wealth in it's essential form. Unless your an anarchist. i know libertarians do lean that way. Please tell me you're not an anarchist ...

uglypeoplefucking wrote:That's what taxes do.
Yes, and they accomplish all the things I just said, I could even show you if you wanted. But, yes, Taxes create deadweight loss and a disincentive to work. Which is one reason why lower taxes are better, it limits the amount of damage done. I am not a supporter of no taxes. I acknowledge that some loss is acceptable when the exchange is necessary. Note: this information is part of what creates the Laffer Curve. It's why the more you tax the less taxes you get. At a point the disincentive and deadweight loss counter any other gained value.


What is deadweight loss? i'd rather get it from you than wiki...

"Disincentive to work"? No, i don't think so. i work harder and i work more because i have taxes to pay. i think wanting not to pay taxes is lazy. Totally natural, of course - but lazy.

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Pointing to communist states to say that redistribution of wealth doesn't work is like pointing to the Nova or the Edsel to say that automobiles don't work.
No, it would be like pointing to cars built using the exact model of the nova, basically the same thing by a different name, and showing why they continue to not work. Or how some design elements in the Nova caused it not to work, and why they don't work in other model cars.


But that's not true, unless you equate communism with redistribution of wealth, which is a complete conflation of two totally different things.

At least you acknowledge that "trickle down economics is a strawman. :-)


Sort of. i mean, it was a term invented by the left to describe Reagan's economic schemes, and i think it's pretty accurate, particularly in the case of things like Romney/Ryan type policy, where the focus is on elevating the status of the people on top, so that their success might pass downward to the less fortunate. Hopefully. Maybe. You know, if all goes according to the plan those on top have concocted.

My understanding of the partial source of the poor ideas does not mean that they are not the source. Just as a non-academic not understanding the partial source of those ideas does not stop them from being the source.


i'm sorry, i don't have the slightest idea what that means - except that you're making the unsupported, politically motivated insinuation that liberal ideas are somehow inherently poor ideas. Unlike your own, obviously. :D

uglypeoplefucking wrote: You act like showing Marx to be wrong about something is showing the left to be wrong about everything.
Nope, just the stuff that came from him. Everything else they are wrong about comes from other places. Without saying they are wrong about everything that is considered "left." I am talking about a very specific issue, around the progressive economics of people like Marx, who worked at economics and used them in his writing or Keynes, who was also wrong about a lot of things, but in a different way and was not wrong about everything. Keynes writing on cyclical cycles is amazing!


If and when i get around to reading Keynes, i'll take that under advisement. i don't find as much time to read for leisure as i used to. i miss it, but what can you do?

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Meanwhile are you willing to elucidate a little more the connection between rent control and homelessness? Because i don't see it based on what you've said.
I will gladly do so, but I shall in a different thread, if you don't mind. I'm sorta working right now, so it might not be until Friday or so...


Cool, i'd appreciate that and look forward to it.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Uccisore » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:41 am

uglypeoplefucking wrote: You act like showing Marx to be wrong about something is showing the left to be wrong about everything.


If a person states that justice and economics are best understood as resolutions of the stress between economic classes, they are wrong. If they deny being a Marxist, but they believe this, they are still wrong. If they deny this, but still base all their decisions on an unwitting assumption that it's true, they are wrong. If they disagree with Marx about literally everything else Marx said except this, they are still wrong. If a person calling themselves a conservative accept this premise, he's wrong too.
So yeah, the left is wrong when they agree with Marx, regardless of how much, and what they call themselves when they do it. If there's some leftist out there that doesn't analyze justice and economics in terms of class conflict, he may in fact be right about many things. But then by virtue of what is he a leftist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:40 am

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
mr reasonable wrote:You guys make the distinction between philosophy and politics painfully evident.
And you make philosophy difficult and boring.



No, philosophy has always been difficult and boring. You're just now finding out what it is. And it's not a back patting contest between like minds. And it's not a wind blowing contest with hand picked data from a few choice sources. And it's certainly not a bunch of assumptions that your economic models will produce the outcomes that you think they will stated as though they're certainties.

I'll give you credit for having memorized a radical political position and for reciting talking points. You do that pretty well. You could probably get a bunch of morons to stand and cheer with you. But it's not philosophy at all.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25896
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:49 am

Ucc, you have to at least be aware that you're somewhat of a radical in your views. I mean, at this point, it's common knowledge that you're just giving the line of the far right no matter what. You evade and dodge and argue in bad faith and everything. We're a pretty smart audience. I'm actually kind of disappointed with the way you dismiss all contrary views as "leftist" or "hostile" or whatever victim complex excuse you give. You know me man normally I wouldn't say all this but I mean....you really can't deny anything in this post as being true. So what gives man? Why are you so stuck on this one set of ideals? What gives you such certainty that the far right conservative view on literally everything is the only way that isn't wrong? Talk to me man I really wanna know. There aren't many people in the world who believe what you do. So it's hard to find one to discuss these things with, and it sucks when you refuse to discuss and just keep pushing the same talking points that are on talk radio all day.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25896
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:55 am

uglypeoplefucking wrote:What is deadweight loss? i'd rather get it from you than wiki...
It's surprisingly hard to describe without graphs... When you artificially alter supply or demand to the negative, with such things as taxes, these things divert the "money" to other places, in the case of taxes, it's too the government. This also creates a section between the natural line and the adjusted line, this is the deadweight loss. This is in essence productivity, wealth, lost to this shift. Both the producers and the users are taxed. And while some don't care, when they think about things like beanie babies (chosen for its current obsolescence), think about instead cancer medicine or food, basic necessities, things that "poor" people need. It is the reduction in how much is produced for everyone, creating more demand...

uglypeoplefucking wrote:"Disincentive to work"? No, i don't think so. i work harder and i work more because i have taxes to pay. i think wanting not to pay taxes is lazy. Totally natural, of course - but lazy.
Ugh, taxes are a requirement, at least until everyone is required to join the military... But then that would be taxes of a different sort, taxes are in essence of not having to join the military... Sorry, not important, much like the lazy comment...

Taxes are a disincentive because they increase the costs of employment, decreasing the amount of money made by each individual. Gaining money is incentive, because it can be exchanged for good a services.

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Sort of. i mean, it was a term invented by the left to describe Reagan's economic schemes, and i think it's pretty accurate, particularly in the case of things like Romney/Ryan type policy, where the focus is on elevating the status of the people on top, so that their success might pass downward to the less fortunate. Hopefully. Maybe. You know, if all goes according to the plan those on top have concocted.
Again, it is a strawman.

uglypeoplefucking wrote:i'm sorry, i don't have the slightest idea what that means - except that you're making the unsupported, politically motivated insinuation that liberal ideas are somehow inherently poor ideas. Unlike your own, obviously. :D
Progressive ideas are not inherently poor, they are poor because they have been tried and failed, repeatedly. Inherent isn't even close to relevant. I don't care about inherent. They are bad, there are reasons why they are bad. The reasons why is important.

uglypeoplefucking wrote:If and when i get around to reading Keynes, i'll take that under advisement. i don't find as much time to read for leisure as i used to. i miss it, but what can you do?
Oh gods do I know what you are talking about. Though, I do have a suggestion of listening to books. I find it to be one of the best ways to read while my eyes have to be busy.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:31 am

mr reasonable wrote:No, philosophy has always been difficult and boring.
No, it isn't, it's long winded, which can be frustrating, but boring it is not.
mr reasonable wrote:You're just now finding out what it is.
I've known what it is. It is the attempt to understand all the things around us, to love the wisdom that comes from that understanding and attempt to explain it. It is the jester making fun of the king. It is the king killing the jester for his laughter. It is a lot of things, but I've only found it boring once.
mr reasonable wrote:And it's not a back patting contest between like minds.
Eh, I find that to be half true. Back patting happens quite a lot among intellectuals, if for no better reason, than to show, as you disagree, you still love the man. But I think you where using a colloquialism...
mr reasonable wrote:And it's not a wind blowing contest with hand picked data from a few choice sources.
Eh, I find that to be half true. I would imagine that it would require you to provide data for you to back this up. But you don't and won't.
mr reasonable wrote:And it's certainly not a bunch of assumptions that your economic models will produce the outcomes that you think they will stated as though they're certainties.
I will agree they are not certainties, just as many physics models get adjusted over time, I'm sure more information will come up correcting the models.

mr reasonable wrote:I'll give you credit for having memorized a radical political position and for reciting talking points.
Blow me. It is the only reasonable response.
mr reasonable wrote:You do that pretty well.
I read, I listen, I observe, I learn... Just because you are incapable does not mean you are less than everyone else, you can still try. Go ahead, I'll still read what you post. We can work to be friends, I know lots of special people like you.
mr reasonable wrote: You could probably get a bunch of morons to stand and cheer with you.
I already said I'd talk to you, now you want me to stand next to you?
mr reasonable wrote: But it's not philosophy at all.
I'm not sure you know anything about philosophy, at least I haven't read you do any, mostly just practice what Marx practiced, dismiss any argument with derision instead of facts and information. Belittle any that disagree. You do not practice Philosophy, you practice opinion.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:34 am

Dude, what you just said I do, is what Ucc does. He's your back patting friend.

Data to illustrate that you selectively choose information that flatters your opinion in order to sell your view? Shit man...you post youtube videos as though they're an authority on some matter. Look at your own posts.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25896
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Uccisore » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:40 am

mr reasonable wrote:Ucc, you have to at least be aware that you're somewhat of a radical in your views. I mean, at this point, it's common knowledge that you're just giving the line of the far right no matter what. You evade and dodge and argue in bad faith and everything. We're a pretty smart audience. I'm actually kind of disappointed with the way you dismiss all contrary views as "leftist" or "hostile" or whatever victim complex excuse you give. You know me man normally I wouldn't say all this but I mean....you really can't deny anything in this post as being true. So what gives man? Why are you so stuck on this one set of ideals? What gives you such certainty that the far right conservative view on literally everything is the only way that isn't wrong? Talk to me man I really wanna know. There aren't many people in the world who believe what you do. So it's hard to find one to discuss these things with, and it sucks when you refuse to discuss and just keep pushing the same talking points that are on talk radio all day.



I don't care what you think about anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:52 am

mr reasonable wrote:Dude, what you just said I do, is what Ucc does. He's your back patting friend.
Well, he has proven to be better at responding to your crap than me. I'm still learning.

mr reasonable wrote:Data to illustrate that you selectively choose information that flatters your opinion in order to sell your view? Shit man...you post youtube videos as though they're an authority on some matter. Look at your own posts.
Youtube is not by itself a authority, it is what the videos contain that provides the authority. It's like how a book has words, but it's not the book that provides the authority, but the author that provides the authority. It is the words that provide the logical persuasion. I feel less just for having to explain this to you...
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:55 am

You can't handle the truth. That's why you responded the way you just did. I really never noticed a thing you've ever said until not that long ago and I was like, "this dude is fully indoctrinated, or he's playing the devil's advocate". I've lost hope that you might be playing the devil's advocate. Because you don't even really advocate. You just repeat the same far right cliches over and over like it's your job or something.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25896
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:56 am

Eric are you saying that you like the pitchman who flatters your views and so you like to cite him as an authority? And if you check it out, you can find the data on this site....he has a history of ignoring views that he doesn't agree with and pretending like there is some other reason besides that he can't not to respond.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25896
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:53 pm

Ucc, you're like the right wing radio show host who hangs up on everyone who disagrees with him and calls them a moron. Mark Levin is his name. He does commercials for hilldale college and cites koch brothers funded think tanks for all his data.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25896
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:18 pm

mr reasonable wrote:You can't handle the truth. That's why you responded the way you just did. I really never noticed a thing you've ever said until not that long ago and I was like, "this dude is fully indoctrinated, or he's playing the devil's advocate". I've lost hope that you might be playing the devil's advocate. Because you don't even really advocate. You just repeat the same far right cliches over and over like it's your job or something.
Your mom...
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:18 pm

Your fat ugly mom.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25896
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Kriswest » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:19 pm

Why are moms always slandered? Can't you all pick on Dads for once???
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20508
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:30 pm

He doesn't have one.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25896
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Uccisore » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:32 pm

This thread started off useful, let's stop bickering and give somebody a chance to respond to the OP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Kriswest » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:54 pm

I did respond to the OP. I should add that Australia would not be able to have local govts either for the same reasons as the Americas
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20508
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:43 am

@ Diethert
First of all I would like to thank you for this interesting topic!

Diethert wrote:I’ve just read Bill McKibben’s “Deep Economy” in which he argues that economic growth is no longer “better”. It creates inequality, leads to individualism and doesn’t make us happier at all.
He shows (mostly by telling anecdotes and pulling statistics) that we should move away from the vast globalized economy towards local economies.

Globalism is the Synthesis of liberalism/nationalism (Thesis) and egalitarianism/communism (Antithesis). (Cp. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Dialektik). According to Hegel the Synthesis will be set - after its success - as a new Thesis and will be attacked by a new Antithesis, and the latter is what McKibben has probably done. But I haven't read McKibben's book!

Diethert wrote:According to McKibben local economies might produce less stuff, but will yield to better relationships and will be far more durable.

I agree. But unfortunately the devolopment of the globalism will end for 99% of the people in local economies anyway - very poor ones. So there will be no autarky, but very poor local economies - stemmed from exploited ex-nations - and very rich global economies. You can call this goal feudalism.

So the probability that local economies will not work is high. Let's take the little chance?

Diethert wrote:Durability is another recurring theme in his book ....

Durability is very important when it comes to local economies because the enemy is not sleeping during that time.

Diethert wrote:He argues that we no longer will have the (planetary) energy to keep the current system going, which will mean that we have to move to a more ecological economy.

This argument supports the idea of local econmies - b.t.w.: this idea is not new -, but this argument is not really needed because there can be a real energy crisis or a artificial energy crisis.

Diethert wrote:What are your thoughts on local communities?

My thoughts on local communities are confident and unconfident ones. As idealist I want this idea to be realised, at first more partially, at last globally - without any globalic or globalistic rulers! But as realist I don't want this idea to be realised, because the probability that local economies don't work is high!

Diethert wrote:Are they too deal in theory?

What do you exactly mean with the word "they"? The local communities? What do you exactly mean with "too deal in theory"?

Diethert wrote:Is mankind “good” enough to be part of such a community, aren’t we too greedy?

Human beings are very greedy, but perhaps not greedy enough, so that local communities have a chance.

This reminds me of the question of my title of the thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? I asked this question because I am not sure and have to calculate with probability. 80% vs. 20% for example. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.

Diethert wrote:How to get away of our sense of what constitutes as progress?

A "progress" isn't always a progress. You know what I mean?

Diethert wrote:If we are to move to a new form of economy how would that even be possible given that our current economy has such a huge momentum?

It is possible but very difficult to realise. So there is a little chance (see my text above).

Diethert wrote:Can it be done within a period of 20 years, 50, 100?

20 years are too less time, I think.

Diethert wrote:Should there be a massive redistribution of wealth?

Local communities must pay very much attention in order to prevent ( =; ) egalitarianism/communism (se my text above).

Therefore "local communities" is probably the wrong term, the wrong concept. What about the term, the concept "local corporations" or (for me: better!) "Allmende" or "Gemeinde"?

The probability that such local corporations will remain under the control of the globalists is very high because the globalistic corporations / companies are more powerful than all nations together - their business volume is higher than all gross national product / gross national income together - tendency: increasing!

Under the control of the gloablists local communities / corporations are unfortunately no autonomous local economies, no autonomous societies, no autonomous political units, and so on. So the probability that local communities / corporations don't work is high. Let's take the little chance?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Arminius » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:15 pm

@ Eric the Pipe

First of all I want to compliment you on your signature.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I've never understood why it is greed to keep the money you earn, but not greed to take it from somebody else for your own purposes.

This sentence makes shortly clear what exploitation is and especially who the greatest exploiter is.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I know that redistribution of wealth doesn't work ....

You don't see any chance, even any little like I do?

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
mr reasonable wrote:You know that redistribution of wealth doesn't work for what?

For anything, except causing pain and suffering among the poor.

If a critical point has passed, redistribution leads to poverty. That's known. There is no exception in history.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
mr reasonable wrote:Why wouldn't that work?

First, why would it? I am asking you to show it does work, not to make statements and demand I disprove it works. Second, because I made the first statement, that Redistribution of wealth doesn't work, I will work to prove it. Lets start with examples; Russia, India and China. The poor suffered under them, luckily they did a great job of making everyone, except the very rich and well connected, very poor. Russia killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. China killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. India and China are now realizing that, »Let some get rich first.«

That's known. Nobody can deny that an overacted redistribution leads to poverty.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
mr reasonable wrote:Social justice is a farce?
Yes: Yes. It means nothing. It is touted by people who just want their "way," like a 5 year old.

Social justice is merely a rhetoric term.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
James S Saint wrote:If you are talking about merely localizing with no other
changes, then that would not work until a great deal of warring was finished.

Could you please explain what you mean in greater detail?

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
James S Saint wrote:In ignorance, people attempt things that are not to their own advantage even though they would appear to be at the moment. That is what allows a third party to pit people against each other. And people are currently ignorant in that regard, thus there are very many who know the strategy of subtly implying that another person is the cause of a problem, one that they might have to secretly create themselves. As the people war with each other, the third party wins by both selling "arms" of whatever nature and also by weakening everyone else before he steps in to finish off both of them. Feminism and racism are both promoted so as to weaken both for sake of a third party.

Ignorance is actually the only problem. If you aren't going to educate people on their actual needs and how to address them in a wise manner, then of course, the only thing that keeps them from getting into wars is an overlord. And that is why they are kept in confusion, so that an overlord can be seemingly justified. And that is exactly what has been going on for thousands of years, but most especially in the last 200 years.

"On the planet of the apes, in the land of lies, all they do, to their own demise."

The key to fixing it is to teach them to not be merely apes presuming to know who is guilty and of what. And the key to that is to show how "that which brings clarity is of higher value than that which brings condemnation" or "a microscope is more valuable than a magical medicine."

Merely obligate every law to the reasoning that brought about the law, open for public debate, and the serpents leave the scene. Even if that was done on a national scale, it would result in an extremely democratic, localized governing wherein reasoning befitting the local situation, governed the local situation, not a presumptuous or insidious person far away dictating universal social justice.

Thank you.

The „third party“ is always the ruler.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:52 pm

Arminius wrote:First of all I want to compliment you on your signature.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I've never understood why it is greed to keep the money you earn, but not greed to take it from somebody else for your own purposes.

This sentence makes shortly clear what exploitation is and especially who the greatest exploiter is.

Thank you, it's sort of a quote of a couple of other people that have said similar things. I claim no responsibility for its genius.

Arminius wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I know that redistribution of wealth doesn't work ....

You don't see any chance, even any little like I do?
Eh, I am a curmudgeon. A lack of belief in people is a requirement. Regardless of intent, ultimately what decides what is redistributed and to who is still people. They are all bastards, I should know, I've spent some time as one.

Arminius wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
mr reasonable wrote:You know that redistribution of wealth doesn't work for what?

For anything, except causing pain and suffering among the poor.

If a critical point has passed, distribution leads to poverty. That's known. There is no exception in history.
Knowing the critical point would require understanding beyond what we are currently capable.

Arminius wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
mr reasonable wrote:Why wouldn't that work?

First, why would it? I am asking you to show it does work, not to make statements and demand I disprove it works. Second, because I made the first statement, that Redistribution of wealth doesn't work, I will work to prove it. Lets start with examples; Russia, India and China. The poor suffered under them, luckily they did a great job of making everyone, except the very rich and well connected, very poor. Russia killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. China killed millions in the name of redistributing wealth. India and China are now realizing that, »Let some get rich first.«

That's known. Nobody can deny that an overacted redistribution leads to poverty.
Yet many do.

Arminius wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
mr reasonable wrote:Social justice is a farce?
Yes: Yes. It means nothing. It is touted by people who just want their "way," like a 5 year old.

Social justice is merely a rhetoric term.
YES!

Arminius wrote:The "third party" is always the ruler.
Yes, but oddly, not necessarily does this require it to be government, in a official capacity. The Third party must have the power to enforce their beliefs, that is all.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Should we move to local communities/economies?

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:21 pm

Kriswest wrote:Why are moms always slandered? Can't you all pick on Dads for once???

Sorry, true.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users