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…
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.
Again, it is a strawman.
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.
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.
No, it isn’t, it’s long winded, which can be frustrating, but boring it is not.
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.
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…
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.
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.
Blow me. It is the only reasonable response.
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.
I already said I’d talk to you, now you want me to stand next to you?
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.
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.
Well, he has proven to be better at responding to your crap than me. I’m still learning.
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…
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.
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.
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.
@ Diethert
First of all I would like to thank you for this interesting topic!
Globalism is the Synthesis of liberalism/nationalism i[/i] and egalitarianism/communism i[/i]. (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!
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?
Durability is very important when it comes to local economies because the enemy is not sleeping during that time.
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.
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!
What do you exactly mean with the word “they”? The local communities? What do you exactly mean with “too deal in theory”?
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.
A “progress” isn’t always a progress. You know what I mean?
It is possible but very difficult to realise. So there is a little chance (see my text above).
20 years are too less time, I think.
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?
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.
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.
Knowing the critical point would require understanding beyond what we are currently capable.
Yet many do.
YES!
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.
Economic localism or regionalism is certainly a better alternative to globalism.
A lot more decentralized also. I would describe myself as an anarchist capitalist where local communities and economies would be the only way to go.
Of course I don’t see a lot of this happening until after the major nation states collapse because they will never tolerate that sort of insolence from us concerning their very centralized state planned economies.
) egalitarianism/communism (se my text above).