MrCapitalism
-
Posts
356 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by MrCapitalism
-
-
I'm still reading this article, but I want to point this out as probably one of the best quotes in literature I have ever read.
"I mean none of this to apply to women to whom it does not apply."
What an incredible idea packed into a single sentence, 'If this doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you!"
Pure power there.
-
The inevitability of money is the result of a market process, the utility of prices, and the social need for indirect exchanges.
These activities rely on a principle of trade: two people individually making an agreement to exchange their private property.
This activity of trade necessarily needs the institute of private property.
TZM desires to eliminate the necessity of the institution of private property.
Therefore they are also against trade.
And in this situation it's not possible for money to come into existence, as we understand it now.
-
It just seems like a whole lot of content... a lot easier to process than hashing the arguments out via some web forum. I read your OP as "I have never heard this before"... and wasn't sure if that was the case, or a feign of ignorance to start a debate.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Freedomain_Radio_Religion.xml
-
Have you listened to many of the podcasts on religion? What did you think of them?
-
Welcome Omega,
What is your history with Christianity? (e.g. were you raised Christian, born again?)
Are your friends/ family very Christian?
-
-
If you mean the incentives will switch once the unsustainability becomes apparent, well people have a great capacity for denial.
I think their capacity for denial is a lot weaker then their capacity to commit acts of violence in the name of that denial. I'd move before I tried to start a war.. it's easier and has a direct and immediate effect on my life.
-
But it's not a counter-incentivized decision ... if the situation is unsustainable (which I believe is false, I think it's a bunch of propaganda that cities are 'unsustainable'), then the incentives will change to reflect that. People will respond to the incentives, which will increase sustainability.
-
But the city would extract less from the rural areas by the factor of one individual (me). Likewise, the rural area would increase it's productivity by the factor of one individual (me). And, since my move is with the desire for self sufficiency, why would I allow a city to extract resources from me?
These small decisions are the basis of the "global system." A system based on high-population density cities will cease to exist, when these cities cease having high-population densities.
-
His argument there is based on defining cities as places with population densities too high to be self-sustaining. This means that they require importation of resources which means that, if they are unable to find those resources cooperatively, there will always be a strong incentive to take them violently.
Why would this be a better course of action than to just leave the city? That seems like it would be a lot easier.
-
Would there be no war if all communities and people were self-reliant? At least, for their more urgent needs.
Native American tribes were self sufficient, and they had a lot of wars.
-
Nuclear weapons shooting ranges in space.
Somebody invents a weapon of similar power without emitting radiation. A la Smokeless Gunpowder.
Just some crazy suggestions. (like telling Alexander Bell his telephone can be put in a pocket, and be used to check Facebook).
-
That sounds like that would be an incredibly scary situation for a little child.. if that's the case, why would you force him into that situation against his will?
If you had asked a single word question "why?" would he have been able to respond to you? What do you think he would say?
-
Why did he want to go home?
-
Just how much wealth is available? Imagine the total wealth in the world 2000 years ago. Did even the richest of the ancients have access to antibiotics, anesthetics, or surgery when their children had appendicitis? Could their entertainers give them the same quality, selection, and special effects that are now available on television? Could they find out about events on the other side of the globe a few minutes after they occurred? Could they "reach out and touch" family members who had migrated to faraway lands? Could they visit their distant relatives after a few hours in the "friendly skies"?
Even the wealthiest of the ancients did not have many things we take for granted. A greater number of people than ever before now enjoy a
lifestyle that our ancestors could not even imagine. Our wealth has increased greatly.
Where did we get all this wealth? The earth certainly did not get an additional endowment of natural resources between ancient times and the present. Instead, we discovered new ways to use existing resources. Coal, oil, and natural gas give us an unprecedented amount of power. We transmit this power over electrical wires and send communications via satellite. The antibiotics produced by fungi have been harnessed to fight infectious bacteria that invade our bodies. We stimulate our immune system with vaccines so that the ancient plagues have all but vanished. Artificial wings fly us all over the globe. Mass production, assembly lines, and robotics help to replicate the wealth-creating ideas. The new wealth allows creation of still greater wealth. For example, the energy trapped in fossil fuels lets us create new metal alloys that require higher smelting temperatures than wood can provide. One idea leads to the next.
We see that specific ideas on better uses for existing resources and the replication of these ideas are the real source of wealth. Natural resources are like seeds that grow into wealth when they are nurtured and developed by individuals acting alone or in concert. For example, oil was once considered a nuisance that contaminated good farmland. Not until enterprising individuals discovered how to pump, refine, and use it did oil turn into "black gold." Even water must be "developed" (drawn from a stream, well, or reservoir) before it can quench our thirst.
The amount of wealth a country produces does not depend primarily on its endowment of natural resource "seeds." Japan has almost no mineral wealth, while Mexico is well endowed, yet the Japanese are certainly more affluent than the Mexicans.1 Similarly, North Korea is poorer than South Korea. (2) East Germany created much less wealth than West Germany before reunification in 1990.2,3 Obviously, resource endowment is not the primary factor that determines a country's wealth. Population density cannot be the dominating factor either: both Japan and West Germany have a greater population density than their poorer neighbors Mexico and East Germany. (3)
When we consider that resources will one day be mined from planets other than the earth, that matter and energy are totally interchangeable, and that basic chemical elements can be transmuted, we realize that resource seeds are so abundant that they do not impose practical limitations on the creation of wealth at all. Even if our fossil fuels should be foolishly exhausted, for example, energy is abundantly available in each and every atom if only we knew as we one day will how to tap it safely. Even if we foolishly devastated our home world by unsound environmental management, a universe of other planets are available to us when we learn as we one day will how to reach them. Human resources, our "how to" ideas, and the replication of these ideas, determine how much available wealth there is at any one time. Since human creativity appears unbounded, the amount of wealth possible is virtually infinite! Truly we live in a "no limit" world!
-
I just want to know what did you think of:
- The "debate"
I didn't watch it. I have no plan to. If you haven't seen these sort of debates, they're really important in helping you see the manipulative people in your own life. I'd like to think Stef has helped me to see that.
- Stephan's review
Stef knew he was going to be talking to a manipulative person.. and from the fallout... it appears that he was correct and prepared.
- Peter Joseph's responses
I don't see a need to subject myself to that.. I already know it's there... good enough for me.
- Should Stefan reply to this, if so why/Why not? Or is it just the start of a useless flame war?
Manipulative people, to be able to keep manipulating you, need you to continue communicating with them/ have a relationship with them. This choice on your part is the basic foundation of their abuse. Stef knows this... he only does this for his viewers... I can imagine that choice is up to him.
-
I totally agree with you in regards to cheap stuff. 99 cent razors... love them. Cheap pens... love them. People who spend lots of money on nice pens are crazy to me.I spend all kinds of money on computer upgrades.. but I will buy the cheapest keyboard I can possibly find. My best find was $9.99USD which I plugged into my $1500 computer.
I guess that's the opposite of "you only have to buy it once,"
EDIT: I guess I think of those things as expendable...
I think the argument for a lightweight bike is that you can get more speed/ steeper climb for the same energy expenditure. And since it has less inertia it is easier to control and to have more direct connection with the ground.
-
I can't really comment on the behavior of "spending all your money on the highest quality stuff," but I do want to make a defense of 'buying high quality stuff."
The great thing about buying quality stuff is you really only have to buy it once.
I just sent my dad's camera in for a restoration, he bought it I think in 1969 when he was a kid. While he didn't buy the best of the best, he bought the best he could afford, and the dang thing has lasted for 44 years. If he could have afforded it, that expensive camera would probably still be partially compatible with lenses sold today in Best Buy.For the last ~10 years it's light meter has been broken (bought an external one but sucked at using it), so now that I have money I sent it in to be fixed/restored. $195 + shipping. I just got it back and it's rock solid, I have no idea how many more years it has left.I also have my dad's carbon-fiber mountain bike that was worth thousands when he got it in the early '80's.. It's sitting on my car right now ready to go. Regular maintenance is all it's needed (plus some replacement hardware). People still comment on how light it is. (his '90s aluminum bike is even lighter).
I bought a digital camera a couple years ago, and got some lenses for a total package price of around $1700. I expect it to make amazing photos for at least another 10-15 years.
So I guess my argument is that as long as one is financially responsible, top of the line stuff isn't really a waste of money in the long run.
-
My personal theory is that if you become more receptive to your unconscious mind...it has less of a need to communicate to you through your dreams...
-
Would this video be of any use to you (yes he talks a lot from the perspective of a religious person but I think makes a good point)?
-
My father bought a house to raise a family in during the 1980's. He was a bicycle mechanic making something like $8/hr. The total cost of my student loan is going to be approximately $320,000 over the course of 20 years. I joke that I'm already buying a house that I'll never get to live in.
-
Isn't the dealer taking advantage of the addiction and "weakness of the will" of the consumer?
Any pharmacist selling antibiotics can fall prey to this criticism.
-
That is a good point, that their gun control is so complete that it is almost impossible for criminals to obtain guns.
In the USA, this is similar to our complete 'nuke' control, and complete 'heavy explosive/artillery' control. It's hard to make the argument that "when you ban nukes/tanks, only criminals will have nukes/tanks" (which is actually true, since the government owns nukes/tanks, and they're criminals)....
Maybe there's a turning point that needs to be reached, as in gun bans must be close to absolute before they start to become effective.
-
It's saying entrepeneurs aren't willing to delay present income in the expectation of greater profits sometime in the future.
When the American Dream becomes a nightmare
in General Messages
Posted
I hereby proclaim this "The Bible says X." argument in defense if religion.
1). Rhetorical question or fact statement.
2). "The Bible says (point unrelated to premise 1)"
3). Therefore GOD exists.