DaVinci

No, you don't want to have a productive conversation. You want to be right. If you wanted to have a productive conversation you would have corrected me in your first post to me, and failing that you would have corrected me when I responded and asked for you to provide me with a definition. You again deflected correcting me by making it my fault that I can't look up stuff on Google. Also, saying "Oh, I was responding humorously to help you out" doesn't change the fact that I asked you to please provide me with a definition, and please respond to me in a more thorough way, and you chose not to. I've been very patient with you, and you've responded several times in which we could have been having an actual discussion about the topic and not about this. So I'll ask you again, will you please provide me with a definition of the free market, and how it relates to my follow up questions about human behavior in the OP?

This isn't really a great way to have a conversation. You responded to my original post with an image, and when I asked you to please clarify you chose not to, but yet continued to engage me. I'm interested in having a productive conversation, but it can't happen in this manner.

My argument is that science deserves the bulk of the credit for improving human quality of life.

Okay. Why did you even respond then? If you disagree with me, then please say so, and if you could also explain why you disagree. I'm not trying to attack you or anyone else with my post. I want to hear what you have to say.

Okay, so can you please provide me with a definition?

Scientists make discoveries which improve the strength of building materials, purify water for drinking, make medicine for when you are sick, enable long distance communication and travel, etc. Isn't it science then that is the primary driver of advancements in human life quality and not the free market? Shouldn't science be the gold medal winner and the free market be a distant second? If so, then doesn't it make more sense to say "Science solves problems" than "the free market solves problems"? Yes, the free market is a tool for bringing many of these changes to the masses, but you can't implement nothing. In other words, if the free market is a delivery system that depends on something to exist first to deliver, doesn't science deserve the largest chunk of credit as the progenitor of the thing that is being delivered? This brings up another question. If the free market is a delivery system, can it be run out of business or replaced? Some people will say the free market feeds into scientific discoveries, but isn't that just an incentive to increase the frequency of discoveries? Isn't human ambition and competition enough to achieve the same end without a trade of goods or a monetary gain? What does "free market" even mean? People freely exchanging stuff? So then we are talking about a specific sub-set of human behavior? If that's the case, then doesn't it make more sense to give it a more behavior-ish name than it does to attach an "-ism" onto the end of a word? Is there already a word for this? If so, why do we/don't we use it?

I'm not sure our brains can figure out things that we have no way of examining. It's like wondering what is smaller than dust. Until a microscope comes along there is no way to know.

I would say body posture and eye contact are somewhat equal. If someone is looking at you as they are walking away from you as you are trying to talk to them, then their eye contact doesn't negate that their posture is currently moving away from you. The other side of that is if someone has an "open" posture and is facing you but they are watching a pretty girl walk by with their eyes, then they aren't giving you their full attention. Not that someone should be holding their arms out for a hug in an unbreakable staring contest to get you to think they are being receptive. Just that there is a difference between a glance away or a shift in body stance and someone who isn't interested in engaging with you. Full attention is both posture and eye contact.

Is every call in show from regular viewers automatically a win-win scenario for the person calling in? The more famous You Tube celebs, and scientists with books, and whatnot are getting some exposure for themselves, their channel, and their products from being on the show, compared to the regular joe viewer who calls in. What is the win-win for going on the show if what they are asking here on the boards can be talked about and discussed here? I'm not sure I see the problem with negotiating an exchange to take place here on a message board, or maybe even through e-mail if that kind of privacy would work better. Would that be an unreasonable thing for him to request?

I'm talking about the state of the economy. Isn't the goal of many economists to get us back to when things were produced that were good quality, affordable, and the people who made them made a decent wage? I'm asking how we can ever get back to that without resetting something. A wheat grower sells wheat for cheap to a baker who sells bread for cheap who gets a flock of customers who want good quality cheap products. Others to start to copy this model. Prices start to plummet as everyone is undercutting the big guys.

I'm not sure exactly what would happen. I just don't see why it is unfeasible. There is a work around for everything. Don't start a business in debt. Hire people willing to get paid a small amount, or have volunteers. etc. Isn't the entire idea of a business that you have to take a calculated risk and in return is a potential success equivalent to the risk? Isn't all this "yeah, but taxes" "yeah, but bills" the kinds of things people say to themselves to talk themselves out of taking a risk?

Yeah, there seems to be a certain segment of the people who have been here a while who have noticed what you brought up, which is why there have been multiple threads in the past six months wondering why Stef is now a statist and endorsing Trump. Especially from people who weren't here for a while, and then came back. At the end of the day, they are making a show and so have to make programs that are profitable to stay in business. Sometimes that means having a guest on who doesn't get challenged. The challenges these days seem to happen with the regular callers, hence all the "if you want to call in to the show" posts .

I'm not saying make a new currency, but rather drop prices on a good, like bread. The wheat grower grows wheat and charges $2.50 a bag instead of $250 a bag to the baker who makes bread for .25 cents a loaf instead of $2.50 a loaf, etc. Everything is still happening in dollars. Consumers go to that bread baker, or go to that wheat provider, which starts a race to the bottom as more people/businesses do the same thing.

I think I already know some problems with this idea, but I'd like to hear some thoughts from those who are more knowledgable with economics. Why doesn't someone "restart" the economy? For example, a baker who makes and sells loaves of bread for, let's say, 10 cents a loaf. Obviously people would flock to that baker to get the same item for wayyyyy cheaper than they could get in the store. So the consumer being there wouldn't be an issue. I know the big problems would be the cost to the baker, but why couldn't they strike a deal with a wheat grower? Or open up a shop run with solar power? Or bake in wood fired ovens? The guy who supplies the bricks gets free bread for three years. The guy who supplies the wood gets free bread for as long as they supply wood. etc. Wouldn't this have a domino effect and start radically driving down prices?

I'm not sure what you mean by "taking full responsibility". That sounds like you are saying he messed up and needs to make up for what he did, as if he wronged someone in some way. What does "stop complaining and do something" mean? Clearly, based on his posts, he is doing "something" Why do you think he should "stop complaining"? Again, aren't you minimizing him by continuously trying to paint him as a lifeless whiner?

What's up with how tense this thread is? It's like watching two monster trucks tied butt to butt with the same chain waiting to snap and send them both flying.

There are other options for places to live where there are no taxes, no government, no police, etc. Maybe it's not an argument to say "it sounds like", but I don't think it is an unreasonable thing to compare what you said to what leftists say all the time when you bring up anarchy. You also have a choice where you live. How would you respond to a leftist telling you to stop being so passive in your victimization. I get that you are trying to help the OP out, but you are also minimizing him.

This sounds like "if you don't like paying taxes then move to Zimbabwe"

Where would you draw the line on that? Who wouldn't you do a video of if they were a mainstream target?

I actually like those old apple computer games like King's Quest, so yeah, it might be worth going for it.

In the sense that I have no means to make them, then yes. For example, let's say I have the idea to bake a cake but I have no kitchen, no oven, no pans, etc. Baking a cake would be a dream, or a "fantasy" in that scenario.

Why would no one know of it if it was made? Are we talking about something made and then not shown?

What leads you to think it wouldn't result in more superior art being made?

I think what you are showing above in those two images with Beyonce and Freddie Mercury is the difference between something that is mostly a product and something that is mostly art. Hence the increased number of producers and writers. It's a factory assembly line. Not the work of one guy who wants to tell a story and sing a song. Now, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that Beyonce song, though giving it a listen I wasn't blown away, and it certainly has some artistic elements, but it is mostly a product to be consumed. If anything, this type of "Art" actually helps to create a contrast for things that are much more art and much less product.

I can't see the thread you linked to. Can you give me a TL;DR version? Or is it contained in the first part of your post? I think there is objectivity in art, but I think the push back against it is from people who don't like it, or who see it as pointless. Which, that's fine. You don't have to like art. But, that doesn't mean that applying objective standards to art is "evil". Let's see how this topic goes. Art topics on this board seem to fizzle. I posted a while back asking where "Favorite colors" come from as it seems weird to me that someone could have a favorite color. It got some responses, but nothing close to what I wanted. Which maybe that was on me, but I think a lot of people don't want to discuss things related to art.