TIL, about economics (Beware of the whale boats)
-
Are you some sort of antiparticle generated by the existence of Rupert Murdoch?
I am starting to hallucinate a quad. It is forming around me - at the corners of my eyes. Fuck.
-
Recent history shows that it's actually very difficult to get rid of a large business.
Not really, you just wait for the economy to bust, then with your non-conflicted-interest powers of government, elect which banks to save because they are too much of a
large business.
-
I mean, if they can get away with selling Windows 8, iPhones, and Beats, clearly there is a problem with free market economics that needs to be addressed.
-
Overfishing is,
while less serious in terms of each individual case, much more common, and wholly allowed by the US.restricted by fishing licenses?
-
Whaling is just the most egregious abuse of boatship ownership that occurs. Overfishing is, while less serious in terms of each individual case, much more common, and wholly allowed by the US.
What the fuck are you on? Why do you keep bringing up ship ownership? Do you think that most people who own a marine vessel rape and pillage the environment?
-
Why do you keep bringing up ship ownership?
They're long and hard and penetrate the environment.
-
There is at least one virtuous ship owner, that much has already been previously and ingraciously allowed.
Does this imply a non-culpable white-cis-male?
-
@Fox said:
Whaling is just the most egregious abuse of boatship ownership that occurs. Overfishing is, while less serious in terms of each individual case, much more common, and wholly allowed by the US.
What the fuck are you on? Why do you keep bringing up ship ownership? Do you think that most people who own a marine vessel rape and pillage the environment?
Thanks for continuing to prove you're still not paying attention. @boomzilla keeps inquiring about how
boatsships can be abused for personal gain.
-
@boomzilla said:
History shows that it's a lot easier to get rid of a business than a government.
Recent history shows that it's actually very difficult to get rid of a large business.
Still easier than getting rid of the laws of a modern government, unless you have an overwhelming military.
-
The laws of a modern government, at least in America, are actually changing rapidly, as are the people who make them. Hell, within the past decade we went from "it's totally okay to ban gay people from being married" to marriage equality being the law of the land in all 50 states.
-
Whaling is just the most egregious abuse of
boatship ownership that occurs. Overfishing is, while less serious in terms of each individual case, much more common, and wholly allowed by the US.OK? "Wholly allowed?"
Anyways, we've already put to bed conservation of natural resources and how there seems to be a general consensus that it's a good thing. Unless there's some Republican party plank I haven't seen that calls for overfishing and a return to whaling that I'm not aware of.
-
So, what are you gonna do as the policies give you less to feel entitled to tell other people that they are doing wrong? Woodworking? Knitting?
-
@Polygeekery said:
@Fox said:
Whaling is just the most egregious abuse of boatship ownership that occurs. Overfishing is, while less serious in terms of each individual case, much more common, and wholly allowed by the US.
What the fuck are you on? Why do you keep bringing up ship ownership? Do you think that most people who own a marine vessel rape and pillage the environment?
Thanks for continuing to prove you're still not paying attention. @boomzilla keeps inquiring about how
boatsships can be abused for personal gain.Goddaamnit...that's a tiny part of it, but not all abuse for personal gain is corruption, no matter how you squint at the dictionary.
-
The Republican Party has openly advocated for the utter annihilation of the department of energy, which will have a similar effect on the environment. I'm guessing they probably don't give a shit about fisheries overfishing, either.
-
The laws of a modern government, at least in America, are actually changing rapidly, as are the people who make them.
Some are. That shit is still more difficult than getting rid of a business. Many more businesses have gone away.
-
Do you even know what the DOE mandate is?
Hint: it's not enacting policy for conservation.
-
Tea party Republican, or standard GOP?
-
@Fox said:
@Polygeekery said:
@Fox said:
Whaling is just the most egregious abuse of boatship ownership that occurs. Overfishing is, while less serious in terms of each individual case, much more common, and wholly allowed by the US.
What the fuck are you on? Why do you keep bringing up ship ownership? Do you think that most people who own a marine vessel rape and pillage the environment?
Thanks for continuing to prove you're still not paying attention. @boomzilla keeps inquiring about how
boatsships can be abused for personal gain.Goddaamnit...that's a tiny part of it, but not all abuse for personal gain is corruption, no matter how you squint at the dictionary.
Are you all just trying to get pedantry points? Whether or not it fits the specific definition of corruption you prefer is irrelevant to the more important point that it's wrong anyway.
-
The Republican Party has openly advocated for the utter annihilation of the department of energy, which will have a similar effect on the environment.
I see. Uh huh. And getting rid of the Department of Education will wipe out high schools?
Do you even know what the DOE mandate is?
-
And totally fucking off topic... you seem kinda rage-filled, neh? Wrong wrong wrong.
more important point that it's wrong anyway.
stamp your little feet, or learn to not sound like a self-righteous grad student.
-
Do you even know what the DOE mandate is?
Hint: it's not enacting policy for conservation.
The Department of Energy and Department of the Interior are the two departments most concerned with conservation, and Republicans want them both gone or massively stripped of power.
-
I see. Uh huh. And getting rid of the Department of Education will wipe out high schools?
No, Republicans are managing to do that anyway despite the Department of Education's best efforts.
-
Are you all just trying to get pedantry points? Whether or not it fits the specific definition of corruption you prefer is irrelevant to the more important point that it's wrong anyway.
Fuckin-A, man, I'm just responding to what you said, which is apeshit crazy. That "conservative economic policy" leads to more corruption. And we've established that you don't understand either conservative economic policy or corruption.
I get that Bad Things Happen in the world. That doesn't come close to making your point.
No, Republicans are managing to do that anyway despite the Department of Education's best efforts.
Welp...I'm really wanting to invoke Poe's Law here.
-
DOE is not concerned with conservation. It funds energy science and maintains a nuclear safety program. The former can be folded into the NSF and the latter can be folded into any number of government departments.
So yeah, getting rid of a layer of bureaucracy to improve service is a good thing.
-
DOE is not concerned with conservation. It funds energy science and maintains a nuclear safety program. The former can be folded into the NSF and the latter can be folded into any number of government departments.
So yeah, getting rid of a layer of bureaucracy to improve service is a good thing.
http://www.energy.gov/oil Actually, it seems you're right, as of late, they haven't been concerned with conservation at all.
-
Actually, it seems you're right, as of late, they haven't been concerned with conservation at all.
They never were! That is not their mandate!
Goddamn man. Next you are going to be bitching because the Federal Reserve is serving shitty school lunches. They are not connected.
-
http://www.energy.gov/oil Actually, it seems you're right, as of late, they haven't been concerned with conservation at all.
Ah, your'e so cute.
-
@Fox said:
Actually, it seems you're right, as of late, they haven't been concerned with conservation at all.
They never were! That is not their mandate!
Goddamn man. Next you are going to be bitching because the Federal Reserve is serving shitty school lunches. They are not connected.
Part of the DOE's mandate covers oil supplies, which is intrinsically linked to conservation efforts. That was supposed to mean managing safe and sustainable ways of getting oil, but they've been doing it wrong over and over these past several decades.
-
Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid?
-
Given the change to his avatar, it seems he sampled several colors.
-
Probably not, I'm sure somebody was impressed by his mental contortions enough to praise him. Probably in a school where everyone is a winner.
-
I think you have finally succeeded in putting forth an argument that is so blatantly fucking stupid that no one knows how to counter it. You are new here, but that is saying a lot, because @boomzilla and myself once argued with @flabdablet and tried to point out to him why giving people money for existing was a bad idea that would never work.
-
tried to point out to him why giving people money for existing was a bad idea that would never work.
Well, I mean, giving people a stipend that would ensure they won't die would be a good idea if business owners could avoid seeing this as an increase in demand and raise their prices to make the poor people destitute again.
-
Well, I mean, giving people a stipend that would ensure they won't die would be a good idea if business owners could avoid seeing this as an increase in demand and raise their prices to make the poor people destitute again.
Yeah, you are too stupid to even try to debate.
-
Part of the DOE's mandate covers oil supplies, which is intrinsically linked to conservation efforts. That was supposed to mean managing safe and sustainable ways of getting oil, but they've been doing it wrong over and over these past several decades.
Seems like we've been getting better at it. Job well done, DOE! And drilling it here is a lot cleaner than letting, say, Nigeria do it.
But yeah, let's all panic over global warming hysteria.
-
-
-
@Fox said:
Well, I mean, giving people a stipend that would ensure they won't die would be a good idea if business owners could avoid seeing this as an increase in demand and raise their prices to make the poor people destitute again.
Yeah, you are too stupid to even try to debate.
/me channels @boomzilla
That's a nice ad hominem there.
-
a nice ad hominem
Also wtf - he was saying you're fucking stupid. Not as a point against your argument. He was insulting you personally. That's not quite the same.
-
That is all that is left, if you think that business owners would be the problem in that equation.
Even @flabdablet was not silly enough to make that argument.
-
What do you think the problem would be, then?
-
Well, if I had to take a guess, dumping a crapload of unearned money in to the market would dilute the money supply and put those that you gave a minimum baseline income back in to poverty.
That is just the tip of the iceberg though. Much like how raising the minimum wage does fuck-all for poverty.
-
-
-
/me channels @boomzilla
That's a nice ad hominem there.Aaaah! But I think this is the place you should read:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/unions-and-capitalism-and-living-wages-oh-my/7362
Well, I mean, giving people a stipend that would ensure they won't die would be a good idea if business owners could avoid seeing this as an increase in demand and raise their prices to make the poor people destitute again.
Yeah, that's kind of the problem that @flabdablet couldn't get his head around. I think @Polygeekery has been hitting the Jack early today, because you argued his main point (using different words, but close enough). Though you didn't touch on where the money comes from.
That is all that is left, if you think that business owners would be the problem in that equation.
It's true, insofar as they react to reality.
I think it was Jonah Goldberg (or maybe Kevin Williamson) who was pondering the sort of person who says they dream of a world where people would cooperate and coordinate their activities spontaneously to help other people. And JG/KW replied, "That's free market capitalism!" So true.
-
I think @Polygeekery has been hitting the Jack early today
Actually, no. It was the way that it was phrased. That business owners would raise prices out of vengeance.
-
Well, if I had to take a guess, dumping a crapload of unearned money in to the market would dilute the money supply and put those that you gave a minimum baseline income back in to poverty.
see below
@boomzilla said:Yeah, that's kind of the problem that @flabdablet couldn't get his head around. I think @Polygeekery has been hitting the Jack early today, because you argued his main point (using different words, but close enough). Though you didn't touch on where the money comes from.
Yeah, I mean, I blamed business owners for it, whereas he's just like "whelp, somehow it happens", but we did basically say the same thing.
-
@boomzilla said:
I think @Polygeekery has been hitting the Jack early today
Actually, no. It was the way that it was phrased. That business owners would raise prices out of vengeance.
I meant it more to imply that they would do it out of greed.
-
Everyone does everything out of greed. You are greedy for self justification.
-
I meant it more to imply that they would do it out of greed.
Business owners are not motivated by greed. They are motivated by making money. Those are not the same things.
Businesses are not a 503c.