02 Nov '11 00:54>
Originally posted by rwingettToo true, that's a pretty exclusive job, though.
The US has a poet laureate, you know. That's one job that can't be outsourced.
Originally posted by dryhump🙄🙄
I think you're missing the point. Even if the protests accomplished this feat, the free market is what enabled the protests. The free market is about more than just the free exchange of goods. It's also about the free exchange of ideas.
Originally posted by dryhumpI dispute that what currently passes for a "free market" is actually free. It is very much rigged in favor of certain goods and certain ideas.
I think you're missing the point. Even if the protests accomplished this feat, the free market is what enabled the protests. The free market is about more than just the free exchange of goods. It's also about the free exchange of ideas.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey caused nothing. The banks had been gouging retailers for years with fees that had no relation to costs. These were reduced. So the banks decided to gouge customers instead with fees that had no relation to costs and hope the government wouldn't do anything about it.
They caused nothing. The banks had been gouging retailers for years with fees that had no relation to costs. These were reduced. So the banks decided to gouge customers instead with fees that had no relation to costs and hope the government wouldn't do anything about it. Because of OWS and popular protests they had to back down. This had very little to d ...[text shortened]... avoid going out of business due to their own incompetency and greed:
:'(
Originally posted by no1marauderOMG, what a surprise that you would bring up Pinochet. Your act is tired no1. As we have all witnessed, dictatorships don't allow much in the way of an exchange of ideas. Luckily, we don't live under a dictatorship.
🙄🙄
Ask the Chileans under Pinochet if Milty's "free market" meant the "free exchange of ideas".
Originally posted by dryhumpSo it's not your much ballyhooed "free market" which enables the free exchange of ideas, but, rather, it is a democracy that does so. Your mistake seems to be in conflating the two.
OMG, what a surprise that you would bring up Pinochet. Your act is tired no1. As we have all witnessed, dictatorships don't allow much in the way of an exchange of ideas. Luckily, we don't live under a dictatorship.
Originally posted by dryhumpYour point is asinine. The government can hardly be blamed for the banks' greed which is what you are doing. The banks have no need to gouge anybody so blaming the government because they tried to gouge B rather than A is ridiculous.
They caused nothing. The banks had been gouging retailers for years with fees that had no relation to costs. These were reduced. So the banks decided to gouge customers instead with fees that had no relation to costs and hope the government wouldn't do anything about it.
Do you even understand what cause and effect mean? I'm going to have to say that you ...[text shortened]... ons of people drawing unemployment? You can't call that anything but a bail out, after all.
Originally posted by rwingettHow do you propose to have a democracy without the free exchange of goods?
So it's not your much ballyhooed "free market" which enables the free exchange of ideas, but, rather, it is a democracy that does so. Your mistake seems to be in conflating the two.
Originally posted by no1marauderSure the government can be blamed, they took away revenue from the banks and the banks sought to replace that revenue. Banks exist solely because of the government? Crack a history book, dude. What do you consider useful work no1? More importantly, under what system would everyone who wanted it be provided useful work?
Your point is asinine. The government can hardly be blamed for the banks' greed which is what you are doing. The banks have no need to gouge anybody so blaming the government because they tried to gouge B rather than A is ridiculous.
Banks exist solely because of the government. The government can chose to regulate them as much or as l ...[text shortened]... system to produce enough useful work. That's a bailout of the capitalists, not the unemployed.
Unemployment is paid to workers because of the failure of the capitalist system to produce enough useful work. That's a bailout of the capitalists, not the unemployed.[/b]Simply not true. When a person cannot find a job, it does not mean the system has failed (unless you believe unemployment is a system failure because some people simply lack skills and motivation) . Unemployment simply means that a person cannot find a job. Perhaps it is a timing issue, perhaps the person has too high demands or insufficient skills. Unemployment if it bails out anyone, bails out the person who cannot/ will not take get a job.
Originally posted by quackquackIf unemployment is a permanent feature of a system, then, yes, that system is a failure.
Simply not true. When a person cannot find a job, it does not mean the system has failed (unless you believe unemployment is a system failure because some people simply lack skills and motivation) . Unemployment simply means that a person cannot find a job. Perhaps it is a timing issue, perhaps the person has too high demands or insufficient skills. Unemployment if it bails out anyone, bails out the person who cannot/ will not take get a job.
Originally posted by rwingettThere aren't always fewer jobs than people. There are simply people who cannot display the skills to be hired or people who want more compensation than others wish to provide or people who refuse to take the effort or have the skills to work for themselves.
If there are always fewer jobs available than the number of people looking for work, then it doesn't matter how hard they try. There will ALWAYS be unemployment. It is a systemic failure.