Debates
04 Mar 23
04 Mar 23
@zahlanzi saidYes, I mean 'no growth'. Not in the way Kev wants to get control of all business, he wants to restrict fair trade and does not even know he is doing it. So do you, in this post. You make a nice comment, pay taxes, treat workers fairly. But tell me, why do you next say to tell a corporation about what their market share will be? Who are you, anyway. I want to open up a branch office and make huge more money, but there are other similar business nearby that will be affected. Should you not better say, those small businesses better gear up to compete?? Or is it your way to restrict what my business does???????
"No growth?"
They can grow. And the leftists all want to help them grow. As long as they pay their taxes, treat their workers fairly, don't take over the entire market in their field and don't fuk up the environment.
There is room for millionaires in a socialist society. The real kind, not the one that you get scared of like a child watching horror movies.
"No huge c ...[text shortened]... I think i lost you again. Here is a simplification: Grocer shop around the corner good. Walmart bad.
You mention a world where there are no less fortunate people. Don't get you there. Surely you have some who are less fortunate than others, people who cannot buy a bicycle for their kids.
Your prosperity paragraph....you casually say, like it is a fact, that 'other people were unable to be prosperous". What stopped them? Don't get you there, either. Was it a restrictive government, perhaps,,,,,one that tells a business that they cannot open a branch office? You get my drift. And what do you mean, 'some get prosperous at cost of other's prosperity'.? If I have a business and sell franchises, a guy buys a franchise and becomes prosperous, and I make money off of his prosperity. Uhh, I shouldn't be allowed to? But you just said 'leftists help business grow". You truly write like you are from another country .
Classic Zahlanzi here: Accepting a guy getting rich is just as hard as accepting someone stealing your car. We can just let that zinger simmer. 🤔
Classic.
I agree with your paragraph about the Dane who has planned his life, and is not obsessed about the wealth of others, which is of course none of his business. .
As to an American with a Medical Bill, and a man who is a billionaire creating 350,000 jobs (Starbucks), tell us how you are relating the two. You leave many posts just hanging,.... that sentence is, well, just a factual sentence.
Dumb? You have been conversing with Suzianne on PM!!
04 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidYour a bare faced liar Joe
Yes, I mean 'no growth'. Not in the way Kev wants to get control of all business, he wants to restrict fair trade and does not even know he is doing it. So do you, in this post. You make a nice comment, pay taxes, treat workers fairly. But tell me, why do you next say to tell a corporation about what their market share will be? Who are you, anyway. I want to open up ...[text shortened]... ntence is, well, just a factual sentence.
Dumb? You have been conversing with Suzianne on PM!!
You do not have the intellect to debate this subject so you lie and misrepresent the posts that you get in response to your enquiry.
Show where I implied that I wanted control of all business.
You really are as nasty as you are stupid Joe and I’m amazed that’s actually possible.
04 Mar 23
@kevcvs57 saidYour second paragraph reeks of control of companies and corporations as they grow. You say hey are growing too big, regulations are in order, gotta put a stop to this. And not talking abut Trump, but it would seem that Obama would be the appropriate protagonist in this scenario, he created a hell of a lot of regulations. Trump came along and got rid of a lot them, so that companies could grow and get rich, I just do not understand why you libs will not let them build the world around them to the good of 'The People'.
You asked where he went wrong and there it is well done Joe
Now explain how trump was following the wealth of nations playbook when he put trade barriers and tariffs up Joe
It’s no good posting clips from Pinterest Joe you have to read the book to understand that the ultimate logic of the invisible hand results in a few massive corporations dominating the market and the ...[text shortened]... e try to be as concise as you can mate it’s a Saturday over here and the sun is shining unexpectedly
Why can't you address this in plain English? You want to make Corporations do what YOU want them to do, which is the gist of my comments which are upsetting you, I apologize for sounding so strong, but I
still think you are wanting, as OBAMA said, to spread the wealth around. I dont. Can you freely say that you do not believe in 'spreading the wealth around"? An honest yes or no answer would settle this matter. If you say the wealth should be spread around, that stifles, and controls, businesses.
04 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidQuote the paragraph Joe or be justifiably accused of misrepresentation
Your second paragraph reeks of control of companies and corporations as they grow. You say hey are growing too big, regulations are in order, gotta put a stop to this. And not talking abut Trump, but it would seem that Obama would be the appropriate protagonist in this scenario, he created a hell of a lot of regulations. Trump came along and got rid of a lot them, so t ...[text shortened]... this matter. If you say the wealth should be spread around, that stifles, and controls, businesses.
How difficult is it copy and paste the other posters text and then comment on it. It does not reek of anything other than reality in preference to your infantile naivety and distorting cherry picking of Smiths philosophy
The monopolies commission often agrees with me, it’s not about how big they are it’s about them using their size to strangle the more innovative competition at birth.
Bill Gates and Microsoft were found guilty of exactly that. It’s anti competitiveness that results from Smiths unfettered capitalism and that’s the problem, he trusts the future of mankind and the economy to blind greed and selfishness and it simply does not work, this is what we know. But if a government holds the reins loosely enough you can get benefits of laisse faire without the down side that its logic demands.
04 Mar 23
@kevcvs57 saidBack to the issue, then, and of course monopolies are unacceptable. So if we have a monopolies commission who does their job, what monopolies are you talking about? Your line of reasoning is difficult to follow, being left and right. We all disdain monopolies.
Quote the paragraph Joe or be justifiably accused of misrepresentation
How difficult is it copy and paste the other posters text and then comment on it. It does not reek of anything other than reality in preference to your infantile naivety and distorting cherry picking of Smiths philosophy
The monopolies commission often agrees with me, it’s not about how big they are i ...[text shortened]... ns loosely enough you can get benefits of laisse faire without the down side that its logic demands.
So I think that everyone should go out and do all they want to do make a whole lot of money and put it in their pocket. Everyone profits from someone else makes a lot of money. And I wrong? As long as there are no monopolies and everyone is legal, I failed to understand what you were writing about.
Of course Zahlanzi has a lot to say about that, maybe he will chime in, he does not like the idea of all these companies going out and making a lot of money for themselves and for investors. There’s no cherry picking about that.
If it is OK for you that individual people are prosperous, what is it that you want to change? Is it some limitation that you shroud in your posts? And I would for once like to see a liberal use the word independence or self reliance in a post if it is at all possible. Could you be the one that does that?
04 Mar 23
@AverageJoe1
Were we more independent and prosperous under Reagan , or under Obama? Are capitalists more prosperous than socialists? Than Marxists?
04 Mar 23
Anyway, I see that you hijacked my thread. I have to look back to see what my issue is, and it was simply that Adam Smith says that men are in business to make money for their self-interest, to build up their retirement plans. That is what he is saying, .., self interest, self reliance, aiming for prosperity.
My point was to point out that it flies in the face of liberal dogma, which does not believe in self interest, but rather that we should all expect the Butcher to give of himself for the good of the people. Anything short of that would be greed.
Apologies that I and/or you got off on the wrong foot with something that can hardly be discussed on a forum, pecking out Econ 106.
So what do you think of that one sentence of Adam Smith. The Butcher has his own self interest. Why did he say that?