Remember me
▼ Content

What is this Church of Marxism?



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
27-09-2016 18:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Religion can be good, Tim. If more people listened to what Jesus reportedly said, the world would be a better place.

Religion is only bad when it displaces science.


Or when it supports things like ISIS, but on the other hand, there are plenty of peaceful Muslims, and we have some domestic terrorist groups that are Christian (KKK, for instance), so I'd say that these folks would be out there murdering people regardless of religion.


Religion = belief that is unsupported by facts being sold by an organisation which gets power via this.

It is the worst weakness and evil of humanity.

If it ever had a good point that has long gone.
27-09-2016 19:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'd be the last person to admit this, but logic and facts can't explain everything. For instance, whilereligion itself is not necessary for morality, you cannot derive objective morality from physics.

And besides, would you consider leaderless religions to be fine?
27-09-2016 21:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
Tim the plumber wrote: Religion = belief that is unsupported by facts being sold by an organisation which gets power via this.

Religion is an unfalsifiable belief that motivates some particular socio-political behavior.

All religions are based on facts that the worshipers call "evidence."
No religions, however, are based on science.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 21:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: Religion = belief that is unsupported by facts being sold by an organisation which gets power via this.

Religion is an unfalsifiable belief that motivates some particular socio-political behavior.

All religions are based on facts that the worshipers call "evidence."
No religions, however, are based on science.


Clearly lots of the beliefs of Christians are falsifyable.

The world was not created in 6 days. The plants were not all created then the animals. There was never only 2 individuals from whom we are all decended.
27-09-2016 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: Religion = belief that is unsupported by facts being sold by an organisation which gets power via this.

Religion is an unfalsifiable belief that motivates some particular socio-political behavior.

All religions are based on facts that the worshipers call "evidence."
No religions, however, are based on science.


Clearly lots of the beliefs of Christians are falsifyable.

The world was not created in 6 days. The plants were not all created then the animals. There was never only 2 individuals from whom we are all decended.


They are??? None of what you have stated is falsifiable either.

Were you there when the Earth was formed? How do you know how long it took? How do you know how long even a 'day' is (the Hebrew use a word more akin to 'period')? How do you know the description is simply a figurative one and not a literal one? And that's just the 'six' days argument.

It is not possible to prove the existence of a god or gods.

It is not possible to prove the non-existence of a god or gods.

Neither path contains falsifiable theory. They are BOTH circular arguments.


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2016 22:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You're not fighting a straw man, but you ARE singling out an easy-to-fight minority, Tim. Many Christians don't interpret the Bible literally. I know I never did. (Maybe when I was a toddler? Maybe not even then. I could understand how a story wasn't real, so I dunno.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
27-09-2016 22:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well. Um, Into, you're right, but when fundamentalists try to apply their religion, they say things that are falsifiable. But the religion itself isn't falsifiable - take, for instance, Last Thursdayism, or Descartes's brain-in-a-jar (or daemon, pick whichever). That part is definitely true.
27-09-2016 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Well. Um, Into, you're right, but when fundamentalists try to apply their religion, they say things that are falsifiable. But the religion itself isn't falsifiable - take, for instance, Last Thursdayism, or Descartes's brain-in-a-jar (or daemon, pick whichever). That part is definitely true.


Such make statements that are not consistent with the Bible either. They often quote scripture out of context or without meaning of any kind, other than to try to damn <whoever> to hell.

What they say is unfalsifiable. Many of their arguments, however, fail on tests of consistency.

Last <pick a day>ism is not a falsifiable argument. There is no way to falsify it due to phenomenology issues. You cannot prove whether what was put in your brain last <x>day was not by design.

The brain in a jar argument is also not falsifiable. There is no way to determine if the brain is experiencing reality or simulation without stepping outside the confines of what that brain can experience. You'll have to take the red pill for that one.


The Parrot Killer
28-09-2016 15:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
jwoodward48 wrote: Well. Um, Into, you're right, but when fundamentalists try to apply their religion, they say things that are falsifiable.

Welcome to my world. When warmizombies and climate lemmings try to explain their religion they say things that are completely verifiable and testable *or* they reveal how they are weaseling by playing semantic games with the words they were using.

jwoodward48 wrote: But the religion itself isn't falsifiable.

but yes, Global Warming is itself unfalsifiable and each worshiper holds his/her own personal meaning/interpretation and as with any religion, each worshiper has a varying level of investment of his/her identity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2016 16:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: Religion = belief that is unsupported by facts being sold by an organisation which gets power via this.

Religion is an unfalsifiable belief that motivates some particular socio-political behavior.

All religions are based on facts that the worshipers call "evidence."
No religions, however, are based on science.



.


Untrue. Not all religions claim scientific evidence for their statements.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
05-10-2016 17:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
IBdaMann wrote:Religion is an unfalsifiable belief that motivates some particular socio-political behavior.

All religions are based on facts that the worshipers call "evidence."
No religions, however, are based on science.


jwoodward48 wrote: Untrue. Not all religions claim scientific evidence for their statements.

I'm going to apologize up front for the impending mockery, but your egregiously poor logic is begging for ridicule.

What statement of mine is "untrue" (which I presume you meant "false") for the reason you specified?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2016 17:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Untrue means false. I am claiming that your second statement is false.
05-10-2016 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: Religion = belief that is unsupported by facts being sold by an organisation which gets power via this.

Religion is an unfalsifiable belief that motivates some particular socio-political behavior.

All religions are based on facts that the worshipers call "evidence."
No religions, however, are based on science.



.


Untrue. Not all religions claim scientific evidence for their statements.


I can't think of one that doesn't. Every religion I know has tried to claim scientific evidence to support their religion.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Stupid duplication deleted.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-10-2016 22:43
05-10-2016 23:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Buddhism?
06-10-2016 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Buddhism?

Even Buddhists have attempted to do so.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 00:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
'Kay. What about more obscure religions that border on non-religiousness?
06-10-2016 02:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
'Kay. What about more obscure religions that border on non-religiousness?


Can you possibly be a bit more vague about that?


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2016 02:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It is vague. If I knew more, I would be more specific.

Regardless, while claims of evidence aren't a necessarily condition for a religion, they seem very prevalent among most religions. So I was mostly nitpicking, really.
06-10-2016 03:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It is vague. If I knew more, I would be more specific.

Regardless, while claims of evidence aren't a necessarily condition for a religion, they seem very prevalent among most religions. So I was mostly nitpicking, really.


Fair enough answer.


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2016 23:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I think this is the right thread?

"True socialism (in any of its various proposed incarnations) does not attempt to redistribute the production of an unfair system, but rather to change how things are produced and distributed in the first place so that, ultimately, no redistribution is ever needed."

"While I cannot answer for everyone who considers themselves a socialist, and indeed the word socialism seems to take on all new meaning depending on your target audience, I can at least answer for myself, based on the simple definition that socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.".

Answer: No one is spending "other people's money", so I can only conclude the person saying this doesn't understand socialism. "Means of production, distribution, and exchange" is the key phrase here. That doesn't mean everyone's wealth is redistributed, Robin Hood style - it means that the factories and corporations that provide goods and services to society are publicly owned and regulated. This isn't too dissimilar from a public stock exchange.

So I suppose if one's understanding of socialism is to spend other people's money, then I suppose they're just doing it wrong."

"This socialist believes Tatcher was an effective spokesperson for the big business that was successful in scaring enough people away from socialism to rule for so many years. This is an example of a supposed clever saying that at first glance may make sense to the lay person, but is precisely the opposite of what socialism stands for as people running their own affairs by using their own money and in the interest of their community, not just few obsessed with lining their own pockets, will never actually run out of money as it's not other people's money but their own. The way for a society to actually run out of money is to have an elite (1% or less sometimes) take as much of others' Monet without ever giving their share back to the community, the essence of what she and others like her preach."

Sometimes, other people phrase something well, and you don't see the point of re-inventing the steam engine. (Because the wheel is too basic for this case, that's why.)
08-10-2016 00:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I think this is the right thread?

"True socialism (in any of its various proposed incarnations) does not attempt to redistribute the production of an unfair system, but rather to change how things are produced and distributed in the first place so that, ultimately, no redistribution is ever needed."

"While I cannot answer for everyone who considers themselves a socialist, and indeed the word socialism seems to take on all new meaning depending on your target audience, I can at least answer for myself, based on the simple definition that socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.".

Answer: No one is spending "other people's money", so I can only conclude the person saying this doesn't understand socialism. "Means of production, distribution, and exchange" is the key phrase here. That doesn't mean everyone's wealth is redistributed, Robin Hood style - it means that the factories and corporations that provide goods and services to society are publicly owned and regulated. This isn't too dissimilar from a public stock exchange.

So I suppose if one's understanding of socialism is to spend other people's money, then I suppose they're just doing it wrong."

"This socialist believes Tatcher was an effective spokesperson for the big business that was successful in scaring enough people away from socialism to rule for so many years. This is an example of a supposed clever saying that at first glance may make sense to the lay person, but is precisely the opposite of what socialism stands for as people running their own affairs by using their own money and in the interest of their community, not just few obsessed with lining their own pockets, will never actually run out of money as it's not other people's money but their own. The way for a society to actually run out of money is to have an elite (1% or less sometimes) take as much of others' Monet without ever giving their share back to the community, the essence of what she and others like her preach."

Sometimes, other people phrase something well, and you don't see the point of re-inventing the steam engine. (Because the wheel is too basic for this case, that's why.)


Wrong thread, but it's more appropriate to continue this discussion here anyway.

If you'll recall, I asked you how you specifically were going to transform the existing society today into your vision, not just about the vision itself.

This answer only describes a vision. It does not describe how you would get to it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-10-2016 00:50
08-10-2016 01:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If you mean "first steps", here's some things off the top of my head:

1. Raising the minimum wage keeps Wal-Mart and Co from building a consumer base of the poor, and also keeps them from taking advantage of the current half-arsed attempts at socialism that make up SocSec etc.

2. The subsidies. Especially oil. I'm not really sure what can be done about them, since a game of chicken never ends well, but this is a problem that needs to be dealt with - taxpayer money flowing into the pockets of the rich.

3. Regulation on speculation and derivatives and that thing where you buy up all the, let's say, corn, and let it sit in a warehouse until prices go up. If capitalists are motivated to harm their own companies, then the last claim of capitalistic motivation eventually helping people is gone.

4. Restrict lobbyists and repeal Citizens United. Companies are not people. Money is not speech. What else is there to say?

5. The first thing we do, let's kill all the conservatives. (Not serious. Quoting Shakespeare.)
08-10-2016 03:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If you mean "first steps", here's some things off the top of my head:

1. Raising the minimum wage keeps Wal-Mart and Co from building a consumer base of the poor, and also keeps them from taking advantage of the current half-arsed attempts at socialism that make up SocSec etc.

Interesting. So to move toward a system with no money, you would require price controls on wages?
jwoodward48 wrote:
2. The subsidies. Especially oil. I'm not really sure what can be done about them, since a game of chicken never ends well, but this is a problem that needs to be dealt with - taxpayer money flowing into the pockets of the rich.

Do you know what subsidies the oil companies receive and what they're for? Did you know the largest subsidy is for the Home Energy Assistance Program which helps low income families pay their fuel bills?
jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Regulation on speculation and derivatives and that thing where you buy up all the, let's say, corn, and let it sit in a warehouse until prices go up. If capitalists are motivated to harm their own companies, then the last claim of capitalistic motivation eventually helping people is gone.

Food sitting around in a warehouse generally loses value the longer it sits. Corn, fortunately, can be canned or dried until use. Or would you rather see them throw it away (since no one needs it at the time)? Did you know the biggest speculators of corn are corn farmers? They plant the stuff, fertilize it, water it, harvest it, all of which cost money, hoping they'll be able to sell it at a profit.
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. Restrict lobbyists and repeal Citizens United. Companies are not people. Money is not speech. What else is there to say?
Not much, unless you want to buy an ad.
jwoodward48 wrote:
5. The first thing we do, let's kill all the conservatives. (Not serious. Quoting Shakespeare.)


"If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back. You have the same right to live and kill people as anybody else."

-- Malcom Reynolds, Firefly


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-10-2016 03:07
08-10-2016 05:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If you mean "first steps", here's some things off the top of my head:

1. Raising the minimum wage keeps Wal-Mart and Co from building a consumer base of the poor, and also keeps them from taking advantage of the current half-arsed attempts at socialism that make up SocSec etc.

Interesting. So to move toward a system with no money, you would require price controls on wages?


Well, yeah. Giving everybody a decent living is a good first step for anybody. Stopping the exploitation of workers furthers the Communist cause. It also furthers the ethical cause.

jwoodward48 wrote:
2. The subsidies. Especially oil. I'm not really sure what can be done about them, since a game of chicken never ends well, but this is a problem that needs to be dealt with - taxpayer money flowing into the pockets of the rich.

Do you know what subsidies the oil companies receive and what they're for? Did you know the largest subsidy is for the Home Energy Assistance Program which helps low income families pay their fuel bills?


I agree that taking it away could cause problems, yes.

a. Why don't we just leave it all to the free market, if what you say is true?
i. Because there's a problem.
ii. But I thought that the Free Market could do no wrong?
b. The rich companies are basically being convinced to not raise prices, via heavy application of taxpayer money. I see a problem with this.

jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Regulation on speculation and derivatives and that thing where you buy up all the, let's say, corn, and let it sit in a warehouse until prices go up. If capitalists are motivated to harm their own companies, then the last claim of capitalistic motivation eventually helping people is gone.

Food sitting around in a warehouse generally loses value the longer it sits. Corn, fortunately, can be canned or dried until use. Or would you rather see them throw it away (since no one needs it at the time)? Did you know the biggest speculators of corn are corn farmers? They plant the stuff, fertilize it, water it, harvest it, all of which cost money, hoping they'll be able to sell it at a profit.


When I say speculation and derivatives, I'm talking about people who can sabotage companies, who are basically placing bets on companies not doing well, and then making it so. That needs to be stopped.

As for "the thing", you're describing storing corn when there's no demand. I'm talking about when there is demand but John Moneybags buys lots of it up to artificially raise scarcity, then sells it at a great profit.

jwoodward48 wrote:
4. Restrict lobbyists and repeal Citizens United. Companies are not people. Money is not speech. What else is there to say?
Not much, unless you want to buy an ad.


Limits on ads can and should exist.

jwoodward48 wrote:
5. The first thing we do, let's kill all the conservatives. (Not serious. Quoting Shakespeare.)


"If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back. You have the same right to live and kill people as anybody else."

-- Malcom Reynolds, Firefly


It was a joke. I'm not proposing that anybody be killed. Or locked up for what they support, unlike Tai. I'm actually rather pacifist. No blood for oil, etc.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
08-10-2016 12:41
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Jwoodward48,

What job do you do and why do you do it?

Would you do it if you did not get paid for it?

Edited on 08-10-2016 12:41
08-10-2016 16:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I don't have a job. I'm a student. I'm thinking about getting a part-time job, but my age had previously precluded obtaining such a thing.
08-10-2016 16:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't have a job. I'm a student. I'm thinking about getting a part-time job, but my age had previously precluded obtaining such a thing.

In what manner do you wish to add value to society? I really don't care about what "job" you might want but rather how you would like to make the world a better place.

What punishment do you believe is fitting for someone who is rewarded for adding value to society?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-10-2016 16:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If I get rich, I'll pay my taxes quite happily.

I plan on going into aerospace. Not quite sure which part. I'll be helping get mankind into SPACE. I'm quite excited about space, in case you can't tell.
08-10-2016 17:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't have a job. I'm a student. I'm thinking about getting a part-time job, but my age had previously precluded obtaining such a thing.


OK, so what sort of part time job do you think would be a good idea?

How about cleaning toilets?

There are plenty of jobs availible for doing that.

Personally, as a man who sometimes has to clear blocked urinals, I would need to be paid for doing that job. I would not do it for the pleasure of it.

If wealth is distributed evenly why would anybody do that?

Edited on 08-10-2016 17:29
08-10-2016 17:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I get rich, I'll pay my taxes quite happily.

I plan on going into aerospace. Not quite sure which part. I'll be helping get mankind into SPACE. I'm quite excited about space, in case you can't tell.


Are you an aeronautical engineer by any chance?
08-10-2016 18:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. You're mistaken. Socialism doesn't rely on "the good of people's hearts" or such nonsense. If you don't work, you don't eat, and I figure some people will do toilet-cleaning because they either can't or won't do anything else.

2. I'm not an engineer, I'm a student. I haven't chosen a major, if that's what you're asking.
08-10-2016 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If you mean "first steps", here's some things off the top of my head:

1. Raising the minimum wage keeps Wal-Mart and Co from building a consumer base of the poor, and also keeps them from taking advantage of the current half-arsed attempts at socialism that make up SocSec etc.

Interesting. So to move toward a system with no money, you would require price controls on wages?


Well, yeah. Giving everybody a decent living is a good first step for anybody. Stopping the exploitation of workers furthers the Communist cause. It also furthers the ethical cause.

But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
2. The subsidies. Especially oil. I'm not really sure what can be done about them, since a game of chicken never ends well, but this is a problem that needs to be dealt with - taxpayer money flowing into the pockets of the rich.

Do you know what subsidies the oil companies receive and what they're for? Did you know the largest subsidy is for the Home Energy Assistance Program which helps low income families pay their fuel bills?


I agree that taking it away could cause problems, yes.

a. Why don't we just leave it all to the free market, if what you say is true?
i. Because there's a problem.
ii. But I thought that the Free Market could do no wrong?
b. The rich companies are basically being convinced to not raise prices, via heavy application of taxpayer money. I see a problem with this.

The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Regulation on speculation and derivatives and that thing where you buy up all the, let's say, corn, and let it sit in a warehouse until prices go up. If capitalists are motivated to harm their own companies, then the last claim of capitalistic motivation eventually helping people is gone.

Food sitting around in a warehouse generally loses value the longer it sits. Corn, fortunately, can be canned or dried until use. Or would you rather see them throw it away (since no one needs it at the time)? Did you know the biggest speculators of corn are corn farmers? They plant the stuff, fertilize it, water it, harvest it, all of which cost money, hoping they'll be able to sell it at a profit.


When I say speculation and derivatives, I'm talking about people who can sabotage companies, who are basically placing bets on companies not doing well, and then making it so. That needs to be stopped.

It sound like you are against shorting a stock. You do realize, don't you, that people who short stocks have no control over the company they are shorting? It's a financial way of saying the way a company is run is bullshit.
jwoodward48 wrote:
As for "the thing", you're describing storing corn when there's no demand. I'm talking about when there is demand but John Moneybags buys lots of it up to artificially raise scarcity, then sells it at a great profit.

Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. Restrict lobbyists and repeal Citizens United. Companies are not people. Money is not speech. What else is there to say?
Not much, unless you want to buy an ad.


Limits on ads can and should exist.

Are you suggesting placing a limit on speech? Who decides on that limit? You? Me? And on what basis?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
5. The first thing we do, let's kill all the conservatives. (Not serious. Quoting Shakespeare.)


"If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back. You have the same right to live and kill people as anybody else."

-- Malcom Reynolds, Firefly


It was a joke. I'm not proposing that anybody be killed. Or locked up for what they support, unlike Tai. I'm actually rather pacifist. No blood for oil, etc.


So you missed Firefly. Get the DVD and watch it. You might very well like that show.


The Parrot Killer
08-10-2016 22:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I get rich, I'll pay my taxes quite happily.

I plan on going into aerospace. Not quite sure which part. I'll be helping get mankind into SPACE. I'm quite excited about space, in case you can't tell.


Wait...aren't we already in space?


The Parrot Killer
08-10-2016 22:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If you mean "first steps", here's some things off the top of my head:

1. Raising the minimum wage keeps Wal-Mart and Co from building a consumer base of the poor, and also keeps them from taking advantage of the current half-arsed attempts at socialism that make up SocSec etc.

Interesting. So to move toward a system with no money, you would require price controls on wages?


Well, yeah. Giving everybody a decent living is a good first step for anybody. Stopping the exploitation of workers furthers the Communist cause. It also furthers the ethical cause.

But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
2. The subsidies. Especially oil. I'm not really sure what can be done about them, since a game of chicken never ends well, but this is a problem that needs to be dealt with - taxpayer money flowing into the pockets of the rich.

Do you know what subsidies the oil companies receive and what they're for? Did you know the largest subsidy is for the Home Energy Assistance Program which helps low income families pay their fuel bills?


I agree that taking it away could cause problems, yes.

a. Why don't we just leave it all to the free market, if what you say is true?
i. Because there's a problem.
ii. But I thought that the Free Market could do no wrong?
b. The rich companies are basically being convinced to not raise prices, via heavy application of taxpayer money. I see a problem with this.

The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.

Well, that and the money largely flows to the rich.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
3. Regulation on speculation and derivatives and that thing where you buy up all the, let's say, corn, and let it sit in a warehouse until prices go up. If capitalists are motivated to harm their own companies, then the last claim of capitalistic motivation eventually helping people is gone.

Food sitting around in a warehouse generally loses value the longer it sits. Corn, fortunately, can be canned or dried until use. Or would you rather see them throw it away (since no one needs it at the time)? Did you know the biggest speculators of corn are corn farmers? They plant the stuff, fertilize it, water it, harvest it, all of which cost money, hoping they'll be able to sell it at a profit.


When I say speculation and derivatives, I'm talking about people who can sabotage companies, who are basically placing bets on companies not doing well, and then making it so. That needs to be stopped.

It sound like you are against shorting a stock. You do realize, don't you, that people who short stocks have no control over the company they are shorting? It's a financial way of saying the way a company is run is bullshit.

If you have the ability to sabotage the company, then it's like betting that Major Horseracer won't win, and then crippling him. Otherwise, it's perfectly fine and I have no problem with it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
As for "the thing", you're describing storing corn when there's no demand. I'm talking about when there is demand but John Moneybags buys lots of it up to artificially raise scarcity, then sells it at a great profit.

Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

More like "there was never a problem", and I dispute that. Once I'm on my computer again, I can write a decent response.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. Restrict lobbyists and repeal Citizens United. Companies are not people. Money is not speech. What else is there to say?
Not much, unless you want to buy an ad.


Limits on ads can and should exist.

Are you suggesting placing a limit on speech? Who decides on that limit? You? Me? And on what basis?

I'm suggesting that corruption should be limited. Citizens United is just one of many ways that the wealthy few can influence politics far more than everyone else.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
5. The first thing we do, let's kill all the conservatives. (Not serious. Quoting Shakespeare.)


"If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back. You have the same right to live and kill people as anybody else."

-- Malcom Reynolds, Firefly


It was a joke. I'm not proposing that anybody be killed. Or locked up for what they support, unlike Tai. I'm actually rather pacifist. No blood for oil, etc.


So you missed Firefly. Get the DVD and watch it. You might very well like that show.


I think I might. I'm not sure what the quote means, though, without adequate context.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
08-10-2016 22:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
If I get rich, I'll pay my taxes quite happily.

I plan on going into aerospace. Not quite sure which part. I'll be helping get mankind into SPACE. I'm quite excited about space, in case you can't tell.


Wait...aren't we already in space?


We haven't even gotten past the Moon with anything but robots. How long has it been since we had a person on the Moon, anyway? To paraphrase a quote, the universe is littered with the single-planet graves of civilizations who decided that it was economically safer not to go to space, and studied by the civilizations who didn't.

Ever hear about Project Orion? What I wouldn't give to have had a part in its design...


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 11:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.

Well, that and the money largely flows to the rich.

??? Money is flowing to the POOR here. This is a government welfare program!
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

More like "there was never a problem", and I dispute that. Once I'm on my computer again, I can write a decent response.

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you missed Firefly. Get the DVD and watch it. You might very well like that show.


I think I might. I'm not sure what the quote means, though, without adequate context.


No real context needed. You missed the humor of my comment.

If you are curious, however, the statement comes from the episode 'Mrs. Reynolds'.


The Parrot Killer
09-10-2016 16:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.

Well, that and the money largely flows to the rich.

??? Money is flowing to the POOR here. This is a government welfare program!

I'm talking about giving the companies money so that they won't raise prices. Why don't they cut into their billions of dollars of profit to keep the prices low, instead of being bribed by the government, with taxpayer money, to do so?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

More like "there was never a problem", and I dispute that. Once I'm on my computer again, I can write a decent response.

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you missed Firefly. Get the DVD and watch it. You might very well like that show.


I think I might. I'm not sure what the quote means, though, without adequate context.


No real context needed. You missed the humor of my comment.

If you are curious, however, the statement comes from the episode 'Mrs. Reynolds'.


Sounds interesting. I think I'll watch it.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 19:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
jwoodward48 wrote:We currently depend on money.

We currently enjoy money. Anything that facilitates the adding of value to society through goods and services and strengthens the economy is a great thing.

Cavemen didn't have money. Today we do. Which world is better? Hmmmm?

You're right, we should return to the caveman world.

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.

" ... in the same way." Weaseling.

The bottom line is that Marxism hates nice things and consequently hates people who have nice things. People who are unwilling to add any value to society are heralded as saints while people with nice things are demonized.

"They don't NEED those nice things they have. Confiscate them!"

jwoodward48 wrote:it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

Who gets to determine what a "significant" amount is? Especially when there is no money for prices to be affected?

What is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely stores/stockpiles goods in anticipation of coming shortages?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2016 23:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.

Well, that and the money largely flows to the rich.

??? Money is flowing to the POOR here. This is a government welfare program!

I'm talking about giving the companies money so that they won't raise prices. Why don't they cut into their billions of dollars of profit to keep the prices low, instead of being bribed by the government, with taxpayer money, to do so?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

More like "there was never a problem", and I dispute that. Once I'm on my computer again, I can write a decent response.

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.

Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you missed Firefly. Get the DVD and watch it. You might very well like that show.


I think I might. I'm not sure what the quote means, though, without adequate context.


No real context needed. You missed the humor of my comment.

If you are curious, however, the statement comes from the episode 'Mrs. Reynolds'.


Sounds interesting. I think I'll watch it.

Enjoy!


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate What is this Church of Marxism?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Church of Global Warming Community630-10-2019 19:49
Marxism, Climate and Utter Dishonesty6401-10-2019 06:40
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
Amy Kloubuchar uses snow to prove there is climate change. Now that's top level Marxism.613-02-2019 23:05
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact