Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
income inequality
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="thaumaturgy" data-source="post: 59688278" data-attributes="member: 169303"><p>I am still wondering <em>where you got the requirement</em>. Just telling me that some unnamed great mind said it doesn't = an answer to my query.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>So sad. You made a statement and now you can't even be bothered to back it up. (Look, I'd be glad for you to show me your sources, I'm not saying I'm perfectly right...I'm just saying that taking <em>your</em> word for it isn't doing much to impress me.)</p><p> </p><p>The fact that you look down your nose at research is sad, though. That is my life (that's why I cite references on here ad nauseam). But it's not for everyone. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>FYI: I don't need to defend <em>your </em>points.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Actually, again, you are factually in error. Here's a bit of logic:</p><p> </p><p>It is possible to be <em>both a capitalist and a thug</em>. One can <strong><em>also be a capitalist and NOT a thug</em></strong>.</p><p> </p><p>I think I have been quite clear on this point. I have never said that they were equivalent so, by definition, I could not be "confusing" them.</p><p> </p><p>If you found a post in which I equated all capitalism with thuggery without caveat, then please post it.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Oh then you'll have to take it up with economists.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Is that not implied in #2? But OK I'll agree.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Hmmmm, now that I won't necessarily agree with because I have not seen a definition of capitalism in which "ownership of the individual" and "rights to life and liberty" are necessary.</p><p> </p><p>Please provide a source for this. (It is, after all, your point). And note my later discussion of labor vs capital in the capital system.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><strong>I am a professional research scientist</strong>. When I debate someone I <em>expect</em> that person to at least be able to support <em>their own points</em>.</p><p> </p><p>(Again, this is why I provide citations, because I could always be in error. It is part of the "code of conduct" most of us who live in research live with. As an alternative example, I am currently taking patent classes, one of the things one does is answer patent examiners "rejections". This is done methodically and requires citations and explanations. One usually does this by referencing the appropriate portions of the Code of Federal Regulations, the US Code and the MPEP as well as, on occasion, some specific case law. Then one may also cite <em>specific portions of a patent used in a traverse</em>. "Col 2 Lines 3-15 clearly state..."</p><p> </p><p>If one were to use <em>your</em> approach and just make <em>ex cathedra statements</em> then they would likely fail to prove their point and ultimately lose the patent.</p><p> </p><p>Oh, but you in an earlier post told me all about "inventors" in the U.S. So I'm assuming you know all about this already!</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Contract law is a rather detailed set of regulations and law.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Take that Teddy Roosevelt and the entire first couple decades of the 20th century! You guys did it all wrong! ChildofGod can see that clearly now almost 100 years later!</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>That sounds a lot like equivocation. In providing "protection" to Company Y you are, by definition, keeping Company X from doing something with its own capital.</p><p> </p><p>Let's talk details:</p><p> </p><p>Company X and Company Y make widgets. Company X is big and decides that Company Y needs to be taken out. So Company X, who can afford to do so, lowers their prices and sells widgets at a persona loss to themselves but at prices that Company Y cannot do.</p><p> </p><p>Now, company X cannot sell these things forever at a loss, just long enough to drive Company Y out of business. AFter that COmpany X can jack up the prices even higher and make more profit.</p><p> </p><p>This is called <strong>DUMPING</strong>. And there legal actions that companies can take in the U.S. on this particular anti-competitive action.</p><p> </p><p>BUT you want to protect Company Y. So you basically say to Company X "You do <em>not</em> have the right to set your prices as you wish". It protects Company Y by putting a restraint on Company X.</p><p> </p><p>There are many "anti-competitive" practices which are enforced in this country. But note how they put restrictions on how a given company can run itself.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>So are you extending "law" to mean just any set of interactions? I don't understand why you would keep bringing up "caveman" stories when we are discussing legislation.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>What does that mean? "through the initiation of force"? Which law specifically are you talking about? (Go ahead and give me the CFR chapter and section I can look it up).</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Ummmm, actually no, you can't. That's called "price fixing" and is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust act (codified in , <span style="color: black">15U.S.C. §§ 17 )</span></p><p> </p><p>(Hint: you might want to familiarize yourself with the law before you, um, go out and do any more business.)</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No worries.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Didn't you even have to write a research paper in school? You <em>can</em> cite certain chapters or pages. You don't have to type the whole thing out.</p><p> </p><p>-sigh-</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No, the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Do I have to provide a citation for <em>that</em> too?</p><p> </p><p>OK:</p><p> </p><p>The No True Scotsman Fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity when making an argument.</p><p> </p><p>Example and explanation:</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Sadly that option is not open to a lot of industry. Walmar is enormous. And in some industries if you don't deal with Walmart as your channel you don't get to play very long. </p><p> </p><p>In some small towns (like my hometown) Wal Mart has effectively shut down the downtown and now everyone has to buy everything at Wal Mart...or have to drive 60 miles round trip to Springfield.</p><p> </p><p>So you have your "ideals", but your ideals would see your company bankrupt in a short while.</p><p> </p><p>Oh yeah, and Wal Mart isn't doing anything "wrong" here. In fact obviously they've played the capitalism game quite well.</p><p> </p><p>They've effectively amassed capital and without undertaking anticompetitive positions (apparently) have been able to almost single-handed decimate the "free market" in small towns across the U.S.</p><p> </p><p>Maybe you haven't seen the newspapers for a couple decades.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Ummm, no, that isn't really it. They just control <em>so much of the market</em> through quite legal means that if you don't do business with Wal Mart you lose a huge bit of access to the market.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No. Wal Mart lays the conditions out, you take them or leave them. End of story. Wal Mart doesn't need <em>your</em> widgets, they will find someone to sell them widgets who will be more "driven" than you and who will take the terms.</p><p> </p><p>You lose.</p><p> </p><p>No "negotiation" there.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Wow! So you haven't seen <em>any</em> of the news reports about how companies deal with Wal Mart?</p><p> </p><p>Huffy</p><p>Mr. Coffee</p><p>Rubbermaid</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>That's called an <strong>ideal</strong> and I very much agree with the wonderfulness of that ideal. But that isn't how the market is set up to work now.</p><p> </p><p>Guess you'll have to impose some laws on Wal Mart and how they do business, huh?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>When you strip away the "reality" of the situation and put it like that you make it sound so simple! </p><p> </p><p>But again, in many areas Wal Mart <em>is</em> the market. It is the only source for goods in some towns. Economies of scale allow Wal Mart to decimate small towns (like my hometown) and destroy a once thriving downtown area of small shops. </p><p> </p><p>My mom lived in my hometown til the day she died. And she <em>tried</em> to keep from shopping for everything at Wal Mart but after a while that meant basically going to Wal Mart for most things, and the Dollar Store where she could. Or driving 60 miles round trip to go to some other store in Springfield.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No, no it wouldn't. I work for a Fortune 100 company. We have had extremely high priced CEOs in the past and guess what: we <em>fought</em> to get some of our products in the Wal Mart channel. Now we are much safer because we are so huge, but Wal Mart is a <strong>huge market</strong>. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Ummmm, I don't think so. It's covered in 29 USC Chapter 15. Occupational Safety and Health.</p><p> </p><p>Contract law is covered under 41 USC.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No one is hiding any details in this matter. That's why 29 USC exists. I don't see your connection between 41 USC and 29 USC. Care to "flesh that out", Learned Hand?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>To some extent I will agree with you on this point. Prop 95 in California takes it a bit too far with regards to warnings. But generally, since I work in many places that are quite dangerous I'm happy with <em>erring on the side of safety</em>.</p><p> </p><p>What kind of workplaces do you spend time in?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Spoken like someone whose never had to move a 5' tall compressed gas tank around a lab or someone whose never had to get liquid nitrogen out of a giant tank the size of a semi-truck, or someone whose never walked around a paper mill floor with a 40 ton roll of paper swinging overhead.</p><p> </p><p>Ahhh, it must be nice to work in "safe" places. But you can thank those of us who take the jobs in dangerous places. (And even I didn't work in the really nasty places like my wife did! When she was in environmental geology she worked at some scary places like refineries --sometimes those explode-- or hazardous waste sites --those had to be cleaned up because they presented a health hazard, silly laws and all.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="thaumaturgy, post: 59688278, member: 169303"] I am still wondering [I]where you got the requirement[/I]. Just telling me that some unnamed great mind said it doesn't = an answer to my query. So sad. You made a statement and now you can't even be bothered to back it up. (Look, I'd be glad for you to show me your sources, I'm not saying I'm perfectly right...I'm just saying that taking [I]your[/I] word for it isn't doing much to impress me.) The fact that you look down your nose at research is sad, though. That is my life (that's why I cite references on here ad nauseam). But it's not for everyone. FYI: I don't need to defend [I]your [/I]points. Actually, again, you are factually in error. Here's a bit of logic: It is possible to be [I]both a capitalist and a thug[/I]. One can [B][I]also be a capitalist and NOT a thug[/I][/B]. I think I have been quite clear on this point. I have never said that they were equivalent so, by definition, I could not be "confusing" them. If you found a post in which I equated all capitalism with thuggery without caveat, then please post it. Oh then you'll have to take it up with economists. Is that not implied in #2? But OK I'll agree. Hmmmm, now that I won't necessarily agree with because I have not seen a definition of capitalism in which "ownership of the individual" and "rights to life and liberty" are necessary. Please provide a source for this. (It is, after all, your point). And note my later discussion of labor vs capital in the capital system. [B]I am a professional research scientist[/B]. When I debate someone I [I]expect[/I] that person to at least be able to support [I]their own points[/I]. (Again, this is why I provide citations, because I could always be in error. It is part of the "code of conduct" most of us who live in research live with. As an alternative example, I am currently taking patent classes, one of the things one does is answer patent examiners "rejections". This is done methodically and requires citations and explanations. One usually does this by referencing the appropriate portions of the Code of Federal Regulations, the US Code and the MPEP as well as, on occasion, some specific case law. Then one may also cite [I]specific portions of a patent used in a traverse[/I]. "Col 2 Lines 3-15 clearly state..." If one were to use [I]your[/I] approach and just make [I]ex cathedra statements[/I] then they would likely fail to prove their point and ultimately lose the patent. Oh, but you in an earlier post told me all about "inventors" in the U.S. So I'm assuming you know all about this already! Contract law is a rather detailed set of regulations and law. Take that Teddy Roosevelt and the entire first couple decades of the 20th century! You guys did it all wrong! ChildofGod can see that clearly now almost 100 years later! That sounds a lot like equivocation. In providing "protection" to Company Y you are, by definition, keeping Company X from doing something with its own capital. Let's talk details: Company X and Company Y make widgets. Company X is big and decides that Company Y needs to be taken out. So Company X, who can afford to do so, lowers their prices and sells widgets at a persona loss to themselves but at prices that Company Y cannot do. Now, company X cannot sell these things forever at a loss, just long enough to drive Company Y out of business. AFter that COmpany X can jack up the prices even higher and make more profit. This is called [B]DUMPING[/B]. And there legal actions that companies can take in the U.S. on this particular anti-competitive action. BUT you want to protect Company Y. So you basically say to Company X "You do [I]not[/I] have the right to set your prices as you wish". It protects Company Y by putting a restraint on Company X. There are many "anti-competitive" practices which are enforced in this country. But note how they put restrictions on how a given company can run itself. So are you extending "law" to mean just any set of interactions? I don't understand why you would keep bringing up "caveman" stories when we are discussing legislation. What does that mean? "through the initiation of force"? Which law specifically are you talking about? (Go ahead and give me the CFR chapter and section I can look it up). Ummmm, actually no, you can't. That's called "price fixing" and is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust act (codified in , [COLOR=black]15U.S.C. §§ 17 )[/COLOR] (Hint: you might want to familiarize yourself with the law before you, um, go out and do any more business.) No worries. Didn't you even have to write a research paper in school? You [I]can[/I] cite certain chapters or pages. You don't have to type the whole thing out. -sigh- No, the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Do I have to provide a citation for [I]that[/I] too? OK: The No True Scotsman Fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity when making an argument. Example and explanation: Sadly that option is not open to a lot of industry. Walmar is enormous. And in some industries if you don't deal with Walmart as your channel you don't get to play very long. In some small towns (like my hometown) Wal Mart has effectively shut down the downtown and now everyone has to buy everything at Wal Mart...or have to drive 60 miles round trip to Springfield. So you have your "ideals", but your ideals would see your company bankrupt in a short while. Oh yeah, and Wal Mart isn't doing anything "wrong" here. In fact obviously they've played the capitalism game quite well. They've effectively amassed capital and without undertaking anticompetitive positions (apparently) have been able to almost single-handed decimate the "free market" in small towns across the U.S. Maybe you haven't seen the newspapers for a couple decades. Ummm, no, that isn't really it. They just control [I]so much of the market[/I] through quite legal means that if you don't do business with Wal Mart you lose a huge bit of access to the market. No. Wal Mart lays the conditions out, you take them or leave them. End of story. Wal Mart doesn't need [I]your[/I] widgets, they will find someone to sell them widgets who will be more "driven" than you and who will take the terms. You lose. No "negotiation" there. Wow! So you haven't seen [I]any[/I] of the news reports about how companies deal with Wal Mart? Huffy Mr. Coffee Rubbermaid That's called an [B]ideal[/B] and I very much agree with the wonderfulness of that ideal. But that isn't how the market is set up to work now. Guess you'll have to impose some laws on Wal Mart and how they do business, huh? When you strip away the "reality" of the situation and put it like that you make it sound so simple! But again, in many areas Wal Mart [I]is[/I] the market. It is the only source for goods in some towns. Economies of scale allow Wal Mart to decimate small towns (like my hometown) and destroy a once thriving downtown area of small shops. My mom lived in my hometown til the day she died. And she [I]tried[/I] to keep from shopping for everything at Wal Mart but after a while that meant basically going to Wal Mart for most things, and the Dollar Store where she could. Or driving 60 miles round trip to go to some other store in Springfield. No, no it wouldn't. I work for a Fortune 100 company. We have had extremely high priced CEOs in the past and guess what: we [I]fought[/I] to get some of our products in the Wal Mart channel. Now we are much safer because we are so huge, but Wal Mart is a [B]huge market[/B]. Ummmm, I don't think so. It's covered in 29 USC Chapter 15. Occupational Safety and Health. Contract law is covered under 41 USC. No one is hiding any details in this matter. That's why 29 USC exists. I don't see your connection between 41 USC and 29 USC. Care to "flesh that out", Learned Hand? To some extent I will agree with you on this point. Prop 95 in California takes it a bit too far with regards to warnings. But generally, since I work in many places that are quite dangerous I'm happy with [I]erring on the side of safety[/I]. What kind of workplaces do you spend time in? Spoken like someone whose never had to move a 5' tall compressed gas tank around a lab or someone whose never had to get liquid nitrogen out of a giant tank the size of a semi-truck, or someone whose never walked around a paper mill floor with a 40 ton roll of paper swinging overhead. Ahhh, it must be nice to work in "safe" places. But you can thank those of us who take the jobs in dangerous places. (And even I didn't work in the really nasty places like my wife did! When she was in environmental geology she worked at some scary places like refineries --sometimes those explode-- or hazardous waste sites --those had to be cleaned up because they presented a health hazard, silly laws and all.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
income inequality
Top
Bottom