Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Northshore parents are reporting...
Comments
-
Do you feel that the rising cost of a college education is somehow the fault of capitalism Dazzler?HHusky said:
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.creepycoug said:
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it. -
Sorry, I responded to him before seeing your post.Houhusky said:
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?HHusky said:
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.creepycoug said:
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it. -
It's also the fault of both political parties restraining the futures of many young people by insisting they go to college, or else spend their lives in poverty. If people only knew how much union iron workers, glaziers and electricians earned, they'd be shocked.SFGbob said:
Do you feel that the rising cost of a college education is somehow the fault of capitalism Dazzler?HHusky said:
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.creepycoug said:
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it. -
Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?HHusky said:
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?Houhusky said:
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?HHusky said:
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.creepycoug said:
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it. -
I guess you forgot that the capitalists of our era heavily subsidized our education. Of course, that wasn't the only thing I cited, but you don't really want a conversation, blob.SFGbob said:
Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?HHusky said:
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?Houhusky said:
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?HHusky said:
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.creepycoug said:
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it. -
Citation pleaseHHusky said:
I guess you forgot that the capitalists of our era heavily subsidized our education. Of course, that wasn't the only thing I cited, but you don't really want a conversation, blob.SFGbob said:
Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?HHusky said:
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?Houhusky said:
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?HHusky said:
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.creepycoug said:
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
It didn't cost less because it was subsidized
Good grief -
No, obviously it wasn't subsidized. The UW was making a killing on our $180/quarter.RaceBannon said:
Citation pleaseHHusky said:
I guess you forgot that the capitalists of our era heavily subsidized our education. Of course, that wasn't the only thing I cited, but you don't really want a conversation, blob.SFGbob said:
Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?HHusky said:
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?Houhusky said:
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?HHusky said:
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.creepycoug said:
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
It didn't cost less because it was subsidized
Good grief -
Sigh
-
Penalties and court fees are 3 to 4 times the fine amount.WestlinnDuck said:
Public highways built by private labor by the lowest bidder was an efficient regulatory project until the tax revenue was captured by big money, big labor. Now we get expensive trains to nowhere, dangerous public transportation and the outlawing of ride sharing in Cali. Basic traffic rules need to be enforced but now we have the traffic cops being treated as a revenue system with fines and penalties out of synch with reality.creepycoug said:
But capitalism is laissez-faire. That is its intellectual essence. Of course we make exceptions and dabble in socialist policy (and of course when we do that it's almost always fraught with inefficiency, but that's another chat). But to support capitalism is to support liberty and freedom for markets to work things out. Regulation is necessary on the margins. Most people acknowledge that. But it's always a question of degree and necessesity. In the end, though, to believe in capitalism is to believe in allowing markets to work as free from external interference as possible.HHusky said:
Perhaps you missed the TugCon memo. When they say capitalism, they're talking laissez-faire. Anything less is socialism.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Who said unfettered? The point is that even Communist China can thank countless ventures into capitalism for boosting nearly a billion people into the middle class.HHusky said:
China is your example of unfettered capitalism?GreenRiverGatorz said:
Not even the Chinese would agree with you.HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Good luck with that. -
Hahaha yeah, you're a real Montesquieu. It's clear to everyone here.HHusky said:
Please. I was a Kane Hall intellectual before your mothers even made their withdrawal at the sperm bank.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Poont of clarity, I do actually love freedom for its own sake. Capitalism is basically freedom of commerce.creepycoug said:
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Despite the Dazzlers desperate attempts at a straw man even I have talked about negative externalities and the role of government in mitigating them.(A term which the dazzler previously didn't know until reading it here).
It was definitely wise to let him open his mouth and prove what a fucking fool he is. Good advice @creepycoug -
NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1 -
God I love her.pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1 -
How come yours and the looneytoon lefts possition is for massive disincentivization? Help us understand what is gained by that?HHusky said:
Flat taxers are morons. You can get the tax code to incentivize and disincentivize all sorts of things when you're not a simpleton.SFGbob said:
And by "barely taxed" the Dazzler is referring to tax rate of 25%.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well. -
HHusky said:
I'd do fine in your system and my tax cut would be enormous. But being conservative also means living in hard-headed reality. Limited government isn't ever coming back. Maybe you'd still want small government even if you could foresee what it would necessarily mean, and I'd love to know which entitlements you advocate we default on. But 90% of Daddy's base would run like Hell from your small government. So short of your vision being imposed upon us by an outside force, it isn't happening.SFGbob said:
You could always cut spending and live with in your means of what a 25% tax rate would provide. I want limited government. Unlike you I'm a real conservative and not a fucking fraud like you.HHusky said:
So you want just a top rate of 25%? The middle class will get to make up the difference. The poor don't have the money.SFGbob said:
Who said 25% for everyone my strawman ass fucking Kunt of friend? Taxing anyone at 25% isn't "barely taxing" them. You're a stupid as you are dishonest Dazzler.HHusky said:
25% for everyone is barely taxed for the most well off of us. We're not heavily taxed now.SFGbob said:
Which does nothing to address your fucking lie about people here are advocating for a "barely taxed" completely unregulated form of Capitalism. But I hope your strawman ass fuck makes your feel better Dazzler.HHusky said:
Flat taxers are morons. You can get the tax code to incentivize and disincentivize all sorts of things when you're not a simpleton.SFGbob said:
And by "barely taxed" the Dazzler is referring to tax rate of 25%.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I'd like to be able to fly unassisted, but I don't pretend or base my politics in anticipation that it will ever happen.
Bullshit.
-
HHusky in this thread:
-
The ones "with" Covid. About 175,000. Try to keep up.HHusky said:
Bullshit? What deaths are we talking about then?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
I support progressive taxation but you're still pompous and bought the China Flu bullshit hook, line, and sinker. Now you cheer deaths.HHusky said:
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.creepycoug said:
Then what does?HHusky said:
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?pawz said:
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.HHusky said:Time to suggest equal time for the other side?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
Fat, drunk and incoherent is no way to go through life, son. -
THIS thread???Swaye said:HHusky in this thread:
-
So, a 5?pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1
Only on a scale of 1 to 4. She’s spactacular. And those mo fos are fucking for reelz. -
Me too. Good Lord she’s unbelievably hot.UW_Doog_Bot said:
God I love her.pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1 -
Wokes can be pretty hot too:
-
This is literally the only thing that saved this abortion of a thread.pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1 -
Total girl next door that knows how to do stuff.....creepycoug said:
Me too. Good Lord she’s unbelievably hot.UW_Doog_Bot said:
God I love her.pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1
-
UW_Doog_Bot said:
God I love her.pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1creepycoug said:
So, a 5?pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1
Only on a scale of 1 to 4. She’s spactacular. And those mo fos are fucking for reelz.creepycoug said:
Me too. Good Lord she’s unbelievably hot.UW_Doog_Bot said:
God I love her.pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1
I don't fundamentally believe in a 10. It's a mythical moving target.
But Gawt Damm... She's as close as it comes to a total dime-piece as it get.
I would never leave the house.
A 5 or 6? Insanity.
Or prefers skinflute. NTTIAWWT
-
Butt stuff?PurpleThrobber said:
Total girl next door that knows how to do stuff.....creepycoug said:
Me too. Good Lord she’s unbelievably hot.UW_Doog_Bot said:
God I love her.pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1
-
All the stuff.Pitchfork51 said:
Butt stuff?PurpleThrobber said:
Total girl next door that knows how to do stuff.....creepycoug said:
Me too. Good Lord she’s unbelievably hot.UW_Doog_Bot said:
God I love her.pawz said:NorthwestFresh said:
She’s a 5 without the tits and a 6 with them. Let’s see the belly and ass.pawz said:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/75044/urgent-message-for-the-bored/p1
