Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. What's not know is IF these States wouldn't have a higher minimum wage anyway. Most people are only on minimum wage for 18 months of less.  The high wage in the USA is the reason why most of our products are made in China. The increase in minimum wages on  military bases to $10.10 (executive order) has just resulted in most of the fast food restaurants closing down.  The increase in minimum wage will work it's way through the economy and everything will cost more - thus, the people who lose their jobs, get the higher prices, but no job and no increase in weekly pay. The solution is to decrease the number of laborers. Reduce the supply of labor and increase the demand and the price of labor will go up. This means deregulating the markets gasp so that they're FREE for people to trade with one another and create their own jobs. End all of these unconstitutional laws (recreational drug laws, licencing, and on and on it goes).  If find it insulting that an adult can prepare food for an infant, or for other adults at a party (many whom he has never met) for free. But charge $1 and you suddenly 'break the law'. They pretend it's for our safety. It's not, it's all about taxation by the State. Money and power. The second part of the solution is to bring in Charter Schools to out compete poorly run Government Schools through competition for tuition and teach children to create a job and be an owner - not the worker cog factories Government schools presently represent.
    1
  2. RobbenUlaynov Not for the workers who are fired or replaced by automation. They get no increase in pay - actually, a decrease in pay. Right down to zero. But they do get the higher prices inflation brings. This compounds the problem because it increases unemployed and (again) over supplies the labor force driving DOWN the price for labor. I'd even argue it acts to reduce the overall quality of work that's being performed. I know a lot of highly qualified people who never get to work as hard as they'd like. Yes, that's true. They just can't find a job to reach their potential within and the regulations make it near impossible to open competing businesses (in many cases). Lots of productive PhD's sitting around doing nothing - or driving a cab with an MD. It's crazy. The ONLY way you're going to clean up Government schools is by allowing the administrators to fire under performing teachers and replace them with high achieving teachers who actually want to teach - this is never going to happen. I know a lot of teachers who just quit - not because they hate teaching, but because they love teaching. I've known of many, nearly functionally illiterate teachers, who speak with just horrible slang (making grammatical mistakes per sentence) that are highly successful in Government school systems (for various reasons).  The only solution is to out compete them. 
    1
  3. porcupineracer2 That's a great way to stay poor. Prices rise and your meager wage rises with it. Keeping you poor. The solution is to eliminate regulations the prevent adults from free trading with one another using sound money, law, contract, and property rights. Reduce the labor supply - only then will the demand for labor hours drive up the price of labor. As long as their's an over supply of labor hours, the price of labor per hour will remain low. You can raise the minimum wage - but that will cause inflation and very soon the gains are lost. Worse still, those without a job are stuck with huge inflation. Those on pensions or meager savings they're trying to retire on - they see those wiped out. A life time of work, gone in a few years of inflation. Look at the horror that is the price of University. Or medical bills. No, the only long lasting solution is deregulation and charter schools that teach children to BE owners, not workers. But, this will never happen - Americans hate freedom.
    1
  4. Shoregrey Businesses don't control inflation. The total money supply determines the price of items. The federal reserve manipulates the price of money through interest rates and in this way has some control over the total supply of money and thus inflation. But, think about this. There's roughly $13 trillion dollars held outside the USA. If that money entered the USA economy - we'd see serious hyper inflation. Not because business would 'want' to increase prices - they'd HAVE to increase prices or sell out of everything. Think about the price of blue berries. The 'greed' of the store owner doesn't fluctuate across the year. But, like clockwork, the price of blue berries goes down when they come into season (increase in supply) and increase when they go out of season. Simple supply and demand. The SAME is true of money itself. When a bank is 'low' on money - they increase their own interest rate - this means YOU are charging THEM more for your money - not because you suddenly became more greedy, but because your money became scarce. So, you were able to command more interest - and were happy to delay spending your money to gain that interest.  See? The State has totally wrecked our economy. Utterly regulated, distorted, an d f*cked our entire society. 
    1
  5. Seymour Butts That's not an argument. It's not even to the level of an ad hominem. I don't care if you're an "Economist" or not (appeal to authority fallacy much?). The Federal Reserve is full of 'Economists' - all of whom didn't see the housing bubble and GFC until it was too late.  As for my profession, I'm a medical research doctor. We actually do "science". As in, we apply the scientific method pre hoc, with control and repetion. Unlike, say, post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacious "forecast" modeling. Aka, economics. Aka, a weak branch of behavior psychology.  I doubt you're an 'economist' - as the example I posted can be read in an Econ 101 text book. 
    1
  6. Seymour Butts I feel sorry for your wife. Going by her choice of husband, I'm going to assume she's a technician.  The scientific method requites that anyone can conduct and repeat your experiment, with control and do so any time in the future. Modeling past events is not science. Which is why the economists working for the Federal Reserve "forecast" future events. From their pathetic modeling. Evidenced by the numerous QE. I suggest you make an attempt to read David Hume and the Problem of Induction.  Oh, and an ad hominem is fallacious reasoning. In and of itself it is not an argument. If so, it would be invalid and unsound. I'm going to also assume you don't understand basic logic and probably have no clue as to what an argument even is, let alone the skill to construct one. Oh, don't bother writing a reply. It'll be deleted without being read. I gave you an opportunity to craft an argument, you replied with word spaghetti the level a 12 year old child could pick apart. Have a nice weekend. 
    1
  7. mars Cubed Why did you pick Northern Europe and not Southern Europe? The only sound economical means to raise wages is to increase demand for labor hours. Low minimum wage has lifted 100s of millions of Chinese out of poverty. Low minimum wages made Singapore and Hong Kong into economic power houses. A couple more points, (1) no one can know what the correct amount per hour is required for each business as each business is unique (2) the average time spent on minimum wage is 18 months. Lastly, you like Europe so much - good, move.
    1
  8. mars Cubed Greece does not have a deregulated financial system and it was the State and it's fiat currency, central bank and idiot public that bankrupted them and us.  It's funny you bring up Singapore - why not bring up China before they were capitalistic? Or North vs South Korea? Or East vs West Germany. The fact is Singaporeans OWN their own property and it's a hard working culture of capitalists.  We don't live in this magical free market world you want to blame. We live in State-run Central Banking Oligarchies with massive amounts of interference into the free market (that is to say freedom to trade) with Central Government regulations, tax incentives, licencing schemes etc.... We're as far from a free market as one can get and still have a facade of being a free society.  Anyway, you needn't worry, we're not about to break free of our hyper regulated tax pen any time too soon. Oh, and I'm one of your highly paid State certified regulators - lucky you huh?
    1
  9. Seymour Butts Just where the hell do you think medical researchers work? We work in medical programs - where we qualify new medical doctors. No one is allowed to practice Medicine in the USA unless they have a licence. How do you think qualification comes about? By us. We determine who is or is not qualified to practice. We regulate the healthcare industry and certify MD.  That thing you worship and call "Government" is actually just a collection of people - just like Koch Industries, Apple or Sony. The only difference is, unlike Apple iPod, there is no alternative State. You will either meet our regulations or you simply won't practice. Well, I suppose you could try to practice without our licence - and the State will put you in a cage. And this is exactly what you want. You want people like me to do the thinking and play the role of your Regulator. And you want to play your part as Regulated tax chattel. I believe the free market would provide much better certifications compared with State regulatory agencies. Even now, healthcare is the #3 reason you will die in the USA. Imagine cities the size of Atlanta being nuked each year. That's how many Americans die from their healthcare - as in, they go in to a hospital, something goes wrong, they die. Which is just exactly how you like it. Well, you're in luck. Because that's the way things are and will be for the remainder of your life.
    1
  10. Seymour Butts Your 'argument' is to find a typo? That's pathetic. If you're a middle schooler, you should be able to formulate a proper argument by now. I was assuming you were in high school at least. Or perhaps you had an arts degree from a low level college, possibly a C rank university. Either way these are the facts: As of now you have no idea what logic is, what empirical means, it's difference with rationalism, how to form an argument, the difference between formal and informal logical fallacies, deduction versus induction or have you probably read anything by any of the great thinkers. My advice to you is to watch TV and vote for the political representatives on said TV. Do what you're told to do by your bosses. Think what you are told to think by the general consensus. Simple people should stick to what they're good at - finding typos and feeling proud at having done so. Enjoy your week :) Oh, and stop pestering me with your dribble, I'm simply going to delete any further replies from you as they are a waste of time to read. I'll call my secretary if I need my typos fixed. PS: Here's a parting gift to leave on good terms; "non-sense" is spelt as such: 'nonsense'. 
    1
  11. I find it interesting that when the numbers suggest jobs are being created (last month) David praises Dear Leader (as if public servants create anything other than more paper work) but when the job numbers crater its "the weathers" fault. Thanks to millions and millions of taxes and regulations (as well as litigious America) new business startup is at a 30 year low. That has NOTHING to do with the weather or Oblahma.
    1
  12. Then New York and California would always pick the winner. There'd be no need to pretend like Democracy works for the mid-western States with small populations. A much better approach would be to put Washington back in it's box (it's nearly useless anyway), end DC's phoney wars on 'terror', end DC's use of the "Patriot" Act and DC's NSA spying and stop bailing out the New York Banks and return the power to the States where it's closer to the people who elect their civil servants.
    1
  13. We do NOT have a 'major infrastructure' problem in the US. The US has some of the best infrastructure in the world. This is just more BS coming out of the left for more overpaid, bloatware-Unioned 'Make Work" projects and their Crony-Capitalistic Oligarch families who stand to make 100s of millions out of this scam.
    1
  14. The answer is simple deregulation of health-care so that people can compete in a free market. For example, it should be legal to buy the medicine online. The Government also limits the number of services (like hospitals or fMRI services per city so that the current market players are profitable) that's the sort of crony regulated unfree markets we need to end. Its closer to Fascism than free market capitalism.
    1
  15. BernieSandersenEspañol Given healthcare is not a free market, you're only making a supposition. If Universal single payer works better, why does Australia have a thriving Private health insurance and Private hospital industry out-competing the 'free' Public run one? Why does Canada make Private illegal?  If you think single payer is better, then come up with an insurance program that provides such great value for money that you put all of these other poorly run insurance companies out of business. In short, you're 'Magic Thinking" and probably have no idea about how medicine works or how NON-FREE market healthcare is in the USA. I've personally known patients who were advised to remain OUT of the public hospital at risk to their lives in order to wait for a private bed space to open up. That's how bad the Single Payer System works - it's shit. Just like all Government run institutions.  
    1
  16. BernieSandersenEspañol I've lived in 3 countries with public private insurance - one of them being AU. I also work in the medical industry training medical doctors. I am also a doctor. You're clueless. Firstly, the USA does NOT have free-market anything. There are no free-markets in the USA. One of the most regulated markets in the USA is healthcare. Which is why it's so expensive. Japan also has mixed public private, we flew there from 'free' Australia and paid for private a few years ago. The price in AU for "free" single payer was HIGHER than in Japan under private.  Again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. That's the problem with you people. You just want 'free'. Free free free. Single payer sounds cheap and free, so you want that. In the real world people are paid or they don't work. Pay them shit, they work like shit. That's the way it goes.  So, one solution in the USA is single payer AND private - that way there at least some semblance of competition pulling down the price of private. As for public, well, at least it will be "free" - so you'll get your wish. 
    1
  17. BernieSandersenEspañol Yes, we agree, free markets don't exist. But when we move away from regulated markets towards freer markets life is better. As an example: Uber vs regulated Taxi medallions. Another example is Midwives vs Obstetrics. The AMA in the USA actually attempted to make midwifery illegal using regulatory liscences even though midwifes have been shown to scientifically provide better services (you're more likely to have a live healthy baby at the end of the delivery with a midwife).  Again, the person who doesn't know what they're talking about is YOU. People like you just want 'free'. Well, I'm okay with YOU paying for your free out of your tax. I on the other hand will pay for my healthcare via private insurance. You go to public. I go to private. It's that simple. You pay your way. I'll pay my way. That way when obese Americans start cutting into your 'free' healthcare with their $1 million dollar surgeries - YOU can pay more tax to pay for it, or as is happening in AU, cut back on schooling and other services. See, this is what you people and your magic thinking don't get - someone either pays, or you lose more public services, like university and K - 12 (as IS happening in AU to pay for all the 'free' healthcare). 
    1
  18. BernieSandersenEspañol One last point. Do you think monopolies are good for society? If no, then you shouldn't support a single payer monopoly on healthcare. All that happens is the prices goes up and quality goes down. What works best is competition. In the USA, the AMA has a god like monopoly on who can practice. They also use governmental agencies for regulatory capture and rent-seeking in their control of all services. THE problem is this monopoly, the solution is free markets. Anyway, you'll see. Just wait until one day you have to go to a public hospital and a completely incompetent public doctor is about to operate on you. While you may think this doesn't happen - it happens ALL the time. It's just that you don't know what your'e talking about, because you are completely clueless. You just want 'free' and 'cheap'. Like a child. 
    1
  19. BernieSandersenEspañol Firstly, most of those third world was and has been in the third world thousands of years. Secondly, the third world is not an example of free market capitalism. Most of those countries are run by dictators. Socialism creates third world nations: Communist China, North Korea, East Germany, the USSR, modern day Cuba, modern day Venezuela. Compare those with Japan, Taiwan, West Germany, South Korea, Hong Kong and modern day capitalistic China.  Free markets have lifted 100s of millions of Chinese out of poverty and is lifting millions of other people out of poverty as well. China is expected to be the richest nation in the world by 2030 thanks to a lean towards free market capitalism and away from socialism. Again, you're simply babbling. The USA is LESS free market than most Scandinavian and Asian countries. I find life to be much freer in Japan than the USA in terms of economic freedom. And even more free in China. The USA is one of the most regulated unfree markets in the world. And worse, it's run by crony bankers.  Oh well - somethings you just have to experience. That's when your magic thinking faces reality and you'll then understand that free people and free markets with sound capital are best for society. Government run monopolies are good for one people: Crony well connected (often rich) liars. 
    1
  20. BernieSandersenEspañol The numbers show you are wrong. Communism in China starved 30 million humans to death - the largest death toll in history. Capitalism has lifted 100s of millions out of poverty. I do agree 'some' markets are State managed - and those tend to be the inefficient markets and are usually (eventually) privatized because they're so inefficient.  Markets are not de facto 'unfree'. The word "market" is just an analogy for free people freely trading with one another. So long as there is rule of law and sound money, most people will choose to make Win-Win trades which create prosperity for everyone. This is economics 101.  As for Japan, I've lived in Japan and I have family in Japan. Japan is not a tinderbox. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Japan is probably the safest society I've ever lived in or visited (and I've been to both China and Russia). The people are hardworking and honest. Yes, there are structural problems due to the large population of aged people - but that's just the way things are. Germany and Italy have even LESS children. Russia and China are following suite. Japanese are dealing with it head-on instead of bringing in large numbers of migrants (one day they'll be old too and this only delays the problem as well as creating other problems due to cultural differences).  As for healthcare, I actually work in the industry. I also have lived in 3 countries with private public. I can tell you right now, you'll go private for most healthcare services. The only public services I've found where public is better are for the elderly. Other than that, you'll go private if you want to get the best chances for a positive outcome. There's nothing 'magical' about healthcare and you're not going to wave a wand and poof it's a public monopoly and suddenly it doesn't suffer from all the problems of public monopolies. Not to mention - there's ONLY SO MUCH TAX MONEY to go around. When you pay for more healthcare - you pay for LESS of something else. I've seen the cuts first hand to education. Tax is a direct measure of the people working - it's MAGIC THINKING to imagine there's more goods and services than there actually is in existence. You seem to think there is a magical endless supply of goods and services - there is NOT. In the real world, there are limits to everything. As the population get's old, they want more 'FREE" healthcare and thus the State cuts back on public services children K-12. Thus, the doctors are actually LESS competent in the future because they receive less resources. This is what happens in your 'Single Payer System'. You seem to think magically healthcare is provided - as if there's a big pool of healthcare services just out of reach because of the Evil Rich people hording it all to themselves - that simply isn't true. Most healthcare is under a LOT of stain due to the obesity epidemic among other lifestyle issues. If anything, it needs more rationing. A single obese patient can run up a $1 million dollar gouge of the public purse - and there are literally MILLIONS of them out there. Many don't eve work and contribute nothing to society. They just consume. As I said, I'm happy for the US to have a public option. You can use it. Hopefully it will bring down the costs of private healthcare and one day we'll get real competition via real free-markets (probably with robotics and AI replacing overly expensive humans - which, I'm sure, you'll complain about that too and the loss of jobs).
    1
  21. BernieSandersenEspañol You're entitled to your opinion. However, your arguments are unsound and your conclusions are not cogently strong. Worse, some of your arguments are outright nonsensical and immoral. The one argument you make I do agree to is that there are no truly free markets. This isn't to say that there can never BE free markets - that's impossible knowledge up until the day their is free-markets. If there never are free-markets, then it remains an unknown (see: Hume Problem of Induction). Other than your spurious arguments, you seem to think in analogy quite a lot. I find this to be true of people who are purported 'socialists'. They're often quite literary-minded, and I believe they probably live in word-worlds more so than here in the real world. As a scientist, I'm training to see these things quite clearly and I while I know the value of analogy, I'm always dubious to employ it as a rhetorical device other than in teaching a principle (say, Nernst potential I may use the word 'want' in reference to an ion). For example: You say the 'State' needs and wants. State's do not need or want things. Humans do, not States. You say private ownership is silly - really? What about the ownership of your kidney? Is that silly? You claim "China became industrialized due to Communism" - are you sure this isn't a correlated event? I'm sure industries would have occurred in the State of China without the need of Communism. You claim it led to a lot of 'sacrifices'? Don't you mean Communism caused a lot of death?  History strongly suggests that State regulation leads to regulatory-capture and rent seeking. As an example see Taxi Medallions. Purported to be for the "Good of Society", in reality, it was a State-run racket. Until Uber came along, people were only given the State-regulated-market choice. Uber examples how free-markets serve both the poor worker (the driver) and the customer.
    1
  22. BernieSandersenEspañol I'll end on this note: IF people truly WANT single payer, then there's no need for the State to force it to happen. The State didn't need to force people into buying iPhones - they bought them freely because they wanted to own them. If Single Payer Insurance was somehow (magically) extremely very efficient and cost effective - then simple open it as a Private Insurance company and start serving up all this efficiency in terms of savings and costs. People like to save money - if you can save them money, then do so. If not, then you're just talking magic thinking. Again, you seem to assume there's all these healthcare goods and services just waiting for someone to come along and hand them out. That just is NOT true. The system is strained and the resources are very very very limited. And they're very very VERY expensive to invent and create. Very expensive. I myself have worked in State-run research centers that have wasted $100s of millions doing very little and run by incompetent bureaucrats who couldn't give two craps about medicine. I'm sure they like the money and power - but that's about it. In a freer market - businesses run so incompetently go bust. That's the wonderful thing about private companies and free markets. People can choose NOT to do business with them. But this just isn't the case when the business is Public. Then you're stuck - forever stuck with low quality crap. There's really nothing you can do about it. Many times people don't even realize how low the quality is because they've never been exposed to anything different. As a matter of fact, this happened to some Soviet Leaders who visited the USA. They were shocked at the relative abundance.  I do agree the current State-regulated model of so-called healthcare is not cost-effective. NOT because it's a free-market, but because it's a highly State regulated market. The opposite of a free-market actually. One that's pretty much owned by the AMA who dominate the State regulatory bodies - these SAME people will be running the Single Payer System you wish to foist onto us. I wonder why you think the very same people who are profiting as rent-seekers in the current system THEY regulate, are going to magically become angels in an even LESS competitive system? That's just unreasonable nonsense. 
    1
  23. BernieSandersenEspañol In most Communist countries (socialist) people are under nourished and/or starving to death. In a somewhat free-market capitalistic market like the USA, the poor are obese. The fact is poor Americans live in houses larger than middle class French (objective measurement). 70% of poor Americans have airconditioning. While starvation was huge problem in communist China (Americans fed Chinese through our charity) as well as in the USSR and IS a problem in North Korea, no ibe starves in the USA unless they have an ED. Most poor can afford super computers that fit in their pockets with access to the entire Word's collected information.  Why don't you tell me the price of my tea cup in my hand. What's it worth to me? You needn't see it - just tell me. That fact is, you can not tell me. The ONLY way we CAN know is if I'm free to sell it in a currency I understand well. 
    1
  24. BernieSandersenEspañol "You don't seem to understand the concept of haves and have-nots very well. But, whatever." No, I do. I just understand that the best way to ensure that the have nots have something soon is to ensure they are free. That their civil liberties are respected. Most poor CAN out compete the middle class simply due to their lower starting base and lower requirements. They can live cheaper and offer their labor or services cheaper. Soon pulling themselves out of poverty and into the middle class.  Anyway, you believe in magic thinking, so we'll leave it at that. I do hope Bernie is elected, after he puts up trade barriers with Asia, we can watch as this totally fails as the poor become poorer in the USA. Sometimes magic thinking required a splash of reality - sad, but seemingly true. 
    1
  25. I wonder if David would universalize (apply the same logical operations) towards.... say, Black Americans and White Americans and their grammar? Or Rich and Poor? Would David draw the same sort of 'conclusions'? I mention this only because this sounds sort of racist to me. Of course Republicans and Democrats are not races, nor are Jews, Christians and Buddhists - and, in my opinion, either are Whites and Blacks. That's why I don't like these correlative studies unless they're going to be universalized. As for Trump, he's as sly as a Fox and he knows exactly what he's doing. He's by far, over and above even Hilary in terms of his ability to manipulate the public's opinion. He speaks like a 5th grader because he knows that will help ensure he wins the POTUS reality show. It's too bad we now have a humongous Big Government for a demagogue like him to walk into and command. The whole notion of 'Limited' Government is foreign to at least 95% of the public. It's just one side want to use it for thier agenda and their other for theirs.
    1
  26. I'd like to know more about this process - how much energy is used in making the catalytic converter? How much "energy" is there in water? Why does it have to be 'sea water' it seems like any water would do given there's no mention of the salts Na and Cl.
    1
  27. cwardog A good K - 12 education can easily provide the mental aptitude needed for critical thinking. Not to mention, education is pretty much for free. The internet provides access to all necessary information to develop critical thinking skills - and does so nearly for free (you'll need internet access - which a public library will provide at tax payer expense if you do not have one - alternatively many businesses offer free internet). Any parent wanting to ensure their child learns critical thinking can provide this information to their child - if they take the time to turn off their TV and make time for their children . If they do not have time for their children, then they have no business having children.  IOWs, your argument we need to provide 4 additionally years of education is unfounded - particularly when many Asian and European students enter American university to find the first 1 to 2 years all review. Also, if you think the problem is finding good work/jobs, well, University in the USA is really not a good place to learn how to access money markets and open a business. Not to mention regulations make it pretty difficult in the USA to start a business in the sciences (or in any field really). The problems are from top to bottom - I don't see the American public having the stomach to do something about them any time too soon. As AMOF I know they won't.  
    1
  28. GreatPirateSolomon There's so many interesting ideas in your sentence :) 1) There really is no 'we'. There are schools, teachers, parents and students - all are individual 'them'. Not 'us'.  2) We cannot copy the German system. That is impossible.  3) I feel most people think as your sentence implies. What I mean is, saying X magically makes X happen. In this case, German schooling system. As an example: Most Chinese languages place an emphasis on verbs than nouns. This in turn promotes a societal way of thinking, versus an individualist way of thinking (and correlates well with wheat vs rice cultivation). Imagine if you thought 'social' way of thinking is better. And then someone said, oh, that's easy: Why don't we all just think and speak Chinese. You know, so we'll all think more socially. (a) that isn't ever going to happen (b) this misses out on the reason WHY Chinese think and speak in their dialects. (c) diverse from their culture, it makes little sense.   - We are not German. Most of the important learning actually occurs in the family - not in school. Copying one aspect of German culture, its school system, is not possible and wouldn't work even if it were possible (which it isn't). The approach that works for America is freedom. Freedom to offer different forms of non-Government schooling is the better option and would, in the end, deliver a superior product to either the German model or our current system. We don't even have the companies to take on the interns - as an example. Unless "Walmart" greeter is now an internship? 
    1
  29. GreatPirateSolomon Charter schooling exists in the USA. Depending on the community, and the school, the parents, and the child - it can work very well, or not so. Unschooling pedagogy works very well for some children, but not for others.  As for copying the German system - guess what? That'll have to be a Charted School. And, because Government schools don't like the competition, you'll have to fight to get such a model even legally registered to access State funding (good luck with that). You'd soon find that Government schools are optimized to pass State regulations and States tests - and thus you'd either become a Government school (defeating the purpose) or you'd lose funding and have to become a private school. Private German schools already exist in the USA.
    1
  30. Mr. Pink It's interesting you mention the social system. I think socialism works best at the beginning (when it first starts) and within a monoculture. See, at the beginning, people are lowly paid and so mostly people go into the public service to provide a service (not to get rich). But, something happens along the way. You end up with public servants telling the private citizens (who pay their wages through taxes) what they can and cannot do. Without a bankruptcy process to remove incompetence, you end up with nepotism and abuse. Then it collapses. Before that collapse occurs, the Public Institutions look towards the most successful Private enterprises and say, let's do that! But it's too late. See, the 'type' of person who is needed from bottom to top in a private company, doesn't exist in a public institution. Also, there was a processes of weeding out the crappiest players in the market - this never took place in the public institutions. This is the stage Germany is at. So is the USA, England, France, Australia, Canada.... etc. The USA is not, not, not, NOT a capitalistic country. Germany is MORE capitalistic compared with the USA. The USA is a Fascist State. We don't use capital, we use debt. Our Central Bankers are our Central Planners. Some States require a State licence to sell flowers or to fix a computer ... does THAT sound like free-market capitalism? No way. Lastly, we're in never ending wars and must remain in never ending war because THAT is our Fascistic economy - killing people is what the USA sells.  Germany probably isn't so much modelling itself on the USA as it is following a road all centralised States follow. It's an inevitable outcome of centralizing power in the hands of bureaucrats. As natural as night following day.
    1
  31. So, the take home message is private corporations provide safe affordable products whereas givermint provide crap.
    1
  32. Michael Smith You want the government to ban cigarettes? Alcohol causes liver damage, ban that. Coffee is addictive, ban coffee and tea. Oh, yes, I'd would like you to list a variety of products that are not safe AND the consumer is led to believe otherwise. People who smoke know its bad and have known so for 100s of years. My grandmother was told by her mother not to smoke way back in the 1950s. Pretending water is safe and then killing a bunch of children - THAT level of evil only comes from Givermint. 
    1
  33. zeisengreen1913 Water companies are notorious for being cancerous? Care to provide an example in the USA. The fact is, water companies make money, and profit, selling people healthy water. 
    1
  34. zeisengreen1913 Let me get this straight, the California Government is in charge of, regulates and legally leases X amount of water to people - and this is a problem of private companies? Come again?  I'm still waiting on the evidence for cancer water.
    1
  35. zeisengreen1913 I don't dissagree with you regarding a sustainable environment. I simply think we need PRIVATE corporations / businesses to provide us with that clean environment. Take the Flint river (of which I've actually walked around) for example. GM polluted this river and it did so WHILE being regulated by government. Government did nothing to keep this water clean. But, IF someone owned a business selling water, and knew they would be sued and go to jail AND lose their business if GM keeps polluting the Flint river (from which they get their water) then THEY WILL sue GM. This is how free markets and private business keep a check on one another. Through competition and law. But the Government has no competition and make up the law - so its the LAST group of people you'd want to fix the environment. Or providing you safe water. 
    1
  36. zeisengreen1913 I'm not trolling you. Look up the numbers. 2015 had more regulations than any other year in recorded history. Yes, I agree banks are f*cked, but you can thank government for that. And the truth is, next to medicine, finance is massively regulated. I'm not sure where you got the idea it wasn't regulated. There's probably next to nothing you can do in finance that doesn't have numerous regulations. Everything is regulated. Which is why it's also a mess. 
    1
  37. zeisengreen1913 I don't doubt Dupont found out about Teflon being poisonous. So, the answer is simple, sue them. THAT is the best solution. But you can't. Because they have regulations that will prevent you from doing so. Or make it very difficult.  As for Elizabeth Warren, give me a break. She lied and said she was a Native American to get a promotion at Harvard. She IS one of the 1%. She's makiing over $250,000 a year. Anyway, I'd never trust a liar like her. Only someone evil would pretend to be a minority to get a promotion instead of working for it. 
    1
  38. zeisengreen1913 Okay, Pink Slime is off cuts not fit for human consumption. Ears, snout, hooves, tail, etc... these are boiled in ammonia, mixed with filler (wood pulp) and dyed pink. This is then FDA approved "food". If you buy it, and then want to sue for being sold 'food' that isn't fit for a dog, you will lose. Because it's regulated as food. Ironically, if you attempted to sell real food without a licence, you'd go to prison! Worse still, raw milk is illegal. Can you imagine?! How insane. Another example is cigarettes. Now that they are 'regulated', you can't sue. You can smoke, you can get cancer, you can die. But your family can't sue. Because magically they're now 'regulated' as safe to sell. How ironic. 
    1
  39. The richest 1% banking criminals certainly got bailed out. So it did it's job.
    1
  40. It was going to be either Bernie or Trump.
    1
  41. Feel free to teach your children to trust and believe what "The State" wants them to believe - I don't care. But make no mistake, it's a belief, no different than Religious belief. I've lived in 5 different countries, I promise you, belief in The State is just as religious / superstitious as belief in a God. As an example, we believe a POTUS is a good idea. Most Americans wouldn't or couldn't imagine instead having a Communist Dear Leader or a Prime Minister or King. But, had The State taught their children to think these normal, then this is what they would Believe In. The concept of The State, being an excellent example. It's no different than belief in a King or a God. My children will not be taught "to believe" Statist superstitions, but to evaluate it as any other belief. Measure it against Ethical standards and form their own opinions based on such standards. 
    1
  42. technatezin No, I'm a medical researcher and for the most part work on developing the medicines you'll want to use one day. When they day comes, you'll say it's not fair you have to pay for your medicine, but, that's how it works. It costs billions to invent new medicine, and most of us doing the research spend 50-60 hours a week in their development. In the meantime, feel free to teach your children to believe what The State want's them to believe. If you think The State is a 'neutral' arbitrator, you have next to no idea how the State works. Even a cursory look will see how non-neutral the State treats genders and so-called races. I'll ensure my children are taught NOT to believe what The State or The Church wants them to believe, but to challenge their beliefs and choose based on reason and evidence. 
    1
  43. technatezin And no, I would not 'likely be dead'. More than likely I'd be telling you what to believe. You'd believe it and you'd probably die defending this belief. That's something you may want to think about as we what our never ending Wars in the middle east or the next terrorist attack. There's are those who believe, and those who tell others what to believe and then those who use reason and empiricism to make a rational choice about their beliefs. As the woman said: "It must be what the School or The State wants them to believe." 
    1
  44. technatezin Wow, very interesting response! How long has it been since I've written anything in propositional calculus / classical logic? Yonks! Your example is the material conditional? Is that correct? Okay, let's write a few more true statements using the material conditional: "If the moon is made of cheese, then Gods exists." Truth-Value = True Isn't it the case that when the antecedent is false, the material conditional is true regardless of the consequent? Therefor, "If the moon is made of cheese, then 3 + 3 = 6." is True. AND "If the moon is made of cheese, then 3 + 3 = 10." is also True. Agreed? I mean, it's been a long a time, but I sort of recall this was in the basic truth table? Isn't that the case? You stated: If the state exist then there is coercive indoctrination of falsehoods. I agree, this is false. However, this is true: If the state exist then there may be coercive indoctrination of falsehoods. This is a True statement. Agreed? Now, if we're not going to wander into existentialism, I think we can agree this is true through general induction. I mean, this is assuming we're talking about the real world.  I can even find evidence of such occurrings, occurring, in the above Interview. In the form of this statement: It must be what the School or The State wants them to believe.  Is that good evidence? Note #1: We poor Empiricists don't normally employ deductive logic. Rather, we utilize general induction. Alas, that's the best we can do with our sense data (that I'm aware of). Thus, we don't make valid sound arguments, we instead make cogently strong ones. I think I have made just such an argument. Do you agree with me? Or will we need to employ some sort of Bayesian inference to come to an agreement? If that's the case, we'll need data, that takes time, I don't have free time, so if I gathered such evidence and analyzed it, then I'm writing a publication! LOL :P Note #2: I seriously cannot fully remember the material conditional truth table, but, I do value logic and would ensure my children are taught to think logically beginning with the even more classical logic of categorical syllogisms. Why? because I think it would be fun :D Not sure if I could teach it to a child, but I'm sure Play Doe works wonders. Happen to have a link for me? Maybe ask your Prof? Perhaps you could rewrite into categories? Is this an AAA? Note #3: I seem to recall some songs we used to memorize these tables? Would you mind asking your professor if she/he has a link to such mental devises? I wouldn't mind rehearsing them for fun :)
    1
  45. technatezin "Anyway, what's your point? In the real world there are never perfect people nor perfect systems filled with incorruptible perfect people." Yes, I agree. Which is why we should work towards limiting the Government (again). The US Constitution was mainly written to protect us from Government - not so much from one another. Common laws that protect private private (beginning with our body) and that can be used to uphold contract, free markets (which is to say free people able to interact with one another) and sound money (derived through voluntary exchange).  Government (a collection of people) is delineated from other groups of people (private citizens) in that public servants have the legal right to initiate violence and coercion against morally innocent humans. No other group of people have this right. Which is why really don't need them teaching our children what they should or should not believe. An example: Government's War on Drugs. Imagine not being allowed to drink a beer (KSA) or smoke a weed (USA) and if you were caught, you were sent to prison. Yet, YOU own your body? Maybe you don't. Another example would be the Governmental Laws around who can marry whom (legally). This is mostly around taxation privileges, which is what the government (and the Mafia) use to 'encourage' Government approved behaviors. Another example would be Income Taxation (allows for the sale of T-Bonds on future labor output, to the Chinese for example).  If we want to live in a moral society, then we should work towards reducing the immoral actions legally available to some groups of people (governmental employees being by far and wide, the largest of those groups of people). It's why Socialism, democratic, autocratic, fascistic, communistic, etc.... is immoral. Agreed?
    1
  46. technatezin I promise to come back to your post. As I said, I am not an Logician. A cursory glance at your argument looks like the material implication again? Is this correct? Could we first agree to a definition of The State? (given this was the topic of my post) I will use the definition of the modern State derived from Max Weber (Politics as a Vocation, 1919). The State is defined as a geopolitical entity (society) that lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a certain geographical area. In other words, The State is any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents (Citizens) of its territory. Paraphrased from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
    1
  47. technatezin My apologies, but also, you wrote: "All of the previous listed examples of abuse of government power such as the case where victimless crimes like marijuana consumption leading to jail time stems from a government which is allowed to exercise power without popular consensus and consultation." We agree that Democratic Slavery (legalized at the founding of the Republic) was immoral? In other words, popular consensus and consultation doesn't change an immoral action into a moral action. It may make it legal, but it will not change it to moral. For example: In a society on an island composed of 5 men and 1 woman and the community takes a vote to legalize forced sex, raping the woman would remain immoral (although legal). Is that correct? Voting doesn't change immoral actions into moral actions. Which is why we have the two words for sex: Rape and Love. While at the core subjective as to which has occurred, it's still a world of difference in Ethics. Thus, even the behavior itself isn't what is moral, but whether the action was engaged in voluntarily.  Do we agree?
    1
  48. technatezin +Ōkami-san >> "We agree that Democratic Slavery (legalized at the founding of the Republic) was immoral?" Is an impossible situation, so discussion about the morality of it is moot. -o- What are you talking about. Slavery was legal in the USA. Many of the early POTUS owned Slaves. Many freed Slaves went on to buy and own Slaves. Slaves were both Black (African) as well as White (Irish). So? Do we agree legalized Slavery was immoral and still is immoral?
    1
  49. technatezin So yes, you agree Slavery was and is immoral. Okay, we agree to that much. We agree Slavery is immoral. Or, in other words, stealing the productive labor of another human is immoral. Is this correct?
    1
  50. technatezin What is productive labor? Producing goods and/or services of value to oneself or others. 
    1