Rather than quibbling about the meaning of a word, why not look it up?
If you read further, you'd see that shutdown and I were approaching this from different economists' definitions. So you're adding yet another definition for us, which is fine, but doesn't really resolve anything.
You're saying dogs aren't mammals because cats are mammals and dogs aren't cats. In short, your definition is incorrect.
Wow, bold and everything — must be true. That, or maybe my definition seems to be used by some people, but not by others. I think now that I've explained it that reasonable people can figure out where I'm coming from.
Perhaps you're listening to the wrong drug-addled sex tourist on your radio? You would do well to broaden your horizons.
Kai Ryssdal is a drug-addled sex tourist? Wow, I learn something new every day....~
And by now it probably won't surprise you that I'm libertarian and that the Austrian school economists are the ones that I... well, disregard the least, I suppose. That's why I think the problem of unnatural monopolies in a free market aren't a huge problem, since there's no regulatory barrier for new competitors to undercut the conspirators. Even when a cartel is too big to have to worry about new entrants, like OPEC, they're not that great at staying banded together.
Depends on the economics textbook. Economics (especially macro) isn't a real science where you run actual experiments and learn useful things, it has very little predictive value and with all its contradictory schools of thought seems to me to belong more in the philosophy department than the business school.
So maybe I have the recursion problem you describe, but "capitalism" in most people's minds is inexorably linked with free markets, and it's in that sense that I use it. And when you have actual free markets, there's no place for corporatism because you don't have a state powerful enough to be worth coopting.
So that's where I'm coming from. If you're coming from somewhere else, hey, fair enough.
Your definition, perhaps, but most capitalists' definition precludes more than minimal government. Sort of like how just because you have a welfare state doesn't mean you have socialism.
Corporations working closely with government, and government working closely with corporations, including exchanges of money through campaign donations & legislative acts. Plus favorable regulations to help the megacorps and block new startups. There's a word for that...... hmmmm, right on the tip of my tongue. Starts with an F. Or a C.
I'm with you on the F word, but for the C word you'd better mean "corporatism", because you sure as sunshine aren't describing capitalism.
That's an interesting idea. If not Neonomicon itself, then something set in the Cthulhu mythos could be really great stuff if done right, whether a movie series or a TV show.
It goes for dental work too. If you need something particularly expensive, like a dental immplant, you could save money doing it in Barbados rather than the U.S. even with the airfare and hotel bill. (And yes, they have good dentistry there.)
Slashdot Mirror
Even if so, that's nationalism, not racism.
Because that makes it be more like your mom?
Okay, that doesn't describe me, but I know enough to realize that's fair.
To others, anyone who cuts religion any slack is automatically the Bad Guy.
Unless it's the Church of the SubGenius, of course.
Maybe, but since atheism would appeal best to those not in need of artificial comforts, it probably works out fine.
Indeed, and that's why one was already made.
I'm not, and I did recognize it. But it was fun to say. :-)
Well, with that user name, it's not very surprising.
Rather than quibbling about the meaning of a word, why not look it up?
If you read further, you'd see that shutdown and I were approaching this from different economists' definitions. So you're adding yet another definition for us, which is fine, but doesn't really resolve anything.
You're saying dogs aren't mammals because cats are mammals and dogs aren't cats. In short, your definition is incorrect.
Wow, bold and everything — must be true. That, or maybe my definition seems to be used by some people, but not by others. I think now that I've explained it that reasonable people can figure out where I'm coming from.
Perhaps you're listening to the wrong drug-addled sex tourist on your radio? You would do well to broaden your horizons.
Kai Ryssdal is a drug-addled sex tourist? Wow, I learn something new every day....~
Oh, well, that too.
Honestly? Too many conversations about this sort of thing on the Internet.
And by now it probably won't surprise you that I'm libertarian and that the Austrian school economists are the ones that I... well, disregard the least, I suppose. That's why I think the problem of unnatural monopolies in a free market aren't a huge problem, since there's no regulatory barrier for new competitors to undercut the conspirators. Even when a cartel is too big to have to worry about new entrants, like OPEC, they're not that great at staying banded together.
Depends on the economics textbook. Economics (especially macro) isn't a real science where you run actual experiments and learn useful things, it has very little predictive value and with all its contradictory schools of thought seems to me to belong more in the philosophy department than the business school.
So maybe I have the recursion problem you describe, but "capitalism" in most people's minds is inexorably linked with free markets, and it's in that sense that I use it. And when you have actual free markets, there's no place for corporatism because you don't have a state powerful enough to be worth coopting.
So that's where I'm coming from. If you're coming from somewhere else, hey, fair enough.
Your definition, perhaps, but most capitalists' definition precludes more than minimal government. Sort of like how just because you have a welfare state doesn't mean you have socialism.
Corporations working closely with government, and government working closely with corporations, including exchanges of money through campaign donations & legislative acts. Plus favorable regulations to help the megacorps and block new startups. There's a word for that...... hmmmm, right on the tip of my tongue. Starts with an F. Or a C.
I'm with you on the F word, but for the C word you'd better mean "corporatism", because you sure as sunshine aren't describing capitalism.
Just so long as you catch moose and squirrel. ;-)
That's an interesting idea. If not Neonomicon itself, then something set in the Cthulhu mythos could be really great stuff if done right, whether a movie series or a TV show.
Plus we get to hear him bitch about how much he hates them.
Actually, having lived both in the U.S. and in the Caribbean, I think there are more thieves in the American healthcare system.
It goes for dental work too. If you need something particularly expensive, like a dental immplant, you could save money doing it in Barbados rather than the U.S. even with the airfare and hotel bill. (And yes, they have good dentistry there.)
As I mentioned, I was referring to producers of conventional goods and services, not artists and other creative types.
I'm not, I was concerned with material goods here.
Fair enough, but that's today. What happens tomorrow when those who can produce see no point in doing so?
1. Social justice is maximizing the minimum gain
What does this mean?
3. Wealth inequality causes less efficient economies
How so?
(Asking seriously, not snarkily.)
Wait, did you just accuse the person to whom you were responding of being an African dictator?