John McCain vs Barack Obama Mega-Politic-Thread of super fun awesomeness.

[Cops]

It's not that I don't mind your arguments or your use of the English language, it's that I can't always find the time to read a Jerome post... it's the exact same thing with Epinephrine, I have no doubt those posts are filled with superb language and show vivid depth and emotion it's just I look at the posts and say 'oh shit, too long'. This isn't always the case, if I have the time I do try to read as much as possible.

Nothing personal, but it's no wonder when we engage ourselves in a very heated argument such as the health care thread only 3-4 people post. The rest of the forums don't want to read that much text, and that in itself is a testament to the 'kind' of discussion this forum usually has.

By making this post I'm well aware of the fact that 60-70 percent of the people who read this forum will skip this post. There's a lot to be said for finding a balance between an argument or discussion that doesn't turn into an inclusive discussion.

I did however read one of your posts about markets and your reference to Wal-Mart. Speaking for myself I do shop there a lot because, a) I don't have a vehicle and b) it's ridiculously close to where I live, and c) they do offer some of the best deals for a lot of the products I need / use. The argument that Wal-Mart exists because we as the consumers support it is truthful but the argument can also be made that other markets can't compete against Wal-Mart forcing low income families and students, such as ourselves to shop there. I wish I could say I could care more about the ethics of companies I support but when it comes down to it I live on a budget, and when you have limited amount of money you need to be focused on getting the most amount of items for the least amount of money.

[Epinephrine]

You know Jerome, there really is no point in writing such long posts and referencing people and theories that almost nobody on this forum has any idea about or have ever heard of. I mean it might help to have a bit of a primer which isn't just a linked article (which you didn't even provide!). You're going way beyond the knowledge of most people to allow them to make an educated and critical appraisal of what you wrote possible.

I might as well have just written some random posts about the effects of low molecular weight heparin vs heparin in the coagulation cascade as it effects the rates of heparin induced thrombolysis.


From your huge Austrian school post (there's an Austrian school? News to me), all I can say is that even Nostradamus was right a lot of the time. And even Chris Carter predicted 9/11 a year before it would happen... sorta.

[Cops]

^

I'm liking your post size :]

[Jerome Scuggs]

I think the cultural arguments against Wal-Mart are valid in some ways, and quite frankly, I do believe that Wal-Mart is probably behind the decrease of "mom-and-pop" stores... but I think that's a good thing, though in order to see why, I'll have to tell a brief story. I hate to "wall of text" you... but I think you'll see why I needed too.

Way back when, the rise of convenience stores and even local grocers supplanted what was, at the time, the "culturally significant" local economy - local farmers losing out to local grocers who simply imported food from other areas who had industrialized their food production. This was a major issue in many agricultural Southern states, as many around here depended on their farm as a means of earning a living.

But grocers could not only supply greater quantities of greater varieties for less price, they could provide it year-round. And so an entire city's population suddenly had greater access to better quality food in sufficient supply - and since the general prices on these products were lower, each individual's purchasing power was thus increased.

Two things then happened because of this. The first and most immediate effect was that the rise of grocery stores led to the rise of the "distribution" industry. As that industry developed, and prices fell, it then became financially feasible to establish distribution routes to areas that previously were too "isolated". This meant that over time, small towns were able to open grocery stores and other "convenience"-type retail places. This then put more money in the pocket of each citizen... meaning, more money to use in making entrepreneurial ventures...giving rise to "mom and pop" stores.

In essence, culture wasn't "lost" - it was actually enriched. Small towns were exposed to amazing new products and ideas - combined with increased wealth, meant that people now had a mass of culture to appreciate and the means to create their own. Here in the South, let's say a farmer, depressed at losing his livelihood, picks up his guitar and started talkin' about the blues. Luckily for him, the people in his city had enough extra income laying around to begin paying him to sing songs, play shows, record albums...

I think stores like Wal-Mart might one day eradicate the notion of poverty - by simultaneously lowering prices and introducing new and/or improved products. The goods that fifty years ago, were a privilege of the rich... are now almost inherent, ubiquitous features of even a majority of lower-income consumers today.

Shreveport has an absolutely vibrant culture, and an amazing array of small-business. Yet we also have at least 4 Wal-Marts, and every franchise imaginable. But I think it's specifically because these businesses exist that it becomes easier for locals to pursue their own ventures that they could not have even considered doing before. The rise of chain stores drove out local grocers and other such retail stores... yet Shreveport is actually seeing an increase in small businesses. It's just that instead of being electronics stores, or grocery stores... we're seeing the rise of local record labels, new coffeeshops and other "specialty" shops, like indie music stores, skateboarding shops, ice skating rinks (lord knows how fucking bad we needed it, seriously, it's so fucking fun), indie movie venues, the list continues. These things literally didn't exist five years ago - and neither did three of the four current Wal-Marts and all these other franchised, chain stores. Even people from the ghetto are beginning to open small soul food places and barbecue joints, and of course local bands have jumped on this as a potential source of new 'scene' venues... there's nothing like punk rock and fried chicken, seriously.

Now, here's the kicker: since the inhabitants of my city now have more extra income to spend, they can now acquire the necessities for a very comfortable life, as well as support the new local ventures.

I work for one of these small businesses, a coffeeshop. The owner is from the boonies; he thinks my city is huge. I've only been working there for two months, but the place has been running for three years - and two years ago, the owner was able to purchase a farm. He grows crops and raises horses - not to sell, but because he's a small-town kid and that's what small-town kids in Louisiana dream of.

Lord knows how much farmland Wal-Mart has removed from the demands of consumers, leaving the land to be enjoyed by the very people who embrace the agri-culture (har har har har). In essence, I think that Wal-Mart has actually allowed men who love farming to truly devote themselves to it. And let me tell you: if I had to work on a farm in order to make a living, I would have been dead at age 12. Seriously. I'm not cut out for farming. But you can probably imagine what it's like for me to sit around all day at a coffeeshop, ranting with the regulars about my visions of a world without government, mind-fucking highschoolers who just like, totally "get" Nietzsche, man... and sometimes I even forget that on top of all that, I get paid to do it. (That's why, recently, my posts have been getting... really, really intense. I just sit around at work all day and think about this shit. Seriously.)

That's my story, that's why I'm not as opposed to the new Wal-Mart at all. It's probably a story that is in stark contrast with alot of other experiences with the opening of a new Wal-Mart... though alot of the mainstream anti-walmart activists don't ever really talk about that sort of thing, so I can't really tell.

[Money]

JEROME! plz stop! ur making my eyesssssssssss hurt sooooo much text :d

rofl at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2OwN...watch_response


loool

[Zerzera]

Jerome, I read your posts, but I am sad that you missed the point. By proving Marxism wrong you didn't disprove the fact that your plan is as much as an ideology. The fact that it might work and that it seems like a perfect model to you doesn't change that.
You are free to believe in it, but I think that sometimes you push it too far. I don't mind, because it would make these forums useless if it wasn't for these kind of things.
I agree that Marxism is a bunch of crap (like any ideology?). Let people regulate themselves.

Don't gloat too much that you found out that people predicted this economic 'crisis', it was pretty common knowledge to any educated person. But why stop something you know is going to happen when you can profit from it?
Everyone was free and able to find out, but if they aren't interested in finding out, you can't call them a victim.
And who is actually victimized in the crisis? The people who have to sell their house never really earned it to live in that house. That's why they can't afford it. Speculators might or might not have made big bucks out of it.
Eventually only the 'tax payer' has to pay for the shortages, but they are the ones who voted for the government; the president, the regulations.
And we can't help it that American people find it more important to waste money to invade foreign countries -for the sake of feeling 'more safe'-. That 700 billion would have been there lying in the safe if it wasn't for that.

And by the book I meant Atlast Shrugged, which you mentioned.

[Fluffz]

So not only do I account for the wildly subjective views of the millions of individuals, I consider it one of the most vital reason as to why markets are superior to government planning.

But each election millions of subjective people disagree with you and ejaculate pro goverment pictures all over the place, how are they a reason free markets are superior to goverments?

[genocidal]

Do you ever make sense?

[Cops]

American people find it more important to waste money to invade foreign countries -for the sake of feeling 'more safe'-. That 700 billion would have been there lying in the safe if it wasn't for that.

And by the book I meant Atlast Shrugged, which you mentioned.

More like;

The American government finds it more important to waste money and invade foreign countries

I'd like to believe that the American populous didn't know about or believe that George Bush would prompt a war against Iraq, I hate to give America a free pass here but they generally voted George Bush in on promises to take a surplus of money and put it into Social Security.

[Hercules]

i just dl'd it lol

mccain starts out with some sob story bullshit then whines about not feeling good, annoyed about to close it.

lol funniest shit

[Galleleo]

As far as I know, capitalism and free market theory assume Humans are fully rational, but humans are only bounded rational.

Ill be honest and say that I didn't read Jeromes complete posts, I really do not have the time for that.

[404 Not Found]

Ill be honest and say that I didn't read Jeromes complete posts, I really do not have the time for that.

This is the same answer that most U.S. Senators & the members of the U.S. Congress said about the intelligence report prior to the Iraq invasion/occupation.

It is also the answer that McSame said on a similar level, although McSame was honest enough to say he didn't read it at all, in regards to the 2 1/2 - 3 page report on Paulson's Economic Bailout Bill.

[Galleleo]

I said it, in case Jerome refuted the point of people being bounded rational being a huge problem for a free market to work.

I don't think I am declaring wars here or have a whole countries economic stability relying on this. if I did, I would read it. But right now, his posts come after all the reading I do for Uni.

[Epinephrine]

As far as I know, capitalism and free market theory assume Humans are fully rational, but humans are only bounded rational.

Ill be honest and say that I didn't read Jeromes complete posts, I really do not have the time for that.

No Gall, you have it wrong... free markets are basically just an extension of evolution but applied in a human systemic context. Jerome is right when he says that the individual person doesn't matter much in the greater free market, because the market generally takes into account the average of all actions of everyone. It is the ultimate form of 'democracy' because you 'vote' every day with your actions.

My point of contention is that when left to their own devices to be able to do anything they want, even if the aggregate average total decision is 'correct', individuals may still do amazing amounts of harm. There are countless examples of individuals or individual corporations or even entire sectors of the economy doing irresponsible things which end up harming everyone. Sure a lot of the time these irresponsible things can be corrected or only result in 'temporary' pain, but there are some things which can be done which are in practical terms cannot be undone and are permanent.

Take for instance a food company that decides that it will put hazardous chemicals into it's food. Sound crazy? Yes, but it does happen all the time, look at China and the recent milk scandal there. Sure in the long run perhaps in the far future companies will learn to be more responsible, but all it takes it one bad apple, and suddenly 50,000 babies have kidney damage.

Take for example Volkswagen acting in the Amazon in the 70s to burn a huge chunk of the Amazon to make farms, which ended up being a bust because the burnt land could not support proper farming, and a ridiculoulsly huge chunk of the rainforest was lost forever to stupidity forever.

Take for example a company which wanted to use extremely deadly chemicals and dump them in the great lakes if there were no regulations. Sure that company may eventually go out of business, but not before ruining the great lakes.

There are countless examples where people may go too far, and thanks to modern technology and the scope and reach of mass production reach so far that irreversible damage may be done to many important things. As such, people left to their own devices may not be the greatest thing in the world.

[Galleleo]

Well, I know standard economic theory assumes humans are fully rational, which is where the development of Behavioural Economics comes from (economists disagreeing with the fully rational thing, etc.).