What have I gotten wrong, orion? It seems to me you protest basic facts as much as anyone here.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
What have I gotten wrong, orion? It seems to me you protest basic facts as much as anyone here.[/quote]
Maybe, but I do not base my line of thinking on economic fallacies that had already been debunked centuries before they were uttered by Marx and then turn around and accuse others of economic ignorance.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
What have I gotten wrong, orion? It seems to me you protest basic facts as much as anyone here.[/quote]
Maybe, but I do not base my line of thinking on economic fallacies that had already been debunked centuries before they were uttered by Marx and then turn around and accuse others of economic ignorance.
[/quote]
OK, but how do you know they are fallacies? You revealed earlier that what you thought you knew about the labor theory of value was, in fact, totally wrong. How are you to assure me that the rest of your knowledge is not equally fragile?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
What have I gotten wrong, orion? It seems to me you protest basic facts as much as anyone here.[/quote]
Maybe, but I do not base my line of thinking on economic fallacies that had already been debunked centuries before they were uttered by Marx and then turn around and accuse others of economic ignorance.
[/quote]
OK, but how do you know they are fallacies? You revealed earlier that what you thought you knew about the labor theory of value was, in fact, totally wrong. How are you to assure me that the rest of your knowledge is not equally fragile?
[/quote]
I do not really care to delve too deep into your branch of economic superstition, it is a sub genre of objective price theory, no more, no less.
My knowledge is equally “fragile” when it comes to bullionism, the physiocrates and the theory that “bad air” causes disease.
I might also not have all the details on my fingertips on how to best whorship Krom, but that does not make the Krom theory of creation a valid idea.
I do however know that objective price theories lead to a whole host of faulty conclusions, f.e. the idea of economics as a zero sum game, which leads to the conclusion that one party is always “exploited”, that doing business is somehow “violent” in nature and so further and so on.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
What have I gotten wrong, orion? It seems to me you protest basic facts as much as anyone here.[/quote]
Maybe, but I do not base my line of thinking on economic fallacies that had already been debunked centuries before they were uttered by Marx and then turn around and accuse others of economic ignorance.
[/quote]
OK, but how do you know they are fallacies? You revealed earlier that what you thought you knew about the labor theory of value was, in fact, totally wrong. How are you to assure me that the rest of your knowledge is not equally fragile?
[/quote]
I do not really care to delve too deep into your branch of economic superstition, it is a sub genre of objective price theory, no more, no less.
My knowledge is equally “fragile” when it comes to bullionism, the physiocrates and the theory that “bad air” causes disease.
I might also not have all the details on my fingertips on how to best whorship Krom, but that does not make the Krom theory of creation a valid idea.
[/quote]
So in other words, you acknowledge that you know nothing about it, but that you “just know.”
[quote]orion wrote:
I do however know that objective price theories lead to a whole host of faulty conclusions, f.e. the idea of economics as a zero sum game, which leads to the conclusion that one party is always “exploited”, that doing business is somehow “violent” in nature and so further and so on.
[/quote]
But that’s my point–your “knowledge” is based on inaccurate ideas, and not just in this regard. For instance, in this situation, you fail to distinguish between “value” and “happiness,” or “utility,” if you like.
So really, you don’t know, these are just excuses for you to dismiss Marx without actually knowing anything about his system, much less refuting him. In that case, the irony is much thicker.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:Don’t confuse my desire to hold a deeper understanding of economics and the socialist ideology with being “mystified by economics”. LOL
[/quote]
But that’s just it–you don’t have any desire for a deeper understanding of economics. Because you clearly know nothing about it, yet you’re utterly convinced of the free market’s superiority (despite the fact that the free market position has been utterly refuted over and over again). This is otherwise known as prejudice. You simply look for material that reinforces what you already believe. That’s why you pitch such a fit when someone brings up a fact you don’t like.
“If you make people think they’re thinking, they’ll love you; But if you really make them think, they’ll hate you.”
That is why right-wing “solutions” are so popular–they have a veneer of truth, and they make you think you’re intelligent. And that’s why you’re so offended by me–I actually make you think.
[/quote]
LOL @ your arrogance.
Orion is right, the irony is almost too rich. However you accusing anyone of being “blinded by ideology”, or having “prejudice”, isn’t just ironic, it is in fact the pot calling the kettle black. Our discussions harken me back to when I was 18 or 19, and I would argue with my dad about some basic realities of life. I was all puffed up with the arrogance of my own ideas about how things worked (or should work), and was so convinced that I was right that I couldn’t see what was right in front of me. lol Anyways…
Ever hear the Zen story about the empty cup?
[i]Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”[/i]
[quote]Rookie21 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Rookie21 wrote:
I don’t know if i’d say moore is tortously manipulative. It is obviously a one sided story as are most documentaries. Although personally I’d never been a fan of the whole capitalism ideal, mind you it’s not really capitalism either when you bail out companies. I guess I’ve just always been of the “how many fucking cars do you need” mentality. [/quote]
The first thing you need to realize is that capitalism is not about need. I only need 1 car but if I’m talented, skilled, motivated, driven and ambitious enough to earn enough money to buy 5 cars, why shouldn’t I? [/quote]
Never realized this got moved, thought it just died off.[/quote]
Just realized it myself, today.
That’s awesome. I’m sure you have no problem donating all of your extra cash (extra meaning everything other than necessities) to charities. I have no problem with that mindset.
However, I have a problem with the mindset that YOU should have the ability to tell ME what I can and can’t do with my own money (that I’ve earned), and that includes buying 5 cars if I want. Because that is what makes me happy (hypothetically).
So, you have nothing to say, right? Duly noted.
By the way, informing you that are wrong is not arrogant. But thanks for confirming my analysis.
I’ll never understand why people argue with Ryan on these boards. He’s an admitted communist. It’s not like there are some small differences in your idealogies that can be hammered out with intelligent discussion. He’s so far off the face of what is rational that it’s completely pointless to even try. Unless you get some kind of enjoyment out of it, more power to ya.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’ll never understand why people argue with Ryan on these boards. He’s an admitted communist. It’s not like there are some small differences in your idealogies that can be hammered out with intelligent discussion. He’s so far off the face of what is rational that it’s completely pointless to even try. Unless you get some kind of enjoyment out of it, more power to ya. [/quote]
On the contrary, the arguments I encounter are not rational, but are based on emotions, nicely illustrated by orion and bigflamer’s temper tantrums here. Hence the fact that the “arguments” against me consist entirely of name-calling and pouting, such as your post here. There’s never any factual basis for the disagreement. After all, the right lost the intellectual war with the left a long time ago.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’ll never understand why people argue with Ryan on these boards. He’s an admitted communist. It’s not like there are some small differences in your idealogies that can be hammered out with intelligent discussion. He’s so far off the face of what is rational that it’s completely pointless to even try. Unless you get some kind of enjoyment out of it, more power to ya. [/quote]
On the contrary, the arguments I encounter are not rational, but are based on emotions, nicely illustrated by orion and bigflamer’s temper tantrums here. Hence the fact that the “arguments” against me consist entirely of name-calling and pouting, such as your post here. There’s never any factual basis for the disagreement. After all, the right lost the intellectual war with the left a long time ago.[/quote]
Much in the same way that Bigflamers Dad “lost” to his son all these years ago.
How about it orion? Instead of simply reinforcing what I have said about the barrenness of liberal economic theory (which, if that is truly what you wish to do, feel free to continue), do you care to bring up something of substance for debate? You have been unable to show where I am wrong. Care to take another crack at it?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
How about it orion? Instead of simply reinforcing what I have said about the barrenness of liberal economic theory (which, if that is truly what you wish to do, feel free to continue), do you care to bring up something of substance for debate? You have been unable to show where I am wrong. Care to take another crack at it?[/quote]
I have shown you.
You do not care to see.
What else is there to do for me?
Well then I do not recall. Please, if your critiques are so devastating, you should take pleasure in repeating them.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Well then I do not recall. Please, if your critiques are so devastating, you should take pleasure in repeating them.[/quote]
No problem.
Objective price theories are poop.
They make trade and economic development impossible. We know that since the “marginal revolution” which happened around 150 years ago, but we could have known since the late scholastic ideas regarding economics.
The whole idea that things have an objective value based on the labor put into it can be ddiscarded with a simple experiment:
Dig a hole, fill it up again and try to find a buyer. After all it is worth something, you put work into it after all.
Hope I’m not hijacking, but I wondering if anyone has a hole in the ground–preferably already refilled–for sell?
But this is based yet again on your misunderstanding of your subject. The labor theory of value is not an objective theory of value. Value itself is a subjective thing, since in the absence of human beings, the concept of value doesn’t even make sense. What it does say, and what is correct, is that our ideas of value proceed from objective factors.
Your “experiment” is one that I earlier refuted (please do not accuse me of being dogmatic when you refuse to learn such simple things), which is caused by you criticizing without reading. On page 1 (no joke) of Capital, Marx writes, “A commodity is, first of all, an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind.” If an object has no use value (your hole), no one desires it, and thus it has no value. This is why your criticisms are so silly–you clearly don’t understand what it is you are criticizing.
On the other hand, if someone wishes to install utilities underground, you certainly will be paid for your hole.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Rookie21 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Rookie21 wrote:
I don’t know if i’d say moore is tortously manipulative. It is obviously a one sided story as are most documentaries. Although personally I’d never been a fan of the whole capitalism ideal, mind you it’s not really capitalism either when you bail out companies. I guess I’ve just always been of the “how many fucking cars do you need” mentality. [/quote]
The first thing you need to realize is that capitalism is not about need. I only need 1 car but if I’m talented, skilled, motivated, driven and ambitious enough to earn enough money to buy 5 cars, why shouldn’t I? [/quote]
Never realized this got moved, thought it just died off.[/quote]
Just realized it myself, today.
That’s awesome. I’m sure you have no problem donating all of your extra cash (extra meaning everything other than necessities) to charities. I have no problem with that mindset.
However, I have a problem with the mindset that YOU should have the ability to tell ME what I can and can’t do with my own money (that I’ve earned), and that includes buying 5 cars if I want. Because that is what makes me happy (hypothetically).[/quote]
Common good? Society and laws tell us what we can and can’t do all the time. Why can’t I take a wooden knife which i whittled myself and go on a killing spree. Extreme example but the world would be a lot better off if we helped take care and watched out for one another rather then all being greedy fucks. Unforunately it wont ever matter, people are almost always inherently greedy, we are in a society that promotes that and in the end you win, because its bat shit crazy to help your community it’s much cooler to drive a BMW.