| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
 Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:17 |
 stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
How hard is it then for a new product to break into the mainstream Wal-Mart kinda place, against well-established brands. Again I'm not sure how this works in reality, or if it even does in the rosy kind of picturesque situations libertarians seem to imply.
|
I'm not sure why it woudn't work in reality. Could you describe a barrier which would prevent it? |
Not really because I don't know how this sh*t works.
|
So why do you assume it works like that? |
Mostly from hearsay and propaganda mixed with dubious logical conclusions.
|
Hey I got the answer I wanted. I'll just ignore the sarcasm and brag to myself about my victory.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
 |
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:20 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
How hard is it then for a new product to break into the mainstream Wal-Mart kinda place, against well-established brands. Again I'm not sure how this works in reality, or if it even does in the rosy kind of picturesque situations libertarians seem to imply.
|
I'm not sure why it woudn't work in reality. Could you describe a barrier which would prevent it? |
Not really because I don't know how this sh*t works.
|
So why do you assume it works like that? |
Mostly from hearsay and propaganda mixed with dubious logical conclusions.
|
Hey I got the answer I wanted. I'll just ignore the sarcasm and brag to myself about my victory. |
There wasn't mch sarcasm there just frank honesty, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, only that I just don't know and I don't care that much. I would rather like someone who actually knew about economics and took the progressive side of things to come in. Somehow I have a feeling that not all professional economists are libertarians.
|
|
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:22 |
JJLehto wrote:
jammun wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
jammun wrote:
[
I only support the FDA (in its enforcer role) because we obviously cannot trust corporations to do the right thing. Hence OSHA and the myriad others. Do you think BP would be doing anything in the Gulf without government intervention? If so, you are sorely deluded. Let 'em eat oil. |
That makes total sense. BP wants to let millions of gallons of its precious, valuable oil escape forever into the ocean with no possibility of reclaiming it, while simultaneously making everyone in the world so angry that they'll be lucky if they're not besieged by lynch mobs, not to mention boycotts. Sounds like a winning business strategy to me.
|
There would be no lynch mobs. Boycotts, maybe. They've already let millions of gallons escape forever, unless they have a secret 'get the tar balls' plan we are not aware of. Corporations exist for their management and their stockholders (yes, I'm a stockholder in some of these corporations), and it's f**k the workers and the customers, without some level of oversight. |
Exactly. As you've said llama no company will make bad products/endanger us willingly...least I hope. That would be stupid. But they cut any corner or do anything to squeeze any cent.
The private sector is for profit. I am fine with that. But without some regulation/enforcement it makes sense to me they will push the envelope to maximize, which could result in disaster.
|
Alas, it's after a product fails, whether it's ground beef or an airliner. I used to work for a law firm (no I'm not a lawyer, but please feel free to send all your disposable income to my LLC  ), account number to follow.
Now suppose you manufacture aircraft, which many companies do. And as happens, one of those encounters a problem and runs into a mountain or goes down in the sea or otherwise causes the death of everyone on board. Let's just pick a random number, say 150 deaths. So you've got a lot of lawsuits. Manufacturer error, pilot error, maybe just bad luck due to weather or something (but the bad luck card cannot be played, ever, in these instances). FAA (unnecssary bureacracy) will make a finding, which might bode well for either the manufacturer or the airline or just random sh*t (as mentioned, random sh*t cannot happen in the courts, even if it does). Meh, they insure against this stuff. Make no mistake, manufacturer and airline, which are actually ironically tied together, are now pitted against each other. And then it's just a matter of mitigation, for each. How do we get the smallest payout? And believe me, it will get down to well "this passenger was gay and had AIDS, so you are asking for way to much because he didn't have that great a life expectancy anyway." This is true. Same argument used when a flight attendant was sucked out the failed door of a 747.
Good luck in dealing with this stuff.
|
|
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:23 |
stonebeard wrote:
I would rather like someone who actually knew about economics and took the progressive side of things to come in. Somehow I have a feeling that not all professional economists are libertarians.
|
Not all, but certainly a larger percentage than the general population. Well, this has been fun, but I'm off to bed to read a book about why antitrust laws should be abolished.
|
|
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:23 |
jammun wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
jammun wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
jammun wrote:
[
I only support the FDA (in its enforcer role) because we obviously cannot trust corporations to do the right thing. Hence OSHA and the myriad others. Do you think BP would be doing anything in the Gulf without government intervention? If so, you are sorely deluded. Let 'em eat oil. |
That makes total sense. BP wants to let millions of gallons of its precious, valuable oil escape forever into the ocean with no possibility of reclaiming it, while simultaneously making everyone in the world so angry that they'll be lucky if they're not besieged by lynch mobs, not to mention boycotts. Sounds like a winning business strategy to me.
|
There would be no lynch mobs. Boycotts, maybe. They've already let millions of gallons escape forever, unless they have a secret 'get the tar balls' plan we are not aware of. Corporations exist for their management and their stockholders (yes, I'm a stockholder in some of these corporations), and it's f**k the workers and the customers, without some level of oversight. |
Exactly. As you've said llama no company will make bad products/endanger us willingly...least I hope. That would be stupid. But they cut any corner or do anything to squeeze any cent.
The private sector is for profit. I am fine with that. But without some regulation/enforcement it makes sense to me they will push the envelope to maximize, which could result in disaster.
|
Alas, it's after a product fails, whether it's ground beef or an airliner. I used to work for a law firm (no I'm not a lawyer, but please feel free to send all your disposable income to my LLC ), account number to follow.
Now suppose you manufacture aircraft, which many companies do. And as happens, one of those encounters a problem and runs into a mountain or goes down in the sea or otherwise causes the death of everyone on board. Let's just pick a random number, say 150 deaths. So you've got a lot of lawsuits. Manufacturer error, pilot error, maybe just bad luck due to weather or something (but the bad luck card cannot be played, ever, in these instances). FAA (unnecssary bureacracy) will make a finding, which might bode well for either the manufacturer or the airline or just random sh*t (as mentioned, random sh*t cannot happen in the courts, even if it does). Meh, they insure against this stuff. Make no mistake, manufacturer and airline, which are actually ironically tied together, are now pitted against each other. And then it's just a matter of mitigation, for each. How do we get the smallest payout? And believe me, it will get down to well "this passenger was gay and had AIDS, so you are asking for way too much because he didn't have that great a life expectancy anyway." This is true. Same argument used when a flight attendant was sucked out the failed door of a 747.
Good luck in dealing with this stuff. |
|
|
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:24 |
jammun wrote:
jammun wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
jammun wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
jammun wrote:
[
I only support the FDA (in its enforcer role) because we obviously cannot trust corporations to do the right thing. Hence OSHA and the myriad others. Do you think BP would be doing anything in the Gulf without government intervention? If so, you are sorely deluded. Let 'em eat oil. |
That makes total sense. BP wants to let millions of gallons of its precious, valuable oil escape forever into the ocean with no possibility of reclaiming it, while simultaneously making everyone in the world so angry that they'll be lucky if they're not besieged by lynch mobs, not to mention boycotts. Sounds like a winning business strategy to me.
|
There would be no lynch mobs. Boycotts, maybe. They've already let millions of gallons escape forever, unless they have a secret 'get the tar balls' plan we are not aware of. Corporations exist for their management and their stockholders (yes, I'm a stockholder in some of these corporations), and it's f**k the workers and the customers, without some level of oversight. |
Exactly. As you've said llama no company will make bad products/endanger us willingly...least I hope. That would be stupid. But they cut any corner or do anything to squeeze any cent.
The private sector is for profit. I am fine with that. But without some regulation/enforcement it makes sense to me they will push the envelope to maximize, which could result in disaster.
|
Alas, it's after a product fails, whether it's ground beef or an airliner. I used to work for a law firm (no I'm not a lawyer, but please feel free to send all your disposable income to my LLC ), account number to follow.
Now suppose you manufacture aircraft, which many companies do. And as happens, one of those encounters a problem and runs into a mountain or goes down in the sea or otherwise causes the death of everyone on board. Let's just pick a random number, say 150 deaths. So you've got a lot of lawsuits. Manufacturer error, pilot error, maybe just bad luck due to weather or something (but the bad luck card cannot be played, ever, in these instances). FAA (unnecssary bureacracy) will make a finding, which might bode well for either the manufacturer or the airline or just random sh*t (as mentioned, random sh*t cannot happen in the courts, even if it does). Meh, they insure against this stuff. Make no mistake, manufacturer and airline, which are actually ironically tied together, are now pitted against each other. And then it's just a matter of mitigation, for each. How do we get the smallest payout? And believe me, it will get down to well "this passenger was gay and had AIDS, so you are asking for way too much because he didn't have that great a life expectancy anyway." This is true for each person on that doomed plan. Same argument used when a flight attendant was sucked out the failed door of a 747.
Good luck in dealing with this stuff. |
|
|
|
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:24 |
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
How hard is it then for a new product to break into the mainstream Wal-Mart kinda place, against well-established brands. Again I'm not sure how this works in reality, or if it even does in the rosy kind of picturesque situations libertarians seem to imply.
|
I'm not sure why it woudn't work in reality. Could you describe a barrier which would prevent it? |
Not really because I don't know how this sh*t works.
|
So why do you assume it works like that? |
Mostly from hearsay and propaganda mixed with dubious logical conclusions.
|
Hey I got the answer I wanted. I'll just ignore the sarcasm and brag to myself about my victory. |
There wasn't mch sarcasm there just frank honesty, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, only that I just don't know and I don't care that much.
I would rather like someone who actually knew about economics and took the progressive side of things to come in. Somehow I have a feeling that not all professional economists are libertarians.
|
That's true; it's only the good ones.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:24 |
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
How hard is it then for a new product to break into the mainstream Wal-Mart kinda place, against well-established brands. Again I'm not sure how this works in reality, or if it even does in the rosy kind of picturesque situations libertarians seem to imply. |
I'm not sure why it woudn't work in reality. Could you describe a barrier which would prevent it? |
Not really because I don't know how this sh*t works. |
So why do you assume it works like that? |
Mostly from hearsay and propaganda mixed with dubious logical conclusions. |
Hey I got the answer I wanted. I'll just ignore the sarcasm and brag to myself about my victory. |
There wasn't mch sarcasm there just frank honesty, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, only that I just don't know and I don't care that much.I would rather like someone who actually knew about economics and took the progressive side of things to come in. Somehow I have a feeling that not all professional economists are libertarians. |
Of course they aren't. I studied economics for about a year a long time ago and none was adoring Milton Friedman back then but blaming him for all the chaos in the region (not the US).
And surely not here. We would have turned libertarian long ago don't you think? Somehow I think some economists that are not libertarians maybe are also smart. Maybe.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:25 |
thellama73 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I would rather like someone who actually knew about economics and took the progressive side of things to come in. Somehow I have a feeling that not all professional economists are libertarians.
|
Not all, but certainly a larger percentage than the general population.
Well, this has been fun, but I'm off to bed to read a book about why antitrust laws should be abolished.
|
Care if I ask by whom?
I've read several good presentations myself.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - August 02 2010 at 22:25
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:26 |
^^of course they're smart. You're smart too. You're just wrong. 
Edited by thellama73 - August 02 2010 at 22:27
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:26 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
Ah but are you laughing at jokes or My/T's/Slarti's terrible debating and socialist claims? |
Mostly the terrible debating, but allow myself a normally socially adapted person's joke every few pages. |
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:27 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That's true; it's only the good ones. |
Oh golly didn't see that opinion coming. Although, to be honest you could be joking. But fyi, no one knows when you are because dry humor doesn't translate well over the Internet. Especially with such...*sniff* boorish prose.
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:27 |
|
So Jammun, is the moral of the story that necessary regulation is they key?
If not, that's what I'll say!
Edited by JJLehto - August 02 2010 at 22:30
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:27 |
|
A final question before you go read Mama Elephant and the Ugly Donkey: have you ever read books that don't support your views?
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:28 |
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That's true; it's only the good ones. |
Oh golly didn't see that opinion coming.
Although, to be honest you could be joking. But fyi, no one knows when you are because dry humor doesn't translate well over the Internet. Especially with such...*sniff* boorish prose.
|
Making jokes serve no rational purpose. The more dry, the less rational they are.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:29 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I would rather like someone who actually knew about economics and took the progressive side of things to come in. Somehow I have a feeling that not all professional economists are libertarians.
|
Not all, but certainly a larger percentage than the general population.
Well, this has been fun, but I'm off to bed to read a book about why antitrust laws should be abolished.
|
Care if I ask by whom?
I've read several good presentations myself.
|
It's called "Antitrust: The Case For Repeal" by Dominick Armentano, from the grand old Austrian school.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:29 |
The T wrote:
A final question before you go read Mama Elephant and the Ugly Donkey: have you ever read books that don't support your views? |
He went to college so I'm going to wager that he did so, and has also had to defend those views in front of countless professors.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:30 |
thellama73 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I would rather like someone who actually knew about economics and took the progressive side of things to come in. Somehow I have a feeling that not all professional economists are libertarians.
|
Not all, but certainly a larger percentage than the general population.
Well, this has been fun, but I'm off to bed to read a book about why antitrust laws should be abolished.
|
This is true. But there are liberal economists. And the Friedman movement (neo classical?) I dont know what to call it.... which has been accepted since the late 70's took a back seat to Keynes in the current recession. Maybe neither are fully right? IMHO
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:30 |
The T wrote:
A final question before you go read Mama Elephant and the Ugly Donkey: have you ever read books that don't support your views? |
Yep, but I don't find it terribly insightful, because I hear those opinions constantly on every TV show and every newspaper every hour of every day of my entire life.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 02 2010 at 22:31 |
thellama73 wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
I would rather like someone who actually knew about economics and took the progressive side of things to come in. Somehow I have a feeling that not all professional economists are libertarians.
|
Not all, but certainly a larger percentage than the general population.
Well, this has been fun, but I'm off to bed to read a book about why antitrust laws should be abolished.
|
Care if I ask by whom?
I've read several good presentations myself.
|
It's called "Antitrust: The Case For Repeal" by Dominick Armentano, from the grand old Austrian school.
|
I love it  . I have the pdf from mises.org only unfortunately. I was too cheap to buy it.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
