Rand Paul Wants To Cut $500 billion By Cutting Defense, Shutting Down Education Dept.
395 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;27569306]sorry to bring it back to this but fucking LOL[/QUOTE]
It is quite the contradiction. Laissez-fair capitalism isn't really all about equality in any way.
It's like he never learned a single bit about the US circa 1900-1930
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27569609]It's like he never learned a single bit about the US circa 1900-1930[/QUOTE]
Just skipped right over it. 16 hour work days? What's that?
it did provide equality for all people
if by people you mean those who massively benefited from the system, and not the people who lived and worked in shitty conditions for fucking nothing
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;27569795]it did provide equality for all people
if by people you mean those who massively benefited from the system, and not the people who lived and worked in shitty conditions for fucking nothing[/QUOTE]
Do you think legislation can magically make our productivity better while improving working conditions?
Capitalism does both.
You want to reap the benefits of capitalism while getting rid of the cause.
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575232]Do you think legislation can magically make our productivity better while improving working conditions?
Capitalism does both.
You want to reap the benefits of capitalism while getting rid of the cause.[/QUOTE]
Ok yeah you're trolling now. There's no way you can claim with a straight face that pure free market capitalism with no regulation leads to improved working conditions.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27575257]Ok yeah you're trolling now. There's no way you can claim with a straight face that pure free market capitalism with no regulation leads to improved working conditions.[/QUOTE]
No, he'll just reply with the post "competition" and then not explain it, all while claiming it's obvious.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27575257]Ok yeah you're trolling now. There's no way you can claim with a straight face that pure free market capitalism with no regulation leads to improved working conditions.[/QUOTE]
So would you prefer we recede back into Feudalism?
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575353]So would you prefer we recede back into Feudalism?[/QUOTE]
...
:confused:
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575232]Do you think legislation can magically make our productivity better while improving working conditions?
Capitalism does both.
You want to reap the benefits of capitalism while getting rid of the cause.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, pure capitalism really made working conditions great.
[img]http://hogwild.net/images/Misc/industrial-revolution-children-labor.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575353]So would you prefer we recede back into Feudalism?[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to suggest that the only other option is Feudalism? That is far from the case.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27575376]...
:confused:[/QUOTE]
Hint, guess what got us out of that.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27575398]Are you trying to suggest that the only other option is Feudalism? That is far from the case.[/QUOTE]
No I'm suggesting that capitalism was the cause of western prosperity.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27575393]Yeah, pure capitalism really made working conditions great.
[img_thumb]http://hogwild.net/images/Misc/industrial-revolution-children-labor.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Why do you think kids don't have to work today? (hint, not legislation)
Because of the increased productivity that industrialization brought about and allowed their parents to produce more without them.
Do you think kids did not work before the industrial revolution?
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575426]Hint, guess what got us out of that.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
No I'm suggesting that capitalism was the cause of western prosperity.[/QUOTE]
Just because it may have done that in some way does not make it the best economic ideology.
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575426]Hint, guess what got us out of that.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
No I'm suggesting that capitalism was the cause of western prosperity.[/QUOTE]
Actually that was more the Renaissance and all, but ok.
And that doesn't excuse the fact that that's a total non-sequitur. Even assuming capitalism was the sole reason we're out of the dark ages, that doesn't make laissez faire any less shitty.
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575426]Hint, guess what got us out of that.[/quote]
Not capitalism.
[quote]Why do you think kids don't have to work today? (hint, not legislation)
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act[/url]
durr
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27575475]Not capitalism.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act[/url]
durr[/QUOTE]
It's like he never even learned about the history of American industry!
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27575475][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act[/url]
durr[/QUOTE]
And that was passed in the late stages of industrialization. durr.
You have bad comprehension.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27575467]Actually that was more the Renaissance and all, but ok.
And that doesn't excuse the fact that that's a total non-sequitur. Even assuming capitalism was the sole reason we're out of the dark ages, that doesn't make laissez faire any less shitty.[/QUOTE]
The renaissance? That was more of a social and intellectual movement that emphasized the individual.
But guess what economic system arose from that?
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575514]And that was passed in the late stages of industrialization. durr.
You have bad comprehension.[/QUOTE]
You claimed the reason that children don't have to work today isn't because of legislation. He posted legislation that did just that. When it became law is irrelevant to the point he was making.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27575510]It's like he never even learned about the history of American industry![/QUOTE]
I have and the British as well.
You should lay down on the Karl Marx and try out some Adam Smith.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;27575543]You claimed the reason that children don't have to work today isn't because of legislation. He posted legislation that did just that. When it became law is irrelevant to the point he was making.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think it took so long to pass that legislation?
Children were necessary before industrialization.
Parents could not produce enough on their own in most circumstances.
Nice comprehension bro.
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575514]And that was passed in the late stages of industrialization. durr.
You have bad comprehension.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
The renaissance? That was more of a social and intellectual movement that emphasized the individual.
But guess what economic system arose from that?[/QUOTE]
Emphasis on the individual which means the serf class became deprecated which means feudalism died out. All before capitalism.
Also you know in a certain sort of way feudalism is capitalism. The feudal lords and kings have serfs working under then and producing goods and crops in exchange for land. They lacked rights or resources and led shitty lives, which is pretty similar to how low wage and factory workers lived back in the 1920s.
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575550]I have and the British as well.
You should lay down on the Karl Marx and try out some Adam Smith.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
Why do you think it took so long to pass that legislation?
Children were necessary before industrialization.
Parents could not produce enough on their own in most circumstances.
Nice comprehension bro.[/QUOTE]
Parents didn't make enough money to provide for their children.
You know why?
Shitty wages because of unrestricted capitalism.
[QUOTE=Strider*;27575550]I have and the British as well.
You should lay down on the Karl Marx and try out some Adam Smith.
[editline]22nd January 2011[/editline]
Why do you think it took so long to pass that legislation?
Children were necessary before industrialization.
Parents could not produce enough on their own in most circumstances.
Nice comprehension bro.[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't they still use kids, though? They don't require a livable wage, they're smaller and have more energy, and would be perfectly suited to working mindless, menial jobs.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27575599]Emphasis on the individual which means the serf class became deprecated which means feudalism died out. All before capitalism.
Also you know in a certain sort of way feudalism is capitalism. The feudal lords and kings have serfs working under then and producing goods and crops in exchange for land. They lacked rights or resources and led shitty lives, which is pretty similar to how low wage and factory workers lived back in the 1920s.[/QUOTE]
Early 1900's capitalism had a direct analog to serfdom: sharecropping.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;27575639]Early 1900's capitalism had a direct analog to serfdom: sharecropping.[/QUOTE]
I was going to mention that too, it's pretty much the exact same except the sefs/sharecroppers were financially indebted to the providers as well.
Yes to the former, no to the latter.
so I was gone for a while. Did strider give a reason how this plan wont lead to monopoly or poor working conditions?
What the fuck am I reading Strider? It's like you know all of the facts, but you don't have the fucking comprehension to apply any of it.
[QUOTE=Billiam;27577148]What the fuck am I reading Strider? It's like you know all of the facts, but you don't have the fucking comprehension to apply any of it.[/QUOTE]
Funny I feel the same for all of you.
[QUOTE=Strider*;27578080]Funny I feel the same for all of you.[/QUOTE]
Funny because you're demonstrably wrong with a basic knowledge of US history
[QUOTE=Strider*;27578080]Funny I feel the same for all of you.[/QUOTE]
Isnt that the definition of a douchebag?
but really how do you expect us to see your point if you dont make any? you cant just say competition. That might have worked for you but it will not on normal people
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.