New Data Shows Just How Unequal Wealth Has Become in the U.S. Since the 80s - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288780]An individual. “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Oh no did he quote that witch again?[/QUOTE] economic positions aside she was a clunky writer with no sense of character

[QUOTE=Kybalt;28288744]and where do you see yourself in this society?[/QUOTE] At the top, obviously. Unfortunately he'd be eating filth in the gutters of the street like the other 40% of the super-poor; Im sure then his hypocritical opinions would quickly change.

I'm not arguing an extreme that is an improper term. I'm arguing absolutes.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288758]Sure. Takes two seconds for one of them to betray the others. Or for someone else to enter the business and provide a fair price destroying the others. Or even for the consumers in response to move to a new alternative product.[/QUOTE] It also takes two seconds for all the other companies to quash the betrayer. BUT WAIT NO CAPTILISM INDIVIDUALISM FREE RIGHTS BLAAAAAA

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28288825]At the top, obviously. Unfortunately he'd be eating filth in the gutters of the street like the other 40% of the super-poor; Im sure then his hypocritical opinions would quickly change.[/QUOTE] I was born into poverty.

Hello?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28288835]It also takes two seconds for all the other companies to quash the betrayer. BUT WAIT NO CAPTILISM INDIVIDUALISM FREE RIGHTS BLAAAAAA[/QUOTE] And how? The other companies have no power over another business.. all the consumers would have long moved to the business providing the fair price.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288838]I was born into poverty.[/QUOTE] of course that makes you always right (unless you're born in poverty and you stay poor in which case boo because EVERYONE HAS THE EXACT SAME OPPORTUNITIES)

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288758]Sure. Takes two seconds for one of them to betray the others.[/quote] Care to give an example? Very few corporations would sign into a merger which would easily be broken. [QUOTE=Strider*;28288758]Or for someone else to enter the business and provide a fair price destroying the others. Or even for the consumers in response to move to a new alternative product.[/QUOTE] Say the four major cell phone companies, who own towers anyway, conspire together. Put all their money in a trust, or merge or whatever. How easy is it for anyone to compete with them?

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288780]An individual. “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Oh no did he quote that witch again?[/QUOTE] Oh my god, I wasted the last 2 hours of my life arguing with an Ayn Rand opinionist. For fucks sake, could a moderator give him a title: "I agree with Ayn Rand" so I can avoid pointless arguments in the future? I may as well be arguing about the existence of god with a religious extremist.

i like how as soon as this was posted, no more news articles appeared

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28288810]economic positions aside she was a clunky writer with no sense of character[/QUOTE] I disagree she is one of my favorite authors shortly behind Tolstoy.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288855]And how? The other companies have no power over another business.. all the consumers would have long moved to the business providing the fair price.[/QUOTE] Yes, because bribes don't exist, because law suits don't exist, because corporate espionage doesn't exist. All companies everywhere obey a strict code of conduct they never break. No they wouldn't. If that were true everyone would shop at Food 4 Less.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28288878]Oh my god, I wasted the last 2 hours of my life arguing with an Ayn Rand opinionist. For fucks sake, could a moderator give him a title: "I agree with Ayn Rand" so I can avoid pointless arguments in the future? I may as well be arguing about the existence of good with a religious extremist.[/QUOTE] It wasn't obvious from the beginning?

you guys really need to stop arguing with strider because he bases his definition the terms "good and bad" on what is and isn't capitalist 'good' and 'capitalist' are metonyms to him

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288882]I disagree she is one of my favorite authors shortly behind Tolstoy.[/QUOTE] So you also have no taste, wonderful. I'll take my angry jewish Harlan Ellison to your stupid bitchy short sighted Rand any day motherfucker.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28288901]you guys really need to stop arguing with strider because he bases his definition the terms "good and bad" on what is and isn't capitalist 'good' and 'capitalist' are metonyms to him[/QUOTE] Not really.

I argue that flying gypsy monkeys are of no economic benefit to the bourgeoisie liberal republican elite of the libertarian authoritarian state. Therefore your argument is nullified. QED.

reposting this "Say the four major cell phone companies, who own towers anyway, conspire together. Put all their money in a trust, or merge or whatever. How easy is it for anyone to compete with them?"

[QUOTE=Kybalt;28288922]reposting this "Say the four major cell phone companies, who own towers anyway, conspire together. Put all their money in a trust, or merge or whatever. How easy is it for anyone to compete with them?"[/QUOTE] well obviously a small company would just make their prices cheaper and the larger company wouldn't even think to buy them out because that would be communistic i am a complete fucking idiot by the way an i jerk off to ayn rand

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28288907]So you also have no taste, wonderful. I'll take my angry jewish Harlan Ellison to your stupid bitchy short sighted Rand any day motherfucker.[/QUOTE] I actually do like I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288882]I disagree she is one of my favorite authors shortly behind Tolstoy.[/QUOTE] which is funny considering that tolstoy was an anarchist. anarchy meaning the abolition of the state, in turn meaning the abolition of personal property and therefore the necessity of selfless cooperation

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288896]It wasn't obvious from the beginning?[/QUOTE] I thought you were just completely ignorant and arrogant, but you agree with Ayn Rand and thats like 5x worse. This is why you should have a title so I know your opinions are garbage from the start. here I was thinking you may have a somewhat legitimate reason for arguing, but you don't. Peace out

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28288962]which is funny considering that tolstoy was an anarchist and the abolition of the state means the abolition of personal property and therefore the necessity of selfless cooperation[/QUOTE] I never said I agreed with him. My favorite author, not political theorist. My favorite political theorist and economist is Friedman hands down. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;28288993]I thought you were just completely ignorant and arrogant, but you agree with Ayn Rand and thats like 5x worse. This is why you should have a title so I know your opinions are garbage from the start. here I was thinking you may have a somewhat legitimate reason for arguing, but you don't. Peace out[/QUOTE] My legitimate reason for arguing is I have values.. and I argue for them.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288953]I actually do like I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.[/QUOTE] Pft. One of many. A true Ellison fan knows more than his most popular short story. Live in the world around you.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288995]I never said I agreed with him. My favorite author, not political theorist. My favorite political theorist and economist is Friedman hands down. [editline]26th February 2011[/editline] My legitimate reason for arguing is I have values.. and I argue for them.[/QUOTE] even if the realization of your values would make society shit.

[QUOTE=that1dude24;28288862]Care to give an example? Very few corporations would sign into a merger which would easily be broken. Say the four major cell phone companies, who own towers anyway, conspire together. Put all their money in a trust, or merge or whatever. How easy is it for anyone to compete with them?[/QUOTE] Care to answer?

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288995]My legitimate reason for arguing is I have values.. and I argue for them.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI[/media]

[QUOTE=Strider*;28288995]I never said I agreed with him. My favorite author, not political theorist.[/QUOTE] but don't you think that, in his profound wisdom, he may have obtained some humanistic understanding of politics that is intangible to the dry numerical science of economics, an understanding which led him to support anarchism? like, maybe he was on to something that has, as of yet, been imperceptible to you?

[QUOTE=that1dude24;28289025]you going to ignore me or what[/QUOTE] I think they became so enraged with each other they forgot that other posts exist.