- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
KissmyAxe
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 142 |
| Registered on: | 12/19/2013 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
I think it's funny as hell when people ask if we would like to go back to the 19th century when working conditions were bad as if they were not bad in the 18th century and before all the way back in recorded human history.
The industrial revolution was a transitional phase. Child labor. Guess what? Children had ALWAYS worked. Poverty. Guess what? Before the industrial revolution EVERYONE was poor. Even kings had to piss in a pot and toss it out the window.
The average world wealth per person in 1000 BCE was about 150 dollars per person. It did not exceed 200 per year by 1750. So if you factor in at least 100,000 years of human history it took 97,000 years to go from 100 per person to 150 per person and then another 2750 years to get to 200 per person. Today its 6600 per person. So I wonder what strange idea it was around that time that caused wealth to escalate so quickly?
The industrial revolution was a transitional phase. Child labor. Guess what? Children had ALWAYS worked. Poverty. Guess what? Before the industrial revolution EVERYONE was poor. Even kings had to piss in a pot and toss it out the window.
The average world wealth per person in 1000 BCE was about 150 dollars per person. It did not exceed 200 per year by 1750. So if you factor in at least 100,000 years of human history it took 97,000 years to go from 100 per person to 150 per person and then another 2750 years to get to 200 per person. Today its 6600 per person. So I wonder what strange idea it was around that time that caused wealth to escalate so quickly?
0
re: Did this ex-gay fellow's genetics change? or is there another explanation?
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/13/14 at 8:44 pm to SettleDown
quote:
I've always been fascinated though by something.
If a guy is married for 20 years, then turns up gay, people say "he was always gay". But if he's been gay for some years, then gets married and stays that way for 20, they still say "he was always gay".
This thing only seems to work in one direction.
people who are skeptical of this guy in the OP have every reason to be. How many times now has someone in the "I'm not gay anymore" community got caught with guys again. Too many for it to be a coincidence.
re: Did this ex-gay fellow's genetics change? or is there another explanation?
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/13/14 at 8:42 pm to SettleDown
Ted haggard....he was just getting "massages".. :rolleyes:
quote:
The biggest obstacles US corporations face are high taxes, onerous regulation, and asymmetric enforcement of both. Libertarians are for reduction or elimination of all of those. So whereas larger entrenched, monied companies might have a preference for BigGovernment they can lobby and control, small, medium, and upcoming businesses generally have no such compunction.
This may be true to some degree however these smaller corporations don't have nearly as deep of pockets.
In regard to the OP and Christian Libertarians. If you're talking about Tom Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Ron Paul level of Libertarians I as an atheist admire these guys and certainly wish there were more of them! I'd love to sit and have a beer with the Judge and talk poly ticks any day.
re: Things Libertarians need to realize...
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/12/14 at 10:21 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
A lot of conservatives and republicans call him a traitor. I don't really see them as on the same side as libertarians on those issues.
I wasn't asserting that they were.
Oh yes and in regard to the OP's point about NSA spying. Edward Snowden, Libertarian. Thank you.
re: Things Libertarians need to realize...
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/12/14 at 10:05 pm to joshnorris14
I realize I'm jumping in late and I apologize if this has been brought up already I skimmed most of the replies.
But in regard to the OP saying Libertarians don't focus on fiscal issues is a bit of a surprise to me. Perhaps it's all the anarcho caps I hang with online facebook etc that has skewed my perspective. Libertarians are not going to win major elections without big donors. Who has the big donors? It seems to me that big corporations do not donate to libertarians precisely because of their stance on fiscal issues. (ie) no GM bail outs, no Wall Street bail outs, no housing mortgage bail outs etc. So in short it's precisely BECAUSE Libertarians are firm on fiscal issues and that's why they don't get the big corporate sponsors and thus the ammo to win elections. In part anyways but I think that's a huge part.
And yes there's overlap with the tea party on issues but that's mainly fiscal. There's no over lap on immigration, womens rights to chose, gay marriage,and the death penalty. One can easily point out all the issues that Libertarians share with liberals yet no one makes the claim that these two positions are the same. And if they did I'd take that as an insult.
But in regard to the OP saying Libertarians don't focus on fiscal issues is a bit of a surprise to me. Perhaps it's all the anarcho caps I hang with online facebook etc that has skewed my perspective. Libertarians are not going to win major elections without big donors. Who has the big donors? It seems to me that big corporations do not donate to libertarians precisely because of their stance on fiscal issues. (ie) no GM bail outs, no Wall Street bail outs, no housing mortgage bail outs etc. So in short it's precisely BECAUSE Libertarians are firm on fiscal issues and that's why they don't get the big corporate sponsors and thus the ammo to win elections. In part anyways but I think that's a huge part.
And yes there's overlap with the tea party on issues but that's mainly fiscal. There's no over lap on immigration, womens rights to chose, gay marriage,and the death penalty. One can easily point out all the issues that Libertarians share with liberals yet no one makes the claim that these two positions are the same. And if they did I'd take that as an insult.
re: Science, Race, Homosexuality, Abortion, and Religion
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/10/14 at 9:05 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
This idea that all genetic traits are nice and neat, single allele, punnet square types is a damning indictment of our science curriculum in this country.
Quote of the day award. Congrats!
re: Bill Nye Smears Ken Ham
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/10/14 at 9:01 pm to Roger Klarvin
I wish Nye would have asked, "How do you know the bibles authors were inspired by god, where you there?"
Ok yea there's no gay gene......... Hey where's the straight gene?
And I brought up the paid workers more productive than slaves issue as a rebuttal to your absurd claim that it would not have been profitable for the agriculture industry to have paid labor claim that you so quietly and smartly dropped from your argument.
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/1/14 at 11:04 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
but at a cost that should be in the narrative a long with relevant truths such as the fact that the rest of the world was in ruins most of the 20th century allowing the US to dominate economically.
The United States was dominating and rising quickly during the 19th century when the rest of the world was not in "ruins". Why do you think we had boat loads of immigrants?
quote:
Slave labor benefited the ruling class in the south, to say otherwise is wildly insane.
Where did I argue that the slave owners didn't benefit? We're (at least I thought) were talking about the economy.
Perhaps you think that the two are the same? I can rob my neighbor or a bank and benefit me yet this does nothing for the economy. In fact it can be argued that it hurts the economy.
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/1/14 at 8:38 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
If you read further you would have seen that I said while paying slaves likely would have increased production, wages must also be accounted for when talking about increasing profit.
Your claim is self contradictory. Of coarse when one says that something is more productive you are factoring in wages.
quote:
It was simply a recognition that the US did benefit, in ways,
But you have not given us any examples of how it benefited other then to claim over and over again that it did. It's quite clear the north had a stronger economy and more vibrant cities and less poverty than the south yet you offer nothing to surmount this evidence contrary to your position that it was a net plus for the economy rather than a net negative.
:nana: checkmate :nana: :lol:
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/1/14 at 7:22 pm to Sleeping Tiger
First you say..
Then you say...
Which is it?
quote:
There is no way those natural resources in the south could have been materialized into wealth without free labor.
Then you say...
quote:
This isn't about whether or not paying slaves to pick cotton would have yielded better results. It likely would have, giving them an incentive beyond not getting whipped very well may have created more production.
Which is it?
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/1/14 at 6:17 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
There is no way those natural resources in the south could have been materialized into wealth without free labor.
Sure it could have. The people picking the cotton would have been much more productive had they been free and were paid. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? IDK what you do for a living but just how much less productive would you be if you were beaten and forced to work for no pay? seriously.
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/1/14 at 4:01 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Slavery did play a role in this countries rise, to say otherwise is blasphemy. The US was able to capitalize on natural resources that would have been impossible to capitalize on without free labor. No machines could do what the slaves did, and paying that many workers wouldn't have been economical. The majority of the south was poor, but that's how capitalism works, just as the majority of the world is poor today while great wealth is also present. Slavery is not why the US became the power it did, but ignoring any role it played in the rise is foolish.
You've done nothing here but restate your position in different terms. Take the following statement for example.
quote:
The US was able to capitalize on natural resources that would have been impossible to capitalize on without free labor.
Really because all the evidence points to the contrary. Paying people a wage and allowing them to freely chose or not chose who their employer is going to be while allowing them to keep what they earn seems to be the best path to general prosperity and wealth.
quote:
The majority of the south was poor, but that's how capitalism works, just as the majority of the world is poor today while great wealth is also present.
Poor is such a relative term. Poor today is not what poor was fifty years ago. Now ask yourself why that is. Look at the nations that have a greater degree of free markets verses those that don't and the answer is obvious. Not only does Marxism lose the battle of philosophical rigor but it loses the empirical test as well.
What's also an interesting "coincidence" is that for all of human history child labor was the norm. It existed in every culture in every time until the industrial revolutions started to occur. That's because when you allow people to create and keep their wealth the need to have children producing goods drops greatly.
quote:
You're saying that because of the way capitalism exploited a region like S America it gave them the opportunity to earn a wage and eat instead of selling their bodies in the streets. I honestly don't even know what to say to that. It's sort of like saying that I helped a homeless man by kicking him in the gut, stealing his clothes, then tossing him a dime.
Idk how you can extrapolate giving a person an option with physical aggression. Do you seriously think you are going to win people over to your way of thinking with such hyperbole?
quote:
Your position is incomplete, it's not really accounting for why their conditions were bad in the first place.
Oh I know why their conditions are bad in the first place. Look at any nation of dirt poor and you will see a large degree of anti free market propaganda.
quote:
Marx in some ways believed something like capitalism was necessary to bridge feudalism and colonialism to socialism, ughh this is difficult to articulate.
That's because it's an incoherent world view with too many foundation premises that are just plain wrong.
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/1/14 at 2:48 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
. Bringing to light the fact that slavery played a role in this countries rise is not blaming capitalism for slavery.
But it didn't play a role. Not in the sense that you are trying to argue for anyways. Slavery hindered this nations growth. That's why the south was poor during slavery and that's why the industrial revolution didn't happen until slavery was abolished.
quote:
This is as tremendously inaccurate as what you said about blaming slavery on capitalism.
ok...........examples? proof? reasoning? any argument to prove your position at all?
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/1/14 at 2:41 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
The left has been trying to explain his work for what it is, not try to rehabilitate his work.
And the left has a fantastic track record of trying to implement his philosophy in practices as well!
quote:
The Cultural Left has been trying to rehabilitate Marx my entire life.
Yes it's like a bad never ending version of Weekend at Bernies.
re: Rolling Stone: Marx Was Right
Posted by KissmyAxe on 2/1/14 at 2:31 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Think about the fact that under capitalism we brought slaves from Africa to do our work, think that didn't contribute to the rise of this country?
Slavery an institution that has always existed is the fault of capitalism. :rolleyes:
If slavery contributed to the rise of the country then why was the south so much poorer than the rest of the nation? Did the industrial revolution happen during slavery ? of coarse not.
quote:
Think about a corporation like Dole or United Fruit Co who have exploited other countries for their natural resources while bringing in major profits to the US economy. Think that doesn't contribute to our wealth?
They gave them job opportunities where none existed before. Pick fruit or sell your body on the street. I guess that's capitalism's fault to.
If it were up to marxist they'd have no choice but to do the latter.
quote:
Last time I checked the US was 17 trillion in debt, some cities look like 3rd world countries, the gap between rich and poor has grown to unbelievable levels, small business is being overtaken by multinationals, all media is owned by a few corporations who propagate those interests 24/7.
Your beef is with corporatism not capitalism.
Popular
37
