Where did Jaggerbot earn his pretend fortune?

So, you don't know the difference between where you get laid and how you get laid?

Sorry I guess I assumed some level of understanding. Maybe you should grasp the difference between 'where' and 'how' and then get back to this conversation.
 
foxpaws said:
So, you don't know the difference between where you get laid and how you get laid?

Sorry I guess I assumed some level of understanding. Maybe you should grasp the difference between 'where' and 'how' and then get back to this conversation.
Click to expand...

You really have no shame do you.
 
shagdrum said:
You really have no shame do you.
Click to expand...

Just using your words Shag,
shagdrum said:
Well, given your utter economic ignorance, maybe I should have spelled that out. I was assuming some basic level of knowledge in economics which clearly doesn't exist on your part.
Click to expand...

So, do you know what the difference is between where you get laid and how you get laid?
 
foxpaws said:
Just using your words Shag,


So, do you know what the difference is between where you get laid and how you get laid?
Click to expand...

There is a little issue of relevance to the discussion. Weather or not I am promiscuous has no relevance to the discussion. The fact that you would start hurling irrelevant personal insults like that and then spin them to try and make your point is very telling.
 
shagdrum said:
There is a little issue of relevance to the discussion. Weather or not I am promiscuous has no relevance to the discussion. The fact that you would start hurling irrelevant personal insults like that and then spin them to try and make your point is very telling.
Click to expand...

I have no clue on whether or not you are promiscuous - nor do I care. You could have only gotten laid once in your lifetime and you should still know the difference between where you got laid and how you got laid.

I find that using a metaphor that is simple, direct and to the point helps clear up any question about the subject at hand.

So, shag, do you know the difference between where you got laid and how you got laid?

Or if this offends you some how (once again, I felt the metaphor would not only garner your attention, but really gets the point across about the differences that I have made in this discussion - the difference between where wealth is created and how wealth is created), maybe another metaphor is in order. I will think on it.
 
shagdrum said:
Wrong. The accumulation of gold and silver does not create wealth. The analogy today would be the fed simply printing more money; that doesn't create wealth. In fact, it destroys wealth.

And the whole "theory" of mercantilism is based on a zero sum fallacy. So it never would create wealth, even under it's on flawed understanding of wealth. It simply took wealth that already existed from other places, namely from other countries. Redistribution on an international scale, at best. There is a huge difference between redistribution of wealth and creation of wealth.

Wanna try again?
Click to expand...

Capital is wealth, dude.
 
Fox, could the question be restated without the sexual element, which could well be more of a distraction than an aid?
 
Perhaps - that is why in my last post I said I would think about it. However, when you have what could be the ideal metaphor, it is hard not to use it.

I will come up with something else... but I fear it will be somewhat of a 2nd class effort.
 
This morning I head some right wing nut job on the radio saying that the swine flu was manufactured in a lab by IBM to be used as part of a socialist takeover of the United States.
 
foxpaws said:
I have no clue on whether or not you are promiscuous - nor do I care. You could have only gotten laid once in your lifetime and you should still know the difference between where you got laid and how you got laid.

I find that using a metaphor that is simple, direct and to the point helps clear up any question about the subject at hand.
Click to expand...

In either your metaphor or your direct argument you are ignoring the fact that the actual creation (the "how") takes place in the where.

Only if you distort the "how" and define it down to the point where anything can be claimed to play a part in the creation process can you claim that the government creates wealth.

For the purposes of proving or disproving weather the government creates wealth, the distinction between "where" and "how" is completely irrelevant. I repeat:
A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.​

For the pursposes of this issue the "where" and the "how" are interrelated. You are parsing and spinning to manufacture a substantive distinction where there is none.

Now, are you going to continue with the insults and Nazi propaganda techniques, or are you gonna stop wasting everyone's time?
 
Here is a simply explanation of profit and inefficiency in capitalist and socialist systems which may help explain why the government is not capable of creating wealth; namely, inefficiency:
While Capitalism has a visible cost - profit - that does not exist under socialism, socialism has an invisible cost - inefficiency - that gets weeded out by losses and bankruptcy under capitalism. The fact that most goods are more widely affordable in a capitalism economy imples that profit is less costly then inefficiency. Put differently, profit is a price paid for efficiency. Clearly the greater efficiency must outweigh the profit or else socialism would in fact have had the more affordable prices and greater prosperity that its theorists expected, but which failed to materialize in the real world. If in fact the cost of profits exceeded the value of efficiency they promote, then non-profit organizations or government agencies could get the same work done cheaper or better than profit-making enterprises and could displace them in the competition of the marketplace.
-Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics, 3rd Ed., pg. 112-113​
 
Talk about a nut job!!!

Thomas Sowell believes that two thirds of our federal laws are Un-Constitutional.
 
shagdrum said:
In either your metaphor or your direct argument you are ignoring the fact that the actual creation (the "how") takes place in the where.

Only if you distort the "how" and define it down to the point where anything can be claimed to play a part in the creation process can you claim that the government creates wealth.

For the purposes of proving or disproving weather the government creates wealth, the distinction between "where" and "how" is completely irrelevant. I repeat:
A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.​

For the pursposes of this issue the "where" and the "how" are interrelated. You are parsing and spinning to manufacture a substantive distinction where there is none.

Now, are you going to continue with the insults and Nazi propaganda techniques, or are you gonna stop wasting everyone's time?
Click to expand...

Nothing like labeling me a Nazi - right shag - did I hurt your feelings that badly...

The government creates wealth- the only playing field it has in the US is the private sector, since we don't have any economic system in a "public sector".

So, shag - do you really understand (I will be nice and not use my metaphor, but I will return to it if it continues to appear as though you don't understand this) where the wealth is made is different than how the wealth is created?

This isn't a distinction without a difference - as I illustrated in my metaphor. There is a very large difference. If the government wanted to it could create wealth under any economic system, we just happen to currently be capitalistic. It could create societal wealth under a socialist system, or community wealth under communism, using the same type of investments that it does now. The 'where' is immaterial, the creation remains constant over all economic systems.
 
foxpaws said:
Nothing like labeling me a Nazi - right shag - did I hurt your feelings that badly...
Click to expand...

Your the one using the propaganda techniques...

The government creates wealth- the only playing field it has in the US is the private sector, since we don't have any economic system in a "public sector".
Click to expand...

Keep asserting it all you want, it doesn't make it true.

This isn't a distinction without a difference - as I illustrated in my metaphor.
Click to expand...

No, your metaphor illustrated no such thing.

You want to run with an analogy let's use gasoline. Crude oil (students) is extracted from the earth (government) and sold to a refinery (the private sector) where it can be turned into a number of things, including gasoline (wealth).

Now by your logic, the oil extractors are creating the gasoline. In reality, they are only providing the raw materials that the refinery then turns into gasoline.

If the oil extractors cease to exist in some fashion (going out of business), then the refining company can expand their operation to include oil extraction.

There is a very large difference.
Click to expand...

A difference that is not at all relevant to what is being discussed. You are trying to manufacture that.


If the government wanted to it could create wealth under any economic system, we just happen to currently be capitalistic.
Click to expand...

Are you really so presumptuous as to think that you are entitled to your own reality?!

It is an ECONOMIC FACT that the ONLY economic system that creates wealth is capitalism.

The fact that you are trying to dispute that truth shows that you are not interested in the truth.

It could create societal wealth under a socialist system, or community wealth under communism, using the same type of investments that it does now.
Click to expand...

You are further defining down wealth in two ways there. We are talking economic terms. Not "societal wealth" or "community wealth".

Stop intentionally misleading
 
quit shouting...

You want to run with an analogy let's use gasoline. Crude oil (students) is extracted from the earth (government) and sold to a refinery (the private sector) where it can be turned into a number of things, including gasoline (wealth).
Click to expand...

Your gasoline example isn't a good metaphor shag... I am using metaphors - not analogies... And you don't need all those steps... how silly.

So, where the gasoline is sold is very different than how the gasoline is produced.

Where the wealth is created is very different than how the wealth is created.

Still don't see that very basic difference?

It is an ECONOMIC FACT that the ONLY economic system that creates wealth is capitalism.
Click to expand...
Capitalism creates personal wealth. A commune can be wealthy or poor.

The fact that you are trying to dispute that truth shows that you are not interested in the truth.
Click to expand...
I am not disputing that fact... I gave you previously that capitalism is the only economic system that creates personal wealth. But, other economic systems can create wealth - it is just how that wealth is distributed. It doesn't disappear -
 
foxpaws said:
quit shouting...
Click to expand...

Then demonstrate some dignity, honesty and integrity. Stop actively attempting to mislead and deceive.

Your gasoline example isn't a good metaphor shag... I am using metaphors - not analogies... And you don't need all those steps... how silly.
Click to expand...

Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them

You are using an analogy (and an overly simplified, crude and distortive one at that). Stop trying to deceive.

So, where the gasoline is sold is very different than how the gasoline is produced.

Where the wealth is created is very different than how the wealth is created.

Still don't see that very basic difference?
Click to expand...

Actually, you have yet to show that distinction is at all relevant to this debate. You simply keep asserting it and assuming it via your Nazi propaganda methods.

Also, where the gasoline is sold has absolutely nothing to do with the analogy. You are already distorting my analogy.

Do you simply not understand how wealth is created or are you intentionally ignoring it? Both would be typical for you.

Capitalism creates personal wealth. A commune can be wealthy or poor.


I am not disputing that fact... I gave you previously that capitalism is the only economic system that creates personal wealth. But, other economic systems can create wealth - it is just how that wealth is distributed. It doesn't disappear -
Click to expand...

This is further distortion and you know it. The wealth being talked about is not "communal" or "societal". Why don't you start talking "spiritual" wealth while you are at it. It would make as much logical sense to this discussion. The fact that you are still attempting to broaden the definition of "wealth" being talked about here to basically make the definition all inclusive; to "define down" the word "wealth" simply further demonstrates the truth in what I have been saying about you all along.

FYI: how the wealth is distributed has absolutely nothing to do with this debate either.

Combine you with the Jagger-bot and Johnny and it simply verifies the idea that leftists are incapable of honest argument. All any of you three have done on this forum is work to deceive, distort, smear and lie, in your own unique manners.

The only difference is that you at least try to pretend that you are interested in a reasonable debate. However, in almost every instance, the substance of your arguments shows that you are only interested in deceiving, smearing and propagandizing (which, in it's own way is even more disingenuous and dishonest). The substance of your posts negates the style of your posts.

It is impossible to have an honest discussion with someone who constantly and habitually lies, distorts and deceives.
 
Mick Jagger said:
Thomas Sowell is a nut who thinks eminent domain is socialism.
Click to expand...

When did Sowell saying that the abuse of eminent domain by the government is socialism.
I've read him explain how it's an abuse of the power of government, but never socialism. Most of the time, property taken by eminent domain is from people of modest income and made available to developers or powerful economic interests with the intention of expanding the tax base of the community.

What do you think of eminent domain?
Do you think that the concept of private property is important and fundamental?

Have you actually read anything by Thomas Sowell, or are you just trolling?
 
Mick Jagger said:
Thomas Sowell is a nut who thinks eminent domain is socialism.
Click to expand...

Anyone can make up absurd lies and smear people....
Jagger-bot rapes malnourished puppies​
See. You are not convincing anyone of anything except that you have no credibility and are an habitual liar.
 
Mick Jagger said:
Thomas Sowell also believes that government provided health insurance, such as Medicare, is socialism.
Click to expand...

Earlier, you said that all of these programs were socialist, but how would you define medicare? Do you think it has components that are socialist in nature?
 
Mick Jagger said:
Thomas Sowell also believes that government provided health insurance, such as Medicare, is socialism.
Click to expand...

FYI: Thomas Sowell is an admitted former socialist; specifically, a Marxist. In fact, his undergraduate honors thesis was on Marxism. He wrote a book in 1985 on Marxism.

Do you really think he is wrongly using that term? That he doesn't understand what socialism is?

Also, do you have any proof for your absurd claims, or are you simply spamming your lies again? Can you provide a quote by Sowell that shows that he believes that government provided health care, or whatever else, is somehow socialism?

You still haven't proven that you don't rape malnourished puppies... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 120 (members: 1, guests: 119)
Back
Top