Video Vigilante Brian Bates

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Edit: Oh, and I didn't respond to any further posts, because the rest of your arguments are still reliant on the assumption of zero-gum economics to prove zero-sum economics. This isn't valid logic, so you'll need to forget any arguments that, in arguing for a zero-sum game, depend upon a zero-sum game.

You haven't addressed a singlestatementin support of zero-sum, moreover, you've totally ignored every point that doesn't fit your world view, RE:

The wealth DISPARITY has increased. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer. There IS NO NET GAIN. Everyone used to be "middle class." Over the centuries the middle class is being separated out into the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor. It is the nature of a free market.

If you justify it in your own mind by saying that wage slavery and living in filth, garbage, and disease (which is INFINITELY below the average standard of living in the world)is better than hunting and gathering and living in a cave (which IS the average standard of living in that world)... then maybe you need to expand your horizons and pull your head out of your ass.

As for the berries. The more berries you have, the less everyone else has. There is a limited quantity of berries in the world. Every berry you pick and stash is a berry that someone else can't pick. That's a direct zero-sum situation. And on top of that.... The more you control that limited supply, the morethe price ofberries increases. Everyone else loses because they now have to pay more for berries.

I don't have a solution. I don't think anyone does. It's an unfortunate evil of a free market. To fix it would require that we all lower our standard of living in order to raise theirs. Again, demonstrating that thisIS ZERO-SUM.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

When did I ever advocate a gold standard? I don't see that it much matters, since value is an arbitrary construct.

So now you're FOR fractional reserve banking and a central bank? I wish you would make up your mind.

False dilemma.

Then what are you for?

No gold standard. No fractional reserve banking. What are you for? How do we manage the money supply?

Oh... robots... that's right.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Part one: Addressed already. If you don't understand the concepts it (and you don't), it's not my fault.



Berries:

http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-markets-production-possibility-frontier.html

It takes resources (time, water, sunlight, etc) to regrow berries. These resources aren't being used in other areas if they're being used to regrow the berries. The game remains zero-sum. More can be planted, to the exclusion of planting/doing other things (see PPF above). The earth can only sustain so much. The game remains zero-sum. There is no such thing as something for nothing.

Berries grow and they do not need people to do anything but pick them.

Time, sunlight, water cost nothing and are free. There is an endless supply ofthis to use. The only true cost is property taxes and labor of the employees to harvest them to sell.

When the berries are bought by the customer... that payment contains enough to cover the total cost of labor, transportation, operating expenses, anda profit for the company itself.

And there is something for nothing.

If the farmer has berries planted that need no tending.. he can allow people to come in and pick them. They pay him money for berries he grows at no cost to him.

So he is getting money for nothing!!!

Then you have welfare bums... they sit at home and get a check each week. They do not have to do a thing but ask for it.

They get money for nothing!!!

So I see many holes in your financial wisdom... :celebrate

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Ever heard of private currency? Guess not. Your complete lack of a working knowledge of economics is getting more and more obvious with each post.
Instead you must resort to constant appeals to your own authority ("Srsly, I studied economics in school, and I trade!"), and blind, illogical assertions.

You've been drinking too much of your economics professor's kool-aid.

I've been reading elsewhere while you post pictures of starving children, and it's apparent to me that your assertion

AWDstylez wrote:

Explain how it's not a zero sum game, because you've got most, if not all, of the world against you on that one. Nature itself is zero-sum. Economies are no different.

is wholly unfounded. Your position is highly partisan, only one branch of the "mainstream". Nearly every major economics publication disagrees with you; that is, the ones that try to not appear overtly partisan screeds.

All of your assertions, which you've just repeated, require an assumption of zero-sum to be necessarily true. Since I dispute zero-sum economics, they are invalid arguments for the proof thereof. Interesting scenarios, but none of them logically imply zero-sum economics unless zero-sum economics is true to begin with.

You are so caught-up in being "right" that you ignore my posts. The proof is that you keep telling me I haven't addressed your points, when I have: they are logically invalid.

Your logic is poor. I will not refute your points directly until they are formed using sound logic.

You have the advantage with talking points, simplistic scenarios, and pictures of starving children, all learned in economics class, no doubt, but I have the advantage of actually understanding logic. So, obviously I will redoubt there when faced with game-playing.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

So he is getting money for nothing!!!

Nothing, except the LAND it requires to grow the berries. The LANDthat can't be used to grow something else. Head on back to the PPF. Ultra-fail. *palmface*

 

[marshaul]

imported post

By the way, I'm tired of you disrespectfully making fun of me over my robots remark.

Your ignorance and short-sightedness on the subject are astounding.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1608

Oh, look, there are robots picking strawberries in Japan, while Mexicans still do it in the US. Technology can't evolve! Robots will never flip burgers, as proved by the fact that they don't do so right now!

But technology can't advance if the economy is zero-sum. This explains your whole "any given time frame" argument. You view the world and the economy as a closed system, which while it can be viewed as such as for certain purposes, it is not. In physics, zero sum only happens in a closed-system. Guess what we don't have? Oh yeah, a closed system. :quirky

Honestly, AWD, debating economics with you is a great way to reinforce my own theories. You're really good at that.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

So he is getting money for nothing!!!
 

 

Nothing, except the LAND it requires to grow the berries.  The LAND that can't be used to grow something else.  Head on back to the PPF.   Ultra-fail. *palmface*

Humans have yet to use all the land on earth for any purpose, and yet we're on the verge of going into space! But, that's irrelevant to economic theories where time stands still. :quirky

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

You have the advantage with talking points, simplistic scenarios, and pictures of starving children, all learned in economics class, no doubt, but I have the advantage of actually understanding logic. So, obviously I will redoubt there when faced with game-playing.

Waiting for addressing of:

- upward wealth transfer through wage/value disparity

- explanation of ever increasing money (but not wealth) supply

- zero-sum laws of nature that govern everything, economics included

- increasing disparity between rich and poor

- explanation, in your own words, of why economics isn't zero-sum

- explanation ofhow the world would continue to function if everyone was rich



Stating that you're right proves nothing. Stating that people on the internet agree with youproves nothing. You're demonstrated no understand of economics. You've hopped from point to point with quick jabs at each to waste my time, rather than tackling the issue head on. You've given no analysis to support you ideas. Your arguments have all been shot down. It's pretty much fail, over and over.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Guess what we don't have? Oh yeah, a closed system. :quirky

RE: conservation of mass

We do have a closed system.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Guess what we don't have? Oh yeah, a closed system. :quirky

RE: conservation of mass

We do have a closed system.

Sunlight. Asteroids.

The universe is a closed system, but any given subset of it may not be. The economy is an example. The economy grows as new technologies are incorporated into it.

If an economy were a closed system, it would never have evolved beyond berry trading.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

So he is getting money for nothing!!!

Nothing, except the LAND it requires to grow the berries. The LANDthat can't be used to grow something else. Head on back to the PPF. Ultra-fail. *palmface*

Humans have yet to use all the land on earth for any purpose, and yet we're on the verge of going into space! But, that's irrelevant to economic theories where time stands still. :quirky

RE: PPF

Berry growing land is limited. Land used to grow berries is land not used to: grow apples, make cars, open a store, sit and relax on, anything else you want.

See: opportunity cost

There is no such thing as something for nothing. For everythingyou do, you give up something else. See: no free lunch

This is like arguing nuclear physics with a kindergartener.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Waiting for addressing of:

- upward wealth transfer through wage/value disparity

- explanation of ever increasing money (but not wealth) supply

- zero-sum laws of nature that govern everything, economics included

- increasing disparity between rich and poor

- explanation, in your own words, of why economics isn't zero-sum

- explanation of how the world would continue to function if everyone was rich

None of these have been proven. They all rely on an assumption of a zero-sum game to be necessarily true. Even if they are true, how hard is it for you to see that? A theory may not provide proof for itself.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Guess what we don't have? Oh yeah, a closed system. :quirky

RE: conservation of mass

We do have a closed system.

Sunlight. Asteroids.

The universe is a closed system, but any given subset of it may not be. The economy is an example. The economy grows as new technologies are incorporated into it.

If an economy were a closed system, it would never have evolved beyond berry trading.

RE: wealth disparity

Covered already. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Once we were all middle class, now some have advanced at the expense of others. Want to raise the living stardards of the lower classes? You have to give up your own wealth. The system is closed. Zero-sum.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

This is like arguing nuclear physics with a kindergartener.

Unlikely. The physicist would never bother. Why do you?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Waiting for addressing of:

- upward wealth transfer through wage/value disparity

- explanation of ever increasing money (but not wealth) supply

- zero-sum laws of nature that govern everything, economics included

- increasing disparity between rich and poor

- explanation, in your own words, of why economics isn't zero-sum

- explanation ofhow the world would continue to function if everyone was rich

None of these have been proven. They all rely on an assumption of a zero-sum game to be necessarily true. Even if they are true, how hard is it for you to see that? A theory may not provide proof for itself.

You have not ADDRESSED them. Your statement that they are no true, does not them so. ADDRESS THEM. Use your words.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Why should I? You think you are educating me, but you are not. You clearly are learning nothing from me. What benefit would there be?

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

That's what you're gniklat about .