Supply and demand economics the real killer

originally posted by: onequestion
Also I will no longer respond to your post we have had this discussion 100 times and I'm not interested in anything you have to say.

Will he keep his promise?

Sadly, no:

originally posted by: onequestion
You still and have always had nothing constructive to add to any thread I've ever seen you participate in.

Perhaps it is your complete lack of understanding in regards economics that has you frustrated? I can empathize, quantum mechanical computations confound me occasionally but I persevere. Hold out hope! You can learn this.

It always almost unequivocally comes down to you making comments like that this.

Maybe if you actually answered questions with facts instead of hyperbole we could have more evenly tempoed dialogue. Like when I asked you about failed systems and you threw out a hundred year old company.

OK, I'm going to explain something else to you.

You cannot train people not to value things. It would be the equivalent of training people not to care if they live or die. Let me elaborate.

Let's say society collapses tomorrow. Very quickly, the major population centers will run out of food and clean water and medicine. People will need those things to survive, to live. This will set up a healthy demand for those things and for the things that help safeguard them, like ammo. For someone not to value food or clean water or needed medication or even ammo in those conditions is basically tantamount to committing suicide.

But that's basically what you say you want to do, train people not to value things, not to care.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Standard oil is a prime example of why capitalism is flawed sorry that you cannot understand that.

originally posted by: onequestion
Standard oil is a prime example of why capitalism is flawed sorry that you cannot understand that.

Standard Oil was a hundred years ago, sorry that you have no grasp on temporality.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

To be fair to him, we're talking capitalism here, it's one big jumble# of chaos, and one persons idea of failure is another persons idea of success when it comes to capitalisms successes and failures.

Like he mentioned the US, you disagreed. It seems you both are coming from opposite ideas of what success for capitalism means. Which means, nothing he comes up with you'll agree with and vice versa. You're both coming from opposite opinions and ideals. You'll talk past each other in an immortal banter for all time, never once seeing each others points as valid in any real sense, or understanding them for the points they are.

He can't satisfy your requirements, nor can you his.

Especially when it comes to capitalism which has been slowly devouring the world for years and years and years. Hard to pinpoint a slow progression. Like the frog in water heating up slowly, hard to pinpoint and notice the problem, when it's less than a degree every year.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Like the frog in water heating up slowly, hard to pinpoint and notice the problem, when it's less than a degree every year.

But a system (State) that has failed is rather easy to offer up as an example. Odd that he has not done so.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Standard oil is a primary example.

Who cares when it happened.

originally posted by: onequestion
Standard oil is a primary example.

Who cares when it happened.

Explain how Standard Oil is a 'failed system'.

Just so you do not forget what you said:

originally posted by: onequestion
People can say what they want but in capitalism there is no roof which means it eventually leads down a path of totalitarianism because some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy.

Failed system every time.

Show us where 'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

How do you do that, when it's the current system, slowly failing by degrees the world over that we're talking about. It hasn't finished crumbling yet. We're talking about a problem as it's occurring.

Well I am. I didn't mention any that already failed. Capitalism is kinda a ongoing thing that's been slowly falling apart as corruption continues to grow unchecked. So do admit, not sure the already failed capitalistic systems, just this one going somewhere bad and starting to pick up steam as it gets closer to ramming into the wall of disaster.

a reply to: Puppylove

He spoke in the past tense, as in it happened already. I asked for examples.

See my above post.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh please on that one it clearly already has, follow the money. Wealth is distributed in a totally off the wall unbalanced fashion. I seriously don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. The mere existence of the 1% demonstrates that.

Edit: Was in response to the psychopath taking over the economy, and it's not just one but several.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Standard oil is a prime example of the eventuality of where capitalism leads too.

Do you not know the story of standard oil? Had the government not stepped in and stopped Rockefeller where would we be today?

The market needs to be regulated and we cannot just allow super greedy psychopaths to continue to take over entire markets.

Hate to break it to ya but it doesn't take a PhD in economics to get it buddy.

a reply to: Puppylove

There will always be the wealthy.

Even the company he mentioned, Standard Oil, is not controlled by the family that founded it. The majority shareholders are average citizens with retirement accounts, mutual funds and 401ks.

And that is a good thing.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

yeah realized that, was why I admitted not being sure what was meant by past failures, as it's more an ongoing current one.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There's wealthy then there's the 1% there's a point where it's a runnaway train that's gone WAY off the tracks.

Wealthy I can deal with, we've gone far beyond just wealthy here.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Standard oil. Educate yourself and stop acting rediculous so you can be right anyone who knows the history of John D and Standard oil clearly knows what I'm talking about you'll do or say anything just to not be wrong or to admit that I'm right won't you?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Standard oil was broken up by an anti trust suit after Rockefeller had taken over the entire market through less than ethical business practices forcing all of his competitors out of business and buying them out.

originally posted by: onequestion

Standard oil is a prime example of the eventuality of where capitalism leads too.

Is it a case of 'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy'? Nope. You still have not put an example forward in all your responses to me which you promised you would no longer respond to.

Do you not know the story of standard oil? Had the government not stepped in and stopped Rockefeller where would we be today?

Actually, I do and it was losing market share prior to the break up. But you knew that, right?

The market needs to be regulated and we cannot just allow super greedy psychopaths to continue to take over entire markets.

No one said there should not be some regulation.

Hate to break it to ya but it doesn't take a PhD in economics to get it buddy.

No, but it would help if you understood Economics 101.


You gonna post an example of 'some psychopath will come along and take over the entire economy' or was that all silly hyperbole you like to spout?

I am kind of hoping you do go for the one I think you will.

originally posted by: onequestion
Standard oil was broken up by an anti trust suit after Rockefeller had taken over the entire market through less than ethical business practices forcing all of his competitors out of business and buying them out.

Standard Oil was broken up when it had 60% of the market share which, using basic math (which seems to escape you) is not even remotely close to 'the entire market'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

His company was responsible for 1.5% of the entire GDP of the economy.

Semantics man your missing the point as usual this kind of conversation that happens with you is exactly why I typically choose not to engage with you.

Your not being intellectually honest with yourself. You clearly understand what in saying but refuse to admit it instead choosing to debate over semantics or ad hominem attacks.