Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 23:04 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:PiM6h.10669$yl4.1260(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:4dc84$455b6880$4fe757a$19289(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:63x6h.6421$Sw1.4642(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:455A8441.4333989A(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>JoeBloe wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There's a big difference between reasonable >>>>>>>>profits coupled with a good value product, and gouge-o-matic >>>>>>>>practices. One is good old fashioned American capitalism and one is >>>>>>>>outright theft. Do you know which is which? I have doubts that you >>>>>>>>could. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>LOL ! >>>>>> >>>>>>I'd still like to hear his theory of who or what gets to determine >>>>>>what a "reasonable profit" is. Unless his answer is "the free >>>>>>market", it sounds like price controls, to me. (Ironically, it is the >>>>>>free market that has led prices to rise so high.) I've never heard of >>>>>>price controls in pure capitalism. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Fair profit" does not exist in pure capitalism either. Fair profit can >>>>>not be deemed by anything other than price controls - the market >>>>>doesn't recognise it's existence. >>>>> >>>>>JoeBloe is another Socialist in denial. >>>> >>>>Reasonable profit is a small margin above the >>>>then current cost of money. >>> >>>Define "small". More importantly, who gets to decide for the country? >>>It's starting to sound like "price controls". How exactly is that >>>capitalist? >> >> >> Even when unsettled tries to justify the socialist price controls with >> his "small margin" comment it comes out socialist. > > The original error starts with you two clowns failing to > appreciate that capitalism has a soul. To define a term > "fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to > embrace freely and without external (read governmental) > imposition. OK, but you're sidestepping the issue. Who defines "reasonable profit" or "small margin"? Certainly not market forces, because market forces are what led to what you consider an unreasonable profit in the first place. > It took me to introducing a concept that Marxist socialists like > you and Lucas deny because it unravels your rabid dislike of > capitalism. I have no rabid dislike of capitalism. I have *no* dislike of capitalism at all, though that would be convenient for you to be able to label me like that, so that you can ignore the facts of my argument. In point of fact, I'm about as fiscally conservative and free-market as they come. However, I am above all a realist, and am willing to concede that pure capitalism is simply not a workable system, and that we need to pick the socialist aspects that we take on very carefully. For you to define one of the socialist aspects of your philosophy as "capitalist" only serves the purpose of letting you "win" a semantic game, it doesn't change the fact that putting *any* limit on the ability of the free market to set a price, including saying that anything but a "reasonable profit" or "small margin" is unacceptable, is anti-capitalistic. In a pure capitalistic system, *only* the market forces set the price. If you don't like the profit that they're taking, vote with your feet. If you don't have any choices, that's because supply and demand have set the price. That's capitalism. If you don't believe that, then you need to go back to school and take a freshman-level course in macroeconomics. > Your Marxist socialist perceptions of a world in which > uncontrolled runaway capitalism presents the greatest > of all available evils is just plain wrong. It is, however, the purest form of capitalism. > > But you'll both wiggle, wriggle, and complain about > this post as you always do. I'm not doing any wiggling. *You're* the one that doesn't know what "capitalism", and professes to be a hard-core capitalist, despite holding opinions that are specifically anti-capitalistic. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 23:09 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:93461$455ba9e7$4fe75f7$21090(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > Try talking to Lucas, Eeyore, and Wake about whether > or not the woman denying service to your brother should > have been in that position. Speaking only for myself, that's not what I said. This strawman was a nice try, though. Pretty sad when you need to put words into my mouth to win your little pissing match. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 23:11 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > krw wrote: > > > >>Plus taxes, fees, Spanish-American war debt... > > > > What fees btw ? > > > > The war debt is a joke I presume ? > > > > Graham > > > I realize that you know everything, If I did I wouldn't have asked would I ? > but in the event > you have slipped a cell here and there! We > still pay taxes in our phone bill for the Spanish American War. Why in the *phone* bill ? > If you ask for a detailed analysis, that war and a couple > of others are thrown in there. > > Btw, > I know and older gentleman that lives over here in NY. He is > from the UK, served in your country's time of W.W. II, migrated > to the states just after. His comments, UK is a nice place to visit but > no thanks on living there. > > P.S. > He collects a monthly pension from you guys. He claims he's able > to get a cup of coffee, couple of donuts and the sunday paper. > anything else, he has to rely on his pension and SS here. You cheap > wards, you should be ashamed of you're self's. How long did he pay into the pension scheme here ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 23:17 JoeBloe wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> > >> >Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far from a > >> >population center to get decent DSL. > >> > >> I live in a town. There is no DSL line strung. > >> You people are starting to get really annoying. > > > >DSL comes down an ordinary telephone line ! > > > >Graham > > Wrong. > > ADSL REQUIRES a minimum of an ISDN switched POTS line. > That means that the customer's first switch has to be ISDN for his > area to be an ASDL capable area. THEN his Plain Old Telephone Service > line will do DSL. Most lines in the UK go direct to the exchange. A POTS line does indeed carry ADSL. BT actually have to *remove* any previous ISDN bits and pieces to ADSL enable a line. Graham
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 23:16
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455BBDAF.EC6FD0C2(a)hotmail.com... > > > krw wrote: > >> Plus taxes, fees, Spanish-American war debt... > > What fees btw ? It turns out that it is common practice among many service utility-type companies in the US to attach various "fees" to the bill, as hidden charges, so they can advertise a low price and make comparisons between competing companies impossible. They are allowed to call something a "government fee" even if the government hasn't assessed any sort of fee. For example, on the phone bill, there's something called a "Federal Universal Line Subscriber Fee". The "Federal" implies it is a government-imposed fee. It is not. It is simply a fee that covers the fact that all phone companies now freely use each others' wiring, and they need to pay maintenance on it to the company that actually maintains it. Never mind the fact that that is the type of thing that the main service fee used to cover, so this is just a rather non-transparent way of raising the cost of service. It's kind of like people on eBay who tack on a flat $25 for shipping, even though actual shipping charges may only be a few dollars. The extra price makes it nearly impossible to fairly compare prices among different sellers. There is no regulation on this sort of thing, so at the risk of yanking the unsettled creature's chain, this is one of the seamier, anticompetitive aspects of capitalism. Eric Lucas |