Search results

lol I don't understand the problem. Hodj wanted me to insult him so I told him his kids would be better off dying painfully than being raised by him. Is that not insulting enough?

He asked for it.

Ok. Let's try this on for size. I hope your kids get cancer...for their own sakes. Childhood leukemia is a boon compared to being raised to adulthood by a dishonest moron.

I use "retard" because I prefer reality to imagination.

I've also called you a dipshit, a moron, and an idiot. You must beespeciallystupid.

The reason I call you retarded is because you're astonishingly dishonest and it's obnoxious to me. Literally every time you encounter an argument you can't deal with, you just strawman the living fuck out of it. When you're not doing that, you're just appealing to authority, tradition, or...

No, retard. It's because it's genuinely not relevant. I fuckingdareyou to try to explain its relevance. Go ahead, dipshit. I'm all ears. Did you read that definition? I don't share ANY of Marx's political views. I realize that you're retarded and therefore don't grasp the distinction...

as a Marxist*

No retard. I don't care about his "goal." That is not relevant at all. Not even a little bit. There's nothing to rebut. The claim that any degree of acceptance of Marx's economic analysis is sufficient to classify that person as is fucking retarded on its face. This is just part your...

I said that he admitted that was what he implemented. What difference does it make if he CLAIMED that it was supposedly to implement socialism. He didn't implement socialism. Nothing that happened in the USSR was under a system of socialism. That's the fucking point, you retard. You don't...

Not my premise at all. Lenin himself admitted that what he had implemented was state captialist. I'm not a Marxist, retard.

By people who don't understand anything about socialism.

Because vanguardism involves not actually putting control over capital in the hands of the workers (in real way) and therefore leaves itself vulnerable to the socialist criticism of capitalism. Vanguardism is ALSO the source of the political repression you see in those systems. The two things...

lol Clearly.

I was claiming that your kids are as retarded as you are because you gave them your extra chromosome.

Seriously what the fuck is with the dicking around with RRP threads? Why do they even give a shit?

Plutocracy definitely captures the effect that capital institutions have on the government under such a system, but I think state-capitalism better captures the effect that the government has on capital institutions. The two go hand in hand.

Ok, let's say there's just one choice. You pick one lottery ticket out of millions. What are the odds you picked the right one (to make it easy we'll say there were 10 million tickets)?

Well the one in your pocket was picked out of millions and only one of those millions was the right one.

Even though you know the one you put in your pocket is almost definitely not the right one?

There are two picks. One is out of millions. Then the result of that pick stays around and you choose between it and another thing. The way the other thing is chosen is what makes the picks dependent.

Such as? The only example I saw presented was provided without any of that quantitative data or any attempt to try to avoid assuming (for example) that people are actually being paid according to their economic inputs to the final product. So I don't agree with Dumar (or Marx for that matter)...

The first time you pick 1 out of millions. You put that one in your pocket. If you happened to guess correctly, the other one presented to you in the second choice will be a loser. If you picked wrong ( >99.999% chance) the other one presented to you in the second choice will be the winning...

So I tried signing up on the healthcare.gov website earlier and got a failure message and then retried and got a slightly different one (and every time after got that second message). Just checked my email: apparently an hour later the confirmation email showed up and I was able to click the...

What if they had showed you every lottery ticket that was sold, told you to pick one and then eliminated all but one ticket and (here's the important part) unless you had somehow picked the right ticket out of the millions that were sold, the one remaining would be the winning ticket. Would it...

The thing is, I don't really get how the 100 door example doesn't help. Like if it were a billion doors would that work? If the odds of you getting the door right (and therefore allowing the host to leave a goat hidden rather than a car) were literally one in a billion would that make it make...

If I buy a lottery ticket, there are two possible outcomes. Either I'll win or I'll lose. My chance of winning is not 50%.

The class of conclusions that can be tested in such a manner is not within the scope of conclusions that people are referring to when they talk about economics providing a supporting case for capitalism.

Right but because there were 100 doors at the start, it's extremely unlikely that the first door you chose is right. You still have that knowledge when the second choice comes around. There are two doors, but they don't have equal odds.

lol Well shit then I don't know what to do.

lol What does that mean? Is this something that's come up before?

Araysar, here's the trick to understanding/accepting the monty hall problem: Imagine playing it with 100 doors instead of just 3. You pick from 1 of 100 doors (99 goats, 1 car). The host then reveals 98 of those. If you picked the car at the start, the other door will be a goat. If you...

lol

How is economics a science by those metrics? Also, I love that you can list necessary conditions here. It's progress!

I stated the reasons I don't think it's a science right after that fact. The "it's not a science because it's not a science" claim was a refutation to your claim that my argument was that I was rejecting it specifically to avoid its conclusions. There's no way you possibly didn't grasp what...

lol Sorry,THISis the zenith of irony.

You mean the part where you selectively quote so that you don't actually have to deal with the argument that's been presented to you? Yeah, we never left that part.

They really aren't. Yes you did. I really didn't. I'm not the one making the facts harder to get at (not to mention completely dodging the associated point here by failing to quote it. You're doing it again.

Economics (at least what's called mainstream economics) isn't science because it isn't science. It's predicated on known-false premises like perfectly infallible, utterly omniscient, infinitely long-lived identical consumers, zero transaction costs, complete markets for all time-stated claims...