Immigration nation
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 04:42
VIEWED: 9962
PAGE 7 of 11
BDN- I didn't attack Fletch2, at least not the the extent that he attacked me. If you feel otherwise, show me where and how. BTW- Fletch2 has contradiicted himself sevral times in this thread. I pointed out specifically where and how and that was what I meant by "talking out of both sides of his mouth". I have not heard any refutation. Fletch2 refuses to address those points.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually you ceased to interest me a while ago when I realised that the general pattern of your interactions on these boards is a passive-agressive cry for attention.
From this thread we have the "look at me" behavior.
Quote:
Fletch, apparently you did not see my previous post. so here it is....
Quote:
I'm trying to have a decent conversation here. My point about expensive transport was humor. But you will not respond to the more theoretical portion of my post. Why is that?
ie
"I will not be IGNORED."
and my favourite, the martyr
Quote:
WOW. I looked back on my posts and i KNOW I didn't deserve anything like this!
From the evolution thread
Quote:
Helloooo? Anti, are you home?
and from the everything is just Dandy thread.
Quote:
I assume Geezer is too busy to reply to my post.
So we have a modus operendi. You basically take a position in the thread, you deliberately act dumb and expect everyone to pay you attention by refuting your posts. If they are dumb enough to try to do that they get more of your rubbish. Wash and repeat when nescessary. If they try and ignore you and cut you out of the discussion you pout and whine about it. You play the victim if anyone calls you on it and I suspect you decide you won when the thread eventually closes down.
Game over sport. You have everything I'm going to say to you in this topic in the posts I've made. I have no further interest in your opinions, definitions or political viewpoint. I have answered you repeatedly with examples in areas where I conceed there could be confusion. Your pattern of behavior suggests you want the attention far more than you want a discussion. I don't have time for you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Game over sport."
YES ! It's an evil twisted plot to - CONVERSE ! And - EXCHANGE IDEAS ! Is there no end to the perversity ? Is there no shame ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch2, I like to ask questions which I hope will either clarify someone else's opinion, or lead them to realize that there is a logical flaw in their approach. Usually the other person ducks out when I ask a question they they refuse to answer, such as
Quote:The reason why Anti came to a skidding halt on this one is because s/he cannot answer that question without running into the internal contradiction with
If all of the species' archetypes were present to begin with and there was a massive flood, what you would expect to find is a large layer, rather uniform, with fossils of all types jumbled together. And yet clearly, there are a lot of "archetypes" missing from the earlier sediment layers followed by other layers which contain other kinds of fossils. You would have to somehow account for the fact that many archetypes are separated from each other by sediment layers that would have taken hundreds of thousands to millions of years to lay down.
Quote:... just as you cannot counter my opinion that you'e contradicted yourself several times in this thread without confronting those very contradictions. Strangely, all I ask people to do is explain themselves in detail. And strangely, that's where they duck out. It's a shame, because wrinkles get ironed out when people discuss stuff in detail. That's where God is,... or the devil.
I don't doubt the basic sciences
And the funny thing, no one has thought to ask me to explain myself in detail. For example, you have never asked me how I define "value" despite the fact that it is essential to the discussion. Why is that? Are you afraid you might get a detailed explanation?Perhaps you have never heard of the Socratic Method:
Quote:
In this method, a series of questions are posed to help a person or group to determine their underlying beliefs and the extent of their knowledge. The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. It was designed to force one to examine one's own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs. In fact, Socrates once said, "I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others."
Leave it to the "intellects" of FFF not to even recognize the basis of western philosophy.
--------------------------------
Socrates was passive aggressive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They made him take poison ---are you really sure you want to emulate that kind of "success."
You haven't been able to show one contradiction. When you act dumb with me I explain it "captain simple" in response you claim flaws and then dont actually bother to say what they are. Oh and the fact that capitalism isnt socialism isn't a flaw, the fact that capitalism doesn't work the way you think it should is also not a flaw.
So no I thought about it and I was right, you are an attention whore. I strongly suspect that the reason other people stop talking to you is that evntually they figure it out and understand that wasting their time going over the same ground 1000 times is futile.
B Bye
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They made him take poison ---are you really sure you want to emulate that kind of "success."
You haven't been able to show one contradiction. When you act dumb with me I explain it "captain simple" in response you claim flaws and then dont actually bother to say what they are. Oh and the fact that capitalism isnt socialism isn't a flaw, the fact that capitalism doesn't work the way you think it should is also not a flaw.
So no I thought about it and I was right, you are an attention whore. I strongly suspect that the reason other people stop talking to you is that evntually they figure it out and understand that wasting their time going over the same ground 1000 times is futile.
B Bye
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You missed this:
You haven't been able to show one contradiction.
Quote:
You say that cheap labor isn't a threat, and then you point out the threat of cheap foreign labor. You say that maximal profit isn't the driving force, and then you come up with a prime example. You say that laborers can afford their own products, and then you turn around and immediately point out that they can't.
Anyway, to address your posts in detail:
You keep hammering home the same basic example that Profit= sale price - cost I get it, I get it! That is why manufacturing has shifted from the USA to Japan to Korea to China to Vietnam. But at the same time that you point to cheap labor costs being the driving force for bringing down wages worldwide you turn around and say that it won't matter with illegals in the United States, because something magical happens when they cross the border: and "their" contributions suddenly become "our" wealth, generating "secondary" economic effects. You have failed to note that those "secondary" effects are less than what would have occurred had they not driven down wages in the first place. The goods that they can buy are not going to support the person who was layed off from his decent-paying maufacturing job. While our living standard may decline less quickly with illegals within our borders, it will still decline. Do you have an answer for that?
Prolly not. So while you have fully described a worldwide mechanism for wages to go down there is - in your process - no mechanism for wages to go up. It's a "bend over and enjoy it" premise. But the market, as Adam Smith (You have heard of him?) described it, operates without force or fear. For meaningful negotiations to occur the worker should be just as able to meaningfully w/draw his labor as the owner is to w/draw his employ. But as I said before- a point which you have not addressed- that would require owners and workers to be on a level playing field, and clearly they are not. Therefore, the labor market is broken.
What you are positing is a system that requires stupid consumers. You've said that the owners cannot reliably sell to their own workforce so they look instead towards markets where they can persuade people with more money than sense to let go of $120 for a $5 product. What I have asked you to do is consider a global situation (BIG picture) where people still may not have much sense, but they don't have much money either.
And therefore - by YOUR description- capitalism is on is a one-way road to poverty for everyone except the owners. Aside from being unfair, your particular road leads to economic collapse: declining retail market leads to layoffs leads to declining retail market leads to layoff. This is otherwise known as a depression. (You may have heard of those too.)
I'm not talking about socialism, dude. I'm talking about the flow of capital (money): where it goes, who gets it, what it's used for, where it accumulates, etc. .
You apparently are not used to rigorous intellectual discussion. Anyone worth their salt would immediately look at profit and say: AHA! Profit is distributed through pension funds and their stocks, and banks, to a great many more people other than the owners, and therefore recycles money back into circulation Or, we could have examined how Keynes (Have you heard of him?) tried solve the problem, and whether his solution is a complete solution. (Many say not.)
BTW- You have yet to ask me how I define "value". Are you afraid to find out?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It occurs to me that the problem is that we're discussing something in words that needs math. So, let's look at your proposition:
Profit= sale price - labor cost - material cost
Mathematically rearranging:
Labor cost = Sale price- Profit- Material cost
In other words, wages are always less than the amount it would take to buy the product, whether we're talking about a closed system (bowling ball workers trying to buy a shift's worth of bowling balls with a shift's worth of wages) or the entire world. While it is possible to have one group produce, and another consume, in the end when you total it all up workers cannot buy back what they've produced.
So the key question is: what happens with the Profit? (I could go into detail about material costs but they are, in the end, labor costs.)
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch - "I strongly suspect that the reason other people stop talking to you is that eventually they figure it out and understand that wasting their time going over the same ground 1000 times is futile."
And he hates America.........And he is a condescending douche bag........And I think he rubs camel balls in the evening.......and he said I was a lost cause once.....And he EATS BUGGERS........And.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It occurs to me that the problem is that we're discussing something in words that needs math. So, let's look at your proposition:
Profit= sale price - labor cost - material cost
Mathematically rearranging:
Labor cost = Sale price- Profit- Material cost
In other words, wages are always less than the amount it would take to buy the product, whether we're talking about a closed system (bowling ball workers trying to buy a shift's worth of bowling balls with a shift's worth of wages) or the entire world. While it is possible to have one group produce, and another consume, in the end when you total it all up workers cannot buy back what they've produced.
So the key question is: what happens with the Profit? (I could go into detail about material costs but they are, in the end, labor costs.)
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Still waiting to see those contradictions here. When you show them we may talk, otherwise we are done.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME