CreateDebate


Gcomeau's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Gcomeau's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Sorry, but I can't possibly vote in favor of a movie that is essentially "let's watch some people take a boat ride... spoiler to entire world, it hits an iceberg and sinks at the end."

I have enough issues with hollywood telegraphing the endings to stories without dealing with that. Titanic made as much as it did because of all the adolescent girls who were crushing on DiCaprio. The end.

2 points

Nobody. The value of economies will be based on supply and demand of goods and services. Markets determine value, they always have and always will.

How the heck is that answering the question? Did you understand it? I wasn't asking about the "value of the economy" I was asking about the currency supply that economy has to use to conduct trade.

Wait...You wouldn't have a claim without a source. Oh, I forgot, you never forget that..

First, what I never do is pull figures out of my ass. You have never once found one single figure I cited to be without basis and yet you seem obsessed with trying to imply that I make up figures at every opportunity.

For cripes sake, it's one simple number. Do you know how google works? Are you disputing it because you seriously doubt it or just to be a pain in the ass? Do you suspect I made up the number and the real number is some massively different value or are you just being a child?

Here, the World Gold Council puts it closer to 160k:

http://www.gold.org/about_gold/story_of_gold/numbers_and_facts/

Like that better? It makes no difference but maybe you're happy with that marginally higher estimate?

Now, I'm going to point out to you that there are 1000kg in a metric ton... and I'm not going to cite that figure either. Proceed to imply I'm making it up, by all means.

I'm just going to ignore your rambling on on "my definition of wealth" since I never even provided one.

If I owned every single piece of gold or every paper fiat dollar on the Earth, I would be presumed rich, but if goods and services don't exist, it is just worthless metal or paper.

Uh-huh... so to dispute my point that they were just worthless metal and paper that people only assigned value to you wrote an entire rebuttal to say that NO! They're actually worthless metal and paper?

Hope that was worth the time and effort.

3 points

So if we had a small govt we would not be in 14 trilion dollar debt..correct!

No, not correct. Since the size of government also doesn't determine the ratio of it's revenue to outlays... which is what determines debt levels.

No lets not go to canada or the U.k lets go somewhere that has extreme socialist policies like IRAQ OR CHINA

This is simply yet another demonstration that you don't even know what socialism means. Which is making this entire discussion pointless. It's like arguing the finer points of Shakespeare with someone who doesn't know how to read...

Our four fathers were NOT SCOCIALIST THEY WERE CAPTIALISTS LEAVING THE SOCIALIST WAY OF LIFE IN EUROPE,What part of THAT didn't you understand?

No part of it... since we're not even discussing that. What part of that do YOU not understand?

1 point

So what you're saying is you have no idea how to evaluate whether the claims you're making are correct but you know you're right anyway?

Ok, noted.

1 point

What part of this do you not understand? "Big govt" does not equal "Socialism". Socialism is an economic policy, not a measure of government size.

And yes... "Big Govt" doesn't mean anything. It's just a catchphrase. And yes, education spending and corporate tax breaks and national budget management are indeed functions the government performs! Congratulations! They're not "socialist" functions however.

If you want an example of a socialist government program refer to the U.K. national health service. Or the Canadian health insurance (NOT health CARE) system. Or for that matter... the American Medicare system. One very VERY isolated example of a U.S. program that actually does venture into socialism although it does so incompetently.

A person who clearly doesn't even understand the meaning of the words they are using lecturing me on being "very undereducated" about the subject we're discussing is an extremely amusing development I must say.

2 points

No I damn well did not ask you to show me "where they've done it before". I asked you to explain to my what possible profit generating mechanism they would use that could offset the construction costs and thus motivate them to actually undertake the project. And you dodged, the way you have been dodging all thread. You threw out vague hand waving "oh, they would have passed on the costs somehow" but when pressed to perform some real math you run for the hills every time.

2 points

Perhaps your couple days worth of deliberate willful ignoring of everything I say is managing to irritate me. That's just a theory.

One more time. The claim you made, which began this exchange, was that the private sector could do ALL THE JOBS the public sector does and do them better.

This is wrong. I have showed you over and over why it is wrong and challenged you to support your contention with any actual fact based analysis whatsoever. You have repeatedly refused to do so while simply repeating your claim again and again.

2 points

Depends how it's taught... but often yes it clearly is.

If the approach generally taken to religious education was to present a spectrum of religious beliefs then let them evaluate them so that as they matured they would have a solid foundation for choosing their own beliefs that would be one thing.

Very few people do this.

Instead it's "This is our religion, you will believe it, not believing it or even questioning it is wrong/evil/etc... ". The evidence is irrelevant, the logic is irrelevant...

That's brainwashing.

1 point

Only if the loan system were fund limited enough to cause that to happen, which it generally isn't. Scholarships are short on money... loan departments? Not so much considering they keep getting what they give out back with interest.

1 point

Would you please grasp this simple point I've been trying to hammer into your head all thread? It is not just that the public sector does things more efficiently than the public sector! (In some cases this is true, in most it is not). It is that the public sector does things the private sector DOES NOT and WILL NOT but which need to be done.

And I did not ignore your "collaboration of business" point. I specifically and directly addressed it, asked you to provide an explanation of what kind of "collaboration of corporations" would take on such a problem and how, and you dodged the question just like you've been dodging it all along.

3 points

Gold has value because people think it has value as well.

I can't eat it, I can't make useful functional clothing out of it, it's a crappy construction material... you can use it in some electronics but other materials work better... etc... gold is considered highly valuable because people like it and want to buy it. As in, it is valuable because people perceive it to be valuable. Just like fiat currency.

The one difference being that it is extremely hard to manipulate the supply... which gold standard groupies love to paint as a great thing without considering what massively restricting money supply and thus currency flow in the economy (which is what moving to a gold standard would do) would do to said economy. The population of earth is rapidly approaching 7 billion people these days. How exactly do you think we're going to divy up the equivalent value of all the gold on earth to allow it to be a functional basis of a global economy that a population that size would participate in?

In the entire history of the world there has been approximately 140 thousand metric tons of gold mined. At current gold valuations that's a little over 7 trillion dollars. That doesn't even match the current U.S. money supply ALONE... and that's assuming the US had every last ounce of gold on the planet locked up in Fort Knox or something. So try thinking through, seriously, what happens if you revert the global economy to the gold standard.

5 points

Next we can argue if humans are carbon based or somehow "exempt from the rules of chemistry" because we're obviously special.

Sheesh.

1 point

"What you're asking me is if they would have done it without being contracted by the public sector, and I do not know."

The public sector doing the financing, planning, directing, etc... of that project and similar projects of national scope is THE JOB THE PUBLIC SECTOR DOES.

You said the private sector does every job better then the public sector and now you're saying you don't know if they could do their job at all (spoiler, they can't). Great. I consider your argument self-refuted.

1 point

"Especially the part where you claim that I should be able to explain how things would have happened in an alternative universe. "

There you go again, acting like explaining a hypothetical is like having some kind of supernatural power.

I do not personally own a company. However, if I were going to ask someone to lend me the money to buy me a company they might ask me to explain how, IF I OWNED THE COMPANY, I would expect to make it profitable.

According to you they would be unreasonably asking me to explain how I would behave in an alternate universe and that is just totally impossible.

You're being ridiculous. And yes, sad. You just keep saying over and over that the private sector does everything better than the public sector then when asked to explain how they would do a specific thing better acting like I've just asked you to cast a magic spell or something.

1 point

You cannot tell if a government is socialist or capitalist by it's SIZE. You have tell by the functions it performs and how it performs them. Socialism and Capitalism aren't matters of magnitude, they're about matters of economic policy.

"Big Govt" doesn't mean anything. It's just something some people slap on bumper stickers.

1 point

Stop being deliberately obtuse to avoid dealing with the question.

The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency.

That's your view. If we actually believed that statement to true, if we had turned the development of the nation entirely over to the private sector because it can do ALL the jobs of the public sector better, we would have no interstate system.

We would have no space program.

We would have nothing remotely resembling the modern American military.

Etc...

And no, you are not providing me with examples of how it could be done, you're just claiming over and over that they would do it while avoiding digging into any details as to how they would actually pull it off. You are now going so far to avoid dealing with the question that you have resorted to claiming that it is impossible to use hypothetical scenarios. Which is just sad.

1 point

Boy if you know so much about it then why isn't it working for America? Can you tell me that?

America isn't trying it genius. It's working everywhere else.

1 point

Then tell me which team of corporations would do it and why in the world they would. The math doesn't change. And yes, you're damn right I'm speaking as if it didn;t exist because if we took your approach that the private sector should do everything because it's better at it than the public sector then IT WOULDN'T. That's the whole damn point!!!!

And no, the private sector did NOT build the damn interstate system. The government built it. They paid the workers, they made the plans, they directed the work. The private sector just provided the labor TO the public sector project. A project that wouldn't have ever existed if we used your approach to running a nation.

3 points

Nobody is leaving the government unrestricted. We have a restriction already. Everyone in the Congress and Senate votes on it every year.

It's called the Budget.

Every year they vote for a budget that they know damn well is going to increase the debt, then every time they get near the debt ceiling as a result of that vote they just took they throw a big public hysterical freakout about it to try to convince their constituents they're really really worried about fiscal responsibility and please just ignore that they're the ones who just voted for the Budget that put us here in the first place.

And then they raise the ceiling once they've milked their little freakout for everything it's worth... because they have no choice whatsoever. It's that or crash the national economy.

1 point

Yeah, as illustrated by all the failed states all across western Europe.

Oh... wait...

1 point

If you think I helped your argument you're not trying very hard to think this through. Yes, corporations need the interstate to be built... but it is a COLLECTIVE system. There is ONE national transportation network and EVERYONE uses it. So which specific corporation should take on all the costs of construction and how do you think they're going to make a profit doing it? Instead of just throwing around vague "they'll pay for it by passing on the costs somehow" statements how about trying some actual math and real analysis?

Just building the stretch of I-70 between Denver and Utah would cost, in present day dollars, at a VERY conservative estimate.. 12 billion dollars.

That. One. Section.

How long do you think it would take to make 12 billion dollars in additional profit above and beyond what any corporation normally would have been making before they built this road... as a result of their ownership of that single stretch of road?

And if you think that company is going to just somehow pass that cost along to their customers in the form of higher prices, how do you suppose they're going to compete with any other companies who didn't take on 12 billion dollars in road construction costs and can thus easily undercut their prices?

While they are trying to earn that 12 BILLION dollars, what do you supposed the maintenance costs are going to be that they are ALSO going to have to earn just to break even? how long do you suppose THAT would take? Please, break out some ballpark figures that any corporation would look at to come to the conclusion that it was even marginally sane to take on such a project and show me you're actually thought about this.

And accusing me of being "kind of speculative" while you go on and on about how the private sector would do all the jobs of government better when they.. .ummm... never have, ever... is a little silly don't you think?

2 points

You have to be kidding me. You clearly

1: Have no idea how much building an interstate costs.

2: Have no appreciation of what "competing for traffic" would have to entail. Massive useless redundancy in the traffic infrastructure "competing" with itself... which DWARFS any possible waste you might want to complain about by having the public sector build a single system.

3: I didn;t ask if you wanted your taxes going to the space program. Do you want satellite communications? Do you want GPS navigation capabilities? Do you want space based weather monitoring? Then you want A SPACE PROGRAM. Tell me how we get one without the public sector shouldering the initial costs of the research program, which were FAR beyond the capabilities or desires of any private entity considering there was no immediate return on investment possible.

Fourth: Did you just suggest it would be better if the military was in control of itself and not under civilian leadership? As in... the united states armed forces was run by a military junta and whichever armed camp of mercenaries could outgun the other ones held the power???? Are you completely out of your mind? If you like that situation try living in Somalia, seems to work great for them.

1 point

Socialism=Communism.

Since the fact that that statement is false is not even remotely debatable, that one statement basically tells me everything I need to know about how well you understand the subject we're discussing. Come back when you get a basic education and we'll talk.

And "places like that" where socialism works are almost every other first world country on earth you moron. Most of Europe is what we refer to as "social democracies"... a.k.a. socialist states. Try visiting sometime and learn something.

2 points

Not terribly temporarily. Economic recovery depends on a healthy global economy and trade. If you have the largest economy on the planet go into default and throw the entire global economy into a Depression good luck just bouncing back from that.


1 of 25 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]