- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.