Bill Maher Blames PC Movement and Failure to Confront Islam

[realibrad]

Japan and Korea's boom cycle hardly coincided with any transition to market econ nor does that cause "economic miracles" in any number of countries.

Just because you have zero clue about their history or econ in general, and never will for obvious reasons, doesn't mean you were right all along.

Amazing how you are so sure of yourself, even though we have the data out there.

Just after WWII ended, South Korea shifted to private ownership of land after leaving Japanese colonial rule. From 1945 to 1950 you can see growth start to increase.

Korea entered into a civil war which caused a dip, but after the split, the South was capitalist with socialist investment. So, while there was central planning, there was also private ownership. Private owner ship is the fundamental principle of capitalism. How you can think that the shift from colonial rule to private ownership of land and industry is not capitalism is amazing. Considering that shift started in 1945 and continued after the end of the civil war in 1953, you would have to be completely uninformed to make the statement that capitalism had nothing to do with its growth.

Japan also went through many of the same changes. It too had land reform that gave private ownership post WWII. Large ownership of Zaibatsu was dissolved and private ownership increased. Almost the same story as South Korea.

So again, wrong.

 

[realibrad]

As someone who did see the demographics of the victory, let me inform you that he got the W via the rust belt with an unprecedented +14% on non-college whites vs his predecessor. Of course he sacrificed -10 on college whites who didn't take to his rhetoric, but they weren't where it mattered for the EC, ie clinton can get 2mil or 20mil more votes elsewhere, it don't matter.

As to an analysis of why they voted for him, consider the additional fact that his core followers are hardly poor (~70k+ household), meaning they have some of the few good jobs remaining for their level of edu attainment. They also exhibit tremendous racial resentment, even compared to the GOP field. I can link these studies eg ANES 2016 Pilot if necessary. These are simply matters of fact.

Now if we only look at the specifics of said rhetoric which did so well in the belt, it deftly paints illegal (undesirable brownies) on the other side of the country & such who're hardly competing for those good jobs as a threat to their way of life. It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out that plays precisely to people who overwhelmingly answer in the affirmative to "minorities are getting ahead at the expense of whites".

The best possible argument for your case is that Trump is like the racially insensitive gramps who somehow fluked his way to the white house, but I'd like to give some credit that he knew what he was doing just like with the obama is an african muslim show, and so did a good chunk of his followers. To their credit, the GOP establishment was gradually moving away from exploiting white race resentment, but I guess Trumped showed them the path to victory going forward.



So you're basically feeling how many minorities do as a fact of life, and it sure doesn't feel great. The difference is that for historic reasons known to you, white folks still largely control institutions of power and the very real socioeconomic division by race in this country is the result. Try to fix that via affirmative action toward a level playing field and, well, you've seen the reaction.

When Trump's strategist Bannon says too many asian leads in silicon valley is a threat to "civic society", presumably something he's in the business of fixing, we all know what he's talking about and where the incoming administration is looking to take this.

Jesus man, you still cannot do basic math. Trump got 6% more white non college votes.

Try and follow. Trump got 67% of the demographic. Romney got 61% of the demographic. Those numbers came from your own link. You keep saying he got 14%, which is not true. You keep saying it, and your own link shows otherwise. The gap between them grew by 14%.

Trump could have gotten a 1% increase, and Clinton lost 13% and you would still get a change of 14%. How you do not see this is amazing. What actually happened, is that Clinton lost 8% and Trump gained 6%, while 2% was gained by other candidates.

2016
Clinton got 28% whites without a college degree
Trump got 67% whites without a college degree

2012
Romney got 61% whites without a college degree
Obama got 36% whites without a college degree

 

[agent00f]

Amazing how you are so sure of yourself, even though we have the data out there.

Just after WWII ended, South Korea shifted to private ownership of land after leaving Japanese colonial rule. From 1945 to 1950 you can see growth start to increase.

Korea entered into a civil war which caused a dip, but after the split, the South was capitalist with socialist investment. So, while there was central planning, there was also private ownership. Private owner ship is the fundamental principle of capitalism. How you can think that the shift from colonial rule to private ownership of land and industry is not capitalism is amazing. Considering that shift started in 1945 and continued after the end of the civil war in 1953, you would have to be completely uninformed to make the statement that capitalism had nothing to do with its growth.

Japan also went through many of the same changes. It too had land reform that gave private ownership post WWII. Large ownership of Zaibatsu was dissolved and private ownership increased. Almost the same story as South Korea.

So again, wrong.

LOL at argument fail even after moving goalposts.

So the "miracle" growth in every case coincided exactly with decent central planning & implementation, just like every successful corp, and not with privatization which certainly has happened in countless places without such growth. Appears a real tough one for morons.

There's good reason why you and I are on opposite sides of the edu spectrum.

Jesus man, you still cannot do basic math. Trump got 6% more white non college votes.

Try and follow. Trump got 67% of the demographic. Romney got 61% of the demographic. Those numbers came from your own link. You keep saying he got 14%, which is not true. You keep saying it, and your own link shows otherwise. The gap between them grew by 14%.

Trump could have gotten a 1% increase, and Clinton lost 13% and you would still get a change of 14%. How you do not see this is amazing. What actually happened, is that Clinton lost 8% and Trump gained 6%, while 2% was gained by other candidates.

2016
Clinton got 28% whites without a college degree
Trump got 67% whites without a college degree

2012
Romney got 61% whites without a college degree
Obama got 36% whites without a college degree

You're basically the kid who always comes into office hours to beg for credit despite reading comprehension failure. Always think they're the smart one when everyone else in class understood it fine.

 

[realibrad]

LOL at argument fail even after moving goalposts.

So the "miracle" growth in every case coincided exactly with decent central planning & implementation, just like every successful corp, and not with privatization which certainly has happened in countless places without such growth. Appears a real tough one for morons.

There's good reason why you and I are on opposite sides of the edu spectrum.



You're basically the kid who always comes into office hours to beg for credit despite reading comprehension failure. Always think they're the smart one when everyone else in class understood it fine.

Ill break it down for you. I am sure you will dismiss this without explaining why you think its wrong but ill try anyway.

Smart people have seen where this capitalism thing goes, and ever smarter people can see capitalism is an artificial gubmint creation anyway.

Notice the soviets were the other superpower, and the planned economies of asian economic "miracles" are functionally closer to that than free-market.

Your claim there is that smart people see where capitalism goes. Capitalism is simply the for profit private ownership of the means of production and the wealth created. Next, you brought up free markets which is generally associated, but is not required for capitalism. Its a common mistake from what I have seen. Free markets are systems in which supply and demand are generally not regulated.

So, lets now look at your first comment about capitalism and then place that as the context of the 2nd. We now see that you are mixing the terms as if they are synonyms when by their very definitions they are not the same. One deals with supply and demand and the other deals with private ownership. This seems to show that either you are shifting the goal, or do not realize that the terms are not interchangeable.

Lets then look at the index of economic freedom by their rankings. Japan comes in with a score of 73.3 giving it a rank of 20. South Korea comes in with a rating of 71.5 placing it 29th. Countries with an index of 70-79.9 are considered Mostly free. The US having a ranking of 75.4 would fall into this category as would Japan and South Korea. This should be enough to show that your claim that Japan and South Korea are further away from free markets than is required to call them free markets.

As for destination of capitalism, I again ask you to provide an economy that is not governed by capitalism that you consider to be successful. Your argument that there is centralized planning through investment does not counter any points made about capitalism as you could have that investment and still have private ownership. As for your 2nd claim, the countries are considered to be mainly free market which disagrees with your 2nd claim that the countries are closer to non free markets.

Next, lets address the goal post. I have noticed a pattern when talking with you. You first accuse someone of the thing you are about to do, then hypocritically do that thing. So when someone points it out to you that you are doing something, you try and deflect their point. I was originally confused as to why you started bringing up economics, and then realized it was in response to equality of outcome. Equality of outcomes is not only limited to economics. This should be pretty obvious but I will explain.

If two people in college take the same class and study equally as hard, they should not inherently get the same score. If one person answers more questions correctly, that person should get a higher score. If one group commits more murders, that group should be expected to have more people put in jail for murder. Neither of those examples have anything to do with economics.

Last, I would like to remind you of the numbers you so kindly provided that disprove your 14% claim.

2016
Clinton got 28% whites without a college degree
Trump got 67% whites without a college degree

2012
Romney got 61% whites without a college degree
Obama got 36% whites without a college degree

67-61=6. This means that Trump gained 6 not 14. 14 comes from the shift in the gap, and not a transition of 14 to Trump.

 

[agent00f]

Ill break it down for you. I am sure you will dismiss this without explaining why you think its wrong but ill try anyway.






Your claim there is that smart people see where capitalism goes. Capitalism is simply the for profit private ownership of the means of production and the wealth created. Next, you brought up free markets which is generally associated, but is not required for capitalism. Its a common mistake from what I have seen. Free markets are systems in which supply and demand are generally not regulated.

So, lets now look at your first comment about capitalism and then place that as the context of the 2nd. We now see that you are mixing the terms as if they are synonyms when by their very definitions they are not the same. One deals with supply and demand and the other deals with private ownership. This seems to show that either you are shifting the goal, or do not realize that the terms are not interchangeable.

Lets then look at the index of economic freedom by their rankings. Japan comes in with a score of 73.3 giving it a rank of 20. South Korea comes in with a rating of 71.5 placing it 29th. Countries with an index of 70-79.9 are considered Mostly free. The US having a ranking of 75.4 would fall into this category as would Japan and South Korea. This should be enough to show that your claim that Japan and South Korea are further away from free markets than is required to call them free markets.

As for destination of capitalism, I again ask you to provide an economy that is not governed by capitalism that you consider to be successful. Your argument that there is centralized planning through investment does not counter any points made about capitalism as you could have that investment and still have private ownership. As for your 2nd claim, the countries are considered to be mainly free market which disagrees with your 2nd claim that the countries are closer to non free markets.

Next, lets address the goal post. I have noticed a pattern when talking with you. You first accuse someone of the thing you are about to do, then hypocritically do that thing. So when someone points it out to you that you are doing something, you try and deflect their point. I was originally confused as to why you started bringing up economics, and then realized it was in response to equality of outcome. Equality of outcomes is not only limited to economics. This should be pretty obvious but I will explain.

If two people in college take the same class and study equally as hard, they should not inherently get the same score. If one person answers more questions correctly, that person should get a higher score. If one group commits more murders, that group should be expected to have more people put in jail for murder. Neither of those examples have anything to do with economics.

Last, I would like to remind you of the numbers you so kindly provided that disprove your 14% claim.

2016
Clinton got 28% whites without a college degree
Trump got 67% whites without a college degree

2012
Romney got 61% whites without a college degree
Obama got 36% whites without a college degree

67-61=6. This means that Trump gained 6 not 14. 14 comes from the shift in the gap, and not a transition of 14 to Trump.

I only bothered reading the first couple lines, by which time it becomes obvious that people who have zero sense of econ history, theory, or english lit a la dickens should be arguing the subject. Like you literally demonstrate complete ignorance of the basic definition of capitalism AND socialism, which is rather impressive in a combine total of two sentences.

 

[realibrad]

I only bothered reading the first couple lines, by which time it becomes obvious that people who have zero sense of econ history, theory, or english lit a la dickens should be arguing the subject. Like you literally demonstrate complete ignorance of the basic definition of capitalism AND socialism, which is rather impressive in a combine total of two sentences.

I'll take that as an omission that you can't refute what was presented. You are willing to take the time to read posts so long as the don't have things you can't refute. Enjoy your night knowing that you were wrong but your ego was too large to admit you were wrong.

 

[agent00f]

I'll take that as an omission that you can't refute what was presented. You are willing to take the time to read posts so long as the don't have things you can't refute. Enjoy your night knowing that you were wrong but your ego was too large to admit you were wrong.

"Capitalism is simply the for profit private ownership of the means of production and the wealth created"

LOLOL, sorry this isn't as simple as counting to plural.

 

[realibrad]

"Capitalism is simply the for profit private ownership of the means of production and the wealth created"

LOLOL, sorry this isn't as simple as counting to plural.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state:

Are you now disagreeing with definitions now? First you disagreed with numbers that you provided, and now it seems you are disagreeing with the Oxford definition of capitalism. Weird tactics by you.

 

[agent00f]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state:

Are you now disagreeing with definitions now? First you disagreed with numbers that you provided, and now it seems you are disagreeing with the Oxford definition of capitalism. Weird tactics by you.

You were contrasting to socialism, whereby the prol/stakeholder own their means of production instead of the shareholder. Not hard to see what kind of college you attend where researching like a middle schooler gets a passing grade.

 

[Smoblikat]

As someone who did see the demographics of the victory, let me inform you that he got the W via the rust belt with an unprecedented +14% on non-college whites vs his predecessor. Of course he sacrificed -10 on college whites who didn't take to his rhetoric, but they weren't where it mattered for the EC, ie clinton can get 2mil or 20mil more votes elsewhere, it don't matter.

As to an analysis of why they voted for him, consider the additional fact that his core followers are hardly poor (~70k+ household), meaning they have some of the few good jobs remaining for their level of edu attainment. They also exhibit tremendous racial resentment, even compared to the GOP field. I can link these studies eg ANES 2016 Pilot if necessary. These are simply matters of fact.

Now if we only look at the specifics of said rhetoric which did so well in the belt, it deftly paints illegal (undesirable brownies) on the other side of the country & such who're hardly competing for those good jobs as a threat to their way of life. It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out that plays precisely to people who overwhelmingly answer in the affirmative to "minorities are getting ahead at the expense of whites".

The best possible argument for your case is that Trump is like the racially insensitive gramps who somehow fluked his way to the white house, but I'd like to give some credit that he knew what he was doing just like with the obama is an african muslim show, and so did a good chunk of his followers. To their credit, the GOP establishment was gradually moving away from exploiting white race resentment, but I guess Trumped showed them the path to victory going forward.



So you're basically feeling how many minorities do as a fact of life, and it sure doesn't feel great. The difference is that for historic reasons known to you, white folks still largely control institutions of power and the very real socioeconomic division by race in this country is the result. Try to fix that via affirmative action toward a level playing field and, well, you've seen the reaction.

When Trump's strategist Bannon says too many asian leads in silicon valley is a threat to "civic society", presumably something he's in the business of fixing, we all know what he's talking about and where the incoming administration is looking to take this.

I was going to bring up affirmative action, but you beat me to it. I dont agree with affirmative action, I think its silly to give someone somthing just because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity. Maybe I dont see "racism" as a real issue because im not actually racist, I couldnt imagine honestly not liking someone for a reason as stupid as their skin color. Ive never seen it, ive never been exposed to a group of people being denied some public service on the basis of ethnicity. Ive seen individual people with their head up their ass talking **** to people of different color for no reason, but ive never been to the DMV or town hall or what have you and seen anyone get treated poorly just because they had different skin. Its for that reason I dont believe "racism" is systemic, sure there might be a bunch of private citizens individually exercising their first amendment right to be a jack***, but the "system" isnt working against anybody in particular, its actively trying to screw everybody over at about the same rate. I get what youre saying, its not OK for everyone to say "Well, the world sucks, nothing you can do, thats what it is.", but at the same time you have to realize the only true way to prevent "racism" is by thought policing. Which sounds way too convenient to me, you know, get a large portion of the country on board with the idea that everything is working against them, normal laws arent working, everything is offensive, and bam, you now have a majority of the country onboard with the idea of thought crime. The lil Orwell in me is smashing the panic button right now just thinking about it, that sounds like some BS straight out of 1984.

As for youre point about Bannon, I never heard the quote before but I looked into it:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/...esidency-chief-strategist-breitbart-tech-visa

He said it, which I do have a big problem with, but then trump came in and shut him down, saying:
“We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country,”

So if anything it makes Bannon like a d*** (as he should) and it shows that Trump isnt actively out to destroy every non-white ethnicity like so many people think he is.

I dont think this should matter at all, but it might help you understand where im coming from, I hate Trump. Im not a republican, DEFINITELY not a democrat, and I hate both trump and clinton very much. I do not view either of them as real leaders, and I certainly didnt vote for either. If you want to know who I voted for, heres a video representing my (hopefully) future president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jqJaBrfKLA

I want him to require a minimum of 93 octane at every gas station, all cars must be pushing at least 1 bar of boost by 2018, and everything is straight piped.

EDIT - If you could link me to those studies that would be great. Thanks.

 

[realibrad]

You were contrasting to socialism, whereby the prol/stakeholder own their means of production instead of the shareholder. Not hard to see what kind of college you attend where researching like a middle schooler gets a passing grade.

So now you are shifting to say that you actually did read more of my post. So even though you quoted the definition and then laughed at it, the definition was not in disagreement. Nice Trump shift. Say you did something, and then say later you did something else. Quote my definition with the implication that its wrong, and then drop that once I provide an oxford definition that matches what I said.

I am sure the next time you are proven wrong, it will turn out that it was someone else who was actually wrong in understanding you. Huh, isint that the very thing you accuse people of doing.

All studies agree...
Given studies that widely disagree...
You did not understand what I was saying because you were too dumb...

Make a claim that Trump gained 14% of a vote when it was actually less than half that at 6%...
No, you dont understand numbers, read this...
Show that your own data agrees that its 6%...
You dont understand, I did not say he gained 14%...
Ok, well the words you used meant that...

let me inform you that he got the W via the rust belt with an unprecedented +14% on non-college whites vs his predecessor.

The more and more I talk to you, the more I realize you might actually be the real Trump. Every position you have been proven wrong about, turns out to be someone else being mistaken. So anti data, that I bet soon you start talking about building a wall.

 

[agent00f]

So now you are shifting to say that you actually did read more of my post. So even though you quoted the definition and then laughed at it, the definition was not in disagreement. Nice Trump shift. Say you did something, and then say later you did something else. Quote my definition with the implication that its wrong, and then drop that once I provide an oxford definition that matches what I said.

I am sure the next time you are proven wrong, it will turn out that it was someone else who was actually wrong in understanding you. Huh, isint that the very thing you accuse people of doing.

All studies agree...
Given studies that widely disagree...
You did not understand what I was saying because you were too dumb...

Make a claim that Trump gained 14% of a vote when it was actually less than half that at 6%...
No, you dont understand numbers, read this...
Show that your own data agrees that its 6%...
You dont understand, I did not say he gained 14%...
Ok, well the words you used meant that...


The more and more I talk to you, the more I realize you might actually be the real Trump. Every position you have been proven wrong about, turns out to be someone else being mistaken. So anti data, that I bet soon you start talking about building a wall.

I literally read the first 4 or so lines of that post same as this one, and it's same predictable simpleton garbage. The problem here is you refuse to believe some people are actually good at thinking, and you're not one of them. They're ones who breezed through the system designed to evaluate thinking skills, and you must've heard of this even if it's evident they've never been in your life enough to exhibit the difference.

As one example of said difference, a thinker would figure there must be some reason they're not doing as hot as others in said evaluations, reasons related to deficiency in their abilities which are solved by a better attitude than insisting whatever comes to their head is ordained. Ie. they knew it all along. It should be obvious that those who don't resolve those issues remain where they are as a matter of determinism, as blatantly evident here.

In short, a thinker would read this and understand it and the situation at hand, whereas his counterpart would forever follow their instincts instead.

 

[agent00f]

I was going to bring up affirmative action, but you beat me to it. I dont agree with affirmative action, I think its silly to give someone somthing just because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity. Maybe I dont see "racism" as a real issue because im not actually racist, I couldnt imagine honestly not liking someone for a reason as stupid as their skin color. Ive never seen it, ive never been exposed to a group of people being denied some public service on the basis of ethnicity. Ive seen individual people with their head up their ass talking **** to people of different color for no reason, but ive never been to the DMV or town hall or what have you and seen anyone get treated poorly just because they had different skin. Its for that reason I dont believe "racism" is systemic, sure there might be a bunch of private citizens individually exercising their first amendment right to be a jack***, but the "system" isnt working against anybody in particular, its actively trying to screw everybody over at about the same rate. I get what youre saying, its not OK for everyone to say "Well, the world sucks, nothing you can do, thats what it is.", but at the same time you have to realize the only true way to prevent "racism" is by thought policing. Which sounds way too convenient to me, you know, get a large portion of the country on board with the idea that everything is working against them, normal laws arent working, everything is offensive, and bam, you now have a majority of the country onboard with the idea of thought crime. The lil Orwell in me is smashing the panic button right now just thinking about it, that sounds like some BS straight out of 1984.

In a nutshell, affirmative action was a cheap way to pay reparations, and reparations are SOP in any remotely just system when a party is injured to make them whole again. To be clear, this isn't punitive damages, just when you beat the shit out of someone you're expected to pay for their medical/recovery costs. You weren't beat up so you don't get redress; it's not hard to understand.

Before you object to the reality of ethnic social status, recall not long ago minorities were at best the help, and you might also recall Trump referring to one of his latino models by such epithets, ie Ms Housekeeping. Now unless you believe they were too stupid to get better jobs, then that reality & long history of racial stratification is staring you in the face. Minorities are still largely poor, go to shittier schools, and thus offered lesser prospects due to that history.

Also notice what the "affirmative" type of action refers to: that we can't simply be passive and hope for the best with the injuries suffered, but should act affirmatively with whatever medical/legal remedies, because we're not pieces of shit with no sense of ethics.

As for youre point about Bannon, I never heard the quote before but I looked into it:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/...esidency-chief-strategist-breitbart-tech-visa

He said it, which I do have a big problem with, but then trump came in and shut him down, saying:
“We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country,”

So if anything it makes Bannon like a d*** (as he should) and it shows that Trump isnt actively out to destroy every non-white ethnicity like so many people think he is.

You chronology is wrong. Trump started with that line, turned to Bannon for direction, whereupon the successful asians as threat to civic society piece was stated. The course of events makes it clear who's the horse pulling the cart.

I dont think this should matter at all, but it might help you understand where im coming from, I hate Trump. Im not a republican, DEFINITELY not a democrat, and I hate both trump and clinton very much. I do not view either of them as real leaders, and I certainly didnt vote for either. If you want to know who I voted for, heres a video representing my (hopefully) future president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jqJaBrfKLA

I want him to require a minimum of 93 octane at every gas station, all cars must be pushing at least 1 bar of boost by 2018, and everything is straight piped.

EDIT - If you could link me to those studies that would be great. Thanks.

Clinton was a flawed candidate mostly due to very mediocre political charisma, compared to Obama or her husband or Trump who can really work a crowd. That's also why rather margin accusations stick to her whereas talented politicians are known as teflon. A key PR point to notice this election was how well the GOP "both sides [equally] bad" talking point worked. If this were a real job interview the result wouldn't even be close, but it was in the minds of many in the middle. PR professionals are hired for good reason, and I think you can personally attest to how effective were here.

----
A more comprehensive study which includes the racial resentment metric is the ANES 2016: http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_pilot_2016/anes_pilot_2016.htm. The data is dense but there are many folks who've helpfully dissected some of it which can be found by searching for that url, eg https://thewpsa.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/racial-resentment-and-the-rise-of-donald-trump/. There are others for that metric which are not difficult to find.

The most comprehensive study of Trump supporters was done by Gallop: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059, with ~90k interviews in total. Most revealingly, it shows contrary to common belief they are not poor with >$70k/yr household, meaning they have the good jobs despite educational disadvantages. From there it's pretty clear the reason why trump's racial rhetoric about mexicans/muslims coming to destroy their comfortable way of life worked so well with massively resentful people.

 

[realibrad]

I literally read the first 4 or so lines of that post same as this one, and it's same predictable simpleton garbage. The problem here is you refuse to believe some people are actually good at thinking, and you're not one of them. They're ones who breezed through the system designed to evaluate thinking skills, and you must've heard of this even if it's evident they've never been in your life enough to exhibit the difference.

As one example of said difference, a thinker would figure there must be some reason they're not doing as hot as others in said evaluations, reasons related to deficiency in their abilities which are solved by a better attitude than insisting whatever comes to their head is ordained. Ie. they knew it all along. It should be obvious that those who don't resolve those issues remain where they are as a matter of determinism, as blatantly evident here.

In short, a thinker would read this and understand it and the situation at hand, whereas his counterpart would forever follow their instincts instead.

Lol, becoming pretty obvious you cant Trump your way out of this. You have been shown that the Asian examples you listed are closer to capitalism which is mutually exclusive to your statement. Trump did not gain 14% over the previous election. So congrats, you apparently are so unable to admit when you are wrong, that you cannot accept that your statements are wrong. You only seem to be able to try and insult me instead of refute what I have posted. You would rather do a Trump and use ad hominems because you likely realize you have nothing else. Oh, the irony in your hatred of someone you so closely mirror. You actually provided the data this time to refute yourself and yet you cannot put aside your ego to admit it. Enjoy Thanksgiving.

 

[agent00f]

Lol, becoming pretty obvious you cant Trump your way out of this. You have been shown that the Asian examples you listed are closer to capitalism which is mutually exclusive to your statement. Trump did not gain 14% over the previous election. So congrats, you apparently are so unable to admit when you are wrong, that you cannot accept that your statements are wrong. You only seem to be able to try and insult me instead of refute what I have posted. You would rather do a Trump and use ad hominems because you likely realize you have nothing else. Oh, the irony in your hatred of someone you so closely mirror. You actually provided the data this time to refute yourself and yet you cannot put aside your ego to admit it. Enjoy Thanksgiving.

Rather unfortunate the forum reset lost my reply, but I suspect you got the update email, and the gist of it is that there's good reason why you were adamant you're any good at english or anything else despite quite some difficulty with counting to plural, not unlike this guy who had great trouble with arithmetic: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/day-1-of-trumps-influence.2491585/page-6#post-38579805. Despite rather sobering reminders of their actual competence, neither learn from these experiences which perfectly explains where they are education-wise.

Unfortunately many things in the world are more complex than the most trivial processes, like how market capitalism differs from various gov orchestrated econ planning, and thus remain beyond people who believe they're smart for figuring out grammar pedantics that everyone else understand fine. I imagine experiences with such folks motivated Justin Kruger and David Dunning to conduct their beloved study.

 

[Abwx]

"Capitalism is simply the for profit private ownership of the means of production and the wealth created"

Private ownership of the profits....

As an exemple quarries shouldnt be privatized because what is exploited is public goods, there s no wealth
creation but exploitation of existing wealth, on the other hand automotive industrie is not based on extracting
public assets, hence it s positively privately owned, of course when Obama nationalised GM this logic was no more actual, since there were no more profit the governement nationalised the losses, at this rate it s easy for capitalists to pretend that this is an efficient system, yes it is, but mainly for for the oligarchy.

 

[agent00f]

Private ownership of the profits....

As an exemple quarries shouldnt be privatized because what is exploited is public goods, there s no wealth
creation but exploitation of existing wealth, on the other hand automotive industrie is not based on extracting
public assets, hence it s positively privately owned, of course when Obama nationalised GM this logic was no more actual, since there were no more profit the governement nationalised the losses, at this rate it s easy for capitalists to pretend that this is an efficient system, yes it is, but mainly for for the oligarchy.

The democrat fought to fund GM's chap11 to prevent massive job loss around the rust belt from an unfortunate economic cycle/bust which had nothing to with auto industry per se, and we learned from this experience that no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[realibrad]

Rather unfortunate the forum reset lost my reply, but I suspect you got the update email, and the gist of it is that there's good reason why you were adamant you're any good at english or anything else despite quite some difficulty with counting to plural, not unlike this guy who had great trouble with arithmetic: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/day-1-of-trumps-influence.2491585/page-6#post-38579805. Despite rather sobering reminders of their actual competence, neither learn from these experiences which perfectly explains where they are education-wise.

Unfortunately many things in the world are more complex than the most trivial processes, like how market capitalism differs from various gov orchestrated econ planning, and thus remain beyond people who believe they're smart for figuring out grammar pedantics that everyone else understand fine. I imagine experiences with such folks motivated Justin Kruger and David Dunning to conduct their beloved study.

Oh, that is a new one. So you had given me a reply that explained how you were right about Trump gaining 14%, but the system update it. Tell me, how many times did your dog also eat your homework.

Trump did not gain 14% of the demographic. Hillary lost 8% and Trump gained 6%. At best, you could make the argument that Trump flipped 6%. Just because the gap between the D and R grew by 14% does not mean Trump "flipped uneducated whites an unprecedented +14%". What actually happened, is that Hillary lost a bunch of the demo.

Lol, I cant believe you are using the excuse of the update.

 

[realibrad]

Private ownership of the profits....

As an exemple quarries shouldnt be privatized because what is exploited is public goods, there s no wealth
creation but exploitation of existing wealth, on the other hand automotive industrie is not based on extracting
public assets, hence it s positively privately owned, of course when Obama nationalised GM this logic was no more actual, since there were no more profit the governement nationalised the losses, at this rate it s easy for capitalists to pretend that this is an efficient system, yes it is, but mainly for for the oligarchy.

Actually, that is a perfect example of why it should be privatized. Google "tragedy of the commons".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

[agent00f]

Oh, that is a new one. So you had given me a reply that explained how you were right about Trump gaining 14%, but the system update it. Tell me, how many times did your dog also eat your homework.

Trump did not gain 14% of the demographic. Hillary lost 8% and Trump gained 6%. At best, you could make the argument that Trump flipped 6%. Just because the gap between the D and R grew by 14% does not mean Trump "flipped uneducated whites an unprecedented +14%". What actually happened, is that Hillary lost a bunch of the demo.

Lol, I cant believe you are using the excuse of the update.

"and thus remain beyond people who believe they're smart for figuring out grammar pedantics that everyone else understand fine."

Always funny when the dumbest person in the room believes they're the smart one.

Actually, that is a perfect example of why it should be privatized. Google "tragedy of the commons".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Chap 7 for GM/Chrysler would've taught the perfect lesson to your sort. Not because they wouldn't learned anything but because schadenfreude is satisfying.

 

[realibrad]

"and thus remain beyond people who believe they're smart for figuring out grammar pedantics that everyone else understand fine."

Always funny when the dumbest person in the room believes they're the smart one.

You still can't admit it. You will say just about anything other than explaining how you think "flipped uneducated whites an unprecedented +14%" is correct".

You have spent day after day, post after post responding, but never explaining how you think your statement somehow conforms do the data you presented. If Romney got 62% and Trump got 67%, how then did Trump flip 14%?

Chap 7 for GM/Chrysler would've taught the perfect lesson to your sort. Not because they wouldn't learned anything but because schadenfreude is satisfying.

What does privatizing quarries have to do with the auto bailout?

 

[agent00f]

You still can't admit it. You will say just about anything other than explaining how you think "flipped uneducated whites an unprecedented +14%" is correct".

You have spent day after day, post after post responding, but never explaining how you think your statement somehow conforms do the data you presented. If Romney got 62% and Trump got 67%, how then did Trump flip 14%?

Not a surprise per scientific research when people who have a hard time understanding what nobody else is confused about believe they're the smart ones.

What does privatizing quarries have to do with the auto bailout?

Speaking of not understanding much of anything said:

"public assets, hence it s positively privately owned, of course when Obama nationalised GM this logic was no more actual, since there were no more profit the governement nationalised the losses"

Sadly nothing can be done here if every english teacher previous has failed miserably.

 

[realibrad]

Not a surprise per scientific research when people who have a hard time understanding what nobody else is confused about believe they're the smart ones.

Still not explaining right? I wonder if you might be a Trump staffer. The way you so easily mirror his deflections its as if you have an intimate knowledge of the man. You never once explain your self, bring up other topics, insult people that question you, and never explain how someone might be wrong. You seem to have all the time in the world to respond, but never explain anything. What is your goal of responding to me?

Speaking of not understanding much of anything said:

"public assets, hence it s positively privately owned, of course when Obama nationalised GM this logic was no more actual, since there were no more profit the governement nationalised the losses"

Sadly nothing can be done here if every english teacher previous has failed miserably.

I responded to his example of quarries.

 

[agent00f]

Still not explaining right? I wonder if you might be a Trump staffer. The way you so easily mirror his deflections its as if you have an intimate knowledge of the man. You never once explain your self, bring up other topics, insult people that question you, and never explain how someone might be wrong. You seem to have all the time in the world to respond, but never explain anything. What is your goal of responding to me?

A: He picked off that touchdown pass and returned it all the way to flip the game by 14 points.

B: A touchdown is only 6 points, it says so right in the rulebook. I iz so smart own you again bitch.

A: LOL, what a dunning-kruger posterchild.

B: Even my math professor agrees with me that a touch is 6 points not 14.

I responded to his example of quarries.

A: Dumbshits can't even tell when people are mocking them.

 

[realibrad]

A: He picked off that touchdown pass and returned it all the way to flip the game by 14 points.

B: A touchdown is only 6 points, it says so right in the rulebook. I iz so smart own you again bitch.

A: LOL, what a dunning-kruger posterchild.

B: Even my math professor agrees with me that a touch is 6 points not 14.



A: Dumbshits can't even tell when people are mocking them.

No. For your analogy to work, you would have to compare the points scored by the team's scores last game, and then compare them to the current game. Nobody does that because its stupid to do for a game.

Game 1
Team A scored 61 and Team B scored 36.
Team A won by 25 points.

Game 2
Team A scored 67 and Team B scored 28.
Team A won by 39 points.

The shift in the difference is 14 points. For the interception analogy to work, Trump would have had to take the points away from Clinton in the same event. The 14 comes from the comparison of this election with the last. If Trump had taken votes, then for every vote lost by Clinton, Trump would have picked one up. That is not what happened. Clinton lost 8% and Trump gained 6% which means 25% of those that left Clinton hypothetically simply did not vote for either. Clinton lost more than Trump gained. There was not an interception. There was not a flip. There was a change in the difference of the distribution of the votes.

Make up any shit you want, but you are still wrong.