Maybe Democrats are starting to get it:

[realibrad]

To be clear, I am not saying self regulation can't happen. I am saying you can't count on it happening when it needs to happen.

That sure seems like a back pedal.

Are you saying that you can count on government regulation when it needs to happen? Both do the vast majority of things after something happens and not before.

 

[dank69]

That sure seems like a back pedal.

Are you saying that you can count on government regulation when it needs to happen? Both do the vast majority of things after something happens and not before.

It only seems like a backpedal because you inferred from my initial post that I was saying self-regulation can never happen. I did not say that and did not imply that. I was simply laughing at your supposition that the free market will always self-regulate.

We can't count on the government to do anything when America is so retarded that they will vote for a man like Trump and gobble bullshit propaganda about liberals with literally zero regard for facts. That doesn't mean we should remove the ability for government to be able to step in and get things right IF America ever cleanses the cancer that has taken over.

 

[J.Wilkins]

The definition of Socialism is not free market regulation. The definition more accurately would be community owned and controlled. Thus, 3rd parties can regulate and control transactions that they are not directly involved in. In Capitalism, the regulation would have to be between the two transacting parties. You would still have a 3rd party to enforce contractual agreements which will be the state. But it would be incorrect to say that Socialism is freemarket regulation. By definition its not free market.

You're wrong, the regulation of the free market is socialism. In capitalism there exists no regulation of the free market at all, it is left to its own devices.

You're still talking about mixed economies, not pure capitalism at all.

MS vs Netscape is a great example to prove my point. Yes, MS tried very very hard to kill competition. They tried to control and manipulate transactions they were not directly part of. This is an attempt to do monopolistic activity. That said, where is MS now in the browser war? The reality is that MS did not lose the browser war because the government stepped in to fix it. They lost due to competition. The main reason MS was able to beat netscape was because they went free which is actually a competition move.

MS went in and killed Netscape after trying to buy them for nothing BUT MS was challenged by many governments over this which forced them into a position where they had to let other browsers into the windows ecosystem. If there had been no regulation MS would have shut down Windows for other browsers instead since what they REALLY wanted was for their own MSNet to be what people used rather than the internet (yes, they had plans to do exactly that, it died an ugly death because of regulation).

And, again, you can isolate the factors that we are talking about here. Its true that we do not have any pure form of capitalism or socialism, but that does not matter. You can look at individual monopolies and look at what is sustaining them and see that its not because of lack of regulation.

This is completely irrelevant to the point we are discussing. Better regulation and anti-corruption laws is the way to deal with those problems, not less regulation.

 

[agent00f]

It only seems like a backpedal because you inferred from my initial post that I was saying self-regulation can never happen. I did not say that and did not imply that. I was simply laughing at your supposition that the free market will always self-regulate.

We can't count on the government to do anything when America is so retarded that they will vote for a man like Trump and gobble bullshit propaganda about liberals with literally zero regard for facts. That doesn't mean we should remove the ability for government to be able to step in and get things right IF America ever cleanses the cancer that has taken over.

Naw dude, heritage foundation tells us capitalist gud, gubmint bad. Pretty easy to figure out why they're paid to say that.

That's literally all there is to this, same as why conservatism pays for creationist prop too. The only mystery is why liberals are co-dependent enough to get strung along for 50+ pages trying to educate the tool.

 

[realibrad]

It only seems like a backpedal because you inferred from my initial post that I was saying self-regulation can never happen. I did not say that and did not imply that. I was simply laughing at your supposition that the free market will always self-regulate.

We can't count on the government to do anything when America is so retarded that they will vote for a man like Trump and gobble bullshit propaganda about liberals with literally zero regard for facts. That doesn't mean we should remove the ability for government to be able to step in and get things right IF America ever cleanses the cancer that has taken over.

The initial context was that capitalism is not antithetical to regulation. I then bring up self regulation, and you laugh at it. Apparently "Self regulation lol" means that it can work in many areas but not all. Weird way of saying that.

I never said the market would always self correct any problem. I literally listed examples of when that was not true. What I did say was that monopolies would be self corrected.

 

[agent00f]

The initial context was that capitalism is not antithetical to regulation. I then bring up self regulation, and you laugh at it. Apparently "Self regulation lol" means that it can work in many areas but not all. Weird way of saying that.

I never said the market would always self correct any problem. I literally listed examples of when that was not true. What I did say was that monopolies would be self corrected.

Monopolies make more money, and everybody knows capitalists hate more money.

The only question here is whether realibrad is actually dumb enough to believe that. Liberals say yes, but liberals can be pretty naive.

 

[realibrad]

You're wrong, the regulation of the free market is socialism. In capitalism there exists no regulation of the free market at all, it is left to its own devices.

Please read what I am writing. This will get annoying for both of us real quick if we dont read what we both write.

Capitalism can actually create regulation in the open market. The regulation arises from mutually involved actors, and not 3rd party actors like in Socialism. Regulation of markets is not in opposition to Capitalism inherently.

You're still talking about mixed economies, not pure capitalism at all.

Correct, as we both already agreed. There does not exist any economy that is pure capitalism or socialism. That again, is not a huge deal because you can look at monopolies and see what lead to their formation. If a monopoly formed without state assistance then you have something that is not antithetical to capitalism and could in theory happen under capitalism. In reality all have formed with the assistance of state actors and as such would not have had that assistance in Capitalism. That by definition would dismiss your claim.

MS went in and killed Netscape after trying to buy them for nothing BUT MS was challenged by many governments over this which forced them into a position where they had to let other browsers into the windows ecosystem. If there had been no regulation MS would have shut down Windows for other browsers instead since what they REALLY wanted was for their own MSNet to be what people used rather than the internet (yes, they had plans to do exactly that, it died an ugly death because of regulation).

The thing that killed netscape was 3 things.

1. Microsoft made a better browser.
2. IE came with windows.
3. IE was free.

So the way MS killed netscape was by making something better and easier to use that was free. The other things MS tried to do were bad, but they did not have a major impact. So what is your point here?

This is completely irrelevant to the point we are discussing. Better regulation and anti-corruption laws is the way to deal with those problems, not less regulation.

No, its not completely irrelevant. The government did nothing to stop MS and nothing the government did made IE lose the crown of market share. If you look at browsers in terms of market share over the years, government action did nothing to change the losses by IE.

Again, monopolies are not the inevitable outcome of Capitalism.

 

[realibrad]

Monopolies make more money, and everybody knows capitalists hate more money.

The only question here is whether realibrad is actually dumb enough to believe that. Liberals say yes, but liberals can be pretty naive.

Capitalist love money just as much as Socialists or Communist do.

Agent, do you believe in gang stalking too? I would like to know how deep your conspiracy theories go.

 

[agent00f]

Capitalist love money just as much as Socialists or Communist do.

Agent, do you believe in gang stalking too? I would like to know how deep your conspiracy theories go.

Good to know you're not actually dumb enough to believe the heritage foundation, but feel obliged to parrot them anyway because that's what good conservatives do. Same as why the racist ones are obliged to parrot the gop's russian collusion excuses.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Please read what I am writing.

No.

The thing that killed netscape was 3 things.

1. Microsoft made a better browser.
2. IE came with windows.
3. IE was free.

So the way MS killed netscape was by making something better and easier to use that was free. The other things MS tried to do were bad, but they did not have a major impact. So what is your point here?

What in the fuck does any of that have to do with Microsoft wanting to establish a monopoly and if not for government regulation would have established a monopoly?

Have you forgotten what we were talking about?

No, its not completely irrelevant. The government did nothing to stop MS and nothing the government did made IE lose the crown of market share. If you look at browsers in terms of market share over the years, government action did nothing to change the losses by IE.

At this point I'm going to either start insulting you or ignoring you.... IF MS had not been fucking forced through enforcement of regulation to rescind their plan for MSNet there would be ONE MSNet right now, this forum would most probably not be on it and no browser for the internet would exist. Netscape broke their plans so they broke Netscape and then the various governments stepped in.

Again, monopolies are not the inevitable outcome of Capitalism.

Again, it is but you have fun fantasizing about your capitalist utopia.

 

[Jhhnn]

Same as why the racist ones are obliged to parrot the gop's russian collusion excuses.

Only you could put those two things together. You probably figure that makes you a genius.

 

[realibrad]

No.




What in the fuck does any of that have to do with Microsoft wanting to establish a monopoly and if not for government regulation would have established a monopoly?

Have you forgotten what we were talking about?




At this point I'm going to either start insulting you or ignoring you.... IF MS had not been fucking forced through enforcement of regulation to rescind their plan for MSNet there would be ONE MSNet right now, this forum would most probably not be on it and no browser for the internet would exist. Netscape broke their plans so they broke Netscape and then the various governments stepped in.




Again, it is but you have fun fantasizing about your capitalist utopia.

You sir do not know the facts of the case. You should look up the outcome of the case so you dont sound silly.

MS had to give out its API and that was that. None of what the government did is the reason Chrome is the leading browser today.

Also, what are yo on about MS-Net? MS-Net died before the Netscape battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-Net

You sound very silly right now.

 

[realibrad]

Good to know you're not actually dumb enough to believe the heritage foundation, but feel obliged to parrot them anyway because that's what good conservatives do. Same as why the racist ones are obliged to parrot the gop's russian collusion excuses.

Here again you fail. I personally am quite worried about Russia and what happened during the election. Its quite scary that from Romney to Trump the Right went from being worried about Russia to okay with them. Sad times.

 

[agent00f]

Only you could put those two things together. You probably figure that makes you a genius.

It's a simple matter of observation that racist cold warriors now go to bat for russia, and it's not hard to figure out why. The reason you refuse to is because it's against your self-interest, just like it's so "hard" for conservatives to admit simple things.

Here again you fail. I personally am quite worried about Russia and what happened during the election. Its quite scary that from Romney to Trump the Right went from being worried about Russia to okay with them. Sad times.

Frankly it's hard to tell if you're actually too stupid to understand how analogies work. Conservatives are rather expert at playing dumb.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's a simple matter of observation that racist cold warriors now go to bat for russia, and it's not hard to figure out why. The reason you refuse to is because it's against your self-interest, just like it's so "hard" for conservatives to admit simple things.

So tell us why.

 

[agent00f]

So tell us why.

You don't get a platform for "mexican rapist coming for our white womens" for free.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't get a platform for "mexican rapist coming for our white womens" for free.

So, that would read "It's a simple matter of observation that racist cold warriors now go to bat for russia because you don't get a platform for "mexican rapist coming for our white womens" for free."

Dunno how anybody could think that makes sense.

 

[agent00f]

So, that would read "It's a simple matter of observation that racist cold warriors now go to bat for russia because you don't get a platform for "mexican rapist coming for our white womens" for free."

Dunno how anybody could think that makes sense.

I know, politics is real hard for dumbshit tier democrats.

 

[Moonbeam]

So, that would read "It's a simple matter of observation that racist cold warriors now go to bat for russia because you don't get a platform for "mexican rapist coming for our white womens" for free."

Dunno how anybody could think that makes sense.

I think he's saying he will sell you such a platform for some cash, but how much isn't clear. Either that or he's confused rapist with visual masturbation.

 

[Jhhnn]

I know, politics is real hard for dumbshit tier democrats.

If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

 

[agent00f]

If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

Little wonder why people like this take advantage of you:

I think he's saying he will sell you such a platform for some cash, but how much isn't clear. Either that or he's confused rapist with visual masturbation.

 

[pmv]

Denazification worked wonders against degeneracy in germany, but I can see why many americans would hate to subject their friends, and instead propose the power of prayer or anything else really.

But it took the cataclysm of a world war to get to the point where denazification was possible. How are you proposing to get to that point in the US?

If you want to use that analogy we aren't in 1946, we are still in Weimar.

One of the disastrous features of that situation was that every faction outside the Nazi party tended to decide that everyone who wasn't 100% on their team, sharing exactly their ideology, was 'the enemy' and effectively a Nazi - a situation which was very helpful to the actual Nazis. "Third period Stalinism" involved exactly that.

As an aside, you greatly over-rate deNazification. Even after all that it wasn't all that successful - it never went all the way, a great many low-ranking former Nazis continued in positions of power in the Federal Republic - as mayors, judges, low-ranking officials. Most of those scumbags were never held to account. That's part of the reason why you got the the alienation of the younger generation and the far-left terrorism of the likes of Badar-Meinhoff.

And after the first attempt at real justice at Nuremberg was over, the rest of the proven Nazis were treated far better than merely suspected Islamists are by the US today, because anti-communism became the priority for the US (and I suspect also because Nazis are lighter-skinned than Islamists).

 

[agent00f]

But it took the cataclysm of a world war to get to the point where denazification was possible. How are you proposing to get to that point in the US?

If you want to use that analogy we aren't in 1946, we are still in Weimar.

Humans can make choices in life and presumably the correct ones. I'm just pointing out a correct choice and why many people won't make it. For example, emancipation was a correct choice, but it's easy to see why the confederates & sympathizers didn't make it.

One of the disastrous features of that situation was that every faction outside the Nazi party tended to decide that everyone who wasn't 100% on their team, sharing exactly their ideology, was 'the enemy' and effectively a Nazi - a situation which was very helpful to the actual Nazis. "Third period Stalinism" involved exactly that.

As an aside, you greatly over-rate deNazification. Even after all that it wasn't all that successful - it never went all the way, a great many low-ranking former Nazis continued in positions of power in the Federal Republic - as mayors, judges, low-ranking officials. Most of those scumbags were never held to account. That's part of the reason why you got the the alienation of the younger generation and the far-left terrorism of the likes of Badar-Meinhoff.

And after the first attempt at real justice at Nuremberg was over, the rest of the proven Nazis were treated far better than merely suspected Islamists are by the US today, because anti-communism became the priority for the US (and I suspect also because Nazis are lighter-skinned than Islamists).

It's a matter of fact there are more sons of the reich & sympathizers in the US than german, and hell of a lot more sons of the confederacy despite far great passage of time. The reason is simple, because there's a cost for these sorts in germany, so they act in their rational self-interest same as confederate fans in the US.

Also beware of buckshitters like Jaskalas drawing you into their world, like debating the merits of fema death camps on matters of gun control.

 

[Moonbeam]

Also beware of buckshitters like Jaskalas drawing you into their world, like debating the merits of fema death camps on matters of gun control.

And there it is,,,,,,,, the monsters that hide under the bed waiting for that moment when you relax your guard and they spring out from the unconscious and eat you, the fears of the paranoid delusional, the fanatic out to save you from mental error. Must eliminate error! Must eliminate error, Must eliminate error. OK agent Nomad.

 

[agent00f]

And there it is,,,,,,,, the monsters that hide under the bed waiting for that moment when you relax your guard and they spring out from the unconscious and eat you, the fears of the paranoid delusional, the fanatic out to save you from mental error. Must eliminate error! Must eliminate error, Must eliminate error. OK agent Nomad.

Seems to me you're smart enough to realize buckshit & co aren't really interested in evolutionary biology despite teaching the controversy for 100+ pages, any more than Jaskalas types are interested in disadvantaging his confederate friends.