Proud Non Voters

[oreagan]

There's no money in clean water, not polluting, or keeping your food products to a high standard. There's no nearly so much money in that is there is in false advertising and hoaxes, at least. Have you read Sinclair's The Jungle? The "negative externalities" (to use the econ term) of business will not be fixed without regulations. It costs the business money and the only people to profit are everyone else. Capitalism is the best system we have until we develop monopolies, pollution, child labor, unsafe working conditions, lower quality standards than the public wants, and the other serious flaws of pure capitalism. You really think everyone was better off in America's Gilded Age than they are now?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: oreagan
There's no money in clean water, not polluting, or keeping your food products to a high standard. There's no nearly so much money in that is there is in false advertising and hoaxes, at least. Have you read Sinclair's The Jungle? The "negative externalities" (to use the econ term) of business will not be fixed without regulations. It costs the business money and the only people to profit are everyone else. Capitalism is the best system we have until we develop monopolies, pollution, child labor, unsafe working conditions, lower quality standards than the public wants, and the other serious flaws of pure capitalism. You really think everyone was better off in America's Gilded Age than they are now?

All myths trumped up by interventionists. For someone who knows about "modern economics" you sure have bought into a lot of garbage.

All of the answers to your myths lie in Capitalism.

On the myth of monopolies: chapter 10. It turns out that the only real monopolies are created by the government through protectionism (protecting a few firms against the many), or force (forcibly taking over an entire market i.e. the postal service). The myth of the firm selling below cost to force other firms out is exploded, as well as the firm cutting production to raise prices. Specifically, pg. 392 for the tendency towards a single firm myth, pg. 399 for predatory pricing, pg. 408 for restriction of supply myth.

On pollution: Chapter 3

On child labor laws: page 661

On the cause of low wages and poor working conditions in the past: Pg. 642

 

[onelove]

does capitalism address the "tragedy of the commons?"

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: onelove
does capitalism address the "tragedy of the commons?"

Chapter 3.

 

[oreagan]

Well, see, here's the thing. I don't have my entire life to spend studying economics. I wish I could but I can't. So, in my formal education I study Physics, History (majors) and some Political Theory (a minor) with only enough time left over for two or three courses in each subject (not including high school classes, of course). I leave the rigorous, scientific study of Econ to others, including such people as my Economics professors and the author of my econ textbook. They tell me that monopolies DO exist in real life. History agrees with them. I side with history, learned economics professors and all of my past economics textbooks over a PDF telling me that all of these others sources are in a conspiracy against me.

Fact beats theory, and the fact is that child labor was used almost everywhere, people were payed next to nothing, working conditions were horrible and monopolies crushed competitions throughout much of the late 1800s and early 1900s America until government regulation changed that (and did so only after a great many of its citizens demanded it).

The thing about economics, real economics, is that it is based on history, it doesn't deny it. Creating economics that calls monopolies and child labor "interventionist myths" is like creating physics principles that tell me that objects fall at speed dependent on their weights. It's a pretty theory, but it just isn't true.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
All of the answers to your myths lie in Capitalism.

Nice repackaging of the thinking of the Cato Institute, Ayn Rand, and the aptly named Independent Institute. I love his assertion that calculus and differential equations have no role in economics. If you buy that, it makes it easier to swallow the lack of empirical evidence to back up the author's assertions (no, because "Ayn Rand" says so is not a convincing argument to me).

If you want to move our economic debate here to textbooks, try starting here, then here, and if you're not afraid of that "math thing" then perhaps here.

Or perhaps you could go the route of auditing university courses to deal with your "myths". Here's a good start. If that's too advanced for you, perhaps audit this course.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Dissipate
All of the answers to your myths lie in Capitalism.

Nice repackaging of the thinking of the Cato Institute, Ayn Rand, and the aptly named Independent Institute. I love his assertion that calculus and differential equations have no role in economics. If you buy that, it makes it easier to swallow the lack of empirical evidence to back up the author's assertions (no, because "Ayn Rand" says so is not a convincing argument to me).

If you want to move our economic debate here to textbooks, try starting here, then here, and if you're not afraid of that "math thing" then perhaps here.

Or perhaps you could go the route of auditing university courses to deal with your "myths". Here's a good start. If that's too advanced for you, perhaps audit this course.

One of the reasons I stopped taking courses in economics is because I think the textbooks are a crock. It was true back when Keynesianism was being taught in the universities, it is still true today.

I have taken calculus and differential equations. Calculus and differential equations are great for modeling many things in physics and even biology, but they really have no place in economics. In economics you are dealing with human beings, not asteroids or atoms.

A lecture on positivism from Hoppe.

P.S. you got all the institutes wrong. It is the Mises Institutue that Reisman is a fellow of.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Dissipate
All of the answers to your myths lie in Capitalism.

Nice repackaging of the thinking of the Cato Institute, Ayn Rand, and the aptly named Independent Institute. I love his assertion that calculus and differential equations have no role in economics. If you buy that, it makes it easier to swallow the lack of empirical evidence to back up the author's assertions (no, because "Ayn Rand" says so is not a convincing argument to me).

If you want to move our economic debate here to textbooks, try starting here, then here, and if you're not afraid of that "math thing" then perhaps here.

Or perhaps you could go the route of auditing university courses to deal with your "myths". Here's a good start. If that's too advanced for you, perhaps audit this course.

One of the reasons I stopped taking courses in economics is because I think the textbooks are a crock. It was true back when Keynesianism was being taught in the universities, it is still true today.

I have taken calculus and differential equations. Calculus and differential equations are great for modeling many things in physics and even biology, but they really have no place in economics. In economics you are dealing with human beings, not asteroids or atoms.

Now you're sounding like the "drugged out hippies" I'm pained to be associated with in my political associations. I'll grant that some of the assumptions required to simplify an economic system into tractable forumulas lose some of the complexities involved with these systems (although game theory - John Nash type stuff has made mathematical economic theories much more accurate). Although not perfect, a mathematical approach to economics is still a far better option than logically flawed essays referencing authors of fiction as sources.

A lecture on positivism from Hoppe.

There's a difference between being positive minded and being ignorant.

P.S. you got all the institutes wrong. It is the Mises Institutue that Reisman is a fellow of.

I was referring to Reisman's Bibliography. But since "textbooks are a crock", you probably didn't look at that part of the book.

Reisman's book, especially chapter 3's comments on externalities (p.98) is a bloated exercise in "straw man" arguments. If you read the (empirically supported) texts cited above, and then cross reference Reisman's presentation of the "pernicious" theory of externalities, you will see the two bear no resemblance. It's quite easy to trounce an argument nobody but yourself is making. In fact, througout that text Reisman pulls his presentation of many of the "opposing" arguments out of thin air, with no references at all.

But hey, if you want to hide behind a book like that to support your particular beliefs, don't let me stop you. Just don't ask me to swallow Reisman's tripe like it was the word of god without any empirical evidence to back his theories up.

[edit: lining up the quote blocks]

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Dissipate
All of the answers to your myths lie in Capitalism.

Nice repackaging of the thinking of the Cato Institute, Ayn Rand, and the aptly named Independent Institute. I love his assertion that calculus and differential equations have no role in economics. If you buy that, it makes it easier to swallow the lack of empirical evidence to back up the author's assertions (no, because "Ayn Rand" says so is not a convincing argument to me).

If you want to move our economic debate here to textbooks, try starting here, then here, and if you're not afraid of that "math thing" then perhaps here.

Or perhaps you could go the route of auditing university courses to deal with your "myths". Here's a good start. If that's too advanced for you, perhaps audit this course.

One of the reasons I stopped taking courses in economics is because I think the textbooks are a crock. It was true back when Keynesianism was being taught in the universities, it is still true today.

I have taken calculus and differential equations. Calculus and differential equations are great for modeling many things in physics and even biology, but they really have no place in economics. In economics you are dealing with human beings, not asteroids or atoms.

Now you're sounding like the "drugged out hippies" I'm pained to be associated with in my political associations. I'll grant that some of the assumptions required to simplify an economic system into tractable forumulas lose some of the complexities involved with these systems (although game theory - John Nash type stuff has made mathematical economic theories much more accurate). Although not perfect, a mathematical approach to economics is still a far better option than logically flawed essays referencing authors of fiction as sources.

It cannot be done. If it could, then PhD economists would be billionaires. I find it hilarious how when the Keynesians merely changed their theories after the Phillips Curve failed to hold up against the empiricism that you hold so dear in the '70s. Instead of dumping the theories they merely fine tuned them, so now we have Neo-Keynesianism. When will it end? At Neo-neo-neo-neo-Keynsianism?

A lecture on positivism from Hoppe.

There's a difference between being positive minded and being ignorant.

P.S. you got all the institutes wrong. It is the Mises Institutue that Reisman is a fellow of.

I was referring to Reisman's Bibliography. But since "textbooks are a crock", you probably didn't look at that part of the book.

Reisman's book, especially chapter 3's comments on externalities (p.98) is a bloated exercise in "straw man" arguments. If you read the (empirically supported) texts cited above, and then cross reference Reisman's presentation of the "pernicious" theory of externalities, you will see the two bear no resemblance. It's quite easy to trounce an argument nobody but yourself is making. In fact, througout that text Reisman pulls his presentation of many of the "opposing" arguments out of thin air, with no references at all.

They bear no resemblence because one is false and the other is true. Empiricism is false in economics, end of story.

But hey, if you want to hide behind a book like that to support your particular beliefs, don't let me stop you. Just don't ask me to swallow Reisman's tripe like it was the word of god without any empirical evidence to back his theories up.

That is not the only book. There are many others, that one just happens to be the easiest to reference. Tons more material at mises.org, go find it yourself.

[edit: lining up the quote blocks]

 

I wish there was an offical vote of no confidence.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: onelove
does capitalism address the "tragedy of the commons?"

Chapter 3.

from ch 3:

reason and capitalism achieve a progressive enlargement of the goods- and wealth-character of nature and thus a continually increasing supply of economically useable natural resources.

according to this guy, the commons apparently keeps getting bigger and bigger (his argument appears to be that human ingenuity will outpace depletion of the commons).

EDIT: my point being that the commons, in some cases, is clearly a finite resource (e.g. fisheries, soil depletion) certainly ingenuity can ameliorate the issue somewhat, but the earth IS a closed system and we live amongst our own waste...

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
They bear no resemblence because one is false and the other is true. Empiricism is false in economics, end of story.

Is this the ever so popular "nya nya, is too!" style of refutation? If so, I'll consider myself troll baited and head elsewhere. The texts that I prefer to read try their best to accurately portray an opposing group's viewpoint and arguments before arguing against them on the merits. Arguing against statements no person from the opposition has ever made is a tactic for elementary schoolyard arguments and AT P&N, not "scholarly" books.

As for the Mises Institute, if you want to discuss something promulagated there, post a new thread and see who shows up. I don't find their faculty particularly awe-inspiring, but I'm not going to get into the merits (or lack therof) of the ideas presented there with such a vauge reference.

In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.

I get the gist. Unless you have some amazingly convincing argument to end all arguments, I'll have to stick with a viewpoint more closely based on the material presented in the above linked MIT Econ courses and agree to disagree.

BTW, just to get a little bit back on topic, I am proud to exercise my voting privilege, but I respect those who choose not to vote in the upcoming elections as long as they have reasons besides laziness.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: onelove
according to this guy, the commons apparently keeps getting bigger and bigger (his argument appears to be that human ingenuity will outpace depletion of the commons).

EDIT: my point being that the commons, in some cases, is clearly a finite resource (e.g. fisheries, soil depletion) certainly ingenuity can ameliorate the issue somewhat, but the earth IS a closed system and we live amongst our own waste...

Clearly, you're just not being positive enough. Try harder.

While you're at it, can you tell Intel to get their human ingenuity in gear? I want my 5 Ghz processor already!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Dissipate
They bear no resemblence because one is false and the other is true. Empiricism is false in economics, end of story.

Is this the ever so popular "nya nya, is too!" style of refutation? If so, I'll consider myself troll baited and head elsewhere. The texts that I prefer to read try their best to accurately portray an opposing group's viewpoint and arguments before arguing against them on the merits. Arguing against statements no person from the opposition has ever made is a tactic for elementary schoolyard arguments and AT P&N, not "scholarly" books.

Please tell me a specific case in which Reisman has done this.

As for the Mises Institute, if you want to discuss something promulagated there, post a new thread and see who shows up. I don't find their faculty particularly awe-inspiring, but I'm not going to get into the merits (or lack therof) of the ideas presented there with such a vauge reference.

You seem to be awe inspired by Ivy League. Here is your Ivy League: Walter Block

In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.

I get the gist. Unless you have some amazingly convincing argument to end all arguments, I'll have to stick with a viewpoint more closely based on the material presented in the above linked MIT Econ courses and agree to disagree.

Austrian economics is amazingly convincing to me and many others. If you want to refuse a priori logic and sound methodology (praxeology), that's your choice. On that note, you should join the radical socialists in Poland.

BTW, just to get a little bit back on topic, I am proud to exercise my voting privilege, but I respect those who choose not to vote in the upcoming elections as long as they have reasons besides laziness.

 

[oreagan]

Those darned Keynesians! When their theory proved to be incorrect based on empirical evidence they changed it! How dare they not just say everyone else is in a massive conspiracy against them! The gall!

You're like one of those people who believes in perpetual motion machines;history argues against you so you call it a conspiracy. Math and the subject at hand (Physics in this case, Economics in yours) say you're wrong so you throw out all past human knowledge, sure that your prophet knows best.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: naddicott
Arguing against statements no person from the opposition has ever made is a tactic for elementary schoolyard arguments and AT P&N, not "scholarly" books.

Please tell me a specific case in which Reisman has done this.

OK. From page 96 (p.152 of the "Capitalism" pdf)

The supporters of the externalities doctrine are not satisfied with the fact that the spending pattern of consumers determines the spending pattern of businessmen. They add the further arbitrary demand that the individual should be able to lay claim to compensation for all the benefits his action causes to the rest of mankind and should be liable for all the costs it imposes on the rest of mankind, even though the benefits and costs in question are not subjects of purchase and sale in the normal context of the individuals concerned. From the perspective of the externalities doctrine, it is a flaw of capitalism whenever an individual's action provides any kind of benefits to others for which he is not compensated, or imposes any kind of costs on others for which he does not compensate them. It calls upon the government to enter the scene and set matters right by deciding who owes what to whom and then effecting the necessary redistribution of wealth and income.

The part in bold is a textbook case of the "strawman argument". The passages afterwards keep railing on this purported extremism, painting the author as the champion of sanity and moderation. The truth is that the concept of "externalities" commonly accepted in economic theory makes no such claims.

The nearest reference to this strawman argument (reference 76 on page 118, 174 of the PDF) says "For an exposition of the doctrine, see Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, Economics, 13th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1989), pp. 770-775.

I took a Microeconomics course with Samuelson as my professor, using that cited textbook, and I'm quite certain the bolded passage from "Capitalism" is not even close to an accurate paraphrasing of anything that Samuelson (a Nobel laureate for "raising the level of analysis in economic science") would write. You can probably verify for yourself by going to the local campus bookstore (where you'll likely find Sameuelson's book and not "Capitalism" - due to the laws of supply and demand IMO) and looking it up yourself.

If that's not a clear enough strawman case for you, I apologise. Our interpretation of the written word may be very different and you may see commie conspiracies where I see modern economic theory.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: naddicott
Arguing against statements no person from the opposition has ever made is a tactic for elementary schoolyard arguments and AT P&N, not "scholarly" books.

Please tell me a specific case in which Reisman has done this.

OK. From page 96 (p.152 of the "Capitalism" pdf)

The supporters of the externalities doctrine are not satisfied with the fact that the spending pattern of consumers determines the spending pattern of businessmen. They add the further arbitrary demand that the individual should be able to lay claim to compensation for all the benefits his action causes to the rest of mankind and should be liable for all the costs it imposes on the rest of mankind, even though the benefits and costs in question are not subjects of purchase and sale in the normal context of the individuals concerned. From the perspective of the externalities doctrine, it is a flaw of capitalism whenever an individual's action provides any kind of benefits to others for which he is not compensated, or imposes any kind of costs on others for which he does not compensate them. It calls upon the government to enter the scene and set matters right by deciding who owes what to whom and then effecting the necessary redistribution of wealth and income.

The part in bold is a textbook case of the "strawman argument". The passages afterwards keep railing on this purported extremism, painting the author as the champion of sanity and moderation. The truth is that the concept of "externalities" commonly accepted in economic theory makes no such claims.

The nearest reference to this strawman argument (reference 76 on page 118, 174 of the PDF) says "For an exposition of the doctrine, see Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, Economics, 13th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1989), pp. 770-775.

I took a Microeconomics course with Samuelson as my professor, using that cited textbook, and I'm quite certain the bolded passage from "Capitalism" is not even close to an accurate paraphrasing of anything that Samuelson (a Nobel laureate for "raising the level of analysis in economic science") would write. You can probably verify for yourself by going to the local campus bookstore (where you'll likely find Sameuelson's book and not "Capitalism" - due to the laws of supply and demand IMO) and looking it up yourself.

That may be true literally, but it is clear to me that Reisman is using the technique known as reductio ad absurdum. Hence, the statement about the beautiful women needing to be compensated etc. There is probably no one who is actually claiming that, but when you really look at the externalities doctrine, it produces inanities just like that.

If that's not a clear enough strawman case for you, I apologise. Our interpretation of the written word may be very different and you may see commie conspiracies where I see modern economic theory.

About Samuelson, here's something for you to read on his "wonderful" economics textbook. Sizing Up Samuelson

 

[oreagan]

Have you considered the possibility that all truth in the world might not spawn from mises.org? Perhaps there might be just a little bit of truth in the studies of the remainder of human existance throughout time?

 

[naddicott]

Dissipate,

You call it reductio ad absurdum, I call it strawman. Almost every concept known to man can be shown to be flawed when taken to an extreme/absurd case. I'll stick with differential equations (actually, I'm a fan of System Dynamics and Jay Forrester's work, but that's a big tangent) and game theory for my preferred means of economic analysis, thanks.

I read the Samuelson critique on mises and I can't say I was particularly swayed. I'm sure it is quite damning when read by the Austrian school "faithful". They seem shunted that he didn't give their school a fair shake when summarizing the political spectrum of economic thought - if the school advocates abandoning mathmatics and scientific reasoning in the economic sphere, I don't find that editorial decision by Samuelson too shocking.

I also took the "Are you an Austrian" quiz at the mises website. A little biased in the wording of the questions, very biased in the presentation of the "scoring", but a fun exercise nonetheless. I chose the Austrian reply on a whopping 2/25 questions (the rest were a pretty even mix of Keynsian, Socialist, and Chicago). Presuming you're closer to 25/25 in your views, I'll leave it that we don't see eye to eye on this stuff.

Have a good one, and good luck with that eliminating government thing.

/ThreadHijack

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: naddicott
Dissipate,

You call it reductio ad absurdum, I call it strawman. Almost every concept known to man can be shown to be flawed when taken to an extreme/absurd case. I'll stick with differential equations (actually, I'm a fan of System Dynamics and Jay Forrester's work, but that's a big tangent) and game theory for my preferred means of economic analysis, thanks.

I read the Samuelson critique on mises and I can't say I was particularly swayed. I'm sure it is quite damning when read by the Austrian school "faithful". They seem shunted that he didn't give their school a fair shake when summarizing the political spectrum of economic thought - if the school advocates abandoning mathmatics and scientific reasoning in the economic sphere, I don't find that editorial decision by Samuelson too shocking.

I also took the "Are you an Austrian" quiz at the mises website. A little biased in the wording of the questions, very biased in the presentation of the "scoring", but a fun exercise nonetheless. I chose the Austrian reply on a whopping 2/25 questions (the rest were a pretty even mix of Keynsian, Socialist, and Chicago). Presuming you're closer to 25/25 in your views, I'll leave it that we don't see eye to eye on this stuff.

Have a good one, and good luck with that eliminating government thing.

/ThreadHijack

Fair enough, send me an email when the Keynesians have gotten to adding the 6th Neo prefix.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: oreagan
Have you considered the possibility that all truth in the world might not spawn from mises.org? Perhaps there might be just a little bit of truth in the studies of the remainder of human existance throughout time?

When it comes to all truth in the world I know that mises.org does not contain that. However, when it comes to economics it contains virtually all truth relating to that subject. It has tons of articles, books, essays and downloadable lectures. It is simply the best source of information on economics.

Here is another good source as well:

FEE

You should attend one of their seminars next summer.

 

[neutralizer]

People like you skew the voting %.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: oreagan
Well, see, here's the thing. I don't have my entire life to spend studying economics. I wish I could but I can't. So, in my formal education I study Physics, History (majors) and some Political Theory (a minor) with only enough time left over for two or three courses in each subject (not including high school classes, of course). I leave the rigorous, scientific study of Econ to others, including such people as my Economics professors and the author of my econ textbook.

They tell me that monopolies DO exist in real life. History agrees with them.

Name one monopoly that wasn't government created.

I side with history, learned economics professors and all of my past economics textbooks over a PDF telling me that all of these others sources are in a conspiracy against me.

Fact beats theory, and the fact is that child labor was used almost everywhere, people were payed next to nothing, working conditions were horrible and monopolies crushed competitions throughout much of the late 1800s and early 1900s America until government regulation changed that (and did so only after a great many of its citizens demanded it).

You must be talking about the "robber baron" era. Not a single "robber baron" was ever able to gain a complete monopoly in any industry.

The thing about economics, real economics, is that it is based on history, it doesn't deny it. Creating economics that calls monopolies and child labor "interventionist myths" is like creating physics principles that tell me that objects fall at speed dependent on their weights. It's a pretty theory, but it just isn't true.

I know that child labor exists, but I do not condemn it. I think that child labor is an issue with parents and their children. Child labor was used extensively on farms during the early days of the U.S., and no one seems to be up in arms about that.

On the other hand, monpolies as the way you see them do not exist. You and your toadie professors probably have all kinds of "data" to try to figure out if a firm is "monopolistic", but the truth of the matter is that it is impossible for any of them to discern between a monopoly price and a non-monopoly price. In fact one of my econ textbooks from my micro-economics class talks about "price-takers" and "price-makers". The idea is that firms that produce commodities are "price-takers" because their total output is too small in relation to the total amount of that particular commodity on the market to affect the price, while other firms are "price-makers" because they are large enough to affect the price of their product. This is total B.S. No firm is a "price-maker", because every firm, no matter what product they sell accepts the market price.

In fact, speaking of physics, I had an argument about this with my uncle who has a PhD in physics. He was smart enough to figure this out, but unfortunately at the time I wasn't. I was explaining the concept of "price-makers" and "price-takers" and he essentially told me it was rubbish. I didn't believe him at the time, but now I know he was right all along. He was able to find the flaw in this concept without even having any kind of "deep" understanding of economics. More on this here: MES, scroll down to "The Illusion of Monopoly Price."

Audio commentary on The Age of the Robber Barons

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Mardeth

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: kage69
Those who don't vote forfeit their right to bitch (and be taken seriously anyway).

Why? Because they choose not to partake in a patently fraudulent system? I respect people who choose not to vote. Voting makes the plutocrats in office think that what they are doing is legitimate. To them it legitimizes the theft, fraud and tyranny that the plutocrats engage in on a daily basis.

They have no right to complain about anything in their lives. They should not cry how "my life sucks because blah blah does sh*t for the country" or "I'm poor because of some f*g". They have no right to complain if they don't vote. If you want to change this country and make it a better place you HAVE to vote. You SHOULD vote. You SHOULD be greatful you even have that right and that we aren't living in a dicatorship. People like him make me sick and sad that I live in such a country where people take everything for granted and then spew bullsh*t because they are so ignorant.

You make it sound like US is unique, your not the only democratic country in the world, you know. Theres maybe 5 countrys ruled by dictators and maybe 15 that have a questionable rulership.
And when has your democratic values been threatened?

Did I even mention the US?

 

[LunarRay]

Dissipate,

This is total B.S. No firm is a "price-maker", because every firm, no matter what product they sell accepts the market price.

This statement is not accurate. Not when you say 'every'. (IMO)

There is a reality associated with 'elasticity'.

In the context that I am referring