Liberals are mentally disturbed

[jack]

erks:

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Please - mom & pop's are the savior of the economy - hiring 5 people at a time - probably all related - at minimum wage with no health insurance, retirement, sick leave, or vacation benefits for non-family employees.

Stop masturbating this silly mum and pup example to hide the frailty of your argument (or lack thereof) :


Concentration and monopolies, the natural outcome of liberal economies, drastically reduce the need for workers. Why am I even saying this ? This should not be a matter of debate, since this issue has been officially "over" for more than thirty years, and is probably the only thing that Karl Marx, Friedrich August von Hayek and John Manyard Keynes would agree about.

You're simply embarrassing yourself and your fellow liberals. As a supporter of large corporations and concentration, the only argument you can give to support your economic orientations is efficiency. You can argue that these large corporations -even if they inherently and inevitably lead to a social disaster- increase the overall GDP. Therefore, this ought to benefit the poorer ones (who ironically became in need of social help because of this very policy) by carrying out corrective fiscal measures to channel the marginal private benefit to depraved (notwithstanding the fact that the oligopolistic/monopolistic eventuality of capitalism would mean that the consumer will have the taxes spit back, because the enterprises will react by raising the prices, which is why you don't see governments fucking with concentrated markets, generally speaking).

But it is illogical and downright stupid to support Liberalism in the name of benefiting of the workforce. Even the Fathers of modern Liberalism admit that the moral sphere should be put aside in their economic model; it's not about good or bad, right or wrong, what makes people starve or what leads to a more egalitarian repartition, how many people retained their jobs or how many lost theirs. It's simply a choice between being efficient, and being non efficient, Liberalism being the mean to attain the no-brainer answer of being efficient.

PS : When I talk about Liberalism, that strictly concerns the economic definition of Liberalism.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

eloisel : also known as the capitalist wannabe who knows jack shit about the concepts she's eager to defend.

 

[Laker_Girl]

Please - mom & pop's are the savior of the economy - hiring 5 people at a time - probably all related - at minimum wage with no health insurance, retirement, sick leave, or vacation benefits for non-family employees.

Well we don't work for minimum wage but that about sums it up. I take care of my own health insurance and retirement, and have to beg for a vacation. And sick leave, LMAO!!!!! Neverrrrrrrrrr! I work with the flu. Hell I had surgery on a Sunday and had to be back to work that Friday.

 

[Donovan]

Well we don't work for minimum wage but that about sums it up. I take care of my own health insurance and retirement, and have to beg for a vacation. And sick leave, LMAO!!!!! Neverrrrrrrrrr! I work with the flu. Hell I had surgery on a Sunday and had to be back to work that Friday.

Stop whining, those bags of oranges aren't going to sell themselves, you know.

 

[eloisel]

Stop masturbating this silly mum and pup example to hide the frailty of your argument (or lack thereof) :


Concentration and monopolies, the natural outcome of liberal economies, drastically reduce the need for workers. Why am I even saying this ? This should not be a matter of debate, since this issue has been officially "over" for more than thirty years, and is probably the only thing that Karl Marx, Friedrich August von Hayek and John Manyard Keynes would agree about.

You're simply embarrassing yourself and your fellow liberals. As a supporter of large corporations and concentration, the only argument you can give to support your economic orientations is efficiency. You can argue that these large corporations -even if they inherently and inevitably lead to a social disaster- increase the overall GDP. Therefore, this ought to benefit the poorer ones (who ironically became in need of social help because of this very policy) by carrying out corrective fiscal measures to channel the marginal private benefit to depraved (notwithstanding the fact that the oligopolistic/monopolistic eventuality of capitalism would mean that the consumer will have the taxes spit back, because the enterprises will react by raising the prices, which is why you don't see governments fucking with concentrated markets, generally speaking).

But it is illogical and downright stupid to support Liberalism in the name of benefiting of the workforce. Even the Fathers of modern Liberalism admit that the moral sphere should be put aside in their economic model; it's not about good or bad, right or wrong, what makes people starve or what leads to a more egalitarian repartition, how many people retained their jobs or how many lost theirs. It's simply a choice between being efficient, and being non efficient, Liberalism being the mean to attain the no-brainer answer of being efficient.

PS : When I talk about Liberalism, that strictly concerns the economic definition of Liberalism.

Serious slippage happening here. Pull your damned mask up.

 

[Anna]

Not to mention, Wal-Mart is going to buy more from wholesale suppliers - thereby employing more people to manufacture the goods to meet the demand. Wal-Mart also has more bargaining power in purchasing to keep the prices down, which is good for the consumer.

Unfortunately for most of America, nearly every non-food item is made in China or Japan or any number of foreign countries--which doesn't do jack shit for our economy or the job market. I can't think of the last time I've seen anything that was built in the USA.

:shrugs:

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Serious slippage happening here. Pull your damned mask up.

No. You're the one who fucked up when you came up with the conclusion that mergers/acquisitions/concentration benefits the workforce and the stockholders.

 

[eloisel]

Unfortunately for most of America, nearly every non-food item is made in China or Japan or any number of foreign countries--which doesn't do jack shit for our economy or the job market. I can't think of the last time I've seen anything that was built in the USA.

:shrugs:

Unfortunately, there is too much truth to that. Even the stuff we make here we get the components to make from overseas.

Back in 1998, I lost my job to NAFTA. I worked in publishing. They sent my job - publishing books written in English - to Mexico. That was hilarious. The only good thing about that was the company went bankrupt about the same time I did.

 

[eloisel]

No. You're the one who fucked up when you came up with the conclusion that mergers/acquisitions/concentration benefits the workforce and the stockholders.

Do the fuck what?????? Mergers??? Acquisitions???? Concentration of benefits?????

You stupid shit - I wrote about economic development projects where developers invested in properties that were vacant and turned them in to tax revenue producing properties with jobs with good pay and benefits in desired industries to support economic stability in a community. I don't know of any single company that can employ 300,000 people in a single community. They are a part of the economic health of a community - not the whole enchilada. Geeeezus. Do I have to pull out my Pewter Queen and whomp your ass again?

 

[Marquis De Sade]

You stupid shit - I wrote about economic development projects where developers invested in properties that were vacant and turned them in to tax revenue producing properties with jobs with good pay and benefits in desired industries to support economic stability in a community.

I do not give a flying fuck about what Jessica Nobody has written. And even If I do, the very growth that's caused by the multiple investments (hence atomicity, which is what I favoured over 1 big company cutting jobs, but being efficient) you're talking about will be paralyzed when the market in question matures and becomes stabilized, monopolistic, and worker oriented. Any Joe Schmoe can state the obvious and say "omfg when u creat new company der r new job and ekonomk devlopmint hahahah lol .. i juzz made a theory omg" , but in truth, such over simplification of the dynamics of market systems would appear as heresy to anyone with a shred of knowledge about economics.

I'd choose empirical evidence and common sense over your shitty pet theories at any time of the day, Jess.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Capitalism is a quest for economic growth at any cost. A relentless pursuit of profits and the "bottom line" poses a constant threat to civil society and the natural environment.

The social repercussions of a full-on capitalist system outweight its benefits.

That is why, corporations, at some point, should be cut by the balls, and should never be given the absolute power. Europe is understanding this lesson, and they established an effective EU "police" to monitor the size of corporations who want to oligipolize/monopolize certain markets.