Stupid World

[husaberg]

Oh I was never under the illusion that the US economy represented a free market at any time since independence. Let's face it the biggest effect on any market is the government within who's economy it operates, and no government has seen fit to leave well enough alone since the adoption of universal voting required them to promise more and more in order to buy those votes.

Certainly what we're seeing with these artificial units is being driven by some of the more socialist elements, but it's not really a reaction against government regulation of markets, they simply want the regulation to favour their own ends. Whereas a genuine free market advocate would rather such regulation was limited to those required to keep it free.

Ocean let me get this straight you are saying it is the regulators fault that they are catching the collusion that is happening that i posted?
The manipulation of prices of oil energy and stocks and commodities all for higher profits for themselves?
Are you seriously saying the collusion is not happening? Or is that is is alright with you that they do so.

[Ocean1]

Sounds about right to my their must be a degree of fairness views.

Of course it doesn't fit with Oceans perfect free market that so beautifully self regulates

It fits quite well with Ocean's idea of how shit should work, I've never advocated a completely free market. Simply one where market forces retain enough influence to maintain productivity.

By comparison your hyperfocus on profit=bad and your apparent insistence that an economy should be managed using the living standards of the poor as a control measure completely fails to fit the description you posted, presumably as some sort of recommendation.

[Ocean1]

Ocean let me get this straight you are saying it is the regulators fault that they are catching the collusion that is happening that i posted?
The manipulation of prices of oil energy and stocks and commodities all for higher profits for themselves?
Are you seriously saying the collusion is not happening? Or is that is is alright with you that they do so.

I never mentioned collusion or profits. I simply pointed out that votes drive fiscal policy, and that buying votes has by far the greatest of any influence on market conditions.

And it sounds to me from what you posted that the regulators are doing their job. There has always been people that skirt the intent of the rules seeking advantage, at every point on the social continuum, what's new is that more often they're being seen to do so.

Both effects, (vote buying and price fixing) belong to that group of behaviour that threatens any system, they're not sustainable. A sustainable system can only be achieved by reinforcing productive behaviour and discouraging unproductive behaviour. I kinda assume that's not only a given but that it's the primary driver in designing or analysing any system.

This whole thread demonstrates that that's far from the case.

Edit: is unionism price fixing?

[husaberg]

It fits quite well with Ocean's idea of how shit should work, I've never advocated a completely free market. Simply one where market forces retain enough influence to maintain productivity.

By comparison your hyperfocus on profit=bad and your apparent insistence that an economy should be managed using the living standards of the poor as a control measure completely fails to fit the description you posted, presumably as some sort of recommendation.

The examples i posted were in rebuttal to you saying these things don't exist.
i challenged you to look for yourself you didn't yet still claimed it didn't exist.
Every time you claim something doesn't exist, when you are shown it, you then claim to be comfortable the system works.
Yet up until then you say the regulation is not needed.
Ocean social fairness is what i posted.
The problem is a big stick needs to be wielded so that the market "self regulates" can you see the irony.

It fits quite well with Ocean's idea of how shit should work, I've never advocated a completely free market. Simply one where market forces retain enough influence to maintain productivity.

By comparison your hyperfocus on profit=bad and your apparent insistence that an economy should be managed using the living standards of the poor as a control measure completely fails to fit the description you posted, presumably as some sort of recommendation.

Third or is it fifth time Ocean..
I AM NOT HYPERFOCUSED THAT ALL PROFITS ARE EVIL.
only excessive ones brought on by lack of competition or collusion or outright tax avoidance.
All of which you claim does not exist......

A society should be judged on how the poor the disadvantaged and the elderly and infirm are treated.

Using Your utopian free market model.
Our Kids all get herded on a bus go to school on a school bus tendered to the lowest bidder.
School bus drivers are only paid minimum wage.
Oh wait that is how we do it now...........

[mashman]

So you're anti-democracy now, along with anti-capitalist?

Actually, now that I think about the thrust of the article, (which btw has absolutely nothing to do with any attitude attributable to competition) most Englishmen I know would agree that the EU should indeed get fucked.

ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... thanks for that giggle so early on in the day. Democracy is already anti-democracy, I'd like to see it used properly for a change. Look, it's quite simple really. We should no be producing anything that is not the best that can be produced. That does not slam the brakes on innovation, not even close... and whilst it could be construed as monopolistic, anti-choice, anti-democratic or even communistic it isn't and I won't go into the myriad of reasons why, because, as I said, the list of reasons for doing so is a long one. But, the main reason for doing so is because it's the right thing to do in regards to resource usage (human and material). Having the choice of the best or the best isn't a bad thing is it? As far as Democracy goes, democracy should be opposing ideas being discussed to produce the absolute best outcome i.e. cooperation not competition. It's really that simple and if you're cooperating, you wouldn't say things like fuck the EU, let alone be trying to position sympathetic leadership (which isn't democratic by any stretch of the imagination).

It has everything to do with competition as nowhere in that article does it mention cooperation to resolve the issue. Democratic interests are not focused on anything other than how to force a resolution, issuing blame and the usual point scoring political rhetoric. Essentially the Ukraine is being told that it should follow one of 3 competing ideals in order to resolve their internal issues. Do you know why there is such unrest in the Ukraine and why the US have their oar in on the process? Think about it, they're on the other side of the globe and they're interfering not only in the democratic process of a nation that isn't on the same continent, but they're shitting all over those "local" nations that are attempting to "help". The US should keep their fracking noses out of it. It's all about competition, and I'm the anti-democratic one ... but cheers for the giggle.

[Ocean1]

The examples i posted were in rebuttal to you saying these things don't exist.
i challenged you to look for yourself you didn't yet still claimed it didn't exist.
Every time you claim something doesn't exist, when you are shown it, you then claim to be comfortable the system works.
Yet up until then you say the regulation is not needed.

At no time have I suggested price fixing doesn't exist. Quite the reverse, you wouldn't have to go too far back into my post history to find me bleating about monopolies.

Nor have I ever suggested the current system works particularly well, except for those that claim more than they produce.

And at no time have I ever suggested that regulation isn't needed.

I don't know who it is that you think you're arguing with, but it ain't me.

Ocean social fairness is what i posted.

You posted what appeared to be an un-referenced text describing what the author considered to be a political description of west Germany. You might consider them the same thing, and as the basis on which "social fairness" might exist in my opinion it's not a bad start, but I don't believe there's anything in that text that supports your views any better than they do mine.

The problem is a big stick needs to be wielded so that the market "self regulates" can you see the irony.

Bullshit. By definition any big stick involvement is interference from outside the system, which means it's not self regulating, dunnit?

Third or is it fifth time Ocean..
I AM NOT HYPERFOCUSED THAT ALL PROFITS ARE EVIL.
only excessive ones brought on by lack of competition or collusion or outright tax avoidance.
All of which you claim does not exist......

OK. You're hyperfocused on what you consider to be excessive profit.

And for the 5th or is it the 6th time I'll point out that the two parties involved in bank loans don't have a problem with the price. Do you have a mortgage? Did you not sign on the approved line?

I never suggested lack of competition, collusion or tax avoidance doesn't exist. This is getting tiresome.

A society should be judged on how the poor the disadvantaged and the elderly and infirm are treated.

Yes. That's how the disadvantaged and elderly and infirm judge society.

I rather think a more realistic criteria is how everyone in the society judges it.

Including those funding it.

Using Your utopian free market model.
Our Kids all get herded on a bus go to school on a school bus tendered to the lowest bidder.
School bus drivers are only paid minimum wage.
Oh wait that is how we do it now...........

I don't have a utopian free market. I don't have any sort of free market. I simply insist that the basis on which buyer and seller freely agree a price is the basis from which any regulatory policy should be taken. Not the assumption that you can ignore productivity completely and promise everyone whatever they want, regardless of who produced it.

And let's not try and pretend that we have a free market in NZ. Or that the lowers bidder automatically represents a dodgy deal. That bus isn't paid for by the user, is it? So it's not an agreement that belongs to any free market, is it? It's a deal made by someone who's focus is on cost without much attention to what's supplied. If the agreement HAD been made between the buyer and the seller then you may find the driver paid more. You'd certainly find the buyer got what he paid for.

[husaberg]

At no time have I suggested price fixing doesn't exist. Quite the reverse,

I might. In which case I’d be certain to find their market was, as you suggest being manipulated to isolate it from competition. Funny how those all for state control come over all free market when it’s their money being spent.
Is it my imagination or are the more left leaning of our citizens more likely to be hollering for more and cheaper access to capital funds?

Nor have I ever suggested the current system works particularly well, except for those that claim more than they produce.

And at no time have I ever suggested that regulation isn't needed.

I don't know who it is that you think you're arguing with, but it ain't me.

How do lenders manipulate fiscal policy?

I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated, I like the idea of people living within their means and it seems a natural extension to want society in

Don't believe I did. CBF checking but it was my intent to simply point out that the left seem to insist on state control of anything, unless it costs them more personally.

Do they not? Which ones are significantly uninfluenced by the current rate mate? I could do with a good tip.

Of course competition's limited, that's what central market control is supposed to achieve.

And no, the fuel cartels were joint exploration ventures. Do you mean market control through price fixing collusion? sort of similar eh? Except it's the govt fixing the prices. And as I think I said it's a necessary corollary to the introduction of artificial availability into that market. No funny money = free market = market driven prices. Although, as I also suggested I don't think you'd like that compared to the current deal.

And given that the banks aren't actually responsible for controlling interest rates it's difficult to see any manipulation on their part has anything to do with them.

You posted what appeared to be an un-referenced text describing what the author considered to be a political description of west Germany. You might consider them the same thing, and as the basis on which "social fairness" might exist in my opinion it's not a bad start, but I don't believe there's anything in that text that supports your views any better than they do mine.

The unreferenced text is a description of the system employed by west Germany during the 1950's from Wiki.
Your own views Ocean seem to blow with the trade winds........

Bullshit. By definition any big stick involvement is interference from outside the system, which means it's not self regulating, dunnit?

Exactly nothing is self regulating when their is a commercial advantage at stake that's why there needs to be a big stick wielded to maintain strict adherence to the rules.
Multinational only respond to huge fines and limitations on their ability to trade.
This i don't think goes far enough prison terms as well for the board and execs would work rather nicely......

OK. You're hyperfocused on what you consider to be excessive profit.

No what is excessive profit for you then........
How much insider trading how much coercion and collusion and manipulation and tax avoidance are you happy with?

And for the 5th or is it the 6th time I'll point out that the two parties involved in bank loans don't have a problem with the price. Do you have a mortgage? Did you not sign on the approved line?

I never suggested lack of competition, collusion or tax avoidance doesn't exist. This is getting tiresome.

As above there are plenty of times you have.........
BTW i brought my property with cash (ok bank transfer) i have of course had loans, but i did quite well in business.
Like i keep saying people sign the loans because their is no other competition that's the way they like it it has taken many years to get them selves into the position they are now in (banks)

Yes. That's how the disadvantaged and elderly and infirm judge society.

I rather think a more realistic criteria is how everyone in the society judges it.[/QUOTE]
Most of my example referred to children ocean.
So you are saying the treatment of the children the elderly and the infirm is not an accurate measure of society.

I don't have a utopian free market. I don't have any sort of free market. I simply insist that the basis on which buyer and seller freely agree a price is the basis from which any regulatory policy should be taken. Not the assumption that you can ignore productivity completely and promise everyone whatever they want, regardless of who produced it.

Ok once they have a captive market (as they do now) any deal they do is fine by you, as long as the borrower agrees.

Yes you do, as you keep saying people sign up fopr it so it must be fine otherwise they wouldn't.
AS for the other red hearing's you have just cast out, it sounds Fishy Ocean

And let's not try and pretend that we have a free market in NZ. Or that the lowers bidder automatically represents a dodgy deal. That bus isn't paid for by the user, is it? So it's not an agreement that belongs to any free market, is it? It's a deal made by someone who's focus is on cost without much attention to what's supplied. If the agreement HAD been made between the buyer and the seller then you may find the driver paid more. You'd certainly find the buyer got what he paid for.

I think you have missed the point Ocean think about it again............Read what i said

[Ocean1]

I think you have missed the point Ocean think about it again............Read what i said

And that wee quote bomb was supposed to prove that I said price fixing doesn't exist?

And whether you like my replies or not, you can go right ahead and assume that I've actually read and understood them and still disagree, not that I'm somehow wilfully misreading your post with malice aforethought.

And no ta, it wasn't anything I could treat as rational argument the first time around. What's more it's more than obvious you're reading stuff that's not there, a sure sign of a closed mind.

[husaberg]

And that wee quote bomb was supposed to prove that I said price fixing doesn't exist?

And whether you like my replies or not, you can go right ahead and assume that I've actually read and understood them and still disagree, not that I'm somehow wilfully misreading your post with malice aforethought.

And no ta, it wasn't anything I could treat as rational argument the first time around. What's more it's more than obvious you're reading stuff that's not there, a sure sign of a closed mind.

You say things ocean. Then say you didn't say them...So when i show you you did, you ignore it..............Wow that's Deep Ocean.

I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated,

And at no time have I ever suggested that regulation isn't needed.

You claimed Opec wasn't a cartel (you even added in the only collusion was a joint oil exploration venture)you claimed if there was any manipulation of financial markets the SFC would like to know about it. You feigned ignorance of tax avoidance by the BNZ.

It wasn't a quote bomb, They your quotes Ocean i just thought you might like to read them again........
As for a closed mind no that's not reading stuff that's right in front of you.

[Ocean1]

You say things ocean. Then say you didn't say them...So when i show you you did, you ignore it..............Wow that's Deep Ocean.

And you present this:

I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated,

As proof that I said price fixing doesn't exist? Or that I said regulation isn't needed?

Because I don't see anything of the sort there. In fact if you'd bothered to read further...

I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated, I like the idea of people living within their means and it seems a natural extension to want society in general to behave that way. The fact that it's not is possibly related to all that fiat money you bleat about. If it didn't exist then loans would be limited to available savings, availability being a required control variable for any free market.

... you'd have found that in fact I said that the market ISN'T unregulated. And what I thought might be a factor in why that was the case.

It wasn't a quote bomb, They your quotes Ocean i just thought you might like to read them again........
As for a closed mind no that's not reading stuff that's right in front of you.

Wrong again. A closed mind can read just fine, they usually even finish reading whole sentences. It's just that they then interpret those words as something that agrees with their prejudices.

So if I decline to discuss it further you can take that as a win if you like, rather than any disinclination on my part to have my half of the discussion filtered by preconceived notions about what you think someone like me might have said.

[BoristheBiter]

Maybe you guys should read this.




I have a broken foot and have still been outside more than you guys have.

[husaberg]

And at no time have I ever suggested that regulation isn't needed.

I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated,

Again he ignores what is in front of him.
this is the third time you have ignored what i rebutted your statement with

A guy p'med me a few days ago he said don't bother arguing anything with Ocean he just constantly whines that something doesn't happen and when you bother to irrefutably show him it does, he then changes tack and says he knew it all a long or that he never thought it was or wasn't in the first place.

And that wee quote bomb was supposed to prove that I said price fixing doesn't exist?

You claimed Opec wasn't a cartel (you even added in the only collusion was a joint oil exploration venture)you claimed if there was any manipulation of financial markets the SFC would like to know about it. You feigned ignorance of tax avoidance by the BNZ.

[Ocean1]

Again he ignores what is in front of him.
this is the third time you have ignored what i rebutted your statement with

Did you read the last reply to that post?

The one where I pointed out that you'd selectively posted my quote? The one where I posted the full sentence meaning the complete opposite?

Or have you given up reading them at all and just leapt straight to an assumption?

I must admit I don't bother replying to all of your statements. That's usually because I'm satisfied with my understanding of what you're saying.

Nor do you.

is unionism price fixing?

A guy p'med me a few days ago he said don't bother arguing anything with Ocean he just constantly whines that something doesn't happen and when you bother to irrefutably show him it does, he then changes tack and says he knew it all a long or that he never thought it was or wasn't in the first place.

I won't bother revealing who's PM'd me regarding you. It'd be rude.

Look, dude, usually when I enter into such discussions it's not with the intent to argue any particular philosophy or political stance. I'm often simply seeking to understand points of view that conflict with my own. You seem to have a tendency to interpret questions regarding your opinions as opposition. I agree with some of what you say, where I don't I'm more interested in how you got there than whether you're right or, not. Call it devil's advocate.

[husaberg]

Did you read the last reply to that post?

The one where I pointed out that you'd selectively posted my quote? The one where I posted the full sentence meaning the complete opposite?

At No time have i suggested.................
Oh i have but i meant something else...............
It wasn't selective it was what you said...regardless of what you said later or what you meant, it was what you said and later suggested you had never said that.

Look, dude, usually when I enter into such discussions it's not with the intent to argue any particular philosophy or political stance. I'm often simply seeking to understand points of view that conflict with my own. You seem to have a tendency to interpret questions regarding your opinions as opposition. I agree with some of what you say, where I don't I'm more interested in how you got there than whether you're right or, not. Call it devil's advocate.

Well your not Socrates i can assure you of that.
Fair enough i am getting pretty bored as well..........

[Brian d marge]

Did you read the last reply to that post?

The one where I pointed out that you'd selectively posted my quote? The one where I posted the full sentence meaning the complete opposite?

Or have you given up reading them at all and just leapt straight to an assumption?

I must admit I don't bother replying to all of your statements. That's usually because I'm satisfied with my understanding of what you're saying.

Nor do you.





I won't bother revealing who's PM'd me regarding you. It'd be rude.

Look, dude, usually when I enter into such discussions it's not with the intent to argue any particular philosophy or political stance. I'm often simply seeking to understand points of view that conflict with my own. You seem to have a tendency to interpret questions regarding your opinions as opposition. I agree with some of what you say, where I don't I'm more interested in how you got there than whether you're right or, not. Call it devil's advocate.

How does one reply to this

Lol Ｏ(≧∇≦)Ｏ

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk