ThreatsBubbalo wrote:
How'd you trick someone into doing that?
You may not smoke the tobacco variety but you sure do like the penile versions!!usmarine2005 wrote:
I don't smoke.m3thod wrote:
fag
j/k
Last edited by m3thod (2007-07-31 09:29:01)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Let me guess: if they didn't hire you you'd badmouth them on internet forums?usmarine2005 wrote:
ThreatsBubbalo wrote:
How'd you trick someone into doing that?
As a general rule, I don't let people put fire anywhere near my penile versions.m3thod wrote:
You may not smoke the tobacco variety but you sure do like the penile versions!!
No, but the Scottish War for Independence was.Bubbalo wrote:
So then the American War of Independence was what, a bar brawl that got way out of hand?
Please look up the construction of the New Orleans levees.The_Mac wrote:
I'm sorry, but that's just retarded, the military aren't builders, they never have built anything, save barracks, and repaired/fixed electric lines and roads. The military has never rebuilt anything, private contractors have always built real buildings, houses and the like.
Agreed... and guess what? Halliburton doesn't have much competition. Not many companies can provide the services that Halliburton can, but as a result, they overcharge us.The_Mac wrote:
You haven't really provided me with any sort of clue you know what you're talking about, but in any case, privatization is far more efficient than socialization of things; if there is no competition, what prevents prices from being jacked up even higher, shitty customer service, shitty everything to be frank?
It's the idea of companies competing with one another that lowers prices, and thus produces higher standards that customers with who don't value one company as highly as another can move on, and see what the next company has to offer.
When an industry lacks sufficient competition to encourage efficiency and fair prices, then you have 2 options:
1. Regulate the hell out of the company involved.
2. Socialize the service needed.
It's your choice, but we've already seen that Halliburton gets away with far more than it should.
I'll direct your attention this article, among which many have shown what happens due to oligarchal inefficiencies in nation building: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c9097118-aaf0-1 … 511c8.htmlThe_Mac wrote:
And FYI: That's not inefficient/efficient, that's called expensive. How much it costs has nothing to do with how fast/well it gets built. To give you some thread of credibility, I suppose you meant inefficient spending of money, and yes, the government always spends money, which is why I'd like to keep as little as possible out of their grasp, so thanks for proving another point.
GG
Please elaborate next time; levees =/= actual buildings (i.e. houses)Turquoise wrote:
Please look up the construction of the New Orleans levees.
Uhmm, no, you don't do any of those, because how do you expect competition to arise? Socializing the service needed merely takes the competition completely away. The government provides the service, meaning, that if it's owned by the government, nobody else can compete with it, since nobody makes the kind of money the government can. This in turn means prices go way up instead of the desired opposite, and because it's the government, there is very little chance there will be competition; why compete with something that has the backup of the entire nation in the upmost literal sense?Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... and guess what? Halliburton doesn't have much competition. Not many companies can provide the services that Halliburton can, but as a result, they overcharge us.
When an industry lacks sufficient competition to encourage efficiency and fair prices, then you have 2 options:
1. Regulate the hell out of the company involved.
2. Socialize the service needed.
Regulating is just as bad; regulating the company means imposing strict fines and fees which in turn means the company raises prices of its products--hurting customers.
It's a lose lose situation, understood, but regulating something does not benefit anybody--except corrupt officials, politicians' luncheons, and not the customer.
It is a common misconception spread by anti business and prosperity people that corporations raise prices--true they do raise prices at times, but corporations themselves have helped lower the cost overall of many products, ranging from Windows, to food, and has helped the consumer.
Democrats and Socialists like huge government subsidized businesses because those business will spend money on politicians that will raise tax rates that will squash the ambitious starting up businessman. The government likes this, because they get more money--more taxes, and the people are dependent on the government.
So I'm sorry to see you want to get your ass wiped by the government instead of doing that yourself, but individuals more responsible than you wouldn't care to.
First, socialized medicine has proven to be cheaper than our mostly private system. So, your charge that socialization automatically means higher prices is false. Socialization actually leads to LOWER costs, if done correctly.The_Mac wrote:
Uhmm, no, you don't do any of those, because how do you expect competition to arise? Socializing the service needed merely takes the competition completely away. The government provides the service, meaning, that if it's owned by the government, nobody else can compete with it, since nobody makes the kind of money the government can. This in turn means prices go way up instead of the desired opposite, and because it's the government, there is very little chance there will be competition; why compete with something that has the backup of the entire nation in the upmost literal sense?Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... and guess what? Halliburton doesn't have much competition. Not many companies can provide the services that Halliburton can, but as a result, they overcharge us.
When an industry lacks sufficient competition to encourage efficiency and fair prices, then you have 2 options:
1. Regulate the hell out of the company involved.
2. Socialize the service needed.
Second, are you suggesting that we should engage in nation-building often enough that a major market for it develops? That's the only way that a truly competitive market would evolve. This is also the inherent weakness of capitalism. It takes a lot of investment and demand for a large enough market to develop to allow for healthy competition.
Thankfully, our demand for nation-building is still relatively low. Iraq is starting to change that though. Things are set to get more expensive the longer we stay there, and I guess the only upside is that maybe more competitors will develop. Of course, that still sucks ass for the average taxpayer.
So, would you prefer that we didn't have a FDA?The_Mac wrote:
Regulating is just as bad; regulating the company means imposing strict fines and fees which in turn means the company raises prices of its products--hurting customers.
It's a lose lose situation, understood, but regulating something does not benefit anybody--except corrupt officials, politicians' luncheons, and not the customer.
What "squashes" competition is the fact that governments at multiple levels will give major tax breaks to corporations while small businesses have to compete without the same benefits. THAT is what kills competition. It's a bipartisan problem that has been created by corporations and lobbyists.The_Mac wrote:
It is a common misconception spread by anti business and prosperity people that corporations raise prices--true they do raise prices at times, but corporations themselves have helped lower the cost overall of many products, ranging from Windows, to food, and has helped the consumer.
Democrats and Socialists like huge government subsidized businesses because those business will spend money on politicians that will raise tax rates that will squash the ambitious starting up businessman. The government likes this, because they get more money--more taxes, and the people are dependent on the government.
If you really want to know what I want, I want us to stay out of the business of nation-building, but that's another discussion altogether.The_Mac wrote:
So I'm sorry to see you want to get your ass wiped by the government instead of doing that yourself, but individuals more responsible than you wouldn't care to.