Aunt on Facebook

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Aquarius do you even understand what you write down?
Dear Dirius, I very well understand what I write in the context I write it in, except that you have the very bad habit of misconstruing things and pulling them out of context, and it seems more and more to me to attack others :) Like the article I posted the other day, which you did not even care to read (your post prove it) and twisted it to attack me calling it a BLM-Marxist example. Or like the Horary thread about the cop killing floyd, where you could not stop hounding me post after post after post unrelentingly asserting your viewpoint on me. Let me not take the limelight just to myself because I see others that constantly are subjects of your attacks also- whether you call them "dishonest" or whathever.

Dirius, do you understand that that is what one calls bullying? :) As is the below in quotes a perfect example of bullying. You do it diligently though and it seems you have been escaping the admin on this forum, which normally is great at taking down posts - when they find them 'provocative'. It does not surprise me one bit that you are completely infatuated with Trump

taxing indigenously produced goods

Dirius, do you realise that even in small-sized fonts you can bully very adeptly? It is normally people that lack proficient knowledge on a subject matter, but want to come across as highly knowledgeable that resort to bullying and a condescending tone.

Here is another perfect example - just in case you missed it ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6XdpDOH1JA
 
Last edited:

Osamenor

Staff member
I find it interesting that the 3 original founders of BLM are women. Seems like all of the other Civil Rights movements were started by men.

Not the women's movement.

And in all other civil rights movements, men got the credit, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the founders. Usually, the women behind it were erased.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Not the women's movement.

And in all other civil rights movements, men got the credit, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the founders. Usually, the women behind it were erased.

Yes, I definitely should have narrowed it down to "Black-oriented" Civil Rights movements .
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Dear Dirius, I very well understand what I write in the context I write it in, except that you have the very bad habit of misconstruing things and pulling them out of context, and it seems more and more to me to attack others :) Like the article I posted the other day, which you did not even care to read (your post prove it) and twisted it to attack me calling it a BLM-Marxist example. Or like the Horary thread about the cop killing floyd, where you could not stop hounding me post after post after post unrelentingly asserting your viewpoint on me. Let me not take the limelight just to myself because I see others that constantly are subjects of your attacks also- whether you call them "dishonest" or whathever.

Dirius, do you understand that that is what one calls bullying? :) As is the below in quotes a perfect example of bullying. You do it diligently though and it seems you have been escaping the admin on this forum, which normally is great at taking down posts - when they find them 'provocative'. It does not surprise me one bit that you are completely infatuated with Trump

Dirius, do you realise that even in small-sized fonts you can bully very adeptly? It is normally people that lack proficient knowledge on a subject matter, but want to come across as highly knowledgeable that resort to bullying and a condescending tone.

Here is another perfect example - just in case you missed it ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6XdpDOH1JA

If you knew what you were talking about you would provide an argument, not an emotional outburst. You confuse mercantilism with capitalism.

Capitalism is against high taxation or market control, thus your example isn't describing capitalism at all honey.

In fact your post is advocating for capitalism :wink:

I like the new red-pilled aquarius7000 even if you don't realise you are defending capitalism.
 
Last edited:

aquarius7000

Well-known member
You sure did not understand the context one bit.
You took some words out in isolation, made them (mis)fit your own fixation of capitalism, which has nothing to do with the context and content of the post, and gave it a completely different twist to suit your own ideology and trying to show that I support it too.
You actually once again prove just the points I made about how you 1) misconstrue what people say, and 2) bully people by repeating the misconstrued matter and putting words into people’s mouths (like you are repeatedly say I advocate capitalism).

That makes for pretty destructive discussions and is very offputting because all that is, is bullying others and provoking them into a back and forth. Yet another perfect example and thank you again for proving what I said. Yet another post and example.
If you knew what you were talking about you would provide an argument, not an emotional outburst. You confuse mercantilism with capitalism.

Capitalism is against high taxation or market control, thus your example isn't describing capitalism at all honey.

In fact your post is advocating for capitalism :wink:

I like the new red-pilled aquarius7000 even if you don't realise you are defending capitalism.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
You sure did not understand the context one bit.
You took some words out in isolation, made them (mis)fit your own fixation of capitalism, which has nothing to do with the context and content of the post, and gave it a completely different twist to suit your own ideology and trying to show that I support it too.
You actually once again prove just the points I made about how you 1) misconstrue what people say, and 2) bully people by repeating the misconstrued matter and putting words into people’s mouths (like you are repeatedly say I advocate capitalism).

That makes for pretty destructive discussions and is very offputting because all that is, is bullying others and provoking them into a back and forth. Yet another perfect example and thank you again for proving what I said. Yet another post and example.

I didn't misconstrue anything. I simply pointed out your mistake.

You are trying to save face because your argument backfired badly.

You made a reference towards colonial times, and taxation on colonies. You implied this was capitalism.

I explained to you this isn't capitalism, its mercantilism.

And I pointed out capitalism is against taxation and goverment intervention on the market.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Marx coined the word "Capitalism". He considered it as much better than Feudalism, but thought it would evolve into a system without Capitalism's inherent inequalities. The evolution would, according to Marx, be necessarily and naturally accompanied by violence.

But, in practice, looks like Marxism was applied in countries that were moving from Feudalism to Capitalism, not from Capitalism to Communism. Also, from primarily agrarian to industrialized.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Mercantilism was localized, and limited trade to what would add gold to the treasury.

Capitalism is international, and it's more trading, both imports and exports, that creates more wealth for the participating nations.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
David acting like he knows what he’s talking about :lol:

David is using the chance to prove his knowledge on the complete irrelevant (as far as the context of my post went) and out of context twist Dirius gave to my post. Well, at least it helps someone else. :biggrin: Let us let David capitalise on it:biggrin:
 

david starling

Well-known member
David is using the chance to prove his knowledge on the complete irrelevant (as far as the context of my post went) and out of context twist Dirius gave to my post. Well, at least it helps someone else. :biggrin: Let us let David capitalise on it:biggrin:

I confess, I'm having trouble following these long and detailed arguments between you and Dirius. I just responded to something I knew something about.

Can you summarize the basic disagreements?
 

waybread

Well-known member
I didn't you are simply choosing to make a strawman argument to come up with some form of response.



The example of "food" desserts is due to lack of economic development, not the other way around so again, another strawman.

People have a choice to believe in advertising, just like they choose to believe in the news, or politicians.

A single mother limits her options because of her own choices: of having a kid. Thats not anyone elses fault, nor the fact that she has to spend time caring for him.



And they used to do that before capitalism arrived, when they were covered in cow dung plowing the fields and tending for the animals, transporting water from rivers to the household, etc., as they did for 2000 years.

Diference is they now earn more money than they used to and can actually afford better things, better technology, and sometimes the parents can now provide them with an education.


Slowly the economic growth allows better conditions, better salaries, better education.




Scandinavian countries are among the top countries in economic freedoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

They have some social policies, but they are by far, free market economies.

In my country most government jobs pay equal or more than wages in the economic sector. We have a term for this called "ñoqui" (from italian food gnocchi) which refers to people employed by the government who do nothing but earn a salary because of party affiliation.

We don't have much cronysm here, not many companies can survive in the long run here. It is 100% the government interference in the economy.

High inflation is the result of dealing with a fiscal deficit, which is used to pay for social programs or goverment jobs. Massive debt is the other symptom.

Using Argentina as an example was a bad choice on your part waybread, for two reasons:

a) It is a socialist country any way you look at it.
b) You clearly know nothing of the region.

Tit for Tat, Dirius. You misunderstand the United States and a whole spectrum of social and economic issues, because of your uncritical loyalty to a right-wing ideology. You have shown no evidence of reading the many links on this thread that might better inform you about situations in which your knowledge is limited.

I mean, you're the guy who didn't know how public opinion polls are conducted.

Probably the Buenos Aries Times and English-language financial media misunderstand your country as well. Just possibly many of your countrymen and women would disagree with your reactionary stance on economic and social issues. I gather from the BAT that the big issue facing Argentina's economy right now isn't the lefties but the impact of Covid-19 in tourism and the airline industry.

You seem to inhabit an imaginative world in which impoverished poorly educated visible minorities have perfect access to an unlimited smorgasbord of choices, such that if they only made smart choices (like the ones you would make) their problems would evaporate.

Maybe we could start with poor people being unable to afford transportation to get to the good jobs, and being unable to afford the educations that would qualify them.

Food deserts happen when supermarkets locate according to economies of scale, with fewer bigger outlets, and when they notice that poor people don't spend as much money as wealthier people in the suburbs. Unregulated capitalism has no interest in nutrition for poor children.

Your lack of knowledge of women's reproductive issues just floors me. In many locations, women's access to reproductive health care, including contraception, is extremely limited. Religious beliefs enforced by the state may convince an expectant mother that she has to bear a child she didn't necessarily want. I could go on in this fashion, but I don't wish to stimulate any more fantasies on your part that children are always a matter of choice.

Moreover, many women chose to have children as part of a marriage that they believed was stable, only to face abandonment, an unwanted divorce, or a live-in husband who doesn't work.

Please educate yourself on the very real problem of child labor in developing countries. These children do not live in your imagined past. If they cannot attend school, illiteracy will keep them in the lower socio-economic rungs of their society. The reason girls get hired in factories is because their wages are much cheaper than for their adult fathers or brothers.

It would be a big digression to get into tax havens and income disparity, but try reading these links on Ireland. Note that Ireland's economy has become dangerously dependent on US and British high tech firms, not on a broad base of investors.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/inequality-and-poverty-hidden-costs-tax-dodging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_as_a_tax_haven#Captured_state
 

waybread

Well-known member
....
Majority of "normal" people, who were not "aristocrats" or "nobility" and worked for a living, the families were composed by a father, a mother, and their children. A nuclear family. Extended families always contribute to nuclear families, but they are always tied by blood or marriage.

This was true for ancient Rome, the european middle-ages, and the other continents of the world, etc. Poligamy was exclusive for nobles and kings. Normal folk couldn't support more than one wife which made it very rare.

What you have written in the last few posts isn't consistent with history.

Dirius, I've found another area in which your ideology does not measure up to the facts.

The nuclear family as you describe it was probably always a minority of family permutations. It is a minority of American households today. Scholars have written extensively on the history of the family.

Unfortunately, you'd have to gear up and actually read some of the historical evidence to find out differently than your imaginative thinking.

Polygamy was widely practiced among traditional rural societies in Africa, and parts of Asia. It was one option for traditional Native Americans. (When it happened in North America, the man preferred to marry sisters, on the theory that they would get along better.)

A big fallacy about polygamy is that the man had to be wealthy to afford multiple wives. Most polygamous husbands did not support their wives. Actually, it was far more common in traditional societies for the women to be economically productive, usually in agriculture, bringing income into the household.

Enslaved families could be broken up on the master's (or mistress's whim, with spouses, parents, or children being sold off. Then slave holders routinely fathered children with enslaved women, who had no right of refusal.

Extended families, apprenticeships, and child servants in others' households were essential when high death rates meant low survival of both parents. You will have read about ZPG prior to the Industrial Revolution.

References available if you would actually read them.

Dirius, I don't know what value you find in inventing information that doesn't exist, merely to support your reactionary ideology.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Tit for Tat, Dirius.

bla bla bla

No No No honey.

You asked me to prove to you the benefits of a liberalised economy(twice).

As you requested I did. I showed you graphs and economic data, on two examples.

And you can't even come up with a rebuttal? you simply link to an article on "income inequality" (which by the way is wrong)

I'm sorry but that is embarrasing on your behalf waybread.
 

waybread

Well-known member
I confess, I'm having trouble following these long and detailed arguments between you and Dirius. I just responded to something I knew something about.

Can you summarize the basic disagreements?

Hey, power-up, David!

Or just skim over them.

A brief summary? Dirius is blowing smoke.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Tit for Tat, Dirius. You misunderstand the United States and a whole spectrum of social and economic issues, because of your uncritical loyalty to a right-wing ideology. You have shown no evidence of reading the many links on this thread that might better inform you about situations in which your knowledge is limited.

I mean, you're the guy who didn't know how public opinion polls are conducted.

Probably the Buenos Aries Times and English-language financial media misunderstand your country as well. Just possibly many of your countrymen and women would disagree with your reactionary stance on economic and social issues. I gather from the BAT that the big issue facing Argentina's economy right now isn't the lefties but the impact of Covid-19 in tourism and the airline industry.

I could quote you 100 hundred studies on Argentina's economy.

But for what? you can't even answer the data I showed you on two other countries.

At this point you are just denying facts, because you can't answer them.
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
I took Economics 1A in college.

you must be a master then

No No No honey.

You asked me to prove to you the benefits of a liberalised economy(twice).

As you requested I did. I showed you graphs and economic data, on two examples.

And you can't even come up with a rebuttal? you simply link to an article on "income inequality" (which by the way is wrong)

I'm sorry but that is embarrasing on your behalf waybread.

There's no point in arguing with Waybread. She's utterly illogical. That's not meant as an insult; it's a fact.
 
Top