New Political Party - Expression of interest

fiatphoney said:

Folk economics (a) and depends which figures you choose to use (b).

a. assumes that wealth is finite and that everyone is entitled to a portion of that finite wealth. http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-74041-the-dangers-of-folk-economists.html

Wealth is in fact not finite, but increases with advances in productivity and measuring the increase in wealth as a % of GDP assumes that everyone's wealth should be increasing proportionally.

b. other data paints a different picture http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-908892.html#p908892

the only numbers that support the middle-class stagnation thesis are pre-tax, pre-transfer wages that don't include all forms of market compensation, that don't take into account the changing compositions of households and the workforce, and that don't adjust accurately for inflation. By every other conceivable measure, there has been substantial progress - the only debate is over exactly how much.

Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality
by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook, 2016
 
Re: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-914029.html#p914029

The fallacy of your position is that small business has the National Interest at heart. The so-called National Interest is just the best interest of the majority at the expense of the best interest of the minority.

The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart. Therefore your position that favours small business at the expense of big business is flawed.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart.

Yes continue.


Foot-in-the-Mouth-Award.jpg

Sauce:Toe jam
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Re: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-914029.html#p914029

The fallacy of your position is that small business has the National Interest at heart. The so-called National Interest is just the best interest of the majority at the expense of the best interest of the minority.

The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart. Therefore your position that favours small business at the expense of big business is flawed.

What a crock, I have never heard anything so stupid - "The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart." The free market is manipulated by people, the free market is not a living breathing thing it is made by man and manipulated by people.
 
Newtosilver said:
mmm....shiney! said:
Re: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-914029.html#p914029

The fallacy of your position is that small business has the National Interest at heart. The so-called National Interest is just the best interest of the majority at the expense of the best interest of the minority.

The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart. Therefore your position that favours small business at the expense of big business is flawed.

What a crock, I have never heard anything so stupid - "The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart." The free market is manipulated by people, the free market is not a living breathing thing it is made by man and manipulated by people.

Ummm, free market = free.

Manipulated market = not free.

Not too difficult is it?
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Re: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-914029.html#p914029

The so-called National Interest is just the best interest of the majority at the expense of the best interest of the minority.

People are real vs created legal fictions are corporations.
The goals of standards of living vs the goals of manipulating best outcomes for corporations are as different as - freerange vs cage fed.

Yes Newtosilver, its pretty sad when individuals are being fed the corporate line from media, think they have risen above sheeple status, yet choose to defend the 'cage fed' society over community - and actually think they are speaking on freedom!
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Newtosilver said:
mmm....shiney! said:
Re: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-914029.html#p914029

The fallacy of your position is that small business has the National Interest at heart. The so-called National Interest is just the best interest of the majority at the expense of the best interest of the minority.

The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart. Therefore your position that favours small business at the expense of big business is flawed.

What a crock, I have never heard anything so stupid - "The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart." The free market is manipulated by people, the free market is not a living breathing thing it is made by man and manipulated by people.

Ummm, free market = free.

Manipulated market = not free.

Not too difficult is it?

Not difficult at all, I have heard and seen a lot of stupid shit and your comment about the free market having the interest of the individual at heart is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Markets will always be mainipulated even the free market, you can not honestly believe the free market has the best interest of the individual at heart?

It is like saying rocks have the best interest of people at heart or a computer program has the best interests of individual at heart - same type of stupid.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Oh dear is that the best you can do Mr Teflon?

Yet if you look at when you bring out the teflon statement in various threads, it is at your failed logic everytime.

I can arranged the best free market price for turning your neighbours place into a toxic waste dump, since the free market has the best interests of the individual at heart.
 
fiatphoney said:
mmm....shiney! said:
Oh dear is that the best you can do Mr Teflon?

Yet if you look at when you bring out the teflon statement in various threads, it is at your failed logic everytime.

I can arranged the best free market price for turning your neighbours place into a toxic waste dump, since the free market has the best interests of the individual at heart.

Haha, yes mate, whatever you reckon. You'll make a fine political party candidate, just adopt a position and run when you can't defend it. :lol:
 
mmm....shiney! said:
fiatphoney said:
mmm....shiney! said:
Oh dear is that the best you can do Mr Teflon?

Yet if you look at when you bring out the teflon statement in various threads, it is at your failed logic everytime.

I can arranged the best free market price for turning your neighbours place into a toxic waste dump, since the free market has the best interests of the individual at heart.

Haha, yes mate, whatever you reckon. You'll make a fine political party candidate, just adopt a position and run when you can't defend it. :lol:

What he is saying makes a hell of a lot more sense than your comments. Free market has the best interest of the individual at heart....... yeah right
 
Newtosilver said:
Not difficult at all, I have heard and seen a lot of stupid shit and your comment about the free market having the interest of the individual at heart is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

You say that a lot.

Newtosilver said:
Markets will always be mainipulated even the free market,

If it's manipulated then it is not a free market, it's really quite simple.

Newtosilver said:
you can not honestly believe the free market has the best interest of the individual at heart?

In the free market the business owner is concerned with making a profit, he can only make a profit by meeting the needs of the individual at a price that the individual finds acceptable.

In a free market prices are set at the margin, whilst in a manipulated market they are either inflated because of malinvestment caused by government interference or monopolisation caused by government interference, or they are set below cost caused by government interference - all in all the manipulated market causes a deadweight loss which benefits either the consumer (at the expense of the taxpayer), or the producer (at the expense of the taxpayer). A deadweight loss exists when prices do not accurately signal the cost of production.

Newtosilver said:
It is like saying rocks have the best interest of people at heart or a computer program has the best interests of individual at heart - same type of stupid.

Yes, your analogies are stupid.
 
Newtosilver said:
mmm....shiney! said:
fiatphoney said:
Yet if you look at when you bring out the teflon statement in various threads, it is at your failed logic everytime.

I can arranged the best free market price for turning your neighbours place into a toxic waste dump, since the free market has the best interests of the individual at heart.

Haha, yes mate, whatever you reckon. You'll make a fine political party candidate, just adopt a position and run when you can't defend it. :lol:

What he is saying makes a hell of a lot more sense than your comments. Free market has the best interest of the individual at heart....... yeah right

Folk economics has that kind of appeal.
 
Interest of the individual:


The drugmaker Purdue Pharma launched OxyContin two decades ago with a bold marketing claim: One dose relieves pain for 12 hours, more than twice as long as generic medications.

Patients would no longer have to wake up in the middle of the night to take their pills, Purdue told doctors. One OxyContin tablet in the morning and one before bed would provide "smooth and sustained pain control all day and all night."

On the strength of that promise, OxyContin became America's bestselling painkiller, and Purdue reaped $31 billion in revenue.

But OxyContin's stunning success masked a fundamental problem: The drug wears off hours early in many people, a Los Angeles Times investigation found. OxyContin is a chemical cousin of heroin, and when it doesn't last, patients can experience excruciating symptoms of withdrawal, including an intense craving for the drug.

The problem offers new insight into why so many people have become addicted to OxyContin, one of the most abused pharmaceuticals in U.S. history.

The Times investigation, based on thousands of pages of confidential Purdue documents and other records, found that:
Purdue has known about the problem for decades. Even before OxyContin went on the market, clinical trials showed many patients weren't getting 12 hours of relief. Since the drug's debut in 1996, the company has been confronted with additional evidence, including complaints from doctors, reports from its own sales reps and independent research.

The company has held fast to the claim of 12-hour relief, in part to protect its revenue. OxyContin's market dominance and its high price up to hundreds of dollars per bottle hinge on its 12-hour duration. Without that, it offers little advantage over less expensive painkillers.

When many doctors began prescribing OxyContin at shorter intervals in the late 1990s, Purdue executives mobilized hundreds of sales reps to "refocus" physicians on 12-hour dosing. Anything shorter "needs to be nipped in the bud. NOW!!" one manager wrote to her staff.

Purdue tells doctors to prescribe stronger doses, not more frequent ones, when patients complain that OxyContin doesn't last 12 hours. That approach creates risks of its own. Research shows that the more potent the dose of an opioid such as OxyContin, the greater the possibility of overdose and death.

More than half of long-term OxyContin users are on doses that public health officials consider dangerously high, according to an analysis of nationwide prescription data conducted for The Times.

Over the last 20 years, more than 7 million Americans have abused OxyContin, according to the federal government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The drug is widely blamed for setting off the nation's prescription opioid epidemic, which has claimed more than 190,000 lives from overdoses involving OxyContin and other painkillers since 1999.

http://static.latimes.com/oxycontin...cket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

Better for business

The issue arose in a regulatory dispute that attracted little attention. The Connecticut attorney general had complained to the FDA that doctors prescribing OxyContin every eight hours, rather than the recommended 12, were unintentionally fueling black market use of the drug.

In a 2004 letter to the FDA, Purdue lawyers responded that the company had no evidence that eight--hour prescribing contributed to abuse or was unsafe. They went on to make a case far different than the one Purdue sales reps were making to doctors. Eight-hour dosing, the attorneys wrote, could "optimize treatment" for some patients and should level out the narcotic roller coaster.

Nonetheless, they said the company planned to continue telling doctors OxyContin was a 12-hour drug. The lawyers gave a list of reasons: Purdue hadn't submitted studies to the FDA to support more frequent dosing, the FDA had approved OxyContin as a 12--hour drug, and 12-hour dosing was more convenient for patients.

Their final reason: It was better for business.

"The 12 hour dosing schedule represents a significant competitive advantage of OxyContin over other products," the lawyers wrote.
 
"Yes, your analogies are stupid."

You are 100% correct, I would say nearly as stupid as saying the free market has the best interests of the individual at heart.
 
@ Julie, Nirvana Fallacy?

Edited to add "?" ;)

Edit to add again: or is it you have just failed to make a point?
 
mmm....shiney! said:
fiatphoney said:
mmm....shiney! said:
Oh dear is that the best you can do Mr Teflon?

Yet if you look at when you bring out the teflon statement in various threads, it is at your failed logic everytime.

I can arranged the best free market price for turning your neighbours place into a toxic waste dump, since the free market has the best interests of the individual at heart.

Haha, yes mate, whatever you reckon. You'll make a fine political party candidate, just adopt a position and run when you can't defend it. :lol:





mmm....shiney! said:
fiatphoney said:
mmm....shiney! said:
You'll have to point me in the direction of the libertarian literature that supports this position. :rolleyes:

You can start by reading some of your own posts.
Your one liner deflections are a bit tedious, and could be seen as dishonest.

I see you've got your teflon top on again tonight, it's most fetching, has a touch of false accusation about it though. :lol:
http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-73764-the-economic-benefit-of-foreign-workers-page-1.html


Who is doing the running, who is doing the hiding?
Once again you runaway from your own logic.

Shall I embarrass you with your own quotes on libertarianism on property rights? (Quick go edit)
Can you tell us how the free market has best interest of the individual at heart?
No? So its out with I am creating diversions and wearing teflon.
Me thinkum mmmshiney speak with fork tongue.
 
fiatphoney said:
Once again you runaway from your own logic.

You missed this: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-914064.html#p914064

fiatphoney said:
Shall I embarrass you with your own quotes on libertarianism on property rights?

Be my guest.

fiatphoney said:
Can you tell us how the free market has best interest of the individual at heart?

Oh dear, you missed another: http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-914117.html#p914117 (half way down if you are having trouble) :lol:
 
In a market the main point is to make money, you do not have to look far to find examples of people being ripped off. You can go on about the market and how it ia supposed to work in theory but the thing is real life is very different to theory.
The reason regulations are put in place is because people are continually screwed and measures are put in place to try and stop that happening.
 
mmm....shiney! said:


'Folk economics is the intuitive economics of untrained people.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_economics

I was an economics teacher. You might prefer it if I let your wide deliveries go through to the keeper.

The high priesthood of corporate economics is a complicated mess of self-interest masquerading as authoritative 'science'.
Economics is abused by power holders today. In some ways economics has replaced religion as a political choice of weapon. Folk (or insert any opposing system here) economics, yeah they are the infidels because it is of the unclean. :rolleyes:
The mere fact we are fixated on measures like GDP speaks volumes on whom our leaders serve.

Robert Costanza, Mareen Hart, Stephane Posner and John Talberth are authors of a study for the Frederick S. Pardee Center at Boston University. They issued a report arguing for new measures beyond GDP to indicate a country's progress. The GDP was never designed to measure national well-being. They contend "useful measures of progress and well-being must be measures of the degree to which society's goals (human needs of food, shelter, freedom, participation, trust) are met, rather than measures of the volume of market economic activity, which is only one means to that end."
from 'Why the GDP Is Not An Good Measure of A Nation's Well Being'

And mmm's answer to promoting the interests of people against corporatism we have - 'America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality' :lol:
How'd that bank bailout work again? :rolleyes:



mmm....shiney! said:
The free market on the other hand has the best interests of the individual at heart.

Yes continue.
 
Back
Top