Jump to content

InternationalRockSuperstar

Members
  • Content Count

    1,874
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by InternationalRockSuperstar


  1. American negotiators may want to take note of this startling testimonial to the productivity of Chinese workers: A construction crew in the south-central Chinese city of Changsha has completed a 15-story hotel in just six days.

     

    Er, isn't Chinese productivity and GDP per capita significantly lower than American?

     

    If nothing else, this remarkable achievement will stoke further complaints from American economic pundits that China's economy is far more accomplished than ours in tending to such basics as construction.

    Did they make a profit? If not then their productivity was negative!

  2. Actually, any transportation company knows about the "Cube Out" problem.

     

    That's when a vehicle's SPACE IS FILLED before it is too heavy.

    ...

     

    which is why passenger weight should be one of price segmentation atrributes, but probably not the only one.

     

    ..

    "Cube out" is what is going to happen with the Samoan aircraft, I reckon :

    The seats will be filled before the aircraft is too heavy

     

    it may well be that Samoan's are so fat that the airline doesn't need to worry so much about cube out!


  3. this is such an obvious price segmentation it's a wonder it's not already being done

     

    what about pregnant women?

     

    they still pay less that a man, typically

     

    difference in weight of average UK male and female is 16.1kg

     

    typical weight gain during pregnancy, even when fully pregnent, is 12.5kg

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11534042

     

    http://www.babycentr...in-in-pregnancy


  4. ...

    I don't want to sound patronizing, but in a debate, it is often a good tactic (evincing honesty) to agree to your opponents strong issues.

     

    speaking of honesty, it would be dishonest to pretend to agree with your opponent’s posts when you know them to be factually incorrect and/or logically retarded.

     

    in a debate is it often a good tactic to try to find out the root cause of the disagreement . I did this in post #37.

     

    unfortunately, my ‘opponent’ (LOL) has no interest in the root cause and would rather hurl strawmen at me, then ask me to stop posting on this thread :lol: , than to address any of the 3 points in said post.

     

    + I will not deny that a small number of people own a big part of the land in most countries.

     

    But please tell me where and when this was not so?...

     

    no person has ever owned any land. see post #37. thank you for further evidencing that you are not actually reading my posts before you reply to them.

     

    But to return to the specific point around which this Thread was started, I think it comes to you to admit and accept that waiting for the world to become perfect, or substantially more perfect, before reigning in excess entitlements is an irrational strategy, unless you are in favor of squeezing the middle class further, for some reason.

     

    I didn’t post that I was waiting for the world to become perfect, and for you to suggest that I did is just another strawman from you.

     

    no squeezing required, the less squeezing the better. the statists just need to stop squeezing the peasants onto 0.00000001% of the land etc, then they won’t need reparations (or ‘entitlements’ as you call them like a gov't parrot) .

    again, if you decide to stop feeding a rabbit that you have caged, you let it out the cage FIRST.

     

    Instead, I think you would be more practical to admit this is a good idea, and suggest that Entitlements be reduced across thr board.

     

    speaking of practical, have you heard of the 80-20 rule?

     

    anyway, the issue really is not that the aristos should lose their state handouts before the doleys just because the aristos' handouts are bigger (tho there is obviously a case for that)- it is that the doleys can’t possibly make ends meet in a system designed to create x% unemployed resource-denied-peasants due to the monopoly advantages of the aristos, so the aristos’ state handouts need to go first.

     

    Always waiting for the other guy to cut first, is a formula for making no progress. Trading off one for another seems to work better, in my own experience.

     

    [facepalm] the aristos and doleys are not waiting for each other to cut. the aristos run the country and the doleys do not, therefore the aristos will make the decision and the decision will be that the doleys take the cut.


  5. IRS,

    You have your own way of looking at the world.

     

    Do you really feel as un-free as you make say the world is?

     

    I have lived in three countries, and moved myself and my capital around. The fact that I have freedom to do that, suggest the world is not quite the prison you make it out to be.

     

    oh dear, there you go again:

     

    whenever I post a fact you don’t like, you always say it is my ‘view’ :lol:

     

    except this time instead of 'view' you've used 'your own way', 'feel' and 'make it out'

     

    maybe one day you'll learn to debate the actual subject matter rather than posting personal crappisms.

     

    falsely labelling the facts in my posts as opinion does not make them go away.

     

    I made three relevant points in my last post, which you have just completely ignored, so there wan't even any point in you replying to me.

     

    I have lived in three countries, and moved myself and my capital around. The fact that I have freedom to do that, suggest the world is not quite the prison you make it out to be.

     

    I did not 'make the world out' to be a 'prison' (pathetic strawman argument there, Bubb). I merely posted a number of facts and logical arguments that accurately describe the situation (and which you have been woefully unable to disprove or argue against):

     

    'the aformentioned book has found 70% of land is still owned by less than 1% of the population'

    'better just accept that forcing people out of 70sqft rooms makes f*** all difference, when you could fit 186,685 such rooms on the 300 acre Normanby Hall estate alone. '

    'there are over 60 million acres in Britain'

    'the common fields in that area were inclosed in 1790'

    'but it is not ‘their estates’, it is simply large areas from which the peasantry are repelled by state violence.'

    'the solution is not to 'squeeze' the aristos, the solution is just to stop using the violence of the state to enforce 'their estates' (plus any other restrictions to natural resource access) then the reparations can end without cruelty.'

     

    now how does you moving to HK falsify any of the above?

     

    it doesn't, so stop posting gobsh1te!


  6. Bubb, I've been looking thru your posts to try to find what is preventing your comprehension here. I think it is one or more of these three things:

     

    1. a lack of understanding of what 'land ownership' actually is

     

    :rolleyes: you can't own land.

     

    "land ownership" is a politically corrrect term for

    • controlling other people's whereabouts using violence
    • controlling the whereabouts of other people's belongings using violence
    • controlling access to natural resources using violence

     

     

    2. you are looking at this in terms of 'wealthy' vs 'poor' rather than as 'architects of state control mechanisms' vs 'victims of state control mechanisms'

     

    3. your last post referencing the USSR in particular indicates that you are oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of wealth is in he hands of individuals who are wealthy because of the state, not inspite of it, and that that wealth has been taken from others.


  7. You mean by soaking the Rich?

    That doesn't work very well. It may catch the rich, or force them tom leave the country, but eventually that attitude hits the Middle Class (who have no place else to go) and levels the economy.

    ....

     

    [facepalm]

     

    the taxation system (and other gov't force) takes from the many and gives to the few.

     

    to get more equality you don't tax the rich - you just need to get rid of the taxation system (and other gov't force)

     

    Example: USSR, Eastern Europe, etc., etc.

     

    yes, exactly. comapre Stalin's quality of life with some dudes in a gulag.


  8. Okay.

     

    I am not sure what any of that meant. Perhaps it was late at night.

     

    Let me try to be more clear:

    Am I wrong, or have you often taken a position AGAINST government interference, and government subsidies?

    ...

     

    there you would be wrong. the fundamental problem with gov't is its method of funding itself (see sig); not how it then spends said funds.

     

    the solution is indeed to cut gov't interference, in this case specifically for the gov't to stop using violent threats to control people's whereabouts etc (a process often called 'land ownership' in newspeak)

     

    ...

    If so, how is cutting back an Entitlement, when no longer needed, inconsistent with your oft-cited views here?

     

    these entitlements reparations are needed until the people are set free from their somewhat elaborate cage. think rabbit on a much bigger scale.

     

    why the f*** would you want to stop feeding the rabbit rather than just let it out the cage?

     

    You are missing the point here, Iggle.

    Benefit-takers are being asked to give back entitlements they are not using. As I understand it, if they have a 4BR and are only using 3BR, then can move out of the 4BR into the 3BR property, and their tent will be fully covered.

    ...

     

    no, the taking happens at the gov't funding stage, and when access to the common fields, coal mines etc was violently taken from all but the very few.

     

    how many bedrooms does the Queen have?

     

    how about the 12th Duke of Marlborough?

     

    Duke of Westminster?

     

    ...

    What's wrong with that? Everyone is cutting back in the present economic environment. Why should benefit-takers be immune, especially when they are being asked to relinquish something they do not need.

    ...

     

    I don't see much evidence of the oligarchs cutting back when looking at West End property prices, other tax havens, and don't see how this is relevant anyway - you are not required to do something just because someone else is doing it

     

    ...

    Your argument is way too general, and does not answer my specific point. Using your "logic" no entitlement to poor people would ever get cut until wealthy people are squeezed of everything/ Do you really want to live in a society like that?

     

    the solution is not to 'squeeze' the aristos, the solution is just to stop using the violence of the state to enforce 'their estates' (plus any other restrictions to natural resource access) then the reparations can end without cruelty.


  9. ...

    America’s birth rate has been declining gradually for decades, and it began to sink like a stone in 1968 — just about exactly when Ehrlich started writing his overpopulation apocalypse. (Were people paying attention?)

     

    Another impact: since 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, The United States of America has lost more than 54 million citizens to abortion directly, as well as the generations that would have followed them had they not been killed prior to birth.

    ...

     

    this doesn't chime with the fertility rates for US on google data.

     

    rate drops 'like a stone' from 3.65 in 1960 to 2.45 in 1968.

     

    in 1968, the rate actually increases slightly.

     

    by 1972, the rate is already down to 2.01, lower than in 2010, so it's not evident that legalisation of abortion in '73 had much influence.

     

    https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=fertility+rate+america


  10. You seem to be completely inconsistent in your views - I don't get your logic.

    ...

     

    views? it is a fact that government control of people’s whereabouts is the problem here.

     

    whenever I post a fact you don’t like, you always say it is my ‘view’ :lol:

     

    oh, and my posts are consistent, thank you.

     

    ...

    From what you have posted before on various threads, I would have thought you would be AGAINST ENTITLEMENTS

    of any kind, being paid by the government.

    ...

     

    if you stick a wild rabbit in a cage, you will need to feed it else it will starve as you have restricted its natural resource access to the point where it cannot fend for itself.

     

    same applies to humans and inclosure etc.

     

    if you don’t want the expense of buying rabbit food, the obvious solution* is to release the rabbit, not to starve it to death in the cage. *unless you’re mentally disturbed or something.


  11. You complain about ad hominen attacks

     

    if not reaching for an ad hom, then why did you bring up how much tax I pay?

     

    I doubt that there would be much demand for housing out on that estate.

     

    if you could be arsed using google, you might have found that the common fields in that area were inclosed in 1790

     

    as summarised earlier in this thread by IgglePiggle:

     

    The political classes systematically remove any viable lifestyle for the poor, then bitch about them being "benefit scroungers".

     

    Where the excess Entitlement Rooms are located, there may be some demand supply.

     

    fixed. when you have forced scarcity to such an extent, houses just get built in the few places they are permitted, even if it is a flood plain.

     

    also interesting that you use the term ‘Entitlement’ in relation to landless peasants, rather than to titled descendents of Norman aristocracy.

     

    I can understand some jealousy towards the rich, but confiscating their estates in the middle of nowhere is not going to solve a problem of insufficient supply in London

     

    but it is not ‘their estates’, it is simply large areas from which the peasantry are repelled by state violence.

     

    You simply said the the government should squeeze the rich instead.

     

    no, I do not advocate the government doing anything. government control of people's whereabouts is the problem here (see my previous line)

     

    "This idea of forcing people to give up an Entitlement on an "extra room", no longer needed.

    You may have a hard time explaining why this is nonsense. You haven't even tried that.

     

    yes I have. it is nonsense both morally and practically.

     

    morally, these people have already been FORCED off the land and FORCED in 101 other statist dictats into being excluded from having a viable lifestyle and now you want MORE FORCE to further restrict their access by another 70sqft or so. when the problem could be solved by removing the force already in place

     

    practically, I’ve already posted that 186,685 such plots could fit on just one 300 acre estate and there are over 60 million acres in Britain, so it really doesn’t make one billionth of a chicken’s testicle of a difference.

     

    I imagine you can find plenty of disagreement with your ideas, if you start shopping them around.

     

    but, as I’ve told you many times, a consensus doesn’t make a fact. :)


  12. I suppose we dont need ti aks how much tax you pay

     

    well no, not unless you're hoping to create an ad hom to distract from the nonsense you've posted on this thread.

     

    and on top of ad hom being about the lowest form of debate, there's the possibility that my tax status doesn't even allow you to make the ad hom that you're hoping it will.

     

    no, better just accept that forcing people out of 70sqft rooms makes f*** all difference, when you could fit 186,685 such rooms on the 300 acre Normanby Hall estate alone.


  13. If you want to enforce draconian planning laws that prevent "the people" developing an excess of decent housing, forcing the cost of housing to be financially crippling for people on good incomes; then you have an obligation to house those who cannot afford to live in your potemkin village. The political classes systematically remove any viable lifestyle for the poor, then bitch about them being "benefit scroungers".

    ...

     

    bingo.

     

    Err.

     

    Won't renting out SPARE ROOMS drive rents down?

     

    Why is it a bad thing to force people to give up a part of an Entitlement that they do not need?

     

    It is better than squeezing fresh supply out of the hard-pressed Middle Class.

     

    :blink: squeeze supply out of the Middle Class? how about squeezing supply from the landed gentry?

     

    pitching middle class against the poor is f***ing retarded when about 40,000 familes control 75% of the land mass:

     

    recommended reading:

     

    http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/1841953105


  14. ...

    The Four Cash-Drains, dragging down the US economy ... Estimated annual cash drain*:

     

    1. Car-dependency and the Suburban economy / Oil imports: $500 billion. p.a.

     

    2. Foreign military entanglements / Foreign wars and overseas bases; $500bn - $1trillion p.a.

     

    3. Disease maintenance and drug pushing / Unneeded legal and illegal drugs: $250 billion p.a.

     

    4. Predatory financial system / Extra fees and unneccesary borrowing : $250 billion p.a.

    ...

     

    4. is the only problem here.

     

    1-3 are consequences that would not otherwise be possible.


  15. A coin which enables you to procure items!

     

    the same could be said about a 50p coin. or a quarter. and what about a £5 note?

     

    clearly what you have written is not a definition of pound

     

    are these pounds?:

     

     

    you have an odd definition of 'savers'

     

    :lol: so it's not odd to call people with no saving 'savers' then?

     

    all these abstract bank account 'balances' could be wiped out tomorrow, yet grain stocks, oil reserves etc would still be there.

     

    and yet you accuse me of being abstract! :blink:

     

    Oxford dictionary

     

    if you're into dictionaries, you can check the difference between effect and affect.


  16. Do not hold too much debt that you can not service big rise in interest rate coming within 2 years

    ...

     

    doubt mortgage rates will rise much. there is a finite number of state thugs (~80,000 polis) and thus a practical limit as to the rate at which debt serfs can be forced from their homes and kept out.

     

    ...

    Get out of sterling. My hedge is Canadian dollars.

    ...

     

    http://www.zerohedge...stest-pace-2009

    Mark Carney Leaves Canada With 'Stealth QE' Rising At Fastest Pace Since 2009

     

    ...

    20130128_BOC1_0.jpg

     

     

     

    ...

    Finally get out of PAYE tax system

     

    well TBTP chucked us off the land some 250 years ago, denying us access to most natural resources etc, so PAYE serfdom is the only option for most

×