an argument for a deflationary policy in the You Ess of Heeeeey

[Disco Pickle]

who is arguing against the market?

My case is the market is not willingly going to lower prices. Pickles bring up a relatively new market with no competition, then cites it as supporting his stand when competition suddenly shows up.

relatively new market with no competition

I challenge this.  Drug testing for corporations began to grow in the 80's under Regan.  

Competition showed up when the technology began to proliferate and become cheaper, much as medical technology SHOULD have, but is propped up by subsidizing it socially.  

If a company is guaranteed a price by a government entity, then they have no competition inherent in the system other than competing contracts..

under our current system, it's apparent that such things as military "cost plus" contracts are going to benefit the friends of governement..  why would it not happen the same in the medical field, and in drug testing?

I should refine my position on this.   The only thing that may have MADE prices go down for drug testing is that businesses require them for saftey standards, and to have no black marks on your safety record with regard to ISO and and any other safety orginazation, means you can and will be able to bid on contracts from all sorts of public and private entities.

should governement have required them for the last few decades to supply public assistance, I'm not sure I can argue that prices would have necesarily gone up or down.. I only know what the current trend is.

[Freeky]

They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail.  as they should.  Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.

And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?

My prediction: Against. 

no means at all is pretty vague.  are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us. 

still reading the rest of these replies,  even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void...  like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER..  I mean, right?

Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?

[Adios]

Wait....pickles?

PKLS? 

You will now be beaten for bringing up that which should never be spoken, besides, no way in hell was she smart enough for an intelligent troll.

[Adios]

who is arguing against the market?

My case is the market is not willingly going to lower prices. Pickles bring up a relatively new market with no competition, then cites it as supporting his stand when competition suddenly shows up.

relatively new market with no competition

I challenge this.  Drug testing for corporations began to grow in the 80's under Regan.  

Competition showed up when the technology began to proliferate and become cheaper, much as medical technology SHOULD have, but is propped up by subsidizing it socially.  

If a company is guaranteed a price by a government entity, then they have no competition inherent in the system other than competing contracts..

under our current system, it's apparent that such things as military "cost plus" contracts are going to benefit the friends of governement..  why would it not happen the same in the medical field, and in drug testing?

I should refine my position on this.   The only thing that may have MADE prices go down for drug testing is that businesses require them for saftey standards, and to have no black marks on your safety record with regard to ISO and and any other safety orginazation, means you can and will be able to bid on contracts from all sorts of public and private entities.

should governement have required them for the last few decades to supply public assistance, I'm not sure I can argue that prices would have necesarily gone up or down.. I only know what the current trend is.

While you are at it also challenge the advent of the PC and phone companies after the monopoly was busted.

[Thurnez Isa]

They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail.  as they should.  Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.

And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?

My prediction: Against. 

no means at all is pretty vague.  are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us. 

still reading the rest of these replies,  even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void...  like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER..  I mean, right?

Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?

As long as your not on drugs?

[Adios]

They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail.  as they should.  Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.

And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?

My prediction: Against. 

no means at all is pretty vague.  are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us. 

still reading the rest of these replies,  even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void...  like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER..  I mean, right?

Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?

As long as your not on drugs?

Of course, starve the children for the sins of the parent. FFS, read the bible.

[Freeky]

 

[Disco Pickle]

They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail.  as they should.  Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.

And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?

My prediction: Against. 

no means at all is pretty vague.  are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us. 

still reading the rest of these replies,  even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void...  like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER..  I mean, right?

Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?

ok, my response to this will likely elicit several emotions.  I'm willing to accept all the hate you have for them.  so here goes:

your situation exists, and hindsight is always 20/20, so I'm guessing you would have made more prudent decisions, even though at the time, he seemed like a good enough guy.  maybe.  everyone has made less than thoughtful decisions regarding the people we let in our lives emotionally and sexually.  Not knowing you, but knowing intimately, many people in your situation, my position has always been that they should have given their relationship much more time before children came along.  

I know, this discounts an entire range of human enteraction and emotion, promises and hopes..  there is no sound answer for this that I have found, except that it seems to be getting worse, and that more and more, I see my friends and future generations of this country seem to find monogamy to be less and less an option.

we walk away.

Your options in the courts seem to be pretty solid.  The courts will ensure he pays a percentage of his wage to support your child.  Also, unless I am mistaken on my reading, you have options as a single mother, that I do not have, even being a single father of a son in another country,  that will allow you to get grants to send you to school and learn..  whatever it is you want to learn.

[Adios]

Hawk,
steps out of the blast zone.

[Don Coyote]

Hawk,
steps out of the blast zone.

want some dark goggles?


@TDP
Ya um....I shall be joining CB in a bunker.

[Freeky]

Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"

And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.

Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.

And you didn't answer my question, shit head.

[Thurnez Isa]

I SEE YOUR POINT
TOO MANY HUMANS
NOT NOUGH SQUIRRELS
/
/

[Thurnez Isa]

Don't be a fucking retard and start saying shit like "OH I BET YOU'VE LEARNED YOUR LESSON AND WOULD DO IT ALL DIFFERENT IF YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO IT OVER, HURR DURR?!"

And the monkey, as much as I love him, was an accident. But there was still no way I'd have given him up.

Yes, I know that the courts can get money out of him, but that requires time and money. Time I have, money I don't.

And you didn't answer my question, shit head.

Actually he did... in my reading the answer is "no" and you "should seek it out in court"

[Disco Pickle]

They're going to have to start thinking rationally about their finances, or fail.  as they should.  Those of us who live within our means should not have to suffer for the ones who do not.

And what about those of us who have no means at all? What's your stance on government financial aid?

My prediction: Against.  

no means at all is pretty vague.  are you disabled? in that case, there should be a social means for taking care of the least of us.  

still reading the rest of these replies,  even you asses who suggest since I can't completely articulate my views on Hobbes, somehow all of my arguments are null and void...  like you fucks are complete well versed on every political and economic theory EVER..  I mean, right?

Let's take for example a single mom with a toddler, an ex boyfriend (not husband) who is immature and won't begin to be reasonable about anything relating to money vs the child's needs, no work experience, no openings in the job market for an inexperienced worker, and no babysitter (saying she found a job anyway). The mom has NO MEANS to support herself and her son. Are they supposed to go starve For The Greater Good?

As long as your not on drugs?

Of course, starve the children for the sins of the parent. FFS, read the bible.

good god, I love yo CB, but as a writer, I'm beginning to think you don't read..  maybe you're not interested enough in the subject..

here:

drug tests for recipients, and anyone who comes up positive, gets thrown into rehab.  The family unit stays the same, but education is ramped up on what happens to their children when they just can't seem to quit.  This is personal to me, as my parents couldn't maintain their own life, much less raise two childred, while they snorted and smoked cocaine.

I believe that any rational interpretation of what I said would conclude that the sins of the parents should be put on the shoulders of the parents, while educating their children on what not to do..

but hey, wtf do I know, I only brought myself out of poverty riding on the backs of two chronically addicted parents..

[Thurnez Isa]

I know, this discounts an entire range of human enteraction and emotion, promises and hopes..

and this in 1/2 a sentence is why libertarian philosophy and economics will never ever work