Opinions about the Felix Baumgartner jump

[brohammed]

Okay, I'll bite.

Government advertises it's own product line via radio, tv and print media every minute of everyday across the US. Ad Council, State of California and the federal government employ advertisement pitch-vehicles for all sorts of social programs. Public Service Announcements (PSA) are expensive productions made by commercial professionals. How do these government advertisements differ from Redbulll or Ford or Ikea or Apple selling their manufactured products?

I would not disagree with that. I said my initial statement was of a normative nature. Means it describes a morally desirable state. What we actually have is far from that.

The governments are mainly corrupted by the influence of todays turbo-capitalism on them though.

To jump in here before dagrimreefah does, the government also feeds into turbo capitalism. In Britain, there wouldn't be nearly so many people on benefits if only their employers would pay a living wage. The benefits allow the people to live above poverty, but also allow their employers to continue the low pay.

[cobaltjones]

I don't even know what we're arguing anymore but absolutely nothing of scientific importance was learned by doing this. Like I said, the exact same thing had been done 50 years ago by the US Air Force. This was simply a marketing publicity stunt where the guy went a little higher.

Sure it's neat, but why the hell are we talking about NASA and government funding and re-entry for space missions (lol so many things wrong with this statement).

[burgingham]

Okay, I'll bite.

Government advertises it's own product line via radio, tv and print media every minute of everyday across the US. Ad Council, State of California and the federal government employ advertisement pitch-vehicles for all sorts of social programs. Public Service Announcements (PSA) are expensive productions made by commercial professionals. How do these government advertisements differ from Redbulll or Ford or Ikea or Apple selling their manufactured products?

I would not disagree with that. I said my initial statement was of a normative nature. Means it describes a morally desirable state. What we actually have is far from that.

The governments are mainly corrupted by the influence of todays turbo-capitalism on them though.

To jump in here before dagrimreefah does, the government also feeds into turbo capitalism. In Britain, there wouldn't be nearly so many people on benefits if only their employers would pay a living wage. The benefits allow the people to live above poverty, but also allow their employers to continue the low pay.

Again agreed.

[Tonopah]

4. Your market model has been recently proven wrong. Checked during the last years what is going on outside? Worldwide financial crisis and all. Caused by the capitalist corporations being let loose on the world and wreaking havoc. And what does America do? Let's them start all over again...

Bundled toxic assets by quasi governmental institutions - Freddy/Fanny Mae - and sold as AAA securities to corrupt Wall Street brokerage firms. Fixed.

If I were king, they'd all be guillotined. No, I'm not kidding.

Burg, my morality is none of your damn business.

[dagrimreefah]

1. I am not studying philosophy.

Could've fooled me.

2. It is the field of science since all others sicences derive from it.

3. You did say you do not want truth when you denied philosophy. You need to look up what science means otherwise. It is literally: The search for truth.

I never denied the field of philosophy itself.
But it is not an applicable, practical field of science and acquisition of knowledge. It is a mere hobby and plaything.

4. Your market model has been recently proven wrong. Checked during the last years what is going on outside? Worldwide financial crisis and all. Caused by the capitalist corporations being let loose on the world and wreaking havoc. And what does America do? Let's them start all over again...

So, a Central Bank is free market capitalism? Last I checked America, as well as the rest of the developed world, had Central Banks printing their money.

So trillions of dollars of bailouts, that's free market capitalism? Last I checked, free market capitalism would of let those giant firms and corporations fail like they should've.

So the insane taxes and insane amounts of government regulatory barriers small businesses have to go through, that's free market capitalism?

So having your currency printed out of nothing and not backed by anything except government force, that's free market capitalism?

So Social Security and similar social programs across the world are free market capitalism?

You don't even know what the term "capitalism" means... embarrassing
P.S. I think I heard those exact words you said from a Michael Moore film

5. Please see my other comment. I am actually listing parts of those theories you love so much. I expect some statements.

Dude you can pick and point all you want. My whole mindset isn't tied to those books. The point of theory is to give you a guide line. The point of critical thinking is to think on your own. The difference between us is I can constructively think; you can only pick and parrot :/

EDIT: Let me clarify: I am in favor of free market capitalism. Not crony-capitalism, or 'fascism', like this "turbo-capitalism" brohammed mentioned..

[dagrimreefah]

I am European. .... Know who pays for that education? The government does.

Yes and this explains a lot about your shortcomings, especially about how finances work. Sucks to be you.


I'd like to also add that you called Mises and Rothbard "conspiracy theorists". Shows how truly in-the-dark you are on this subject...

[burgingham]

Ok, you asked me to deliver content. To start an actual on topic discussion. Now I deliver a quote that one of the economists you base your beliefs on is a fascist at heart and all of a sudden none of this matters anymore? Come on man. Discuss with me. Prove me wrong or something, please.

Let me analyse economic theories for a moment. The problem is every economic theorist is basically clueless what he is talking about. Libertarian theories make a sound basic assumption: Something is flawed with the status quo of governemental power structures. I agree with that. Then however they reach the conclusion that the absence of any form of governementalism would be the solution. They base this on another assumption which can be generalized as their view on human nature. That is however an entire scientific department they are clueless about. They have never researched human behavior, they only know economic behavior. Human nature is in no way as they assume. That leads to the problem that their solution is wrong.

Governements need to be restructured, not gotten rid of. We need proper theories of justice for that, like Martha Nussbaum and her former husband Armatya Sen have tried only recently. They might actually appeal to you since they are more in a liberal (albeit not libertarian) tradition. You know why these two actually worked out a proper model of moral justice? Because they both looked past their own schools of thought. One a philosopher, the other an economist. That is what economical theories are usually lacking. So trans-subject research is what I am actually asking about. I do not actually like their theory too much, but it shows something that has been forgotten for too long. That a single college subject cannot explain the world. Let them work together more and they actually might.

P.S.: Could you stop trying to insult me? I have never even watched a Michael Moore movie. I have shown you several scientific quotes and texts and theories now. You got nothing of that sort. Not one damn thing except that fascist Mises. So either stop that and admit defeat or start to actually argue with me.

P.P.S.: Btw do you know where the term critical thinking comes from? ^^ One tipp: From a guy that would probably vomit in disgust if he heard about libertarian theories.

To your last quote. Last I check we are way better educated than the average US citizen and our economy works way better too.

I have proven to you by text quotes now that I know Rothbard as well as Mises. So please counter me properly. What's with the fascism in Mises argumentation? I really am curios on this one. Or do you agree with it? Also what is with Rothbard basing his theory on a theory of a guy you called to be something the government spoonfeeds their citizens to keep them clueless. Answer me that too please?

I am sorry, but it seems to be you are having not the slightest clue about any of those theories. Not even the ones you claim to base your beliefs on. Please, read a few years. All kinds of theories. Left, right, middle. Read 8 hours and more a day. Actually study like we Europeans do. Then come back and talk to me again .

[burgingham]

@Tonopah, I am not sure how I attacked your personal morals. Was not my intention. I actually agreed with a lot of what you said.

I guess you mean my statement about a morally desirable state? I have the deep belief that there is such a thing as generally valid morals. Like Kant described them. That is all I wanted to express.

Also, I guess it is not possible to talk to Americans about what is going on outside of America? You guys really aren't all that important anymore. ^^

The rest of the world agrees that the whole crisis is because of too much capitalism. Only the US says it is because of not enough capitalism. It is quite hilarious actually.

[dagrimreefah]

Ok, you asked me to deliver content. To start an actual on topic discussion. Now I deliver a quote that one of the economists you base your beliefs on is a fascist at heart and all of a sudden none of this matters anymore? Come on man. Discuss with me. Prove me wrong or something, please.

I don't "base my beliefs" off of anyone. There is where you are flawed. Maybe you shouldn't "base your beliefs off of" others as well

Let me analyse economic theories for a moment. The problem is every economic theorist is basically clueless what he is talking about. Libertarian theories make a sound basic assumption: Something is flawed with the status quo of governemental power structures. I agree with that. Then however they reach the conclusion that the absence of any form of governementalism would be the solution.

They may reach this conclusion. However I never said ANYTHING about not having a government at all. Government forms naturally whether one wants it to or not. Hell even a family household is a small form of government. You misunderstand me. What I deplore is government involvement in the markets, whether it be wealth redistribution (bailouts), massive monetary inflation (again bailouts), subsidies(bailouts, where's the free market capitalism again?)...

They base this on another assumption which can be generalized as their view on human nature. That is however an entire scientific department they are clueless about. They have never researched human behavior, they only know economic behavior. Human nature is in no way as they assume. That leads to the problem that their solution is wrong.

Can you please cite to me these assumtions you are making? I also urge you to watch some Hans Hermann Hoppe lectures about the praxeological implications Austrian economic theory uses. This assumption that one must embark on an extended study of human behavior to understand the mechanisms of the market is fallacy. Do you really have to have a whole bullshit school of theory to understand the common sense notion that people prefer things of greater value now?

Governements need to be restructured, not gotten rid of

I agree. The central governments need to be dissolved and the local ones reformed. Small pain now, great prosperity later.

We need proper theories of justice for that, like Martha Nussbaum and her former husband Armatya Sen have tried only recently. They might actually appeal to you since they are more in a liberal (albeit not libertarian) tradition. You know why these two actually worked out a proper model of moral justice? Because they both looked past their own schools of thought. One a philosopher, the other an economist. That is what economical theories are usually lacking. So trans-subject research is what I am actually asking about. I do not actually like their theory too much, but it shows something that has been forgotten for too long. That a single college subject cannot explain the world. Let them work together more and they actually might.

I never heard of them ( Martha Nussbaum and Armatya Sen) but I'm looking them up now

P.S.: Could you stop trying to insult me? I have never even watched a Michael Moore movie. I have shown you several scientific quotes and texts and theories now. You got nothing of that sort. Not one damn thing except that fascist Mises. So either stop that and admit defeat or start to actually argue with me.

I apologize, I will stop with the insults

To your last quote. Last I check we are way better educated than the average US citizen and our economy works way better too.

Last I checked the Eurozone was going down the tubes as fast as Murica was lol

I have proven to you by text quotes now that I know Rothbard as well as Mises.

Not really :/

So please counter me properly. What's with the fascism in Mises argumentation? I really am curios on this one. Or do you agree with it?

You haven't showed me one iota of "fascism" in Mises's argumentation. How am I supposed to counter an argument that doesn't exist?

something the government spoonfeeds their citizens to keep them clueless.

Your words not mine

I am sorry, but it seems to be you are having not the slightest clue about any of those theories. Not even the ones you claim to base your beliefs on. Please, read a few years. All kinds of theories. Left, right, middle. Read 8 hours and more a day. Actually study like we Europeans do. Then come back and talk to me again .

Yeah, you ask me not to insult you. Then you throw in a childish, condescending "tip" about reading more. Little man, I have been reading math, history and science books before you were even a nut stain in your mother's greasy ass-crack. Sir.

[FictionRyu]

Aren't we--as the HnH community--always told to stay on-topic in threads? And in the events of a discussion such as this wouldn't this be the part where a mod would step in and tell us to take it to PMs?