NYSE halts trading

[UCFEE]

Five minutes ago:

No, not a majorty. But a lot of wealthy people would be exposed as having much less practical value than their wealth would imply.

You seriously have some kind of mental block that makes you hear only what you want to hear to justify your stereotypes. Sign of a weak mind IMO.

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

Can someone please explain what is so "great" or "good" about the "greater good"???



I completely abhorre the concept of social co-dependency.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Five minutes ago:

No, not a majorty. But a lot of wealthy people would be exposed as having much less practical value than their wealth would imply.

You seriously have some kind of mental block that makes you hear only what you want to hear to justify your stereotypes. Sign of a weak mind IMO.

And the way you phrased it suggested that while not a majority, it's close. It's not. It's not close at all.

And again, LOL at "weak mind". Coming from the dude threatening people on....message boards.

 

[UCFEE]

Can someone please explain what is so "great" or "good" about the "greater good"???



I completely abhorre the concept of social co-dependency.

Isn't what you call "social codependency" part of what differentiates humans (and more intelligent animals) from other species?

 

[Game_Day_Sports]

So you say that unless I find a cure to cancer or invent something revolutionary that I shouldn't be rich because I am not contributing to the greater good. So if I get rich running a dry cleaning chain that I don't deserve to be rich. Is that why when the riots start they always burn down the laundromat?

You should seriously consider running for office. You have the right mindset for politics.

 

[UCFEE]

No, but your wealth should generally correlate with the social contribution your work provides. That's fundamental to capitalism.

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

Isn't what you call "social codependency" part of what differentiates humans (and more intelligent animals) from other species?

No...that super-collective co-dependency has always caused the collapse of every society in history. I read Jared Diamond's books...you know, that highly revered dude with a phd.

Humans are not, nor have they ever been, a collective. No primate species exists in a collective, only smaller "tribes", each with unique identities and social structures attributed to the environment they are in. Come on, this is the first thing learned in biology.

People fundamentally have a right, and even some have the duty, to not participate.

 

[UCFKnight85]

No, but your wealth should generally correlate with the social contribution your work provides. That's fundamental to capitalism.

That's the most utterly stupid thing you've said and that's really saying something.

Free markets, when left actually free, do not give a flying shit what someone's business venture does or doesn't do for "social contribution". Someone may become a millionaire by convincing people that they need to buy rocks that he's selling. It adds absolutely noting to "social contribution" itself, but in the end yields more people with more money who are able to trade and transact more, to the benefit of everyone.

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

No, but your wealth should generally correlate with the social contribution your work provides. That's fundamental to capitalism.

Horseshit. Coming from a family of patent attorneys....just because you invent something, you are under no obligation to share it. If I made some form of energy that is endless, it does not mean everyone has a right to use it. Come on. There have been many things stolen by governments from good people that have been used to our detriment.

Don't get me started on Philanthropists. You know, the rich people that help...people...

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

What is up with all the Marxist Evangelism lately? Good lord....it's like the body snatchers, or that stupid movie "Invasion" that came out a couple years ago with Nicole Kidman.

 

[UCFEE]

That's the most utterly stupid thing you've said and that's really saying something.

Free markets, when left actually free, do not give a flying shit what someone's business venture does or doesn't do for "social contribution". Someone may become a millionaire by convincing people that they need to buy rocks that he's selling. It adds absolutely noting to "social contribution" itself, but in the end yields more people with more money who are able to trade and transact more, to the benefit of everyone.

Milton Friedman would be rolling over in his grave. The second you disconnect value add from financial reward the entire premise collapses. The fact that so many people seem to WILFULLY do so is astounding. I

You do realize that what you just described allows people to get "something for nothing" right?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Man, I love when you attempt to sound like you have a single clue as to what you're talking about.

This is the F35 thread all over again. Do you actually understand ANY of the things you insist upon debating?

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

If I die, damn straight I'm keeping wealth in the family and maybe a couple charities. I call that "family socialism". I will put family before the mob, ANY DAY. I don't degrade anyone else that has benefited from family socialism...it's not up to you, or anyone else to determine what is "deserved". That is completely 100% arbitrary and relative to time and place.

 

[UCFEE]

Man, I love when you attempt to sound like you have a single clue as to what you're talking about.

This is the F35 thread all over again. Do you actually understand ANY of the things you insist upon debating?

My point is valid. Snake oil salesmen don't contribute positively to economic growth. Period. The fact you would say someone that manipulates for personal gain without contributing back is perfectly acceptable makes it pretty clear it's actually you that does not have a clue.

And yet you rail against any type of social welfare program for people who need it.

Yea, there's something fundamentally wrong with how people view the world. Oh well.

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

I bet all this was debated 20,000 years ago when a caveman caught 30 fish and his neighbor caught only 5 (because he slept in too long)...and decided to trade a bear-skin to acquire more fish for his family but could not because 30 fish-caveman already had enough bear-skins.

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

My point is valid. Snake oil salesmen don't contribute positively to economic growth. Period. The fact you would say someone that manipulates for personal gain without contributing back is perfectly acceptable makes it pretty clear it's actually you that does not have a clue.

And yet you rail against any type of social welfare program for people who need it.

Yea, there's something fundamentally wrong with how people view the world. Oh well.

People need work, not welfare. On that note, if people get welfare, they should work cleaning ditches, picking up trash, and other jobs that are hard to hire for, for at least 20 hours a week. I was on government assistance when I moved back from Toronto in 2003 for 5 months. I couldn't get hired for awhile, so I can have an opinion having been there unlike most of you. I saw people pick up their checks in BMWs and head right to a liquor store. That was when I started to shed my leftist leanings.

What you keep arguing are ethics found in religion. If you have no religion, then your ethical boundaries are cherry-picked...like mine.

No one owes anyone a damn thing, regardless of what "ethic" people believe others should follow.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

...Snake oil salesmen don't contribute positively to economic growth. Period..

Lol car dealerships disagree

 

[UCFEE]

People need work, not welfare. On that note, if people get welfare, they should work cleaning ditches, picking up trash, and other jobs that are hard to hire for, for at least 20 hours a week. I was on government assistance when I moved back from Toronto in 2003 for 5 months. I couldn't get hired for awhile, so I can have an opinion having been there unlike most of you. I saw people pick up their checks in BMWs and head right to a liquor store. That was when I started to shed my leftist leanings.

What you keep arguing are ethics found in religion. If you have no religion, then your ethical boundaries are cherry-picked...like mine.

No one owes anyone a damn thing, regardless of what "ethic" people believe others should follow.

I agree on your first point.

On the 2nd point, you can take that stance, but don't call yourself a capitalist if you do. The entire mechanism that capialism depends on for making a society better is that those who contribute positively are rewarded proportionally. The second you drop that pillar and claim rewards are allowable without contribution, then you're not talking capitalism.

 

[UCFWayne]

 

[UCFKnight85]

My point is valid. Snake oil salesmen don't contribute positively to economic growth. Period. The fact you would say someone that manipulates for personal gain without contributing back is perfectly acceptable makes it pretty clear it's actually you that does not have a clue.

And yet you rail against any type of social welfare program for people who need it.

Yea, there's something fundamentally wrong with how people view the world. Oh well.

You are ridiculously trying to tie economic growth with "being a do gooder in society" which by the way, is completely subjective and probably grossly misconstrued by someone like you.

Economic growth is mutually exclusive from "contributing back", whatever the hell that's even supported to mean.

The first guy who discovered that he could put flavoring and sugar into water and sell it as soda became extremely wealthy without actually "giving anything back" to society. He was selling sugar shit water that actually had negative health benefits to people. But it did, without question, lead to economic growth and prosperity for him and those who worked for him when people decided that they wanted to buy that sugar flavored water.

I might keel over the day you say something that is rooted in fact or logic.

 

[UCFEE]

You are ridiculously trying to tie economic growth with "being a do gooder in society" which by the way, is completely subjective and probably grossly misconstrued by someone like you.

Economic growth is mutually exclusive from "contributing back", whatever the hell that's even supported to mean.

The first guy who discovered that he could put flavoring and sugar into water and sell it as soda became extremely wealthy without actually "giving anything back" to society. He was selling sugar shit water that actually had negative health benefits to people. But it did, without question, lead to economic growth and prosperity for him and those who worked for him when people decided that they wanted to buy that sugar flavored water.

I might keel over the day you say something that is rooted in fact or logic.

And considering that the CDC now estimates that 1/3 of Americans will have diabetes by 2050 as well as other costly health problems, what is the net economic effect in the long run? Not positive.

We're getting to the core of how conservatives and liberals view the economy and progress. In the long run, short-term-profit-above-all will fail miserably (we're starting to see the cracks in that mindset already)

 

[UCFKnight85]

And considering that the CDC now estimates that 1/3 of Americans will have diabetes by 2050 as well as other costly health problems, what is the net economic effect in the long run? Not positive.

We're getting to the core of how conservatives and liberals view the economy and progress. In the long run, short-term-profit-above-all will fail miserably (we're starting to see the cracks in that mindset already)

You're right. We are.

As a conservative, I think the responsibility to not drink and eat yourself into obesity and diabetes oblivion rests with the person. Call me crazy, but I think the woman slmming a Big Mac with a 40 oz coke is more responsible for her health than the guy canning soda.

There are also millions of people who drink soda without becoming diabetic nightmares.

You, on the other hand, would assuredly favor some new massive government agency which uses drones to survey every citizen to assure that they're "doing good for society", eating only what is deemed OK by leftists in NYC, and essentially playing babysitter for our populace.

So yes, there is a difference.

 

[UCFEE]

You're right. We are.

As a conservative, I think the responsibility to not drink and eat yourself into obesity and diabetes oblivion rests with the person. Call me crazy, but I think the woman slmming a Big Mac with a 40 oz coke is more responsible for her health than the guy canning soda.

There are also millions of people who drink soda without becoming diabetic nightmares.

You, on the other hand, would assuredly favor some new massive government agency which uses drones to survey every citizen to assure that they're "doing good for society", eating only what is deemed OK by leftists in NYC, and essentially playing babysitter for our populace.

So yes, there is a difference.

I think it should be a fiduciary duty of any entity putting a product on the market to make clear what negative effects theor product may have. Sugar is more addictive than cocaine. You don't think the people that market these products knew this, and willfully ignored the larger consequences? Not sure what world you live in, but that makes them bad people in mine.

 

[UCFRogerz]

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

I agree on your first point.

On the 2nd point, you can take that stance, but don't call yourself a capitalist if you do. The entire mechanism that capialism depends on for making a society better is that those who contribute positively are rewarded proportionally. The second you drop that pillar and claim rewards are allowable without contribution, then you're not talking capitalism.

Dude, get your history right.

I believe in free-markets...just like the caveman that traded 6 fish for a bear-skin, you can call that whatever you want to call it. But capitalism in America wasn't intended to make "society better". lol...it was to provide opportunity to individuals by encouraging entrepreneurship, just as the Constitution said in regards to the concept of sovereignty. The idea of industrial capitalism benefiting society didn't arise until the industrial revolution in the 1920s (which ushered in a new form of taxation), it didn't really take hold until World War 2 and the era that ushered FDR into office. Before that, free-markets were usually, at the most, regionally based consisting of regionally grown food, textiles and small local industries. Not national. I'm a capitalist, but I'm also a survivalist, and I can back up everything I do with a practical measure.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I think it should be a fiduciary duty of any entity putting a product on the market to make clear what negative effects theor product may have. Sugar is more addictive than cocaine. You don't think the people that market these products knew this, and willfully ignored the larger consequences? Not sure what world you live in, but that makes them bad people in mine.

LOL

 

[UCFEE]

Yep, you're truly a selfish asshole. I've tried to give the benefit of the doubt, but you really are someone that has no qualms preying on the weak and uninformed. Sure sign of a less evolved human.

 

[UCFWayne]

I want to know what world UCFEE lives in. Anyone have a clue?

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

I just want to know how he can live with himself using so many products that are built by slave labor.

 

[sk8knight]

I want to know what world UCFEE lives in. Anyone have a clue?

California. Even if he's not physically there, he fits right in.

 

[UCFKnight85]

He's a ****ing loon.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

He be trolling

Omg this website is so addictive what about the CHILDREN?!?!?

 

[FearTheKnight]

So you say that unless I find a cure to cancer or invent something revolutionary that I shouldn't be rich because I am not contributing to the greater good.

Not to derail but whoever finds a successful cancer cure/treatment is almost assuredly not the one who is going to get rich off of it.

/resumecirclejerk

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Not to derail but whoever finds a successful cancer cure/treatment is almost assuredly not the one who is going to get rich off of it.

/resumecirclejerk

And they shouldn't. Scientists are assholes, assholes don't deserve to be rich.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I think it should be a fiduciary duty of any entity putting a product on the market to make clear what negative effects theor product may have. Sugar is more addictive than cocaine. You don't think the people that market these products knew this, and willfully ignored the larger consequences? Not sure what world you live in, but that makes them bad people in mine.

Can I borrow your crystal ball today for the lotto?

 

[Sir Galahad]

Yep, you're truly a selfish asshole. I've tried to give the benefit of the doubt, but you really are someone that has no qualms preying on the weak and uninformed. Sure sign of a less evolved human.

Do you get a paycheck for what you do? If you work for someone else do you know every action that company does with their profits?

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Kinna like the cure for HIV Magic Johnson can buy it, but the plebes cannot. More money treating symptoms than curing.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Not to derail but whoever finds a successful cancer cure/treatment is almost assuredly not the one who is going to get rich off of it.

/resumecirclejerk

There already is a cure for cancer. The powers that be just won't release it because there is soooooo much to profit off of cancer.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Not to derail but whoever finds a successful cancer cure/treatment is almost assuredly not the one who is going to get rich off of it.

/resumecirclejerk

Another ridiculous comment.

First, which cancer? There's literally thousands of types.

Second, there are TONS of cures and treatments available for various cancers. And most of them were developed by companies and being sold for a profit, which is still the absolute best to market approach for these treatments. Otherwise there would be little incentive for private entities to lay down huge sums of money on speculative research.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Boiling it down this economic idiot thinks he's knows better for people vs letting individuals decide for themselves.

Sure tubby would be better not chuggin Cokes, but that is 100% on him.

Nuking Coke & Pepsi fat people still wanna be fat, someone will supply even if it's illegal.

F'd up world we got mayor sodapop big pimpin up in NYC, but you can't grow your own pot.

That is some legit ass freedom. Let's go "liberate" some more countries.