Re: Iraq update


"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:q5WdnY5wXrexlA7eRVn-gQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> Funnily enough, in the past, it was not particularly rare.
>
>> If it was actually better for the majority it would have been nearly
>> universal.
>
> I thought your claim was that it was rare. Change goalposts much?


I didn't change them at all.



>>>> Slavery is not in fact better for the majority, that's why it is so
>>>> rare in the world.
>
>>> We have machines that do the labor more effectively nowadays.
>
>> Ah, your ignorance is more fundamental than I thought.
>
> No, dip***.


I'm afraid so Mal. You can't string together two sentences about economics
without showing off your ignorance and stupidity.

You're just sad. And you're so fucking aggressive about how ignorant and
stupid you are too.





>> Slaves aren't machines. They are people. They provide labor. Free
>> people also provide labor. Machines do not provide labor. Machines and
>> slaves do not compete against each other. Free people and slaves DO
>> compete against each other.
>>
>> Slavery is and was rare
>
> Your "was" has already been proven incorrect, and you even backed off that
> position yourself earlier in this thread, nutcase.


And you ignore the argument presented and respond with irrelevancy and
falseness.

If you were smart you would have an argument of your own to present, but you
aren't.

Ya see this is why no one bothers with you. You're just invincibly ignorant
and stupid.



>> because slaves are less efficient than free people. It's more productive
>> to hire someone for a wage than to enslave him.
>
> ...with certain machines available, yes.


Asserted with no supporting argument or evidence....

Once again you just can't even show up for the discussion.




>>>> Where slavery is actually profitable is is seen. Where it is not
>>>> profitable it is not seen.
>>>
>>> Not everyone makes their life decisions purely according to economics,
>>> dumbass.
>
>> By definition EVERYONE makes EVERY decision based solely on economics.
>
> Kookoo! Kookoo! Kookoo!


Feel free to identify one decision one person makes that is not economic.



>> Every decision you make, on everything is an economic one.
>
> Try proving that, kook.


Every decision is about allocating scarce resources to meet wants.
Economics is the science of allocating resources to meet wants. Its
definitional.

Ya see, I actually argued my position. That's what it looks like.



>> Whether its what kind of car you buy, what woman you spend time with,
>> what music you listen to, or what finger you pick your nose with it all
>> comes down to economics.
>
> Shawn "The Economist" Wilson speaks! You really need to add these lines
> to your next Greatest Hits album.


And Mal, as usual, has no argument or facts to present.

Gonna throw a temper tantrum now Mal?




>> Your problem is, as I have pointed out many times, that you are
>> incredibly ignorant of economics.
>
> You have shown *yourself* to be the ignorant buffoon, here.


No arguments presented, no facts. All Mal can do is throw ***, like any
chimpanzee.



>> Of course, your pronouncements on the subject are beyond laughable.
>
> Irony, thy name is Usenet.


No arguments presented, no facts cited. Mal has said nothing this entire
post. You have nothing to offer intellectually. All you can do is throw
crap at your betters.





.

Loading