Anti-Trust Bullshit (Intel gets the shaft)

@Suicrat said:

You know, guys, I said I quit. And I guess that was a sort of lie, but don't expect much more postings from me. I've read some of my friends' postings in these forums, and I've kept in touch with them through personal messages, and decided not to post again until someone displaces me in the 'top off-topic forum posters" list, so this is just a one-time thing, and I will leave anyone who wishes to attack and pick these words apart to do so without a defender. 
 
So you might be wondering why I'm making a cameo on my mother's birthday. Well, she's not awake yet, but we're taking out to see Nine later today, and then to dinner, so I'm not that evil. Anyways, back on topic. 
 
 

@cspiffo said: 

TBH,  This is really just about money.  These Governments want their share too.  I see the problem though that Intel has created for itself.  It has tried to position itself as the only source for X86 based processors (****which they INVENTED****).  Had their been more competition in the PC hardware market place they wouldn't be in this mess.

I cannot sit idly when such absurdities as quoted above are brought to life! How could anyone possibly FAULT a processor manufacturer for INVENTING a new processor?! This is what a processor company does! And in the modern, heavily-manipulated, retail-heavy market under which we operate, making sure that invention has an impact in the PC market, they need to find a way to spread ubiquity, so that makers of complimentary products are incentivized to embracing their new product, such as using exclusivity rebates. AMD/ATi would be entirely free to establish their own exclusivity agreements with retailers, manufacturers, shipping, and whoever else they wanted, in a market system that only triggered coercive intervention in response to coercion. Antitrust action is coercive intervention in anticipation of coercion. Have none of you seen Minority Report, or even simply thought about what it means to place the burden of proof on the accused, as opposed to the accuser? All people and organizations ought to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but anti-trust law gives regulators the authority to demand corporations attempt to prove their actions are innocent. In other words, governments are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to corporate crime. This happens, particularly by demanding that they prove other companies offering similar product are not harmed by their actions. This is simply corporate your-brothers'-keeper, which simply turns corporations into leaches of one another -- and of the populace, as evidenced by the resurrection of the U.S. paper banking industry and the temporary resuscitation U.S. auto industry. Instead, the regulatory reform needed in the U.S. and other, similarly-structured jurisdictions, is a complete overhaul of limited liability. 
 
Corporations need to be held accountable in civil court for their breaches of contract with customers and suppliers (I include workers in the latter heading), and when they cause serious injury or death, or defraud anyone involved with their operations, they need to be held criminally responsible. Anti-trust vilifies the creation of and adherence to contracts with parties, while civil and criminal law sits idly by as these contracts are breached, and criminal laws are as well.
 
Exclusivity with retailers, manufacturers, or makers of complimentary products is not something a government should have the right to intervene on. There is no difference between a marriage contract that demands monogamy and a supply chain contract that demands exclusivity, aside from scale and the particular values being exchanged, but particularities of that sort are not something one can expect the government of any jurisdiction larger than a few dozen people, to manage. 
 
Want me to draw you an analogy? Probably not, but I will anyways. 
 
I am in love with a particular young woman. She and I have known each other, and enjoyed one another's company for a long time (six and a half years as of about a week from now). However, during none of this time have I verbally demanded exclusivity of my enjoyment of her company. She is very much a free agent as of this moment. Imagine if we established a government body and a set of laws to monitor this relationship, to insure that I do not undertake any sort of action that would deny other men the right to enjoy her company in the way I have in the past, and will hope to in the future. Imagine if a rival for her affection, found out that I proposed marriage to her, and established all the formalities of a marriage contract -- which, if it includes some sort of demand for monogamy is a demand in one form or another of exclusivity -- informed the government body and intervened and declared null and void my potentially-future-wife's right to accept, voluntarily, a marriage contract that included a monogamy clause. Cspiffo, if he were logically consistent, blame me for wanting to marry this woman in the first place, even though it's the rival-for-affection's fault. 
 
The government will have, effectively,  taken ownership of my lover's life and my life, and mine as well, for the sake of a rival-for-affection whom this woman valued less. How is this any different from anti-trust regulators intervening on behalf of AMD/ATi? Certainly, love is more valuable than any computer processor, I am equally in agreement with all of you on that, but who are we to impose on Intel's, retailers', and manufacturers' rights to think otherwise? 

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" @clapperdude said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

There is no such thing as removing competition in the market you moron. Tell me how a business in the market can remove competition?

Don't companies do this somewhat frequently by buying out the competition? "

That's not removing competition.  "

Let's give an example with a well-known monopoly: Satellite Radio.  So let me get this straight: 

• There is only one provider - SiriusXM, born out of a merger between the two.
• This collective unit has all the current satellite transmitters, all the subscribers for this type of radio, and most of the talent that anyone could ever be looking for in these stations (Howard Stern, Opie & Anthony, Steven Van Zant, Tony Hawk, exclusive licenses for all the American national sports).
• And yet, this isn't removing competition when there's pretty much no way for a competitor to enter the satellite radio business and attempt to compete by creating a better service when there is no possible way their service could be better, making anyone committing to satellite radio beholden to the one provider and whatever prices or packages they dictate for monthly fees and receivers?

Somehow, I don't buy this.

"

i would really like to jump in here but @lilburtonboy7489:  keeps saying what im about to post.
 
seriously people..have you ever taken an economics class? this is simple intro to microeconomics.

" @tbone81889 said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

Profit does not equal revenue. 

There's a reason why there are patent, trademark, and anti-trust laws.  Also you have it backwards.  Revenue sometimes does not equal profits.   Just because you got this wrong, I don't believe that you got a degree in Economics. "

No shit there is a reason for patents, trademarks, and anti-trust laws. Did I ever say there wasn't?  
 
I have it backwards? OOOOOH, I see. It's not "Profit does not equal revenue", instead, it's "Revenue sometimes does not always equal profits". Holy shit, how do you manage to breathe? Revenue NEVER equals profit. Also, it logically follows that profit NEVER equals revenue. That's the case because they are two completely different things you fucking idiot. Revenue is how much money you make. Profit is your total revenue minus your total costs.  
 
How does this imply I don't have a degree when I was literally just giving a text definition of profit? 
 
@Ham08 said:

" @tbone81889:The incompetent rarely recognize the extremity of their own inadequacies.  Whenever facts are presented that he cannot intelligently argue against, he'll resort to name calling as if it somehow strengthens his argument.  The truth of the matter is, that it only undermines his own credibility since he has nothing intelligent to say in order to back it up.  The more he speaks the more he makes himself out to be a fool.  In a court of law he would be utterly destroyed, but I doubt a judge would hear his case since he has so thoroughly made himself out to be a liar and a bafoon. "

Name one single fact I didn't argue against. In fact, I think I copied every point you made and argued against it while you didn't do that once.   
 
And I have no once used name calling to strengthen my argument. That would be committing the ad hominem fallacy which I wouldn't do (no, ithe ad hominem is not just name calling). Instead, I do it for fun.  
 
@oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

"

"Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what, or where they deal. This type of conduct is common between buyers and suppliers. " 

 
Exclusive dealing isn't any form of force or imposition. If HP agrees only to carry Intel processors because it makes sense for them to do so, their freedom has not been attacked nor has anything been imposed. 
 
 "Sometimes the conduct is prohibited outright"
 
Doesn't mean it should be (naturalistic fallacy ftl). 
 
" other times it is subject to a test on whether it has substantially lessened competition in a market."  
 
There is no such thing. 
 

  

 "When it is subject to a substantial lessening of competition test, it is not enough to merely show that an individual business has been damaged. In this context the term 'substantial' is interpreted to mean an effect that is real or of substance. To determine whether a substantial lessening of competition occurs the overall market for the particular product and its substitutes, as well as whether or not the refusal would substantially restrict availability of that type of product to consumers, must be analysed. When territorial restrictions have been imposed as a condition of supply, it must be determined whether consumers are severely restricted in their ability to buy a product or its substitutes within the territory.

As a general guide, the more exclusive the product and the more powerful the supplier, the more likely it is that competition will be affected." 

 
How is competition affected? If there is a monopoly on a product, and we only have one to choose from, that does not mean that competition doesn't exist. Competition exists as long as firms are not formally or systematically barred from entry. If Intel was the only CPU company in existence and no other firm was moving into the market, it's because they are dealing at the market price. If they deviate from what the market desires, competitors will enter the market. That is competition. 

"Full line forcing involves a supplier refusing to supply goods or a service unless the intending purchaser agrees not to:

• buy goods of a particular kind or description from a competitor
• resupply goods of a particular kind or description acquired from a competitor
• resupply goods of a particular kind acquired from the company to a particular place or classes of places.

However, for a full line forcing arrangement to contravene the Trade Practices Act it must have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the relevant market." 

Yup, I definitely do not see a problem with that. And no, it does not remove competition by doing any of those things.  

"Third line forcing is a specific form of exclusive dealing prohibited outright by the Trade Practices Act." 

  What's your point here? The fact that the law exists does not validate its existence. Just as this lawsuit existing does not validate the lawsuit.  

  

 It is not subject to the substantial lessening of competition test." 

 There is no such thing. Human action (or cattallactics in general) is not some science experiment with constant and where substances react to stimuli. 

   

You haven't really made any conclusion here whatsoever. In fact, I'm not even sure you are arguing against my points here. Giving definitions of terms and saying that certain laws exists isn't enough.   "Now it is your turn to post something ridiculous"  oldschool has a brain    "tell us how smart you are" I have a degree in economics from UW-Madison   "how dumb we all are" You don't     "and then insult me and call me a name. "     Fucktard "

Hand clap.  There is a career going for you at Fox News somewhere.   You already have a catch phrase - Fucktard!  Perfect for Fox.  "Illburton Boy tonight, interviews another Fucktard"  It will never get old. I love how you think you are smarter than the highly educated and trained legal people who frame these laws.  It is a very endearing trait.  You must be very popular at parties and be a magnet for chicks.    However, all you say fails completely on this massive point:  consumers.  Yes, you can make grand statements surrounding catallactics, but theory is not reality and as long as you are so fixated on theory, you will continue to be nothing more than a joke or curiosity piece.  "

Why would I work at Fox News? I thought they only like conservatives there. I don't get it.   I am highly educated, but not as much as the people who framed those laws. That doesn't make them right, not by any stretch. In fact, they are wrong, just as over 80% of economists in acedemia are.   As for being a magnet for chicks, I don't think that many girls are attracted to married men.   And for the last part, I am not fixated on theory at all. Economic laws is not theory, and drawing conclusions from those laws is purely deductive. It's not just abstract theory.  "

" Economics are for nerdddds:D comon guys lets play some games! "

" i would really like to jump in here but @lilburtonboy7489:  keeps saying what im about to post.  seriously people..have you ever taken an economics class? this is simple intro to microeconomics. "

"  " Because Fox News loves raving lunatics. " 
 
Nothing I have said resembles lunacy.
 
"Economists and law makers are 80% wrong?  I don't believe you until you give me a full list of every one of them and why they are wrong, and how it is you are right. " 
 
Yes, they are. They believe the stimulus package has saved us and the FED has saved us by creating trillions of dollars. They are very wrong. Unemployment is continuing to rise along with inflation. It's stagflation but they don't want to admit it. When unemployment is rising, they believe we should inflate it down. When unemployment is low, they believe they should soak up the extra wealth through taxes and cutting off credit, or contracting the money supply. But when inflation AND unemployment rise at the same time, they have no solution. They are completely baffled.  
 
How can the recession possibly be over. This crisis was caused by easy credit not backed by savings. It's how bubbles are created. Their solution was to pump trillions into the economy, exactly what created the crisis. Of course if the government gives everyone a million dollars each, the economy will look great for the first day. And that's why the economists think it's over. At best, they will be able to slow unemployment for a short amount of time to start some new expansion in the producer goods industries. I'll be surprised if that happens, but it's possible. But even if that does happen, that easy credit still won't be backed by savings and will still be malinvestments. This easy credit is just going to create another bubble. When the economy has collapsed, how is creating more of the medium of exchange going to help anything? That is complete nonsense and any person not brainwashed by acedemia would see that.  
 
When I got my economics degree from Madison, I was taught this. It is absolute shit. The professors could not answer any of my questions. They could not give an explanation for stagflation, for the cluster of error in recessions, or why producers industries were hit first. They can't answer those questions yet stick to it. And you think I'm ideological? If you want to see ideological economists, look at the mainstream economists who formulate equations for calculating happiness and  find the optimum policy by finding where the happiness curve is tangent to the indifference curve. These people are the lunatics. The sane people are those, like me, who question it and stick to the laws of economics such as supply and demand, law of diminishing returns, and others which can give us our solutions. 
 
 
 "Plus I want a list of the 20% who are right and why you think they are right." 
 
I didn't say 20% are right. Lots of economists don't participate in the poll I was referring to above. I would say about 3% are right, if that. Thomas Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, Joseph Salerno, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Jeff Herbener, Saul Kirzner, David Gordon, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Hernando De Soto, Huerta Jesus De Soto, Robert Murphy, Jorg Guido Hulsmann, and Stephan Kinsella are all right. They follow sound economics which has given explanations for everything and they have never been refuted, only forgotten. 
 
 "If you can't provide that, then there is no reason for any of us to stop laughing at the caricature you are.  That's right, we are laughing at you.  It is difficult not to when you rave on like the utter caricature you are. " 
 
This kind of thinking is why Hayek was able to predict the Great Depression in 1927 when all other economists said we were in a permanent state of prosperity. He was laughed at and called a lunatic, but he had the last laugh. Same as in 2006. Peter Schiff was explaining how we were about to have a crisis like we have never seen. He predicted every single thing from the financial meltdown and debasement of the currency, to the housing collapse and high employment. There are videos of him being laughed at on TV by several other economists. I don't mind being laughed at. I'm not laughed at by my professors of fellow students. And I'm the one who has almost completed 3 degrees and is going to get into one of the world's top graduate programs in economics. But go ahead and laugh.  
 
 
 "I am pleased you found someone, but I can't help but feel sorry for her.  If you caricature here mirrors you at home and in your relationship, then you are either a meek mouse and she dominates you, explaining your behaviour here, or she dare not make a single error in anything she does, as you will call her a Fucktard and tell how the milk really goes on the Corn Flakes.  Other than that, pics or it isn't true. " 
 
I'll pretend you didn't say that about my wife. And I have already posted pics. 
 
"You are fixated on theory as what you dream of doesn't exist and you are simply trying to ram them down the throats of people who in reality are just amused by your rabid approach to those theories." 
   
What do you have without theory? What is science without theory? What is economics without theory? We all can make observations and acknowledge facts, but without theory, that's all we have is facts. We have no explanation for why it happened, whether it will happen again, and nothing about causality at all.  
 
Would you call a deductively sound argument theory as well? If so, would you say it has no merit?
 
 
 "All economics are theories.  You want the laws removed so you can attempt to prove the most utterly stupid theories. " 
 
If all of economics is just theory, why would you criticize me for just talking about theory? I don't want to prove anything, it's already been proven. But I don't need to prove anything anyways. through experience. Theory can be sound without experiencing it in the world. Just like you don't need to test the pythagorean theorem, you don't need to test the laws of supply and demand. They exist regardless of experience. It doesn't need proving. But to convince anti-intellectuals like you, I know that you need it to happen in the real world. That's why I am glad everything I have said already has been proven.  
 
 "When I finish my holidays, I can't wait to show my legal friends in the multinational corporation I work with.  They don't like all the laws either, but they will get a good chuckle at your extremism." 
 
Go for it. Please do show your legal friends at a multinational corporation a off-topic thread on a gaming website. My guess is that they won't be chuckling at me.  "

" "When you deal with single factors in respect to their effect on individual decisions (that is what microeconomics is), you fail to look at the bigger picture and only a fool would do that. "   Moron. Microeconomics is where you lean about monopoly. And you can't separate microeconomics and macroeconomics. All you have to do is combine all of the firms in mircroeconomics and you have macro. They don't use separate theories, separate equations, separate methods, nothing. They are identical. The difference is that macro takes everything in micro and adds them together to get unemployment, inflation, GDP, etc....  I've been talking about things which include both micro and macro. I think you have this wrong though " you fail to look at the bigger picture and only a fool would do that". Only a fool would try to separate them.   "Macroeconomics - the big picture, is where it is at.  Focusing on microeconomics fails to take into account all the variables and factors, especially potential negative consequences elsewhere in the economic stream.  Is this nonsense espoused by Burt would be fine in a vacuum (much like his entire position), but the world, humanity and economics is not nurtured in a vacuum. "  Wow. You have no idea what macroeconomics is. Neither of them take into account negative consequences or multiple variables. Ceteris Paribus means you only change one variable and then observe the results. And since the methods used in economics only gauge consequences by formulas and graphs, they never take into account all variables or factors. That's the same for micro and macro.   As I have said, nearly everything I have argued is talked about only in macro classes. But since macro is just the summation of micro, it doesn't matter. What you are saying makes no sense and shows you have no idea what the difference between macro and micro is. All my posts have been about inflation, competition, interest rates, unemployment, etc... They are all macro concepts, which includes everything in the study of micro as well.   "The reality will always be that regulation is required because people do bad things that have consequences much further afield from their immediate vicinity. "  The reality is that the market regulates itself and government regulations have unintended consequences. Regulations are always helpful to a certain group and hurt another.   " To blindly purse an economic theory as removing anti-competition laws is stupidity of its highest order. "  As I have said many times, I don't advocate removing competition. Removing competition is impossible. And how exactly have I blindly followed anything when my formal education has been completely opposite of the theory I hold? "

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

"  " Because Fox News loves raving lunatics. " 
 
Nothing I have said resembles lunacy.
 
"Economists and law makers are 80% wrong?  I don't believe you until you give me a full list of every one of them and why they are wrong, and how it is you are right. " 
 
Yes, they are. They believe the stimulus package has saved us and the FED has saved us by creating trillions of dollars. They are very wrong. Unemployment is continuing to rise along with inflation. It's stagflation but they don't want to admit it. When unemployment is rising, they believe we should inflate it down. When unemployment is low, they believe they should soak up the extra wealth through taxes and cutting off credit, or contracting the money supply. But when inflation AND unemployment rise at the same time, they have no solution. They are completely baffled.  
 
How can the recession possibly be over. This crisis was caused by easy credit not backed by savings. It's how bubbles are created. Their solution was to pump trillions into the economy, exactly what created the crisis. Of course if the government gives everyone a million dollars each, the economy will look great for the first day. And that's why the economists think it's over. At best, they will be able to slow unemployment for a short amount of time to start some new expansion in the producer goods industries. I'll be surprised if that happens, but it's possible. But even if that does happen, that easy credit still won't be backed by savings and will still be malinvestments. This easy credit is just going to create another bubble. When the economy has collapsed, how is creating more of the medium of exchange going to help anything? That is complete nonsense and any person not brainwashed by acedemia would see that.  
 
When I got my economics degree from Madison, I was taught this. It is absolute shit. The professors could not answer any of my questions. They could not give an explanation for stagflation, for the cluster of error in recessions, or why producers industries were hit first. They can't answer those questions yet stick to it. And you think I'm ideological? If you want to see ideological economists, look at the mainstream economists who formulate equations for calculating happiness and  find the optimum policy by finding where the happiness curve is tangent to the indifference curve. These people are the lunatics. The sane people are those, like me, who question it and stick to the laws of economics such as supply and demand, law of diminishing returns, and others which can give us our solutions. 
 
 
 "Plus I want a list of the 20% who are right and why you think they are right." 
 
I didn't say 20% are right. Lots of economists don't participate in the poll I was referring to above. I would say about 3% are right, if that. Thomas Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, Joseph Salerno, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Jeff Herbener, Saul Kirzner, David Gordon, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Hernando De Soto, Huerta Jesus De Soto, Robert Murphy, Jorg Guido Hulsmann, and Stephan Kinsella are all right. They follow sound economics which has given explanations for everything and they have never been refuted, only forgotten. 
 
 "If you can't provide that, then there is no reason for any of us to stop laughing at the caricature you are.  That's right, we are laughing at you.  It is difficult not to when you rave on like the utter caricature you are. " 
 
This kind of thinking is why Hayek was able to predict the Great Depression in 1927 when all other economists said we were in a permanent state of prosperity. He was laughed at and called a lunatic, but he had the last laugh. Same as in 2006. Peter Schiff was explaining how we were about to have a crisis like we have never seen. He predicted every single thing from the financial meltdown and debasement of the currency, to the housing collapse and high employment. There are videos of him being laughed at on TV by several other economists. I don't mind being laughed at. I'm not laughed at by my professors of fellow students. And I'm the one who has almost completed 3 degrees and is going to get into one of the world's top graduate programs in economics. But go ahead and laugh.  
 
 
 "I am pleased you found someone, but I can't help but feel sorry for her.  If you caricature here mirrors you at home and in your relationship, then you are either a meek mouse and she dominates you, explaining your behaviour here, or she dare not make a single error in anything she does, as you will call her a Fucktard and tell how the milk really goes on the Corn Flakes.  Other than that, pics or it isn't true. " 
 
I'll pretend you didn't say that about my wife. And I have already posted pics. 
 
"You are fixated on theory as what you dream of doesn't exist and you are simply trying to ram them down the throats of people who in reality are just amused by your rabid approach to those theories." 
   
What do you have without theory? What is science without theory? What is economics without theory? We all can make observations and acknowledge facts, but without theory, that's all we have is facts. We have no explanation for why it happened, whether it will happen again, and nothing about causality at all.  
 
Would you call a deductively sound argument theory as well? If so, would you say it has no merit?
 
 
 "All economics are theories.  You want the laws removed so you can attempt to prove the most utterly stupid theories. " 
 
If all of economics is just theory, why would you criticize me for just talking about theory? I don't want to prove anything, it's already been proven. But I don't need to prove anything anyways. through experience. Theory can be sound without experiencing it in the world. Just like you don't need to test the pythagorean theorem, you don't need to test the laws of supply and demand. They exist regardless of experience. It doesn't need proving. But to convince anti-intellectuals like you, I know that you need it to happen in the real world. That's why I am glad everything I have said already has been proven.  
 
 "When I finish my holidays, I can't wait to show my legal friends in the multinational corporation I work with.  They don't like all the laws either, but they will get a good chuckle at your extremism." 
 
Go for it. Please do show your legal friends at a multinational corporation a off-topic thread on a gaming website. My guess is that they won't be chuckling at me.  "

@lilburtonboy7489 said:

" "When you deal with single factors in respect to their effect on individual decisions (that is what microeconomics is), you fail to look at the bigger picture and only a fool would do that. "   Moron. Microeconomics is where you lean about monopoly. And you can't separate microeconomics and macroeconomics. All you have to do is combine all of the firms in mircroeconomics and you have macro. They don't use separate theories, separate equations, separate methods, nothing. They are identical. The difference is that macro takes everything in micro and adds them together to get unemployment, inflation, GDP, etc....  I've been talking about things which include both micro and macro. I think you have this wrong though " you fail to look at the bigger picture and only a fool would do that". Only a fool would try to separate them.   "Macroeconomics - the big picture, is where it is at.  Focusing on microeconomics fails to take into account all the variables and factors, especially potential negative consequences elsewhere in the economic stream.  Is this nonsense espoused by Burt would be fine in a vacuum (much like his entire position), but the world, humanity and economics is not nurtured in a vacuum. "  Wow. You have no idea what macroeconomics is. Neither of them take into account negative consequences or multiple variables. Ceteris Paribus means you only change one variable and then observe the results. And since the methods used in economics only gauge consequences by formulas and graphs, they never take into account all variables or factors. That's the same for micro and macro.   As I have said, nearly everything I have argued is talked about only in macro classes. But since macro is just the summation of micro, it doesn't matter. What you are saying makes no sense and shows you have no idea what the difference between macro and micro is. All my posts have been about inflation, competition, interest rates, unemployment, etc... They are all macro concepts, which includes everything in the study of micro as well.   "The reality will always be that regulation is required because people do bad things that have consequences much further afield from their immediate vicinity. "  The reality is that the market regulates itself and government regulations have unintended consequences. Regulations are always helpful to a certain group and hurt another.   " To blindly purse an economic theory as removing anti-competition laws is stupidity of its highest order. "  As I have said many times, I don't advocate removing competition. Removing competition is impossible. And how exactly have I blindly followed anything when my formal education has been completely opposite of the theory I hold? "

You love the sound of your own voice don't you?  Whilst you continue to prove yourself smart you continue to prove yourself lacking common sense.  You continue to write ridiculously long posts that only further prove your extremist stupidity, at least it keeps you from annoying people in real life a bit more.  I will continue to chuckle at you as you will wake up one day and finally realise you are the fool we see today.  It will happen.  And apparently, my friends in legal, also play computer games, so I think I know who they will think is the lunatic.  You truly do live in a vacuum as you continually push that only your interpretation of a word or concept is the correct one.  To make a ridiculous assumption out of blind stupidity that I fail to know what is and the difference between micro and macroeconomics only goes to prove that.  Of course macro is the whole of micro.  Where you fail is that your fixation on micro elements fails to take into account the many variables that a micro can have on the macro.  You can't see the forest for the trees and clearly you hate people as you wish to see great harm on many innocents as that will only be the outcome of your diatribe.  I also went against my business teachings, so don't try giving yourself some sort of badge of honour, it's really just sad.  I was that socialist in business school.  I still am, but my ideals are for the betterment of all, to ensure that the "weak" are protected, where as you want to give even more power to the strong.  When you operate in the real world, you will realise that fundamentalism like you rabbit on about, equals stupidity.  The human condition and its impact on power and decisions are far more important and you would do well to pay more attention in Psychology as it is impossible to separate from economics.  Lastly, it is sooooooo very easy to be an expert from the sidelines. I see and hear it all the time.  Blah, blah, blah, the government is spending too much money, blah blah, blah, the government should do this, blah, blah, blah.  You are no different other than you use bigger words in some vane attempt to sound superior.  I can use as many big words as you if I choose, but why would I?  They prove nothing.  I also believe some of the money was targeted poorly and I also believe that the impact of the recession will be lengthened with long term unemployment and rising inflation, but there are no guarantees that I or anybody else is right.  To do the opposite could have caused a complete collapse of the world economy, who are we to know otherwise?  Armchair critics are as pointless as Fox News.  Australia spent billions on hand-outs and infrastructure, and it has low unemployment (only went up about 1%) and it still has low inflation (up marginally) and it is in growth and never had a recession.  Who is to say that would be the same without the money that was spent?  You would be wise to temper your behaviour as it only shows you to be out of touch with reality. "

That's horrible, considering they make better cpu's than the competition. They are being told they are monopolising the situation because they made a superior product that ppl wants to buy.

lilburton reminds me of the guy in your college class that's an idiot, but he's really loud and can't help shouting out his thoughts to the class daring the professor or his peers to ridicule him.  And then when we try to kindly let him know that he has some errors in his arguments he, instead of acting like a rational person, just continues to state the same things and tries to personally attack the person arguing with him.  Or at his best moments he throws out vague statements (that are usually irrelevant, or at least unrelated) and backs it up with the even more vague proof / credentials that he claims to possess.

I tried really hard to find some argument in your pathetic rant. This is about as close as I could find:  
 
  "They prove nothing.  I also believe some of the money was targeted poorly and I also believe that the impact of the recession will be lengthened with long term unemployment and rising inflation, but there are no guarantees that I or anybody else is right" 
 
That's not true. We know certain things will happen when a policy is implemented. Economics isn't a guessing game like you and most other idiots think. We know what will happen when easy credit is handed out and not backed up.  
 
 " To do the opposite could have caused a complete collapse of the world economy, who are we to know otherwise?" 
 
What do you mean who are we to know otherwise? Those of us who are not economically retarded know these things. It would have been a disaster if the government didn't do anything. Banks and businesses would fail on an unprecedented scale. Then the market would adjust and rebound. All that's needed is liquidation of the malinvestments. But this short time is preferable to further inflate the bubble delaying the collapse further making it more painful.  
 
 " Armchair critics are as pointless as Fox News." 
 
2 things: 1) So what, people who actually have education in subjects are not supposed to be the critics in those subjects? 2) You have a creepy obsession with Fox News, mentioning them even when it's not relevant at all.  
 

Congrats again on making another enormous post without refuting a single thing. 

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

"  " Because Fox News loves raving lunatics. " 
 
Nothing I have said resembles lunacy.
 
"Economists and law makers are 80% wrong?  I don't believe you until you give me a full list of every one of them and why they are wrong, and how it is you are right. " 
 
Yes, they are. They believe the stimulus package has saved us and the FED has saved us by creating trillions of dollars. They are very wrong. Unemployment is continuing to rise along with inflation. It's stagflation but they don't want to admit it. When unemployment is rising, they believe we should inflate it down. When unemployment is low, they believe they should soak up the extra wealth through taxes and cutting off credit, or contracting the money supply. But when inflation AND unemployment rise at the same time, they have no solution. They are completely baffled.  
 
How can the recession possibly be over. This crisis was caused by easy credit not backed by savings. It's how bubbles are created. Their solution was to pump trillions into the economy, exactly what created the crisis. Of course if the government gives everyone a million dollars each, the economy will look great for the first day. And that's why the economists think it's over. At best, they will be able to slow unemployment for a short amount of time to start some new expansion in the producer goods industries. I'll be surprised if that happens, but it's possible. But even if that does happen, that easy credit still won't be backed by savings and will still be malinvestments. This easy credit is just going to create another bubble. When the economy has collapsed, how is creating more of the medium of exchange going to help anything? That is complete nonsense and any person not brainwashed by acedemia would see that.  
 
When I got my economics degree from Madison, I was taught this. It is absolute shit. The professors could not answer any of my questions. They could not give an explanation for stagflation, for the cluster of error in recessions, or why producers industries were hit first. They can't answer those questions yet stick to it. And you think I'm ideological? If you want to see ideological economists, look at the mainstream economists who formulate equations for calculating happiness and  find the optimum policy by finding where the happiness curve is tangent to the indifference curve. These people are the lunatics. The sane people are those, like me, who question it and stick to the laws of economics such as supply and demand, law of diminishing returns, and others which can give us our solutions. 
 
 
 "Plus I want a list of the 20% who are right and why you think they are right." 
 
I didn't say 20% are right. Lots of economists don't participate in the poll I was referring to above. I would say about 3% are right, if that. Thomas Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, Joseph Salerno, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Jeff Herbener, Saul Kirzner, David Gordon, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Hernando De Soto, Huerta Jesus De Soto, Robert Murphy, Jorg Guido Hulsmann, and Stephan Kinsella are all right. They follow sound economics which has given explanations for everything and they have never been refuted, only forgotten. 
 
 "If you can't provide that, then there is no reason for any of us to stop laughing at the caricature you are.  That's right, we are laughing at you.  It is difficult not to when you rave on like the utter caricature you are. " 
 
This kind of thinking is why Hayek was able to predict the Great Depression in 1927 when all other economists said we were in a permanent state of prosperity. He was laughed at and called a lunatic, but he had the last laugh. Same as in 2006. Peter Schiff was explaining how we were about to have a crisis like we have never seen. He predicted every single thing from the financial meltdown and debasement of the currency, to the housing collapse and high employment. There are videos of him being laughed at on TV by several other economists. I don't mind being laughed at. I'm not laughed at by my professors of fellow students. And I'm the one who has almost completed 3 degrees and is going to get into one of the world's top graduate programs in economics. But go ahead and laugh.  
 
 
 "I am pleased you found someone, but I can't help but feel sorry for her.  If you caricature here mirrors you at home and in your relationship, then you are either a meek mouse and she dominates you, explaining your behaviour here, or she dare not make a single error in anything she does, as you will call her a Fucktard and tell how the milk really goes on the Corn Flakes.  Other than that, pics or it isn't true. " 
 
I'll pretend you didn't say that about my wife. And I have already posted pics. 
 
"You are fixated on theory as what you dream of doesn't exist and you are simply trying to ram them down the throats of people who in reality are just amused by your rabid approach to those theories." 
   
What do you have without theory? What is science without theory? What is economics without theory? We all can make observations and acknowledge facts, but without theory, that's all we have is facts. We have no explanation for why it happened, whether it will happen again, and nothing about causality at all.  
 
Would you call a deductively sound argument theory as well? If so, would you say it has no merit?
 
 
 "All economics are theories.  You want the laws removed so you can attempt to prove the most utterly stupid theories. " 
 
If all of economics is just theory, why would you criticize me for just talking about theory? I don't want to prove anything, it's already been proven. But I don't need to prove anything anyways. through experience. Theory can be sound without experiencing it in the world. Just like you don't need to test the pythagorean theorem, you don't need to test the laws of supply and demand. They exist regardless of experience. It doesn't need proving. But to convince anti-intellectuals like you, I know that you need it to happen in the real world. That's why I am glad everything I have said already has been proven.  
 
 "When I finish my holidays, I can't wait to show my legal friends in the multinational corporation I work with.  They don't like all the laws either, but they will get a good chuckle at your extremism." 
 
Go for it. Please do show your legal friends at a multinational corporation a off-topic thread on a gaming website. My guess is that they won't be chuckling at me.  "

@lilburtonboy7489 said:

" "When you deal with single factors in respect to their effect on individual decisions (that is what microeconomics is), you fail to look at the bigger picture and only a fool would do that. "   Moron. Microeconomics is where you lean about monopoly. And you can't separate microeconomics and macroeconomics. All you have to do is combine all of the firms in mircroeconomics and you have macro. They don't use separate theories, separate equations, separate methods, nothing. They are identical. The difference is that macro takes everything in micro and adds them together to get unemployment, inflation, GDP, etc....  I've been talking about things which include both micro and macro. I think you have this wrong though " you fail to look at the bigger picture and only a fool would do that". Only a fool would try to separate them.   "Macroeconomics - the big picture, is where it is at.  Focusing on microeconomics fails to take into account all the variables and factors, especially potential negative consequences elsewhere in the economic stream.  Is this nonsense espoused by Burt would be fine in a vacuum (much like his entire position), but the world, humanity and economics is not nurtured in a vacuum. "  Wow. You have no idea what macroeconomics is. Neither of them take into account negative consequences or multiple variables. Ceteris Paribus means you only change one variable and then observe the results. And since the methods used in economics only gauge consequences by formulas and graphs, they never take into account all variables or factors. That's the same for micro and macro.   As I have said, nearly everything I have argued is talked about only in macro classes. But since macro is just the summation of micro, it doesn't matter. What you are saying makes no sense and shows you have no idea what the difference between macro and micro is. All my posts have been about inflation, competition, interest rates, unemployment, etc... They are all macro concepts, which includes everything in the study of micro as well.   "The reality will always be that regulation is required because people do bad things that have consequences much further afield from their immediate vicinity. "  The reality is that the market regulates itself and government regulations have unintended consequences. Regulations are always helpful to a certain group and hurt another.   " To blindly purse an economic theory as removing anti-competition laws is stupidity of its highest order. "  As I have said many times, I don't advocate removing competition. Removing competition is impossible. And how exactly have I blindly followed anything when my formal education has been completely opposite of the theory I hold? "

You love the sound of your own voice don't you?  Whilst you continue to prove yourself smart you continue to prove yourself lacking common sense.  You continue to write ridiculously long posts that only further prove your extremist stupidity, at least it keeps you from annoying people in real life a bit more.  I will continue to chuckle at you as you will wake up one day and finally realise you are the fool we see today.  It will happen.  And apparently, my friends in legal, also play computer games, so I think I know who they will think is the lunatic.  You truly do live in a vacuum as you continually push that only your interpretation of a word or concept is the correct one.  To make a ridiculous assumption out of blind stupidity that I fail to know what is and the difference between micro and macroeconomics only goes to prove that.  Of course macro is the whole of micro.  Where you fail is that your fixation on micro elements fails to take into account the many variables that a micro can have on the macro.  You can't see the forest for the trees and clearly you hate people as you wish to see great harm on many innocents as that will only be the outcome of your diatribe.  I also went against my business teachings, so don't try giving yourself some sort of badge of honour, it's really just sad.  I was that socialist in business school.  I still am, but my ideals are for the betterment of all, to ensure that the "weak" are protected, where as you want to give even more power to the strong.  When you operate in the real world, you will realise that fundamentalism like you rabbit on about, equals stupidity.  The human condition and its impact on power and decisions are far more important and you would do well to pay more attention in Psychology as it is impossible to separate from economics.  Lastly, it is sooooooo very easy to be an expert from the sidelines. I see and hear it all the time.  Blah, blah, blah, the government is spending too much money, blah blah, blah, the government should do this, blah, blah, blah.  You are no different other than you use bigger words in some vane attempt to sound superior.  I can use as many big words as you if I choose, but why would I?  They prove nothing.  I also believe some of the money was targeted poorly and I also believe that the impact of the recession will be lengthened with long term unemployment and rising inflation, but there are no guarantees that I or anybody else is right.  To do the opposite could have caused a complete collapse of the world economy, who are we to know otherwise?  Armchair critics are as pointless as Fox News.  Australia spent billions on hand-outs and infrastructure, and it has low unemployment (only went up about 1%) and it still has low inflation (up marginally) and it is in growth and never had a recession.  Who is to say that would be the same without the money that was spent?  You would be wise to temper your behaviour as it only shows you to be out of touch with reality. "

You realize that ridicule is not a form of argument right?  (full disclosure: i hold a Bachelors of Commerce in Administration and Economics along with a concurrent Computer Science degree. Im furthering my academic stay to persue two additional degrees in Psychology and Philosophy. I feel at home in academia)   the difference between the theory and the real world application is the popular distrust of the sciences in our society (yes - economics is a science) If you look at countries with very lax business laws and low levels of government interference like Hong Kong (positive non interventionist) you will see that they thrive.   But how can that be?  trust in the invisible hand that guides the markets. Both Producers and Consumers looking after their own self interest attempting to maximize their total utility.   your right that its easy to be an armchair quarterback but the difference here is that this isnt an afterthought. Its what most economists have been in the constant persuit of. "

" @oldschool said:

" @lilburtonboy7489 said:

"  " Because Fox News loves raving lunatics. " 
 
Nothing I have said resembles lunacy.
 
"Economists and law makers are 80% wrong?  I don't believe you until you give me a full list of every one of them and why they are wrong, and how it is you are right. " 
 
Yes, they are. They believe the stimulus package has saved us and the FED has saved us by creating trillions of dollars. They are very wrong. Unemployment is continuing to rise along with inflation. It's stagflation but they don't want to admit it. When unemployment is rising, they believe we should inflate it down. When unemployment is low, they believe they should soak up the extra wealth through taxes and cutting off credit, or contracting the money supply. But when inflation AND unemployment rise at the same time, they have no solution. They are completely baffled.  
 
How can the recession possibly be over. This crisis was caused by easy credit not backed by savings. It's how bubbles are created. Their solution was to pump trillions into the economy, exactly what created the crisis. Of course if the government gives everyone a million dollars each, the economy will look great for the first day. And that's why the economists think it's over. At best, they will be able to slow unemployment for a short amount of time to start some new expansion in the producer goods industries. I'll be surprised if that happens, but it's possible. But even if that does happen, that easy credit still won't be backed by savings and will still be malinvestments. This easy credit is just going to create another bubble. When the economy has collapsed, how is creating more of the medium of exchange going to help anything? That is complete nonsense and any person not brainwashed by acedemia would see that.  
 
When I got my economics degree from Madison, I was taught this. It is absolute shit. The professors could not answer any of my questions. They could not give an explanation for stagflation, for the cluster of error in recessions, or why producers industries were hit first. They can't answer those questions yet stick to it. And you think I'm ideological? If you want to see ideological economists, look at the mainstream economists who formulate equations for calculating happiness and  find the optimum policy by finding where the happiness curve is tangent to the indifference curve. These people are the lunatics. The sane people are those, like me, who question it and stick to the laws of economics such as supply and demand, law of diminishing returns, and others which can give us our solutions. 
 
 
 "Plus I want a list of the 20% who are right and why you think they are right." 
 
I didn't say 20% are right. Lots of economists don't participate in the poll I was referring to above. I would say about 3% are right, if that. Thomas Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, Joseph Salerno, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Jeff Herbener, Saul Kirzner, David Gordon, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Hernando De Soto, Huerta Jesus De Soto, Robert Murphy, Jorg Guido Hulsmann, and Stephan Kinsella are all right. They follow sound economics which has given explanations for everything and they have never been refuted, only forgotten. 
 
 "If you can't provide that, then there is no reason for any of us to stop laughing at the caricature you are.  That's right, we are laughing at you.  It is difficult not to when you rave on like the utter caricature you are. " 
 
This kind of thinking is why Hayek was able to predict the Great Depression in 1927 when all other economists said we were in a permanent state of prosperity. He was laughed at and called a lunatic, but he had the last laugh. Same as in 2006. Peter Schiff was explaining how we were about to have a crisis like we have never seen. He predicted every single thing from the financial meltdown and debasement of the currency, to the housing collapse and high employment. There are videos of him being laughed at on TV by several other economists. I don't mind being laughed at. I'm not laughed at by my professors of fellow students. And I'm the one who has almost completed 3 degrees and is going to get into one of the world's top graduate programs in economics. But go ahead and laugh.  
 
 
 "I am pleased you found someone, but I can't help but feel sorry for her.  If you caricature here mirrors you at home and in your relationship, then you are either a meek mouse and she dominates you, explaining your behaviour here, or she dare not make a single error in anything she does, as you will call her a Fucktard and tell how the milk really goes on the Corn Flakes.  Other than that, pics or it isn't true. " 
 
I'll pretend you didn't say that about my wife. And I have already posted pics. 
 
"You are fixated on theory as what you dream of doesn't exist and you are simply trying to ram them down the throats of people who in reality are just amused by your rabid approach to those theories." 
   
What do you have without theory? What is science without theory? What is economics without theory? We all can make observations and acknowledge facts, but without theory, that's all we have is facts. We have no explanation for why it happened, whether it will happen again, and nothing about causality at all.  
 
Would you call a deductively sound argument theory as well? If so, would you say it has no merit?
 
 
 "All economics are theories.  You want the laws removed so you can attempt to prove the most utterly stupid theories. " 
 
If all of economics is just theory, why would you criticize me for just talking about theory? I don't want to prove anything, it's already been proven. But I don't need to prove anything anyways. through experience. Theory can be sound without experiencing it in the world. Just like you don't need to test the pythagorean theorem, you don't need to test the laws of supply and demand. They exist regardless of experience. It doesn't need proving. But to convince anti-intellectuals like you, I know that you need it to happen in the real world. That's why I am glad everything I have said already has been proven.  
 
 "When I finish my holidays, I can't wait to show my legal friends in the multinational corporation I work with.  They don't like all the laws either, but they will get a good chuckle at your extremism." 
 
Go for it. Please do show your legal friends at a multinational corporation a off-topic thread on a gaming website. My guess is that they won't be chuckling at me.  "

@lilburtonboy7489 said:

" "When you deal with single factors in respect to their effect on individual decisions (that is what microeconomics is), you fail to look at the bigger picture and only a fool would do that. "   Moron. Microeconomics is where you lean about monopoly. And you can't separate microeconomics and macroeconomics. All you have to do is combine all of the firms in mircroeconomics and you have macro. They don't use separate theories, separate equations, separate methods, nothing. They are identical. The difference is that macro takes everything in micro and adds them together to get unemployment, inflation, GDP, etc....  I've been talking about things which include both micro and macro. I think you have this wrong though " you fail to look at the bigger picture and only a fool would do that". Only a fool would try to separate them.   "Macroeconomics - the big picture, is where it is at.  Focusing on microeconomics fails to take into account all the variables and factors, especially potential negative consequences elsewhere in the economic stream.  Is this nonsense espoused by Burt would be fine in a vacuum (much like his entire position), but the world, humanity and economics is not nurtured in a vacuum. "  Wow. You have no idea what macroeconomics is. Neither of them take into account negative consequences or multiple variables. Ceteris Paribus means you only change one variable and then observe the results. And since the methods used in economics only gauge consequences by formulas and graphs, they never take into account all variables or factors. That's the same for micro and macro.   As I have said, nearly everything I have argued is talked about only in macro classes. But since macro is just the summation of micro, it doesn't matter. What you are saying makes no sense and shows you have no idea what the difference between macro and micro is. All my posts have been about inflation, competition, interest rates, unemployment, etc... They are all macro concepts, which includes everything in the study of micro as well.   "The reality will always be that regulation is required because people do bad things that have consequences much further afield from their immediate vicinity. "  The reality is that the market regulates itself and government regulations have unintended consequences. Regulations are always helpful to a certain group and hurt another.   " To blindly purse an economic theory as removing anti-competition laws is stupidity of its highest order. "  As I have said many times, I don't advocate removing competition. Removing competition is impossible. And how exactly have I blindly followed anything when my formal education has been completely opposite of the theory I hold? "

You love the sound of your own voice don't you?  Whilst you continue to prove yourself smart you continue to prove yourself lacking common sense.  You continue to write ridiculously long posts that only further prove your extremist stupidity, at least it keeps you from annoying people in real life a bit more.  I will continue to chuckle at you as you will wake up one day and finally realise you are the fool we see today.  It will happen.  And apparently, my friends in legal, also play computer games, so I think I know who they will think is the lunatic.  You truly do live in a vacuum as you continually push that only your interpretation of a word or concept is the correct one.  To make a ridiculous assumption out of blind stupidity that I fail to know what is and the difference between micro and macroeconomics only goes to prove that.  Of course macro is the whole of micro.  Where you fail is that your fixation on micro elements fails to take into account the many variables that a micro can have on the macro.  You can't see the forest for the trees and clearly you hate people as you wish to see great harm on many innocents as that will only be the outcome of your diatribe.  I also went against my business teachings, so don't try giving yourself some sort of badge of honour, it's really just sad.  I was that socialist in business school.  I still am, but my ideals are for the betterment of all, to ensure that the "weak" are protected, where as you want to give even more power to the strong.  When you operate in the real world, you will realise that fundamentalism like you rabbit on about, equals stupidity.  The human condition and its impact on power and decisions are far more important and you would do well to pay more attention in Psychology as it is impossible to separate from economics.  Lastly, it is sooooooo very easy to be an expert from the sidelines. I see and hear it all the time.  Blah, blah, blah, the government is spending too much money, blah blah, blah, the government should do this, blah, blah, blah.  You are no different other than you use bigger words in some vane attempt to sound superior.  I can use as many big words as you if I choose, but why would I?  They prove nothing.  I also believe some of the money was targeted poorly and I also believe that the impact of the recession will be lengthened with long term unemployment and rising inflation, but there are no guarantees that I or anybody else is right.  To do the opposite could have caused a complete collapse of the world economy, who are we to know otherwise?  Armchair critics are as pointless as Fox News.  Australia spent billions on hand-outs and infrastructure, and it has low unemployment (only went up about 1%) and it still has low inflation (up marginally) and it is in growth and never had a recession.  Who is to say that would be the same without the money that was spent?  You would be wise to temper your behaviour as it only shows you to be out of touch with reality. "

You realize that ridicule is not a form of argument right?  (full disclosure: i hold a Bachelors of Commerce in Administration and Economics along with a concurrent Computer Science degree. Im furthering my academic stay to persue two additional degrees in Psychology and Philosophy. I feel at home in academia)   the difference between the theory and the real world application is the popular distrust of the sciences in our society (yes - economics is a science) If you look at countries with very lax business laws and low levels of government interference like Hong Kong (positive non interventionist) you will see that they thrive.   But how can that be?  trust in the invisible hand that guides the markets. Both Producers and Consumers looking after their own self interest attempting to maximize their total utility.   your right that its easy to be an armchair quarterback but the difference here is that this isnt an afterthought. Its what most economists have been in the constant persuit of. "

In Hong Kong, there are approximately 1.22 million people that are currently living in a low-income household. There have been tests shown that there has been an increase in low-income family in the past decade. Studies show that at least one out of four children currently living in a low-income household. There have been major gaps between the high and low income family. For example, a low income family may only 500 while the high-income family may make up to 3500-4000. A gap like that could only mean that the poor will only become poorer while the rich becomes richer. Many times, it is hard to survive with such a low income. Over the past 10 years, the rate of poverty has increased from 1995 to 2005. During 1995, the poverty rate was 14.8% and risen to 17.7% in 2005.

roofy : You're neither mensch nor ubermensch but rather a parasite.  That is all.

" @oldschool: see i think the flaw in your assesment of my logic is that you constrain me to the standards and morals that you hold.
i dont feel any need to align myself with the prevalent view of selflessly saving the poor (from their own stupidity)  that the judeo christian western civilizations were founded upon.
 
im a very selfish person. im smarter than most people (its easy when the majority of people are willingly and blissfully ignorant)  and i have no qualms holding any of these views.
If you want to know where i take philosophical inspiration from its an amalgamation between  nietzscheism  and objectivism.  "

I like Intel. A lot. I hope this all gets straightened out. 
 
Da.. dadadada.

Just thought I'd point out that article you linked too about the AMD suit, was from May. That's the better half of 2 fiscal quarters from today. If this was going to kill Intel, it probably would have already started. You're probably right in saying that this'll slow them down, but let's be honest. Intel is leaps and bounds ahead of AMD in terms of tech. A few months of slowed research and development isn't going to destroy them. I also wouldn't jump to conclusions about the other lawsuits, the courts aren't completely incompetent, they will see people jumping on the bandwagon in terms of suits.

" There is no point in arguing with stupidity and therefore ridicule is entirely appropriate. "\ 
Again...you haven't refuted anything I have said. You just call me names and leave it at that. 
 
 
 "Whilst economics is a science, it is firstly predicated on there being variables which (microeconomics) will match the end result (macroeconomics)." 
christ....Just stop, this is embarrassing.  That doesn't even make sense. 
 
 
 "Fools that do not factor in the variables (like Burt) are doomed to be economic fundamentalists."  
What specific factors have I not taken into account? I am very curious.

 

"In Hong Kong, there are approximately 1.22 million people that are currently living in a low-income household. There have been tests shown that there has been an increase in low-income family in the past decade. Studies show that at least one out of four children currently living in a low-income household. There have been major gaps between the high and low income family. For example, a low income family may only 500 while the high-income family may make up to 3500-4000. A gap like that could only mean that the poor will only become poorer while the rich becomes richer. Many times, it is hard to survive with such a low income. Over the past 10 years, the rate of poverty has increased from 1995 to 2005. During 1995, the poverty rate was 14.8% and risen to 17.7% in 2005.

" Just thought I'd point out that article you linked too about the AMD suit, was from May. That's the better half of 2 fiscal quarters from today. If this was going to kill Intel, it probably would have already started. You're probably right in saying that this'll slow them down, but let's be honest. Intel is leaps and bounds ahead of AMD in terms of tech. A few months of slowed research and development isn't going to destroy them. I also wouldn't jump to conclusions about the other lawsuits, the courts aren't completely incompetent, they will see people jumping on the bandwagon in terms of suits. "

I'm one of the few capitalists who is altruistic. I believe we should always be looking to help others and help our community. I also believe we should put others first when in need. I believe society would implode if it adopted the Randian every man for himself form of capitalism.  
 
The free market can only exist with caring and generous people who are willing to help those who cannot help themselves. We don't live in the perfect world where there are no old people and no mentally challenged people. That's why I have always found the anti-altruism position held my most libertarians to be silly. 

If Altruism is counter intuitive then kindly explain Stephen Hawking's existence or that of any person who is incapable of getting through lfie without assistance?   In my mind selfishness is counter-intuitive because it lacks perspective and depth of vision.
 
I'm INFP btw and even though you are a parasite roofy, sorry for the loss of your cat.  I've been through the same thing with one of mine.  I went to a VET after he broke his diapraghm (he was old and nothing could be done) and altruistically had him put down rather than continue to suffer.  I buried him in the front yard of the family home.

" @SeriouslyNow:i'm sorry but you're extremely deluded. If you know anything about natural selection then you would realize that altruism is counter intuitive. If you wish to bring up the philanthropic urge then evolutionary biology has explained it as an undeveloped section of our psyche which believes that we will one day run into these people again (as which was very common previous to globalization or nationalization.)   Stephen Hawking'sexistence is simple. He was a baby born of his parents. His parents were selfish in their motivation to have a child. The utility gained from having and raising a child is greater than the utility expenditure (expent -sic) or loss raising him. This is selfishness at its core. If i wished to feel an urge of contentment with my actions and i got contentment out of doing something nice for others, it would be selfish of me to commit that nice act for someone else in order to feel a greater sense of contentment with myself.  the block in your mind is that you have been told from a young age that being selfish is a vice and that it is something to be ashamed of whereas it is human nature and something to take pride in. Nietzsche said it best himself when he you must teach a human to share and be altruistic but living for themselves is natural.  this isn't an economics talk anymore so i suggest we either get back on topic or start a thread to continue this conversation "

Looks like we have two soap boxers who when questioned can't discuss or stand for the principles on which they founded their baseless arguments. 

" I'm one of the few capitalists who is altruistic. I believe we should always be looking to help others and help our community. I also believe we should put others first when in need. I believe society would implode if it adopted the Randian every man for himself form of capitalism.   The free market can only exist with caring and generous people who are willing to help those who cannot help themselves. We don't live in the perfect world where there are no old people and no mentally challenged people. That's why I have always found the anti-altruism position held my most libertarians to be silly.  "

" " There is no point in arguing with stupidity and therefore ridicule is entirely appropriate. "\ 
Again...you haven't refuted anything I have said. You just call me names and leave it at that. 
 
 
 "Whilst economics is a science, it is firstly predicated on there being variables which (microeconomics) will match the end result (macroeconomics)." 
christ....Just stop, this is embarrassing.  That doesn't even make sense. 
 
 
 "Fools that do not factor in the variables (like Burt) are doomed to be economic fundamentalists."  
What specific factors have I not taken into account? I am very curious.

 

"In Hong Kong, there are approximately 1.22 million people that are currently living in a low-income household. There have been tests shown that there has been an increase in low-income family in the past decade. Studies show that at least one out of four children currently living in a low-income household. There have been major gaps between the high and low income family. For example, a low income family may only 500 while the high-income family may make up to 3500-4000. A gap like that could only mean that the poor will only become poorer while the rich becomes richer. Many times, it is hard to survive with such a low income. Over the past 10 years, the rate of poverty has increased from 1995 to 2005. During 1995, the poverty rate was 14.8% and risen to 17.7% in 2005.

In Hong Kong, about 60% of the population is not secure with any kind of retirement funds of any kind. Almost 90% of the seniors have not gotten their retirement money yet. Most women had to work in factories for little money. The elderly work 10 hours a day and only get paid for about 20 US dollars. Not only do the women have a low payment, but they also have bad working environments as well. About 120,000 of the elderly have to work in the poor conditions in order to survive. Housewives on the other hand don't get pay for their work around the house. They have to be dependent on their husbands to make the money. The problem is that these women don't have the benefits of a retirement protection because of the law. Because of this, more women have to receive special income from the government. Studies show that 52% of the people receiving this kind of special income are women. This shows that there are more women who are under this kind of problems than men.   "  Wow. Cite sources much? Using one of the world's most successful economies as an example of the failures of capitalism is an odd strategy.   Here's a quick question: How did America end up being the greatest economic power in the world with the highest standard of living?   If you answer that one question, I'll be happy.  "

" @oldschool: i completely understand where your coming from but you see how i cannot hold a belief thats in anyway similar to yours. My emotional intelligence (i find) is far superior to most people i meet. Being an INTP, i know my emotions and carefully place them within their respected box. I know what im feeling and why although i never let them make a decision or affect my logic. Logic and knowledge are the two things i hold in the highest regard.  your probably right about my social intelligence though. As a teenager i was burned by the illogical ways of society and became misanthropic. Socrates explained this best. I dont find much use for others as in most cases, people are blissfully ignorant.   Now let me make this as perfectly clear as possible as i have been compared to hitler before on these boards. I believe that every human regardless of race, gender or sexuality deserves the right to life and should not be subject to persecution based on their existance alone.   regardless of my personal beliefs, my logic in this topic is irrefutable as it is taught as fact. Science is not subjective and thus you cannot interpret the laws of economics in more ways than which they are stated. You may try and create a "realistic" view of these laws and repeat that real life situations and textbook situations are different but the only reason this COULD be is the general mistrust of science in our society (dont believe me? look at how the majority of the world believes in a god although it violates the very scientific process that has brought us the medicine and modern comforts that they use).  Have (faith would be the wrong word as faith is blind) confidence in what you were taught. theorys do work. they are not guesses. the only thing needed is the trust and the self restraint to hold back any type of correction you would like to make.  fundamentally we disagree on philosophy (your altruism is what i find counter-intuitive as a human being) and thus will never agree. "

" I'm INFP btw and even though you are a parasite roofy, sorry for the loss of your cat.  I've been through the same thing with one of mine.  I went to a VET after he broke his diapraghm (he was old and nothing could be done) and altruistically had him put down rather than continue to suffer.  I buried him in the front yard of the family home. "

"  @lilburtonboy7489 said:

" I'm one of the few capitalists who is altruistic. I believe we should always be looking to help others and help our community. I also believe we should put others first when in need. I believe society would implode if it adopted the Randian every man for himself form of capitalism.   The free market can only exist with caring and generous people who are willing to help those who cannot help themselves. We don't live in the perfect world where there are no old people and no mentally challenged people. That's why I have always found the anti-altruism position held my most libertarians to be silly.  "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!   Caring and generous people who are willing to help those who cannot help themselves?  Sure, poor people love nothing more than being thrown scraps and being condescended to by rich and powerful people, but who are they to look a gift horse in the mouth?   Perhaps Angeline Jolie will fix everything  ^-^   
 
You poor deluded fool.  That is what we have a social democratic system for.  It works in concert with the private sector.
 
@lilburtonboy7489 said:

" " There is no point in arguing with stupidity and therefore ridicule is entirely appropriate. "\ 
Again...you haven't refuted anything I have said. You just call me names and leave it at that. 
 
 
 "Whilst economics is a science, it is firstly predicated on there being variables which (microeconomics) will match the end result (macroeconomics)." 
christ....Just stop, this is embarrassing.  That doesn't even make sense. 
 
 
 "Fools that do not factor in the variables (like Burt) are doomed to be economic fundamentalists."  
What specific factors have I not taken into account? I am very curious.

 

"In Hong Kong, there are approximately 1.22 million people that are currently living in a low-income household. There have been tests shown that there has been an increase in low-income family in the past decade. Studies show that at least one out of four children currently living in a low-income household. There have been major gaps between the high and low income family. For example, a low income family may only 500 while the high-income family may make up to 3500-4000. A gap like that could only mean that the poor will only become poorer while the rich becomes richer. Many times, it is hard to survive with such a low income. Over the past 10 years, the rate of poverty has increased from 1995 to 2005. During 1995, the poverty rate was 14.8% and risen to 17.7% in 2005.

In Hong Kong, about 60% of the population is not secure with any kind of retirement funds of any kind. Almost 90% of the seniors have not gotten their retirement money yet. Most women had to work in factories for little money. The elderly work 10 hours a day and only get paid for about 20 US dollars. Not only do the women have a low payment, but they also have bad working environments as well. About 120,000 of the elderly have to work in the poor conditions in order to survive. Housewives on the other hand don't get pay for their work around the house. They have to be dependent on their husbands to make the money. The problem is that these women don't have the benefits of a retirement protection because of the law. Because of this, more women have to receive special income from the government. Studies show that 52% of the people receiving this kind of special income are women. This shows that there are more women who are under this kind of problems than men.   "  Wow. Cite sources much? Using one of the world's most successful economies as an example of the failures of capitalism is an odd strategy.   Here's a quick question: How did America end up being the greatest economic power in the world with the highest standard of living?   If you answer that one question, I'll be happy.  "

You really are utterly dim aren't you Burt.  The Hong Kong example is a response to it being cited as an example of how good lack of government can be, yet there we are, many, many people living in poverty.  I didn't state that Hong Kong is an example of the failure of capitalism at all.  Do you even read things properly before you jump to your keyboard?  I replied to a direct reference and merely stated that it isn't Utopia or nirvana.  Wow, you really are thick.  It has problems and those problems could be fixed in a fairer country.  I am not going to answer you last question because it is self serving stupidity.  Nor am I going to sink to your level of answering ever little bit in some manic pissing competition.  You haven't proved a thing except that you are a fundamentalist dullard.  Here's a quick question for you though and feel free to avoid it.  Why do you come on this site, knowing to be a games site and mostly frequented by teenagers, that you would espouse your super human intelligence and how you are smarter than the foremost economists and law makers of the land?  Why aren't you on some websites frequented by other economists, particularly those who do not share you views and realise them to be the stupidity that they are, and try to convince them why you know better?  Seems a better fit.  Perhaps you like mixing with people who you think you can impress and bludgeon (easy targets), rather than those in the business who would point and laugh at you as they tore you nonsense to pieces?  Perhaps you have already done that and it hurt so bad, you came here to try and impress, to give you some self confidence to continue?    You aren't impressing anyone.  That wasn't really a quick question was it. "