'Murica! (203 Viewers)

[Seven]

Some lawyers do. It was funny how Seven went from saying economics is easy a few pages ago to saying it's too complicated.

And as for the rest...

I didn't say it was complicated. I also didn't say it was easy. I said it was a complete fabrication, made by man and subject to change if we want it to change. Apparently that's a concept that is very hard to grasp for you.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-13/democratic-debate-post-mortem-1-poignant-image

Quite clearly Sanders won. Hilarious how Clinton received almost as many votes as that clown Chafee in this poll.

It was also interesting how Sanders actually defended the second amendment. At times he does not seem like an establishment candidate, but then he goes on to promote the global warming agenda and tells us to ignore Hillary's emails. I can see why many would vote for him, but he's sort of similar to Trump in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say it was complicated. I also didn't say it was easy. I said it was a complete fabrication, made by man and subject to change if we want it to change. Apparently that's a concept that is very hard to grasp for you.

You actually do sound like a lawyer here, so perhaps you really are one.

 

[Seven]

You actually do sound like a lawyer here, so perhaps you really are one.

Of course I really am one. And yes, much to my dismay I sometimes do sound like a lawyer. I guess that's not entirely abnormal if it's your job to write and speak that way all day long.

 

[Ocelot]

Yes, which is silly. But I'm no fan of Sanders and I can say that he won last night.

I primarily meant the Republican discussions, where Paul was the clear winner for most here - unsurprisingly since he's been the candidate appealing most to a lot of people here even beforehand.

For me as well in public debates the candidate I like most seems to be the best, unless they're having a real shocker of a bad performance. It's logical of course, their arguments make the most sense to us, otherwise we wouldn't support or even favour them.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say it was complicated. I also didn't say it was easy. I said it was a complete fabrication, made by man and subject to change if we want it to change. Apparently that's a concept that is very hard to grasp for you.

Well, there are some mass-psychological aspects that can be argued to be innate to man - but in general I agree.

Economics for me is a unique field in the sense that the ones studying it are able to profoundly change the subject they're studying. Only very rarely as individuals (arguably in the case of Keynes, Friedman), but most definitely in the form of movements. No other science or field of study has that, as either the subject studied is unchangable by man anywas (natural sciences), or those that study it usually don't really exert that much influence over it (political scientists, sociologists).

 

[Enron]

Your opinion is equally worthless. You think each and every one of those people made their own fortune. The vast majority did not. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I think the most common way of accumulating wealth these days is through inheritance/trusts.

 

[Ocelot]

At times he does not seem like an establishment candidate, but then he goes on to promote the global warming agenda and tells us to ignore Hillary's emails.

You can criticise Sanders, but he's definitely not an establishment candidate, probably the only one that isn't. Every other candidate is funded by banks and big business, he isn't.

Trump being big business himself of course.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the most common way of accumulating wealth these days is through inheritance/trusts.

On that subject there's seriously nothing better around than Picketty's Capital in the 21st century.

 

[Martin]

I think the most common way of accumulating wealth these days is through inheritance/trusts.

everyone cool with me getting dibs on the trump money?

i promise i'll change the name to something less embarrassing

 

[Seven]

I think the most common way of accumulating wealth these days is through inheritance/trusts.

It is, but people like Andy choose to believe in the American dream, because that way they can fool themselves and think they might get rich at some point in their lives.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, there are some mass-psychological aspects that can be argued to be innate to man - but in general I agree.

Economics for me is a unique field in the sense that the ones studying it are able to profoundly change the subject they're studying. Only very rarely as individuals (arguably in the case of Keynes, Friedman), but most definitely in the form of movements. No other science or field of study has that, as either the subject studied is unchangable by man anywas (natural sciences), or those that study it usually don't really exert that much influence over it (political scientists, sociologists).

Law is the same in this regard. Most Americans, like Andy, don't get that either. Yesterday he was talking about the 2nd amendment as if it were holy. Fact is we change the law all the time. And even if we don't literally change it (which we very often do), we'll have courts that say the meaning has 'evolved'. Law and economics are things we can change to our own liking. The first step to having a functional society is recognising this and then acting accordingly.

 

[Ocelot]

Law is the same in this regard. Most Americans, like Andy, don't get that either. Yesterday he was talking about the 2nd amendment as if it were holy. Fact is we change the law all the time. And even if we don't literally change it (which we very often do), we'll have courts that say the meaning has 'evolved'. Law and economics are things we can change to our own liking. The first step to having a functional society is recognising this and then acting accordingly.

True, law is certainly similar, didn't think about that

But law in general isn't talked about as if it were a natural unchangable thing, bar constitutions at times.

 

[Enron]

It is, but people like Andy choose to believe in the American dream, because that way they can fool themselves and think they might get rich at some point in their lives.

- - - Updated - - -



Law is the same in this regard. Most Americans, like Andy, don't get that either. Yesterday he was talking about the 2nd amendment as if it were holy. Fact is we change the law all the time. And even if we don't literally change it (which we very often do), we'll have courts that say the meaning has 'evolved'. Law and economics are things we can change to our own liking. The first step to having a functional society is recognising this and then acting accordingly.

Yep, that's why law is so easy.

 

[Martin]

Law is the same in this regard. Most Americans, like Andy, don't get that either. Yesterday he was talking about the 2nd amendment as if it were holy. Fact is we change the law all the time. And even if we don't literally change it (which we very often do), we'll have courts that say the meaning has 'evolved'. Law and economics are things we can change to our own liking. The first step to having a functional society is recognising this and then acting accordingly.

it would be easy to reinterpret that law. just say that "the right to defend your property" exists in the context of make belief, thus the only weapons you can own are those from a toy store

 

[Enron]

it would be easy to reinterpret that law. just say that "the right to defend your property" exists in the context of make belief, thus the only weapons you can own are those from a toy store

Possibly, though it would be difficult to find a judge willing to set that precedent in the US.

 

[Seven]

True, law is certainly similar, didn't think about that

But law in general isn't talked about as if it were a natural unchangable thing, bar constitutions at times.

Not by lawyers. By others, very much so. Look at Andy's posts. He talks about an amendment as if it's something you can't change. When the friggin' thing itself is only an amendment..

Yep, that's why law is so easy.

Imo law is indeed easy. But you have to be willing to read carefully and interpret it well. Which often means a lot of studying and a lot of research. But no, I don't think it is necessarily difficult.

it would be easy to reinterpret that law. just say that "the right to defend your property" exists in the context of make belief, thus the only weapons you can own are those from a toy store

 

[Martin]

Possibly, though it would be difficult to find a judge willing to set that precedent in the US.

judges are elected, right? so that means campaigns and campaign money

if the money is good anything is possible

 

[Enron]

judges are elected, right? so that means campaigns and campaign money

if the money is good anything is possible

In the lower (state and local) courts they are elected. In the Federal system they are appointed.

 

[Seven]

In the lower (state and local) courts they are elected. In the Federal system they are appointed.

That is so weird.

 

[Enron]

That is so weird.

Yeah, it is pretty retarded.

 

[Seven]

Yeah, it is pretty retarded.

So basically it's possible that you appear before a judge you helped get elected?

 

[Enron]

So basically it's possible that you appear before a judge you helped get elected?

Correct or a judge that your opponent helped get elected. Or if you're in some courtroom in the boonies, you're less likely to get awarded motions, given continuances, allowed space to make your argument, etc.

It's a corrupt system. Even at the Supreme Court level in the state system.

 

[Seven]

Correct or a judge that your opponent helped get elected. Or if you're in some courtroom in the boonies, you're less likely to get awarded motions, given continuances, allowed space to make your argument, etc.

It's a corrupt system. Even at the Supreme Court level in the state system.

Wow. That must suck.