Poll: What is the most overrated sport

[SuburbanFarmer]

Better than making the problem worse and inciting the riots. Just because a plan isn't perfect doesn't mean you should try a far inferior plan as if that is best course of action.

You want the world's problems fixed overnight, and if you can't have it, it's just because no one tried your stupid plan that has no chance of fixing the problem overnight, you just think it will, because wishful thinking is a helluva drug.

I’m not inciting shit. Just pointing out that it’s inevitable.

Also, very much looking forward to watching banksters torn apart by the mob.

We all know you look forward to success being punished. Envy is a helluva drug.

Success in an inverted system is no achievement.

[StCapps]

I’m not inciting shit. Just pointing out that it’s inevitable.

Also, very much looking forward to watching banksters torn apart by the mob.

We all know you look forward to success being punished. Envy is a helluva drug.

Success in an inverted system is no achievement.

Success in the most meritocratic economic system yet devised is certainly an achievement, whether you are too stupid to see it or not. You have no plan to get to a more meritocratic economic system, your only solution is to punish merit apparently, good job.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We all know you look forward to success being punished. Envy is a helluva drug.

Success in an inverted system is no achievement.

Success in the most meritocratic economic system yet devised is certainly an achievement, whether you are too stupid to see it or not. You have no plan to get to a more meritocratic economic system, your only solution is to punish merit apparently, good job.

Yes, Lloyd Blankfein has approx. 10,000x the merit of anyone else.

Appeal to status quo and Stockholm syndrome is obvious.

[StCapps]

Success in an inverted system is no achievement.

Success in the most meritocratic economic system yet devised is certainly an achievement, whether you are too stupid to see it or not. You have no plan to get to a more meritocratic economic system, your only solution is to punish merit apparently, good job.

Yes, Lloyd Blankfein has approx. 10,000x the merit of anyone else.

Appeal to status quo and Stockholm syndrome is obvious.

Come up with a better system, or shut the fuck up. Stop tearing down success, and stop elevating failure, that's not meritocracy.

Free market capitalism is the most meritocratic economic system in the history of the world, so kindly direct criticism at economic systems more deserving of your derision for their lack of meritocracy, instead of only criticizing the best economic system of all-time for something that every other system yet devised is far worse at, as if FMC is somehow the problem when it reduces the problem more than any other system.

Get a fucking grip, Grumpy.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Success in the most meritocratic economic system yet devised is certainly an achievement, whether you are too stupid to see it or not. You have no plan to get to a more meritocratic economic system, your only solution is to punish merit apparently, good job.

Yes, Lloyd Blankfein has approx. 10,000x the merit of anyone else.

Appeal to status quo and Stockholm syndrome is obvious.

Come up with a better system, or shut the fuck up. Stop tearing down success, and stop elevating failure, that's not meritocracy.

Free market capitalism is the most meritocratic economic system in the history of the world, so kindly direct criticism at economic systems more deserving of your derision for their lack of meritocracy, instead of only criticizing the best economic system of all-time for something that every other system yet devised is far worse at, as if FMC is somehow the problem when it reduces the problem more than any other system.

Get a fucking grip, Grumpy.

I fully agree that FMC is the best yet. However we don’t live in a FMC system. The system doesn’t really matter when it’s thoroughly corrupted.

Pick up your straw man on the way out.

[StCapps]

I fully agree that FMC is the best yet. However we don’t live in a FMC system. The system doesn’t really matter when it’s thoroughly corrupted.

Pick up your straw man on the way out.

Then stop proposing solutions that further undermine the system you claim is the best and make it even less meritocratic when you are complaining about a lack of meritocracy. Punishing success is not the solution, go back to the drawing board, and shove your wealth tax up your ass while you're at it.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I fully agree that FMC is the best yet. However we don’t live in a FMC system. The system doesn’t really matter when it’s thoroughly corrupted.

Pick up your straw man on the way out.

Then stop proposing solutions that further undermine the system you claim is the best and make it even less meritocratic when you are complaining about a lack of meritocracy. Punishing success is not the solution, go back to the drawing board, and shove your wealth tax up your ass while you're at it.

Look. Without serious, fundamental reforms, the current system is doomed. There is no other outcome.

We both know that kind of change isn’t happening until there’s massive societal unrest - like the Depression.

Yelling at me, and virtue signaling for the banksters isn’t helping anyone. I’m just pointing out what’s coming, whether you’re a True Believer or not.

The options are to a) stave off the Collapse with massive progressive taxation, or b) pick up the pitchforks. I’d choose A, but your mileage may vary.

Either way, you’d be an absolute fool to believe that things are just going to get better if we hand out a few more trillion in subsidies.

[brewster]

I fully agree that FMC is the best yet. However we don’t live in a FMC system. The system doesn’t really matter when it’s thoroughly corrupted.

This all the way. Economic theory says that capitalism without regulation INEVITABLY leads to corruption. Period. These oligarchs aren't 10,000x more productive than you or me, they've just leveraged the system to reward themselves.

Listen or read Russ Roberts and Mike Munger, two Libertarian economists, try for an hour to figure out how capitalism might not always lead to corruption, and fail.

https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger ... apitalism/

-the simple summary of the argument is that--as industries mature they invest more and more in new products, in new engineers, in cheaper ways to make things; and that's the essence of competition; and that's great. At some point, the first dollar that they might spend on lobbying becomes more profitable than the last dollar that they spent on pursuit of honest profits. What that means is that I am hiring now people who are trying to lobby the government to protect my product from competition--to obtain tariffs, to obtain subsidies. And, it would be surprising in a mature industry if it were not true--that the first dollar spent on lobbying and getting government help was not more profitable than the last dollar that I spent on investment. And, once that happens, then it means that your industry owes some of it's existence to the state. You become dependent on the state; and, it's likely to see an expansion of that dependence. So what we became worried about was that the criticism that many people on the Left have made for years is--they actually have a point. And, what we noticed--and I've done this myself--I'll say to one of my friends on the Left, 'Look, Socialism doesn't work. Look at Venezuela.' And they'll say, 'Well, that's not Socialism.' Well, I actually think that's where Socialism leads. Socialism is a recipe for, economic at least, totalitarianism. But likewise, if one of my friends on the Left says, 'Well, look at Solyndra,' or 'Look at the way that many industries have basically gotten in bed with the government, with regulatory agencies that they depend on,' then I'll say, 'Oh, well that's not Capitalism.' Well, wait--I'm making the same argument

[StCapps]

I fully agree that FMC is the best yet. However we don’t live in a FMC system. The system doesn’t really matter when it’s thoroughly corrupted.

This all the way. Economic theory says that capitalism without regulation INEVITABLY leads to corruption. Period. These oligarchs aren't 10,000x more productive than you or me, they've just leveraged the system to reward themselves.

Listen or read Russ Roberts and Mike Munger, two Libertarian economists, try for an hour to figure out how capitalism might not always lead to corruption, and fail.

https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger ... apitalism/

-the simple summary of the argument is that--as industries mature they invest more and more in new products, in new engineers, in cheaper ways to make things; and that's the essence of competition; and that's great. At some point, the first dollar that they might spend on lobbying becomes more profitable than the last dollar that they spent on pursuit of honest profits. What that means is that I am hiring now people who are trying to lobby the government to protect my product from competition--to obtain tariffs, to obtain subsidies. And, it would be surprising in a mature industry if it were not true--that the first dollar spent on lobbying and getting government help was not more profitable than the last dollar that I spent on investment. And, once that happens, then it means that your industry owes some of it's existence to the state. You become dependent on the state; and, it's likely to see an expansion of that dependence. So what we became worried about was that the criticism that many people on the Left have made for years is--they actually have a point. And, what we noticed--and I've done this myself--I'll say to one of my friends on the Left, 'Look, Socialism doesn't work. Look at Venezuela.' And they'll say, 'Well, that's not Socialism.' Well, I actually think that's where Socialism leads. Socialism is a recipe for, economic at least, totalitarianism. But likewise, if one of my friends on the Left says, 'Well, look at Solyndra,' or 'Look at the way that many industries have basically gotten in bed with the government, with regulatory agencies that they depend on,' then I'll say, 'Oh, well that's not Capitalism.' Well, wait--I'm making the same argument

All economic systems lead to corruption dumbass, free market capitalism is better at preventing that than any other system.

[StCapps]

I fully agree that FMC is the best yet. However we don’t live in a FMC system. The system doesn’t really matter when it’s thoroughly corrupted.

Pick up your straw man on the way out.

Then stop proposing solutions that further undermine the system you claim is the best and make it even less meritocratic when you are complaining about a lack of meritocracy. Punishing success is not the solution, go back to the drawing board, and shove your wealth tax up your ass while you're at it.

Look. Without serious, fundamental reforms, the current system is doomed. There is no other outcome.

We both know that kind of change isn’t happening until there’s massive societal unrest - like the Depression.

Yelling at me, and virtue signaling for the banksters isn’t helping anyone. I’m just pointing out what’s coming, whether you’re a True Believer or not.

The options are to a) stave off the Collapse with massive progressive taxation, or b) pick up the pitchforks. I’d choose A, but your mileage may vary.

Either way, you’d be an absolute fool to believe that things are just going to get better if we hand out a few more trillion in subsidies.

Massive progressive taxation makes things worse, and so do handing out subsidies. You aren't helping, you're making it worse.