Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

The joys of a Free market, or, why Ed's right and Dave K wrong

Dec 13, 2003 2:50PM PST

From: Hamilton

A car company can move its factories to Mexico and claim it's a free market.

A toy company can out-source to a Chinese subcontractor and claim it's a free market.

A major bank can incorporate in Bermuda to avoid taxes and claim it's a free market.

BUT, heaven help the elderly who dare to buy their prescription drugs from a Canadian pharmacy. That's just so un-American!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:The joys of a Free market, or, why Ed's right and Dave K wrong
Dec 13, 2003 3:32PM PST

And yes, each is indicative of a free market BUT what is left unsaid is that for each example specific regulations and laws apply.

Even free market activity is regulated.

nice try but won't even get you Clinton's used cigar.

- Collapse -
Well, it sounds good to me! The best illegal Cuban cigar money can buy for you Ian!
Dec 13, 2003 4:57PM PST

.

- Collapse -
What an absolutely fascinating viewpoint from a person who endlessly propounds that smaller government is better, that USA is over-regulated.
Dec 13, 2003 5:44PM PST

Hi Ed.

I am astounded and horrified.

You believe that any activity that is deleterious to your country is OK, provided it is covered by a bunch of bureaucrats.

You believe that any activity that is beneficial to the residents and citizens of the USA is bad, if it has not yet been covered by a bunch of bureaucratic rules and regulations.

You believe that everything DK propounds in terms of controlling the excesses of a free market is bad, yet, to my astonishment, you believe a free market is one that is controlled by bureaucrats.

Well, I can believe all of the above. Because the USA you find so beloved is the country most pushing for free trade, and your push has been and is supported by my country,

YET

the USA still is protectionist for any industry that the results of true free trade, such as we can provide you with beef and wheat for less than you can provide yourselves, might cost an elected person his/her position in your government, the million public servants killing trees in the name of documentation might lose their jobs if someone is no longer required to count the sperm from every bull,

it makes your stated position and endless diatribes against the "left" so much hypocrisy and a failure of truth.

Ed, like all people, your politics are the politics of "what suits me", "what I can afford" and "how I intend the universe to be".

Well, your post demonstrates quite clearly you are not nearly as right wing nor free market oriented as you endlessly claim to be.

Ian

- Collapse -
You may well be Ian but...
Dec 14, 2003 12:31AM PST

it would be because YOU like to read into things what is not there. I don't recall ever saying that absolutely no regulation is a good thing--matter of fact I am generally opposed to much regulation.

The broad regulations governing EVERY ONE of your examples fall within the enumerated powers of government in our Constitution. Those powers were enumerated for a purpose--they are protecting our own free market as well as the quality/quantity of goods made available both intra and inter national.

"You believe that any activity that is deleterious to your country is OK, provided it is covered by a bunch of bureaucrats." -- Can you back up that irrational assumption with anything Ian? I have certainly never stated such a position. NONE of the examples you listed can be assumed to be "deletrious" to this country and most can be readily seen as having overriding beneficial aspects. Moving manufacturing offshore might be considered bad but the lower cost merchandise produced is generally quite beneficial (the goods themselves may be inferior to higher priced locally made goods but then again many are superior) and the purchase is at the discretion of the purchaser.

Now, can you show me ANYWHERE I have indicated that "any activity that is beneficial to the residents and citizens of the USA is bad, if it has not yet been covered by a bunch of bureaucratic rules and regulations"? Buying counterfeit drugs is certainly NOT beneficial although I suppose that paying less for counterfeit drugs has its points.

Government does not "create jobs" Ian it only provides for or hinders the opportunity for citizens to create jobs.

Free trade? Different than free market and Ian ALL countries tend to become a bit "protectionist" at times, INCLUDING your own.

- Collapse -
Welcome Ed ...
Dec 14, 2003 3:21AM PST

... to the fun filled world that is Ian's imagination.

Wink

- Collapse -
Hi Evie...
Dec 14, 2003 4:32AM PST

I have been aware of it for several years but mostly enjoy it. I like science fiction and even historical fictions based loosely on historical fact--Ian provides both (and they are often intermingled). Happy

- Collapse -
nt :-)---- ...*sniff*... Ed and Evie, a task for you
Dec 14, 2003 3:59PM PST

Define the difference between a free market and free trade.

Explain how you can have a free market without having free trade.

Explain how exporting jobs off shore so that USA businesses downsize in terms of employing Americans whilst maintaining shareholder payouts is good for America.

Explain how the variation in the valuation of the USA currency, sharply affected by the free market in currencies, and that the assessment of the currency valuers has been that job losses in the USA are bad for the American economy, are good for America.

matter of fact I am generally opposed to much regulation. OK. Then how do you justify the And yes, each is indicative of a free market BUT what is left unsaid is that for each example specific regulations and laws apply.

Even free market activity is regulated.


You approve of taking jobs from your country and sending them overseas, because they are covered by regulation. You do not approve of poorer Americans purching goods from overseas, because that is not covered by regulation.

Your words.

So how do you support less regulation? Where do you support less regulation? Do you only support less regulation where it reduces the rights of individual citizens to purchase goods at lower cost outsaide the country? Is this because it lowers your shareholding values?

- Collapse -
Re:nt :-)---- ...*sniff*... Ed and Evie, a task for you
Dec 14, 2003 4:40PM PST

Ian,

How come you have "nt" in the subject line when you have text/reply here? I was going to reply one way, but once I saw you actually responded more than just in the subject line, I changed my mind.

Tim

- Collapse -
How, Tim...
Dec 14, 2003 5:16PM PST

Tim, how in the world would you start in a such a barrage of questions, each one of which would cause many hours of lively back-and-forth discussion in a college-level econ course?
Methinks that that the question "barrage" tactic might have been an attempt to imply that silence by Edward might automatically denote something, when it was due to his not knowing where to start.

- Collapse -
Good evening J. & Tim. Actually its simple, I started out to respond
Dec 14, 2003 6:24PM PST

to Evie and JR's levity responses (or perhaps their personally held beliefs which I viewed with levity) and then got into answering what ED said in his posts, with a list of questions.

J. It was not a barrage. It was individual responses to Ed's barrage of defense which he made to me.

Take Free Trade/Free Market. Ed identified a dichotomy between the two, that you can have one without the other. Personally, I disagree with that assessment. So, I asked for evidence or at least definitions.

By your post, you support my allegation that his separation of the issues is simplistic.

J. For whatever reason, you have been appearing to be Ed's sycophant the past few months, defending anything he says, backing him up with or without request or need, attacking any post which in any way criticises Ed.

Are you simply in agreement with all his viewpoints? Whether or not those viewpoints require further elucidation? Or do you simply feel that criticisng any post that Ed has criticised will leave you safe from personal response.

Well, I've known you far longer, and in both emotional and informational terms at far greater depth, than I know Ed. We've agreed and disagreed for many years.

Whatever is your reason, it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. You are, or at least were, my friend. I view it as current. And friends, like spouses, get emotional and discuss things. Argue. Agree. Disagree. etc.

Right wing America has taken up the debating approach to non-right wing America in this forum of using 3 standard responses
1) Your news sources are biased and BS, my news sources are unbiased and correct.
2) You didn't read it correctly, and no matter how you respond, I know you didn't read it correctly, because if you'd read it correctly you'd agree with my viewpoint, and as you do not agree with my viewpoint, then you must be a little thick because the article
2a) proves mine is the only valid viewpoint; or
2b) is from your biased and unreliable sources, which therefore proves my viewpoint correct.
3) Your name is Dave Konkel, and that means you are a left wing moron and your opinion is wrong by definition.

BTW - the first evidence of the above happened in 2000/2001, in a telephone conversation with a USA citizen, who told me plainly that DK was a left wing ***** and the speaker hated him with a passion. I was surprised at the depth of feeling. Also at the apparently correct pronunciation of DK's surname.

What did I see as a response to my post? Ansers? No, I saw JR and Evie having a little quiet chuckle together, "Ian tells science fiction and fiction history". What they mean is that my view of many events is not in accord with their view, and therefore is immediately incorrect.

What do I then see - you telling Tim that I issued a barrage, when in fact all I did was list the questions JR raised.

I appreciate your posts in the main for one paramount reason: you provide in depth information to support why you disagree with me. JR and Evie simply denigrated my intelligence, as that was easier than actually responding to what I said in discussions with them, as what I said wasn't what they perceived I should have said.

- Collapse -
Ever consider, Ian...
Dec 14, 2003 6:56PM PST

Ian, did you ever consider that my condition means that I spend an extraordinary amount of time on the net and while constantly "roaring thru" this aspect of it I might have noticed, and responded to, another constant presence that happened to be there more than the norm?
I have fun here, as it's the only way that I can usually "talk" to others. Ian, I give "clues" to some things. Dave K. is a very smart man, and picked up on many of them in a flash. Dave K, please let it go, if you would please.

- Collapse -
Hi, J. You are seeing my posts tonight on two separate issues as one issue.
Dec 14, 2003 7:37PM PST

The issue of DK is about right wing USA, and how that group of people post.

Separately, I've discussed you and Ed, and the posts I keep reading immediately after an Ed post.

These ARE separate issues. Worry not.

regards

Clarky

- Collapse -
I do believe you are seeing things that others miss...
Dec 15, 2003 12:24AM PST
" No, I saw JR and Evie having a little quiet chuckle together, "Ian tells science fiction and fiction history"."

Have I missed JR's posts here?

"What they mean is that my view of many events is not in accord with their view, and therefore is immediately incorrect."

No Ian, it simply means that what you are claiming at the time of the response is NOT supported by any history but is oftem the theme of science fiction and/or historical fiction--key on the word fiction. When claims are not factual (look at yours) they are fictional.
- Collapse -
Re:How, Tim...
Dec 16, 2003 9:02AM PST

J,

What I meant was, when I saw Ian's post with the "nt" in the subject line, I composed a reply in another application since I was simply going to ask him if he meant task or tisk. This was when I thought that was a subject line only post.

I changed my mind once I saw that it was not just a subject line post.

Tim

- Collapse -
Ian ...
Dec 14, 2003 9:46PM PST

... I was actually joking with Ed cuz it's been a bit of a short break for me to watch you track his every post with your "analysis" rather than dogging me.

This is how it goes with you.

Me (or anyone you call right-wing USA): I like blue skies in May

You: You claim gray skies are bad and hate sunsets where the skies display the diversity of colors. You denigrate blue skies in November by not acknowledging you like them. Are you aware that in the 18th century there were no blue skies in Antarctica in May? That if you are on the receiving end of anal sex it's hard to even see the blue sky? How dare you discriminate in such a manner. You disgust me. Oh, and Dave K is right and Bush is a pollution monger advocating the so-called Clear Skies initiative. If the US had just entered WWI sooner or put more money into the space program, we would all be enjoying red skies on Mars by now!

How does one respond to such? I used to waste time correcting your misrepresentations of my words, but I feel ever the less inclined to even bother. It would be nice to actually be able to begin a post in response to you that didn't have to contain multiple corrections of wild misinterpretations you have made.

Evie

- Collapse -
Misinterpretations of words. Oh, that's a goodun.
Dec 16, 2003 9:03AM PST

Which is worse? Evie:

a) A person is walking down the street, a passer by pulls a knife, stabs the person and maims them for life, steals their identification and money.

b) A twisted nut exposes his *****.

c) A father sexually abuses his daughter, raping her from the ages of six to twelve.

You claimed I felt there is nothing wrong with b). I did not say that, I said that it was not as bad as a) and c).

Twisting Words ii)

I do not discuss GWB and I'm not a member of the people who do. That is your thrown in extra to demonstrate I'm a member of some political clique. In the main, I couldn't care less who is President of USA - I care who is Prime Minister of Australia.

Twisting words iii)

I did not denigrate USA about entry into WWI or WWII. I object strenuously to USA citizens claiming they were the sole winners of both wars, and all other peoples have failed to acknowledge at all times our gratefulness for your kindness. I pointed out that USA entered those wars because the war was brought to you, not because the USA kindly and out of the goodness of its heart went and saved those poor suffering wimps.

Twisting words iv)

That whole diatribe about what one can or cannot see when having anal sex, whether or not the skies are blue etc, is absolutely typical of how you put words in my mouth I did not say.

You and Ed remind me of the Worm of Orouborous. You start with an allegation or a refutation, then justify all future discussion on the issue by saying that anyone who disagrees just isn't able to understand your post was correct.

My apologies to JR when I should have said Ed in the previous post. JR gets angry, not tautological.

Ian

- Collapse -
Lots of twisting there Ian...
Dec 16, 2003 10:07AM PST

twist one - you have on several ocassions discussed GWB (the posts are here to prove it and I am not about to look through all of them--YOU should easily enough remember a few instances but here is one to get the juices flowing http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=5005&messageID=59332 )

twist two - you did indeed denigrate the US regarding our entry into WW I and WW II and your "justification' based on "USA citizens claiming they were the sole winners of both wars, and all other peoples have failed to acknowledge at all times our gratefulness for your kindness." is twist three as in the specific thread NO ONE made any such claim.

The twist went out long ago Ian so the dance can stop, but your fictions and "made to order history" are indeed entertaining.

- Collapse -
Are you insane? I make a post saying what appears to be happening
Dec 16, 2003 10:25AM PST

is a good thing, and state in the post I do not care who is doing it,

and you claim that is a discussion of GWB.

ii) NO I DID NOT. USA citizens misread what I said.

Ian

- Collapse -
No but you might be...
Dec 17, 2003 12:23AM PST

YOU said you NEVER discussed GWB and I showed you that the remark was a fabrication because you did.

Nothing was said about "good" or "bad".

Now you are trying to "twist" the facts again.

The SUBJECT you replied to was "Return to the Moon? Bush really will do anything to get re-elected..."

YOUR RESPONSE indicated clearly that you referred to Bush. There was no "misreading" Ian.

There was also no "misreading" regarding your denigration of the US although YOUR apparent "misreading" (and mental insertion of unwritten words) of several posts apparently was the cause of your histerical fiction.

I must say that I admire your capacity for combining the twist with the tap dance.

- Collapse -
Re:Lots of twisting there Ian...
Dec 18, 2003 10:22AM PST
I don't care who, or how. The person who funds our moving beyond the fragile cradle of our birth is a hero in truth. Ian nt

YOU said you NEVER discussed GWB and I showed you that the remark was a fabrication because you did. Would you care to tell me how the above is a discussion of GWB?

Ian
- Collapse -
Certainly I will tell you...
Dec 19, 2003 2:42AM PST

(although I already did once)--FOLLOW the link to the DISCUSSION.

If the discussion were about water and you stated something on the order of "I drink it often and I even bathed in it once." you were discussing water whether you used the word or just pronouns that referred to it.

Would you care to elucidate regarding how you think it was not a statement in a discussion of GWB?

Should be interesting. Since we lost Gregory Hines, the greatest tap dancer of his generation, are you trying for his replacement?

- Collapse -
Re:Certainly I will tell you...
Dec 19, 2003 12:51PM PST

I didn't say I didn't read posts. I saw a post that said that USA was {perhaps/maybe/possibly/statement in electioneering framework} stating that funds would {be/maybe/could be/depending upon elector responses} spent on getting humans back into space in real terms.

I ignored the person who made the statement, and commented that I would think well of anyone, anyone, who took humans into space.

You may turn this into whatever you wish, but if you claim that I was participating in a political discussion of GWB, you know as well as I do that you are stretching the truth to breaking point to support your viewpoint.

Ian

- Collapse -
Ian, either you DID participate...
Dec 20, 2003 8:22AM PST

in the discussion (which was about GWB and getting back into space ventures) or you did not.

If you did you participated in a discussion of GWB and since that was indeed your post in the thread one can only say that you were indeed an active participant.

Dave posted - "Return to the Moon? Bush really will do anything to get re-elected..."

YOU responded immediately with "I don't care who, or how. The person who funds our moving beyond the fragile cradle of our birth is a hero in truth. Ian nt"

No two ways about it Ian you participated in a discussion about GWB which you claimed never to do.

Way past time to QUIT the TWISTING and tap dancing.

- Collapse -
Curious. You are in a room. The lights go out. Someone is shot and killed.
Dec 25, 2003 7:29PM PST

Are you one of the murderers by your presence?

That my post about space was instigated by reading a link and/or (I forget) a comment about space, which was intended by the poster to have political ramifications, in no way indicates that I expressed an opinion on GWB.

And I said so!!

I suppose you'll bring up your non-sequiteur that I have an opinion on Sweden and socialism, when I not only lack an opinion, I lack any interest in the subject.

Humans off this planet, is very important in my view of many millenia of growth and survival for humanity. The cause of my expressing my viewpoint did not mean I expressed an opnion on the USA President.

You know that. Leave the straws alone.

Ian

- Collapse -
Face up to it Ian...
Dec 26, 2003 1:25AM PST

YOU (despite your claims to the contrary) were DIRECTLY involved in a discussion initiated by Dave K about GWB.

You were caught in the act--red handed as it were--and the posts are still there to refute your tap dancing.

You have denied it often enough that you might even have started to believe it but your words remain like a monument to disprove your assertion.

Obfuscatory tactics with murders that do not even remotely resemble the factual situation don't work. Did you try it because if you stay simply with the words used in the posts you have to admit what you did?

Wallowing in denial is NOT going to convince anyone that you went swimming in Egypt.

- Collapse -
Re:Misinterpretations of words. Oh, that's a goodun.
Dec 22, 2003 9:32PM PST

Hi Ian,

Had replied to this a while ago, but I guess I hit the wrong button Sad

First off, learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it. My post was a mix of sarcasm and an attempt at humor to illustrate a point -- that you go off on tangents and tirades quite frequently while never actually giving a direct reply or addressing the specific, CLEAR, statements. It was not intended to be taken literally on a point by point basis.

We all sometimes fail to convey that which we intend, and the nature of this medium compounds that. But on the whole you seem to restate the words of us "right wing USA" folks incorrectly more frequently than anyone else on this forum.

Your first issue of "which is worse" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I had found the thread, previously but won't waste time now. I'm thinking it's about on p. 24 or 25 by now so you might want to go back and reread it. That thread was a classic example of you bringing in "facts not in evidence". Your initial response was that somehow this man's actions were not lude. You then went off on wild accusations about how one in five of the girls were actually beating this man to get back at their fathers who incestually molested them. That was never the issue but YOUR imagination spun it up into the conversation. How does one respond to such nonsense? It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of you bringing unrelated and unsubstantiated "facts" into the debate.

I mentioned the world wars because you freuqently jump into threads and twist words. You cannot find where Kiddpeat said what you accused him of anywhere in that thread, but that didn't stop you from spouting your anti-American drivel. I'm not gonna play the GWB game with you, but you do frequently inject yourself into issues of USA politics and issues. Remember going off on me for pointing out that our Founders DID acknowledge God as the source of our basic human rights and NOT our federal government? Remember your disgusting attack on USAmerican taxpayers for somehow not sufficiently funding and pursuing a space program to your liking? The list could go on for pages.

Your nipping at Ed's heals instead of mine was amusing for a while there, now it's just getting old and boring.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
You really need to change your sig, Evie
Dec 25, 2003 7:56PM PST

because that smile is a lie.

I find it quite amazing the twists you apply. The 1 in 5 girls bit totally ignores that the essence of my post was that it was vigilante action. YOU lead the conversation into greater depth, I added information as you kept telling me I was a disturbed person and supported perversion. Take the time, go back and re-read the thread. You're not old and boring, you're young and irritating and blind to any opinion other than your own.

My disappointment that USA abandoned space is only equalled by my disappointment when AUS/UK abandoned space. This issue of USA taxpayers is again you twisting my post - you've brought that into the discussion in whole cloth. I would seriously suggest you go and do some reading on the beneficial effects of the space program on the USA economy, and the manifold that every taxpayer dollar has been repaid in eceonomic development, growth and both internal and international trade in the goods which arose.

You are bored because no one will argue factually with you any more. Why? Well, because most people don't want to face the "Evie defence committee". Also, because arguing with you is like arguing with the back of a mirror: it reflects everything you say, but inside out and upside down.

Have a great 2004. Try walking instead of the high horse.

toodooloo.

Ian

- Collapse -
Just for the record Ian...
Dec 26, 2003 1:29AM PST

the back of a mirror does not reflect anything in the visible spectrum.

- Collapse -
Re:You really need to change your sig, Evie
Dec 26, 2003 4:20AM PST

I suggest that you go back and re-read the thread Your denunciation of vigilantism came after your initial response stating the irony of considering this act to be lude. You then went on to include a bunch of unsubstantiated, hypothetical, and/or unrelated things to rationalize your response.

Go back to my reply that has initiated this latest "twisting" of yours. It was SARCASM Ian, which if you missed the first time around, was later pointed out directly. IOW, it included a bit of exaggeration and stretching to prove a point and was NEVER intended to be taken literally.

Let me dissect and explain where each came from:

Me (or anyone you call right-wing USA): I like blue skies in May

You: You claim gray skies are bad and hate sunsets where the skies display the diversity of colors. You denigrate blue skies in November by not acknowledging you like them. Are you aware that in the 18th century there were no blue skies in Antarctica in May?


>>A meaningless example to show how you twist a simple direct statement to read into what I might have meant, forgot to mention, or when really losing a debate resort to some fictional historical reference. Should have added that when you lived in QLD you got 8 feet of rain during a period of gray skies and it would have been complete.<<

That if you are on the receiving end of anal sex it's hard to even see the blue sky? How dare you discriminate in such a manner. You disgust me.

>>used to demonstrate how on just about any issue you will find a way to inject some sexual angle and discrimination based on such <<

Oh, and Dave K is right and Bush is a pollution monger advocating the so-called Clear Skies initiative.

>>included because no post of yours lately is complete without the blanket defense of the beleagured (in your mind) DK<<

If the US had just entered WWI sooner or put more money into the space program, we would all be enjoying red skies on Mars by now!

>>Your recent attack on Kiddpeat using your version of how and why the US involved itself in the World Wars and our contributions is a perfect example. I was reminded of your absolutely digusting outburst at the USA membership here in Speakeasy over the demise of Challenger and implications for our space program. Remembering something about ANZUS and space plane travel ...<<

As to age, I didn't mention your age, and fail to see how mine is relevant. I realize facts that don't support your opinions can be annoying so will take the fact that I annoy you as a compliment Happy <--- real smile LOL

As to the space program, if you have actually read any of my posts on same, you would realize I agree on that and extend it to our military spending as well. Still doesn't give you the right to go off on the American membership because you are unhappy with the voting public's support or lack thereof for spending of their tax dollars on what we see fit!

Images in mirrors are virtual so I can see how this fits well in your imaginary world. They are not, however, inverted.

Toodles to you too, but I'll spare you the empty wishes for your new year and forego the smile at your request. Heck, forget any signature at all.

- Collapse -
Those are...
Dec 15, 2003 12:15AM PST

things you should have learned in school long ago Ian. Apparently you didn't.

Regulations - YOU were reading up on and asking for links about the US Constitution not all that long ago. The answer to your questions is, as I indicated previously, in the enumerated powers.

"You approve of taking jobs from your country and sending them overseas, because they are covered by regulation. You do not approve of poorer Americans purching goods from overseas, because that is not covered by regulation."

That is just plain foolish Ian as BOTH are covered by regulations and law. Regulations and law the Constitution specifically empowered the government with for the general welfare of the citizens of the united (as opposed to separate and sovereign) sovereign states.

Looks like you need some more study.