Today I got told that I am the...

[Kuciwalker]

Better response: No, it would not. The most efficient way to build a military is the same as the most efficient way to provide any other government activity: through taxation with as little deadweight loss as possible, and then through purchase of the required goods and services on the open market.

No, I think the "we shouldn't be killing people for the sake of national pride" is actually a better response.

[KrazyHorse]

I would prefer a much larger portion of our attractive female workforce working on giving me blowjobs.

Oh, how you've learned from me.

[Solomwi]

I've tl;dred the vast majority of his posts because they are insufferably dull.

Which is fair, though it only takes a little skimming to pick up on.

[Kuciwalker]

Says the married man...

xpost

[Dinner]

Holy **** you're actually a Nazi WTF WTF WTF.

The sad thing is this douche nozzle will probably deny he's a Nazi even as he espouses all the major tenets of Nazism/fascism.

[Dinner]

Says the married man...

xpost

You don't have to be married to have picked up the art of half paying attention to what ever crap she happens to be talking about.

[Saras]

Sorry, been away from poly for a while, is this curtis guy for real?

[Elok]

He seems to be serious and not a DL, if that's what you're asking.

[Aeson]

He also didn't post in the "post here if you're not real" thread

[Dauphin]

Sorry, been away from poly for a while, is this curtis guy for real?

Asking if big tits are fake or real.

[Darius871]

Asking if big tits are fake or real.

<--- Curious as to what this portends, as he's had his face buried in hogans that are quite real...

[curtis290]

Farming is good honest work.

This is so vapid and empty I don't even know where to start.

How do you know if it’s not something you’ve experienced?

I would prefer a much larger portion of our workforce working on farms even if it was more inefficient and it made us 'poorer.'

How about you go work on a farm, then? Why do you think it would be right to make tens or hundreds of millions of people do what you would prefer them to do?

I would prefer a much larger portion of our attractive female workforce working on giving me blowjobs.

I have. And I didn’t say I’d force individuals to work on farms, I said I’d have economic policy that encourages higher employment in the agricultural and industrial sectors and lower levels of employment in the white collar sectors broadly related to finance.

I agree we have more consumer goods than is necessary. But we could definitely build a lot more tanks, planes, and artillery with a larger industrial sector.

WHY THE **** WOULD WE WANT TANKS, PLANES, OR ARTILLERY? THEIR ONLY PURPOSE IS TO KILL PEOPLE AND DESTROY STUFF. AS LONG AS WE'VE GOT ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE DON'T INVADE US, WHY DO WE ****ING CARE?

It’s not just about defending ourselves from invasion. It’s about making our mark in history. It’s about being a great nation.

Most people working in office jobs such as yourself don't like it. And yes, you probably wouldn't want to work in a factory because you're not used to it.

I don't want to work in a factory because I enjoy doing things that are at least moderately intellectually stimulating. You are obviously unfamiliar with that sort of experience.

Again, the resort to condescension. Do you think the majority of white-collar jobs are ‘intellectually stimulating?’ Is making copies intellectually stimulating? Do most people even want jobs that are intellectually stimulating?

But for people used to working in factories, the work itself (not wage) is preferable to being a paper-pusher.

Oh for ****'s sake, then let them make the ****ing choice! This isn't a damn civ game and it would not only be impossible, but also completely monstrous for you to force tens or hundreds of millions of people to do what you wanted just because it suits your idea of a neat country.

Again, I never said anything about forcing individuals into certain fields, I just said that the state can and should take an active role in managing economic policy, and should our society into account when doing so.

That's where we disagree then. We should organize our society based on what is good for our culture and people, and we should pursue national greatness. We should leave our mark in history. That is the point of a nation, that should be the goal of a people. So that means creating a much larger military and building a serious space program.

Holy **** you're actually a Nazi WTF WTF WTF.

Again, I don’t believe in a genetically-based racial hierarchy and the construction of a civilization based on such premises. I’m not anti-Semitic. And I believe in Christianity. So how could I possibly be a Nazi? Is every non-liberal a ’Nazi’ to you? That just reflects poorly on your own judgement.

Better response: people value the services more than the goods whose consumption is foregone in order to pay for them. This is their revealed preference. The only source of value is the needs/wants of human beings, and they themselves are the best judge of their utility functions.

No. You’re not even being a good economist here, you’re just trying to explain the composition of our economy based on ill-informed assumptions on what individuals value and the relationship between this and the economy as a whole. Our agricultural and manufacturing sectors have contracted due to increased competition from abroad: our economy’s integration with the rest of the globe and the economic development of rivals who can produce goods at a lower cost.

Our financial sector has grown to a huge size for a variety of reasons: getting off of gold, moving to a global economic regime characterized by the freedom of movement of goods, capital, and people, neoliberalism and economic integration enabling the growth of transnational finance, and a global credit glut (helped by historically low interest rates in countries such as the US for decades). Our bloated financial sector has enabled the creation of a lot of white-collar ‘jobs’ and high salaries for these employees. That doesn’t reflect at all on inherent values or preferences within our society, or how valuable the services are that these people offer (in comparison to say, a farmer or a teacher). Although it is true that Americans value monetary success and economic status to a great extent, that doesn’t mean we value having a good insurance policy over having something to eat. The former just happens to be more expensive.

Better response: No, it would not. The most efficient way to build a military is the same as the most efficient way to provide any other government activity: through taxation with as little deadweight loss as possible, and then through purchase of the required goods and services on the open market.

No. Without government intervention, there won’t be enough investment in these fields. You can’t deny the fact that economic policy aimed at protecting and stimulating our industrial sector, combined with subsidies and a huge defense budget, is the most optimal situation for building a military as well as advancing in military technologies. This enables more resources to go to defense contractors than would be normal in the private sector. This is what arms a military. And this is why we built up our military during World War II through what you would call “statist” economic policy. You would consider the US’ wartime economy to be nearly socialist. We could not have been nearly as successful at arming our military and winning the war with pure laissez-faire economic policy.

Better response: people value the services more than the goods whose consumption is foregone in order to pay for them. This is their revealed preference. The only source of value is the needs/wants of human beings, and they themselves are the best judge of their utility functions.

I wasn't going to go after his idiotic idea that labor that doesn't provide a concrete benefit he can immediately perceive is valueless, since he'll just dismiss it with "lol money != value!"

No. Labor provides concrete value in what it produces. You and KH only see value in the price the market finds for the product.

Uh, you hadn't picked up on that already, Kuci? Need an incredible military, the only sacrifice that counts is for your country, economic activity best directed toward state goals, blah, blah, blah.

If you consider this to be Nazism, than many civilizations in history have been Nazi. What ever happened to the whole Jew thing? I take it you don’t see that as an important part of Nazism or Hitler’s ideology? As I’ve said over and over again, I’m not anti-semitic and I’m supportive of Israel. How could I possibly be a Nazi? And by the way, Nazism is profoundly anti-religious, which also proves that I’m not a Nazi.

I've tl;dred the vast majority of his posts because they are insufferably dull.

Your short attention span doesn’t reflect at all on the entertainment of my posts. And good ideas aren’t exciting to a lot of people. Anyways, most people seem to be quite entertained by what I’m writing. That’s mostly because what I have to say is so different from their own beliefs they have to dismiss it as insanity, but that doesn’t necessarily reduce the credibility of what I have to say.

The sad thing is this douche nozzle will probably deny he's a Nazi even as he espouses all the major tenets of Nazism/fascism.

How many times do I have to tell you people…I am not anti-Semitic and I am supportive of Israel. I believe in Christianity. How could I be a Nazi?

And the fact that you equate Nazism with fascism shows you have a warped view of history…most people don’t take the term ‘fascist’ seriously, and it makes absolutely no sense to equate someone like Franco or Salazar or Videla with Hitler and give them the same label. Not even academics do that.

Sorry, been away from poly for a while, is this curtis guy for real?

Why don’t you take a look at my blog and decide for yourself.

[Arrian]

Fascist, then. Fascists suck. Not as much as Nazis do, but that's setting the bar pretty low, innit? You can kindly take your delusions of "making our mark on history" and "being a great nation" via spending EVEN MORE than we already do on the military (~95% of global military expenditure, or so I hear) and shove 'em.

Also, my desk job is moderately intellectually stimulating and I wouldn't trade it for factory or farm work even if those paid more.

Although it is true that Americans value monetary success and economic status to a great extent, that doesn’t mean we value having a good insurance policy over having something to eat. The former just happens to be more expensive.

Umm, I'm pretty sure most people spend more on food than they do on insurance. I know I do, and I rarely eat out.

Your narrative doesn't really have much connection to reality. Not that such things bother an ideological crusader, but it's not terribly convincing to people who can think.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

I wouldn't see the problem if it was true; it's a good thing that food is cheap, leaving us more to spend on luxuries like insurance

[Kuciwalker]

It’s not just about defending ourselves from invasion. It’s about making our mark in history. It’s about being a great nation.

Look, if our goal is to win some dick-measuring competition with other countries, we should just build a life-sized model of my ****.