April 05, 2005
Free Market Miracle #0017
Help us, uncle Sam, help us! The Free Market is kicking our dimpled white asses!
Carolyn Hern, spokeswoman for Rep. Robin Hayes, R-NC, said the textile industry is expected this week to formally ask the government to curb the Chinese surge in as many as 11 other textile and clothing items.
The administration took a major step to appease American companies Monday by agreeing to launch investigations into whether China was disrupting American sales of cotton knit shirts and blouses, cotton trousers and underwear made of cotton and man-made fibers.
Update, 4/19/05: Just noticed that the following comment, which for some reason is tripping the comment-filter's alarm, has been removed from the thread (after we had appeared to have been able to bypass the filter). So, for the record, here it is (see the thread for context).
Update, 4/23/05: Finally figured out what the problem was (if anybody cares): the words "socialist" and "socialism" were causing the comment to be rejected for violating the "cialis" parameter. Duh. So that particular rule has been removed, and anybody should be able to use those two words when commenting (but I'm too lazy to put the comment back inside the thread...).
Update, 4/30/05: Have restored the wandering comment to the thread -- presumably for good this time (though note that it's now incorrectly queued).
Posted by Eddie Tews at April 5, 2005 04:21 PM
Comments
DebtSlavery.org
Bush just publicly committed an impeachable offense
-- Posted by: ///// on April 6, 2005 10:46 PM
seems like no matter how many times I try to tell Eddie, he just can't seem to get his head around the fact that our economy--or the world economy, for that matter--is not a "free market". It is loosely based on the tenets of a free market, but that's as far as it goes. I really get a kick out of Eddie putting his little "free market miracle" posts up as though they're some kind of novel idea or represent a profound point. fucking laughable man. our economy isn't a free market, Eddie! get over it!
anyway, the reason I'm writing today is that I was perusing some of my old postings on this piece of shit website when I came across this one:
"History tells us that the same man who lived in the caves of europe with his beloved dog to keep him warm is the same savage who has exterminated the red man enslaved the black man and dropped weapons of mass destruction on the yellow mans head, Why?? Is it an inferiority complex?? Maybe penis envy?? The population of people of color will continue to rise, the population of those with recessive genes will decrease.... in othert words the first shall be last. If your looking to get your mojo back its too late these caucasoid she-devils cant get enough of black meat wich is helping "color" this euro-pee-on devil's world. Maybe the hole in the ozone will get big enough to the point where those cursed without pigment will catch a dose of skin cancer while they tan in the sun trying to gain the same color they hate so much. White supremecy is dying everyday . Dont hate us 'cause you aint us. Haha, are ya blushing devil??"
I just wanted to take a few moments to shoot this racist propaganda full of holes, in the hopes that the stupid "nigger" who wrote it might discover my comments. I'd also like to quickly add that I find it funny that such people are patrons of Eddie's website.
As to the first half of his rant: whites enslaved blacks because a.) they could, and b.) because social justice and the ideology of civil rights weren't then what they are now. The enslavement of blacks was about money, not hate. Blacks, of course, don't like to be reminded of this fact, especially since white slave traders were buying these slaves from BLACKS in Africa. Yes, it's a fact. It's also a provable fact that African tribes would war with one another in order to capture and enslave their brethren for sale to slave traders. You see, "whites" represented the "demand" side of the slave trade, but make no mistake, in order for a market to exist there must be a supply side as well! And the "supply" side of the slave trade was operated completely by Africans themselves. Truth hurts, doesn't it my asshole nigger friend? Blacks have themselves to blame for slavery just as much as whites.
As to dropping the atomic bomb on the Japs in WWII...I guess your ignorant ass has never studied, even on an elementary level, any type of world history. If you had, you would've known that there was a three-way race to develop the atomic bomb between Japan, Germany, and the USA. It just so happens that we won the race. Rest assured, if either of the other two had won it, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now. It was kill or be killed. Also, as to the bomb, the decisions were carefully calculated as to whether or not we should drop them at all, and then as to where to drop them once we decided to. Yes, it was concluded that dropping the bombs would actually SAVE more lives than they would take. How? Because an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have led to far more bloodshed on both sides, particularly ours. Since our government is in the business of saving as many American lives as it can during time of war, what did you expect them to do? Dipshit. Secondly, if the U.S. was interested in wiping out civilians, they could have very easily bombed Tokyo, which was FAR more populous than Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED. Those two cities were bombed because they were the hearts of the Japanese military industry. Get a fucking clue.
As to the penis envy, you've gotta love how niggers such as the guy who wrote this always try to make everything about their big dicks. First of all, black people are the only group of people I know who routinely espouse such pride in their genitals. I think whites and asians pride themselves on something more useful: their intelligence. But that aside: my friend, if you had even a clue as to why black dicks are so big, believe me, you wouldn't be bragging about it. Evolution happens for a reason, and you all evolved with those big nigger dicks for a reason. The reason is that African "civilization" was so barbaric that in order for the species to propogate itself, males were required to have big dicks because a plurality of pregnancies were attributable to FORCEABLE RAPE. Yes, African tribes would fight each other and take the women as prizes. A larger penis was necessary in order to essentially dump the sperm right on top of the egg, since when a woman is raped her vagina is not wet, a condition (i.e. dryness) which is not conducive to the reproductive process. So congratulations, that's why you have your big nigger dick you fucking savage. And you have the audacity to call whites savages? [By the way, there has been plenty of published (but not popularized) research on this subject, should you choose (dare) to find it. The studies also talk about the sexual evolution of whites and asians, the results of which I would hope you could intuit based on the above information.]
Should you desire more proof, swallow this jagged little pill: the U.S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Reports 1993, has the following statistics: in 1991, there were 100 cases of white rapists assaulting black victims, compared with 20,000 cases of black rapists assaulting white victims. These are facts, and I've cited the source. But now let's go "inside the numbers." First, note that 20,000 is 200 times larger than 100. Thus, it would take the white male population 200 years to perpetrate as many interracial rapes as the black male population commits in a SINGLE YEAR. Second, note that in the U.S., the white male population is also seven times larger than the black male population. Thus, if we multiply all the black crime statistics above by seven, we can conclude that it would take the white male population 1400 YEARS to commit the same number of interracial rapes as black men commit in a SINGLE YEAR, if the populations of white and black males were equal! So again I ask you, who are the savages in this country?
Next, if this "euro-pee-on devils' world" is so unbearable, I dare your chicken-shit ass to leave. Did you know that the U.S. Government helped to create a country in Africa for freed slaves after the abolition of slavery? Did you know that? Yes, it's true. The country is Liberia, and its capitol city, Monrovia, is named after James Monroe, the U.S. President at the time of Liberia's creation. If this "white devils' world" is so unbearable to you, try moving your nigger ass to the paradise that Liberia is. Trust me, it's a regular Shangri La down there!
As for us trying to "obtain the skin color we hate so much"...I always have to laugh when niggers try to make this asinine argument. A nice golden brown color is what we seek, NOT black. There's a huge difference. And white people don't hate blacks' COLOR. White people hate people LIKE YOU who do nothing but bitch and complain about how raw their deal has been instead of actually trying to put the past away and make something of their lives. Believe me, their color is irrelevant. Black people who focus on the past are doomed to be left in it.
"Don't hate us 'cause you ain't us?" Please, don't make me laugh. If I ever woke up and had your miniscule brain I'd fucking kill myself. It would seem that people like you (not blacks in general, just you) are the real devils. Have fun living with yourself. You are the bane of your own existence.
-- Posted by: Greg Taylor on April 7, 2005 04:14 PM
but now, more to the point of Eddie's "Free Market Miracle" blatherings. Like I said, the other day I found an old post of mine telling Eddie to shutup about our market being free. It looks like some clown named "Robert Hardy" jumped to Eddie's defense. However, I never checked back to see if anyone had responded to my post, so I never saw Bob Hardy's reply until almost a year later. I went ahead and responded to it, but realized that neither Bob himself nor anyone else would ever see the post, since it was from one of Eddie's first free market miracles (which was almost a year ago). So, for everyone's enjoyment and for Eddie's and Bob's edification, I am copying and pasting both Bob's post and my response to it, below. Don't complain, Eddie. You're not getting too many replies to your posts these days. Though I obviously disagree with everything you say, my posts are the highlights of this piece of shit website, and the only things that make it at all entertaining.
Bob's retort:
"~Actually Greg, Capitalism is strongly based on the invisible hand. Everything from comparative advantage (the basis of free trade) to determining wages and what is produced are all determind by the invisible hand, well, at least according to the capitalists who have studied the subject. Doesn't it bother you Greg that capitalism is heavily based on the invisible hand, when in reality much of economics is based upon the forced hand of the government?
I believe Eddie is doing an excellent job pointing out the modern problem's. Determining the problem is the first step to creating a solution."
And my response to this laughable post:
"I guess we can add "Robert Hardy" to the list of people who know nothing about the U.S. economy or the world economy. I also wonder if Bob Hardy here realized he proved my point when he said "much of economics is based on the forced hand of the government." well Bob, if "much" of economics is based on the forced hand of government, then "capitalists who have studied the subject" must surely realize that the very reason economics is a "subject" is because the "forced hand of the government" so thoroughly pervades our marketplace that we must study the effects of the competing forces of the invisible hand and the forced hand of the government. do you see your contradiction yet or do I need to go on?
I also think it's humorous that you cite "determining wages" as a product of the invisible hand. Ever heard of minimum wage? Do you know what a minimum wage does? It creates unemployment. Why? Because employers are forced to pay their employees wages which are higher than the market-clearing (i.e. equilibrium) wage. Since employers must now pay more per worker than the market would bear under the invisible hand, the result is that fewer people are then employed. This guarantees that the market in question will ALWAYS have SOME unemployment, since the demand for labor (the element controlled by the employers) is now less than the supply of labor (the element the workers control). This creates what is known as a dead weight loss in the labor market, and it is caused by the artificially inflated minimum wage. I figured Eddie would know something about this, since as far as I could gather his last job was as a dishwasher at a country club.
Our economy is replete with examples of the "invisible hand" being contested. Price ceilings (e.g. rent controls), price floors (e.g. guaranteed prices for crops), anti-trust law, etc. etc. are all examples of the invisible hand not having its way. If the "invisible hand" were an accurate model of our economy, there would be one monopolistic company controlling each sector of industry. These, Bob Hardy, are FACTS.
I do believe, my good man, you just got slam dunked.
Next time I recommend you know something about the subject before you shoot of your mouth. You, and Eddie, are wrong. As usual. QED"
-- Posted by: Greg Taylor on April 7, 2005 06:24 PM
Hey Greg,
interesting argument. Not in the intelligent sense, more in the "amusing" sense. I needed a good laugh, thank you.
Now, its been a long time since i've made that post in the forum, if you could email me the link so i can go back and read it, that would be great. Till then, i'll argue based upon my recollection which is a year old.
As someone who studies economics, and listens to the arguments of those who agree with the IMF and WTO, and laissez-faire government; free-market capitalism and the invisible hand of Adam Smith are always cited as reasons. Politicians get elected on this, like Bush who campaigns on less taxes and less government involvement. When their elected, they do the opposite of what they preach. Then we have the cases where the IMF and WTO goes into another country with their "Shock Therapy" to bring the joys of the free market, only to have these countries lose their dreams because the invisible hand doesn't exist, which you realize. Mainstream economics is a great way to "educate" people into adopting the republican and democratic parties even though their policies are anti-market. Why, because the free market is not good to the Wal-Marts and textile producers of the world.
Also, you made some factual errors. An invisible hand does not imply one monopoly for each industry. Your confusing perfect competition and oligopolistic competition with natural monopolies which are quite rare.
Going back over your post again, even without minimum wage laws unemployment would still exist, its called the natural rate of unemployment. Living wage laws though can be defended on ethical and political grounds, and if i wanted too, economic grounds.
Also, even without the government hand, economics would still be a subject because there are numerous things about the free-market which we still don't understand.
Keep up the good work Eddie.
ps. Greg, "Slam Dunked?" You trying to be part of that negro sport?
-- Posted by: robert hardy on April 7, 2005 09:18 PM
Bob, I have written a response to your last post, but Eddie's filtering system has some sort of problem with my response. I've written to Eddie to try to resolve the problem so I can get the post submitted, but am waiting on his reply. Hopefully the post will be up soon, but for right now it's out of my hands. Keep checking back, as I'm hopeful Eddie will help me to get it posted. -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on April 9, 2005 11:12 AM
Feel free to email me your response.
roberthardy20@netscape.net -- Posted by: Robert Hardy on April 9, 2005 05:47 PM
I just wanted to take a moment to thank Eddie for helping me get the post up and to let everyone know what we had to go through to get it up. Eddie's filtering system had a problem with my post, as I said earlier, but even Eddie didn't know what the problem was or how to fix it. So I asked Eddie if I could email the post to him and have him post if for me, which, as you can see, he did. I just wanted to publicly state, for the record, that despite how much Eddie and I always disagree, it's refreshing to know that the guy has enough integrity to put up a post that does nothing but poke fun at him and his ideas when he very easily could have refused--or altered the post once I sent it to him. Then again, this is the standard of integrity I've come to expect from intelligent people who are interested in public discourse. Too bad Eddie squanders his mind on trying to tear down our great country instead of improve it.
Anyway, just wanted everyone to be aware that if Eddie and I can collaborate on something, there must be hope for the world.
Thanks again, Eddie. -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on April 11, 2005 10:04 AM
I never tried to defend free-markets. The rest of your argument, such as the idea that natural monopolies can only exist in regulated markets, are just as absurd. Since i was arguing within the context of the thread that is a year old, please go back and read it and send me the link. I'm not going to waste 2,260 words on someone who has little to no reading comprehension.
-- Posted by: Robert Hardy on April 12, 2005 05:34 AM
"I never tried to defend free-markets."
Riiiiight. (In the Dr. Evil dialect)
"The rest of your argument, such as the idea that natural monopolies can only exist in regulated markets, are just as absurd."
Riiiiight.
"Since i was arguing within the context of the thread that is a year old, please go back and read it and send me the link. I'm not going to waste 2,260 words on someone who has little to no reading comprehension."
Another priceless Bob Hardy gem. Backpeddling at the speed of sound, Bob claims to be "arguing within the context" of a post he wants me to send him a link to because he can't remember what the post was about! Priceless! I think I see a series of Mastercard commercials in Bob's future:
Tuition at a less-than-prestigious four year private school: $96,000 Membership fee for the Economics Club: $25 Changing your name from One Neuron Ned to Robert Hardy: $125 Getting your ass kicked on a weblog: free Proving you can never amount to more than your genetic potential: priceless
or
Camping equipment: $550 Snow shoes, ice picks, and other assorted mountain climbing gear: $450 The hike to the summit: free Standing atop Mt. Dumbshit, looking up at creation: priceless
"I'm not going to waste 2,260 words on someone who has little to no reading comprehension."
Good idea, Bob. In fact, if I were you, I wouldn't waste ONE more word because, believe me, I'm done with you. lol, there's nothing left for me to prove. I could easily just point out all the contradictions and absurdities in all your future posts, but it's already gotten boring.
See you all again in six months or so for my semi-annual checkup on this website. I really can't wait, to tell you the truth. It'll be amusing to watch Bob Hardy claim to be arguing within the context of these posts! lol -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on April 12, 2005 10:51 AM
Original Quote, 98 words.
"~Actually Greg, Capitalism is strongly based on the invisible hand. Everything from comparative advantage (the basis of free trade) to determining wages and what is produced are all determind by the invisible hand, well, at least according to the capitalists who have studied the subject. Doesn't it bother you Greg that capitalism is heavily based on the invisible hand, when in reality much of economics is based upon the forced hand of the government?
I believe Eddie is doing an excellent job pointing out the modern problem's. Determining the problem is the first step to creating a solution."
Dear Greg: In less then 2,000 words, please find a quote as to where i specifically state that I support the Free Market.
Until then, stop arguing from your own personal fictional world where people say what you want to hear.
-- Posted by: Robert Hardy on April 12, 2005 06:56 PM
Eating retard sandwiches is just about the funniest thing I have heard in a long time... mind if I use that one? -- Posted by: Lenny Bruce on April 13, 2005 12:12 PM
Oh boy. I feel like the mosquito at a nudist colony: I just don’t know where to begin!
First I guess I should ask: why were you laughing, Bob? Nothing I said in my post was incorrect, as is self evident to anyone who has ever studied economics, and as I will shortly prove to anyone who hasn’t. I really wonder whether your posts are from someone who actually believes what you profess to believe, or if they're just parody. But without further ado, let's begin the systematic destruction of your asinine blatherings.
"As someone who studies economics, and listens to the arguments of those who agree with the IMF and WTO, and laissez-faire government; free-market capitalism and the invisible hand of Adam Smith are always cited as reasons. Politicians get elected on this, like Bush who campaigns on less taxes and less government involvement. When their elected, they do the opposite of what they preach."
3/4 of this is pure gibberish and at no time does it approach anything resembling a point. The insinuation that Bush running on "smaller government" meant that he was obligated by some sort of tacit promise to deregulate our economy is absurd. For such a scholar of economics, you sure have some whacked ideas. I can see the headlines now: "Bush to abolish Federal Reserve", "Bush to repeal anti-trust laws". Eddie would jizz his shorts. All of this is moot, however, since this argument was never about electoral politics.
"Then we have the cases where the IMF and WTO goes into another country with their "Shock Therapy" to bring the joys of the free market, only to have these countries lose their dreams because the invisible hand doesn't exist, which you realize."
Bob, you are the master of contradicting yourself. My original thesis was that our economy was NOT a free market, but rather was loosely based on one. You then jumped to Eddie's defense by saying it WAS a free market. Then today you say "...because the invisible hand does not exist." I hate to say it, but it seems like a year later you're still eating retard sandwiches, my friend! I don't think you realize that most of your arguments support my original thesis, yet you somehow cling to a mantra of "Eddie’s right! Laissez-faire all the way!" Now THAT, Bob, is actually funny (as in stupid, unlike anything in my previous post).
"Mainstream economics is a great way to "educate" people into adopting the republican and democratic parties even though their policies are anti-market."
Is that a fact? I think I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Bob (as I try to suppress an intense fit of laughter). Apparently, despite your haughty (yet strangely inadequate) education in economics, you must have missed the day where they taught the fundamental tenets and differences of both classical and Keynesian economics. Yes, both Adam Smith (whose beloved invisible hand you're constantly touting) and John Maynard Keynes (whose theories are generally regarded as the "other" school of thought in economics vis-a-vis Smith's classical approach) were both British! That's right. The two most prodigious economists in the history of the world were not Americans! So, coming from a country where there are no republican or democratic parties, how, then, could economics be a brainwashing tool for those parties? Uh oh, Bob. Stings a bit, doesn't it? Better luck with your next intellectually bankrupt conspiracy theory.
"Also, you made some factual errors. An invisible hand does not imply one monopoly for each industry. Your confusing perfect competition and oligopolistic competition with natural monopolies which are quite rare."
I think at this point we've pretty well established that you know somewhere between jack and shit about economics, so this one's going to take a little more explaining. But first, let's address the one thing you actually got right: You are correct in that an invisible hand does not IMPLY one monopoly for each industry. I never said it did. The point was that in a truly free market, there is nothing (i.e. anti-trust laws) to prevent monopolies FROM COMING INTO EXISTENCE AND STAYING. Thus, the logical end for any industry sector in a FREE MARKET, when played out ad infinitum, is monopoly. Let me break it down for you. In an emerging market sector, there will, at first, be several firms. Some will succeed; others will fail. As "natural selection" plays itself out in the marketplace, some firms will rise in prominence to become industry giants. However, at some point, those industry giants are going to have to make a choice to either fight it out in an attempt to put each other out of business (high risk)–-or merge into one firm (a monopoly) and enjoy guaranteed survival (low risk). Now which of those two scenarios do you think firms are going to choose in an absolute free market? The answer should be obvious.
As to the second sentence: I most certainly am NOT confusing anything in a free market with a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies can only exist in regulated markets, so how could I possibly be arguing that they would exist in free ones? I am quite convinced that the term "natural monopoly" is simply a buzzword you happened to overhear on the day you actually decided to go to class, and since you had talked yourself in circles and painted yourself into a corner in this argument, you thought it might be a good idea to use the term in the hopes I didn’t know what it was. But let's get into the meat of this, shall we? For Bob's edification: a natural monopoly is a phenomenon in which one firm can deliver its product or service to the entire market more efficiently (i.e. at a lower average cost per consumer) than two or more competing firms could. The classic examples of the natural monopoly are your local power company or water distribution company. Due to the tremendous startup and maintenance costs, it is cheaper for just one company to provide service than for there to be competing firms with competing networks of equipment.
In fact, natural monopolies are always regulated by the government, and afforded government protections from competition because competing firms attempting to enter the market would only drive up prices on consumers. (incidentally, our friend Bob stated that natural monopolies were "quite rare". Anybody reading this think a power company or water company is "quite rare"? Didn't think so. Looks like you lose another one, Bob) Lastly, it should be noted that the terms "natural monopoly" and "unnatural monopoly" are actually counterintuitive because "natural monopolies" could not occur in free markets and thus require government intervention; whereas "unnatural monopolies" will conglomerate on their own, without fail, in a free market. The use of the term "natural" in "natural monopoly" is meant in the sense of "it is only 'natural' to let this firm act as a monopoly–but regulate it–since consumers will be better served this way than with competition." The big difference, Bob, between natural and unnatural monopolies is that with a natural monopoly, the consumers win; with an unnatural monopoly, consumers lose, since they pay higher prices and get less production. In our economy, firms considered by the government to be monopolies are ordered to divest (e.g. Bell Telephone in 1984, which is actually an interesting case because it was originally regulated as a natural monopoly, but as technology advanced the government realized competition could be beneficial to that market). Does that sound like a free market to you, Bob?
"Going back over your post again, even without minimum wage laws unemployment would still exist, its called the natural rate of unemployment. Living wage laws though can be defended on ethical and political grounds, and if i wanted too, economic grounds."
Another grammar-school-level argument I must waste my time on. But what the hey, it's fun exposing Bob for the charlatan he is, so let's get to it. First of all, I never meant to imply that unemployment would not exist were it not for minimum wage. Anybody with the most rudimentary understanding of economics (Bob, for example) knows what natural unemployment is and what its constituents are. What my post meant to imply was simply that a minimum wage creates UNNATURAL unemployment in the labor market, which is still an incontrovertible fact. I had assumed that I didn't need to spell this out, but the old adage about "you know what happens when you make an assumption" proves true yet again. However, I feel the need to point out another example of Bob talking out of his ass: using the terms "minimum wage" and "living wage" as synonyms, which they most certainly are NOT. The reason "minimum wage" and "living wage" are two different terms, Bob, is that they are two completely different concepts. Does that make too much sense? If so, let me know and I’ll dumb it down for you. Anyway, we all know what a minimum wage is, but a LIVING wage is a term used to describe--get ready--a wage that must be earned in order for a person to be able to earn a living (but what constitutes "a living"?).
Pretty simple, right? The crux of the matter is that minimum wage often times is not a living wage. In fact, a living wage for a particular area can sometimes be substantially higher than a minimum wage, since minimum wage is a federal standard but a living wage varies from region to region (e.g. higher in NYC than in North Dakota). Our friend Bob apparently thought the two terms meant the same thing, but this does not surprise me in the least bit. Of course, we'd all prefer to see everyone earning a living wage, but a living wage is a slippery political and economic slope. I'm sure Bob doesn't understand this so let me explain it. Any time employers are forced to pay a wage higher than what the market would otherwise bear, there is going to be an adverse consequence for the market (see my last post for an example). In short, that money has to come from SOMEWHERE. So, if you live in a town that is subject to living wage laws, the implicit standard is, "If you do not have the job skills to perform work that earns a living wage, don’t even think about living your sorry ass in this town." So a living wage can be a discriminatory policy. It's a two-edged sword. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Eddie and those who think like him are big fans of socialism and taking what you and I earn and giving it to other people. Perhaps Eddie would've been happier in the former Soviet Union. Historical note: look how well that worked out. Ironic (and humorous), is it not, that Bob, the champion of our supposed free market, is such an adoring fan of a socialist? (In case you didn’t know, Eddie has "CAPITALISM FUCK OFF NOW" in big, bold letters on his homepage) You claim to be polar opposites, Bob, yet you tell Eddie to keep up the good work. Is it possible for a human being to be more confused than our friend Bob?
"Also, even without the government hand, economics would still be a subject because there are numerous things about the free-market which we still don't understand."
This is just plain wrong and stupid. A true free market is the simplest model in all of economics. There’s not much more to be said than that.
"ps. Greg, "Slam Dunked?" You trying to be part of that negro sport?"
I'm sorry, but when did I ever say anything about basketball being a "negro sport"? Looks like our friend Bob is harboring some covert racism. Thanks for revealing that to us, Bob. If you didn't like my last metaphor, how does this one suit you: "Bob, I just shot you from three feet beyond the three point arc and hit nothing but net." That should be right up your alley. Those white guys might not be able to jump, but they sure can shoot that three ball!
Bob, once again, you got your shit handed to you. Let me give you some neighborly advice: first, don’t try to match wits with someone (me) who is much smarter than you because you will only succeed in making yourself look like an idiot every time. If you refuse this advice, let me offer you this: your best bet at this point is just to grab your old economics textbook, open it in front of you, and simply plagiarize its contents for your next retort. That way, you could at least get the principles right. You will, however, still have to find a way to stop proving all my arguments correct while at the same time trying to reconcile those arguments with Eddie's. Good luck and God speed with that one!
To everyone else: I apologize for this post's verbosity, but it takes a lot of work to get through a thick head. Eddie, you’re welcome for the attention I've brought this piece of shit website. My recommendation to you is this: if you want to add our government's economic policies to your long list of complaints, fine. Knock yourself out. But I would recommend changing the name of your pissings to something other than "free market miracles", because as I've repeatedly shown, our market isn't free!
QED bitches.
-- Posted by: Greg Taylor on April 30, 2005 03:17 PM