Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Worst party platform?

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 9:46:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://in.news.yahoo.com...

I just left a comment there, but I still can't wrap my mind around this.

This is a LEGIT platform, this isn't satarical. And this person cracked the two MOST difficult papers of the country, belongs to the top 0.1% of the intellectual creams, DROPPED OUT OF both the institutions to 'do something for his country'.

This is his platform:

1. 'People will decide the price of essential commodities.'

2. 'Farmers will be given good price for their produce'.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 10:25:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 9:46:52 AM, Cermank wrote:
http://in.news.yahoo.com...

I just left a comment there, but I still can't wrap my mind around this.

This is a LEGIT platform, this isn't satarical. And this person cracked the two MOST difficult papers of the country, belongs to the top 0.1% of the intellectual creams, DROPPED OUT OF both the institutions to 'do something for his country'.

This is his platform:

1. 'People will decide the price of essential commodities.'

2. 'Farmers will be given good price for their produce'.

1. People do decide the price of essential commodities through buying and selling decisions.
2. Farmers do get a good price for their produce. So much that they get $62,000 (although that's largely because of subsidies as well)
http://www.indeed.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 10:52:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 10:25:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/5/2012 9:46:52 AM, Cermank wrote:
http://in.news.yahoo.com...

I just left a comment there, but I still can't wrap my mind around this.

This is a LEGIT platform, this isn't satarical. And this person cracked the two MOST difficult papers of the country, belongs to the top 0.1% of the intellectual creams, DROPPED OUT OF both the institutions to 'do something for his country'.

This is his platform:

1. 'People will decide the price of essential commodities.'

2. 'Farmers will be given good price for their produce'.

1. People do decide the price of essential commodities through buying and selling decisions.

Youre thinking of supply and demand. People dont have an iron grip on prices of goods like I think this platform implies.

2. Farmers do get a good price for their produce. So much that they get $62,000 (although that's largely because of subsidies as well)
http://www.indeed.com...

Rising prices of feed though are really starting to eat into their profits, and its taking a toll on farmers.
http://www.ksee24.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 1:13:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 10:25:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/5/2012 9:46:52 AM, Cermank wrote:
http://in.news.yahoo.com...

I just left a comment there, but I still can't wrap my mind around this.

This is a LEGIT platform, this isn't satarical. And this person cracked the two MOST difficult papers of the country, belongs to the top 0.1% of the intellectual creams, DROPPED OUT OF both the institutions to 'do something for his country'.

This is his platform:

1. 'People will decide the price of essential commodities.'

2. 'Farmers will be given good price for their produce'.

1. People do decide the price of essential commodities through buying and selling decisions.

Unless he plans to drastically reduce the demand, I don't see how he can implement that without putting in price floors. Which would lead to shortages. Which is not desirable, of course.

And he's not talking about reducing it by 50%, or 60%, he's talking about the 'decision of people'. A heterogeneous group of population with varied budget constraints.

And this is not even only about the prices. 'Necessary commodities'? How is he going to decide which commodities fall into that category? Food? Clothing? Blankets? Houses? The prices of ALL these things would be decided by the people. That's absurd. Would pharmaceuticals be included? Because if they are, that would provide a deathly blow to the incentive structure of the corporations.

2. Farmers do get a good price for their produce. So much that they get $62,000 (although that's largely because of subsidies as well)
http://www.indeed.com...

Okay, you're talking about America. You've got the unfair advantage of having the WTO rules by your side.

In developing countries, not so much. Farmers are the most exploited groups of people. The problem is, the only way they would get a 'good' price for their produce (disregarding the vague portion), is if the intermediaries are removed. (which is the concept of farmer produce going to the landowner -> transporter -> wholesaler-> shopkeeper, everyone keeping a portion of profit for themselves, so the farmers get the raw end of the deal) Something that FDI ought to have taken care of, but they are against FDI. (foreigners will profit)

Plus, given that they promised low prices for food, (prices that PEOPLE want), they can give a good price to the farmers only by increasing government expenditure. (Subsidies, non wage income, etc). At a time when inflation is touching 7.5%.

And government is reducing the government expenditure, taking 'iron measures'.

This is a nonsensical platform.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 1:25:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 10:52:57 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/5/2012 10:25:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/5/2012 9:46:52 AM, Cermank wrote:
http://in.news.yahoo.com...

I just left a comment there, but I still can't wrap my mind around this.

This is a LEGIT platform, this isn't satarical. And this person cracked the two MOST difficult papers of the country, belongs to the top 0.1% of the intellectual creams, DROPPED OUT OF both the institutions to 'do something for his country'.

This is his platform:

1. 'People will decide the price of essential commodities.'

2. 'Farmers will be given good price for their produce'.

1. People do decide the price of essential commodities through buying and selling decisions.

Youre thinking of supply and demand. People dont have an iron grip on prices of goods like I think this platform implies.

2. Farmers do get a good price for their produce. So much that they get $62,000 (although that's largely because of subsidies as well)
http://www.indeed.com...

Rising prices of feed though are really starting to eat into their profits, and its taking a toll on farmers.
http://www.ksee24.com...

What happens when supply goes down? Prices go up. The demand for farmer produce is ridiculously inelastic so the farmers can easily raise their prices by quite a bit.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:41:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 1:13:34 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 10/5/2012 10:25:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/5/2012 9:46:52 AM, Cermank wrote:
http://in.news.yahoo.com...

I just left a comment there, but I still can't wrap my mind around this.

This is a LEGIT platform, this isn't satarical. And this person cracked the two MOST difficult papers of the country, belongs to the top 0.1% of the intellectual creams, DROPPED OUT OF both the institutions to 'do something for his country'.

This is his platform:

1. 'People will decide the price of essential commodities.'

2. 'Farmers will be given good price for their produce'.

1. People do decide the price of essential commodities through buying and selling decisions.

Unless he plans to drastically reduce the demand, I don't see how he can implement that without putting in price floors. Which would lead to shortages. Which is not desirable, of course.

The point is that people really do determine prices. They just don't believe they do. People determine prices through "voting" with their dollars and through choosing to enter or exit certain industries.

And he's not talking about reducing it by 50%, or 60%, he's talking about the 'decision of people'. A heterogeneous group of population with varied budget constraints.

And this is not even only about the prices. 'Necessary commodities'? How is he going to decide which commodities fall into that category? Food? Clothing? Blankets? Houses? The prices of ALL these things would be decided by the people. That's absurd. Would pharmaceuticals be included? Because if they are, that would provide a deathly blow to the incentive structure of the corporations.


2. Farmers do get a good price for their produce. So much that they get $62,000 (although that's largely because of subsidies as well)
http://www.indeed.com...

Okay, you're talking about America. You've got the unfair advantage of having the WTO rules by your side.

How do the WTO rules favor us? It is unfair that US farmers are subsidized. However, I'd assume that its our superior capital and labor that raises the wages of farmers.

In developing countries, not so much. Farmers are the most exploited groups of people.

How? Aren't most farmers self-employed? Developing countries might lack the natural resources, capital, and education that developed nations have. But that's not exploitation. For example, developed nations have access to cheap well water that can be used to take care of their crops even during droughts. They also have access to better farming technology.

The problem is, the only way they would get a 'good' price for their produce (disregarding the vague portion), is if the intermediaries are removed. (which is the concept of farmer produce going to the landowner -> transporter -> wholesaler-> shopkeeper, everyone keeping a portion of profit for themselves, so the farmers get the raw end of the deal) Something that FDI ought to have taken care of, but they are against FDI. (foreigners will profit)

Plus, given that they promised low prices for food, (prices that PEOPLE want), they can give a good price to the farmers only by increasing government expenditure. (Subsidies, non wage income, etc). At a time when inflation is touching 7.5%.

And government is reducing the government expenditure, taking 'iron measures'.

This is a nonsensical platform.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:20:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 4:41:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:


1. People do decide the price of essential commodities through buying and selling decisions.

Unless he plans to drastically reduce the demand, I don't see how he can implement that without putting in price floors. Which would lead to shortages. Which is not desirable, of course.

The point is that people really do determine prices. They just don't believe they do. People determine prices through "voting" with their dollars and through choosing to enter or exit certain industries.

Oh yeah. They can just choose not to buy the goods that are pricey.

Come on, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. At least on this point.

And he's not talking about reducing it by 50%, or 60%, he's talking about the 'decision of people'. A heterogeneous group of population with varied budget constraints.

And this is not even only about the prices. 'Necessary commodities'? How is he going to decide which commodities fall into that category? Food? Clothing? Blankets? Houses? The prices of ALL these things would be decided by the people. That's absurd. Would pharmaceuticals be included? Because if they are, that would provide a deathly blow to the incentive structure of the corporations.



How do the WTO rules favor us? It is unfair that US farmers are subsidized. However, I'd assume that its our superior capital and labor that raises the wages of farmers.

You're forgetting that the developing countries are forced to open up their markets to these 'protected' farmers of the developed countries.

In developing countries, not so much. Farmers are the most exploited groups of people.

How? Aren't most farmers self-employed? Developing countries might lack the natural resources, capital, and education that developed nations have. But that's not exploitation. For example, developed nations have access to cheap well water that can be used to take care of their crops even during droughts. They also have access to better farming technology.

I meant exploited by the market mechanisms. And the structure of the industry. The problem is not that the produce is low, because it's not. There is an extensive system of hoarding and selling the excess to government at a specific price to counter that. the problem is that the farmers do not get an adequate compensation for their efforts. They do not have the monopoly position (that is enjoyed in the developed countries, considering that a very minute portion of population are farmers). More that half of the countries population is engaged in farming activities.

They do not enjoy the economies of scale.

They (often) do not own the land they work on.


The problem is, the only way they would get a 'good' price for their produce (disregarding the vague portion), is if the intermediaries are removed. (which is the concept of farmer produce going to the landowner -> transporter -> wholesaler-> shopkeeper, everyone keeping a portion of profit for themselves, so the farmers get the raw end of the deal) Something that FDI ought to have taken care of, but they are against FDI. (foreigners will profit)

Plus, given that they promised low prices for food, (prices that PEOPLE want), they can give a good price to the farmers only by increasing government expenditure. (Subsidies, non wage income, etc). At a time when inflation is touching 7.5%.

And government is reducing the government expenditure, taking 'iron measures'.

This is a nonsensical platform.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 3:37:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 12:52:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Absolute worst party platform -------------------------->

I lul'd.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 3:41:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 3:37:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 10/6/2012 12:52:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Absolute worst party platform -------------------------->

I lul'd.

)
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 12:33:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Response to almost all comments:

1) India is corrupt
2) Yes, INDIA not AMERICA.

People e.g. Darkkermit should read the link before making judgement.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 4:30:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sure as hell beats the platform of the Republicrats.

Also, his platform was more than just those 2 policies. He had a whole list.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:22:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 4:30:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Sure as hell beats the platform of the Republicrats.

Also, his platform was more than just those 2 policies. He had a whole list.
Oh yeah, these were the most ' I cant believe he's serious' promises.