Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Progressives????

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 5:40:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What got us out of the Great Depression?
We could say the redistribution of wealth was the key to getting us out.
1. We were in a Great Depression.
2. Nothing was working.
3. WW2, community strived.
4. Draft.
5. Women enter work force.
6. Income tax through a withholding system gives Federal Government money.
7 A redistribution created a thriving middle class.

Progressive programs helped us out of the great depression, no?

1940-1941 national debt was 49 bil.
1945 national debt was 260

Deficit spending =40%
Bonds and taxes paid for 60%

Wealth was effected. It went from triangle; (Top is the rich and middle is middle class, and bottom is poor) to ⧖ to a more diamond. (Top is the rich and middle is middle class, and bottom is poor).

1/3 moved to the middle class creating consumers to buy.

Union members doubled, GI bill.

Progressives helped. The programs helped...

Anyone?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 9:29:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 5:40:16 PM, comoncents wrote:
What got us out of the Great Depression?
We could say the redistribution of wealth was the key to getting us out.
1. We were in a Great Depression.
We tried nothing but statism.
2. Nothing was working.
Obviously.

3. WW2, community strived.

It can strive without. It's not economics that states wars will help get a country out of a depression, it's just an indictment of the majority of people in that country
4. Draft.
That doesn't get anyone out of a depression. It allocates labor without regard to whether it is more than remotely qualified, or whether it has a comparative advantage somewhere else.

5. Women enter work force.\
Which they can do anyway.

6. Income tax through a withholding system gives Federal Government money.
The income tax existed already.

7 A redistribution created a thriving middle class.
The middle class existed long before then. That's why Marx was attacking the "petty bourgeois" i.e the middle class, because they were thriving (given how little time they'd had to grow) in his day.



Progressive programs helped us out of the great depression, no?
No.


1940-1941 national debt was 49 bil.
1945 national debt was 260
And what's your point? Correlation is not causation, and if it were, the response to Depression of 1920 (thanks anarchists) would be proven superior.

Union members doubled
And union privileges have since wreaked havoc on education and essentially rendered the auto industry a vegetable hooked to a government plug.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2010 7:30:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/31/2010 7:20:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
You start like 3 of these a day and then ignore people you think are crazy, which is most of us.

Basically. Plus you're too dumb to understand even the simplest economic arguments.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2010 7:58:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/31/2010 7:30:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:20:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
You start like 3 of these a day and then ignore people you think are crazy, which is most of us.

Basically. Plus you're too dumb to understand even the simplest economic arguments.

I do not think so.
Try me?
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2010 8:18:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/31/2010 7:58:06 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:30:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:20:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
You start like 3 of these a day and then ignore people you think are crazy, which is most of us.

Basically. Plus you're too dumb to understand even the simplest economic arguments.

I do not think so.
Try me?
I don't want to spend much time on this, since I don't think you'll actually read it, so I'll just address the "WWII saved the economy" part.

Would you say that an earthquake benefits the economy? Of course not. It destroys a lot of valuable stuff. Sure, it creates jobs to rebuild that stuff, but we'd obviously be better off without the earthquake ever happening and using our resources and time to build new stuff, instead of replacing destroyed stuff. War's the same thing. The government takes money and buys bombs and bullets and such, and it's all just destroyed. It's like an earthquake, but for the whole country, and for several years straight. Sure, maybe more people are employed, but we aren't producing stuff that we want; we're building death and destruction rather than things that people want.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2010 9:03:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/31/2010 8:18:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:58:06 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:30:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:20:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
You start like 3 of these a day and then ignore people you think are crazy, which is most of us.

Basically. Plus you're too dumb to understand even the simplest economic arguments.

I do not think so.
Try me?
I don't want to spend much time on this, since I don't think you'll actually read it, so I'll just address the "WWII saved the economy" part.

Would you say that an earthquake benefits the economy? Of course not. It destroys a lot of valuable stuff. Sure, it creates jobs to rebuild that stuff, but we'd obviously be better off without the earthquake ever happening and using our resources and time to build new stuff, instead of replacing destroyed stuff. War's the same thing. The government takes money and buys bombs and bullets and such, and it's all just destroyed. It's like an earthquake, but for the whole country, and for several years straight. Sure, maybe more people are employed, but we aren't producing stuff that we want; we're building death and destruction rather than things that people want.

I'm not getting your analogy. And earthquake where? A earthquake in another country would certainly help another country, the country that is selling the goods.

And the same goes with war. WWII didn't destroy this country. We profited,France, Britain ect got jacked up. We made a profit off of it. Just good business. About the only negative was shortages in the States, but that just helped put people to work relieving those shortages.

Maybe a better analogy?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2010 9:09:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/31/2010 9:03:15 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/31/2010 8:18:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:58:06 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:30:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:20:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
You start like 3 of these a day and then ignore people you think are crazy, which is most of us.

Basically. Plus you're too dumb to understand even the simplest economic arguments.

I do not think so.
Try me?
I don't want to spend much time on this, since I don't think you'll actually read it, so I'll just address the "WWII saved the economy" part.

Would you say that an earthquake benefits the economy? Of course not. It destroys a lot of valuable stuff. Sure, it creates jobs to rebuild that stuff, but we'd obviously be better off without the earthquake ever happening and using our resources and time to build new stuff, instead of replacing destroyed stuff. War's the same thing. The government takes money and buys bombs and bullets and such, and it's all just destroyed. It's like an earthquake, but for the whole country, and for several years straight. Sure, maybe more people are employed, but we aren't producing stuff that we want; we're building death and destruction rather than things that people want.

I'm not getting your analogy. And earthquake where? A earthquake in another country would certainly help another country, the country that is selling the goods.
The claim is that the U.S.'s entry into WWII saved the economy of the U.S. I am comparing this claim to saying that an earthquake in the U.S. would benefit the U.S. economy.
And the same goes with war. WWII didn't destroy this country. We profited,France, Britain ect got jacked up. We made a profit off of it. Just good business. About the only negative was shortages in the States, but that just helped put people to work relieving those shortages.
The government took resources and built bombs and ships and such, which were then either destroyed, or used to kill. Either way, they weren't used to benefit American consumers; they were just wasted. It's economically the same as an earthquake simply destroying those resources. With an earthquake, resources are simply destroyed directly, and everyone loses out. With war-time spending, consumer goods and buildings aren't directly destroyed, but energy and resources are wasted making weapons. Those resources could instead have been used to create goods and services that people want. The end result is the same.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2010 9:37:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/31/2010 9:09:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/31/2010 9:03:15 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/31/2010 8:18:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:58:06 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:30:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:20:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
You start like 3 of these a day and then ignore people you think are crazy, which is most of us.

Basically. Plus you're too dumb to understand even the simplest economic arguments.

I do not think so.
Try me?
I don't want to spend much time on this, since I don't think you'll actually read it, so I'll just address the "WWII saved the economy" part.

Would you say that an earthquake benefits the economy? Of course not. It destroys a lot of valuable stuff. Sure, it creates jobs to rebuild that stuff, but we'd obviously be better off without the earthquake ever happening and using our resources and time to build new stuff, instead of replacing destroyed stuff. War's the same thing. The government takes money and buys bombs and bullets and such, and it's all just destroyed. It's like an earthquake, but for the whole country, and for several years straight. Sure, maybe more people are employed, but we aren't producing stuff that we want; we're building death and destruction rather than things that people want.

I'm not getting your analogy. And earthquake where? A earthquake in another country would certainly help another country, the country that is selling the goods.
The claim is that the U.S.'s entry into WWII saved the economy of the U.S. I am comparing this claim to saying that an earthquake in the U.S. would benefit the U.S. economy.

If another country had a earthquake and we sold them resources then I don't see the analogy. Your right, an earthquake here would hurt the economy. But not one somewhere else.

And the same goes with war. WWII didn't destroy this country. We profited,France, Britain ect got jacked up. We made a profit off of it. Just good business. About the only negative was shortages in the States, but that just helped put people to work relieving those shortages.

The government took resources and built bombs and ships and such, which were then either destroyed, or used to kill. Either way, they weren't used to benefit American consumers; they were just wasted. It's economically the same as an earthquake simply destroying those resources. With an earthquake, resources are simply destroyed directly, and everyone loses out. With war-time spending, consumer goods and buildings aren't directly destroyed, but energy and resources are wasted making weapons. Those resources could instead have been used to create goods and services that people want. The end result is the same.

Want, but can't afford. War doesn't ask if you can afford it. War says need bullets, pay someone to make them. People that were unemployed before the war now had a job, I bet they wouldn't agree with you.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2010 9:45:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/31/2010 9:37:20 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/31/2010 9:09:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/31/2010 9:03:15 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/31/2010 8:18:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:58:06 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:30:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/31/2010 7:20:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
You start like 3 of these a day and then ignore people you think are crazy, which is most of us.

Basically. Plus you're too dumb to understand even the simplest economic arguments.

I do not think so.
Try me?
I don't want to spend much time on this, since I don't think you'll actually read it, so I'll just address the "WWII saved the economy" part.

Would you say that an earthquake benefits the economy? Of course not. It destroys a lot of valuable stuff. Sure, it creates jobs to rebuild that stuff, but we'd obviously be better off without the earthquake ever happening and using our resources and time to build new stuff, instead of replacing destroyed stuff. War's the same thing. The government takes money and buys bombs and bullets and such, and it's all just destroyed. It's like an earthquake, but for the whole country, and for several years straight. Sure, maybe more people are employed, but we aren't producing stuff that we want; we're building death and destruction rather than things that people want.

I'm not getting your analogy. And earthquake where? A earthquake in another country would certainly help another country, the country that is selling the goods.
The claim is that the U.S.'s entry into WWII saved the economy of the U.S. I am comparing this claim to saying that an earthquake in the U.S. would benefit the U.S. economy.

If another country had a earthquake and we sold them resources then I don't see the analogy. Your right, an earthquake here would hurt the economy. But not one somewhere else.

And the same goes with war. WWII didn't destroy this country. We profited,France, Britain ect got jacked up. We made a profit off of it. Just good business. About the only negative was shortages in the States, but that just helped put people to work relieving those shortages.

The government took resources and built bombs and ships and such, which were then either destroyed, or used to kill. Either way, they weren't used to benefit American consumers; they were just wasted. It's economically the same as an earthquake simply destroying those resources. With an earthquake, resources are simply destroyed directly, and everyone loses out. With war-time spending, consumer goods and buildings aren't directly destroyed, but energy and resources are wasted making weapons. Those resources could instead have been used to create goods and services that people want. The end result is the same.

Want, but can't afford. War doesn't ask if you can afford it. War says need bullets, pay someone to make them.
It doesn't matter. The point isn't whether or not wars that are necessary should be fought, but whether that necessity is good for the country fighting the war, or whether that country's economy would be better off without that war and all of that war spending.
People that were unemployed before the war now had a job, I bet they wouldn't agree with you.
Around 30% of the pre-war labor force was drafted. The war didn't really create any jobs; it just forced people to work for much less than they ordinarily would have by forcing them to join the military. The people previously unemployed were either enslaved by the military, or took the job of someone who had been enslaved by the military. One could just as easily solve today's unemployment problem by rounding up all of the unemployed people and forcing them to work for subsistence wages, as slaves.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2010 9:57:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Most Economists think so. But I'm not saying that as an argument for why it did, I'm just adding this point to the context.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 6:29:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/31/2010 9:09:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
The government took resources and built bombs and ships and such, which were
then either destroyed, or used to kill. Either way, they weren't used to benefit
American consumers; they were just wasted. It's economically the same as an
earthquake simply destroying those resources. With an earthquake, resources are
simply destroyed directly, and everyone loses out. With war-time spending,
consumer goods and buildings aren't directly destroyed, but energy and resources
are wasted making weapons. Those resources could instead have been used to
create goods and services that people want. The end result is the same.

But that does not make any sense, those resources only have value because of what you do with them. Mining, smelting, forging, transportation... that all requires people getting paid salaries. They then go forth and spend those salaries. The fact the objective result of their labours may be a rusting warship on the sea bed is immaterial, indeed positive because that creates a market demand for another one. It is from that market demand that they got their jobs. The irony of Capitalism is that by being wasteful it is far more productive than any other system.

Without the waste of war those metals would just sit worthless in the earth (well another use would be found for them eventually) and the labour of the workers would not be a marketable commodity.

The earthquake analogy could not be more wrong.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 7:02:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
ining, smelting, forging, transportation... that all requires people getting paid salaries.
Every last one of those things was invented before the "salary." What it requires is other people producing different things. The only good effects war can have on economics are-- one, killing off people who interfere with security in one's property, or two, motivating people. The fact that they aren't already motivated reflects negatively on them.

Without the waste of war those metals would just sit worthless in the earth (well another use would be found for them eventually)
And now that other use can't happen.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 8:40:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 7:02:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
ining, smelting, forging, transportation... that all requires people getting paid salaries.
Every last one of those things was invented before the "salary." What it requires is other people producing different things. The only good effects war can have on economics are-- one, killing off people who interfere with security in one's property, or two, motivating people. The fact that they aren't already motivated reflects negatively on them.

True, it just that a salary optimises specialisation and production etc.


Without the waste of war those metals would just sit worthless in the earth (well another use would be found for them eventually)
And now that other use can't happen.

True, but there are still metals in the ground and an entire industry rigged up to use them.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 11:33:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"But that does not make any sense, those resources only have value because of what you do with them. Mining, smelting, forging, transportation... that all requires people getting paid salaries. They then go forth and spend those salaries. The fact the objective result of their labours may be a rusting warship on the sea bed is immaterial, indeed positive because that creates a market demand for another one. It is from that market demand that they got their jobs. The irony of Capitalism is that by being wasteful it is far more productive than any other system."

When people receive income for contributing nothing, the economy isn't better off. In the case of people who build for the war effort, all those resources get destroyed which means ultimately that the people employed in the war effort haven't contributed to the economic "pie" while still receiving an income with which to take from the pie. That they have income to go and spend does not mean they are helping the economy. The money they received had to be taxed away meaning it would have been someone else's purchasing power. There is no change in aggregate demand, only a change in the structure of demand (the people who were taxed probably would have spent their money in different ways than the people who are employed in the war effort just from the fact that all people have different tastes).

Suppose there are 10 people on an island who producing. Then someone else comes to the island and does nothing all day. The others give him 9% of their income, so that everyone is basically receiving the same wage, with which he buys some of their goods. Is the economy better off? No because you now have 11 people consuming the same output that 10 people used to enjoy. The same analysis applies if the guy was already on the island and then stopped producing and was given money by the others to spend on their goods.

Now it may be charitable and in their value scale to help out the guy who doesn't produce, but it doesn't change the fact that everyone is now worse off in terms the amount of goods they can consume. The same is true of a national economy.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 1:53:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 8:40:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/1/2010 7:02:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
ining, smelting, forging, transportation... that all requires people getting paid salaries.
Every last one of those things was invented before the "salary." What it requires is other people producing different things. The only good effects war can have on economics are-- one, killing off people who interfere with security in one's property, or two, motivating people. The fact that they aren't already motivated reflects negatively on them.

True, it just that a salary optimises specialisation and production etc.
Ceteris paribus. But other things aren't equal here.



Without the waste of war those metals would just sit worthless in the earth (well another use would be found for them eventually)
And now that other use can't happen.

True, but there are still metals in the ground
Not if you follow that reasoning to its conclusion.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 2:06:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Economies benefit from destruction because they are mostly a dichotomous reflection of corporations and individuals. Corporations incur no damages as a result of destruction from things like earthquakes or wars unless something happens specifically to that organization. This is because public funding is what pays for most destruction, while individuals pay the rest. In other words, in the event of a disaster or wars, everyone pays corporations, which spikes the economy.

The reason why WWII specifically was beneficial for the American economy is because it was not a home front war and many other countries purchased goods, materials, weapons, and ammunition from the United States. So, really, instead of American people paying corporations, the rest of the world was. This improved the economy even more effectively because both aspects of the economy benefited. This is the only way that WWII could have benefited the United States, because in the wake of the Great Depression, American society would not have been able to afford it otherwise.

As far as what caused the Great Depression, it was a combination of a collapsing global economy and a liquidated American economy. Pretty straightforward.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 2:10:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 1:53:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:40:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/1/2010 7:02:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without the waste of war those metals would just sit worthless in the earth (well another use would be found for them eventually)
And now that other use can't happen.

True, but there are still metals in the ground
Not if you follow that reasoning to its conclusion.

Just a note. Unless nuclear change has occured, the metals are still metal and can be recycled and re-used. If a tank is built, and is destroyed on the battle field, all of its metal is still there to be reused. It can be melted down again, just as if it was pulled from the ground (well, not 100% exactly as if it was pulled from the ground).

Just a note.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 2:13:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 2:10:41 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 1:53:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:40:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/1/2010 7:02:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without the waste of war those metals would just sit worthless in the earth (well another use would be found for them eventually)
And now that other use can't happen.

True, but there are still metals in the ground
Not if you follow that reasoning to its conclusion.

Just a note. Unless nuclear change has occured, the metals are still metal and can be recycled and re-used.
With additional labor to take the rust out of it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 2:18:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 2:13:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/1/2010 2:10:41 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 1:53:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:40:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/1/2010 7:02:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without the waste of war those metals would just sit worthless in the earth (well another use would be found for them eventually)
And now that other use can't happen.

True, but there are still metals in the ground
Not if you follow that reasoning to its conclusion.

Just a note. Unless nuclear change has occured, the metals are still metal and can be recycled and re-used.
With additional labor to take the rust out of it.

That is true, but just noting that the resources are not gone. That is something that always erks me about "don't waste water" groups, they act like the water is getting destroyed and will never come back.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 2:24:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 2:18:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 2:13:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/1/2010 2:10:41 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 11/1/2010 1:53:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:40:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/1/2010 7:02:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Without the waste of war those metals would just sit worthless in the earth (well another use would be found for them eventually)
And now that other use can't happen.

True, but there are still metals in the ground
Not if you follow that reasoning to its conclusion.

Just a note. Unless nuclear change has occured, the metals are still metal and can be recycled and re-used.
With additional labor to take the rust out of it.

That is true, but just noting that the resources are not gone. That is something that always erks me about "don't waste water" groups, they act like the water is getting destroyed and will never come back.

They have a point if they are talking about wasting the labor of getting the water.

Although if one pays for the labor... pays money one has earned.. then what one has done to earn it makes up for it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 2:25:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 2:18:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
That is true, but just noting that the resources are not gone. That is something that always erks me about "don't waste water" groups, they act like the water is getting destroyed and will never come back.

Those interests groups refer to the cost of wasting water, not the fact that the water is expended. Drink and tap water are processed. That's why you have to pay for running water in your own home.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 6:28:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 10:17:37 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/1/2010 6:09:42 AM, Sieben wrote:
No Cody, because you are a crazy anarchist with no principles.

I'm actually not an anarchist. :P

Doesn't matter comon isn't listening to you
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 12:53:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 6:28:04 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/1/2010 10:17:37 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/1/2010 6:09:42 AM, Sieben wrote:
No Cody, because you are a crazy anarchist with no principles.

I'm actually not an anarchist. :P

Doesn't matter comon isn't listening to you

I don't think he's listening to any of us... at all.
Too bad. I was looking forward to the discussion :(