Math or no math, it's simple in this case. You specified: corporations never create jobs.

Then you specified: corporations create jobs.

Too bad I guess that you are missing the most important part of this conversation, your complete inability to admit and learn from your own mistakes.

Individual freedom has never been as important as it is now and is needed more than ever. Individual freedom is exactly is what is missing and the 'libertarian song' as you derisively called it is exactly the idea of individual freedom.

Unions don't help people by the way, people outside of the unions cannot compete for those jobs since union is a labour monopoly. More to the point a union is not just about united individuals it is about special government protections that unions get, so it is about government oppression of individual freedoms.

Lastly you cannot force somebody give you a job. It is just not possible to do legitimately and if it were it would be completely immoral and against individual freedoms. Without freedoms an individual is nothing. Life without individual freedom is not worth anything.

If your ideological position allows you to divide people into groups in the first place (men, women, straight, gay, white, black, rich, poor, etc.), then the people who find themselves attacked as a group in the contemporary space based on that ideology will suffer from discrimination and it shows in courts, in laws that are passed, etc. If a group of people is attacked there will be a counter movement created by that attack, why do you find that surprising or even wrong?

Yes, there are men who have genuinely suffered bad consequences of this ideology where they themselves are in no way proponents of any type of oppression towards any group.

As to the movie itself, well the media is the message, I can see how some people can take any media and message and put theirbown perspective on it. But calling for a boycott is not the same as calling for discrimination or violence.

Calling for a boycott is speech. By the way governments hate speech. Canadian government wants to prosecute a group of people calling for a boycott of Israel because Israeli forces are given orders to target civilians on purpose. Canadian government wants to use so called 'hate speech' laws to prosecute those people criminally.

So AFAIC whether there is something or not behind this call for a boycott, it does not make the claims behind the calls into bad faith claims.

My point is that the advertiser can sell an ad but he cannot make the movie director or producer buy the ad and do something stupid with it. If you are shooting a movie you can decide to take the money and put an ad into the flick the wrong way, but how is it the advertiser's fault or problem if you make that decision?

Sure, no disagreement, but that is not the advertiser who put that coke bottle into a 14th century person's hand, and unless the movie is of quality and type of National Lampoons the movie will pay with horrible reviews. Seriously, if the ad is out of place that is on the director and the movie production company. Considering what people watch today, the Marvell universe, seeing a bottle of coke in the hands of an alien somewhere off this planet and even in a different timezone would be a curiosity more than anything, probably generating hot topics and discussions around the plot twists and gotchas. But Citizen Kane remake with Samsung Android in it would be met with derision. Context and common sense still matter even today, no?

Billboards are immoral? Products in movies? What is the difference what beverage an actor is holding in his hand? It could be anything at all, or it could be somebody paying him for it. Movies are not reality. Commercials between songs? Do you mean on the radio? And how will a radio station stay open if not for commercials? I think using the word 'immoral' in this context is way overreaching. I see immorality in using force and violence of let's say the State to oppress a group of people. But to advertise a brand of jeans in a movie? To put out a billboard? That is a sound practice to let people know you exist and by the way it is not free, the advertiser is supporting something. A radio station a movie, a website.
Now blocking ads is in no way shape or form immoral either, just to make sure you don't misunderstand my position.
I block advertising. But I don't see either advertising or blocking it as immoral. Annoying is the word.

and in your estimation what is the problem with that type of meritocracy?

You are now just stuck to a completely losing position, after being shown that you walked into it yourself by both proposing that A is true and that NOT A is true.

Too bad for you, math is so simple in that case. Corporations create jobs and you said they are not and have never been creating jobs.

You said corporations can buy labour, they are customers of labour and as customers they create jobs.

Too bad for you that you were taught never to admit that you are simply wrong. Simply wrong and shown to be wrong in your own words but the system of so called 'education' that you were put through did not intersect you with the concepts of logic and reasoning, instead it instilled the religious ideology into you.

Only religious ideology will never accept that it is wrong under any circumstances, scientific reasoning, logic, math, these principles understand what a mistake is and people exercising these principles can admit to being wrong and they can adjust their own understanding by admitting being wrong and learn from it not to be wrong again. Too bad this is not something you understand.

At some point you want to buy something from outside of your town or towns and you have to pay a manufacturer or a distributor or a retailer in some form of currency, where are you going to get it if all that your towns' economies are based upon is barter with each other for 'mowing lawns' and other services that are absolutely local and cannot be exported?

The point of trade is to exchange exportable goods (and services if they can be exported), not to move paper around (as many so called 'economists' today believe).

If you want to buy a tractor from a Swiss manufacturer you will have to pay him in some form of money and it's likely that you cannot barter with him and it's likely that you cannot export your lawn mowing services to him either. You will need money and you will need money that somebody will accept, and even more so where it concerns crossing borders.

It's not meaningless if your goal is to steal and that's what that 'article' proposes - theft.

1. Government steals by forcing people to declare all of their cash savings and to justify them to transfer them into the electronic form.

2. Government steals by creating inflation electronically, so it's cheaper and faster for the government to create vast amounts of virtual money and dilute existing savings, thus stealing (creating inflation).

3. Government can steal everything at any time by simply emptying your bank account and leaving you with nothing.

4. Government will steal by setting stupid exchange rates that are absolutely fake, like pegging the exchange say 1USD to 10Pesos while on the 'black market' you would get many times more pesos, for example 100 for 1.

5. Government can control you if you do not have access to your own money, and it can prevent you from doing anything they don't like and punish you for doing anything they don't approve of.

It's a gigantic con, don't fall for it, it doesn't matter what the name of the currency is if you are not even able to have it in your own hands.

Basically if you cannot hold your own money in your own hands but government holds it for you (directly or through proxy banks) you are fucked, you have nothing.

If you try to switch to gold and other currencies of your choice, you will be labeled a 'speculator' and 'enemy of the working class' etc., and you can be dealt with criminally.

I don't get it, is this entire post advertising to sell nolink.com?

Like I said the markets are manipulated by the Fed and government 'wizzards'. They do control your mind, such as it is.

Now you are getting it (sarcasm).

The bubbles are created by the Federal reserve (has no reserve by the way) pumping fake money into the system (inflation) and manipulating interest rates that let USA 'Treasury' (should be called Debtory, it has no treasure but debt) to sell debt that will never be repaid. This inflation pushed savings and as a consequence pushed productivity out of the USA and somewhere else. Without savings and productivity there is no way for banks to find yield. At the same time FDIC creates fake impression of insurance, which doesn't exist, only Fed's printing exists. Combined with the laws that destroyed lending standards the system invited banks and everybody else to gamble rather than to save and be productive. The bubbles are created by the governments. Greed is good in the free market, there greed creates the economy. In centrally planned and controlled market it is only a tool of the government, destroying the economy.

It is curious to observe the pro government mania taking place at this time, the time of the biggest economic downturn pretty much in history of the USA, the downturn caused by the government power grab and destruction of individual freedoms. It looks like this case, like in so many before it, the people will be looking towards the very entity that caused the destruction of the economy for solutions, 'solutions' that cannot solve anything but make it worse because the reasons for the problems are so completely and utterly misdiagnosed. It is not surprising but it is nevetherless unfortunate to see it happen again after so much history showing that this is the worst way to go about trying to fix the problems. This will not fix anything, will make things worse in the long term. But who is really capable of thinking long term? Very few, and nobody wants to hear the actual solution or indeed the problem.

Wrong, you are being obtuse. No customer or client is paying a company before the product exists. Whether creating a new product type or just entering an existing field as a competition, the company has to hire people out of its own savings and that means taking the risk of doing something that may as well (in many cases) lose money instead of making any money. The job is created by the person a who is putting the money on the line. If the clients prepaid for the product upfront you could have half an argument, even then it is not true, somebody had to work to find those clients. But there are no clients prepaying anything in most cases, I know it is true in my case.

When you, yourself use your own savings to hire somebody to build something you intend to sell before having any clients paying you anything, then come back and talk here. Some asshole will be waiting to tell you that those jobs were 'created by consumers' ask him what consumer put his money on the line to create the product in the first place.

You are being obtuse because you cannot admit you are talking out of your ass.