Annnnnd, joke fails due to logic error.
Yikes! No, please. (go or die) or (go and die) = die.
In a capitalist society, all services that government does today would be provided by private companies instead.
No, that is an anarchist society: no cops, no courts, no laws. If you have any of those, you have government employees. If you don't have government employees, you have none of those. Capitalism does not imply anarchy.
I won't even read the rest of your comment; an anonymous coward getting this fundamentally obvious thing so clearly wrong doesn't deserve more of a response.
Yes, my view of things is that we should rely on reason and evidence. Yours is that we should rely on fallacies and innuendo.
Based on the 138 convictions, more than any other to date...
I see. You think the number of prosecutions of the executive branch, BY the executive branch, is a reasonable measurement between administrations of which is more corrupt.
That's so cute. And it's so stupid that it physically hurts.
The rest of your comment was nothing more than lies and ad hominems. Literally, there was nothing else in that comment that didn't fall into that category. Especially your claim that speaking to my assumed "culture, ancestry, location of birth" in your argument is not an ad hominem. That's fucking textbook ad hominem.
Yes, well, your examples suck. They are just like the rest.
Since you didn't say how the examples "suck," the examples therefore still stand, and therefore your assertion that they are "just like the rest" -- which ignores the examples of how they are not -- is baseless, and ignored.
And unions and democrats, and communists and fascists are not anti-capitalists by any means.
Much moreso than Republicans, as the examples -- which remain undisputed -- demonstrate.
... by the grace of your culture, ancestry, location of birth you enjoy many advantages
It doesn't fit inside your narrative
You said that your preferred faction, the republicans, are better than the democrats in the corruption department, and I am telling you outright that you are full of shit
What's that got to do with whether "people who 'donate' to political campaigns
And you did tell me that I am "full of shit"
And we can take a good look at your idol Reagan, just for starters as a tiny sample. On official record as the most corrupt administration ever
a. He is not my idol
b. You're lying that Regan's is "[o]n official record as the most corrupt administration ever"
Didn't you used to better at this? Maybe I am misremembering.
You really think that people who "donate" to political campaigns don't expect a return on their investments?
I didn't mention donating to campaigns, unless you're referring to collective bargaining leading to politicians giving handouts to employees in exchange for donations and votes
But I don't think you're talking about that, so I don't have any idea what you think I said here, but it seems to me that I didn't say it.
Scott Walker is taking money just like all the others
Yes, he accepts donations, like all politicians do.
... and lot of it from a somewhat famous Las Vegas casino owner. What's up with that?
What's wrong with that? This isn't an argument, it's just an attempt to imply something negative, without actually saying anything that is actually negative.
So funny that you think one group of gluttons is different from another.
I gave specific examples. Do you have any counterexamples? If not, then you're not actually making an argument here, either.
Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).
You have fallen for the Republican trick.
Under capitalism, there would not be any minimum wage, and government employees wouldn't even exist because there would be no such thing as public property or public services that require public employees.
You're correct on the first point, and incorrect on the second point. There would be far fewer government employees, but no, they would still exist.
But I didn't say these are the correct capitalist positions. I said they are "much more pro-capitalist" than the Democrats. Clearly, if there should be no minimum wage under capitalism -- which I agree is clearly true -- then being against its increase is more pro-capitalist than being in favor of its increase. Further, the one person I mentioned -- Scott Walker -- said just recently that he thinks the minimum wage serves no purpose.
TFA's point was that the products that end up "winning" in the market are not necessarily better than their competitors by these objective standards.
Then those objective measures do not actually indicate consumer value, which is what we're really talking about when we say "best".
Off the top of my head, some of the "famous for being famous" celebrities come to mind.
Most celebutants do indeed crash and burn. We see it all the time. A fool and his money, and all that. If you refer to Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton, then as much as I am loath to say this, they are brilliant marketers offering a product that their intended market simply can't get enough of. Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes lacked this business acumen, so they turned into cautionary tales. I predict Miley Cyrus will join them soon.
The more important point is that many people who "bust their balls" and work hard do not succeed. And the reasons why are, in many cases, at least partially stochastic. I think that was all that TFA was saying.
Failure is a part of risk, and risk is the key to success. Most success stories begin with a string of failures. We bust our balls through our failures and keep going until we succeed. Do you accept a resume rejection with a sigh of acceptance and resignation? No; you keep applying until you get an interview. It's just how it works.
A lot of savvy businessmen work very hard to make sure they know all the right people at the right time. There's a lot of "work" in "networking".
The problem with this recent crop of op-ed's is that it gives the editors the perfect to show off how much they don't know or understand. For instance, the pot-shot at Randian capitalism (disclaimer: I'm no fan of Rand and I'm pretty sure she would hate my guts) tells me that he has never actually read Ayn Rand, and if he did, did not understand what he was reading.
the products that are the most successful are not necessarily the best, by any objective measure
There IS no objective measure. One man's trash, yadda yadda yadda. The most successful products meet the most demand at the most sustainable price and supply. Period.
And since you cannot manufacture a lucky break
Bullshit. No one gets sucess by happy accident and remains so. Lottery winners lose their money within months. The coolest invention with a bad business model goes kaput. The richest tech guys toiled in a basement or garage or dorm room for years on end before they got their break. No one succeeds without busting their balls and working hard. Luck plays a factor. Luck can open a window, but it can't make you successful.
As long as the product itself is functional, just have the right connections lined up when you launch it. Because that's what matters, and don't let the deluded ghost of Ayn Rand tell you otherwise.
I don't even know what to make of this ignorant word salad. Pick up a book and read it sometime.
Most people are here for the politics and outrage, now, not the tech.
The GOP isn't any more pro capitalist than the Dems. They just like a different set of cronies.
Yes, the GOP -- as a whole -- does pay off its cronies. But there are a significant number of prominent Republicans in office who oppose these practices (e.g., Scott Walker). There is not a significant number of Dems who oppose these practices. Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).
All we really want to know is: did they find a Stargate?