Support NeoGAF

[Alpha-Bromega]

You're right, he should have just let someone beat on his car. Who's to say the person wasn't frightened and defending themselves.

If I'm driving on around, and someone jumps in front of my car and starts banging on it and cussing at me, I take that as a threat and run them down as well. Especially if I had my family in the car. Who's to say this person wouldn't have tried to drag them out and beat them? You don't want bad shit to happen to you, don't threaten people and damage their property.

what the fuck?

 

[Fenderputty]

Actually this is a gaming board. The problem is some people mistake a board with a lot of liberals for a board that has to maintain a liberal orthodoxy. (see the poster above calling for Manos to sit down and shut up)

I'm pretty Liberal. I would hate reading this board if it were not for the consevative posters. I enjoy reading the arguments and the threads flow better when there's something to yell about. I give right leaning GAF credit too beacuse there's a lot of left leaning GAF to deal with.


Back on topic. I think I'm going to make a couple campaign reform signs and go to Occupy LA this weekend.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Wow.

A dude banging on your hood is not a reason to run him down. I don't think that argument is going to hold up in court.

Actually in PA if he had come near the door and acted like he might be trying to open it, you could arguably shoot him and perhaps even less than that. PA has Castle Defense, and it's kind of mobile as it applies to your vehicle, and person.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS...d=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0040&pn=1038

(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2),
an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly
force is immediately necessary to protect himself against
death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual
intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the
following conditions exist:
(i) The person against whom the force is used is in
the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has
unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within,
a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person
against whom the force is used is or is attempting to
unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that
other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied
vehicle.
(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that
the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or
has occurred.
(2.2) The presumption set forth in paragraph (2.1) does
not apply if:
(i) the person against whom the force is used has
the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the
dwelling, residence or vehicle, such as an owner or
lessee;
(ii) the person sought to be removed is a child or
grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under
the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the
protective force is used;

30(iii) the actor is engaged in a criminal activity or
is using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to
further a criminal activity; or
(iv) the person against whom the force is used is a
peace officer acting in the performance of his official
duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably
should have known that the person was a peace officer.
(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal
activity, W HO IS NOT IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and
who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a
duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to
retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force,
including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where
he was attacked;
(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary
to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily
injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or
threat; and
(iii) the person against whom the force is used
displays or otherwise uses:
(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined
in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for
offenses committed with firearms); or
(B) any other weapon readily or apparently
capable of lethal use.
(2.4) THE EXCEPTION TO THE DUTY TO RETREAT SET FORTH
UNDER PARAGRAPH (2.3) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE PERSON AGAINST
WHOM THE FORCE IS USED IS A PEACE OFFICER ACTING IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND THE ACTOR USING FORCE
20110HB0040PN1038 - 7 -

 

[Fenderputty]

Actually in PA if he had come near the door and acted like he might be trying to open it, you could arguably shoot him and perhaps even less than that. PA has Castle Defense, and it's kind of mobile as it applies to your vehicle, and person.

It's funny beacuse I don't think his post had anything to do with the legality of the situation.

 

[dave is ok]

I don't think the guy banging on the hood should have been run over and I think the person who hit him should be arrested - but I think posting the story as 'Pedestrian hit by driver' is a little misleading

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's funny beacuse I don't think his post had anything to do with the legality of the situation.

It's funny because I was only posing a hypothetical based on the idea that it couldn't be defended in court and showing how with a little more (in another state), a lot more could be potentially justified.

 

[Gaborn]

I'm pretty Liberal. I would hate reading this board if it were not for the consevative posters. I enjoy reading the arguments and the threads flow better when there's something to yell about. I give right leaning GAF credit too beacuse there's a lot of left leaning GAF to deal with.


Back on topic. I think I'm going to make a couple campaign reform signs and go to Occupy LA this weekend.

As I said, some people. There are a TON of liberal posters I'll bitterly disagree with on some issues but totally respect

And I still think though the Occupy movement is really blaming the wrong thing (they should be protesting the government rather than corporations) I'm glad liberals have their own movement to challenge the status quo, it's healthy!

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

I'm glad liberals have their own movement to challenge the status quo, it's healthy!

this really, truly sounds so condescending. like a pat on the head and a "well aint that something, sport!"

 

[BMAN]

I understand that it would not hold up in court, It is just my personal opinion/feelings in regards to defending my own personal property. I would not of run him over. But if I felt that I could restrain him, I would get out of the car and do so until the authorities arrived.

 

[travisbickle]

Holy shit we have video. The driver intimidated 2 pedestrians, then when one of them responded to the intimidation he ran them both over. The driver is a nutcase.

 

[dave is ok]

As I said, some people. There are a TON of liberal posters I'll bitterly disagree with on some issues but totally respect

And I still think though the Occupy movement is really blaming the wrong thing (they should be protesting the government rather than corporations) I'm glad liberals have their own movement to challenge the status quo, it's healthy!

Conservatives still believe in and trust the invisible hand of the free market, when the market can't function properly is because of Government intrusion.

That's really the main difference and is why they want to protest the Government instead of the Corporations.

Liberals reject the concept of a free market. They see the game as rigged. Corporations give money to the politicians who are supposed to be representing their interests, and in return the politicians create favorable conditions and legislation for those corporations.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

And I still think though the Occupy movement is really blaming the wrong thing (they should be protesting the government rather than corporations)

What?

Conservatives still believe in and trust the invisible hand of the free market, when the market can't function properly is because of Government intrusion.

That's really the main difference and is why they want to protest the Government instead of the Corporations.

Liberals reject the concept of a free market. They see the game as rigged. Corporations give money to the politicians who are supposed to be representing their interests, and in return the politicians create favorable conditions and legislation for those corporations.

Either way liberals are still protesting against the government. Just for a reason that actually exists, instead of protesting regulation in a practical anarchy market.

 

[Fenderputty]

And I still think though the Occupy movement is really blaming the wrong thing (they should be protesting the government rather than corporations)

Aren't they protesting both though? Sure it's areas of government that's specifically influenced by corporate interests, but they go hand in hand. Campaign reform for example.

 

[MadraptorMan]

I really feel for these Occupy _____ protesters and I agree with almost everything they stand for, but their method of voting with the jazz hands and crap really just creeps me out...lol

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Aren't they protesting both though? Sure it's areas of government that's specifically influenced by corporate interests, but they go hand in hand. Campaign reform for example.

as for me, I'm protesting both. Crony capitalism is NOT capitalism, but i'm no Friedmanite and i'll raise you one Chilean Futbol Stadium of prisoners for that 'unfettered' market bullshit (which just allows for entrenched oligarchy's), or the government being bought out (by entrenched oligarchies)

 

[BotoxAgent]

And I still think though the Occupy movement is really blaming the wrong thing (they should be protesting the government rather than corporations) I'm glad liberals have their own movement to challenge the status quo, it's healthy!

In terms the economic collapse, most of the damage caused by the housing bubble was done by private lenders and corporations. The blame is justified. More government regulations are needed.

 

[BMAN]

Out of curiosity, how many people here have any background or majored in economics at the post secondary level?

 

[JohnnyPhatsaqs]

Out of curiosity, how many people here have any background or majors in economics at the post secondary level?

How many people with any background or majors in economics at the post secondary level are culpable in the state of the bullshit we are in?

Just because someone has a piece of paper that says they know what they're doing doesn't mean they do

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

What?



Either way liberals are still protesting against the government. Just for a reason that actually exists, instead of protesting regulation in a practical anarchy market.

Someone is still upset I wasn't on his podcast.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

How many people with any background or majors in economics at the post secondary level are culpable in the state of the bullshit we are in?

oh no, those guys knew what was going in, they just used that knowledge maliciously.

 

[kame-sennin]

Why do you need to do that? If people get flustered over Manos posting barbs at the, then maybe those people should stop posting too.

I agree with this. Manos can't shit up the thread by himself. All he can do is post snarky one-liners. It only becomes a shit storm when people confront him, which causes him to post more - usually snarky comebacks - and things escalate from there. I'm not telling anyone to stop. I've responded to Manos, and the mods obviously think he has a right to post here. But there's really no use complaining about him without addressing the counter posts that fuel his instigating.

 

[Deku]

Conservatives still believe in and trust the invisible hand of the free market, when the market can't function properly is because of Government intrusion.

That's really the main difference and is why they want to protest the Government instead of the Corporations.

Liberals reject the concept of a free market. They see the game as rigged. Corporations give money to the politicians who are supposed to be representing their interests, and in return the politicians create favorable conditions and legislation for those corporations.

simplistic beyond belief.

A few pages back people were patting themselves on the back for agreeing we're all in mixed economies and the debate is really about how much of a mix it is and in a way, the occupy movement is acting for a different mix, not a revolution.

 

[Gaborn]

this really, truly sounds so condescending. like a pat on the head and a "well aint that something, sport!"

I don't mean it to be condescending. I think the tea party, which I know GAF hates was healthy for Republicans even if it's mostly been co-opted by the establishment. I think both parties need an independent strain willing to challenge the staid and stolid establishment in their parties if they have any hope of exciting their bases. I think ultimately they have a chance of refocusing and reinvigorating their base and their parties and forcing them to adhere even slightly closer to what their base wants. I truly do think it's admirable.

Dave - I think from a libertarian perspective the game IS rigged. The problem IS an incestuous relationship between corporations and government to an extent. liberals who claim the free market can't work also (in some cases, I'm not implying that all liberals are communists or socialists) will at times claim that communism has never been truly tried and so the failure of communist states like the soviet union is not reflective of the viability of ideological communism.

Well, in my case I don't see what the US has as capitalism or a free market. I see a choking level of regulation designed more to protect corporate interests at the expense of competition. I see bailouts for the financial industry as well as the auto industry which is TOTALLY antithetical to the free market.

A good example incidentally of the relationship between corporations and regulation is what happened after the lead paint toy controversy over Mattel toys. Congress passed a law requiring inspections of new toys by independent labs... and EXEMPTED Mattel.

 

[BMAN]

I believe that there are may places where economics can help bring about positive policy changes. I also think a lot of people surrounding this movement, both for and against, could see the benefit of being informed about how economics works. I think this would avoid a lot of the conflict on both sides.

 

[Deku]

I believe that there are may places where economics can help bring about positive policy changes. I also think a lot of people surrounding this movement, both for and against, could see the benefit of being informed about how economics works. I think this would avoid a lot of the conflict on both sides.

Are people seriously arguing against economics as a discipline now?

How are we supposed the run the economy?

 

[Gaborn]

Are people seriously arguing against economics as a discipline now?

How are we supposed the run the economy?

Faulty premise from the start.

 

[BMAN]

Are people seriously arguing against economics as a discipline now?

How are we supposed the run the economy?

No, just a few posters mocked me for asking who had background in economics. The point I'm trying to make is how poorly informed most people are. Evidence is some of the statements I have heard regarding topics such as the middle class and bringing manufacturing to the States. People don't have any clue about the benefits and costs of the new world we live in due to globalization, trade liberalization, and the influence of technology.

 

[Fenderputty]

as for me, I'm protesting both. Crony capitalism is NOT capitalism, but i'm no Friedmanite and i'll raise you one Chilean Futbol Stadium of prisoners for that 'unfettered' market bullshit (which just allows for entrenched oligarchy's), or the government being bought out (by entrenched oligarchies)

Exactly. I feel that both corporate interests and Public policy has become so interwoven you can't protest one without protesting the other in some way.

Govenment run health care / Big Pharma is another area in which I feel this example shines.

Kind of related and sad/funny

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-31-2011/how-a-bill-doesn-t-become-a-law

 

[empty vessel]

No, just a few posters mocked me for asking who had background in economics. The point I'm trying to make is how poorly informed most people are. Evidence is some of the statements I have heard regarding topics such as the middle class and bringing manufacturing to the States. People don't have any clue about the benefits and costs of the new world we live in due to globalization, trade liberalization, and the influence of technology.

You might not, either.

 

[BMAN]

You might not, either.

I am an econ major. I am however not refuting the clam that there is not a problem with relationship between corporations and the government.

 

[Deku]

No, just a few posters mocked me for asking who had background in economics. The point I'm trying to make is how poorly informed most people are. Evidence is some of the statements I have heard regarding topics such as the middle class and bringing manufacturing to the States. People don't have any clue about the benefits and costs of the new world we live in due to globalization, trade liberalization, and the influence of technology.

Yeah, I don't think reasonable/sane people expect to roll back the clock to the 1950s when America made everything, but there's a reasonable argument about excessive offshoring of jobs.

A trend that at least based on some indicators is reversing or slowing.

Since Krugman is often worshipped here, he won his nobel prize on his (new) trade theory explaining why very similar countries often trade with each other, which seemed counterintuitive if we were to go by Ricardo's comparative advantage theory. Or why we value 'Made in Japan/Germany/USA'

He's definately not a protectionist.

 

[Azih]

Here's the thing though Gaborn, unless you're advocating some form of anarchy i.e no government at all, you're always going to have the issue of the necessary functions of government being manipulated by those of influence to benefit themselves through lobbying, donations, control of media, hell even bribery at the crudest level.

Who do you protest? The corruptor or the corruptee? Wall Street or Washington? The Tea Party went after only Washington while OWS is effectively going after both. Which is why I think it has already been, and will continue to be, more successful. Hell the Tea Party with its insistence that Washington is the only problem left themselves open to being taken over by the establishment (i.e those of influence).

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

No sane person wants the so called 'golden days' of the post war boom, because well i mean that was a context which hopefully never happens again, ever (the 'civilized' world destroyed except for The U.S.)

what we don't want is the race to the bottom, where countries, or even states in the U.S., drive down the quality of life to insane levels to get companies to invest there. It serves nobody except the producer

 

[empty vessel]

what we don't want is the race to the bottom, where countries, or even states in the U.S., drive down the quality of life to insane levels to get companies to invest there. It serves nobody except the producer

The good news is that that is perfectly within our power to prevent. All we have to do is reestablish popular sovereignty. We did it once, we can do it again.

 

[Fenderputty]

what we don't want is the race to the bottom, where countries, or even states in the U.S., drive down the quality of life to insane levels to get companies to invest there. It serves nobody except the producer

Exactly. Why build up this amazingly high and proud standard of living that every American lives, then all of a sudden open things up? There's no where to go but down.

 

[BMAN]

What countries like the USA need are policies that help ease intra and inter-sectoral changes in industry. Due trade liberalization unless American workers can compete, i.e. earn the same wage as someone in China, certain industries will continue to shrink. Chinese workers can produce the same good with fewer inputs, which increases the total surplus. Trade liberalization is a potential Pareto improvement.

 

[npm0925]

Apparently the Oakland cops protected the guy in the car until he could get away, too. Literally aiding and abetting a hit and run. Disgusting.

I think it's hilarious to see the little punk get run over, thinking being part of this protest would allow him to act with impunity. Clearly the driver is part of the 1%, otherwise he would have gotten out of his car and beat the fuck out of said punk.

 

[Dude Abides]

What countries like the USA need are policies that help ease intra and inter-sectoral changes in industry. Due trade liberalization unless American workers can compete, i.e. earn the same wage as someone in China, certain industries will continue to shrink. Chinese workers can produce the same good with fewer inputs, which increases the total surplus. Trade liberalization is a potential Pareto improvement.

Maybe. Since it's been pretty Kaldor-Hicks so far, I'm skeptical.

 

[cooljeanius]

Just so people know, I hear most people who have been contacting their senators and representatives about the Occupy Movement have been against the protests, so we could use some voices to counteract them.

 

[dave is ok]

Just so people know, I hear most people who have been contacting their senators and representatives about the Occupy Movement have been against the protests, so we could use some voices to counteract them.

The politicians aren't going to touch this one with a ten foot pole.

Why disparage the people who fund your re-election?

 

[empty vessel]

What countries like the USA need are policies that help ease intra and inter-sectoral changes in industry. Due trade liberalization unless American workers can compete, i.e. earn the same wage as someone in China, certain industries will continue to shrink. Chinese workers can produce the same good with fewer inputs, which increases the total surplus. Trade liberalization is a potential Pareto improvement.

What is needed is a way for the entire society to benefit from trade liberalization. American corporations (and their narrow beneficiaries) currently reap the benefits to the exclusion of most of the society. The problem with the way you are analyzing this is that it looks at the whole economy and not what is occurring inside that economy. Trade liberalization may on the whole be good for the society when viewed as a single entity, but if only a small fraction of the whole society are actually receiving the benefits, it is not good for the overwhelming majority of that whole. That's a problem.

Moreover, it is not the case that American labor has to compete with Chinese labor. That is a choice we are free to make.

 

[Dash27]

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/raw-video-pedestrian-hit-by-car-in-downtown/vD4pp/

Footage of a driver deliberately running over a protester in Oakland. Fucking disgusting; I hope someone got the driver's plate numbers and makes him pay.

Argh I cant see this video at work for some reason. Any other sources or can someone give an objective account of it?

 

[StoppedInTracks]

Still can't get over how awesome the Ill Doctrine dude is. I could watch him talk about anything.

 

[dave is ok]

Argh I cant see this video at work for some reason. Any other sources or can someone give an objective account of it?

Some idiot gets run over.

 

[BMAN]

What is needed is a way for the entire society to benefit from trade liberalization. American corporations (and their narrow beneficiaries) currently reap the benefits to the exclusion of most of the society. The problem with the way you are analyzing this is that it looks at the whole economy and not what is occurring inside that economy. Trade liberalization may on the whole be good for the society when viewed as a single entity, but if only a small fraction of the whole society are actually receiving the benefits, it is not good for the overwhelming majority of that whole. That's a problem.

Moreover, it is not the case that American labor has to compete with Chinese labor. That is a choice we are free to make.

Everyone who is a consumer benefits from increased efficiency in the production of goods. The problem is the asymmetrical political pressure between those groups who are the losers and the winners,consumers. For example the 5% reduction in cost of a good won't receive the same kind of attention and applied political pressure by a group of works who are losing jobs, facing wage reductions in an inefficiency industry. Even though the benefit outweighs the costs.

 

[Azih]

Everyone who is a consumer benefits from increased efficiency in the production of goods. The problem is the asymmetrical political pressure between those groups who are the losers and the winners,consumers. For example the 5% reduction in cost of a good won't receive the same kind of attention and applied political pressure by a group of works who are losing jobs, facing wage reductions in an inefficiency industry. Even though the benefit outweighs the costs.

I'm not sure that the benefit of 5% reduction in cost outweights the cost of say the loss to the economy of hundreds of thousands of jobs to China. People aren't just consumers.

 

[Fenderputty]

Everyone who is a consumer benefits from increased efficiency in the production of goods. The problem is the asymmetrical political pressure between those groups who are the losers and the winners,consumers. For example the 5% reduction in cost of a good won't receive the same kind of attention and applied political pressure by a group of works who are losing jobs, facing wage reductions in an inefficiency industry. Even though the benefit outweighs the costs.

What about jobs sent over seas that don't directly produce goods? What benefit does society see there?

 

[LosDaddie]

I'm not saying I'd run over the guy, but I'm not going to let someone bang on my car either.

I'm pretty Liberal. I would hate reading this board if it were not for the consevative posters. I enjoy reading the arguments and the threads flow better when there's something to yell about. I give right leaning GAF credit too beacuse there's a lot of left leaning GAF to deal with. .

GAF does lean Left, but there are plenty of conservatives here too. Unfortunately, most don't post until there's something to brag about (see: the 2010 elections), or only in topical threads like this. Many conservatives get banned because they can't handle being challenged and freak out (ie, BigSicily), or they just shit up / troll every thread they post in (ie, JayDubya).

 

[Deku]

I'm not sure that the benefit of 5% reduction in cost outweights the cost of say the loss to the economy of hundreds of thousands of jobs to China. People aren't just consumers.

The Wal-mart effect disproves that. The US has been able to keep wages low for at least 2 decades, by lowering the cost of goods at the consumption level. Of course we can discuss for example how this policy has created a trade imbalance with China and how it likely won't be sustainable forever.

Although with discussions like this you have to take care not to generalize. For example, it's difficult to calculate the exact cost of a particular policy.

 

[dave is ok]

The Wal-mart effect disproves that. The US has been able to keep wages low for at least 2 decades, by lowering the cost of goods at the consumption level. Of course we can discuss for example how this policy has created a trade imbalance with China and how it likely won't be sustainable forever.

They also kept wages low by shifting everyone over onto credit cards to make up for it. Now that the credit card age is ending, the ugly truth that wages have been stagnant for a long long time is coming for many.