Spanish soccer pro quits sports in criticism of capitalism

[Habbaku]

I'm a lawyer.  I am frequently the lone voice in the wilderness in court.

The crown still won't budget for a building, eh?

[Slargos]

Tell me: When was the last time you disagreed with someone over something that could actually cost you anything?

There's no real risk to you in joining the mob since I'm an acceptable target. Would you even dare voicing an unpopular opinion?

I'm a lawyer.  I am frequently the lone voice in the wilderness in court.

I wasn't asking you. 

[Barrister]

I'm a lawyer.  I am frequently the lone voice in the wilderness in court.

The crown still won't budget for a building, eh?

[Slargos]

More seriously, though, I do applaud Slargos for consistently challenging the majority.  Without him, who would stand out as the voice for racism, zero-sum economic beliefs and the benefits of low-quality kitchenware? 

I eagerly await his challenging the validity of gravity.

Cute.
At least Raz has a bit of imagination. You're a shit tzu who thinks he's a bulldog.

[Habbaku]

I wish I had Slargos' bravery. 

[DGuller]

I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.

Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.

You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.

Slargos is, of course, clueless.  That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101.  Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition. 

The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely.  However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly.  If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.

[derspiess]

I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.

Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.

You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.

Slargos is, of course, clueless.  That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101.  Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition. 

The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely.  However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly.  If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.

That's okay-- we'll always have Democrats here to keep our economy from reaching its potential

[Slargos]

I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.

Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.

You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.

Slargos is, of course, clueless.  That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101.  Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition. 

The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely.  However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly.  If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.

Zero sum doesn't necessitate constant sum.

[Barrister]

I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.

Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.

You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.

Slargos is, of course, clueless.  That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101.  Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition. 

The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely.  However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly.  If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.

Yes, the Limits to Growth argument.

So far almost 40 years of evidence have shown it to be false, but you know, maybe the next 40 will prove it right.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

[DGuller]

Yes, the Limits to Growth argument.

So far almost 40 years of evidence have shown it to be false, but you know, maybe the next 40 will prove it right.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

I haven't died yet in my life, therefore I won't die in the future. 

[Barrister]

Yes, the Limits to Growth argument.

So far almost 40 years of evidence have shown it to be false, but you know, maybe the next 40 will prove it right.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

I haven't died yet in my life, therefore I won't die in the future. 

There is plenty of evidence to indicate that you will die.

That there is a hard cap to economic growth however...

[Razgovory]

So eventually we'll all have infinite wealth?  Cool.

[Eddie Teach]

I haven't died yet in my life, therefore I won't die in the future. 

That's a more compelling argument when put forth by grumbler.

[DGuller]

There is plenty of evidence to indicate that you will die.

That there is a hard cap to economic growth however...

Well, some mathematical understanding would indiciate that indefinite exponential growth is a bit impossible for any physical phenomena.  If material wealth grew exponentially without a limit, then eventually each person would own entire galaxies.  That seems unlikely, since it would be impractical to manage all these properties when you can only travel at the speed of light.

[Valmy]

So eventually we'll all have infinite wealth?  Cool.

Of course.  Someday each of us will have our own staff of slave robots who do all of our work.

And our own planet.