• Announcements


      D1P 2017 Charity Campaign for The Life You Can Save: $1,565 (as of May 15, 2017)   12/12/2016

      I've decided to extend our charity campaign for The Life You Can Save organizations for the entirety of 2017 so feel free to contribute at any time!  Periodically through the year, I'll have game giveaways for those who have donated to the campaign as a "thank you" for supporting this worthy endeavor!
    • Jason

      Update on the single-device/browser login restriction issue some people are having.   04/04/2017

      4/7/2017 update: Now people who've been affected by this are saying that it went away on its own after about a week. So I dunno, if this would really hugely inconvenience you try to not log in on additional devices/browsers until the 4.2 update that's supposed to hopefully resolve this for good.   original announcement: For a long time now, D1P has been limited to three logins at a time; logging in on a fourth device or browser would log you out everywhere else. Unfortunately, multiple people have been reporting that they've started experiencing being limited to ONE login at a time.   The good news is, Invision Power Services (the company that makes our forum software) is aware of the issue and will be addressing it in version 4.2 of the software, which is the next big update. The bad news is, they announced about a month ago (the beginning of March 2017) that the update will be coming out in "mid 2017", so we probably have at least another couple of months to go before this is resolved.   In the meantime, I apologize to those affected for the inconvenience, and would suggest to everyone else to not log in to additional devices until this is resolved if this is something you don't want to have to have to deal with. I'm still not 100% sure on why it's not affecting everyone and why it didn't hit everyone affected at the same time, but the timing of when the reports of this started here mostly lines up with when I've seen reports of other sites having this issue starting, and I suspect that the problem is trickling in because of people happening to hit a fourth login that logs them out everywhere else, and then proceeding to be limited to one login at a time after that.

      D1Pcast Episode 26: The Retro Show   04/19/2017

      It's time to have that talk with your kids. No not THAT talk, the talk about retro games and how much better things were back in our days! We have @Reputator join us and talk a bit about the Scorpio and some retro PC cards. [email protected] us about console retro gaming and how he just got his Super Mario USA. While @Jason tells us about the day his parents threw out all his retro consoles. A sad day for any gamer. So listen and give us your feed back about your retro gaming experience!    


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Signifyin(g)Monkey last won the day on August 1 2015

Signifyin(g)Monkey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


About Signifyin(g)Monkey

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. And what legislation are they enacting? This is just a court striking down a piece of legislation that does not comport, in its opinion, with the law, not proposing de facto new legislation. Why is it that conservatives such as yourself agree that this is what the court is supposed to do until it either does it to a bit of legislation you like, or makes a Republican look bad? Sounds like you don't take the constitution as seriously as you say you do.
  2. I say keep the statues, but just modify them to make them more indicative of the goals of the confederacy by having droves of slaves with whip marks on their backs surrounding all the confederate soldiers, with a few of the latter watching as the plantation-owners whose interests they are defending rape some slave women, and the whole scene dotted by depictions of the bloated bodies of lynched male slaves left to rot in the sun.
  3. What about you? How would you 'exterminate' Islam, in a non-"chicken shit" way?
  4. Finally, someone is willing to vocalize what folks like DVD always imply in their arguments but refuse to say out loud. Out of curiosity, how would you carry out your final solution, if you had the power to implement one?
  5. And here I was thinking the follow-up to 'King Animal' would come any day now.
  6. Plus this could possibly backfire for the Dems if Trump is exonerated and they handle it poorly. I think too many people are forgetting to consider the possibility that Trump won't be charged with anything and the Trumpkins and GOP shills will be crying "nothing burger" by election time. The fact that it would likely be the same people who were outraged Clinton wasn't charged with anything (and then decried the Dems' calling the investigation into her a "nothing burger") won't matter since, as we've seen on this board alone, conservatives are as perfectly willing to engage in stunning hypocrisy and entertain massive cognitive dissonance under Trump as liberals were under Obama. That's what the cries of "fake news" are really about.
  7. So you 'lost faith' in Comey because the outcome of his investigation into Clinton didn't turn out like you wanted? *And* you were outraged about Bill's meeting with Lynch? But not at this? And now you're complaining about people flip-flopping on this issue? (There is now zero doubt in my mind that you would be doing precisely what the anti-Trump crowd is doing now had Obama, say, fired Comey once his investigation into Clinton started to heat up, considering how you view Bill's conversation with Lynch) Perhaps you fail to see the irony in your position here. Jigs certainly fails to see it.
  8. 2/3 of the nation thinks politicians are out of touch, because they are pissed off, as polls since the late years of Dubya's tenure have shown. The 2nd Great Depression combined with broader structural changes to the economy have caused wages and income to stagnate for much of the middle class--the median family income is the same now as it was in 1996, and the median wage hasn't budged since the 1970s--and made it so that you need a college education just to reach median income levels, making the lower-middle-class feel like they're not getting ahead and the middle-class feel like they're treading water. Social media has intensified this anger in an unprecedented way and to an unprecedented degree, since people only seek out news that reaffirms how they already feel. When they're pissed off, people blame the politicians. Impersonal economic forces are too abstract to blame, and people won't blame themselves. So for the 60+% who feel they have seen their quality of life decline since the nineties, it's time to be angry at those in power--regardless of who they are. That's the real message of this poll.
  9. Well I at least get his admiration of Jackson. He and Trump were very similar; populist nationalists who were loved by similar constituencies and despised by similar demographic groups, and thought using strong-arm tactics to expel non-white, non-US-citizen residents of North America to be good policy.
  10. Good God, could you imagine the Republican conniptions that would have resulted from Obama saying this kind of thing?
  11. On the contrary; building an infrastructure for private trade where said infrastructure did not exist priorly is "injecting yourself in the middle" of said trade, in the most powerful way. Constraining supply and demand to a certain legal framework enforced by a central authority absolutely effects supply and demand. You can argue about the positive or negative effects of said government involvement, but it is government involvement nonetheless, and since you do not possess a rigorous definition for the distinction between 'involvement' and 'interference', it is ultimately, when you peel away all the rhetoric, a distinction without a difference. No, if you go back to the article you posted what you actually presented us with is a series of circular arguments. Saying "fire services and policing are public goods because they are public goods" is not an argument. Likewise, saying "fire services and policing should be public provided because they are not excludable and rivalrous" when they would be excludable and rivalrous were they not publicly provided is also not a real argument. There is a middle ground, on that I agree--but there is no logically consistent underpinning to the middle ground you choose. Therefore, the arguments you present in favor of one form of government involvement in the private economy vs another are not rigorous, and this is an affliction shared by many modern conservatives.
  12. You once again fail to distinguish between monopolies and monopoly power. The invisible hand, as a concept, only works when there is always another competitor ready to underbid a pre-existing competitor's prices. In this system, no firm can manipulate supply and demand, because the market is always divided between firms of roughly equal market share--the relentless pressure of competition means that only the productivity of the firm can generate profits, and that no matter how big one gets, its competitors will readily catch up. Thence we reach pareto optimality and the nirvana of 'equilibrium'. But once these conditions are no longer true, we are in a world where there is *not* always room for a competitor's better widget to enter the market. The sustainability of the competitor's business can be directly undermined via the monopoly power of a large, established competitor pushing the price level below the competitor's price of production--NOT because the firm with monopoly power is producing a better product, but because it has more control over market supply to begin with. True, you may argue the initial acquisition of market power may come from the firm being more productive than others, but historically market power has only been made sustainable by collusive arrangements--Standard Oil's partnership with the railroads, for example, or the large petroleum producers' informal price arrangements with the largest weapon manufacturers during the Cold War. (and by the time it was receiving kickbacks from the railways, by the way, Standard Oil absolutely was 'resting on its laurels', as it had stopped refining its production methods and turned all its money towards buying into further collusive deals--only to see its business expand further than ever before!) This is, again, a form of rent extraction, and economic rent is not productive. It is parasitic, and when it becomes widespread enough it depresses and deflates what might otherwise be productive economies. This is the legacy of feudalism, for example--the economy of feudal Europe barely grew at all, because it was weighed down by the costs of rent-extraction from the manoral lords. It wasn't until industrial capitalism and the factory owners began to undermine the rentier class that Europe's economy grew again, the way it had during the Roman Empire, when the landlord class and its rentiers were considerably weaker. Adam Smith knew this--that was why he envisioned a 'free market' as one free of economic rent and monopoly power. (But the rentier class had to reclaim and pervert the meaning of this term to fight back against the Democratic surge of the Progressive Era) You actually already know this, but you bury this knowledge under sacred ideological narratives. Take what you said about Amazon: Even when a firm is not a monopoly, using a large amount of monopoly power to extract rent and control an industry can absolutely have all the negative effects you describe. What you leave out is that it is just as bad as when Apple tries to do it by buying into collusive arrangements with booksellers. By the way, just to further show the cognitive dissonance you have unveiled in this thread, I direct everyone's attention to this post in the Amazon thread, which pretty much undermines what dvd is saying in this thread: ^^^A long way off from "monopolies are virtually nonexistent in the free market"!
  13. This is muddled nonsense, given that government is already a part of every transaction under capitalism--without the government enforcing contracts, maintaining a legal structure for trade, standardizing monetary transactions, imposing national borders, setting immigration law and operating exclusionary ownership mechanisms like intellectual property laws the capitalist system would fall apart at the seams. We've also already clearly established that you have no rigorous criteria for what goods the government is justified in providing and what goods it is not. E.g., You cannot provide a coherent, non-circular argument as to why we should not have a fully privatized military, or fully privatized court system. The one time you actually tried all you could present was a simulacrum of criteria built on question-begging arguments. And so your explanation as to why 'x' can't be classified as a public good will always be confused, built as it is on a foundation of sand that has not truly been thought through--one that you try to paper over with vague ideological platitudes.
  14. This once again is all based on a fantasy-land version of capitalism that exists in theory but never in the real world. In real-world capitalism, the goal of the dominant capital groups is the maximization of monopoly power, and thereby economic rent. And economic rent is not productive; it does not generate profit through the expansion of production, but by the extraction of money from the production of others through passive ownership. This drive to rent extraction exists because perfect competition does not exist in real world capitalism; all the major markets, particularly the global ones, are imperfectly competitive, and imperfect competition allows firms to acquire monopoly power. One need only look at the composition of ownership in terms of market capitalization throughout the modern history of capitalism; what you get is not a picture of a universe where all firms can only retain small, roughly equal market share due to the price pressures of perfect competition, but a two-tiered universe where the supermajority of the market is split between massive firms in an oligopolistic arrangement and a vast number of small firms with tiny market shares that do not ever directly compete with the dominant firms. In such an environment, it be hooves dominant capital groups to engage in formal or informal collusion, as this is one of the most effective ways of maintaining monopoly power--one need only look at the way, say, the largest weapon manufacturers and the largest oil producers colluded during the Cold War era to squeeze out smaller competitors and prop up each other's market share. Thus your analysis of the role of government is, unsurprisingly, simplistic and unrealistic. Firstly, dominant capital and the process of capital accumulation itself is dependent upon government--without the government to enforce its contracts at home and abroad, and protect its ownership claims through exclusionary mechanisms like intellectual property laws, the ruling class of firms under capitalism would be unable to expand or even exist. In a similar vein, the government helps dominant capital set wage rates by imposing national borders and immigration laws to manage the size of the workforce and thus workers' bargaining power. But democracy turns the government into a 'wild card', because it can also discipline the behavior of dominant capital by breaking up monopolies, prosecuting fraudulent activity, granting rights to labor, etc. This is why dominant capital generally prefers autocratic governments, why anti-labor economists (like the Austrians that inspired Reagan and Thatcher) generally hate democracy, and why many of the capitalist ruling class criticize democracy as an inefficient system. (Listen, for example, to Pete Thiel's thoughts on democracy) It is also why there has been a century-long effort to rewrite the history of economic thought in an Orwellian fashion and pervert the meaning of terms like 'free market.' When Adam Smith wrote 'The Wealth of Nations', what he meant by the term 'free market' was virtually the opposite of what you mean. What he dubbed a 'free market' was a market free from monopoly power and rent extraction, both being the legacy of feudalism, which he was advocating against. He was concerned with separating out earned income from unearned income as a component of price, and advocated for policies that got rid of the latter form of income. You are hostage to an ideology based on doublethink, one that has redefined this term to mean a market where monopoly power is empowered, entrenched, and morally justified and where rentiers are free to leech off the real economy and the economic surplus by extracting unearned income from it rather than forced to generate their profits by growing and contributing to the surplus. The only irony greater than this, to my mind, is that you also totally contradict yourself even on your own corrupted terms--let us not forget how you raged against Amazon for its outsized market share and were outraged that it had not been checked by antitrust forces, yet gave Apple a pass when it engaged in collusion, and are so possessed by doublethink that you spend your time posting ideological narratives that would indict your criticism of Amazon as 'socialist' tripe! But then again, by your own criteria Adam Smith would also be a 'socialist', because you have diluted and polluted that term as well, reducing it to a meaningless buzzword. /economic rant
  15. That the political rulers of a nation state should reflect the preferences of its populace is one of the cardinal aims of and justifications for democracy. Why would a believer in democracy not want harmony between the views of the citizenry and the views of their rulers?