npts2020

Well you don't seem to show it. Imagine there are 2 people. The first one will modify their beliefs as new and better evidence comes to light, the second is willfully ignorant and will not change their beliefs regardless of any evidence presented. Which one is indoctrinated?

Ok, so how much is price gouging? 10% more than normal? 50%? 200%? 1,000%? If I had the foresight and means to acquire something in short supply, who are you to tell me I am price gouging if people will pay it? It seems to me I should be congratulated for being a good enough capitalist to maximize my profits.

Having laws is all well and good but they have to actually be enforced and in a timely manner. In the US, they seem to be rarely enforced and when they are, it generally takes years of litigation before there is any conclusion to the matter, by which time the monopolist usually has had long enough to make up for any penalties imposed. IMO that makes the current (US) system closer to that unfettered ideal than to than to the kind of ideal that ought control capitalism enough to benefit everyone. In an ideal world, this would happen but it doesn't seem to apply to the majority of citizens in the US. For example, one of the things people complain about the price of is cereal. All of the big producers (General Mills, Kelloggs, and Post) raised prices significantly over the past couple of years while most small producers' prices barely budged yet General Mills, Kelloggs and Post remain the top cereal makers, by far. This is even with many generics being virtually the same as what they sell. Well, the "simplistic label" I am trying to get to the bottom of is exactly what is "price gouging"? It seems to me, there are very few things in life one can't do without or find an alternative for so why pay a price for something if you feel you are being "gouged"?

Competition is an interesting concept when it comes to capitalism. Wouldn't getting rid of competition so you can maximize profits be what a good capitalist should strive for?

At least those knowing anything about dark matter and dark energy admit that and are willing to accept evidence to the contrary when found, unlike those who believe invisible pink unicorns are responsible for everything in the universe...

Even if you are granted the notion that most atheists think the same way about anything, I don't suppose it is possible that after eliminating invisible pink unicorns as being the cause of everything in the universe, that evolution might be the best explanation for the way things are. Don't most people believe in what they think is the most plausible narrative of a topic?

That's the beauty of typing, you can't be interrupted by irrelevancies, shouted down, or not heard. Furthermore, one has time to fully consider and review what is being "said" before actually "saying" it.

This was said on another thread, "We’ve seen many recent examples of companies price-gouging because they were prioritizing their own interests." It doesn't matter who it was because I have heard the same or similar statements from many people, both on and off of this forum. The question is, "How in a supposedly capitalist society can there be such a thing as price-gouging?" I thought the whole principle of capitalism is that greed is the best motivator and you should charge whatever the market will bear?

Flux??? Isn't that the stuff you use for welding?

It seems like you are trying to describe a maglev system which doesn't even require supercooling to lift the object in question, only certain materials.

It is definitely the culture IMO. Other than Native Americans, we are used to just taking whatever we want/need (by force if necessary) with little regard for those being taken from. In addition, those who take the most are held in the highest esteem.

Democracy runs into problems when those doing the voting are relatively clueless about exactly what it is they are voting on and how it affects anything...

IMO it IS Americans per se. We worship violence and are easily duped so allow the system being discussed to perpetuate. e.g. Kill enough people on the other side of a war to make them give up and you are a national hero, prevent that war in the first place and few will remember your name. Need I point out more than current American politics to make the case for being easily duped?

Maybe require those desiring guns become part of a "well regulated militia"?

It's not vegan. Here I was hoping you actually had a point related to the topic under discussion worthy of consideration.

I make maple syrup every year. Unless you are conceding that I am a god, it beggars sensibility to claim "god did it". It's the same with virtually all human endeavors. Your turn to give a counter example...

I have read the thread and in science you don't "know" anything, there are only provisional explanations for things until someone comes up with a better one. That is why I want an example of "god did it" being that best provisional explanation.

This is quite an extraordinary claim, so I asked for an example. I thought the request was straightforward enough for anyone able to comprehend the English language... Also, I never claimed humans cannot be deluded or that ANYONE knows everything.

Also "nature" is known for harshness, once an entity is no longer among "the fittest", it dies and is gone.. OTOH "god" keeps a person (not sure if it applies to dogs and amoebae) around forever in some form or another.

Apparently, I am not smart enough to see the analogy. It seems more like the other way around since you are the one making extraordinary claims and in need of defense.

And all I did was ask for a single example of "god did it" being the conclusion with the most evidence behind it....

Until you prove the existence of god, I don't see how this would ever be true. AFAIK science is supposed to be based on the best available evidence, can you give any examples of "god did it" being that best evidence?

AFAIK Communism doesn't take religion into account, that would be Marxism which uses a communist economy as part of broader social structure...

Since there is still an electoral college, I think Trump will win. It seems like he has rural America pretty much locked up and those places wield more power in a Presidential election than do urban ones. Virtually everyone I know who is a Trump supporter complains about the high price of gas, groceries and rent (the fact that inflation was lower in the US than in most of the rest of the world is irrelevant) and immigration (one of the good ole bogeymen-these lesser humans are coming to take away your livelihood and change your way of life). While both sides seem willing to take steps that are likely to be completely inadequate for the mass migration event that is just beginning and is likely to only grow in the coming decades, neither wants to talk about the root causes of either. Like, how come at the peak of the oil crisis in the 70's, when gas was being "rationed", the price of a barrel of oil went above $150 but gas never approached $3/gallon (most places it was still <$1) yet today, when the price of a barrel of oil is less then half the peak of 50 years ago there are few places you can get gas for (not much) under $3. Or, how much does allowing corporate entities to buy up massive quantities of residential and agricultural real estate affect rents or ability of the average person to buy a home?

Maybe a dual use sign, just white out "Donald" after the election?