#9261 ·
I’m not necessarily calling for a massive, overreaching government; I just believe it should focus on its actual purpose rather than trying to run a fertilizer plant.
Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)
Started by Morgan Williams · · 👁 1.2K views · 18K replies
Participants
…
…
#9262 ·
Justin James10 said:I honestly don't get what you're driving at... Is it the implication that America is successful, or are you actually trying to compare Elon Musk's measurable global achievements to the constant bickering of Americans every four years? What on earth is the point?
Rimac’s global success wouldn't even exist if his old man hadn't been that corrupt, "big government" type of politician. That stolen taxpayer money was essentially the seed capital for Rimac’s "free market entrepreneurship." It’s a classic case of "winning the market competition" in the United States.
restlesssurfer97 said:Man, you're totally missing the forest for the trees, because what you're doing is ignoring the whole point of what I've been preaching this entire time, which is basically that we need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel or wait around for some magical new system to drop out of the sky and just look at how Manchester United operates, you know?
Manchester United didn't just manifest success out of thin air; it happened within a very specific context. You're dealing with a league where half the clubs can barely make payroll, and your big suggestion is that they should all just try to mimic Manchester United? Really?
#9263 ·
Justin James10 said:I’m not necessarily calling for a massive, overreaching government; I just believe it should focus on its actual purpose rather than trying to run a fertilizer plant.
Alright, fine. But how exactly do you think a weak government is supposed to take down some billionaire who’s basically doing whatever the hell he wants?
#9264 ·
Charles Chase4 said:I agree, though I would argue that this cycle remains eternal specifically because the government ensures it stays that way—constantly subsidizing companies that aren't actually capable of surviving on their own.
As for your second point, I’m honestly not sure how to respond; I feel like it’s one of those things that should just be self-evident.🤷
Consider Person A, who launches a tech firm and, ten years later, employs thirty people using revenue generated from clients who actually found their services valuable. Now consider Person B, who holds a press conference to scare an underinformed electorate with tales of foreign threats and old-world radicalism.😁
Who would I rather have deciding whether or not I have a paycheck?🤷
That’s a fair point, though when we start talking about massive corporations and real concentrated power, we aren't exactly looking at small-scale IT shops with 30 people on the payroll.
#9265 ·
ruggedjackal46 said:Rimac’s global success wouldn't even exist if his old man hadn't been that corrupt, "big government" type of politician. That stolen taxpayer money was essentially the seed capital for Rimac’s "free market entrepreneurship." It’s a classic case of "winning the market competition" in the United States.
Manchester United didn't just manifest success out of thin air; it happened within a very specific context. You're dealing with a league where half the clubs can barely make payroll, and your big suggestion is that they should all just try to mimic Manchester United? Really?
So you brought up Manchester United. Out of every single franchise on the planet, you chose Manchester United. You had the total freedom to pick any other club in the world to use as a benchmark against Inter Milan.
I honestly can't tell if you're totally missing the point or if... well, I don't even know what else to call it.
We should be looking at whatever is actually working, and frankly, those models work a whole lot better than this absolute mess we've got going on here.
#9266 ·
restlesssurfer97 said:Man, honestly, I feel like our perspectives are pretty much aligned on most things anyway, so I don't really see the point in sitting here and breaking down my definition of liberalization for you.
You're totally right that we have to look at everything through the lens of how chaotic this country is, but it's also true that the way things are running right now clearly isn't working, and sticking to the status quo is just a fundamentally broken way to handle it.
#9267 ·
wiredfalcon2 said:Alright, fine. But how exactly do you think a weak government is supposed to take down some billionaire who’s basically doing whatever the hell he wants?
Give me an actual example here, like what specifically are you talking about regarding those countries we’re all trying to emulate—you know, the ones where economic freedom is way higher than what we deal with here in the States?
Honestly, thank God our government stepped in and seized control of Giant Food Corp.
#9268 ·
Look, you guys have really gotten into it with this debate, but I guess without a cloud of cigarette smoke, some heavy alcohol fumes, and a crying baby in the background, we aren't ever going to reach a truly satisfying conclusion here ☕
I suppose I agree with restlesssurfer97 that the bigger issue is probably just the total lack of consensus regarding the actual definitions of the terms we're all throwing around.
In my view, the government ought to be social—maybe leaning toward a Nordic-style model rather than the way things are currently run here in the States
But then again, I also feel like the role of a social state shouldn't involve endlessly propping up massive state-run corporations that are unprofitable and unsustainable—you know, essentially saving jobs that simply can't survive in a free market environment just because politicians are terrified of losing votes in the next election. The same logic probably applies to maintaining that bloated, inefficient bureaucratic machine, too.
I suppose I agree with restlesssurfer97 that the bigger issue is probably just the total lack of consensus regarding the actual definitions of the terms we're all throwing around.
In my view, the government ought to be social—maybe leaning toward a Nordic-style model rather than the way things are currently run here in the States
But then again, I also feel like the role of a social state shouldn't involve endlessly propping up massive state-run corporations that are unprofitable and unsustainable—you know, essentially saving jobs that simply can't survive in a free market environment just because politicians are terrified of losing votes in the next election. The same logic probably applies to maintaining that bloated, inefficient bureaucratic machine, too.
#9269 ·
restlesssurfer97 said:So you brought up Manchester United. Out of every single franchise on the planet, you chose Manchester United. You had the total freedom to pick any other club in the world to use as a benchmark against Inter Milan.
I honestly can't tell if you're totally missing the point or if... well, I don't even know what else to call it.
We should be looking at whatever is actually working, and frankly, those models work a whole lot better than this absolute mess we've got going on here.
Fine, if we're playing that game, I’d compare them to a small tech startup in Silicon Valley that just landed a private billionaire owner. How do we think that turned out?
#9270 ·
wiredfalcon2 said:Alright, fine. But how exactly do you think a weak government is supposed to take down some billionaire who’s basically doing whatever the hell he wants?
To be more precise, we should call it a "minimalist" state. After all, legal certainty is one of the absolute pillars of capitalism, isn't it? And that level of stability requires an efficient government—if not a strong one, at least!
#9271 ·
ruggedjackal46 said:Fine, if we're playing that game, I’d compare them to a small tech startup in Silicon Valley that just landed a private billionaire owner. How do we think that turned out?
Look, I don't know the whole gritty backstory with that specific utility company, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that it went under because of bad private management—I think that's what you're getting at, right?
The real thing is, do you honestly believe the government should be stepping in and using my tax dollars to bail out a situation like this?
#9272 ·
Jacob Morgan said:Look, you guys have really gotten into it with this debate, but I guess without a cloud of cigarette smoke, some heavy alcohol fumes, and a crying baby in the background, we aren't ever going to reach a truly satisfying conclusion here ☕
I suppose I agree with restlesssurfer97 that the bigger issue is probably just the total lack of consensus regarding the actual definitions of the terms we're all throwing around.
In my view, the government ought to be social—maybe leaning toward a Nordic-style model rather than the way things are currently run here in the States
But then again, I also feel like the role of a social state shouldn't involve endlessly propping up massive state-run corporations that are unprofitable and unsustainable—you know, essentially saving jobs that simply can't survive in a free market environment just because politicians are terrified of losing votes in the next election. The same logic probably applies to maintaining that bloated, inefficient bureaucratic machine, too.
#9273 ·
Justin James10 said:To be more precise, we should call it a "minimalist" state. After all, legal certainty is one of the absolute pillars of capitalism, isn't it? And that level of stability requires an efficient government—if not a strong one, at least!
Vekjo is actually pretty skilled when it comes to debating, he uses this classic move where he spins your own arguments around on you, basically forcing you into a corner where you're stuck defending positions you don't even actually believe in, and he probably knows the exact technical name for that specific tactic since I'm definitely not educated enough to put a label on it, but I know it when I see it. 🙂
#9274 ·
ruggedjackal46 said:Rimac’s global success wouldn't even exist if his old man hadn't been that corrupt, "big government" type of politician. That stolen taxpayer money was essentially the seed capital for Rimac’s "free market entrepreneurship." It’s a classic case of "winning the market competition" in the United States.
Manchester United didn't just manifest success out of thin air; it happened within a very specific context. You're dealing with a league where half the clubs can barely make payroll, and your big suggestion is that they should all just try to mimic Manchester United? Really?
I’ll just jump in here to add my two cents and address that last point.
Look, the initial capital is what it is; there’s no use dwelling on the past now. But the real takeaway should be this: Rimac’s company—and frankly, any firm, even the massive conglomerates—must survive based on its own merits and operational quality. Success shouldn't depend on having political backups or being bailed out by government funds meant to mask incompetence, unsustainable models, or old-school nepotism.
As far as I can tell, when Rimac hires people these days, they're looking for actual education and genuine skill sets rather than a letter of recommendation from some local party official. Personally, I find that acceptable, regardless of where that initial startup cash actually originated.
#9275 ·
Jacob Morgan said:Look, you guys have really gotten into it with this debate, but I guess without a cloud of cigarette smoke, some heavy alcohol fumes, and a crying baby in the background, we aren't ever going to reach a truly satisfying conclusion here ☕
I suppose I agree with restlesssurfer97 that the bigger issue is probably just the total lack of consensus regarding the actual definitions of the terms we're all throwing around.
In my view, the government ought to be social—maybe leaning toward a Nordic-style model rather than the way things are currently run here in the States
But then again, I also feel like the role of a social state shouldn't involve endlessly propping up massive state-run corporations that are unprofitable and unsustainable—you know, essentially saving jobs that simply can't survive in a free market environment just because politicians are terrified of losing votes in the next election. The same logic probably applies to maintaining that bloated, inefficient bureaucratic machine, too.
Something like that.
#9276 ·
restlesssurfer97 said:Give me an actual example here, like what specifically are you talking about regarding those countries we’re all trying to emulate—you know, the ones where economic freedom is way higher than what we deal with here in the States?
Honestly, thank God our government stepped in and seized control of Giant Food Corp.
I didn't quite catch that. What are you getting at? Which example? Of what?
restlesssurfer97 said:Give me an actual example here, like what specifically are you talking about regarding those countries we’re all trying to emulate—you know, the ones where economic freedom is way higher than what we deal with here in the States?
Honestly, thank God our government stepped in and seized control of Giant Food Corp.
Look at what happened with companies like ExxonMobil—it wasn't some freak accident where the government just decided to rot from the inside out. A private corporation walked in and bought them off. Plain and simple. You read these threads and you’d think everyone believes private owners are some kind of saints who couldn't dream of a bribe, but that's just naive. When you have weak institutions like we do here in the States, a massive corporation can bend the system to its will without breaking a sweat. And this grand plan of yours? This idea that more and more privatization is going to somehow "strengthen" the nation? It's a joke. All it does is leave the door wide open for these guys to corrupt the state even faster down the road.
Justin James10 said:To be more precise, we should call it a "minimalist" state. After all, legal certainty is one of the absolute pillars of capitalism, isn't it? And that level of stability requires an efficient government—if not a strong one, at least!
Look, an efficient legal system is the backbone of any society that actually works, whether you’re running a hardcore capitalist machine like the US or something a bit more moderate. But honestly? Let's stop beating around the bush and focus on one specific word: precision.
It’s an interesting point. Especially when you use a specific term like "shipyards," even though some of them have already been privatized—something I’m pretty sure you and restlesssurfer97 both knew. When you guys were typing out "shipyards," you weren't just regurgitating memorized talking points like someone who doesn't have a clue how this industry works. You actually know the ownership structures behind these American shipyards. Right?
Look, if you’re gonna sit there acting like an absolute expert on shipyard ownership structures without actually knowing how they work, you just look like a total moron. It’s honestly embarrassing—like someone who thinks they understand the entire economy just by scrolling through some random influencer's Facebook feed.
#9277 ·
I have to agree; there is absolutely no point in having these kinds of debates without at least half a bottle of wine in your system, leaning over a singed tablecloth to stare someone right in the eye and shouting nicotine-stained spit into their face while asking if they’ve actually bothered to look at the homeless population in the US ☕
Because that is usually how he ends up dragging you and every other leftist straight into the gutter.
Because that is usually how he ends up dragging you and every other leftist straight into the gutter.
#9278 ·
restlesssurfer97 said:Look, I don't know the whole gritty backstory with that specific utility company, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that it went under because of bad private management—I think that's what you're getting at, right?
The real thing is, do you honestly believe the government should be stepping in and using my tax dollars to bail out a situation like this?
It wasn't the owner's fault; the team collapsed because the revenue in the MLS just can't justify those kinds of massive investments.
The real question is, do you honestly believe the government should be stepping in with my tax dollars to fix a situation like this?
The point is that here in America, whenever something isn't profitable—even if it serves some kind of social purpose—it's the government that ends up picking up the pieces. Basically, "Option B" looks great when the sun is shining, but as soon as a storm hits, you realize we're still stuck relying on "Option A" behind the scenes.
#9279 ·
brightpilot6 said:
Is this supposed to be my Easter gift? I guess the motto here is basically—if you don't agree with me, you're a communist.☕
#9280 ·
brightpilot6 said:I have to agree; there is absolutely no point in having these kinds of debates without at least half a bottle of wine in your system, leaning over a singed tablecloth to stare someone right in the eye and shouting nicotine-stained spit into their face while asking if they’ve actually bothered to look at the homeless population in the US ☕
Because that is usually how he ends up dragging you and every other leftist straight into the gutter.
Well, there’s no substitute for barroom philosophy, is there? 🙏
He’d probably just swap the wine for whiskey anyway. ☕
The big shipyards were basically "privatized" just to satisfy some bureaucratic red tape from overseas regulators, nothing more than a way to keep the higher-ups happy. In reality, they’re still living off government guarantees. If you look at the situation in places like Savannah or Mobile, things are supposedly heading toward privatization, though the leadership there keeps whining about state subsidies and cutting deals behind closed doors—I know plenty of engineers who work for them, including some former colleagues of mine. As for the major yards out East, those are first-class scams. It’s like one yard swallowed another and then claimed it was a private takeover. Who actually owns these companies? The whole thing is incredibly murky. It looks like most of the ownership sits with certain players who used shell companies to siphon off the very funds the government was pumping in, using that cash to buy up the majority stake. At the end of the day, they’re all just living off the taxpayers. That is how you handle shipyard privatization the American way.
🔗 Similar threads
- Group chat drama and the "truth in Off-topic · Jul 29, 2026
- Is everything becoming just another AI chatbot? in Software · Jul 29, 2026
- Is the "Empty Chat" era officially dead? in Random / Off-topic · Jul 28, 2026
- Private Chat for Me and My Inner Circle Only. Chapter III. The Return of the King. in Off-topic · May 7, 2023
- ChatGPT in IT Support · Apr 21, 2023