NationStates Jolt Archive

Ashmoria - As opposed to a paperpusher working for the government, and only works for the government because he/she is too incompetent or underqualified to hold a comparable position in the private sector? You are certainly brave.

Gift of God -Of 36 nations with universal health care, 4 have better rates, with three being very close. That means that 32 do not do as well. One in nine does better? Where is this broken American system? Seems good and competitive to me. Perhaps there are other statistics you would like to show?

As for pancreatice cancer, Yes, we have as a nation a 20% survival rating. I can't find one for other nations, but I'll admit it can be improved. I do not see that as a reason to switch to the system to put forward, just to improve as much in this area as we have consistently done in others.

I can't help it if you can't understand simple math. The number of deaths per incidents of breast cancer in the USA is 19/101.1. The survival rate is 1- that rate times 100. That's 81%.

incidence rate does not mean what you think it does

Ashmoria - As opposed to a paperpusher working for the government, and only works for the government because he/she is too incompetent or underqualified to hold a comparable position in the private sector? You are certainly brave.


you need to learn to use the quote function.

yes. since SOME non-medical person is going to control health care, id rather it be a bureaucrat than an insurance company employee.

You state that there is nothing socialist about government ownership of capital and class equalization.

I gave you a source several posts ago: socialism is about giving the producers control of the means of production.

No 'consensual exchange' is made under duress

Wow, way to condemn the capitalist wage-system. ;)

No reasonable person would refuse a bailout in that condition: it is under Duress.

That is not the definition of "duress."

In any case, it makes no sense to insist (a) GM deserves no bailout money and (b) the government is violating GM's rights by putting conditions on the bailout money. It would make sense to claim (a) without (b), or (b) without (a), but together they make no sense at all: if GM should get nothing, it can hardly complain that what it does get is conditional.

Lets not neglect those. Permanent Oversight. Partial Ownership.

People are talking about serious administrative changes for GM, but not government oversight in the long term (not beyond general regulation of the economy, anyway.)

Because let us be clear: the government is taking partial ownership of financial institutions and other coorporations with no provision to return that ownership to the private sector at a later date.

That is their obvious intention. The government has purchased "bad debt" and the like only very reluctantly, when no one else has been inclined to: the moment they can put it back on the market, they will.

It doesn't matter that businesses sucess and failure is unintended by individual capitalist consumers:

Freedom is all about "intention."

the mainenance of viability, success and failure it brings, and restructing or capital to where consumers want it is part and parcel of the capitalist economic system

Like so many dogmatic thinkers, you think only in absolutes and not on the margin: all right, "success and failure" by market forces may be important to economic health, but does that mean that the government should never bail out companies? No: it means (at most) that as a general rule the government should not intervene in market outcomes. And it does not.

The exceptions, however, are what matter here.

Those restrictions: well, they are on aid granted by legislation, the restrictions are executive (...not decided upon by those elected to decide upon them), and do not expire.

Um, I'm fairly sure the restrictions are part of the stimulus package itself as it was passed by Congress. Can you source otherwise?

(b) some absolutely, because of budget constraints, cannot afford to refuse it.

That's their problem: it does not point to federal overreach. The states are not owed federal money. Like GM, they cannot object if money that they are not entitled to comes with conditions.

Soheran- Myrmidonisia was giving the only actual statistic related to US vs no-US healthcare in this thread, those such has been asked from repeatedly from those claiming that health care is supperior outside the US. That makes the stat directly relevant, and enlightening in that no rebuttal statistic has been made readily available.

The WHO ranks the US health care system pretty low, compared to European industrialized countries.

Ashmoria - As opposed to a paperpusher working for the government, and only works for the government because he/she is too incompetent or underqualified to hold a comparable position in the private sector? You are certainly brave.

Gift of God -Of 36 nations with universal health care, 4 have better rates, with three being very close. That means that 32 do not do as well. One in nine does better? Where is this broken American system? Seems good and competitive to me. Perhaps there are other statistics you would like to show?

As for pancreatice cancer, Yes, we have as a nation a 20% survival rating. I can't find one for other nations, but I'll admit it can be improved. I do not see that as a reason to switch to the system to put forward, just to improve as much in this area as we have consistently done in others.

45th in the World by life expectancy, and 32nd (behind Cuba!) by infant mortality rate. That would seem to me a better metric than ability at dealing with one form of cancer.

I can't help it if you can't understand simple math. The number of deaths per incidents of breast cancer in the USA is 19/101.1. The survival rate is 1- that rate times 100. That's 81%.

...so where are you getting your numbers for prostate cancer, when the link you posted doesn't even have death rate statistics for the US, just incidence?

Also, I second FS: you don't understand the significance of "incidence." If one country catches 100% of the cases and another country catches 50%, and the survival rate is the same, by your method you would calculate a far higher survival rate for the first.

...so where are you getting your numbers for prostate cancer, when the link you posted doesn't even have death rate statistics for the US, just incidence?

Out of your ass, apparently.

Using the "age-standardized" numbers (the only ones there are) for incidence and mortality (Fig. 1.3), we're looking at a UK survival rate around 75% even by your method.

Of course, the link also provides this helpful gem: "Recent incidence rates are heavily influenced by the availability of PSA testing in the population and incidence varies far more than mortality."

I can't help it if you can't understand simple math. The number of deaths per incidents of breast cancer in the USA is 19/101.1. The survival rate is 1- that rate times 100. That's 81%.

My mistake, I thought you were discussing the survival rate per 100,000 women, as per the chart. The chart says that 19 women out of every 100,000 will die from it. Not that 19 women out of the 101.1 will die from it. That's why the legend says that all numbers are per 100,000

What you claim: The USA has 101.1 cases of breast cancer per 100,000 women. Out of those 101.1, there will be 19 deaths. This is a survival rate of (101.1 - 19)/101.1 or 81.2%

What the chart actually says: The USA has 19 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. This is a survival rate of (100,000 - 19)/100,000 or 0.99981. (99.981%)

Troista - No. Just, no. There are conservatives who are corrupt, and liberals, socialist, etc. The fact is that conservatives as a whole have only one major trait in common: being conservative. Assuming otherwise is ignorant. The issue I, as a conservative, have with the things you say is that you pay no nevermind to the fact that it won't be free: you will lose freedoms. This has been hashed and rehased to the point I won't repeat it again. And no, I haven't gotten any bailout money myself. But I will make one further point:

I ain't whining about socialism. Read. I am stating that, many of the policies being enacted, which resemble socialism, do not reconcile with the constitution, or common sense, and logically will result in a negative situation for the American public. Anything beyond that, you're making up.

Ashmoria - If you don't know what I'm responding to, take the time to read what you post.

I am aware of the quote function, and how to use it. I choose not to, as I am, at least currently, still free to do. I figure that, If you, who I am quoting, do not respect me enough to read and understand the very clear concise passages I write, then I have no obligation to your convienience. The alternative, of course, is that you really aren't getting it, in which case being nice to you would just be condesencion.

Ok, here's one...Gov. Jindal (LA), turned down $90 million because it would require a change in unemployment laws raising taxes on certain businesses. In short, the funds would temporarily fund a permanent increase in unemployment benefits at a state level. Just Google jindal $100 million unemployment. Of course, you are now welcome to show me something that proves there are no permanent strings attached to this money.

Gift of God - Deaths per 100,000 and survival rate are necessarily different. The first tells how many per 100,000 members of the population, the second tells the percentage of those who actually get the diasease survive it. Simple.

Free Soviets - As opposed, I don't know, to mocking someone else for understanding the language they are reading?

...

Gift of God - Deaths per 100,000 and survival rate are necessarily different. The first tells how many per 100,000 members of the population, the second tells the percentage of those who actually get the diasease survive it. Simple.
...

Even if your interpretation of the numbers was the correct one, it would still show that the USA is still sixth out of the twelve developed countires listed.

Ashmoria - If you don't know what I'm responding to, take the time to read what you post.

I am aware of the quote function, and how to use it. I choose not to, as I am, at least currently, still free to do. I figure that, If you, who I am quoting, do not respect me enough to read and understand the very clear concise passages I write, then I have no obligation to your convienience. The alternative, of course, is that you really aren't getting it, in which case being nice to you would just be condesencion.

Ok, here's one...Gov. Jindal (LA), turned down $90 million because it would require a change in unemployment laws raising taxes on certain businesses. In short, the funds would temporarily fund a permanent increase in unemployment benefits at a state level. Just Google jindal $100 million unemployment. Of course, you are now welcome to show me something that proves there are no permanent strings attached to this money.


well arent you full of yourself.

i have posted many many posts to you, i cant be sure of exactly whatyou are responding to unless you give me a freaking CLUE.

since the governor of louisiana was free to decline the money, he is not being forced to change any law. nor is the state of louisiana barred from changing the law back after the stimulus money period is over if they should override his decision. which i hope they do for the sake of the unemployed in lousiana.

and that is NOT what you were talking about. you were talking about grabbing private companies and keeping them.

Free Soviets - As opposed, I don't know, to mocking someone else for understanding the language they are reading?

what?

Soheran - We still aren't communicating. You think I'm hung up on Socialism. I couldn't care less. My only concern is a series of activities on the part of the government.

The fact that the actions themselves are worrisome has nothing to do with Socialism. Socialism is a word. The word is being used because the actions at least partially fit some definitions of that word. The fact that they do not do so fully is irrelevant to the discussion of why the word was orginially used. This debate is not, supposed, to be about socialism. It is supposed to be about why some of the American people are supporting the actions in question, not the word.

You are right, people are not talking about permanent oversight of GM, they have however instituted oversight in a number of other areas and insistitutions (without 'talking' about doing so) with no provisions to end it. There is no good reason not to expect the same elsewhere, including GM where they have already flexed their Muscle.

You also stated that freedom is all about intention. Freedom is not all about intention. We all have the freedom to be jerks, we rarely intend to be. The Steelers had the freedom to lose the superbowl, but they didn't because, I don't think they intended to. Fact is, it is the freedom to intend to do something which matters, and capitalism is based on having the freedom to intend to influence, however miniscule an amount, the bottom line of businesses and the economy. This specific freedom is in fact valued by at least some of us. The freedom to intend to do things, even if we do them without intending to, is in fact the important one.

I agree with you again, at least partially. In some things, sucess or failure is the nomenclature. There are grey areas, but the economy as a whole, and more importantly the companies they are bailing out do not have them: breaking even is not an option for them. The economy either makes makes capital or loses it. Even sitting still loses capital through depreciation.

You stated one thing I've been trying to get across all day: the government should not intervene in market outcomes.

I agree entirely with that. And, as you said, there are exceptions. I agree with that. However, were we part, I think, is that I think that much more care must be paid to ensure that something Is just an exception. Out government, currently, has laid the groundwork for much more than the exception. Freedom is a privelege, not a right, and as such must be guarded. I do not have faith that any group of politicians will give up power once aquired. do you? Based on approval ratings, I do not believe that many people do. Neither do I believe that many of us actually trust politicians in any way. Why then, do we seem willing to allow them to give thems unparrelled powers over aspects of every americans life, how ever small that influence might today seem?

I'm out for this evening. Been fun bashing heads and all, but other things call.

Ashmoria - I was talking about grabing partial ownership in partial companies and not giving them back. Nobody is disputing that these grabs are happening, so perhaps you could enlight my ignorant self as to where I can find the portion of the stimulus bills that provided for the reprivatization of companies like AIG, since you are so certain they exist, and I seem unable to find them?

Ashmoria - I was talking about grabing partial ownership in partial companies and not giving them back. Nobody is disputing that these grabs are happening, so perhaps you could enlight my ignorant self as to where I can find the portion of the stimulus bills that provided for the reprivatization of companies like AIG, since you are so certain they exist, and I seem unable to find them?
i just listened to the president on TV saying that he had no intention of keeping any GM stock but instead intented it to return fully to private control.

why would the US government want to run a car complany or an insurance/investment company?

I figure that, If you, who I am quoting, do not respect me enough to read and understand the very clear concise passages I write, then I have no obligation to your convienience.
If you quote, other posters can read your posts much more easily, we don't have to wade through reams of text, and we can spot who you're replying to.

Some threads get a large amount of replies very quickly. It's a lot simpler to track down salient replies and conversations if they're quoted properly.

It's a question of etiquette and clarity.

The reduction of tax deductions for charitable contributions should worry us.

The reduction of government subsidies is a bad thing? Reducing the the use a social policy through the tax system is a bad thing? Reducing the alterations in incentives from the government is a bad thing? From a small government point of view these all seem like pretty good

The outright nationalization of banks and the demand to control other financial institutions should worry us.

Outright nationalization of banks hasn't happened. Arguably it should. Increasing regulation of opaque institutions that can affect the economy as a whole see

Now see? That is a valid question. Instead of attacking my original post out of some wanton desire to make him/herself look more important, this poster chose to ask a simple straight forward question.


[QUOTE]1. The government (controlled by any party) spending taxpayer money on private industries.

Do tax incentives for businesses whch cost the government money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Welfare_State) count? If not, why not?

2. The weakening of the peoples right to land ownership. (allowing a state or the federal government to take property to give/sell to another private party in an attempt to increase taxes etc) (this does not include the forced buying of land to expand highways, build police/fire stations etc.)

Why doesn't eminent domain for highways and the like count as socialism?

3, Forcing citizens to give up their money to those who haven't got as much money. This is done through a "free" healthcare system.

If free healthcare counts then one would think that law enforcement also counts as it also redistributes resources to the poor. Even more so for legal representation for criminal defense purposes.

We require drivers to have auto insurance, we can also require citizens to carry health insurance.

All viable plans to make health insurance mandatory includes subsidies to the poor or universal vouchers. Living is generally not considered to as much of a privilege as driving a car.

6. Using government money to pay for housing, medical, food to able bodied people.

Forced charity for the disabled isn't socialism?

...You stated one thing I've been trying to get across all day: the government should not intervene in market outcomes...

Is this a law of nature? Is it written in a holy book somewhere?

Governments should adhere to the constitution and the law (understanding, of course, that they can change the law). Given those limitations, governments can and do whatever is necessary to be remain in power. In a democracy that means doing enough to satisfy the voters in order to be re-elected. If intervening in the market is what it takes to get re-elected, then it will happen. "Should" doesn't come into it.

When a person starts saying "the government should" it tells me that the person is arguing from a position of political weakness.

Something one might consider: many rich people ultimately inherit their wealth. The stakes are stacked up in their favor. As this is the case, why shouldn't the government serve as an equalizer, for something as simple as keeping people alive and safe from disease (I understand there are exceptions, but there are always exceptions, so...)?

If you quote, other posters can read your posts much more easily, we don't have to wade through reams of text, and we can spot who you're replying to.


More than that, even.

There have been several points that this Indigo person made that I thought deserved more examination, and/or challenge... but I've made a conscious decision not to get involved, because I can't keep track of huge blobs of text with no order.

Indeed, I've actually stopped even reading Indigo... so maybe he or she is making some excellent points, but I'll never know - simply because I have no intention of getting yoked into an uneven debate relationship.

I like my posts to be fairly orderly, so that I can try as hard as I can to make sure my meaning is clear, and gets to the person I'm aiming it at. (I don't always succeed). I'm not going to take the time to do that, if there's a fairly good chance I'm going to miss content in the replies, simply because they're designed like a carcrash.

Something one might consider: many rich people ultimately inherit their wealth. The stakes are stacked up in their favor. As this is the case, why shouldn't the government serve as an equalizer, for something as simple as keeping people alive and safe from disease (I understand there are exceptions, but there are always exceptions, so...)?

In theory, it's an excellent plan. In practise, people are generally okay with it until someone asks THEM to participate in the giving rather than the taking.

Technically, that's true...but the flaws of certain former planners aren't flaws in the plan, are they?

incidence rate does not mean what you think it does
Yes it does. Both those figures, the number of cases and the number of deaths per 100,000. It doesn't matter what 100,000, because the units are the same. I calculate the survival rate from these numbers to be 81% in the US and that's consistent with other data

86% for the years covered in this article, for instance.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Breast-Cancer-Survival-Rate&id=856142

I know the numbers are saying what you want to see, but cancers are better treated in the US, than in any other place.

For the prostate cancer table, you need to do some interpolating, but considering the previous math was beyond your capability, I won't dwell on details.

Yes it does. Both those figures, the number of cases and the number of deaths per 100,000. It doesn't matter what 100,000, because the units are the same. I calculate the survival rate from these numbers to be 81% in the US and that's consistent with other data


The problem is, that the figures didn't say what you claimed they did.

For example - if you have figures for 2008 that say you have an incidence of 101 cases per 100,000... and you have a mortality of 19 per 100,000... would that mean that the math is a simple (19/101)*100?

No. Indeed, THAT number would be almost meaningless. You'd need to compare some kind of like-for-like numbers, which would mean processing the death data against the actual incidence of the cancer, which is quite likely to have been in a different year, AND you'd need to account for multiple incidences for the SAME patients, AND you'd need to cross-reference for aggressiveness and milignancy of the cancer.

In the second case, you basically appear to have made up numbers for the prostate cancer.

You can call it 'interpolating' if you want, but it's not. It's making stuff up... given the established trend for patients with prostate cancer to die of SOMETHING ELSE entirely.

What does that mean? It means that the death rate from prostate cancer, and the death rate of people WITH prostate cancer, are very different figures.

Yes it does. Both those figures, the number of cases and the number of deaths per 100,000. It doesn't matter what 100,000, because the units are the same. I calculate the survival rate from these numbers to be 81% in the US and that's consistent with other data

86% for the years covered in this article, for instance.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Breast-Cancer-Survival-Rate&id=856142

I know the numbers are saying what you want to see, but cancers are better treated in the US, than in any other place.

For the prostate cancer table, you need to do some interpolating, but considering the previous math was beyond your capability, I won't dwell on details.

at this point, it is safe to say both that your sources do not say what you think they do and you don't understand why.

what you really want is the concord study

Coleman et al. Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD). LANCET ONCOLOGY vol 9 #8, pp. 730-756 (Aug 2008)

I know the numbers are saying what you want to see, but cancers are better treated in the US, than in any other place.


This is pure speculation, and not even vaguely supported by the data.

About the only parallel figure you COULD draw from the data, is that - for some reason - either more people GET cancer than anywhere else, or it's spotted more often.

Which suggests that the overall US rate is 'good' because cancer is spotted earlier and/or in more benign forms - which correlates reasonably nicely with the fact that Native Americans are actually less likely to get cancers than other groups, and more likely to survive them.

You're basing a statistical anomoly on the quality of healthcare, when it could just as easily be an attribute of the population.

It's the equivalent of saying some backwater clinic has great healthcare because of the low malaria-mortality, while ignoring the sickle-cell that is prevalent in the local population.

at this point, it is safe to say both that your sources do not say what you think they do and you don't understand why.

what you really want is the concord study

Coleman et al. Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD). LANCET ONCOLOGY vol 9 #8, pp. 730-756 (Aug 2008)
I can't find more than the abstract in terms of the actual paper, but this review seems to uphold my numbers...
"Five-year relative survival for breast cancer (women) ranged from 80% or higher in North America..." Not quoted for France or UK.
"For prostate cancer, 5-year survival was higher in the USA (92%) than in all 30 of the other participating countries. "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716184419.htm

Just admit it, you can't do statistics. I'm getting tired of y'all and this pretty well settles it in my mind about where the best cancer survival rates are found.

Just admit it, you can't do statistics.

I wish irony had a recognisable flavour, because it's getting dull to have to keep talking about how delicious it is, without actually being able to describe it.

I can't find more than the abstract in terms of the actual paper, but this review seems to uphold my numbers...
"Five-year relative survival for breast cancer (women) ranged from 80% or higher in North America..." Not quoted for France or UK.

"Five-year relative survival for breast cancer (women) ranged from 80% or higher in North America, Sweden, Japan, Finland and Australia"

"For prostate cancer, 5-year survival was higher in the USA (92%) than in all 30 of the other participating countries. "

Not a word as to how much. Though it does mention the racial gap in the sentence you omitted. (Incidentally, "92%" is in no sense comparable to "99.3%".)

And let's stop being so selective about statistics, hmm?

"For colorectal cancer, five-year survival was higher in North America, Japan, Australia and some western European countries"

I can't find more than the abstract in terms of the actual paper, but this review seems to uphold my numbers...
"Five-year relative survival for breast cancer (women) ranged from 80% or higher in North America..." Not quoted for France or UK.
"For prostate cancer, 5-year survival was higher in the USA (92%) than in all 30 of the other participating countries. "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716184419.htm

Just admit it, you can't do statistics. I'm getting tired of y'all and this pretty well settles it in my mind about where the best cancer survival rates are found.

spoiler alert! - USia loses to japan, cuba, and france in various cancers, winning outright only in prostate cancer. and a bunch of other countries are all within a couple points on pretty much everything.

"For prostate cancer, 5-year survival was higher in the USA (92%) than in all 30 of the other participating countries. " Not a word as to how much.

austria comes in second at 86.1%, and canada in third at 85.1% (though the british columbians clock in around 89.3%, which is better than a number of states here - florida, i'm looking at you)

spoiler alert! - USia loses to japan, cuba, and france in various cancers, winning outright only in prostate cancer. and a bunch of other countries are all within a couple points on pretty much everything.

I have to point out, also - that our assumptions about where the US succeeds and fails... are largely conjectural.

None of these sources are really doing any more than making best guesses, based on the data they chose, or had access to.

Example: "CONCORD has provided the first opportunity to estimate cancer survival in 11 states in USA covered by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the study covers 42% of the US population..."

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(08)70179-7/fulltext

Okay - so America is a top-five country. Or... at least, 11 of it's states are. What about the other 39 states that didn't report? I wonder where they might fall on the line? What is the healthcare provided to the other 58% of the American population NOT covered?


What is worth noting - however - is that, even from that pool, it's clear that the biggest single factor leading to cancer-related-mortality in the US, is being born black. Myrmi's dreamy reality of wonderful healthcare might or might not be true, but it gets less LIKELY to be true as your skin pigmentation gets darker.

Indeed, that same source:

"Relative survival for all ethnicities combined was 2—4% lower in states covered by NPCR than in areas covered by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Age-standardised relative survival by use of the appropriate race-specific and state-specific life tables was up to 2% lower for breast cancer and up to 5% lower for prostate cancer than with the census-derived national life tables used by the SEER Program. These differences in population coverage and analytical method have both contributed to the survival deficit noted between Europe and the USA, from which only SEER data have been available until now."

The survival deficit between Europe and the US, can be explained by statistical METHODOLOGY.

Myrmi's argument turns out to be bullshit.

Y'all do realize that Obama plans to add about 9.3 trillion to the national debt by 2019. Not only is that not halving the national debt by 2012, but it's more than any of the 43 Presidents combined added.

Bush's deficit is bush league when you compare it to what President HopeandChange proposes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

At least he's spending imaginary money on something useful.

I have been poking around this forum a bit (new to the game and all), have posted a few times in a thread or two, and basically had a good time so far.

I am curious though, it seems many of the American posters (some assumption goes into my belief that some of these posters are American) seem to be quite happy about Americas current trend (rapid trend at that) towards a Socialist society.

America is still so fucking far from Socialism. Name one other first world nation where the very concept of public health care is attacked by a large portion of the political spectrum.

This troubles me a bit.

I have lived in 5 countries not including the USA, have traveled to an additional 35 countries, and have interacted with a great many citizens from those nations. In my travels I have been overwhelmingly surprised and happy to hear from the vast majority of the people I encountered that they wanted to go to America, and many wanted to live here. When asked why, invariably the response was “the freedom to succeed or fail on my own effort” (paraphrased).

Doesn't match well with the steriotyping of and contempt for Americans I've encountered quite often living in Canada. And have your travels taken you to the Islamic world, or hell, most of Europe?

Though I think that a lot of people don't hate America (even if they steriotype it), as much as they hate the last administration.

We are losing that freedom,

Maybe the CEOs who get bailouts are losing the freedom to fail, though that's supposed to be to keep companies from going under and costing lots of ordinary people's jobs. I don't see ordinary people losing the ability to succeed or fail on their own merits, even if we move more to the left. Most people wouldn't consider you anything but a loser if you're unemployed, even if you had public health care and a well fair check. You wouldn't be living in luxury. It just means you (and your children) don't have to suffer so much, or die.

but that is another topic altogether. For the record I am a fairly Conservative voter, with moderate to slightly liberal social views (pro homosexual marriage and adoption for example).

Then I suggest you vote Democrat, and accept the possibility of some very mild "Socialist" policies, in exchange for civil rights and a non-theocratic party in power. It might not be a pleasant choice, but the Republican Party has embraced corruption, race-baiting, and incitement to treason for the sake of political victory. For too many of them, politics is clearly a holy war, or simply a cutthroat power game, not a civil debate. Sorry if this is off topic, but I just have to say this.

What I am curious about is, why is Socialism so popular amongst American youth (my nephew claims to be a socialist) and the more liberal minded Americans? America is not perfect to be sure, and neither is Capitalism; both are a damn-site better than any options I see on the horizon. (the last statement is of course opinion)

So, why do you all want Socialism in America? Truthfully I am curious; it hasn’t worked out too well for the following countries:

Venezuela

What's the current situation in Venezuela? I really don't know.

China

Communist, not Socialist. Though I thought it was CINO (Comunist In Name Only) now?

Viet Nam

Again, Communist, not Socialist.

Syria

I wasn't aware it was Socialist. Source?

Belarus

As above.

Honest replies sought.

Twinpappia

Ok, first of all, you appear to be buying into one of the bigger pieces of bullshit from the far right, which is that Communism is interchangeable Socialism. It is not. Socialism does involve redistribution of wealth, but it is not generally as extreme as Communism, nor as violent. At least that's my understanding.

Also, the American right wing uses Socialism to apply to anything economically left of far right. For example, public health care. Thus, using the American Right's definition, Canada for example is probably at least somewhat Socialist. And yet, I don't see anyone considers Canada to be a particularily oppressive country.

You talk about people who want "the freedom to succeed or fail on my own effort." But if someone does fail, is it automatically their fault, regardless of circumstances? And even if it is, does that mean that they or those dependent on them deserve to suffer and die? I ask because the American Right would denounce public Health Care as Socialist. Thus leading to the implications that if you fail, it must be your fault, and that if so, you deserve to suffer and die.

I'm not saying I support Communism, but not every policy considered "Socialist" is oppressive or bad. So by the American Right's definition at least, I don't mind some Socialism. Just my thoughts on the topic, for what its worth.

a significant part of the population thinks
Hah!

http://www.conelrad.com/sovietamerica/images/sovietamerica_thisis_small.gif

I think it sounds pretty arousing myself, :p

Going back to something the OP said, about the taking of private property and giving it to developers as a sign that America is becoming socialist, I'd like to know if you have ever bothered to read Kelo or do you not understand what SCOTUS found in that case?

I wasn't aware it was Socialist. Source?

Syria is de jure socialist. Not sure about de facto. It is ruled by the Baath Party, which is (at least officially) an "Arab socialist" party, and socialism is codified in the country's constitution.

What gives you that impresssion? I stated a position mildly, and asked an honest question? That makes me obtuse somehow?

The way the question was phrased indicated quite clearly that you confuse "social politics" with "socialism".

Read up on the difference between the two, and you will soon realise how silly that question really is.



I wasn't posting news, I was posting an opinoion based question. While I work on my "critical thinking skills" per your request, perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills.

As to what people I spoke with: South Koreans, Turks, Dutch, Italians, Germans, Saudis and Kuwatis...primarily. Not everyone I spoke to wanted to live in America, but many did. Not all were disatisfied with their own country, but many were. My post is based on personal experience and personal interractions around the globe.

Well, I've lived in one of those countries. It has ~ 80 million inhabitants. I'm not entirely sure about how many of them emmigrate, but judging from my own family and friends, I'd say less than 2%. It's a country of immigration, meaning lots of people come to live there, more than actually go to live elsewhere.
So it would seem that more people overall want to live in that country than people from that country want to live in the US.

Just to put things into perspective a little.

To OP: If by socialism you mean acting more like Europe...

To OP: If by socialism you mean acting more like Europe...

Seems to be exactly what he means....

Seems to be exactly what he means....

I personally think its about damn time... if nations like Switzerland can manage it we should be able too.

Going back to something the OP said, about the taking of private property and giving it to developers as a sign that America is becoming socialist, I'd like to know if you have ever bothered to read Kelo or do you not understand what SCOTUS found in that case?
While the concept of eminent domain is essential to a properly functioning government, I think a lot of people have doubts that Kelo was a shining example of what it means in practice. Taking property from one private holder, only to give it to another private holder to get better tax revenue is hardly what is described in the Federalist Papers. The exercise of eminent domain usually results in government owned property, right?

http://www.conelrad.com/sovietamerica/images/sovietamerica_thisis_small.gif

I think it sounds pretty arousing myself, :p

Bah, you know as well as I do that everything seems arousing to you, Skallie-kun.:D

While the concept of eminent domain is essential to a properly functioning government, I think a lot of people have doubts that Kelo was a shining example of what it means in practice. Taking property from one private holder, only to give it to another private holder to get better tax revenue is hardly what is described in the Federalist Papers. The exercise of eminent domain usually results in government owned property, right?
I take it you didn't bother to read it either, or read what Cat Tribes wrote and cited when this first came up. Kelo was decided on long settled case law that states that public benefit can be considered public use (If memory serves, the first case that decided that was back in the 1800's). Further cases also settled the question that, yes, a private developer, if the project will provide public benefit, is acceptable in terms of such a property transfer. All of this, BTW, is well within line of the common law system that is the basis for American law.

What is very noteworthy on Kelo is that SCOTUS said specifically that its decision was based upon those laws and precedent and it could not change the law (So much for judicial activism) but that Congress and state legislatures could. And they, in fact, did. All states, excepting 7 or 8 of them, as well as Congress have since passed laws limiting their respective governments' eminent domain powers to keep the transfer of property to private hands.

That is why I look in askance at the idea that Kelo represents any form of socialism because it was very much in line with the Constitution and the response to it was also very much in line with what is supposed to happen in our system.

While the concept of eminent domain is essential to a properly functioning government, I think a lot of people have doubts that Kelo was a shining example of what it means in practice. Taking property from one private holder, only to give it to another private holder to get better tax revenue is hardly what is described in the Federalist Papers. The exercise of eminent domain usually results in government owned property, right?

The Federalist Papers also opposed the very idea of a Bill of Rights.

Curious that you'd uphold opinion pieces ABOUT the Constitution, over the Constitution, itself.

Myrmi's argument turns out to be bullshit.

film at eleven

film at eleven

:confused:

[QUOTE=Indigo Roses;14649100]

The fact is that, while yes we are a democracy, we are also a republic, and have a constitution. QUOTE]
we are technically a federal, constitutional, democratic republic. i have an almanac (time for kids 2006) that says we are a republic.*gets book from shelf and opens it and turns to page 323. united states...government: republic... well that was in :hail: monkey aka idiot shrub's presidency years:( :mad:. not good times. glad that's over:D:cool:.

The Federalist Papers also opposed the very idea of a Bill of Rights.

Curious that you'd uphold opinion pieces ABOUT the Constitution, over the Constitution, itself.

You misspelt "Predictable."

I am a naturalized American, and am almost entirelly against all of Obama's proposals. They will ruin the country.

I am a naturalized American, and am almost entirelly against all of Obama's proposals. They will ruin the country.
what particular proposals are you worried about?

you do know we are in a financial crisis, eh?

The radicals are not as few as you think: I have met numerous persons who believe Obama is a communist.

I am one of those people. Not people The Parkus Empire has met, but a person who believes Obama is a communist. The only reason he belongs to the Democratic party is because if he ran as a communist, he would never get elected.

I am one of those people. Not people The Parkus Empire has met, but a person who believes Obama is a communist. The only reason he belongs to the Democratic party is because if he ran as a communist, he would never get elected.
so you are a citizen but you know nothing about US politics?

what kind of communism do you think that mr obama is a part of?

I am one of those people. Not people The Parkus Empire has met, but a person who believes Obama is a communist. The only reason he belongs to the Democratic party is because if he ran as a communist, he would never get elected.

wow, you really are one of those people. does it hurt?

wow, you really are one of those people. does it hurt?
dont get too excited. its probably just an april fools joke.

dont get too excited. its probably just an april fools joke.

that'd be a lame april fools. i demand much more creativity out of people than that.

that'd be a lame april fools. i demand much more creativity out of people than that.
its the net. we only get ONE good april fools joke per year and the aussies already did it.

its the net. we only get ONE good april fools joke per year and the aussies already did it.

this is true, though i also disapprove of the aussies' illegitimate use of the international date line to score cheap points.

what particular proposals are you worried about?

you do know we are in a financial crisis, eh?

Yes quite aware that we are in a finacial crisis. You want particular proposals? There are too many to go through all of them, I will list a few.

Increased taxes on corporations.
Cap and trade
Nationalized healthcare
Card check
Taxes on multinationals' unrepatriated income
Civilian National Security Force
Rasing capital gains tax
Wealth redistribution
Stimulus plan

so you are a citizen but you know nothing about US politics?

what kind of communism do you think that mr obama is a part of?

I know plenty about US politics.

Obama's father figure was a communist

In college he picked his friends and professors based on their Marxists beliefs

Wealth redistribution

A Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guevara at his campaign

Obama supporters waving Soviet flags after he won the election, right here in DC.

I know plenty about US politics.

Obama's father figure was a communist

In college he picked his friends and professors based on their Marxists beliefs

Wealth redistribution

A Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guevara at his campaign

Obama supporters waving Soviet flags after he won the election, right here in DC.

Not an Obama an, but can you prove any of those. I don't believe you, other than the Soviet flag one and the wealth one.

Obama has been toying with the idea of Universal Heathcare. Make no mistake. This is a socialist program.

I dislike it, not because it's socialist, but because I can afford heath care and prefer the benefits that come with it. I would say to anyone that can afford it--you should not be in favor of universal heathcare. Unless, of course, you like waiting 4-6 months to see a doctor and waiting 3-5 YEARS for simple routine surgeries. Just look at Canada! Sure, okay, it's great if don't have healthcare, but for anyone who can afford healthcare YOU DON'T WANT universal heathcare. Please, check out the facts.

Obama has been toying with the idea of Universal Heathcare. Make no mistake. This is a socialist program.

OMG THE UK MUST BE SOCIALIST! Oh wait, no it's not, you're talking bollocks.

Not an Obama an, but can you prove any of those. I don't believe you, other than the Soviet flag one and the wealth one.

Sure.

Father figure: Frank Marshall Davis. Obama writes about him in his book "Dreams From My Father"
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

College friends/professors: Again, same book. He says "I Chose My Friends Carefully... Marxist Professors and Structural Feminists"
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-affinity-to-marxists-dates-back.html

Cuban flag with Che: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016946.php

There is many many more. Those are just some of the biggest.

A note about me: I was born in the USSR and hate the place, so when a candidate emerges that has even the slightest hint of being communist, I run the other way. I voted for McCain. But not so much FOR McCain as AGAINST Obama.

OMG THE UK MUST BE SOCIALIST! Oh wait, no it's not, you're talking bollocks.

What are you talking about? What did I say that was incorrect?

Obama has been toying with the idea of Universal Heathcare. Make no mistake. This is a socialist program.

I dislike it, not because it's socialist, but because I can afford heath care and prefer the benefits that come with it. I would say to anyone that can afford it--you should not be in favor of universal heathcare. Unless, of course, you like waiting 4-6 months to see a doctor and waiting 3-5 YEARS for simple routine surgeries. Just look at Canada! Sure, okay, it's great if don't have healthcare, but for anyone who can afford healthcare YOU DON'T WANT universal heathcare. Please, check out the facts.

Yes. Please check out the facts.

Here is an article by the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that supports private healthcare here in Canada. Despite their bias, I find they do good surveys, and at least you can be sure tha there is no pro-public healthcare bias.

Surgical wait times down but Canadians still waiting more than 17 weeks for treatment
Release Date: October 7, 2008

CALGARY, AB—The median wait time for Canadians seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment dropped to 17.3 weeks in 2008 from 18.3 weeks in 2007, according to new research published today by independent research organization The Fraser Institute.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/6241.aspx

So, after looking at the facts, we can see that the wait times that you list (4-6 months to see a doctor and waiting 3-5 YEARS for simple routine surgeries) are far longer than the reality.

Now, let's look at wait times in the USA.

Link. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison--Access---Timeliness.aspx)

The link above takes you to a study done by the Commonwealth fund. I shall quote the relevant text:

In a 2005 survey of sicker patients conducted in six developed countries, the United States ranked last on four measures of continuity of care and access problems reported by patients. The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery.

By the way, the best overall in terms of waiting times were Germany and New Zealand, which both have public healthcare systems.

What are you talking about? What did I say that was incorrect?

I'm talking about how you claimed it was a socialist thing to do and would make make the US socialist, but the UK has the NHS, and we're far from socialist.

Obama has been toying with the idea of Universal Heathcare. Make no mistake. This is a socialist program.

I dislike it, not because it's socialist, but because I can afford heath care and prefer the benefits that come with it. I would say to anyone that can afford it--you should not be in favor of universal heathcare. Unless, of course, you like waiting 4-6 months to see a doctor and waiting 3-5 YEARS for simple routine surgeries. Just look at Canada! Sure, okay, it's great if don't have healthcare, but for anyone who can afford healthcare YOU DON'T WANT universal heathcare. Please, check out the facts.

Some facts, from the New England Journal of Medicine:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/16/1068

Results About 80 percent of the questionnaires were returned, but not all the respondents answered all the questions. The rate of response to specific questions was about 60 to 65 percent in both countries. The median waiting time for an initial orthopedic consultation was two weeks in the United States and four weeks in Ontario. The median waiting time for knee replacement after the operation had been planned was three weeks in the United States and eight weeks in Canada. In the United States, 95 percent of patients in the national sample considered their waiting time for surgery acceptable, as compared with 85.1 percent in Ontario. Overall satisfaction with surgery ("very or somewhat satisfied") was 85.3 percent for all U.S. respondents and 83.5 percent for Canadian respondents.

So your absurd fantasy of 4-6 months for an initial appointment and 3-5 years for surgery are patently false. Try again.

Yes. Please check out the facts.

Here is an article by the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that supports private healthcare here in Canada. Despite their bias, I find they do good surveys, and at least you can be sure tha there is no pro-public healthcare bias.



http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/news/6241.aspx

So, after looking at the facts, we can see that the wait times that you list (4-6 months to see a doctor and waiting 3-5 YEARS for simple routine surgeries) are far longer than the reality.

Now, let's look at wait times in the USA.

Link. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison--Access---Timeliness.aspx)

The link above takes you to a study done by the Commonwealth fund. I shall quote the relevant text:

In a 2005 survey of sicker patients conducted in six developed countries, the United States ranked last on four measures of continuity of care and access problems reported by patients. The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery.

By the way, the best overall in terms of waiting times were Germany and New Zealand, which both have public healthcare systems.

Excuse me, but 17.3 weeks IS FOUR MONTHS!?! I'd prefer not to wait that long if I'm sick.

I'm talking about how you claimed it was a socialist thing to do and would make make the US socialist, but the UK has the NHS, and we're far from socialist.

Wow, you got all that from me calling universal healthcare a "socialist program"--which it is. I never said it would make the US a socialist country.

Yes quite aware that we are in a finacial crisis. You want particular proposals? There are too many to go through all of them, I will list a few.

Increased taxes on corporations.
Cap and trade
Nationalized healthcare
Card check
Taxes on multinationals' unrepatriated income
Civilian National Security Force
Rasing capital gains tax
Wealth redistribution
Stimulus plan
are you rich or something?

Some facts, from the New England Journal of Medicine:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/16/1068



So your absurd fantasy of 4-6 months for an initial appointment and 3-5 years for surgery are patently false. Try again.

Depends on which reports you read. Keep in mind that these are "median" wait times, not average, and there are various factors that affect results.

Google "wait times for surgery in canada". I'll concede that my 3-5 years is off base, but you'll see that in some states people are waiting 20 weeks to see a doctor. I personally wouldn't enjoy waiting that long and don't want universal healthcare.

I know plenty about US politics.

Obama's father figure was a communist

In college he picked his friends and professors based on their Marxists beliefs

Wealth redistribution

A Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guevara at his campaign

Obama supporters waving Soviet flags after he won the election, right here in DC.
so mr obama is damned by the (small percentage) of the company he keeps? his own policies and political history doesnt count for anything?

Keep in mind that these are "median" wait times, not average

...

are you rich or something?

What does my wealth (or lack thereof, which I refuse to discuss) have to do with anything?

Stimulus plan=big waste of money
Cap and trade, increases costs on energy which would hit the lowest income families the hardest
Increased corporate taxes leaves those corporations less money with which to hire
Card check is just plain silly. If Unions were so great Detroit should be paved in gold.

So in general, MOST of his policies are socialist and wroing for America.

so mr obama is damned by the (small percentage) of the company he keeps? his own policies and political history doesnt count for anything?

His policies and history count for a lot. And he has shown, repeatedly to be a socialist.

Depends on which reports you read. Keep in mind that these are "median" wait times, not average, and there are various factors that affect results.

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Perhaps while I'm keeping that in mind you could explain what difference that makes?


Google "wait times for surgery in canada". I'll concede that my 3-5 years is off base, but you'll see that in some states people are waiting 20 weeks to see a doctor. I personally wouldn't enjoy waiting that long and don't want universal healthcare.

I did Google "wait times for surgery in Canada." It produced the study I linked that demonstrated your claims as laughably false. Interestingly enough, doing it again produced a second article that demonstrates your claims as laughably false.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm

The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months

The health-care reform debate is in full roar with the arrival of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, which compares the U.S. system unfavorably with single-payer systems around the world. Critics of the film are quick to trot out a common defense of the American way: For all its problems, they say, U.S. patients at least don't have to endure the endless waits for medical care endemic to government-run systems. The lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans spells it out in a rebuttal to Sicko: "The American people do not support a government takeover of the entire health-care system because they know that means long waits for rationed care."

In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems. Take Susan M., a 54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April, knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for her routine screening at the end of May, then had another because the first wasn't clear. That second X-ray showed an abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date: mid-August. "I completely freaked out," Susan says. "I couldn't imagine spending the summer with this hanging over my head." After many calls to five different facilities, she found a clinic that agreed to read her existing mammograms on June 25 and promised to schedule a follow-up MRI and biopsy if needed within 10 days. A full month had passed since the first suspicious X-rays. Ultimately, she was told the abnormality was nothing to worry about, but she should have another mammogram in six months. Taking no chances, she made an appointment on the spot. "The system is clearly broken," she laments.

It's not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. "Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care," says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy.

All this time spent "queuing," as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries. On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn't get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries.

There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.

The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. "Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference," he says.

The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.

Few solutions have been proposed for lengthy waits in the U.S., in part, say policy experts, because the problem is rarely acknowledged. But the market is beginning to address the issue with the rise of walk-in medical clinics. Hundreds have sprung up in CVS, Wal-Mart (WMT ), Pathmark, (PTMK ) and other stores—so many that the American Medical Assn. just adopted a resolution urging state and federal agencies to investigate such clinics as a conflict of interest if housed in stores with pharmacies. These retail clinics promise rapid care for minor medical problems, usually getting patients in and out in 30 minutes. The slogan for CVS's Minute Clinics says it all: "You're sick. We're quick."

His policies and history count for a lot. And he has shown, repeatedly to be a socialist.
he has been shown to care more about the middle class than coddling the very rich.
if that is socialism, call me socialist.

What does my wealth (or lack thereof, which I refuse to discuss) have to do with anything?

Stimulus plan=big waste of money
Cap and trade, increases costs on energy which would hit the lowest income families the hardest
Increased corporate taxes leaves those corporations less money with which to hire
Card check is just plain silly. If Unions were so great Detroit should be paved in gold.

So in general, MOST of his policies are socialist and wroing for America.
rich people care about keeping policies that favor rich people.

middle class people dont worry so much that some rich guy might have to pay his fair share of income tax when that income comes from capital gains.

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Perhaps while I'm keeping that in mind you could explain what difference that makes?

medians don't allow us to hide behind one guy who for whatever reason wound up having to wait 35 years. unfair, says i. also, i call no-pointing-out-that-some-people-here-just-don't-get-healthcare-at-all-and-therefore-their-wait-times-are-even-longer, so nyah!

rich people care about keeping policies that favor rich people.

middle class people dont worry so much that some rich guy might have to pay his fair share of income tax when that income comes from capital gains.

The so called rich (really high income) already pay their fair share.
Capital gains taxes, reduce capital investments and risk taking, which prevents some jobs that would be created from being created in the first place. Jobs for the middle class, and perhaps even the poor.

By trying to favor the middle class and poor, he is creating unintended consequences that hurt them more than the high income individuals.

The so called rich (really high income) already pay their fair share.
Capital gains taxes, reduce capital investments and risk taking, which prevents some jobs that would be created from being created in the first place. Jobs for the middle class, and perhaps even the poor.

By trying to favor the middle class and poor, he is creating unintended consequences that hurt them more than the high income individuals.
uh huh

all the worlds ills could be cured if we didnt tax rich people at all!

Excuse me, but 17.3 weeks IS FOUR MONTHS!?! I'd prefer not to wait that long if I'm sick.

That is the waiting time for seeing a specialist. Not to see a doctor. Canadians can see a doctor within a few days if they get sick. The waiting times described in these studies are for more complicated treatments like hip replacements.

I don't really mind having slightly longer waiting times in Canada than in the US (which has the second longest waiting times in the developed world after Canada), considering the fact that the Canadian model is better than the US model in terms of access, continuity of care, patient safety, cancer survival rates, cost, etc.

uh huh

all the worlds ills could be cured if we didnt tax rich people at all!

I didn't say that. But to think that government is the answer to all our problems is flawed. Government is the problem. So the solution is more government?

I am a naturalized American, and am almost entirelly against all of Obama's proposals. They will ruin the country.

The country was handed over 'ruined'. Let's see if Obama can deliver on the promises he makes, before we judge him for them, shall we?

I am one of those people. Not people The Parkus Empire has met, but a person who believes Obama is a communist. The only reason he belongs to the Democratic party is because if he ran as a communist, he would never get elected.

Obama is not a communist. He's not even a socialist.

The problem is, you're just puking back out the standardised 'less-right-wing = socialist' bullshit. It doesn't. It isn't.

Yes quite aware that we are in a finacial crisis. You want particular proposals? There are too many to go through all of them, I will list a few.

Increased taxes on corporations.
Cap and trade
Nationalized healthcare
Card check
Taxes on multinationals' unrepatriated income
Civilian National Security Force
Rasing capital gains tax
Wealth redistribution
Stimulus plan

I'd like to see how you're going to source this, to be hoenst.

Not just because some of it is obvious bullshit (Obama has talked about universal health cover, not nationalised healthcare), but because I'd like to see how you are going to show most of these things as ORIGINATING with Obama.

If not least, because 'stimulus plans' pre-date his election.

Obama has been toying with the idea of Universal Heathcare. Make no mistake. This is a socialist program.


You made a mistake.

Universal healthcare is not socialist.

You MIGHT have had a point, if you were talking about nationalised healthcare. Maybe.

I didn't say that. But to think that government is the answer to all our problems is flawed. Government is the problem. So the solution is more government?
the problem is that by deregulation and non regulation we have allowed the financial sector to put us into extreme crisis.

no one seems to have a better plan to get us out of it (or to at least make the recession/depression last a shorter time) so i have to assume that mr obama is doing the only rational thing.

Excuse me, but 17.3 weeks IS FOUR MONTHS!?! I'd prefer not to wait that long if I'm sick.

Rather depends what you mean by 'sick'.

In the UK, I never had to wait longer than an hour to be seen for emergency treatment. I never got bumped over to the next day for a doctor visit.

I've had BOTH those things happen in the US.

In the UK, I had to wait 4 weeks for a surgery, on one occassion. In the US, I have been told by a doctor that I can't have a similar surgery, because I can't afford it, and it's not life-threatening.

I didn't say that. But to think that government is the answer to all our problems is flawed. Government is the problem. So the solution is more government?

Government isn't the answer to all problems - but neither is government the problem.

The problems of our society are manifold - not least being inequities in living standards, access to healthcare, adequate diet, education, etc. Crime, addiction, gang violence, war, poverty... we have hundreds of problems that would NOT be helped in any way by abolition of government, and that would get worse if government opted out.

Indeed, there is only ONE way in which government is a 'problem' - and that's the tax burden - IF you perceive that as a problem.

Personally, I don't mind paying tax. I'd rather pay more, and see every need met, than pay less and be the one guy with food on my street.

I'd like to see how you're going to source this, to be hoenst.

Not just because some of it is obvious bullshit (Obama has talked about universal health cover, not nationalised healthcare), but because I'd like to see how you are going to show most of these things as ORIGINATING with Obama.

If not least, because 'stimulus plans' pre-date his election.

True, the stimulus long predates his election. Doesn't mean I have to agree with the stimulus plan. The fact is, it's the wrong aproach. And his universal health care will eventually lead to socialized health care.

Obama's insurance plan will lead to the deterioration of the private health insurance market, with the federal government—read: taxpayers—covering an increasingly large share of the U.S. population. He will mandate “Guaranteed-issue” statutes require insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health status, and “community-rating” requirements prohibit insurers from pricing their premiums according to expected risk. Both regulations make health insurance significantly more expensive.
If people know they can get insurance at a fixed price regardless of their healthstatus, they have an incentive to buy the policy only after they’ve gotten sick and need medical care. It’s no coincidence that the six states with guaranteed-issue laws have the six highest average premium prices. Of those six states, the three that also have community-rating laws—Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey—have average annual family premiums that are roughly double the national average.
Nevertheless, Obama supports nationwide guaranteed-issue and community-rating laws. He has pledged that “no American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.” He might as well pledge to double everyone’s insurance rates.
Under ObamaCare, public insurance programs and their private competitors would likely be subject to the same rules regarding benefits and underwriting. But public programs would be supported by a constant stream of tax dollars. They could undercut premiums and offer generous benefits that would bankrupt private insurers—and then cover the losses by drawing on taxpayer subsidies. In other words, the federal government would have the ability to drive up the cost of private health insurance while keeping its own insurance program artificially cheap.
If the Obama plan were implemented, Americans would naturally flock to the new public insurance program. Advocates of government-run healthcare would claim “victory” and demand an expansion of it. Slowly but surely, private insurers would be supplanted by the public program. The new costs would be borne by taxpayers.
If Obama were promoting a full-scale government takeover of the healthcare industry, supporters and opponents alike would call the plan revolutionary. Because he has framed his proposal as incremental change, most people are unaware of its implications.
Obama often says that he wants to communicate directly with his fellow Americans. If that is really the case, he should level with voters and tell them that his plan would eliminate private health insurance rather quickly.

Government isn't the answer to all problems - but neither is government the problem.

The problems of our society are manifold - not least being inequities in living standards, access to healthcare, adequate diet, education, etc. Crime, addiction, gang violence, war, poverty... we have hundreds of problems that would NOT be helped in any way by abolition of government, and that would get worse if government opted out.

Indeed, there is only ONE way in which government is a 'problem' - and that's the tax burden - IF you perceive that as a problem.

Personally, I don't mind paying tax. I'd rather pay more, and see every need met, than pay less and be the one guy with food on my street.

Well, government created the housing mess. That is the issue that led to the financial crisis.

I don't mind paying taxes either. But less is more as far as taxes go.

True, the stimulus long predates his election. Doesn't mean I have to agree with the stimulus plan. The fact is, it's the wrong aproach. And his universal health care will eventually lead to socialized health care.

Obama's insurance plan will lead to the deterioration of the private health insurance market, with the federal government—read: taxpayers—covering an increasingly large share of the U.S. population. He will mandate “Guaranteed-issue” statutes require insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their health status, and “community-rating” requirements prohibit insurers from pricing their premiums according to expected risk. Both regulations make health insurance significantly more expensive.
If people know they can get insurance at a fixed price regardless of their healthstatus, they have an incentive to buy the policy only after they’ve gotten sick and need medical care. It’s no coincidence that the six states with guaranteed-issue laws have the six highest average premium prices. Of those six states, the three that also have community-rating laws—Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey—have average annual family premiums that are roughly double the national average.
Nevertheless, Obama supports nationwide guaranteed-issue and community-rating laws. He has pledged that “no American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.” He might as well pledge to double everyone’s insurance rates.
Under ObamaCare, public insurance programs and their private competitors would likely be subject to the same rules regarding benefits and underwriting. But public programs would be supported by a constant stream of tax dollars. They could undercut premiums and offer generous benefits that would bankrupt private insurers—and then cover the losses by drawing on taxpayer subsidies. In other words, the federal government would have the ability to drive up the cost of private health insurance while keeping its own insurance program artificially cheap.
If the Obama plan were implemented, Americans would naturally flock to the new public insurance program. Advocates of government-run healthcare would claim “victory” and demand an expansion of it. Slowly but surely, private insurers would be supplanted by the public program. The new costs would be borne by taxpayers.
If Obama were promoting a full-scale government takeover of the healthcare industry, supporters and opponents alike would call the plan revolutionary. Because he has framed his proposal as incremental change, most people are unaware of its implications.
Obama often says that he wants to communicate directly with his fellow Americans. If that is really the case, he should level with voters and tell them that his plan would eliminate private health insurance rather quickly.

'Most people are unaware of the implications' because you just invented them.

You've created a whole paragraph of what is going to happen - and yet, look back over it and see how much of it SHOULD be prefaced by phrases like "and then, I think..." or "it could possible happen..."

What Obama has actually talked about - is making sure that there are no uninsured Americans. He's talked about a couple of ways of making this happen, and spent a lot of time talking about setting up a kind of 'government insurance' plan that would basically do the same job as current private plans.

The first thing that has really come up from THAT debate, is that most experts agree that the plan as discussed, would cost less than most private insurance - at which point, those who call themselves 'free market' advocates have started complaining - because, apparently, market forces determining which products should come to market, and survive... ONLY apply if those advocates like the products.

Which tells us two big things: one) that free market advocacy is hypocritical, and two) perhaps more importantly, the insurance industry is CURRENTLY being run LESS efficiently than it could be.


Would the government plan displace private plans? Sure - supply and demand 101 - if you can supply the product substantially cheaper than your competitors, you're going to assume more of the market for the demand.

But, that's not a bad thing.

You could argue it would lead to a complete LOSS of private insurance, but there's no reason to believe that. The UK - which DOES have nationalised healthcare, and not just universal insurance - ALSO has private healthcare and private health insurance.

It's about niche markets.


Personally, I wish that Obama WAS talking about nationalised healthcare. So, I'm actually a little saddened when I have to admit that he's not, and that you're peddling lies.

Well, government created the housing mess.


No, government did not. 'Government' had marginal involvement, at best.


That is the issue that led to the financial crisis.


Again, marginal, at best.

The financial crisis is being blamed on a whole lot of things - but it actually can be easily explained by only two:

1) The increasing assumed value of goods, and

2) The decreasing value of the dollar.

The only reason housing figures in the crash at all, is that it's a very good example of MASSIVELY over-valued big-ticket products - and defaulting on massively overvalued products that are BIG ticket items is more obvious than little ticket items.

What was happening in houses, was happening through-out the whole economy.


I don't mind paying taxes either.


So you say.


But less is more as far as taxes go.

Nope. Totally untrue. More is more - it's basic math.

Of course, you reach an equilibrium point, and you suffer diminshing returns beyond that point, but that's not the same as saying 'less is more'. Even beyond the breakpoint, more is still more.

Perhaps what you mean is 'less (tax) is more (for me)'...?

No, government did not. 'Government' had marginal involvement, at best.



Again, marginal, at best.

The financial crisis is being blamed on a whole lot of things - but it actually can be easily explained by only two:

1) The increasing assumed value of goods, and

2) The decreasing value of the dollar.

The only reason housing figures in the crash at all, is that it's a very good example of MASSIVELY over-valued big-ticket products - and defaulting on massively overvalued products that are BIG ticket items is more obvious than little ticket items.

What was happening in houses, was happening through-out the whole economy.



So you say.



Nope. Totally untrue. More is more - it's basic math.

Of course, you reach an equilibrium point, and you suffer diminshing returns beyond that point, but that's not the same as saying 'less is more'. Even beyond the breakpoint, more is still more.

Perhaps what you mean is 'less (tax) is more (for me)'...?

Let's see. Banks where being sued to make subprime loans by groups like ACORN, government looked the other way. When the loans where made, government, in effect guaranteed them through Fannie and Freddie. Government set artificially low interest rates, and promoted borrowing and spending instead of saving and investing. Over 150 years, housing rose just a bit faster than the rate of inflation nationwide. (Regionally there were bubbles and busts based on regional factors), and then suddenly in the mid 1990s housing took off, far faster than before. The free market just lost it's head right? I say it was the government expansion of the CRA. And the fact that they allowed mortgages to be securitized. And the fact that they looked the other way when banks lowered lending standards. As recently as July of 2008 said Fannie and Freddie where not a problem. They're GSEs for crying out loud.

As fas as taxes, more is more ok. But most of government spending is wastefull. Cut the waste, cut some more programs that are generally not considered wastefull but can be effectivelly replaced by the private sector and you can cut taxes. Cutting taxes leaves more money for payroll, reinvestment, spending, creating more jobs, more demand, more spending. That's more incomes to tax, more revenue to tax etc.

The mess was created by spending too much, borrowing too much and saving too little. The Obama solution is to borrow and spend!

You ever heard of Ron Paul? Or the Libertarian Party?

You ever heard of Ron Paul? Or the Libertarian Party?
oh are you a libertarian?

that explains so much

he has been shown to care more about the middle class than coddling the very rich.

Not exactly. His support for all the bailouts is proof of that.

if that is socialism, call me socialist.

OMG A COMMIE!!! :eek:

j/k

oh are you a libertarian?

that explains so much

You say that like it's a bad thing. If there is ANY confusion left, yes I am a Libertarian.

You say that like it's a bad thing. If there is ANY confusion left, yes I am a Libertarian.
it is a bad thing.

so what would YOU do to keep us out of complete financial disaster?

Not exactly. His support for all the bailouts is proof of that.



OMG A COMMIE!!! :eek:

j/k
how do the bailouts NOT support the middle class?

how do the bailouts NOT support the middle class?

They support politically-connected businesses, not the middle class.

...I say it was the government expansion of the CRA....

The CRA had nothing to do with the current crisis.

Our recent analysis of CRA-related lending found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found, in fact, that only 6 percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.

These conclusions were supported by research conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and published in the Revisiting the CRA volume under discussion today. Moreover, an analysis of foreclosure rates in that study found that loans originated by CRA-covered lenders were significantly less likely to be in foreclosure than those originated by independent mortgage companies.5 Clearly, claims that CRA caused the subprime crisis are not supported by the facts.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/duke20090224a.htm

They support politically-connected businesses, not the middle class.
they DO support the politicallyconnected businesses.

but without them the middle class suffers an economic depression.

it is a bad thing.

so what would YOU do to keep us out of complete financial disaster?

Considering how the government has no money, cut spending. Like I said most of government spending is wastefull. Cut that. The military should be our defense against foreign invadors, not be one. (Obviously this is not an issue with Obama, but with Bush, Republicans in general). Our military has 700 bases in 130 countries. What for I ask? Close them down. Close down, 75% of the Federal government. Cutting spending so much, can allow us to cut taxes and still balance the budget. The tax cuts will leave corporations and individuals with more money to spend, save, invest. Spending and investing will create more jobs. Productive jobs created by the private sector. Not wastefull government jobs. Obviously the former government employees would need unemployment insurance, which I would extend because of the massive job losses in the government I would create. That would postpone the balancing of the budget for a while. But it's not like Obama's budget is going to be balanced anytime in his first term.

Considering how the government has no money, cut spending. Like I said most of government spending is wastefull. Cut that. The military should be our defense against foreign invadors, not be one. (Obviously this is not an issue with Obama, but with Bush, Republicans in general). Our military has 700 bases in 130 countries. What for I ask? Close them down. Close down, 75% of the Federal government. Cutting spending so much, can allow us to cut taxes and still balance the budget. The tax cuts will leave corporations and individuals with more money to spend, save, invest. Spending and investing will create more jobs. Productive jobs created by the private sector. Not wastefull government jobs. Obviously the former government employees would need unemployment insurance, which I would extend because of the massive job losses in the government I would create. That would postpone the balancing of the budget for a while. But it's not like Obama's budget is going to be balanced anytime in his first term.
so you would be happy with a depression?

stopping spending would not fix the economic crisis we are in. it would make it much much worse.

Let's see. Banks where being sued to make subprime loans by groups like ACORN,


The question isn't 'what', but 'why'.

Why can families no longer afford homes, on any (conventional) terms. What you're looking at there, was a warning shot fired across the bows. ANd ignored.


...government looked the other way. When the loans where made, government, in effect guaranteed them through Fannie and Freddie. Government set artificially low interest rates, and promoted borrowing and spending instead of saving and investing. Over 150 years, housing rose just a bit faster than the rate of inflation nationwide. (Regionally there were bubbles and busts based on regional factors), and then suddenly in the mid 1990s housing took off, far faster than before. The free market just lost it's head right?


In the early 90's we saw the start of a credit bubble.

In 1990, 82 million Americans had credit cards. In 2003, 144 million. The credit card market increased by 75%.

In 1990, American creditcard debt was about $338 billion (a little over $4,000 per cardholder).

In 2003, American creditcard debt was about $1.5 trillion (so - about$10,500 per cardholder)

That's a 350 percent increase in debt, overall (and more than 150 percent per cardholder).

Housing was one PART of this credit bubble - and again - it is noticable, because the items are big-ticket.


And we're only looking at 'consumer' credit, here.


As fas as taxes, more is more ok. But most of government spending is wastefull. Cut the waste,


If you can agree what is wasteful.

Oil lobbyists will throw money at you to declare alternate fuels 'waste', for example.


...cut some more programs that are generally not considered wastefull but can be effectivelly replaced by the private sector


Like what? Medical insurance?


...and you can cut taxes. Cutting taxes leaves more money for payroll, reinvestment, spending, creating more jobs, more demand, more spending. That's more incomes to tax, more revenue to tax etc.


Which is bullshit, unfortunately - because it implies a closed-system (which doesn't exist), and it assumes that more money being available to the shareholders, will translate into more jobs, more spending, etc.

If this was 1909, this might be a good argument. Maybe. In 2009, it's blinkered, at best.


The mess was created by spending too much, borrowing too much and saving too little.


No, it wasn't. It was caused by spending too much, borrowing too much, and the actual VALUE of what was being bought or borrowed against, being nothing.

Investing in your house is good - unless you invest $150,000 in a house that will only fetch $50,000 on the market. There's the problem - the 80s onwards - sometimes argued as a golden age of economy - was actually the dawn of the Age of Negative Equity. In everything.


The Obama solution is to borrow and spend!


It's an improvement over 8 years of spend and spend.


You ever heard of Ron Paul? Or the Libertarian Party?

Yes.

it is a bad thing.



Believing in the free markets, constitution, smaller, more efficient government, more economic and personal freedoms is a bad thing? OK, then I am a bad guy.

Believing in the free markets, constitution, smaller, more efficient government, more economic and personal freedoms is a bad thing? OK, then I am a bad guy.
yes you are

you are supposing that you would prosper while those around you sink in financial disaster. delusional and "bad"

Ashmoria, we are already in a depression. No I am not happy. But government interventuon will only slow down the recovery. And once we do recover we will have even more debt to service. To the tune of about $800 billion per year in interest alone by 2019 assuming the Obama budget proposal passes, and in fact gets spent like it proposes.

If the very things that Sibirsky support are bad, then I guess the things I support are the work of Lord Xenu himself.

Ashmoria, we are already in a depression. No I am not happy. But government interventuon will only slow down the recovery. And once we do recover we will have even more debt to service. To the tune of about $800 billion per year in interest alone by 2019 assuming the Obama budget proposal passes, and in fact gets spent like it proposes.
sinking the country into deeper depression isnt a great idea. we already have tent cities springing up. how bad are you willing to let it get?

If the very things that Sibirsky support are bad, then I guess the things I support are the work of Lord Xenu himself.
ohmygod are you a scientologist?!

Considering how the government has no money, cut spending. Like I said most of government spending is wastefull. Cut that. The military should be our defense against foreign invadors, not be one. (Obviously this is not an issue with Obama, but with Bush, Republicans in general). Our military has 700 bases in 130 countries. What for I ask? Close them down. Close down, 75% of the Federal government. Cutting spending so much, can allow us to cut taxes and still balance the budget. The tax cuts will leave corporations and individuals with more money to spend, save, invest. Spending and investing will create more jobs. Productive jobs created by the private sector. Not wastefull government jobs. Obviously the former government employees would need unemployment insurance, which I would extend because of the massive job losses in the government I would create. That would postpone the balancing of the budget for a while. But it's not like Obama's budget is going to be balanced anytime in his first term.

Just have to point something out...

"cutting spending so much can allow us to cut taxes and still balance the budget".

Why would we cut taxes? If you'd cut budget spending by 75%, why wouldn't you charge the SAME tax, and put it towards paying off debt?

'Balancing the budget' isn't THAT important - what is MORE important is what are you DOING with the budget.

You're doing firstgrade math - and there's nothing wrong with that - but it ignores reality.

Quick thought experiment: If we can find a way of spending NOTHING this year, and next year, and the year after... and we cut taxes, and all that groovy stuff

Or: if we can find a way of spending 10% MORE this year, and next year, and the year after... and we spend the money on infrastructure, improving our ability to trade, and reducing the costs of doing business...

Which is the better course? The one that lowers the budget, or the one that increases it? We can argue that one is better FOR THIS YEARS, but the other is fairly OBVIOUSLY going to be better and better with every passing year.

It the choice of eat now or save for later. You're talking about an 'eat now' budget... and it leaves us with nothing to eat next year. The 'save for later' budget might leave us feeling a little hungrier this year, but it keeps giving back.

anyone else think that everytime we get on the topic of economics it goes from an educated debate to an educated "You My Friend Are An Idiot" kind of talk??

Believing in the free markets, constitution, smaller, more efficient government, more economic and personal freedoms is a bad thing? OK, then I am a bad guy.

You're not a very good Libertarian, either - at least, not if you're reckoning Ron Paul as 'one of you'.

Efficient government isn't a bad thing - but libertarianism doesn't lend itself towards 'efficient' - it lends itself to 'minimal' - and there's nothing intriniscally better about a smaller government than about a large one.

The constitution is not peculiar to libertarians.

'Economic freedom' is not intrinsically good. Indeed, it CAN be very, very bad. (The kinds of things we've seen from GM and AIG, for example - perfectly legal, but not good).

Free markets? Good or bad? I'd say bad. Free markets are not fair markets. They are not structured, and they owe no alliegances. They are chaos, and chaos is only ever any good by accident.

Which means - yeah, it could be awesome, or it could be hell - because markets don't give a shit.

ohmygod are you a scientologist?!

Only on Wednesdays, or when I get my pay check in the mail from them.

sinking the country into deeper depression isnt a great idea. we already have tent cities springing up. how bad are you willing to let it get?

No it really isn't, I agree. But this growth, that the Obama stimulus plan will create (sometime, perhaps not this year, but it will happen relatively soon) is not sustainable as it is debt fueled. We need organic growth. Growth that is based on spending and investing more than borrowing and credit. No doubt, we need to get the credit markets flowing again, as he says. How bad would I let things get? As bad as they need to get, to get to a level from which we can build organic growth for the long term. As long as credit bubbles don't develope again that growth would be sustainable indefinetly. I am not sure, but I suspect that level would lead to an unemployment rate of something like 18%. Like the Great Depression. Democrat or Republican would never let that happen. And again, doing that postpones my balanced budget because I would directly support the unemployed through longer term unemployment benefits.

Dinner time, I will catch up with you all later.

Ashmoria, we are already in a depression. No I am not happy. But government interventuon will only slow down the recovery. And once we do recover we will have even more debt to service. To the tune of about $800 billion per year in interest alone by 2019 assuming the Obama budget proposal passes, and in fact gets spent like it proposes.

If we were to assume you were right - that intervention WOULD slow recovery - slowing recovery, but keeping the trough shallow, would be better than letting it crash. Slowing recovery, but stopping a quarter of the population starving, would be better than a quick, but deep dive.

Personally, I don't buy your assertion that it would slow recovery. I think keeping people working is one of the BEST ways to move the recovery forwards, and that's one of the things we can ONLY do through intervention.

Free markets? Good or bad? I'd say bad. Free markets are not fair markets. They are not structured, and they owe no alliegances. They are chaos, and chaos is only ever any good by accident.
I fail to see what is free about America's "Free Market." lol Government=Order; now that is rich :]

Edited

No it really isn't, I agree. But this growth, that the Obama stimulus plan will create (sometime, perhaps not this year, but it will happen relatively soon) is not sustainable as it is debt fueled.


Not true - the initial spending is obviously heavily dependent on borrowed resources, but recovery would actually reduce the 'debt spending'.


We need organic growth. Growth that is based on spending and investing more than borrowing and credit. No doubt, we need to get the credit markets flowing again, as he says.


That actually seems like you're contradicting yourself.

But, anyway - if that's what we want, it's easy - elect a Credit Tsar who will run around the country killing defaults and beheading added charges.

It's not likely to happen, but it would be probably the best way to get money moving back in to the credit market.


How bad would I let things get? As bad as they need to get,


People would die. Millions of them.


...to get to a level from which we can build organic growth for the long term. As long as credit bubbles don't develope again that growth would be sustainable indefinetly.


Short of outlawing credit, not gonna happen.


I am not sure, but I suspect that level would lead to an unemployment rate of something like 18%.


30, maybe. Conservatively.

No it really isn't, I agree. But this growth, that the Obama stimulus plan will create (sometime, perhaps not this year, but it will happen relatively soon) is not sustainable as it is debt fueled. We need organic growth. Growth that is based on spending and investing more than borrowing and credit. No doubt, we need to get the credit markets flowing again, as he says. How bad would I let things get? As bad as they need to get, to get to a level from which we can build organic growth for the long term. As long as credit bubbles don't develope again that growth would be sustainable indefinetly. I am not sure, but I suspect that level would lead to an unemployment rate of something like 18%. Like the Great Depression. Democrat or Republican would never let that happen. And again, doing that postpones my balanced budget because I would directly support the unemployed through longer term unemployment benefits.

Dinner time, I will catch up with you all later.
i was (kinda) with you until the 18% unemployment thing. we havent had that kind of unemployment in 60 years. we havent been lurching from bubble to bubble since the great depression. (and if that is what it takes to have generations of growth and good employment i guess i love bubbles)

we DO need to put the economy on a more rational basis. we DO need to get the federal budget under control. if the president doesnt get to those things after settling down this crisis i will be pissed.

but first things first.

I fail to see what is free about America's "Free Market." lol Government=Order; now that is rich :]

Edited

Government is order. Pretty much definitively.

i was (kinda) with you until the 18% unemployment thing. we havent had that kind of unemployment in 60 years. we havent been lurching from bubble to bubble since the great depression. (and if that is what it takes to have generations of growth and good employment i guess i love bubbles)


Actually, we HAVE been lurching from bubble to bubble. Two bubbles. The 'first' one was followed by the Depression. We're now riding the wave of the second one bursting.

Actually - I have to say, this is one of my big worries - this bubble is shuddering and quaking, but might not have actually burst. Yet.

And there's not really any way to know, until we start coming back out of this current slump. And if it hasn't burst? We'd better get used to this.

Actually, we HAVE been lurching from bubble to bubble. Two bubbles. The 'first' one was followed by the Depression. We're now riding the wave of the second one bursting.

Actually - I have to say, this is one of my big worries - this bubble is shuddering and quaking, but might not have actually burst. Yet.

And there's not really any way to know, until we start coming back out of this current slump. And if it hasn't burst? We'd better get used to this.
if this is bubbling, then its good. 60 years is a long time to have growth and employment. if the alternative is 18+% unemployment, ill take this.

Government is order. Pretty much definitively.

I prefer Proudhon's view on that issue. Also, could you define Government for me; for it seems that I lack the foresight to grasp the concept.

if this is bubbling, then its good. 60 years is a long time to have growth and employment. if the alternative is 18+% unemployment, ill take this.

Na, he forgot about the Seventies.

Depends on which reports you read. Keep in mind that these are "median" wait times, not average, and there are various factors that affect results.

Google "wait times for surgery in canada". I'll concede that my 3-5 years is off base, but you'll see that in some states people are waiting 20 weeks to see a doctor. I personally wouldn't enjoy waiting that long and don't want universal healthcare.

how bout you do that and link it for me. . . further more how bout you find out something about canada before you try to claim you actually know anything about our healthcare system . . .for example the fact that we do not in fact have States.

Efficient government isn't a bad thing - but libertarianism doesn't lend itself towards 'efficient' - it lends itself to 'minimal' - and there's nothing intriniscally better about a smaller government than about a large one.

Ok. But since I believe a big portion of government is inefficient, making it smaller, would make those inefficient parts of it smaller as well. So there would be less inefficient government. Better in my view.

I prefer Proudhon's view on that issue. Also, could you define Government for me; for it seems that I lack the foresight to grasp the concept.

"Anarchy is order", you mean?

It makes sense in the same way that ballbearings coming to rest on a level floor are 'ordered'.

I quickly hunted down defintions for 'government'.

The first I found was the Merriam Webster: : "the act or process of governing", which seems reasonable.

(Governing, by the way: " to exercise continuous sovereign authority over ; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy")

Control, direct, administration of policy - suggests order.

Na, he forgot about the Seventies.

I'm not saying there were no cycles within the space between the two bubbles. There's been one very large cycle, and several smaller cycles.

I was talking about the fact that we've basically 'lurched' (admittedly, very slowly, because of scale) from the Great Depression's bubble to this bubble.

Ok. But since I believe a big portion of government is inefficient, making it smaller, would make those inefficient parts of it smaller as well. So there would be less inefficient government. Better in my view.

Or, alternatively, by trying to shrink it, you'd make the WHOLE thing inefficient - giving an overall INCREASE in inefficiency, despite a massive reduction in overall size.

Or, alternatively, by trying to shrink it, you'd make the WHOLE thing inefficient - giving an overall INCREASE in inefficiency, despite a massive reduction in overall size.

I'd rather have a tiny, inefficient, weak government than a gargantuan, "efficient" one.

"cutting spending so much can allow us to cut taxes and still balance the budget".

Why would we cut taxes? If you'd cut budget spending by 75%, why wouldn't you charge the SAME tax, and put it towards paying off debt?



I do not disagree, merely suggesting an alternative. The faster growth that would result in lowering taxes would make that debt, easier to service as incomes from which we collect taxes would rise faster. Or perhaps something in the middle. Cut taxes, just not as much as I suggest. Pay off debt, just not as fast as you suggest. Although nobody actually suggested any figures, you get the point.

I'd rather have a tiny, inefficient, weak government than a gargantuan, "efficient" one.

That doesn't even make sense.

If your tiny, inefficient, weak government costs MORE than a gargantuan efficient one, where's the incentive?

Not that I back 'big' government - I back 'as big as it NEEDS' government.

I hate this big vs small bullshit, there is nothing inherently good about either. People shouldn't deliberately aim to increase, or decrease, the size of government, solely for the sake of some greater ideological idea about the overall 'efficiency' of bigger and smaller governments. I mean, don't you think that kind of thinking is a little... unsophisticated?

"Anarchy is order", you mean?

It makes sense in the same way that ballbearings coming to rest on a level floor are 'ordered'.

I quickly hunted down defintions for 'government'.

The first I found was the Merriam Webster: : "the act or process of governing", which seems reasonable.

(Governing, by the way: " to exercise continuous sovereign authority over ; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy")

Control, direct, administration of policy - suggests order.

I think you presented a false analogy with the, "Ball bearings," silliness.

What you favor doesn't really suggest form, but just the concept in general. And you play on the concept of government as if everyone else knows what your talking about.

I apologize for my blunder on the 70's comment.

Evidently this is more than a mere economics question, for it is a question of ethics ("free markets are not fair").

I do not disagree, merely suggesting an alternative. The faster growth that would result in lowering taxes would make that debt, easier to service as incomes from which we collect taxes would rise faster. Or perhaps something in the middle. Cut taxes, just not as much as I suggest. Pay off debt, just not as fast as you suggest. Although nobody actually suggested any figures, you get the point.

The problem is - your idea that lowering taxes and growth are intimately acquainted.

The Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities were showing - 5 years ago - that Bush's trillion dollar tax cuts had actually led to revenues "...dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see."

Also: "...because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811

Big tax cuts kill revenue and job creation.

I hate this big vs small bullshit, there is nothing inherently good about either. People shouldn't deliberately aim to increase, or decrease, the size of government, solely for the sake of some greater ideological idea about the overall 'efficiency' of bigger and smaller governments. I mean, don't you think that kind of thinking is a little... unsophisticated?

I believe it is a false dichotomy too, but that is neither here nor there. For it throws around undigested, parroted, ideas/concepts.

People would die. Millions of them.

Why? Remember I would expand unemployment insurance to whatever level it needs expanding to to support the huge numbers of unemployed. Expensive, yes. But I really do not have a choice.

if this is bubbling, then its good. 60 years is a long time to have growth and employment. if the alternative is 18+% unemployment, ill take this.

The 18+% unemployment is temporary. Once the economy recovers those people would get jobs. And I keeprepeating, I would support them until that happens.

I think you presented a false analogy with the, "Ball bearings," silliness.


It's not silliness.

Equilibrium isn't an identity for order - and that's what a literal reading of Proudhon's infamous "Anarchy is Order" would suggest.

Yes, you can find a level in anarchy. You can have units bumping alongside each other quite comfortably - but that's not the same as things fitting together.

You note that even Proudhon talked about collectives of directly democratically governed workers. In other words - Proudhon realised the need for 'order' - and saw that it was profitable, even in his 'un-ordered' concept paradigm.

The difference is - he saw voluntary ordering as being part OF anarchy.

Which is why 'Anarchy is Order" isn't actually in opposition to 'government is order". Proudhon was just talking about microcosmic government.


What you favor doesn't really suggest form, but just the concept in general. And you play on the concept of government as if everyone else knows what your talking about.


I'm not sure wht you mean... you're saying that most people wouldn't understand what I mean by 'government'?


Evidently this is more than a mere economics question, for it is a question of ethics ("free markets are not fair").

It is also an ethical argument, but I'm actually only really talking about the economic model - 'free trade' isn't really 'free', because people/localities/nations aren't equal. It's obviously not 'fair', because it favours whoever can get the greater leverage.

I believe it is a false dichotomy too, but that is neither here nor there. For it throws around undigested, parroted, ideas/concepts.

Eh?

That doesn't even make sense.

If your tiny, inefficient, weak government costs MORE than a gargantuan efficient one, where's the incentive?

Not that I back 'big' government - I back 'as big as it NEEDS' government.

Why would it cost more?

Why? Remember I would expand unemployment insurance to whatever level it needs expanding to to support the huge numbers of unemployed. Expensive, yes. But I really do not have a choice.

If you're going to pay them - why not pay them to work?

I agree with helping those who are not being helped, but...

...the stimulus is designed to get people working AND to help those who are not being helped - why would you argue against that?

The problem is - your idea that lowering taxes and growth are intimately acquainted.

The Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities were showing - 5 years ago - that Bush's trillion dollar tax cuts had actually led to revenues

Also:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811

Big tax cuts kill revenue and job creation.

But Bush cut taxes mainly for the rich. Those people would have bought whatever it is they bought tax cut or not. I would cut taxes accross the board. With much bigger cuts as well. Lower income individuals would spend at least a portion of the tax cuts. Creating demand...

Why would it cost more?

Why wouldn't it? You specified that it was inefficient, no?

Why wouldn't it? You specified that it was inefficient, no?

Inefficient at doing what it does "best."

But Bush cut taxes mainly for the rich. Those people would have bought whatever it is they bought tax cut or not. I would cut taxes accross the board. With much bigger cuts as well. Lower income individuals would spend at least a portion of the tax cuts. Creating demand...

Bush did mainly cut taxes for the rich, yes. It was an example of the 'trickle-down' paradigm - which (we knew in 2005) doesn't work.

Cutting taxes across the board is a better idea, but ultimately also flawed versus other options - like cutting expenditure (or even boosting expenditure on the right things).

If all you do is cut taxes, the market will adjust to suck up the extra available resource, by making an overall shift upwards. Or - were you suggesting some kind of price-capping, too?

It's not silliness.

Equilibrium isn't an identity for order - and that's what a literal reading of Proudhon's infamous "Anarchy is Order" would suggest.

Yes, you can find a level in anarchy. You can have units bumping alongside each other quite comfortably - but that's not the same as things fitting together.

You note that even Proudhon talked about collectives of directly democratically governed workers. In other words - Proudhon realised the need for 'order' - and saw that it was profitable, even in his 'un-ordered' concept paradigm.

The difference is - he saw voluntary ordering as being part OF anarchy.

Which is why 'Anarchy is Order" isn't actually in opposition to 'government is order". Proudhon was just talking about microcosmic government.



I'm not sure wht you mean... you're saying that most people wouldn't understand what I mean by 'government'?



It is also an ethical argument, but I'm actually only really talking about the economic model - 'free trade' isn't really 'free', because people/localities/nations aren't equal. It's obviously not 'fair', because it favours whoever can get the greater leverage.

Anarchy is just a position when it comes to the question of government, and that is it. Perhaps our definitions are different. Etymologically speaking, I am still iffy on the idea wither a government is a floating abstraction or not.

I don't believe that voluntary association and organization is government; whereas coercing my fellow man, unless they have harmed someone else, to follow the will of others is. I personally don't consider myself a collectivist, for the truth is quite the opposite; for I consider myself an individualist. And please don't make a package-deal fallacy about me agreeing with the proto-mutualist Proudhon on some issues.

I guess you are an egalitarian. Now, may I ask how people could be physically, and mentally "equal?"

Inefficient at doing what it does "best."

So... it would take longer to do the same things, would do them less productively, would cost more for the same yield... would (probably) get less done... would have to find ways to make up shortfalls...

If you're going to pay them - why not pay them to work?

I agree with helping those who are not being helped, but...

...the stimulus is designed to get people working AND to help those who are not being helped - why would you argue against that?

Because I don't want them to work for my ineffcient government. I want them to go and get jobs in the private sector. Until that happens I pay them so they don't die.

So... it would take longer to do the same things, would do them less productively, would cost more for the same yield... would (probably) get less done... would have to find ways to make up shortfalls...

I want the government to accomplish as little as possible and be as weak as possible - preferrably non-existent. The weaker it is, the harder it is for it to extort from people, aggress against them, etc.

Bush did mainly cut taxes for the rich, yes. It was an example of the 'trickle-down' paradigm - which (we knew in 2005) doesn't work.

Cutting taxes across the board is a better idea, but ultimately also flawed versus other options - like cutting expenditure (or even boosting expenditure on the right things).

If all you do is cut taxes, the market will adjust to suck up the extra available resource, by making an overall shift upwards. Or - were you suggesting some kind of price-capping, too?

No price controls at all. Are you saying my across the board tax cuts would lead to inflation?

Anarchy is just a position when it comes to the question of government, and that is it.


That seems obvious. Did you think it conflicted with something I said?


I don't believe that voluntary association and organization is government;


It is.

Your belief is irrrelevant.


...whereas coercing my fellow man, unless they have harmed someone else, to follow the will of others is.


It is, too - but then, no one said all 'governments' were equal.


I personally don't consider myself a collectivist, for the truth is quite the opposite; for I consider myself an individualist.


Okay.


I guess you are an egalitarian. Now, may I ask how people could be physically, and mentally "equal?"

I'm not sure I ever suggested that.

I want the government to accomplish as little as possible and be as weak as possible - preferrably non-existent. The weaker it is, the harder it is for it to extort from people, aggress against them, etc.

Wow non-existent? Well I still want courts, and law enforcement, and a military (but only to protect us from foreign invaders) not the military we have now. But overall I can't say that I disgaree.

Because I don't want them to work for my ineffcient government. I want them to go and get jobs in the private sector. Until that happens I pay them so they don't die.

So - you would actually... pay people to NOT work (since those private sector jobs are shrinking, not growing), rather than have them... say, build bridges or something?

I want the government to accomplish as little as possible and be as weak as possible - preferrably non-existent. The weaker it is, the harder it is for it to extort from people, aggress against them, etc.

Awesome.

Say hello to tyranny.

I want the government to accomplish as little as possible and be as weak as possible - preferrably non-existent. The weaker it is, the harder it is for it to extort from people, aggress against them, etc.

Reminds me of H.L. Mencken. =P Though, you forget that a government doesn't transcend above men, for it is made of men.

Awesome.

Say hello to tyranny.

How is a government that represses as little as possible "tyranny?"

No price controls at all. Are you saying my across the board tax cuts would lead to inflation?

I'm saying that across the board tax cuts are not going to be any different to any other variable added into the supply and demand paradigm. If you add money to the demand side, the supply side has to increase to equilibrium. You'll see some advance in the number of units shifted, and you'll see some advance in the price per unit.

So - you would actually... pay people to NOT work (since those private sector jobs are shrinking, not growing), rather than have them... say, build bridges or something?

The private sector is not going to shrink forever. As much as I like fancy bridges and other infrastructure, we have no money for that. We will build them when times improve.

How is a government that represses as little as possible "tyranny?"

It isn't.

But it would be worth seeing you succeed, just to watch what would happen the minute your new world order was installed.

The only thing that would stop someone IN your country from claiming centralised power for themselves... is someone ELSE coming into your country, to take it for THEMSELVES, first.

The private sector is not going to shrink forever.


Faith. You have it.


As much as I like fancy bridges


Fancy? Infrastructure in this country is a shambles. It would take massive investment to bring it up to 'okay'... let alone 'fancy'.


...and other infrastructure, we have no money for that. We will build them when times improve.

Wouldn't all the workers be working for the private sector, by then?

Wouldn't it be smarter to utilise a workforce YOU want to pay to sit on their asses waiting, borrow the money to pay for it now, and then repay those loans later?

Buy now, pay later?

That seems obvious. Did you think it conflicted with something I said?

No, but it conflicts with the concept of anarchy when you accept the notion that anarchy means no rules/organization. This idea reoccurs below when you reply to various comments by me.


It is.

How so?

That Your belief is irrelevant.

Fine, then I /know/ that a voluntary association is not a government.

That It is, too - but then, no one said all 'governments' were equal.

?

That
I'm not sure I ever suggested that.
Then who deserves what, why, and by what standard? Pertaining to Markets. And if you condemn the 'free'-markets of world, I don't blame you, for that is an area we agree, but for different reasons. n_n

Faith. You have it.



Fancy? Infrastructure in this country is a shambles. It would take massive investment to bring it up to 'okay'... let alone 'fancy'.



Wouldn't all the workers be working for the private sector, by then?

Wouldn't it be smarter to utilise a workforce YOU want to pay to sit on their asses waiting, borrow the money to pay for it now, and then repay those loans later?

Buy now, pay later?

Shambles, I think its a bit of an exaggeration. Yes I do agree that it needs work. Yes all the workers would be employed by the time I get to building infrastructure. But because I have such a small government, we would have to hire the private sector to build the infrastructure.

If you add money to the demand side, the supply side has to increase to equilibrium. You'll see some advance in the number of units shifted, and you'll see some advance in the price per unit.

Could you explain the last part?

How is a government that represses as little as possible "tyranny?"

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/28/article-0-00AC14280000044C-494_468x286.jpg



Think about that, then read Jennifer Government.

So - you would actually... pay people to NOT work

I don't understand that either lol.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/28/article-0-00AC14280000044C-494_468x286.jpg



Think about that, then read Jennifer Government.

After getting bored with that, read Atlas Shrugged. lol (Appeal to Authority)

Shambles, I think its a bit of an exaggeration.


No, shambles is right.

We've got bridges collapsing, and others near collapse. We've got tunnels on the verge of falling in. We've got sewer and water facilities that are not only falling apart, but that are failing to serve their intended purposes.

It's a shambles.


Yes I do agree that it needs work. Yes all the workers would be employed by the time I get to building infrastructure. But because I have such a small government,


Because you have a small government... wait, are you suggesting that the government workers are the people who would be out building bridges now?


...we would have to hire the private sector to build the infrastructure.

You still seem to - for no observable reason - suggesting that the work should wait AND we should pay people to wait AND we should pay for it later.

You haven't explained how that is NOT a terrible idea?

Could you explain the last part?

You're asking me to explain how companies would charge more for their products when more money becomes available to pay for them?

No, but it conflicts with the concept of anarchy when you accept the notion that anarchy means no rules/organization. This idea reoccurs below when you reply to various comments by me.


So - you're saying that anarchy is defined by an ideal, rather than by actual anarchy?

Where does your definition even come from?


How so?


Because a voluntary association IS government.


Fine, then I /know/ that a voluntary association is not a government.


Unfortunately, that means it's not just your 'belief' that is flawed, but also your knowledge.


Then who deserves what, why, and by what standard?

Personally, I'd say everyone needs at least enough. Anything over that, and we're picking over the fine-tuning.

You're asking me to explain how companies would charge more for their products when more money becomes available to pay for them?

Just because they are at a higher price, doesn't mean people would automatically pay for it at the same rate it was previously. It is not as universal as you are making it, for some industries would over produce trying to meet demands, while others would not/could not. I believe it is more complex than you are making it.

No, shambles is right.

We've got bridges collapsing, and others near collapse. We've got tunnels on the verge of falling in. We've got sewer and water facilities that are not only falling apart, but that are failing to serve their intended purposes.

It's a shambles.

Ok, you are right. It is a lot worse, in a lot of other places. But we do, after all, consider ourselves a Super Power.




Because you have a small government... wait, are you suggesting that the government workers are the people who would be out building bridges now?

Of course not. But building those bridges will not give jobs to the bankers, the IT professionals and other people. At best, it would give jobs to the many unemplyed that were previously emplyed in housing. Which is good, but doesn't solve the bankers' problem.



You still seem to - for no observable reason - suggesting that the work should wait AND we should pay people to wait AND we should pay for it later.

You haven't explained how that is NOT a terrible idea?

Ok, I postpone my tax cuts and use the saved money from my budget cuts for the infrastructure spending. The idea is not to borrow so much. Perhaps I delay my tax cut/debt paydown a bit to invest in infrastructure.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/28/article-0-00AC14280000044C-494_468x286.jpg



Think about that, then read Jennifer Government.

Think about what, a random photo from the Daily Fail?

Just because they are at a higher price, doesn't mean people would automatically pay for it at the same rate it was previously. It is not as universal as you are making it, for some industries would over produce trying to meet demands, while others would not/could not. I believe it is more complex than you are making it.

I'm not saying it's as simple as you seem to think - I'm merely talking in generalities.

Product A requires a resource that is effectively infinite - if there is more money out there, Product A will probably expand production to meet the demand in the market (although there is STILL the limitation of the hard constraints on production - how many products could you churn out even WITH infinite resources, etc)

Product B requires a resource that it is already effectively at capacity for - if there is more money out there, Product B will probably charge more per product until the market reaches equilibrium again.

Product C through Z are non-ideal products. They are neither infinite, nor at capacity - this will likely make up most of any market. These products will strike some balance between volume and price, depending on their own demands versus supply, and their own supply versus the overall demand.

So - my overall model looks simple, it's just supply-versus-demand, with a thumb on the balance.

Because a voluntary association IS government.

ROFLMAO!

Since when has government ever been voluntary?

So - you're saying that anarchy is defined by an ideal, rather than by actual anarchy?

When you say actual anarchy, you mean to say instability in a given area that is basically ruled by power hungry Generals? I fail to see how that is anarchy. Anarchy has only existed, sporadically, throughout the ages.

Where does your definition even come from?

Gustave De Molinari, Stefan Molyneux, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, et cetera.


Because a voluntary association IS government.

Welcome to the nation of Jolt Forum!


Unfortunately, that means it's not just your 'belief' that is flawed, but also your knowledge.

If you meant specifically that government is coercion, yet again that would be an objective, and linguistic "flaw." (Basically you were too general)*
Though if you mean the entirety of my knowledge, show me the flawless man; with evidence. Now, that isn't an excuse to maintain contradictions/mistakes.


Personally, I'd say everyone needs at least enough. Anything over that, and we're picking over the fine-tuning.

Enough.....?

Gustave De Molinari, Stefan Molyneux, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, et cetera.

Molinari, Rothbard, and Spooner are made of win.

Ok, you are right. It is a lot worse, in a lot of other places. But we do, after all, consider ourselves a Super Power.


We're supposed to be making ourselves competetive, encouraging trade, etc.


Of course not. But building those bridges will not give jobs to the bankers, the IT professionals and other people. At best, it would give jobs to the many unemplyed that were previously emplyed in housing. Which is good, but doesn't solve the bankers' problem.


Bankers can't build bridges? Even bankers can dig holes, can't they?

Also - it has to be said... there will ALWAYS be paper-pushers in every pursuit. If you've got a hundred men digging holes, you're going to need someone to do the paperwork. Ta da! Bankers, employed.


Ok, I postpone my tax cuts and use the saved money from my budget cuts for the infrastructure spending. The idea is not to borrow so much. Perhaps I delay my tax cut/debt paydown a bit to invest in infrastructure.

So, you're not actually cutting the budget (which would likely ALSO be true if you were just feeding people, since we could well be looking at 30% unemployment soon), you're just redistributing the expenditures?

ROFLMAO!

Since when has government ever been voluntary?

I live in America. Theoretically - that's it's founding principle.

I live in America. Theoretically - that's it's founding principle.

Theoretically, perhaps. But not in reality.

And I could have sworn you were British...or am I mistaking you for someone else? :confused:

When you say actual anarchy, you mean to say instability in a given area that is basically ruled by power hungry Generals? I fail to see how that is anarchy. Anarchy has only existed, sporadically, throughout the ages.


Is this what YOU mean by anarchy? Instability?

If so, you were right - we're talking very different things.


Gustave De Molinari, Stefan Molyneux, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, et cetera.


You named several people, and didn't provide the definition I asked for.

Oversight?


Welcome to the nation of Jolt Forum!


Government =/= nation.


If you meant specifically that government is coercion, yet again that would be an objective, and linguistic "flaw." (Basically you were too general)*
Though if you mean the entirety of my knowledge, show me the flawless man; with evidence. Now, that isn't an excuse to maintain contradictions/mistakes.


I don't mean 'government is coercion'. I mean that even a voluntary association is government.

You're imagining linguistic flaws - it's really that straightforward.


Enough.....?

Sure.

Theoretically, perhaps. But not in reality.

And I could have sworn you were British...or am I mistaking you for someone else? :confused:

I am British.

That's why I said I live in America. :)

In what way was the founding government not voluntary?

We're supposed to be making ourselves competetive, encouraging trade, etc.



Bankers can't build bridges? Even bankers can dig holes, can't they?

Also - it has to be said... there will ALWAYS be paper-pushers in every pursuit. If you've got a hundred men digging holes, you're going to need someone to do the paperwork. Ta da! Bankers, employed.

But how many would it take? I can't imagine all the white collar jobs could be replaced by these paper pushers.


So, you're not actually cutting the budget (which would likely ALSO be true if you were just feeding people, since we could well be looking at 30% unemployment soon), you're just redistributing the expenditures?

I am trying to cut the budget. Infrastructure spending would be big, but then decrease to a much smaller level needed to maintain it.

I am British.

That's why I said I live in America. :)

Ah, fair enough. :D

In what way was the founding government not voluntary?

Government is never voluntary. It is by definition monopolistic and compulsory.

But how many would it take? I can't imagine all the white collar jobs could be replaced by these paper pushers.


They don't have to all be replaced.

If you're young and strong, and work in a bank - why can't you do some relatively manual or technical work?

Because it's not what you trained for? Because it doesn't pay as good as bank work?

What about when you look at it in terms of - you can do what's available, because otherwise you're just sitting round on the couch waiting for everyone else to fix the recession...?

Now - if you're older, or in some other way, just not really fitted to the more manual or technical work... those would be good candidates for the paper-wrangling, no?

But - in all seriousness - do I really need to be doing THIS much fine-tuning to the plan, at this stage?


I am trying to cut the budget. Infrastructure spending would be big, but then decrease to a much smaller level needed to maintain it.

I realise you're talking about cutting the budget - but simply feeding 30% unemployment... keeping them housed in some way, might well end up with you breaking the bank.

And, if you HAVE to spend more than you'd like, well - you have to, no?

Other than that - your plan is coming to resemble Obama's, more and more.

Because a voluntary association IS government.
...

Government =/= nation.
Though not all voluntary associations are governments.

I think this is what Free-Cities means.


Government is never voluntary. It is by definition monopolistic and compulsory.
I don't see how it is, by definition.

We can conceive, for example, of a group of people coming together to voluntarily agree to have a government rule them. That's the social contract idea.

Government is never voluntary. It is by definition monopolistic and compulsory.

I'll wait while you find some way of sourcing your claims.

I've shown an example of a (theoretically) voluntary government, which knocks down 'never voluntary' AND 'compulsary' all in one.

Monopolistic... not so sure. Looks to me like hung-parliaments are an example of a lack of monopoly. And, it looks like Afghanistan's coalition of warlords would be evidence of lack of monopoly, on a different scale.

Though not all voluntary associations are governments.

I think this is what Free-Cities means.


And, I think that Free-Cities is wrong.

If you've got flatmates working out how to split the bills, you've got an informal form of government, albeit an effective direct democracy.

If you've got flatmates working out how to split the bills, you've got an informal form of government, albeit an effective direct democracy.
But then where is the line drawn between 'government' and 'agreement'... or even 'contract'?

I'll wait while you find some way of sourcing your claims.

Try every government ever. Don't believe? Try dissociating yourself from the state, refusing to pay any taxes, etc. And watch what happens.

They don't have to all be replaced.

If you're young and strong, and work in a bank - why can't you do some relatively manual or technical work?

Because it's not what you trained for? Because it doesn't pay as good as bank work?

What about when you look at it in terms of - you can do what's available, because otherwise you're just sitting round on the couch waiting for everyone else to fix the recession...?

Now - if you're older, or in some other way, just not really fitted to the more manual or technical work... those would be good candidates for the paper-wrangling, no?

But - in all seriousness - do I really need to be doing THIS much fine-tuning to the plan, at this stage?



I realise you're talking about cutting the budget - but simply feeding 30% unemployment... keeping them housed in some way, might well end up with you breaking the bank.

And, if you HAVE to spend more than you'd like, well - you have to, no?

Other than that - your plan is coming to resemble Obama's, more and more.

Lol yeah it is. I think my spending would be less. What's his infrastructure spending $300 billion or so? Out of almost $800. And besides the stimulus he has expanded the budget. I would try to avoid that. But yes, if you have to spend, for instance to feed and house the unemployed, well you have to spend. I have something (that I did not write) that I would not mind posting. Not sure if it would fit, that thing is long.

Is this what YOU mean by anarchy? Instability?

If so, you were right - we're talking very different things.



You named several people, and didn't provide the definition I asked for.

Oversight?

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

* "No rulership or enforced authority." [1]
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
* A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
* Independent from rule or authority.


1 ^ Decentralism: Where It Came From--Where Is It Going?
2 ^ "anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004. The first quoted usage is 1552
3 ^ "anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004. The first quoted usage is 1850.
4 ^ "anarchy." Oxford Eng


I
Government =/= nation.

Pardon my blunder, but the fact still remains; by your logic: Jolt is a government.


Sure.
Could you elaborate a little more?

In what way was the founding government not voluntary? So everyone consented to the Constitution (not even going to talk about the articles of confederation)?

I'm not saying it's as simple as you seem to think - I'm merely talking in generalities.

Product A requires a resource that is effectively infinite - if there is more money out there, Product A will probably expand production to meet the demand in the market (although there is STILL the limitation of the hard constraints on production - how many products could you churn out even WITH infinite resources, etc)

Product B requires a resource that it is already effectively at capacity for - if there is more money out there, Product B will probably charge more per product until the market reaches equilibrium again.

Product C through Z are non-ideal products. They are neither infinite, nor at capacity - this will likely make up most of any market. These products will strike some balance between volume and price, depending on their own demands versus supply, and their own supply versus the overall demand.

So - my overall model looks simple, it's just supply-versus-demand, with a thumb on the balance.

*sigh*

They don't have to all be replaced.

If you're young and strong, and work in a bank - why can't you do some relatively manual or technical work?

Because it's not what you trained for? Because it doesn't pay as good as bank work?

What about when you look at it in terms of - you can do what's available, because otherwise you're just sitting round on the couch waiting for everyone else to fix the recession...?

Now - if you're older, or in some other way, just not really fitted to the more manual or technical work... those would be good candidates for the paper-wrangling, no?

But - in all seriousness - do I really need to be doing THIS much fine-tuning to the plan, at this stage?



I realise you're talking about cutting the budget - but simply feeding 30% unemployment... keeping them housed in some way, might well end up with you breaking the bank.

And, if you HAVE to spend more than you'd like, well - you have to, no?

Other than that - your plan is coming to resemble Obama's, more and more.

I take that back. Remember I closed our 700 military bases (or most of them) in 130 countries. I have our former soldiers to build infrastructure. And the budget should be balanced in no time with the massive reduction on military spending. Again, because I am using the former soldiers for infrastructure, the former bankers would need support.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=3

Let's quit worrying about the exact label we want to apply... I know that's a pipe dream here, but try anyway.

What we should be worried about is the increasing encroachment of government into what should be private affairs. The Presidential firing of GM's CEO should worry us. The reduction of tax deductions for charitable contributions should worry us. The outright nationalization of banks and the demand to control other financial institutions should worry us.

In fact, the events of the last 60+ days should scare the hell out of all of us. There's no room in this president's agenda for capitalism and free enterprise.

If you are asking the federal government for tax money to bail you out then it's not really a private affair anymore. What worries me more is that the companies themselves haven't fired these horrible leaders before making this an issue. There has been no nationalization of banks, but that has been successful on a temporary basis before. Arguing over a false positive is useless for me. The talk was of lowering the deductions for people on a graduated scale making over 250k, 500k, and 1 million dollars a year. There's also loopholes in the laws that make donating money to Private Universities who are technically non-profit is what many of these wealthy people do. They give money in endowments, in exchange for some sort of honor or influence within that organization. If your primary reason for donating to a charity is for tax benefits than I think your motives are a wee bit suspect. Giving of yourself is the gift in charity. Getting something of value in return for your donation is called buying favor.

As for the OP, I do not want socialism thank you.

This is one of the best threads I've ever read. I just want to wish congrats to everyone. I wish my friends would discuss things like this...

Think about what, a random photo from the Daily Fail?

Never seen A Clockwork Orange, mate?

Never seen A Clockwork Orange, mate?

Not in many, many years, and I don't see how it relates to what I said.

Not in many, many years, and I don't see how it relates to what I said.

Firstly: It makes an argument against the government taking away free-will.

Secondly (and this is what I referenced it for): It shows what life could be like without laws.

Firstly: It makes an argument against the government taking away free-will.

I'm not advocating this...

Secondly (and this is what I referenced it for): It shows what life could be like without laws.

...or that.

...or that.

I want the government to accomplish as little as possible and be as weak as possible - preferrably [sic] non-existent. The weaker it is, the harder it is for it to extort from people, aggress [sic] against them, etc.

Yes, you are.

Yes, you are.

Anarchism and laws are not mutually exclusive. However, I suggest we either:

A) Stop here.
B) Continue this in TGs.
C) Continue in a new thread.

Otherwise, this will one will get completely hijacked, and fast.

Anarchism and laws are not mutually exclusive. However, I suggest we either:

A) Stop here.
B) Continue this in TGs.
C) Continue in a new thread.

Otherwise, this will one will get completely hijacked, and fast.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588697

Try every government ever. Don't believe? Try dissociating yourself from the state, refusing to pay any taxes, etc. And watch what happens.

Well, that was pointless.

For your next trick, try actually addressing the question.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
* "No rulership or enforced authority." [1]
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
* A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
* Independent from rule or authority.


Ah, so you went from not posting what you meant by anarchy to... still not posting it.

Are you saying that you mean anarchy in ALL those ways? Or the 5th (which most closely resembles 'anarchy' as most anarchists I know, would use it)?

If we're just going to throw around all the random definitions, what you're doing isn't debate, because you're not actually attempting to put together a COHERENT argument.


Pardon my blunder, but the fact still remains; by your logic: Jolt is a government.


It's a valid argument.

So everyone consented to the Constitution (not even going to talk about the articles of confederation)?

Theoretically.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=3

I feel terrible about it -I fully intended to read the whole article - but I got this far:

"This essay will make three key points as to why Obama's stimulus plan will fail and then will suggest a much simpler plan that will not end in failure and should actually improve the situation. The first reason why Obama's central economic planners will fail is because they are too focused on full employment rather than full production. The second reason is that the American economy, or any economy, is far too complex for any central planning group. The third reason is that Obama's proposal of more stimulus spending is exactly what got us into this mess."

...and didn't even boither to read any further.

Three key points, and not a one of them is close to true. Doesn't bode well for the article.