Controversial Claim. Still true if you replace "racist" with "misogynist".

[–]Miracle_Fruit 27 points28 points29 points 13 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]a77887 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeanOnFire 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]palz2015 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dumbguyscene28 27 points28 points29 points 13 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]SSssssssssssheeeit 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]MjrJWPowell 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SageInTheSuburbs 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]loose-dendrite 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKADidymus 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As a liberal myself, I see this happen a lot. Vegan brain rot. They're not getting enough protein, and so they go off the deep end.

I recently had an argument with a guy I used to think was reasonable. Then I realized that we were on the same side only incidentally. He did not reason to his opinions. He picked them, and he stuck to them unthinkingly. He's one of these people who thinks that just because a group is privileged, they cannot be discriminated against. "the nonsense of anti-male sexism," he said. Nonsense. Like it doesn't exist. He really believed it couldn't.

The world is split into feminists and misogynists.

It's vegan brain rot, that's what it is. Meat-eating liberals aren't like that.

(This is unscientific blabber, btw. "Vegan brain rot" is a facetious concept; I do not mean that there's a literal causal connection, because it's very unlikely that there is.)

[–]armedburrito 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AKADidymus 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loose-dendrite 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SSssssssssssheeeit 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neovitami 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomatoh 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neovitami 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Neovitami 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ispq 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ispq 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeanOnFire 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]armedburrito 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SDcowboy82 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jo3M3tal 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SageInTheSuburbs 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jo3M3tal 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bartonar 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (183 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 75 points76 points77 points 13 years ago (145 children) | Copy Link

The idea, at least with some, isn't to reward failure but to protect people from being so completely undone by it that they end up homeless, suicidal, starving, exploited, or the victim of social desperation. Neither is the idea to punish the successful. Instead, it is to make sure the rewards for success are commensurate with the actual contribution to society of that success. Wealth hoarding has gotten out of control. Success is most often purchased with wealth hoarded by one's forebears than it is earned. And often achieved through necarious and socially damaging means. Nobody needs an island. Nobody needs a castle. Nobody needs to own six houses and twelve cars. Excessive wealth also damages the holder of that wealth by causing them to be surrounded by a social bubble that prevents them from having an honest positive relationship with the world and those whom they share it with. Not only that, but nobody, nobody meets success without the participation of others. By putting a concerted effort into fostering a stable society, the successful can assure themselves that those participants are able to continue to participate.

That's the idea for some of us. Unfortunately, the majority of people fall on the extreme of either side of that idea and ruin the whole thing for everyone else.

[–]DerpaNerb 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]gingerkid1234 -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trotrot 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]gingerkid1234 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trotrot 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gingerkid1234 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trotrot 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gingerkid1234 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gingerkid1234 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't really know where you're going with this. Most of the things you listed are all either down to someones personal choice, or not related to money.

Fair enough, but that's not the point. The point is that everyone makes it clear with their actions that they value their own lives and other's lives as having extremely high, but not infinite, value.

Your last sentence however, does make sense. So I guess I should clarify and say that "An amount of money that is easily acquired by a country as wealthy as the US is not worth human life".

What do you mean by that? I agree that people "shouldn't be dying on the street for no reason". But it's also impossible practically to prevent death. Realistically, proposals ought to be examined on a case-by-case basis to see if improvements of quality of life are worthwhile. My point is that though the benefits from things that save lives are large, the costs need to be taken into consideration too.

[–]DerpaNerb 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotoriousNinjalooter 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Nobody needs an island. Nobody needs a castle. Nobody needs to own six houses and twelve cars. Excessive wealth also damages the holder of that wealth by causing them to be surrounded by a social bubble that prevents them

I was with you up until this. You don't "need" 95% of the things you've owned or will own over the course of your life. Why not downgrade to dialup and use the money saved to keep a starving African child alive? Certainly you don't actually need all of the clothes you own or the vase sitting on your end table. How many meals would the money for that vase have provided in the third world?

It's funny how people only think the concept of "need" is applicable when referring to luxuries that other people have and they don't, but when it comes to luxuries they have and don't really need, there's no rush to give them up.

To someone who is starving to death in a African shanty town, almost everything you own would be viewed no different than the way you view someone else's mega-yacht.

[–]giegerwasright -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotoriousNinjalooter 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotoriousNinjalooter 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

No, it really isn't a necessity. And you're still missing the point that you can replace broadband with just about anything you don't need for survival and the point remains.

nd again, there is a vast difference between blowing $50 on a sporting event (which I do not do) and blowing $50,000 on a weekend in Vegas

No, there isn't a vast difference. There's a difference in amounts, which makes it a difference of degrees only. The biggest difference I see is that you will never be in a position to drop $50k on useless shit so you don't mind other people having to give it up, but you would probably be the type to spend $300 on a smartphone so that's suddenly considered acceptable excess even though a $30 phone would get the job done and still leave you $270 to feed someone who's hungry.

Your prioritize your own wants over someone else's needs. You're no different from the people you criticize except your means are smaller so the amount of waste is also smaller but still represents resources being used for your own luxury instead of someone else's survival.

[–]Patrick5555 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotoriousNinjalooter 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]FoutainheadShrugged -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]loose-dendrite 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you let someone slip into homelessness, suicide, starvation, exploitation, or other desperation then they won't be in a state to learn a lesson anyway. Their state is one where one doesn't actually recover from. Rock bottom poverty scares people into avoiding it but teaches no lesson. Otherwise lottery winners wouldn't be subsequently poor with such regularity.

This is the same issue with prisons enacting vengeance instead of rehabilitation... over-emphasizing individuality and under-emphasizing circumstance. You still have to keep criminals from criminalizing but you can almost always make them safe and productive if you change their future circumstances.

By your name it's pretty obvious that you don't recognize circumstance as material but, well, that's Rand's basic flaw. She saw what happens when circumstance is the only factor considered and radicalized to individuality when the thing to do is hold individuals accountable and work to make circumstance favorable for everybody. That's why people work to make their children's lives better: if only their personality mattered then raising children would be the same as raising snakelets.

[–]giegerwasright 31 points32 points33 points 13 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[+]FoutainheadShrugged -21 points-20 points-19 points 13 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points38 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]bartonar 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lachlan91 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rmrilke 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FireReadyAim 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]LonelySOB -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]jimbroof 13 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

like others have said, lessening the blow isn't necessarily taking the consequences out of the equation. let's say i lose my house and my family due to shitty investments and a gambling problem, and i'm now homeless. what if there were a program that could provide the temporary housing, food, clothes, etc necessary to get me back on my feet? what if i use all of that help and get my life together, and start contributing to society again? are you telling me that this scenario is worse than me being homeless for the rest of my life until i die from some preventable disease on the street, or start committing crimes out of hunger and desperation?

either way, i have a lot of consequences to deal with. but in one scenario, everyone is better off than in the other.

[–]MjrJWPowell -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IndyDude11 -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Success and failure shouldn't be our only moral guides. There are many reasons that people fail that are beyond their control. It's just not true that everyone can be successful when there are limited resources and the most successful like to accrue excess resources for themselves.

Because we choose to set society up in a way where resources are limited and to be competed for, rather than distributing resources according to need, some people are going to fail to get sufficient resources to survive. Perhaps (most often) because they got a bad start in life compared to those who succeed. Maybe they aren't smart enough, maybe they weren't brought up with positive influences, maybe they didn't have access to the necessary resources to put them on the right path (education, medical treatment etc).

It's a fallacy that most successful people are entirely so because of their own efforts. There are exceptions, but generally successful people were give some initial momentum by their access to resources, including good parents. To assume that those who fail are always morally responsible and need to be punished by leaving them to live a shitty life is a bizarre ideological position.

I don't want to live in a society where women with children have to go out whoring to feed them. I don't want to live in a society where children are brought up in poverty because they were unlucky enough to be born to a parent who can't sufficiently provide for them, because that just results in repeated generational poverty. And I don't want to live in a society where I am at serious risk of crime because people are unable to provide for themselves legitimately. So, I'm happy to pay a substantial proportion of my income to prevent that from happening.

It's not necessarily altruistic. It helps me to live in the world I want to live in.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You say these things like they are somewhere written in the fabric of the universe and need no arguing for. They are not.

Why must the government only exist to protect from violence and fraud? I think of poverty and deprivation as negative externalities that result from the way we choose distribute resources. I'm pro-capitalist, and I'm a small businessman. I don't like it at all when April comes round and I have to pay my taxes. But, I prefer for people not to suffer needlessly when there are sufficient resources to prevent it.

Private charity has proven inadequate; in the UK that was the way things were in the 19th Century. It was pretty shitty for a large majority of people. For whatever reason (lack of altruism, reduced transaction costs) centralisation of "charity" works better.

It's better for me as a small businessman if I have access to infrastructure and employees of a sufficiently high quality. It drives business and creates value that I can work to extract. Policing costs are reduced because giving people options other than a life of crime reduces crime. On average, it works out better if the bottom of society isn't so low as to cause significant difficulties for the rest of society.

It's also more humane.

[–]Tiak 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Danielfair -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LonelySOB -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The most successful con of all time seems to be the business owners' attempt to reformulate the concept of taxes into an argument of "the government is taking something that is rightfully yours".

What's the point of working harder to expand my business, make more money, and hire more people, if you're just going to take all my extra profits and give it to the people who were dealt a bad hand, made bad decisions, or are just lazy?

Taxes are based on a scale that increases as the profits increase. Thus, if you make 100k, you pay X in taxes. If you make 200k, you pay X in taxes on the first 100k, and Y in taxes on the second 100k. In other words, you can never, ever be have less income for making more money - you will always have more money after taxes if you make more money. There is always incentive to make more money.

And, on top of that, you are rewarded for spending some of your income on expanding your business! You don't have to pay taxes on income that is spent on wages, charitable donations, etc. Would you make more money if you hired a new employee? If you are a good business person, you would. So everyone wins!

But you are making money off of someone else's work. In fact, the more wealthy you get, the more you make money off of other people's work and less from your own work. And you wouldn't be able to make that money if those people were prevented from working due to illness or insufficient infrastructure. Thus, you also benefit from the health and wellbeing of your employees. So you benefit more from paying more taxes, because your employees are more able to provide better services to your company when they are better educated, have better health, and have better infrastructure.

The tax money isn't rightfully yours - the money you pay in taxes is your payment to the entire society for its services to you! The more money you make, the more you benefit from the entire society.

Imagine you pay no taxes at all. No one does. Great, right? You get to keep all your money! And it is YOUR money, right? Not the damn gov'ment!

Alright, let's examine the consequences. First off, those employees you hire? Yeah, they don't have any education except for what their parents taught them. And their parents were factory workers, too, so they aren't very knowledgable either. But that is okay with you, because squalor conditions in the factory won't be complained about! Each generation gets worse and worse.

But how are they going to get to work? Well, they might drive except, no wait, there are no roads. Ok, well you could pay for the roads yourself! All roads leading into your business are payed for by you. But guess what - roads are pretty damn expensive.

And what about roads from farms to get into the city to bring in food? Well, unless the farmers wants to pay for the road themselves, they don't exist! So food costs skyrocket because the farmers have to pay for the roads. And if food costs go up, so do employee costs, because they have to pay for the food. And if employee costs go up, profits go down.

The economy is a very interconnected system, and the services provided by paying taxes are all interconnected. Obviously that was an extreme example, but it stands none-the-less.

Taxes aren't the problem. Inefficiencies in government are the problem. Misspending on tax breaks for the super wealthy, on projects selected for corruption reasons, etc. Those are the problem.

Health care, education, infrastructure, military - these are the primary costs of the government, and where the majority of your taxes go. Complaining about taxes because of welfare and disability is silly. That is just a "right wing" ploy to make you oppose whomever is even slightly left of them on the economic scale.

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"the government is taking something that is rightfully yours"

So you're just calling it a con, and I'm supposed to accept that?

There is always incentive to make more money.

At one point, income taxes in Britain were 95%. How much incentive do you have to make an extra dollar when you only get to keep 5 cents of it? The risk of increasing business to make that extra dollar isn't worth the 5 cents. No income is guaranteed, and an tax rate at 95% is literally going to outweigh the incentive to make an extra buck. So in short, I disagree with your statement.

In fact, the more wealthy you get, the more you make money off of other people's work and less from your own work.

This is certainly not always true.

And you wouldn't be able to make that money if those people were prevented from working due to illness or insufficient infrastructure.

Here comes the standard..."but what about the roads" argument.

So you benefit more from paying more taxes, because your employees are more able to provide better services to your company when they are better educated, have better health, and have better infrastructure.

You're implying that taxes for infrastructure and healthcare are the only options, which is false.

The tax money isn't rightfully yours - the money you pay in taxes is your payment to the entire society for its services to you!

Tell me more about the social contract I never signed or agreed to. Funny how liberals tell me it's greedy to want to keep my own money, but its not greedy for them to want mine.

Yeah, they don't have any education except for what their parents taught them.

Are you implying that homeschooling is bad? Are you implying that private schools don't exist?

And their parents were factory workers, too, so they aren't very knowledgeable either.

A majority of jobs in the US do not need a college education, regardless of what the job openings state. The "need" for a college education is a result of the surplus in the labor market. I suppose you don't think Henry Ford hired uneducated factory workers and paid them well? Please.

But how are they going to get to work? ...And what about roads from farms to get into the city to bring in food?

Nice list of narrow minded hypotheticals with only one predetermined course determined by you. Everything you've just stated here is variable based on the people who live in the area and what they choose to do. You imply that without roads, food wouldn't be as accessible and people wouldn't get to work. There wasn't a good roads system in the US until after the 1920's, and cars didn't get really come into reality for the average American family until decades after that. They survived just fine. Your argument is based primarily on the ideas of recency bias and the idea that, once again, the government is the only entity that has the physical capability to pour some fucking pavement on the ground.

The economy is a very interconnected system, and the services provided by paying taxes are all interconnected. Obviously that was an extreme example, but it stands none-the-less.

Are you implying that taxes are the only way to keep the economy going?

Taxes aren't the problem. Inefficiencies in government are the problem.

Now we're starting to agree. I wouldn't mind paying taxes so much if I knew they were being used efficiently and effectively. I'm not happy to see my taxes go to the TSA so they can grope me against my will.

Misspending on tax breaks for the super wealthy

You mean tax breaks created by congress? Don't blame the wealthy for following the code they were given by you and your almighty government.

Health care, education, infrastructure, military - these are the primary costs of the government, and where the majority of your taxes go.

Right. I don't have much of an issue when my taxes are going to things that are in the federal government's purview according to the constitution. As you said before, my primary complaints are government bloat and inefficiencies.

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At one point, income taxes in Britain were 95%. How much incentive do you have to make an extra dollar when you only get to keep 5 cents of it? The risk of increasing business to make that extra dollar isn't worth the 5 cents. No income is guaranteed, and an tax rate at 95% is literally going to outweigh the incentive to make an extra buck. So in short, I disagree with your statement.

This prevents money hoarding and the creation of the super rich. It does not prevent people from making more money. And, quite frankly, you said it removes incentive but you didn't counter the point I made that yes, indeed, as long as the tax isn't 100% or more, then you will always make more net income if you have more gross income.

In fact, the more wealthy you get, the more you make money off of other people's work and less from your own work.

This is certainly not always true.

Care to explain how? Business owners have more employees, money lenders and stock people are making profits off of the sale of stocks/bonds/shares run by companies who have employees, etc.

You're implying that taxes for infrastructure and healthcare are the only options, which is false.

I am implying no such thing. I am saying that taxes pay for much, much more than just your simplistic and childish assertion of people who are lazy and don't work (welfare).

A majority of jobs in the US do not need a college education, regardless of what the job openings state. The "need" for a college education is a result of the surplus in the labor market. I suppose you don't think Henry Ford hired uneducated factory workers and paid them well? Please.

Well, since I didn't actually say anything about college education... and since most colleges aren't public funded - as opposed to grade school - you are making a completely ridiculous counter argument. Congrats!

Nice list of narrow minded hypotheticals with only one predetermined course determined by you. Everything you've just stated here is variable based on the people who live in the area and what they choose to do. You imply that without roads, food wouldn't be as accessible and people wouldn't get to work. There wasn't a good roads system in the US until after the 1920's, and cars didn't get really come into reality for the average American family until decades after that. They survived just fine. Your argument is based primarily on the ideas of recency bias and the idea that, once again, the government is the only entity that has the physical capability to pour some fucking pavement on the ground.

Holy shit its like you didn't even read anything I said! Congratulations!

What I said, very clearly, is that if the government doesn't do it, then individuals have to do it. And if individuals have to do it, then that is going to cut into their net income.

You mean tax breaks created by congress? Don't blame the wealthy for following the code they were given by you and your almighty government.

Once again, unrelated. You like fighting invisible enemies, don't you? Mr. Man of la Mancha! Fight that windmill, dude!

I am blaming the government for putting in tax breaks for the super wealthy. The government holds a lot of blame in this.

Right. I don't have much of an issue when my taxes are going to things that are in the federal government's purview according to the constitution. As you said before, my primary complaints are government bloat and inefficiencies.

And yet you seemed to focus on lazy people who don't get jobs and live off the government...

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There's no link there.

We have income taxes to enable a progressive taxation of the population of a country (despite having an increasingly regressive taxation at this point). Keep in mind that there are multiple types of taxes, include property, income, and value-added. There are merits to and problems with each of these, including the regression taxation that accompanies the value-added tax.

Now, remember that the reason we have tax brackets is so that you don't get taxed at 95% on all of your income, but only on those portions that exceed other tax brackets (you are taxed at the rate for each tax bracket in for all of your income that exists in that tax bracket [this is overly-simplified, I know]).

That doesn't provide an incentive for being poor or making less. Even if the government taxes at 95% for those making over 2 million dollars, that doesn't mean that the money is being spent on anything that helps people making less than 2 million dollars. Even if it is, you can afford a much higher quality of living while making more money, even if you're not making inordinate sums (because anyone really NEEDS billions of dollars in income).

AGAIN, keep in mind that many people making in the millions of dollars make it off of capital gains, rather than salary. They get away with murder when it comes to paying taxes.

I find that your first premise is absurdly false. There is not less motivation to earn, because you're still making more money, and still making enough to be able to spend. Even so, those people who are making enough to be taxed at these higher rates aren't working in a factory. They aren't going to switch to retail labor and working at the minimum wage. They are businesspersons and executives who have absolutely no reason to go and work anywhere else.

So no, your argument is flawed and absurd. Keep in mind: smokers still smoke, tax or no.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

AGAIN, keep in mind that many people making in the millions of dollars make it off of capital gains, rather than salary. They get away with murder when it comes to paying taxes.

You've told me nothing I didn't already know thus far. But I disagree here. First off, you've got the double taxation on investments. I earn money, get taxed on it, then invest it, and get taxed on it again. Anybody can invest $1, keep it in the market for a year, and then pull it out with the gains taxed at 15%. Democrats love to make it sound like this is some rich people tax cheating scam and it's not.

That being said, upping the capital gains tax hurts retirees quite a bit. Right now every retiree living off investment income is being taxed 15% on their money when they pull it out. These aren't the wealthy...they're grandma and grandpa.

I find that your first premise is absurdly false.

It is not false. Is the cigarette sin tax also false?

There is not less motivation to earn, because you're still making more money, and still making enough to be able to spend.

Yes, there is. At one point Britain put the highest tax rate at 95%. It would be just plain stupid for anyone to waste more time or effort, either personally or through their business, to work to earn an extra dollar when they will only get 5 cents after income tax. And that's just the income tax, that's not even considering the tax they will pay if they do anything with that 5 cents.

Even so, those people who are making enough to be taxed at these higher rates aren't working in a factory. They aren't going to switch to retail labor and working at the minimum wage. They are businesspersons and executives who have absolutely no reason to go and work anywhere else.

ok?

Keep in mind: smokers still smoke, tax or no.

False. In order for your statement to be true, it would have to be true that no smoker has ever quit due to the extra tax on cigarettes.

[–]DerpaNerb -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GorillaJ 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What's the point of working harder to expand my business, make more money, and hire more people, if you're just going to take all my extra profits and give it to the people who were dealt a bad hand, made bad decisions, or are just lazy?

There is no way you have ever paid taxes remotely close to draining all your profit, and nice job ignoring the only reason you have any success whatsoever is because of all those people who paid taxes and helped provide the framework for your entire life from birth to now.

Look, you very well may be right in that your money and work are yours and you ought to be free to do with them what you will. But no one really cares if you're right. Your philosophy is destructive and no good for any but the wealthy, so the majority are not going to wind up supporting things like no taxes.

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no way you have ever paid taxes remotely close to draining all your profit

Why is it your goal to raise taxes that high? If a business cannot hire more people and cannot expand due to hitting a tax ceiling, that's a problem. How about this - if a business can no longer afford to provide health insurance to employees due to high taxes, would that concern you?

and nice job ignoring the only reason you have any success whatsoever is because of all those people who paid taxes and helped provide the framework for your entire life from birth to now.

Jesus fucking christ. That wasn't my choice. I had no choice to be born into the "framework" that you set up for me. Don't force me to feed burnt rice and tell me how lucky I am.

But no one really cares if you're right.

I will never understand how people can willingly choose government oversight over freedom. I should have been born in the 1700's. I think I would have gotten along much better with Jefferson and Washington.

no good for any but the wealthy

Wrong. My philosophy is about liberty and freedom.

so the majority are not going to wind up supporting things like no taxes.

I understand that. This is the same majority who doesn't mind the patriot act or the war on drugs, or anything else the government does to violate their rights. The majority doesn't care about their rights, they just want more handouts from the government. I'll gladly bow out from that majority.

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GorillaJ 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GorillaJ 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you want to have educated and hardworking people to employ?

Educated and hardworking are two different things. That being said, I'd prefer a hard working individual over an overeducated idiot any day. Someone who is hardworking can be educated and trained. Someone who is highly educated can read or listen to information and regurgitate it without actually thinking. In the European Union, the unemployment rate is 10.2%. Spain is leading with 24%. Take a quick look at this map and you can see pretty easily that the US is among the lowest in the world. And another article concerning the EU's record high unemployment.

Don't worry though, in exactly 2008, the US began to catch up with the EU's unemployment rates. EU source here. That's odd, I can't think of anything significant that happened in the US in 2008.

But wait! I thought that the EU was notorious for easy access to higher education! After all, Since 1952, Article 2 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights obliges all signatory parties to guarantee the right to education.

What about college? The U.S. once led the world in college graduates. As an example of this, Americans age 55-to-64 still lead their peers in other nations in the portion with college degrees (41 percent). But this number has flat-lined for Americans. In 2008, the same percentage of Americans age 25-to-34 and age 55-to-64 were college graduates. Meanwhile, other nations have caught up, and some have pulled ahead. Among this younger age group, 25- to 34-year-olds, all of the following nations now have a larger percent of college graduates than the U.S.: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Source.

So basically, Europe has a higher percent of adults with higher education, and also a higher % of unemployed. But I thought you just implied that higher education = better employment?

I assume it's the latter, and if so, you are benefiting from the free education, healthcare, and housing that they and their parents got.

Are you saying that in Britain, everyone's parents get free education, healthcare, and housing? AND housing? What do they pay for then? Food, clothes, and entertainment? What are their tax rates to pay for this? What is their national debt/deficit? This stuff is not "free", regardless of you calling it that.

I'd much prefer to have reasonable educated workers whom I can train to perform their job and pay reasonable taxes as opposed to paying very high taxes for workers who have no actual motivation to work because if they don't work, they just get welfare from the government to cover all of their expenses anyways.

The reason unemployment AND higher education rates are higher in Europe is because A) higher education is "free" so why not get it? And B) Once they receive their college degree, they are intelligent enough to realize that they have no need to work when they can have the exact same quality of life from NOT working.

"Our social system in France alone has accumulated more than 100 billion euros in debt, and it just isn't viable anymore," he says. "Today it survives thanks to one thing: France's AAA credit rating and our ability to keep borrowing to pay for the social programs."

Source.

Ooops! Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Another problem for the EU, says Adema, is the rigidity of its labor market — it is difficult to fire workers, making it difficult to hire new ones. Adema says that has inhibited the economic growth necessary to sustain the welfare state. Growth in the eurozone is only expected to reach 1 percent in 2010, compared to 3 percent in the U.S.

Same source.

You've heard about Greece's great welfare programs, I'm sure.

To support that burden Greece has among the highest rate of taxes on the average worker in Europe, 42 percent of income earned, compared to 37 percent in the OECD on average and 30 percent in the United States.

Source.

The only major difference is that European nations are farther down the path to fiscal collapse. The welfare state was adopted earlier in Europe and government spending among euro nations now consumes a staggering 49 percent of economic output. This heavy fiscal burden, especially when combined with onerous tax systems, helps explain why growth is anemic.

Source.

Allow me to say that again. In Europe, government spending makes up 49% of total economic output! That is not sustainable!

You depend heavily on the nation's infrastructure to produce the sort of employees that will enable you to make the maximum profits.

Not willingly, and not by choice. You cannot force me to only drive on public roads, and only hire employees from the public education system, and then tell me how great I have it. Please provide me with sources stating the employees from public institutions are better than those from private. Please provide me sources stating that public roads are better and cheaper than private roads.

You, and everyone who holds your opinion, continue to ignore the fact that all of that "free" stuff costs money. Money that we don't have. Until you learn about economics, you will never understand the folly in your suggestions.

I highly recommend reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It's one of Thomas Jefferson's favorite books, and one of his invaluable sources of knowledge when founding this country.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Whisper -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The idea, at least with some, isn't to reward failure but to protect people from being so completely undone by it that they end up homeless, suicidal, starving, exploited, or the victim of social desperation. Neither is the idea to punish the successful. Instead, it is to make sure the rewards for success are commensurate with the actual contribution to society of that success.

Oh, we understand the idea.

And no one wants to see people starve. But unfortunately, when you take resources from the most successful to give to the least, then what you are doing is making the most efficient economic processes less efficient, in order to incentivize the least efficient ones.

Essentially, you are pouring sand into your engine instead of oil.

Wealth hoarding has gotten out of control. Success is most often purchased with wealth hoarded by one's forebears than it is earned.

Isn't it funny how all the wealthy people think the poor are lazy shiftless drug addicts, and the poor think the wealthy are spoiled lazy selfish corrupt thieves?

It's almost as if self-interest was getting in the way of clear thinking.

Nobody needs an island. Nobody needs a castle. Nobody needs to own six houses and twelve cars.

No one needs a house or a car, either. No one needs a computer. No one needs reddit. Economies are driven by wants, not needs.

Excessive wealth also damages the holder of that wealth by causing them to be surrounded by a social bubble that prevents them from having an honest positive relationship with the world and those whom they share it with.

This sounds like the sort of sentiment that can only survive in a political echo chamber where everyone agrees with it. What does it mean to have a relationship with a giant ball of rock hurtling through space?

Not only that, but nobody, nobody meets success without the participation of others.

Which is why we cannot solve poverty by writing checks.

This principle is always used to take money from the successful, then promptly forgotten when we decide how to spend that money. Wealth redistributors don't seem to display any interest in community building, because that is complicated, hard to sell with a slogan, and not as profitable as redistributing more wealth (while keeping just a small percentage...)

By putting a concerted effort into fostering a stable society, the successful can assure themselves that those participants are able to continue to participate.

Circular reasoning. This is only true if you assume wealth redistribution fosters a stable society. It doesn't. Building communities and other mechanisms of trust fosters a stable society.

[–]giegerwasright 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Non_Entity -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotoriousNinjalooter -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Non_Entity -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotoriousNinjalooter -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Non_Entity 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Non_Entity -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotoriousNinjalooter -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Non_Entity 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotoriousNinjalooter -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Non_Entity 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Hamakua -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]LonelySOB 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Hamakua -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Hamakua -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iongantas 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lati0s 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ErasmusMRA -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Danielfair 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ErasmusMRA -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]silentruh 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]kazagistar 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem is that nearly everyone uses roads and that they are expensive, if you didn't pay your 0.5% road tax and the bill was entirely voluntary then the people who want to use them would never be able to afford it, and while this may not seem like it would effect you I have to ask, where does your food come from? from farms, which in turn move it around via trucks, they would in turn pass the bill onto you. not to mention policing something like that, which would din turn soak up tax payer money.

I do not think that socialism is the end all be all of good things, I accept that it is a horrible system in most cases, but there are some things which capitalism cannot deal with, just as there are some things socialism cannot deal with. 85-90% capitalism and 10-15% Socialism would be a good blend.

[–]ErasmusMRA-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Null_zero2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kazagistar1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your tax dollars pay for your own work, unless you think you could do your job without roads, healthcare or people.

My tax dollars should not have anything to do with roads and healthcare. Roads and healthcare can be provided effectively and at a lower cost than the government. Surely you have been brainwashed to just assume that the government is the only option we have.

but the point remains, "how much can we tax them and how much do we need to" are the main questions to ask

Actually, no. The question should be what does the government need to do in accordance with the constitution, and what is the minimum amount of tax dollars that can provide that?

don't complain when you have the second lowest taxes of any developed nation

I will complain, because the taxes would be much, much lower if the size of government shrunk way down to the size it's supposed to be. I don't give a fuck if we're doing better than all but one other developed country - that's not supposed to be the standard of which we measure ourselves. Our standard is what did the constitution define for the breadth of the federal government; and yes, it is being violated, and some of us do care. The ones who do care are generally republicans or libertarians and meanwhile the democrats continue to vote to expand government, ignore the massive deficit, and drive our country into non-existence just as greece is.

[–]Pecanpig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"can be provided" and "are provided" are different things, while in theory either system could offer healthcare at a relatively low cost the private sector has never managed to do this on a large scale. It's not the only option on the table, but it's the only one which is proven to work to any extent.

The constitution could have burnt up 10 years ago and the government wouldn't notice, but yes the basic question is "whats the most we can do for the people with minimal taxes", and the answer is" not much".

you seem to think of this as if the government is evil and greedy by nature, which it is, but also that the average businessman isn't. That is exactly how you measure things, in relation to other things, not hypothetical situations.

I agree that many (most) of government systems are broken, but the healthcare in Canada ends up costing a fraction of private healthcare in the US and this applies to other things also, look up how the internet in Japan is run by the government (the hardware), some things work far better as part of a benevolent system, others don't, and some government systems get taken over and ruined (Congress), but it's worth pointing out that the people who ruin socialist systems and who want purely capitalist systems tend to be the same who think it's fair and "American" to charge someone 3 grand for a 200$ operation.

[–]judgemebymyusername0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"can be provided" and "are provided" are different things

No they aren't. Right now, most Americans are using private insurance to get private care. So private care both can be provided and actually is being provided.

while in theory either system could offer healthcare at a relatively low cost the private sector has never managed to do this on a large scale.

Prove it. There is a cost to healthcare. A doctor must still be paid a salary whether they are private or public. Building a hospital still costs a couple million whether it is private or public. They only way government can make healthcare more affordable is by subsidizing it aka arbitrarily lowering the cost of out of your pocket and paying the rest with tax dollars. That's not cheaper healthcare, that's just taxing you to pay for it and then telling you that you got a good deal. You're still paying the same for it. The main argument for private care is that competition lowers costs and improves quality. When the government runs all of it, there is no competition and no one hospital gives a shit about increasing the quality of their care because they won't make any more money anyways. Money talks. If you take away anybody's reason to raise the bar, then nobody will bother.

and the answer is" not much".

And that's my point. The government shouldn't be doing much.

you seem to think of this as if the government is evil and greedy by nature, which it is, but also that the average businessman isn't.

The difference is, when the government is greedy, it can force me to pay taxes and it can send a cop to my house to arrest me, detain me, imprison me, or kill me. When a businessman is greedy I can choose not to do business with him with no threat. That's a huge fucking difference. And unless the businessman is running a one-man operation, he has to hire employees to work for him to operate his business. If none of the employees like him, they can work elsewhere, and he fails.

but the healthcare in Canada ends up costing a fraction of private healthcare in the US

Of course it is, because the costs you don't see are subsidized by the government through your tax dollars. Just because part of it is paid in taxes doesn't mean that money is magical discount money.

who think it's fair and "American" to charge someone 3 grand for a 200$ operation.

Maybe American hospitals have a lot more indirect expenses? More malpractice insurance? Hiring more people to worry about all the extra government regulations placed on the hospital? Paying better salaries to the employees? There's so much expense involved in an operation than just the actual cost of that room, the tools used, and the hourly wages of the people in the operating room. I guess overhead is the word I'm looking for. And even in a private hospital there is still tons and tons of government required overhead.

[–]Pecanpig2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And many Americans are also being "cut off" because they end up costing the company money.

True, but there is no middleman, there is (generally) no greedy person taking "their share" out of your pocket, a hospital might cost lets say 60 million to make (random guess) but a private company cannot build it for that much, they need to make a profit after all, so they up the cost, the same goes for doctors. Competition does tend to lower costs that is true, but when you bring greed into it they won't lower the costs to you but rather their own costs. Hospitals are about helping people, if you want to help people then go into healthcare, if all you want is to make money then you shouldn't go into healthcare, try something like being a stock broker. Give people a reason to lower the bar and they will.

Either the government does it or it doesn't get done, take your pick on what to cut, military, police, education, healthcare, roads, ect ect.

Remove the government and that business man can shoot you dead and take your money regardless.

I am counting for that, it may cost me nothing but even then, if you were to count all the money going into out healthcare system and then all the work it does it is clearly more efficient on the dollar a dollar to dollar basis.

True enough, but to blame all of private healthcare's inherent problems on government is just silly.

there are flaws in any system, the flaws tend to be different depending on where the system is used.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And many Americans are also being "cut off" because they end up costing the company money.

Not anymore, because companies can no longer deny people for pre-existing conditions. This is just about the only part of Obamacare that everyone can agree on.

no greedy person taking "their share" out of your pocket

It is not greed to want to run a profitable business. A profit is not inherently bad. And, you're ignoring the real world and the efficiencies gained in private that would not exist in a public organization. Short example, I'd rather pay $1100 for a private surgery which uses better technology and methodology and cost-cutting means and gives the hospital a $100 profit as opposed to paying $1200 to a public hospital with a massive bureaucracy that has no motivation to limit itself. A private organization must worry about cost in order to survive. A public, government organization does not give a shit about cost because it can just raise taxes to cover their ignorance.

Either the government does it or it doesn't get done, take your pick on what to cut, military, police, education, healthcare, roads, ect ect.

False. How can you be so blind? Ever heard of private schools? Private insurance? Toll roads? The military - yes, that is the government's job as defined by the constitution. The police, everyone agrees that part of the purpose of the government is to provide safety and protection. The fucking roads argument is annoying. It's fucking pavement laid on the ground. Anybody can do that.

Remove the government and that business man can shoot you dead and take your money regardless.

Refer to previous comment. Protection of the populace is an agreed upon role of the government. That being said, even with and without the government, I will use my own gun to defend myself against the businessman. I've never been to Canada - but does your government trust you with a gun?

it may cost me nothing

You don't pay taxes?

but to blame all of private healthcare's inherent problems on government is just silly.

Did I blame all?

there are flaws in any system

But there's a key difference between a flaw in a private institution and a flaw in a government institution. If a private institution has a flaw, I can choose to go to a different private institution. If the government has a flaw, my only choice is to deal with it or move somewhere with a different government. Which choice would you rather make? Which is easier?

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't mean about pre existing conditions, I mean that if someone ends up paying lets say 20,000$ into a healthcare plan, but then they get sick or get cancer or something and end up costing 25,000$, then there "can" be some kind of "problem" which voids their healthcare policy.

That's not a real life applicable comparison, a better one would be that I would rather pay 0$ but have a 2% tax increase for top notch healthcare where there are no "cost-cutting means" employed, this way I get top notch service as they do not have to worry about "beating the competition" by reducing expenses drastically. A private company MUST worry about operational costs that is true, but they do not need to worry about how much they charge people, they can charge what they want because the only alternative is either the other expensive hospital or becoming even more ill. A socialist healthcare system's best interest is to keep you healthy, because that's what they get paid for. a Private company's best interest is to make money, regardless of your health. If you were to break your arm right now, like just while typing back, how long would it take you to get that seen to by a doctor and how much would it cost you? I could see a doctor within an hour and it would cost me nothing.

Private schools have never had the capacity to educate the people as a whole, and even if they did you are forgetting that most people cannot afford them. Private insurance also ends up costing more and often has lower quality service, that is unless you go truly top notch, but again, the vast majority cannot afford that. There are no toll roads where I live, so I will not comment on them. you say that it's the governments job to protect the nation and it's people, yet you do not define the word "protect", to protect them from death via Chinese missiles? that's the military's job. to protect them from death via internal violence? that's the police's job. to protect them from dying via disease, injury or sickness? that's also the governments job. I agree that anybody can do roadwork, but the question is would they?...Would a private company lay down and maintain an entire nation's roadwork for an affordable price?

In which case you allow anarchy. Yes, because I have proven that I am safe with a gun. I agree that Canada's gun laws are a bit strict but I would rather have some kind of screen to stop retards from buying weapons, besides, it may be tedious but almost all of what's legal in the US is legal here, it's just harder to get and nearly impossible if you aren't certified (a basic weapon handling course).

As in I don't get shafted with a 3000$ bill.

So tell me...what's the alternative to Lockheed Martin and Boeing for the US to domestically acquire fighter jets?...there are none. If you don't like your current helathcare provider whether is be Obamacare (something I disagree with) or some private company, then you have the option to leave, it's just more defficult one way than the other. "No economic system stay's free unless you force it to."

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I could see a doctor within an hour and it would cost me nothing.

There you go again with the "it's free" myth.

Private schools have never had the capacity to educate the people as a whole

Not sure what you are smoking.

and even if they did you are forgetting that most people cannot afford them

The world isn't fair?

Private insurance also ends up costing more and often has lower quality service

General statement with no source.

to protect them from death via Chinese missiles? that's the military's job. to protect them from death via internal violence? that's the police's job.

National defense is the government's job. "To provide for the common defense". This is the military. The police do it on a local level. It is assumed by this definition it is one's defense from another. Not the defense against sickness and disease...nice try sneaking that in there.

I agree that anybody can do roadwork, but the question is would they?...Would a private company lay down and maintain an entire nation's roadwork for an affordable price?

Why wouldn't they? I don't know about where you're from, but around here companies like to make money providing products and services. At the bare minimum, a company has a reputation to uphold. If they bid on a road contract for a specific completion date and a specific cost, they better meet those requirements. The government on the other hand can just go over budget and take twice and long and there's nothing we can do about it. You can take another company's bid next time, but you can't pick another government quite as easily. The government has zero motivation to do...well...anything really. They will still get their tax dollars and there is no competition. The only thing the people can do is vote out the people at the top and hope things change.

As in I don't get shafted with a 3000$ bill.

I'd prefer one $3,000 bill than a guaranteed $3,000 tax bill every year.

So tell me...what's the alternative to Lockheed Martin and Boeing for the US to domestically acquire fighter jets?...there are none.

You make the assumption that if those two companies failed, another company wouldn't come along and hire those same engineers to get the work done. Those companies may have a few proprietary inventions or patents, but at the end of the day another company could easily fill the need. Engineering education is not patented. A company will always be able to hire people to get things done.

No economic system stays free unless you force it to.

Never heard this and I don't know what it's trying to say.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Stop being a fucking moron, you know exactly what I mean.

Truth.

Just because the world isn't fair doesn't mean you have the right nor obligation to make it worse, I could use the same logic that "because you aren't safe, I should be allowed to shoot you".

When it is this obvious, a specific source is hardly ever needed. Tell me when was the last time thousands of people went into heavy debt going to a Canadian hospital, or when the last time they got turned down for costing the hospital money.

The military is the national level, the police is the local level and the healthcare system is on the personal level. The idea is to keep everyone safe and able to work, just because it wasn't written down on an irrelevant document 300 years ago doesn't mean anything.

They wouldn't make money though, they would NEED to do it at a low price. So...how is the F35 coming along on it's due date and cost? Just because a company agrees to do something doesn't mean it will get done, and especially when there is no incentive, because it's not like the government can say "your taking to long, here's your 2 week notice". The government has a little motivation to help people, private companies have no motivation to do ANYTHING other than be greedy, if they can screw people over for money without providing a service then you better believe that they will.

That would make sense if 100% of taxes went to healthcare, but the question is would people as a whole rather get a 300$ bill or pay 100$ a year on taxes.

Both companies have been failing for a long time, the last thing Lockheed Martin made was the F22 Craptor which has proven itself to be the worst piece of junk ever made and Boeing hasn't made a fighter jet since 1995 (albeit the F/A-18 is pretty good). the fact of the matter is that using private contractors the US airforce isn't getting anything done, private companies have realized that they can produce white elephants and that the government has no option but to either buy them or not have an air force.

It points out that any "free" system eventually turns into a monopoly in which case it is no longer free, it's just rules by something other than "Teh Government". Lockheed Martin for example.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Stop being a fucking moron, you know exactly what I mean.

You're right, I know what you mean, but most people don't. I have to believe that most people actually think it's really free, and they don't understand what tax is and what it's used for. Calling it "free" is perpetuating the willful ignorance of the populace.

Truth.

With no source to back it up.

Just because the world isn't fair doesn't mean you have the right nor obligation to make it worse

That's not what I'm claiming. My claim is that I don't have the right or obligation to make it better. Don't you play poker? Just because I get dealt pocket aces and win a big hand doesn't mean I have to share it with everyone.

When it is this obvious

You're an idiot. You don't have any sources and you're too lazy to backup your ignorant claims, so you just speak in rhetoric. Are you an aspiring politician?

Tell me when was the last time thousands of people went into heavy debt going to a Canadian hospital

Well, looking at this, each Canadian is about $17k in debt.

The idea is to keep everyone safe and able to work, just because it wasn't written down on an irrelevant document 300 years ago doesn't mean anything.

You've made it quite clear that you don't understand the Constitution and it's relevance.

they would NEED to do it at a low price

No shit. That's the point. As opposed to the government that wastes at least a 1/3 of the expense on bureaucratic overhead.

The government has a little motivation to help people, private companies have no motivation to do ANYTHING other than be greedy, if they can screw people over for money without providing a service then you better believe that they will.

The difference is, when the government screws you over, it's a lot more difficult to leave your old government and drive across the street to another one. Get it yet? You're severely underestimating the value of choice and freedom. Freedom from force of the government.

That would make sense if 100% of taxes went to healthcare, but the question is would people as a whole rather get a 300$ bill or pay 100$ a year on taxes.

You're blind to the true cost of healthcare because all you see it as is a % tax on your income.

Both companies have been failing for a long time, the last thing Lockheed Martin made was the F22 Craptor which has proven itself to be the worst piece of junk ever made and Boeing hasn't made a fighter jet since 1995 (albeit the F/A-18 is pretty good).

You seem to be forgetting the fact that these companies aren't willingly wasting their time, money, and effort producing these failed aircraft. The federal government makes the decision to build, and the decision to fund these failed programs. It's the government's fault...not the companies who simply agreed to supply the government with its requests.

private companies have realized that they can produce white elephants and that the government has no option but to either buy them or not have an air force.

If the Air Force is so smart, why doesn't it build these aircraft itself then? Because the federal government doesn't have the salary availability to pay enough for the engineers that it would be necessary to hire to do this type of work.

It points out that any "free" system eventually turns into a monopoly in which case it is no longer free, it's just rules by something other than "Teh Government". Lockheed Martin for example.

Lockheed Martin doesn't have a monopoly...but if you still want to insist that they do, then insist that it is a government-granted monopoly.

I find it strange that you can so easily point out the supposed flaws in private corporations while turning a blind eye to those of government.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know what you mean. It pisses me off when English people say "free" and "healthcare" even in the same sentence.

meh.

That's poker, a voluntary game which has no real world consequences.

Just my own observations.

Bitch please. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The constitution can go fuck itself. That thing gets violated more often than the average crack whore and has been outdated for over a hundred years. Not to say it wasn't great 300 years ago (or whenever) but today it is simply an old scribbling, irrelevant to lawmakers and the average persons alike.

Again, you are saying that as if private companies are any different. The only difference between a private monopoly and a government is that one is greedier. The government can abduct you, torture you and kill you, as an American citizen this legal. welcome to America.

No I'm not. Go and check how much Canadians pay on taxes, then check how much of that goes to healthcare, then check how much gets done with that money.

The companies are half the problem, I'm sure the government would go for "blarg fighter manufacturing" if they would do a better job but my point is that there is no "blarg fighter manufacturing", Lockheed and Boeing have a complete monopoly, the government is their bitch.

The Russians have Sukhoi building their own fighter which is comparable to the F22, Sukhoi is state owned. they so far have made a superior aircraft and the R&D has been about a tenth that of the privately built F22. it's easy to see what system is better in this regard, but the difference is that no private companies have gained a monopoly on aircraft production in Russia, not for domestic fighters anyway.

Tell me...what is the description of a monopoly?...last I checked it basically meant you owned everything and made all the decisions, like owning all the stores in one town, or all the grocery stores in a city.

I do not turn a blind eye to government problems, to the contrary, my eye in keen enough to see which flaws are real and which ones are imaginary.

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TwoSocEmBoppers 13 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

But if someone who has wealth chooses to have 6 houses and 12 cars that's their decision. Right or wrong, it's their money and they get to choose to do with it what they please. People need to stop pressuring others to feel guilty about their money.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gvfordo 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]ispq -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nawitus 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If for no other reason that it is simpler and easier.

As if easy and simple have ever been a goal of the government or IRS.

Yes it really does cost less, because the bill is for the service and nothing more, where in the US you not only pay for the treatment itself but also whatever the doctor or hospital feels like charging you.

Hospitals have to remain competitive to survive. They aren't just going to tack on $1,000 because what the hell who cares. And hospitals are private institutions - they are allowed to make a profit. I'd prefer a hospital in my neighborhood to make money than to have no hospital at all.

And I'd prefer to option to choose whatever hospital/care/insurance/doctor I want instead of telling the government to choose for me. I'm not a child, and I don't need a government nanny.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amunium 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DAN_IS_A_CUNT -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vv238 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]herbandmargie 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notheanix 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no such thing as "everyone playing by the same rules," and there never will be. Nature and society dictate that not everyone is equal. Our rules and laws should reflect that. Should all students receive the same education? Even if they have learning impairments, learn better under a different style of teaching, or are blind? Should the old be judged the same as the young? Should we as a society not accommodate them when the alternative is a drastic reduction in their quality of life?

I just don't get it when people want the disadvantaged to the play by the same rules that they (those who are well off and secure in society) do, and when that black and white application of the rules is done under the guise of fairness and public justice. Not everyone is born the same or into the same conditions, and to create one rule set that everyone plays under is neither fair nor just.

And before you reply to this, keep in mind that I am neither defending racial based affirmative action or special rules for women. I am only arguing that people and their needs are different and that they should be treated accordingly.

Oh and one more thing; reducing any claim to a couple of sentences and a picture, is a circle jerk MR could do without.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ddxxdd 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Just as an example of how things are a little more complicated:

The monetary base is generally about 5% of the total amount of money in circulation. In other words, your bank typically holds about 5% of your actual money in the form of solid, green dead presidents.

So when the banks lost almost all that money, there was a chance of a bank run occurring, which means that they would have even less money to pay out even more withdrawals. That would have left almost everyone with $0.00 in their bank accounts.

That would have meant that people have no money to spend. And since one man's spending is another man's income, that would have resulted in almost everybody losing their jobs and livelihoods, despite there being millions of people willing and able to work.

So we bailed out the banks. We let them borrow from the Federal Reserve at 0% interest rates. But banks still wouldn't lend much because private businesses weren't doing so well; banks were mainly lending to the federal government in the form of Treasury bonds.

People were holding on to their money and tightening their belts. And since one man's spending is another man's income, people ended up losing jobs because of that.

So businesses weren't hiring or producing products. Customers weren't spending. Banks weren't lending. The economy functions much like a river, and that river was drying up.

That's why economists say that the government needs to take advantage of these record low interest rates to borrow the money that's not being lent, spend the money that's not being spent, and get customers to loosen their belts so that businesses can start hiring again.

It's a completely different situation than normal classical economics covers, so it requires a completely different paradigm to fully understand it.

But right-wingers and libertarians refuse to acknowledge the complexity of this situation, saying that the government is merely "taking away from the private sector" when it's not. And that's why I have almost no respect for libertarians and Austrian economists.

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GorillaJ -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GorillaJ0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GorillaJ1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GorillaJ1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Quite the opposite actually, it was deregulation that caused the financial crisis[1] .

Not really true. Some of the deregulation made the crisis profitable, but regulatory legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley made the practices profitable, and Fairness in Lending and Community Re-investment Act language made the dangerous practices necessary in the first place.

We de-regulated inadvertently making poor practices possible, then regulated in the name of "fairness" and "justice" which inadvertently made those shitty practices necessary. Then we launched more regulation that made those awful practices profitable.

Those practices wouldn't have been possible without deregulation, but they wouldn't be necessary, profitable, or widespread without actual regulation. Banks just wanted to make a profit by lending. We forced them to do it a different way because we thought credit was unfair. Turns out Congressmen and lobbyists don't understand banking.

[–]ddxxdd -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sarbanes-Oxley was there to prevent fraud like what happened to Enron.

The Community Reinvestment Act had virtually nothing to do with the financial crisis.

55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA

approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates.

Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight"

The fact of the matter was that the SA prevented fraud, and the CRA prevented racial discrimination against equally qualified applicants. But the financial crisis was caused 100% by greed.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sarbanes-Oxley was there to prevent fraud like what happened to Enron.

It also changed the valuation basis for mortgage-backed securities. It made MBSs wildly profitable.

The Community Reinvestment Act had virtually nothing to do with the financial crisis.

It made another pool of lenders available that further inflated the bubble. Had the market gone bust in 2005 before "NINJA" loans became commonplace, the fallout might've been manageable.

In a further attempt to encourage lending and remove perceived racial bias, the FHA strongly encouraged (used incentives) the use of automated underwriting, that removed a person from the job of vetting a potential borrower. What we ended up with were some unbelievably nutty written terms on loans. One of the "best" moves used was to lower the term of the loan, thereby increasing the monthly payments because it lowered total interest and total cost over the lifetime of the loan. Approving people for mortgages with monthly payments that are higher than loans you've previously denied is kind of dumb.

The fact of the matter was that the SA prevented fraud, and the CRA prevented racial discrimination against equally qualified applicants. But the financial crisis was caused 100% by greed.

No. You really don't understand, do you? You didn't actually get to see the chaos from the inside during the 2000s....Both of my parents did, and I did as well while interning under them.

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kazagistar 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JihadDerp 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Companies that pollute the air and water

This is a company acting in it's own interest. And if you'd ever listen to Ron Paul, you also look at the rest of the puzzle. There are hundreds of people, who acting in their own best interest, would fight the company to protect their own air and water from said pollution.

BP cutting costs and safety measures in their oil drilling procedures

And individuals acting in their own interest to protect the ocean from BP and the damage they caused. Imagine if everyone whom owned beach front property were able to sue BP. Imagine if everyone who had a boat in the ocean was able to sue BP.

Thieves stealing your phone

And you call the cops? Cops would still exist even in a libertarian world.

Second hand smoke coming from smokers

So don't go to places where smoking is allowed? I suppose you're the type of person who bitches about the boobs they are showing on channel 13 too? Change the fucking channel if you don't like it.

Increased crime and decreased property values resulting from people opening up casinos and liquor stores.

So move somewhere else. Refer to my previous statement. Also police will still be around to help with crime. I'd also carry a gun to protect myself from said crime.

People tucking their money away into banks during depressions and financial crises, which results in lower consumer confidence.

Not my problem. People are allowed to do what they want with their own money.

So what I'm saying is that it's not always best for everybody to act in their own best interest.

Not always, but most of the time it is. Just defaulting to government as the solution is an abomination of our constitution.

[–]ddxxdd 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

This is a company acting in it's own interest. And if you'd ever listen to Ron Paul, you also look at the rest of the puzzle. There are hundreds of people, who acting in their own best interest, would fight the company to protect their own air and water from said pollution.

They would fight that company by lobbying the government.

And individuals acting in their own interest to protect the ocean from BP and the damage they caused. Imagine if everyone whom owned beach front property were able to sue BP. Imagine if everyone who had a boat in the ocean was able to sue BP.

That's government action

And you call the cops? Cops would still exist even in a libertarian world.

Cops are part of the government

So don't go to places where smoking is allowed? I suppose you're the type of person who bitches about the boobs they are showing on channel 13 too? Change the fucking channel if you don't like it.

It's in that person's best interest to have the government limit indoor smoking instead of restricting the places that they can go

So move somewhere else. Refer to my previous statement. Also police will still be around to help with crime. I'd also carry a gun to protect myself from said crime.

If people moved right after their property values decreased, they would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's in their best interest to lobby the government

Not my problem. People are allowed to do what they want with their own money.

When people are allowed to do what they want with their own money, other people suffer. Look at America's banking crisis, America's depression, Argentina's depression, Japan's depression, etc. So it actually is your problem if you lose your job from an economic downturn or from outsourcing.

Not always, but most of the time it is. Just defaulting to government as the solution is an abomination of our constitution.

"Just defaulting"? Do you think that every single person just has Obama on speed dial and calls him for every single problem?

[–]ZenNudist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

They would fight that company by lobbying the government.

There are a hell of alot more options than that. Class action lawsuit or just a shitload of individual lawsuits. Entire neighborhoods could ban together to fight them. Or, people as individuals could vote with their dollars to eventually result in the company going under. But that's too idealistic.

That's government action

You're confusing a group of people acting as individuals with a group of people forming a government that has authority over people who disagree with the actions of said government. The difference between the two is the government has the authority to force people to do things against their will.

Cops are part of the government

Fine. My friends and I just ban together into a gang and nobody fucks with us.

It's in that person's best interest to have the government limit indoor smoking instead of restricting the places that they can go

So you're saying the interest of one person outweighs the interest of the business owner and everybody who chooses to smoke in that business? No.

When people are allowed to do what they want with their own money, other people suffer.

Not my problem.

So it actually is your problem if you lose your job from an economic downturn or from outsourcing.

It is also my problem if I didn't save money, had no ability to get a new job, or had no skills to do on my own with my own business or company. There are more options out there than to just work for somebody else and hope things go ok. The difference between you and me is that I believe I have control over my life and most of what happens to me is my decision. You believe life just happens to you and you have no control over it and you hope that the government will make sure you are ok.

"Just defaulting"? Do you think that every single person just has Obama on speed dial and calls him for every single problem?

I don't know where that Obama came from, but yeah, you've just proposed government as a solution to every problem listed. That's not a principle the US was founded on.

[–]kazagistar 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My friends and I just ban together into a gang and nobody fucks with us.

Well, my friends band together too, and start conquering land. Hey look, we just ended up back in a feudal society of warring nations, which we JUST got done getting out of.

The difference between you and me is that I believe I have control over my life and most of what happens to me is my decision. You believe life just happens to you and you have no control over it and you hope that the government will make sure you are ok.

False dichotomy. Both are true at times. So, if you are successful, some if it comes from luck, and some from skill and perseverance. If you are not successful, some of it comes from personal failure and some from shitty circumstances outside your control. Everyone faces hardship, but not everyone faces equal hardship, and measuring accurately that hardship is impossible.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The government is an idea put into place by a small group of people. It's fallible. It's not perfect

I'm just gonna bring up the fact that Republican states that clamor about keeping the government out of their lives tend to be subsidized by the government, and that Democratic states that clamor about more government tend to subsidize the government more.

In other words, a lot of people who talk about how they hate government are actually subsidized by the government via farm subsidies, military spending that help military towns thrive, medicare and medicaid, etc.

So there seems to be some strong cognitive biases among certain people that make them think "I'm not dependent on the government at all! I don't need the government!" when it's generally not true.

You sound like you're from Texas, though, where all the oil and natural resources help prop up wealth and create a thriving economy without the need for regulations and strategies for economic growth.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm just gonna bring up the fact that Republican states that clamor about keeping the government out of their lives tend to be subsidized by the government, and that Democratic states that clamor about more government tend to subsidize the government more.

I love this argument, because it leaves out a shitload of information and background understanding that could sway the reader. 1st, blue states have a higher cost of living and an associated higher average income. So if everyone gave 25% of their income to the federal government, the blue states would give more in dollars because they make more. 2nd, blue states agree with the idea of a larger government, so naturally they are more willing to give more to the federal government. They aren't fighting it as much as the red states. 3rd, and this is a big mystery to me...if democrats argue that red states just take more of their money as welfare...then why don't democrats get rid of welfare! Then both sides will get what they want ;) The federal government determines on its own what the federal government is going to subsidize, and then distributes those subsidies. Subsidies are pushed, not pulled.

You sound like you're from Texas, though, where all the oil and natural resources help prop up wealth and create a thriving economy without the need for regulations and strategies for economic growth.

I'm not. And you sound like you're from either california or the northeast. I just spent two years in Maryland and I argued with people like you on a daily basis. They brag about how highly educated they are, and don't realize how fucking lazy they are. And they don't understand economics - they don't realize that just increasing minimum wage results in a higher cost of living for everyone. And they boast about the % of adults with higher education degrees but don't realize that these adults with college degrees are still working shit jobs in restaurants and sales.

[–]ddxxdd1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Back to the idea of blue states subsidizing red states:

I think you're saying that if blue states just adopted the "small government" philosophy, then they would actually profit from it. My actual point was that if blue states adopted the "small government" philosophy, red states would suffer drastically, and that's something that neither red states nor blue states want to see.

The premise that I was operating on was that blue states are blue out of sympathy, but red states are red due to strong libertarian values. But if red states just adopted a policy of self-interest instead of libertarian values, then they would also be a fan of big government.

And you sound like you're from either california or the northeast

Northeast.

They brag about how highly educated they are, and don't realize how fucking lazy they are.

I wouldn't put it like that. I guess we're both being lazy by being on Reddit. Or maybe reading a book is considered lazy. Or maybe sitting down on a computer is lazy (even though that would make 95% of all workers lazy).

But the fact of the matter is that I've seen the word "lazy" used against people for being involuntarily unemployed, for not being willing to work really late hours, for spending time with friends, etc. It's as if when the economy swings against you, any little thing that you do with your free time will earn you the title "lazy".

they don't realize that just increasing minimum wage results in a higher cost of living for everyone.

That's not set in stone. A minimum wage too low will result in companies eating up profits instead of sharing it with workers. A minimum wage too high will result in companies having to lay off workers because the marginal benefit of those workers won't match up with the marginal cost. It's definitely more complicated than "minimum wage=bad and stupid".

And they boast about the % of adults with higher education degrees but don't realize that these adults with college degrees are still working shit jobs in restaurants and sales.

Due to the recession. Any other time in history, having a college degree was a huge advantage. Most companies won't hire you unless you have a degree.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

red states would suffer drastically, and that's something that neither red states nor blue states want to see.

Oh so now you are so compassionate about the red states. Sounds like we have a genuine Abraham Lincoln on our hands here.

I wouldn't put it like that. I guess we're both being lazy by being on Reddit. Or maybe reading a book is considered lazy. Or maybe sitting down on a computer is lazy (even though that would make 95% of all workers lazy).

No, I mean, I actually grew up in Nebraska where we pride ourselves on our work ethic. Then I moved to Maryland and the work ethic was just terrible. I'm not talking about the types of jobs - I worked in an office on a computer with everyone else - I'm talking about the actual amount of work that gets done. I moved back to Nebraska to another computer/desk job and it was a slap in the face getting back up to speed.

People in the northeast are less productive, but higher educated, and higher paid. But, their higher pay doesn't go as far because the cost of living is way higher. But that's just a side note.

It's definitely more complicated than "minimum wage=bad and stupid".

So your attempt to convince me that minimum wage is good is that companies would make too much profit? Nice try. It's not the fault of a company that 50 people apply for one position that's paying $5 an hour. That company has no motivation to arbitrarily raise the pay for that position. This is economics 101.

Most companies won't hire you unless you have a degree.

Only because there is a surplus of workers right now. Not because a degree means anything.

[–]ddxxdd1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Only because there is a surplus of workers right now. Not because a degree means anything.

Even before the recession happened, a college degree commanded an extra $10k-$30k per year and had a lower unemployment rate. Once the recession started, the people who suffered the most were people without a degree.

So your attempt to convince me that minimum wage is good is that companies would make too much profit? Nice try. It's not the fault of a company that 50 people apply for one position that's paying $5 an hour. That company has no motivation to arbitrarily raise the pay for that position. This is economics 101.

The point is that under certain conditions, enforcing a minimum wage merely transfers wealth from the employer to the employee. That way, the employee can afford a house, can afford to feed a family, and can afford transportation to actually get to work.

On the other hand, if 50 people apply for one position that's paying $5/hour, then it makes sense to reduce the minimum wage, assuming that a reduction in the minimum wage doesn't have any impact on sales.

All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than calling people lazy and calling the government incompetent.

No, I mean, I actually grew up in Nebraska where we pride ourselves on our work ethic. Then I moved to Maryland and the work ethic was just terrible. I'm not talking about the types of jobs - I worked in an office on a computer with everyone else - I'm talking about the actual amount of work that gets done. I moved back to Nebraska to another computer/desk job and it was a slap in the face getting back up to speed.

People in the northeast are less productive, but higher educated, and higher paid. But, their higher pay doesn't go as far because the cost of living is way higher. But that's just a side note.

I've actually been looking for an economic measure along the lines of the "ratio of annual income to cost-of-living" to see how different cities, different states, and different countries stack up in terms of purchasing power.

I haven't found it yet, so I can't tell you whether or not the "rural" model or the "city" model is most efficient.

But one thing that I think about is that each area adopts an economy that is most suitable for its situation. The Texas economy thrives on big oil, so it makes sense to cut out corporate taxes. The rural economy thrives on farming, so it makes sense to have a strong work ethic. City economies thrive on people living in very close proximity to each other (businesses thrive because they can get workers easily, there is a huge service industry, and money exchanges hands very easily), so it seems like there is some logic that would lead to people wanting wealth redistribution and heavy government regulations.

But the fact of the matter is that each economic philosophy thrives in different environments, and there doesn't seem to be a "wrong philosophy".

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than calling people lazy and calling the government incompetent.

Are you still referring to the minimum wage?

The point is that under certain conditions, enforcing a minimum wage merely transfers wealth from the employer to the employee. That way, the employee can afford a house, can afford to feed a family, and can afford transportation to actually get to work.

But it ignores the free market. If people want to work for $5 an hour, it is not the duty of the business to prevent that from happening. If the business cannot survive if it pays its employees more, then the business needs to expand, reduce inefficiencies, improve their model, etc. You're just arguing higher minimum wage for the employee's sake with no understanding of the free market and the macroeconomic effects.

I've actually been looking for an economic measure along the lines of the "ratio of annual income to cost-of-living" to see how different cities, different states, and different countries stack up in terms of purchasing power. I haven't found it yet, so I can't tell you whether or not the "rural" model or the "city" model is most efficient.

Stupid northeasterners. Automatically referring to Nebraska as rural. I live in Omaha. It is bigger than Pittsburgh by 100,000 people. I previously lived near Baltimore. A $200,000 home in Omaha is the near equivalent to a $400-500k home in the Baltimore area. Don't believe me, do a quick search on Trulia. Groceries are about 30% less in Omaha too.

Median income [Baltimore: $39,386] (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/24510.html) Median home value Baltimore: $160,400

Median income [Omaha: $46,230] (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/31/3137000.html) Median home value Omaha: $131,900

So that's a pretty quick and easy comparison. Homes (which are good indicator of cost of living) in Omaha are cheaper, while people actually make more. :)

The rural economy thrives on farming, so it makes sense to have a strong work ethic.

Don't pretend you understand farming. Most farming is done by equipment and computers now, and holding a lot of land is expensive. Rural areas generally get their most tax revenue from land tax and death/inheritance tax.

so it seems like there is some logic that would lead to people wanting wealth redistribution and heavy government regulations.

I don't see how your paragraph led to this logic.

But the fact of the matter is that each economic philosophy thrives in different environments, and there doesn't seem to be a "wrong philosophy".

But you've just said it yourself, each area would thrive better with different economies. But Washington doesn't understand that, and the city folks who create federal policies don't understand that.

[–]ddxxdd1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But it ignores the free market. If people want to work for $5 an hour, it is not the duty of the business to prevent that from happening. If the business cannot survive if it pays its employees more, then the business needs to expand, reduce inefficiencies, improve their model, etc. You're just arguing higher minimum wage for the employee's sake with no understanding of the free market and the macroeconomic effects.

If people want to work for $10/hour, but they need food on their plate as soon as possible, then they'll settle for $2/hour, even if the company could afford to pay them $20/hour.

If the free market was completely unregulated, then hard workers would be underpaid merely due to the fact that they need food and shelter. That's how the free market works.

Stupid northeasterners. Automatically referring to Nebraska as rural. I live in Omaha. It is bigger than Pittsburgh by 100,000 people. I previously lived near Baltimore. A $200,000 home in Omaha is the near equivalent to a $400-500k home in the Baltimore area. Don't believe me, do a quick search on Trulia. Groceries are about 30% less in Omaha too.

Nebraska has the 7th lowest population density in the country, and low population densities are ultimately unsustainable.

I don't see how your paragraph led to this logic.

My point was that there are complexities in the economy beyond my knowledge, so if a certain population of people have a certain set of beliefs, it doesn't make much sense to question it.

But just as a concrete example, Nebraska wasn't even hit by the recession at all. So of course it makes sense that you are opposed to fiscal stimulus. But you shouldn't be calling Michigan residents lazy for having a tough time finding work, and you shouldn't be calling "stimulus" a stupid idea when it's proven to work.

But you've just said it yourself, each area would thrive better with different economies. But Washington doesn't understand that, and the city folks who create federal policies don't understand that.

Staying with the fiscal stimulus example: the entire country is underemployed, and there is a huge shortfall in demand across this country. Fiscal stimulus would make sense in this regard, even though the state of Nebraska doesn't really need it.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If the free market was completely unregulated, then hard workers would be underpaid merely due to the fact that they need food and shelter. That's how the free market works.

You forgot the part where employees can move from company to company. And you forgot the part where employees can work for themselves or all quit and form their own company. You're still under the impression that businesses are evil and employees are powerless against them.

Nebraska has the 7th lowest population density in the country[1] , and low population densities are ultimately unsustainable[2] .

That's it? That's your entire argument as to why you'd prefer to live in an overpopulated region? Define sustainability. Because where do all you city folks plan on getting your food and natural resources from? All that is required for life is food, shelter, and water. If shit hits the fan, those living in rural areas who can live off the land will be doing just fine while those who lose their desk jobs and their condo #1,300 on 10th street are fucked.

But just as a concrete example, Nebraska wasn't even hit by the recession at all[3] . So of course it makes sense that you are opposed to fiscal stimulus.

My beliefs on the stimulus have less to do with the economy in Nebraska and more with my understanding of economics. I'd love to have an honest, intelligent conversation with a democrat who believes that lowering the value of each dollar (by increasing the supply), and increasing our deficit are all good ideas.

But you shouldn't be calling Michigan residents lazy for having a tough time finding work, and you shouldn't be calling "stimulus" a stupid idea when it's proven to work.

I didn't call Michigan lazy, but nice straw man there. But now that you bring it up, not allowing businesses to fail is a huge mistake. I find it ironic that the left is so against capitalism and big corporations, yet when those same corporations are about to go under due to their stupidity the left is willing to save them with money that they don't have. Besides, taxes are not charity, and the government has no businesses in investing in corporations. Do you want me to talk about Solyndra too?

when it's proven to work

LOL. Ok John Keynes.

the entire country is underemployed, and there is a huge shortfall in demand across this country

Demand of what? Demand for employees to hire?

Go ahead and watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VoxDyC7y7PM#t=60s

[–]ddxxdd0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the entire country is underemployed, and there is a huge shortfall in demand across this country

Demand of what? Demand for employees to hire?

Go ahead and watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VoxDyC7y7PM#t=60s

I watched most of it, and I've already pre-emptively responded to most of those critiques in this previous comment.

The government isn't "taking money away" from the free market. Banks are voluntarily lending money to the government because it is virtually the only save investment that banks are willing to put their money towards. That is why Treasury bonds have the lowest interest rates that they have ever had in over 70 years.

Borrowing money at extremely low interest rates to reduce unemployment, reduce the need for welfare, and increase the average American's wealth actually pays for itself.

when it's proven to work

LOL. Ok John Keynes.

World War II got half of this entire planet out of a recession, correct?

not allowing businesses to fail is a huge mistake. I find it ironic that the left is so against capitalism and big corporations, yet when those same corporations are about to go under due to their stupidity the left is willing to save them with money that they don't have. Besides, taxes are not charity, and the government has no businesses in investing in corporations. Do you want me to talk about Solyndra too?

The bailouts were a bipartisan effort, both Nebraska senators voted in favor of it. It's not a "big government" thing or a "liberal" thing, it was an "our financial system was about to crash, so action had to be taken" thing. That's not something that can be understood with a libertarian mindset, but it was a necessary action.
When banks aren't lending money, somebody needs to invest in the economy. Otherwise, the economy will contract and people will lose jobs.

That's it? That's your entire argument as to why you'd prefer to live in an overpopulated region? Define sustainability. Because where do all you city folks plan on getting your food and natural resources from? All that is required for life is food, shelter, and water. If shit hits the fan, those living in rural areas who can live off the land will be doing just fine while those who lose their desk jobs and their condo #1,300 on 10th street are fucked.

Why don't we just create a government that prevents shit from hitting the fan instead of pushing for small government and laughing when shit does hit the fan?

Besides, higher population density results in higher productivity. The rural lifestyle is unsustainable and uses a lot more gas and natural resources than sharing a subway with a dozen other people and living/working in closer proximity to the rest of the world.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Banks are voluntarily lending money to the government because it is virtually the only save investment that banks are willing to put their money towards.

Pop quiz: where do the banks get the money to lend to the government? Answer: The government printed money and gave it to the banks for 0% interest. The banks then lend the money back to the government at low rates. Question: How does this solve anything? I suppose you believe in the Federal Reserve too?

World War II got half of this entire planet out of a recession, correct?

Please compare WWII to the auto and bank bailouts. Please compare WWII to the stimulus checks mailed directly to citizens.

somebody needs to invest in the economy

Businesses and individuals continued to invest. Once again, you're blindly saying that government is the only option.

Why don't we just create a government that prevents shit from hitting the fan instead of pushing for small government and laughing when shit does hit the fan?

I don't know what you mean by that.

The rural lifestyle is unsustainable and uses a lot more gas and natural resources than sharing a subway with a dozen other people and living/working in closer proximity to the rest of the world.

This is clearly a biased argument. You're taking the city life of commuting to your place of employment, working in a cramped office building, and then commuting back to your apartment which is one of hundreds in a building and then comparing that to the spread out lifestyle of farmers and ranchers who require big equipment and energy to feed all of your asses. So yes, if you're going to argue amount of land needed to sustain rural areas, you would be correct. But rural areas only require more gas and natural resources because they must maximize production to feed the city folks.

higher population density results in higher productivity

So you cherry picked a 26 page to try and back up your argument. Ok, I've read to page four where it states

They show that these two models are equivalent in that they both predict the same relationship between county employment density and state labor productivity. Specifically, their model may be summarized as follows. Let α be the production elasticity of employment and λ the elasticity of the externality which measures the effect of agglomeration. If qc, nc, and ac denote respectively, output, employment, and area of county c, then output per acre in county c turns out to be a function of employment per acre:

So basically the output per acre increases when the number of people employed in each acre increases. No shit?

Then on page 7

We use the simplest and most direct measure of density available, population density, and we evaluate income as a direct function of density

So basically the paper is arguing that income per person increases in a more densely populated area. They used fucking income to define their measure of productivity. I shouldn't have to explain to you why this paper is bullshit.

If you still believe this paper is a reasonable argument, then I ask to you explain to me this in layman's terms: How and why does the productivity of two people increase when you move them physically closer together? The only variable that can change is efficiency and economies of scale. Now, if I need to grow some fucking corn so the city people don't die of starvation, I need lots of land to grow all the corn on, right? So if you're so brilliant, please explain to me how I can grow a shitload of corn in a high density area to reap better economies of scale. You can't. Plants and animals need room to grow.

Rest assured, farming technology is growing by leaps and bounds. Bushels per acre is at an all time high while prices per acre are at an all time low. The total amount of plants and animals being raised in the US today is at an all time high while the acres of land used by those farmers continually shrinks due to urban and population growth.

I'm not a farmer, but fuck people like you piss me off. There's a common saying "we bust ours to feed yours". And city people in the US don't have enough respect for the fact that our food is among the safest and cheapest in the world. Now I'd like to see you try and convince me that people in rural areas couldn't survive without the city people sitting in their cubicles on a daily basis.

[–]ddxxdd1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The Federal Reserve has done good for our country. Look at all the recessions we've had in the 1800s, and compare them to all the recessions we've had in the 1900s. The Federal Reserve has done wonders for economic growth and stability. The main reason for this is because there is an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment in the U.S.. You can say that inflation greases the wheels of the labor market.
Businesses and individuals are not investing as much as they used to. This chart plots excess savings. Excess savings is the total amount of savings minus the total amount of investment. If people are saving more than they're investing, then that means that a whole bunch of money is getting stuffed underneath a mattress, which will cause the economy to contract. It's obvious from that chart that what the government is doing is spending and investing more than they're saving to counteract the lack of spending and investing from the private sector.
I'll compare WWII to bank and auto bailouts, sure. Obama went up to the banks and to the auto companies, and said "Hey, here's some money. I need you to stay in business". In WWII, the government went up to failing banks and auto companies and said, "Hey, here's some money. I need you to stay in business to support the war effort". Same thing with stimulus checks. "Here's some money for you to build some bridges" vs "Here's some money for you to fight a war". The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how the government spends money to get people out of a depression. All that matters is that the government spends money to get out of a depression.
There's an argument to be made that the U.S. is causing farmers to overproduce because of farm subsidies. There's also an argument that it would be more efficient to make farms inside skyscrapers in city-based environments. But other than that, farming is best done with many, many acres of land. However, farming is one of the only industries where that is true. Isn't it cheaper to walk down the block to get groceries than to drive 10 miles? Isn't it cheaper for 10 people to get to work via the subway than for 10 people to get to work via 10 different cars?
Lastly, I'm going to respond to this:

Now I'd like to see you try and convince me that people in rural areas couldn't survive without the city people sitting in their cubicles on a daily basis.

Investment banking, basic research, applied research, computers, the internet, telecommunications, all of these were developed in areas with relatively high population densities.

The mortgage for a farm came from a bunch of people in a skyscraper discussing how to invest trillions of dollars in this country. The internet rose among high-density areas, where communication cables are cheaper and easier to install. Distribution for factory products is made a lot easier by bringing the product to a city, where distribution is cheaper and easier. Small businesses thrive and become big businesses in the presence of cities, where merely being visible from the street is enough to advertise your place. Educational institutions thrive in the presence of cities, where students can enjoy their free time, and administrators can attract lots of students, whose tuition fund the technology.

Going back to the idea that blue states subsidize red states: the postal service, internet service, phone service, gas prices, etc. are all more expensive in rural areas than in city areas. On top of that, rural areas benefit from technology and financial firms that thrive in the city environment.

So when a bunch of city guys say that certain reforms and a certain amount of government are necessary, I think that their ideas should be taken seriously.

[–]judgemebymyusername1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've actually never heard of the phillips curve, so that's interesting. That being said, correlation does not equal causation with the federal reserve.
Interesting, but I still don't see why corporations are sitting out. Investing is still good right now, but if they're just investing in bonds as usual, then I can see why they might not bother at the moment.
I'm not convinced, but in general I agree with you that government can play a role here. I'm not really sure how I feel about constitutionally though.

the U.S. is causing farmers to overproduce because of farm subsidies

This may be true, we are producing a hell of a lot, and outsource enough. So I don't know if overproduction is the right word, because the world could always use more food. But yes, there may be an argument for the reduction of subsidies, but then you'll get into disagreements about individual farmers versus massive corporations doing the farming. A lot of people from both sides of the political spectrum prefer individual family farms versus corporate farms, but of course there are economies of scale and efficiencies that big corporations would be able to tweak out of the land.

There's also an argument that it would be more efficient to make farms inside skyscrapers in city-based environments.

I don't see how that would be possible with today's technology, nor is it necessary. We aren't so overpopulated as to justify this yet. But of course it would be more efficient, if you're simply looking at acres used to create crops, because you'd only be counting the acres at ground level, not the multiple levels above that.

Investment banking, basic research, applied research, computers, the internet, telecommunications, all of these were developed in areas with relatively high population densities.

Please. Just because they were invented in cities doesn't mean they couldn't have been brought about elsewhere. Telecommunications? So Edison lived in a city and you're claiming that high population density areas are allowed to take credit for that? This argument is retarded.

The mortgage for a farm came from a bunch of people in a skyscraper discussing how to invest trillions of dollars in this country.

Actually, most farms are handed down from generation to generation. In my area, these farms were originally established by the homestead act. And if a mortgage is needed, it's taken care of by the friendly folks in town at our local bank.

The internet rose among high-density areas, where communication cables are cheaper and easier to install.

And all of these communication cables just run directly from city to city, and never cross through any rural areas. The installation of a fiber cable is actually easier to install along a county road than it is in the city where you have to tear up pavement so clearly you just pulled that one out of your ass.

Distribution for factory products is made a lot easier by bringing the product to a city, where distribution is cheaper and easier.

The fuck? No. Distribution for products on a mass scale is still done primarily through railroad, which for the most part runs through the middle of fucking nowhere.

Small businesses thrive and become big businesses in the presence of cities, where merely being visible from the street is enough to advertise your place.

Or just the fact that there are more people there to buy your product. But I feel like you're completely ignoring the fact that the world is flat now. Any product from anywhere can be sold and delivered to anywhere else. Living in a smaller town or rural area is not nearly the disadvantage that you make it out to be in today's world. And then you figure in the lower cost of living and the cleaner air, better sense of community, etc. and the quality of living can actually be quite better depending on what you want out of life.

Educational institutions thrive in the presence of cities, where students can enjoy their free time, and administrators can attract lots of students, whose tuition fund the technology.

Yes, if you're assuming that people need to physically go to a school. Now that we have online degrees, this argument is worthless.

the postal service, internet service, phone service, gas prices, etc. are all more expensive in rural areas than in city areas.

No, they are not "more expensive". The term you're looking for is "less efficient" and it's simply because there are not as many people there to bring about the economies of scale.

As a matter of fact, your only argument thus far has been that cities are better due to the benefits of economy of scale. As an individual, with a family, that doesn't mean that the quality of life is better in a city. I hope you at least see that.

So when a bunch of city guys say that certain reforms and a certain amount of government are necessary, I think that their ideas should be taken seriously.

I get it. You think I'm some redneck hick. You couldn't be further from the truth. You sound alot like one of my friends from Pennsylvania and a lot like the lazy, overeducated idiots I meant in Maryland. I always had the last laugh when they made fun of me for being from Nebraska. "What's there to do in Nebraska?" I'd then simply pull up a blank map on my phone and ask them to point at which state is Nebraska. They never knew anything west of Ohio except for California and Texas.

That being said, what is your opinion of our founding fathers? Were they too rural for you? Where they stupid for wanting a limited sized government?

[–]ddxxdd0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That being said, what is your opinion of our founding fathers? Were they too rural for you? Where they stupid for wanting a limited sized government?

My bottom line is that we're living in an increasingly interconnected, increasingly globalized society. And the solutions that worked in the late 1700s will not work today.

I recall from high school history class about battles between federalists and antifederalists, between the people who supported the formation of a central bank and the people who opposed it. I remember being taught that there was a lot of infighting and a lot of disagreement between our founding fathers. Heck, they even made a compromise on slavery (something about a rule in the constitution about slaves; the rule expired after 20 years).

So while our founding fathers made a lot of good decisions at the time, a lot of their philosophy doesn't apply today.

I've talked to a lot of conservatives (I am a relentless arguer); and I agree with a few conservative viewpoints. If it really costs a business $1.50 to pay an employee $1.00, then the government should fix that through deregulation. If it costs money to fire employees, then employers might be reluctant to hire employees; perhaps the government shouldn't charge business owners an unemployment tax. If there are legitimate problems with regulation, then I think that it should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

But I think it's pretty fallacious to say that "My money is my own, I earned it all by myself" in this increasingly interconnected society. Especially when the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer for no apparent reason whatsoever.

A big thing that shapes my beliefs, besides the currently unrefuted logic behind Keynesian economics, is that median incomes have been stagnant/declining for about 2 decades. That's not supposed to happen; capitalism is supposed to make us all wealthier over time, otherwise the system must be broken in some way.

[–]Reallynow3 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bartonar -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bartonar 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tobyarr 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In fact, the most remarkable recovery to date was in the early 20s. Unemployment hit 12%, then dropped to 6% in a year, then all the way to 2% after that. There was absolutely NOTHING done to fix the problem. It self-regulated

Because there was no banking/financial crisis. Even Keynes would agree that there was no need for the federal government to do anything.

On the other hand, the Federal Reserve did something.

Following World War I, Benjamin Strong, head of the New York Fed from 1914 to his death in 1928, recognized that gold no longer served as the central factor in controlling credit. Strong’s aggressive action to stem a recession in 1923 through a large purchase of government securities gave clear evidence of the power of open market operations to influence the availability of credit in the banking system. During the 1920s, the Fed began using open market operations as a monetary policy tool. During his tenure, Strong also elevated the stature of the Fed by promoting relations with other central banks, especially the Bank of England.

So the 1920s should serve as an example of why the Gold standard is not optimal.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LonelySOB 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]actanonverba8 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]d8a7n 13 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I feel like you should have already known that society has changed in the past 60 years.

[–]salami_inferno -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]judgemebymyusername[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trekkie1701 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Controversial Claim. Still true if you replace "racist" with "misogynist".
Author	RedditBlueit
Upvotes	483
Comments	299
Date	October 24, 2012 6:51 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/120qhf/controversial_claim_still_true_if_you_replace/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/controversial-claim-still-true-if-you-replace.1010640 https://theredarchive.com/post/1010640

Comments