|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:09 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:
Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others.
In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son.
The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular.
The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. Have you never worked a day in your life with other people? It is simply a self-evident truth that some people work harder than others. Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2013 17:47 Introvert wrote:[quote] I'm about to go to sleep, so I am not going to argue particulars with you. Moreover, I contend that you do advocate "a society that forcibly takes from the rich and gives to the poor, at regular intervals, in an on-going and continuous fashion by some Big Brother, bureaucrat-laden government. Some people just ARE harder workers, some just ARE more driven. Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others. In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son. The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets.
Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything.
|
On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:09 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have you never worked a day in your life with other people? It is simply a self-evident truth that some people work harder than others. Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2013 17:47 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I'm about to go to sleep, so I am not going to argue particulars with you. Moreover, I contend that you do [quote]
Some people just ARE harder workers, some just ARE more driven. Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others. In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son. The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything.
I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remain critical. 
But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles.
Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear.
I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here.
So if you wanted to guess on a position of mine just ask yourself: Does this increase the chance for governmental corruption? Does this take choice from the individual? Does this redistribute wealth (to varying degress)? Does it violate the original meaning of the Constitution?
If the answer to any of these is yes, then I oppose it. For the most part, my solutions are based on the "no" answers to the above questions.
|
And by the way, we are not getting richer. In fact everyone under 40 if that study can be trusted, will be worse off:
http://www.urban.org/publications/412766.html
I mean you don't need much imagination for that. Taxation is at an all time low, public debt is nothing else than cost transferred to the next generation, and as said before, redistribution of wealth is nowhere to be seen.
I also don't get conservatives. I always thought conservatives love their children and families. But you know if a handful of people has all the dollars child-rates are going to drop further and further. Some generations ago people without academic education or fresh graduates were founding families. Today the first group of people is struggling earning enough for their pension or a week of holiday, while the second group is paying off their college loans for a decade.
|
On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others.
In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son.
The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular.
The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here.
Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures?
I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window.
So if you wanted to guess on a position of mine just ask yourself: Does this increase the chance for governmental corruption? Does this take choice from the individual? Does this redistribute wealth (to varying degress)? Does it violate the original meaning of the Constitution?
If the answer to any of these is yes, then I oppose it. For the most part, my solutions are based on the "no" answers to the above questions.
Well, the existence of a government increases the chance for governmental corruption, so I guess you disagree with having a government?
|
On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others.
In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son.
The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular.
The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here.
The general conservative position is that less government means more work efficiency. But what goes? The DMV? NOAH? NASA? FDA? EPA? DOJ? SSA? OSHA? CDC? CPSC? ED?
What needs to be cut where, why, will its role be taken over by the private market, and how would that change or nonexistence improve the daily life for the average american?
|
On December 11 2013 16:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 15:37 Livelovedie wrote:On December 11 2013 15:12 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 14:42 Livelovedie wrote:On December 11 2013 11:34 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On December 09 2013 14:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 12:29 jellyjello wrote:
[quote]
Oh FFS, there is always something or some sort of an excuse. If you think you are qualified but can't find a job for two freaking years, then maybe the problem is with you and not the system. Unless you're talking about seriously depressed regions, anyone who is a hard worker can get a job if they want one. Hell, people who are really good at whatever they do professionally will always find work one way or another. And I'm not talking about shit jobs at McDonald's or Walmart, either. Part of my job is to deal with people who have shit happen to them. Without exception, those who are legitimately hard workers and who aren't completely compromised (like some of my brain injured clients) have no problem finding work and getting hired. On the other hand, I also have clients who are lazy, and they, unsurprisingly, have trouble getting employment or staying employed. Things aren't so bad that determined people can't find work. Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. Seniors and On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 12:40 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 12:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 11:51 Livelovedie wrote:
[quote]
If there is no international support then the US is not in any position of power to dictate that that needs to be the case. So if the US wants to buy things from Europe then that means they need to accept they won't get paid for IP. What does Europe have to do with the TPP? Regardless, I don't see how your argument makes sense. We pay countries for the things we buy from them. They don't deserve extras like free IP on top of it. Meant TPP, my apologies. You made it seem like the US has leverage to dictate the agreement, but I don't see how they do. So your ultimatum makes no sense. I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas. evil capitalists. You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist? Removing freedom from some can create a more free society in general. Unless you feel that freedom to be coerced is in fact freedom. The devil's in the details when you speak of a "more free society in general." I mean, let's appoint angels that will deem which of society need sacrifice their freedom for the whole. Otherwise, I'm more concerned that the ruling class will pick based on political considerations. (May I also suggest slightly tongue-in-cheek that every person here would stand at attention and say, "I am not the one that needs to sacrifice freedom") On December 11 2013 14:42 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 12:58 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 12:18 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 11:34 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. Seniors and On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 12:40 Livelovedie wrote:
[quote]
Meant TPP, my apologies. You made it seem like the US has leverage to dictate the agreement, but I don't see how they do. So your ultimatum makes no sense. I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas. evil capitalists. You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist? Dismissing you quickly has little to do with my own internal critical method does it? Are you saying something I've never heard before? Or do you want me to put words in your mouth and then shoot it down so you can scream "straw man" at me? I'm simply replying to your inane comment that you idolize "freedom" so long as "freedom" is defined as being stuck with whatever random lot you drew in the birth lottery. What an empty yarn you spin. Freedom for those born in poverty is hardly freedom at all. But god forbid everyone be given a base standard of living, because that would harm their delicate "will to succeed" and act as an anchor on "freedom." You have so much criticism for anything and everything about letting individuals pursue their separate interests. I expand on American exceptionalism and the ideas running contrary to it. You retort by embodying every stereotype of the everlasting critic. Who are these angels that will stand up to your ... but seniors
but evil capitalists
but inequality? As long as these are governments made up of humans to govern humans, I'll settle for less than utopia. And you'll settle for what, exactly? The days when you can no longer pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. On December 11 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume everyone is born and raised with the strong, sensible work ethic of Danglars and xDaunt. Everyone avoids crime, graduates from high school (goes to college? not sure if you guys think everyone has to go to college to succeed or not), works hard, and shows up early to whatever job they can get (McDonalds or equivalent for the bottom 20%).
1) can everyone find full time employment?
2) can everyone find a fulfilling job?
3) can everyone eventually find financial security (how do you want to define this? house? family? debt?)
4) can every single person work their way up from mcdonalds to something like high-level management (i'm not really sure what you two aspire to do with your life or what you think is worthwhile, other than accumulating things and being free from taxes)?
5) will there be less inequality or will the floor of the bottom quintile somehow reach what we would consider "middle class" today?
I get the feeling that you two don't really understand that implicit in your system is the damnation of a large percentage of people to toil, poverty, and unhappiness, and that this is an always already condition of the system. What do you really think would happen if everyone took advantage of the (meagre) opportunities you both assume exist for every single person? The moral of the story is you can't trust the system. I'm sure you have in mind something that outperforms what you deem "meagre opportunities." I mean, even as you ignore that what was middle class luxuries yesterday are reachable by the bottom quintile today. I have nothing against freedom. I highly value personal sovereignty. I value it so highly that I want to maximize it for every individual by removing liberty-reducing factors like poverty and disadvantage. Yes, this comes at the cost of disproportionate, unearned, and unjust, wealth disparities that are largely a product of inherited advantages, luck, and/or systemic force multipliers. But your criticism is that I am only a critic. I have no answers for you. As Badiou would say: "better to do nothing than to contribute to the invention of formal ways of rendering visible that which Empire already recognizes as existent." If your best argument is that I don't have all the answers, then so be it. Your continued participation and advocacy for the current system sustains the immense systemic violence inherent in the current neoliberal, free-market capitalist world order. What do you expect of me, really? Either I have a roadmap to utopia, or I must be complicit in your violent regime? Surely, you must realize that being for "removing poverty and disadvantage" is like saying you're for apple pies and motherhood. It's your views on how this should be accomplished and by whom that will make or break your views on personal liberties. If you'll pardon me, but many presidents and political parties of all stripes and colors have said exactly what you say now. I'm against injustice and for freedom. It's their means of achieving this that's in question. The question is if utopia is unachievable (your chief gripe about equality of opportunity), and my preference is meager in this or impossible in that, then what structures would you erect to outperform what I have just described? Criticism is fine and dandy in my book, provided deep down that critic has thought through his own positions and believes them superior, and is furthermore willing to defend them. I can't go much farther in the other issues. You reject the proposed causes, and you deny your opponents any empathy with the poor (as has echoed from leftist demagogues from one generation to the next). Maybe I may side with Franklin, who wrote In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety . Please link your sources from the United Kingdom Gallup-Heathways so we know this is not a poll conducted of UK Income Groups -- particularly when it divides up income groups in pounds There are already rationale things that we apply to this... an example of this is organ selling. We don't allow organ selling because it takes advantage of vulnerable populations by coercing people into making a decision that is exploiting their disadvantageous position. By allowing such freedom in instances it changes the nature of the choices available to people. Things like loans could be harder to secure for those not willing to use an organ (kidney as collateral). Allowing more freedom in this sense will exasperate inequalities leading to a less free society. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2008.00246.x/pdf As much as you enjoy saying it, I'm not exactly seeing your angle here. You take away somebody's right to sell their own organs for moral reasons (exploitation). It hardly "exasperate[s] inequalities." If the price is such to tempt the sale of the organ, may we not assume the seller has profited and reduced his distance from the rich? The same argument can be used against cigarettes, alcohol, living arrangements. I don't suppose you wish to ban every bad decision somebody might make presuming to ask in their best interest now. Maybe you missed it, but I responded to you earlier as well. You have not connected your final leap from inequality to a less free society.
Can you give an example of political considerations? This exasperates inequalities because it creates a new category of things were inequality can exist (it already does (healthcare)). You are impairing someones freedom to pursue happiness by making them less healthy in life. I wouldn't mind banning cigarettes or alcohol if it was feasible to do so... though I guess thats impossible at this point in time. One of the reasons that I sway between legalization of drugs is because I hate the state okaying the use of drugs even though it may be a necessary evil. Freedom is the ability to make a decision, if someone is in a compromised state (like missing an organ), there ability to make a decision is impaired. Thus if one could sell their organ than the freedom of society is impaired because less people would be able to make decisions.
|
On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons.
[quote]
And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window.
This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it.
I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer).
I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it.
And by the way, we are not getting richer. In fact everyone under 40 if that study can be trusted, will be worse off: http://www.urban.org/publications/412766.htmlI mean you don't need much imagination for that. Taxation is at an all time low, public debt is nothing else than cost transferred to the next generation, and as said before, redistribution of wealth is nowhere to be seen.
Sure it is, our social programs are massive. Those are almost by definiton redistrobutionary. And they are racking up debt!
|
On December 12 2013 06:01 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons.
[quote]
And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. The general conservative position is that less government means more work efficiency. But what goes? The DMV? NOAH? NASA? FDA? EPA? DOJ? SSA? OSHA? CDC? CPSC? ED? What needs to be cut where, why, will its role be taken over by the private market, and how would that change or nonexistence improve the daily life for the average american?
Not just efficiency, but also increases freedom. If you'd like we can move down the list, but I object to you presenting all these agencies as necessary. Like the Education Department. What a fine job it's done! That's actually an excellent example of private being better, it's just that it's only "for the rich" so I'm supposed to hate them.
Every department can be rolled back. Also, I think that if they were, states would erect things in their place, but things that ran better and performed better. States have a lot of Constitutional leeway, and if the the EPA or OSHA was abolished today, the states would quicky replace them.
History didn't start 100 years ago, or with the New Deal and the massive expansion of federal power. People got along fine before then.
Well, the existence of a government increases the chance for governmental corruption, so I guess you disagree with having a government?
Don't be absurd. That reasoning is why I want a small a government as possible, not no government.
|
On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:09 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:
Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others.
In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son.
The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular.
The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. Have you never worked a day in your life with other people? It is simply a self-evident truth that some people work harder than others. Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2013 17:47 Introvert wrote:On December 11 2013 16:52 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
You are jumping to a false conclusion. It's not like I'm advocating a society that forcibly takes from the rich and gives to the poor, at regular intervals, in an on-going and continuous fashion by some Big Brother, bureaucrat-laden government. I'm advocating a system wherein the actual socio-economic starting point for everyone maximizes their personal sovereignty by providing an equitable, solid base (I'm not inclined to put a number on it, but let's just say a middle-class position). That is the only way to actually ensure a kind of equality of opportunity that matters.
I do not think everyone will "end even." But the object of life is not to have the highest wealth accumulation score. No one is worth a billion other people, even if those people are Somalis, rural Chinese, or whatever. Likewise, I am advocating a system that makes it difficult or impossible to accumulate as much wealth as the 300 richest Americans have accumulated. Despite what you think, the planet is finite, and there are a finite amount of resources. It's unethical and obscene that the richest people in this world have as much as they do, while the poorest people in this world start with nothing. Starting with nothing is equivalent to an economic, intellectual, and social maiming. And the butcher is the liberal regime. You are sacrificing billions of people to the meat grinder, now, and in the future, and your argument is, "well they aren't being productive enough, they just need to tighten their belts and work harder at FoxConn."
[quote]
As I said, sometimes doing nothing is the appropriate answer to a system of ongoing violence. A Bartlebian repudiation can have more effect than reactionary outbursts of irrational violence, especially when the direction out is not clear.
But you believe in magic and fairy tales, while rejecting other solutions out of naked greed. The evidence of the last 30 years shows that the current system leads to more of the same. Worsening inequality. Lower socio-economic mobility. Decreasing freedom.
One starting point would be providing a minimum income to people that would lower the floor and improve opportunities for the bottom quintile or quartile. Instead you say that that would disincentivize people from working at Arby's. You willingly throw away the brains of millions, if not billions of people, by having them spend their days doing menial tasks for pennies, because it's more efficient for the accumulation of capital (at least in the short term). Liberalism is a meatgrinder that chews up individual subjective experiences of life and spits out profit for the capitalist. What might happen if we truly offered equality of opportunity to as many people as possible by ridding them of the extreme stresses and strains of wage slavery, where people's labor is simply a commodity to be bought and sold for the lowest price possible? If you think this is the best there is, you lack imagination.
As a side note, the American colonies in the 18th century were much more egalitarian than now. I know you love the sacred Founding Fathers but it's a bit ridiculous to take it seriously when they violently took land from the indigenous peoples here before them. It's nice to talk about freedom for the white man when you are plundering resources and turning land you found into your own property. Please tell me how circumstances back then, where you had a thousands miles of continent to steal to your west, are in any way applicable to now? But yes, I concede the indigenous folks weren't efficiently using their resources and land for the accumulation of capital.
I'm about to go to sleep, so I am not going to argue particulars with you. Moreover, I contend that you do advocate "a society that forcibly takes from the rich and gives to the poor, at regular intervals, in an on-going and continuous fashion by some Big Brother, bureaucrat-laden government. Some people just ARE harder workers, some just ARE more driven. Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others. In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son. The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Show nested quote +Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceShow nested quote +The good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not.
Just about everyone has a higher income since the 70's.
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/ATI.PNG)
Many don't have a higher pre-tax pre-transfer cash wage, but that narrow definition isn't very meaningful.
|
On December 12 2013 06:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Prove it.
[quote]
I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with.
[quote]
The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again.
Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window. This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it. I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer). I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it.
I think you may not be familiar with the concept of market failure... understandable if you study chemistry, I suppose. I suggest you take a couple minutes to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure.
Basically there are many instances where free markets lead to inefficient results, and some people argue that government's role should be to intervene to correct these inefficiencies by, for example, creating the FDA.
|
On December 12 2013 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:09 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:
Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others.
In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son.
The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular.
The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. Have you never worked a day in your life with other people? It is simply a self-evident truth that some people work harder than others. Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2013 17:47 Introvert wrote:[quote] I'm about to go to sleep, so I am not going to argue particulars with you. Moreover, I contend that you do advocate "a society that forcibly takes from the rich and gives to the poor, at regular intervals, in an on-going and continuous fashion by some Big Brother, bureaucrat-laden government. Some people just ARE harder workers, some just ARE more driven. Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others. In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son. The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. Just about everyone has a higher income since the 70's. Many don't have a higher pre-tax pre-transfer cash wage, but that narrow definition isn't very meaningful.
Can you post the source for that please?
|
On December 12 2013 06:24 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:09 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have you never worked a day in your life with other people? It is simply a self-evident truth that some people work harder than others. Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2013 17:47 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I'm about to go to sleep, so I am not going to argue particulars with you. Moreover, I contend that you do [quote]
Some people just ARE harder workers, some just ARE more driven. Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others. In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son. The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. Just about everyone has a higher income since the 70's. Many don't have a higher pre-tax pre-transfer cash wage, but that narrow definition isn't very meaningful. Can you post the source for that please?
It's from the CBO, I'll look up the document and post it in an edit 
Edit: Link
|
First Washington and Colorado, and now -- maybe -- New York.
On Wednesday morning, New York state Sen. Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat, unveiled a proposal to fully legalize and tax marijuana in the state.
At a press conference at City Hall in downtown Manhattan, Krueger denounced the prohibition of marijuana as a “policy that just hasn’t worked.”
“The illegal marijuana economy is alive and well,” she said, “and our unjust laws are branding nonviolent New Yorkers, especially young adults, as criminals, creating a vicious cycle that ruins lives and needlessly wastes taxpayer dollars.”
The bill represents the third effort in 2013 to topple legal barriers to pot use in New York state. Proposals to legalize marijuana for seriously ill patients and to fix a loophole in New York’s decades-old marijuana decriminalization law both passed the state Assembly earlier this year, but the state Senate adjourned in June without taking action on either measure.
Advocates for pot legalization hope the new bill will fare better, but even they concede that the state’s failure to adopt far more modest reforms doesn’t bode well for the sweeping new proposal.
“It’s unlikely that this bill is passing this year,” said Gabriel Sayegh, the New York director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates for the legalization of all drugs.
Source
|
On December 12 2013 06:23 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:08 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal.
Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window. This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it. I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer). I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it. I think you may not be familiar with the concept of market failure... understandable if you study chemistry, I suppose. I suggest you take a couple minutes to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure. Basically there are many instances where free markets lead to inefficient results, and some people argue that government's role should be to intervene to correct these inefficiencies by, for example, creating the FDA.
I would only expect complete efficiency if I expected everyone on the market to predict everything perfectly, or succeed at all their goals. I'm more a fan of the wait-it-out solution. Again, things like the FDA are fine lines for me because I can see that the FDA has actually accomplished things (as in prevented bads drugs from going to market). But, what good drugs have the stopped from being sold, and for what reasons? How expensive has the FDA made the research-to-market process? What stupid rules have they put in place? How are we going to limit them when they have no direct accountability?
I think if you add more players (espeically large ones like governments) you necessarily increase inefficiency, it's just hidden behind the taxes. I'd leave it to the market. I trust people who have their own self-interest at heart to make better market decisons than a bunch of politicians (who ultimately are the ones who decide.) Never mind the corruption factor.
But here we begin wandering out of my area. My postion is derived from the idea of maximum freedom and a look at what I see. And all I see everytime government gets involved is failure and cronyism.
|
On December 12 2013 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:09 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:
Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others.
In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son.
The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular.
The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. Have you never worked a day in your life with other people? It is simply a self-evident truth that some people work harder than others. Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2013 17:47 Introvert wrote:[quote] I'm about to go to sleep, so I am not going to argue particulars with you. Moreover, I contend that you do advocate "a society that forcibly takes from the rich and gives to the poor, at regular intervals, in an on-going and continuous fashion by some Big Brother, bureaucrat-laden government. Some people just ARE harder workers, some just ARE more driven. Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others. In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son. The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. Just about everyone has a higher income since the 70's. Many don't have a higher pre-tax pre-transfer cash wage, but that narrow definition isn't very meaningful.
And you didn't even read the report that it came from...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ugPxNI3.png)
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf
|
On December 12 2013 06:47 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:09 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have you never worked a day in your life with other people? It is simply a self-evident truth that some people work harder than others. Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 11 2013 17:47 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I'm about to go to sleep, so I am not going to argue particulars with you. Moreover, I contend that you do [quote]
Some people just ARE harder workers, some just ARE more driven. Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others. In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son. The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. Just about everyone has a higher income since the 70's. Many don't have a higher pre-tax pre-transfer cash wage, but that narrow definition isn't very meaningful. And you didn't even read the report that it came from... + Show Spoiler +http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf
???????
Those are two different things... I was refuting the idea that people make less now than in the 70's in an absolute sense, not a relative one.
Edit: Additionally figure 2 is market income, so pre-tax, pre-transfer. I think post-tax, post-transfer matters as well.
|
On December 12 2013 06:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:23 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:08 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen.
It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window. This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it. I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer). I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it. I think you may not be familiar with the concept of market failure... understandable if you study chemistry, I suppose. I suggest you take a couple minutes to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure. Basically there are many instances where free markets lead to inefficient results, and some people argue that government's role should be to intervene to correct these inefficiencies by, for example, creating the FDA. I would only expect complete efficiency if I expected everyone on the market to predict everything perfectly, or succeed at all their goals. I'm more a fan of the wait-it-out solution. Again, things like the FDA are fine lines for me because I can see that the FDA has actually accomplished things (as in prevented bads drugs from going to market). But, what good drugs have the stopped from being sold, and for what reasons? How expensive has the FDA made the research-to-market process? What stupid rules have they put in place? How are we going to limit them when they have no direct accountability? I think if you add more players (espeically large ones like governments) you necessarily increase inefficiency, it's just hidden behind the taxes. I'd leave it to the market. I trust people who have their own self-interest at heart to make better market decisons than a bunch of politicians (who ultimately are the ones who decide.) Never mind the corruption factor. But here we begin wandering out of my area. My postion is derived from the idea of maximum freedom and a look at what I see. And all I see everytime government gets involved is failure and cronyism.
Government introduces inefficiency, it's true, but free markets do as well. You apparently have very strong views on this subject despite not being familiar with all the ways free markets can screw things up.
You seem to believe that the inefficiency introduced by government intervention in free markets is necessarily greater than the inefficiency created by the markets themselves. Why do you believe this? I can think of many examples where government intervention leads to greater efficiency than a free market system would.
Edit: for clarity, when I say a system is "inefficient" I mean that the system could possibly be changed in such a way that at least one participant in the system may become better off without making anyone else worse off.
|
On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:
It's self evident if you refuse to actually think a little. Having good grades and working "hard" are two completly different things. Do you count taking care of your sisters and brothers as work ? Do you consider working on your own desk the same kind of work as to working in the living room ? Having a private teacher ? Being supported by your familly ? Talking the same language at school and with your parents ? Having parents who teach you to be interested and read since early age ?
And having good grades actually don't necessarily result in a good job. Having social capital (a network) is almost as important for exemple.
This is all irrelevant bullshit that's dodging the point: hard work unambiguously improves one's chances at success. No one's pretending that we all start at the same spot, have the same advantages, or that shit doesn't happen. I've seen plenty of kids from affluent families fuck around during their formative years and turn into comparative failures as a result (as in being significantly worse off financially than their parents). I've also seen plenty of kids from poorer families work really hard and have amazing financial success. I've seen all sorts variations in between. Without fail, my experience is that people who bust their ass do really well for themselves and aren't relegated to this perpetual financial purgatory that you communists and socialists would have us believe exists.
|
On December 12 2013 06:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:47 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:06 farvacola wrote:
Hard Work is a God like any other when people worship it above considerations for the plight of actual people. At the end of the day, the notion that bad shit happens to the good and bad alike is very uncomfortable, so pray harder to Hard Work and hopefully it won't be true. Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 04:10 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Do you read english ? Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 03:48 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Can we stop with this fraud already ? In our society, being the US, France or whatever, there are no objective ground on which you can say that "harder workers" actually accumulate more wealth than others.
In fact we have statistical proof that social mobility is a myth, and that most of the rich are rich from father to son.
The most amazing thing about all that is that it is even denying, from my perspective, what actually is "creating wealth". There is a reason why the hypothesis that people are paid at the marginal productivity is nothing but theorical : it is denying the fact that it is almost impossible to measure the productivity of ONE person because the economy is a collective work. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular.
The distribution of the wealth created by the economic activity has nothing to do with the economy, work or whatever : it is a political matter, resolved by a balance of power between social groups who have different positions in the social field. I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons. Yes, creating wealth is the result of a variety of people to a point where it is very difficult to actually measure the participation of someone in particular. And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. Just about everyone has a higher income since the 70's. Many don't have a higher pre-tax pre-transfer cash wage, but that narrow definition isn't very meaningful. And you didn't even read the report that it came from... + Show Spoiler +http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf ??????? Those are two different things... I was refuting the idea that people make less now than in the 70's in an absolute sense, not a relative one. Edit: Additionally figure 2 is market income, so pre-tax, pre-transfer. I think post-tax, post-transfer matters as well.
Your wish is my command...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jeExycL.png)
Still not looking good.
|
On December 12 2013 06:58 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:40 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 06:23 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:08 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules.
I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way.
Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window. This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it. I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer). I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it. I think you may not be familiar with the concept of market failure... understandable if you study chemistry, I suppose. I suggest you take a couple minutes to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure. Basically there are many instances where free markets lead to inefficient results, and some people argue that government's role should be to intervene to correct these inefficiencies by, for example, creating the FDA. I would only expect complete efficiency if I expected everyone on the market to predict everything perfectly, or succeed at all their goals. I'm more a fan of the wait-it-out solution. Again, things like the FDA are fine lines for me because I can see that the FDA has actually accomplished things (as in prevented bads drugs from going to market). But, what good drugs have the stopped from being sold, and for what reasons? How expensive has the FDA made the research-to-market process? What stupid rules have they put in place? How are we going to limit them when they have no direct accountability? I think if you add more players (espeically large ones like governments) you necessarily increase inefficiency, it's just hidden behind the taxes. I'd leave it to the market. I trust people who have their own self-interest at heart to make better market decisons than a bunch of politicians (who ultimately are the ones who decide.) Never mind the corruption factor. But here we begin wandering out of my area. My postion is derived from the idea of maximum freedom and a look at what I see. And all I see everytime government gets involved is failure and cronyism. Government introduces inefficiency, it's true, but free markets do as well. You apparently have very strong views on this subject despite not being familiar with all the ways free markets can screw things up. You seem to believe that the inefficiency introduced by government intervention in free markets is necessarily greater than the inefficiency created by the markets themselves. Why do you believe this? I can think of many examples where government intervention leads to greater efficiency than a free market system would.
I didn't say that I know nothing about the economy, just that I don't know the particulars of everything.
On a broad note, I think Cronysim and loss of freedom should be enough to give us pause at all but the smallest of government intrusions.
I simply think markets would do a better job dealing with such issues. I never claimed that any market was perfect, I just think that one is better than the other. I'm not advocating full and total economic anarchy, if you will. Even the founders placed rules (Commerce clause to regulate the states when they were at odds with each other, or the federal government's broad power in terms of international trade.) And since I dont have sub40apm here to contradict me, I'm just going to use the example of the stimulus, tarp, etc, for failures. None of them came close to doing what they were supposed to do. All I hear now is democrat damage control "Well it wasn't enough, but at least it didn't make anything worse!" I've asked for this several times now in this thread: Where has government intervention made anything better? Where has the idea of free markets failed? (Hell, how often are they tried? Was Reagan the last one to even try?)Government succes is the exception, not the rule.
One reason this area gets on my nerves is because the common attack AND defense of both sides is that "well, when that happened, the situation was different!" This is why I avoid particulars, though I could delve into them somewhat if needed. For instance, you (or someone) is possibly crafting a response as to why the stimulus was a good thing. The first sentance of that response will make very clear to explain why it a different situation and that all that was needed was more. A fine point to make, when what you advocate for never actually happened, and any disagreement can be chocked up to "that was a different time."
Anyway, I'm off to my next class, but I would be happy to continue later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
