|
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 25 2013 23:41 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah, it helps you come to sweeping, a priori claims about societal gender dynamics and feel scientific while doing it!! There can't be sexism, I derived it from first principles!!
seriously kids this is how economists think. Pathetic isn't it
Yeah the claim that the size of the wage gap can't be explained by sexism is so sweeping. Patriarchy theory on the other hand can come to the rescue with very helpful policy suggestions, like STOP BEING BRAINWASHED PEOPLE, that you so kindly pointed out earlier.
|
yes, it is extremely sweeping, and generated completely a priori. Because that is how you have been trained to think about the world, because you study a charlatan discipline.
|
I didn't say anything like that. Anyway, you are talking to the guy who spent ten pages arguing that most feminism is useless crap...
|
Just remember that those same eyes often convict innocent people guilty when witnesses are identifying suspects.
how often since apparently this is a very important thing you've brought up surely you know how often this thing that happens 'often' happens
ok no it isn't important it's a flippant and shallow comment
people make mistakes i guess this is a very deep revelation to some. how this proves or disproves sweeping theories - or what people imagine are sweeping theories - about human nature is a mystery, it being such a banal conclusion.
i blame austrians (the school not the country) and their praxeology bullshit for this rational-humans-vs-irrational-humans nonsense
|
Damn, I never thought I would find myself praising DEB for something.
But on top of that, I blame the Austrians and libertarianism in general to some extent for this whole Big Government vs Small Government bullshit discourse.
|
On December 26 2013 12:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Just remember that those same eyes often convict innocent people guilty when witnesses are identifying suspects. how often since apparently this is a very important thing you've brought up surely you know how often this thing that happens 'often' happens
ok no it isn't important it's a flippant and shallow comment people make mistakes i guess this is a very deep revelation to some. how this proves or disproves sweeping theories - or what people imagine are sweeping theories - about human nature is a mystery, it being such a banal conclusion. i blame austrians (the school not the country) and their praxeology bullshit for this rational-humans-vs-irrational-humans nonsense
Pretty often. In a study of 2,000 people who watched a clip of a crime and then were asked to identify the perpetrator from a 6 man lineup, only 14% got it right.
Source. Page 6.
|
On December 26 2013 12:52 Shiragaku wrote:
Damn, I never thought I would find myself praising DEB for something.
But on top of that, I blame the Austrians and libertarianism in general to some extent for this whole Big Government vs Small Government bullshit discourse.
I find it an incredibly relevant discourse for today. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." An aside, by that was over a century before the rise of the Austrian school. Of course, if you hate classical liberalism, I blame those thinkers for much of the success of human societies that rose from comparative poverty. The powerhouse economy of America owes much to those Adam Smiths and John Lockes of yesteryear.
I do understand if the big government types are frustrated and angry at the discourse. Your ideology has held sway over much of the world for most of the last 100 years. That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future.
|
we're just doomed, really. It doesn't matter, either way
|
On December 25 2013 15:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2013 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Two million people visited HealthCare.gov on Monday, the ostensible deadline to sign up through Obamacare for health coverage that starts in January, according to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The administration announced Monday, though, that anyone who enrolled in coverage by the end of the day Tuesday would still be covered on Jan. 1. After Tuesday, the earliest that one's coverage would start would be Feb. 1.
The high volume forced CMS to deploy the website's queueing system, which asked a total of 129,000 people to come back later to complete their application.
CMS said that traffic remained high Tuesday, though not as high as Monday, and the queueing system had not been activated. Source I absolutely adore all these signed-up figures that administration figures and agencies blast out. That, along with the quaint queue system (Thankfully, my Christmas shopping did not put me in a queue or ask me to try to buy the gifts tomorrow) makes it rich. It's still a bother to get signed up, billed, and pay their first month's premium for so many. The sleight of hand that Obama's administration loves to do is consider people that selected a plan enrolled. In the industry, that step happens after all forms are verified for their information AND the user has paid his first monthly premium. Still in force is the administration's strong-arm suggestions: Show nested quote +Of all of the last-minute delays, website bungles, and Presidential whims that have marred the roll-out of Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges, what happened on Thursday, December 12 will stand as one of the most lawless acts yet committed by this administration. The White House—having canceled Americans’ old health plans, and having botched the system for enrolling people in new ones—knows that millions of Americans will enter the new year without health coverage. So instead of actually fixing the problem, the administration is retroactively attempting to force insurers to hand out free health care—at a loss—to those whom the White House has rendered uninsured. If Obamacare wasn’t a government takeover of the health insurance industry, then what is it now?
[...]
“What’s wrong with ‘urging’ insurers to offer free care?” you might ask. “That’s not the same as forcing them to offer free care.” Except that the government is using the full force of its regulatory powers, under Obamacare, to threaten insurers if they don’t comply. All you have to do is read the menacing language in the new regulations that HHS published this week, in which HHS says it may throw otherwise qualified health plans off of the exchanges next year if they don’t comply with the government’s “requests.”
“We are considering factoring into the [qualified health plan] renewal process, as part of the determination regarding whether making a health plan available…how [insurers] ensure continuity of care during transitions,” they write. Which is kind of like the Mafia saying that it will “consider” the amount of protection money you’ve paid in its decision as to whether or not it vandalizes your storefront.
There are other services HHS is asking insurers to offer for free. The administration is “strongly encouraging insurers to treat out-of-network providers”—i.e., costly ones—“as in-network to ensure continuity of care” and to “refill prescriptions covered under previous plans during January.” But the issue of unpaid premiums looms largest. sourceIs it any wonder why the president and HHS are winking and hand-waiving for "enrollment" numbers, when insurers report that 15% or less have paid their first premium and are enrolled? That they're still strongly suggesting insurers to cover everything the plan doesn't cover, and cover it for free if their would-be client hasn't paid yet. Something is truly wrong when the government strong-arms in these ways ... more appropriate for a politburo or totalitarian system if you ask me. Be compassionate in your business, or else.
The rules referred to in the Forbes article is about premiums for people who have already enrolled in a health plan. It's intended to give more time for people who are already enrolled to pay their premiums given the technical difficulties with getting that information to the insurers in some cases.
It's not free healthcare, the premiums will still have to be paid. It's getting the service before paying, e.g. when you dine in a restaurant, you get to eat the food first, then you pay after. This is not a government takeover of healthcare. A government takeover of healthcare would be universal healthcare like Canada, US, UK, France, Australia: you know, healthcare that actually works with far lower costs and better outcomes than the US.
Not too surprising you find this hard to understand, since Republicans don't understand even the first thing about healthcare. For example, this change was necessitated by the technical issues with the exchanges, but ironically Republican plan for healthcare also uses exchanges, so would have also faced the same technical challenges. In fact, their plan is the same as Obamacare, except without the mandate. In other words, they want to destroy the health insurance market and create a price death spiral as a result of adverse selection. Your personal favorite plan, to only extend insurer employer healthcare when people leave as I had already explained would also do the same, there would be no reason for healthy people to sign up for healthcare if they could buy it at any time, causing the price to increase.
If you still think that people will wait until their sick to buy healthcare, then that is doublethink and hypocrisy. Because that's exactly why there's a mandate in Obamacare, and precisely why the mandate is needed. There's to way get healthcare reform based on insurance to work without the mandate, they all end in adverse selection collapsing the insurance market. And if people really do wait until their sick, that's a case for severely increasing the penalty, not a case to remove the mandate or repeal Obamacare.
|
On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future.
As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past?
![[image loading]](http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2012/09/17/305572.jpg)
You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed.
It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now.
It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system.
|
the government is not the people don't be ridiculous... The government is the government... And you cannot trust those motherfuckers ever ever ever
also can we all take a moment to reflect how hilarious it is when people go 'back in the days with good economic growth, when X condition obtained... Obviously growth is correlated with X condition...' it's a completely different historical period, we are in uncharted territory, there are NO PRECEDENTS for the situation today, you simply cannot compare it to anything
|
On December 26 2013 13:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future. As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past? You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed. It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now. It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system.
Nah man tax rates don't matter. Back in the sixties a lone gunman could kill the president by himself. Nowadays the NSA knows what you are going to do before you do.
|
On December 26 2013 13:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2013 13:48 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future. As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past? You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed. It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now. It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system. Nah man tax rates don't matter. Back in the sixties a lone gunman could kill the president by himself. Nowadays the NSA knows what you are going to do before you do.
You think people weren't spied on DURING THE COLD WAR? Yes your smartphone wasn't tapped because there were no smartphones, but that is also true for old Egypt. So that comparison doesn't really make much sense.
|
On December 26 2013 14:00 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2013 13:53 IgnE wrote:On December 26 2013 13:48 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future. As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past? You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed. It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now. It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system. Nah man tax rates don't matter. Back in the sixties a lone gunman could kill the president by himself. Nowadays the NSA knows what you are going to do before you do. You think people weren't spied on DURING THE COLD WAR? Yes your smartphone wasn't tapped because there were no smartphones, but that is also true for old Egypt. So that comparison doesn't really make much sense.
No the nature and character of cold war spy games were completely different.
Was ancient Egypt big government or small government? Or do you not make sense?
|
On December 26 2013 14:11 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2013 14:00 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 13:53 IgnE wrote:On December 26 2013 13:48 Nyxisto wrote:On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future. As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past? You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed. It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now. It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system. Nah man tax rates don't matter. Back in the sixties a lone gunman could kill the president by himself. Nowadays the NSA knows what you are going to do before you do. You think people weren't spied on DURING THE COLD WAR? Yes your smartphone wasn't tapped because there were no smartphones, but that is also true for old Egypt. So that comparison doesn't really make much sense. No the nature and character of cold war spy games were completely different. Was ancient Egypt big government or small government? Or do you not make sense?
What I was implying is that modern spying, like all the NSA stuff, was enabled through technological progress. It doesn't have anything to do with big or small governments. 30 years ago intelligence had to bug your apartment, today they'll just read your facebook chat and collect your metadata.
|
danglars is george w bush a representative of big government in yr book?
|
On December 26 2013 13:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:
That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future. As you are so keen on stressing Americas history, do you care if we take a look at Americas tax rates in the past? You know the good old days, where governments basically didn't exist, but collected 90% of the top income? Firstly the government isn't the arch-enemy of the people, it is the people. And in the past, during which the US did really really well,government was in fact involved and pretty big, compared to today. Economic growth was awesome, wealth inequality was reasonable and, acceptable regulation existed. It was only later,from the 70's and 80's on, that politicians came to the conclusion that taxing people who are already richer than god didn't seem very appropriate any more and that deregulating everything is really awesome. Wealth inequality went through the roof and economic growth rates declined and are at an all time low now. It's true that America did really great, but at a time where taxation was exceptionally high and the government was quite heavily involved. Deregulation only really started during the Reagan and Thatcher era and hasn't accomplished anything besides a completely unfair and fucked up system.
The old economy collapsed in the 60's and 70's. It's dead, and there's no going back. Sorry.
|
On December 26 2013 13:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2013 12:52 Shiragaku wrote:
Damn, I never thought I would find myself praising DEB for something.
But on top of that, I blame the Austrians and libertarianism in general to some extent for this whole Big Government vs Small Government bullshit discourse. I find it an incredibly relevant discourse for today. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." An aside, by that was over a century before the rise of the Austrian school. Of course, if you hate classical liberalism, I blame those thinkers for much of the success of human societies that rose from comparative poverty. The powerhouse economy of America owes much to those Adam Smiths and John Lockes of yesteryear. I do understand if the big government types are frustrated and angry at the discourse. Your ideology has held sway over much of the world for most of the last 100 years. That is to say, government power, influence, and size has been trending up almost everywhere. With so much success, it must be a little irking to see it still being resisted by a significant portion of Americans. Short of total surrender and kowtow, I don't see a lot of reconciliation for the future.
God damn it, don't reveal to the world that I am depressed to see the end of big government coming. Don't expose my plans to damn soon. /sarcasm
Yeah, you really have the nerve to make the connection of "big government" to my ideology? Dude, I am a fucking anarchist, I know what "small government" is better than you. This is why I have trouble taking the big gov vs small gov people seriously.
|
I thought you believed in fighting for liberal democracy... Is your little fling with fukuyama over so soon?
|
On December 26 2013 14:33 sam!zdat wrote:
I thought you believed in fighting for liberal democracy... Is your little fling with fukuyama over so soon?
I do, but I am not going to try to restore it or defending it at all when it is collapsing but it is worth defending when it is undergoing some small economic troubles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
