|
United States5162 Posts
On July 07 2010 02:46 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 02:37 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote:
I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind. There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it On a paralel note, does government really needs to be something profitable ? something tells me that modern economics is a hoax, and we could fabricate money to build space stations out of nowhere
Money is still part of the demand/supply cycle. Printing a ton of money just reduces the value of the individual bill.
|
On July 07 2010 02:45 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 02:37 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 01:56 Myles wrote:
I'm not going to argue that public works couldn't/wouldn't ever be done by private individuals, but if you really believe we'd have even half the infrastructure we do now without the government building it than you are seriously out of your mind. There would be as much infrastructure as profit could be made out of it And our country would suffer for it. Most people wouldn't have power or running water. There would be hardly any public sanitation.
Why?
If there's demand for x, then there's a profit opportunity for x, meaning, x will sometime be offered and bought for.
The government is composed of men, they're hardly more innovative and hardly more efficient than profit-seeking man in delivering solutions.
On July 07 2010 02:45 Myles wrote: Look at any civilization that didn't have public works from the government, they didn't have any significant infrastructure.
What civilizations?
|
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
With regards to the original topic, the bias very much depends on what site you are visiting, and your country of origin. A site with a large European contingent would likely seem liberal to an American visitor. As to what an European visitor think of sites like http://www.conservapedia.com, I bet most are torn between tears and laughter.
|
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you
The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
With regards to the original topic
Don't go offtopic please (jk)
|
On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
|
On July 07 2010 04:07 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
What's that system for? The goal?
And if you define "the market" as the group of individuals freely acting and trading voluntarily, I think what you say is a bit contradictory. Voluntarily acting men do not determine man's deserts?
|
On July 07 2010 04:07 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
Maybe you're not arguing about communism, but saying that the market should be contolled by the government as far as it is feasible is not good in any way. Governments are naturally inefficient, and even if they were more efficient it's still impossible for a single government to determine supply and demand for every good and service.
That being said government does have a role in keeping inflation/deflation in check (through the fed) and I do think some regulation is neccessary.
Back to the original topic, someone said that the internet is more liberal because it's more youthful and the young are generally more liberal, and that in the future the republican party will become more moderate. I think that's true to an extent but I also believe that the more conservative of teens/20 something year-olds don't spend as much time on the internet. And also people generally become more conservative as they get older.
|
On July 07 2010 05:01 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 04:07 Fwmeh wrote:On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts. A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
If you're able to see examples where purely controlled economies don't work you should be able to find out that if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
|
The internet does NOT have a political bias on the whole. Any such notion is paranoia or evidence of how far off base their political views are from the baseline (center).
On July 05 2010 19:36 DrainX wrote:
It is well known that reality has a liberal bias.
This person says it perfectly. Conservatives (at least American ones from my experience) tend to be further from the center than they realize, often criticizing everyone in the middle and the left of being "liberals". This causes lots of accusations of institutions or industries of having a "liberal bias". Sometimes they even accuse fellow conservatives of "turning" or being "too liberal" due to the accuser being further to the right than the other conservative.
In short, the world and the internet isn't "liberal biased", anyone who thinks so is probably just a bit too far to the right and needs to employ a little introspection and observe where the real political lines are drawn.
|
On July 07 2010 05:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 05:01 happyness wrote:On July 07 2010 04:07 Fwmeh wrote:On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts. A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does. [...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
|
Comparing Conservatism to Liberalism is a paradoxical pursuit. The definition of Conservatism is very different depending on the country you live in. Conservatives from different countries often hate each other, while Liberalism has a more universal meaning and unity.
American Conservatism is much different than European or Asian Conservatism. From my experiences, American Conservatism adheres to strict following of the American Constitution, The Founding Documents, and the ideals that they stand for. Whereas Asian/European style conservatism is more about National pride and/or Racial/Cultural heritage.
Unfortunately, The American left does not like these ideals and have done a great job of brainwashing American kids into being idiots who never read their own constitution.
The internet has a liberal bias because most people are too lazy to study history or economics. Liberalism is simple, easy, and "nice". American Conservatism is complex, deep, and demanding. Ask yourself which one you would rather follow... unfortunately most people are too lazy to study things that don't give them an immediate benefit...
|
On July 07 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On July 07 2010 05:01 happyness wrote:On July 07 2010 04:07 Fwmeh wrote:On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts. A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does. [...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations. like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
|
On July 07 2010 06:04 deadbutmoving wrote:
The internet has a liberal bias because most people are too lazy to study history or economics. Liberalism is simple, easy, and "nice". American Conservatism is complex, deep, and demanding. Ask yourself which one you would rather follow... unfortunately most people are too lazy to study things that don't give them an immediate benefit...
How much history have you studied? What is your historical education based on? Do you have any credentials?
|
On July 07 2010 06:09 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On July 07 2010 05:01 happyness wrote:On July 07 2010 04:07 Fwmeh wrote:On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts. A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does. [...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations. like? Cite an example of a free market that worked properly. Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things. But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
Did my smile work?
|
On July 07 2010 05:22 Djzapz wrote:
If you're able to see examples where purely controlled economies don't work you should be able to find out that if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
Economies are unstable because humans are imperfect. The financial "crisis" of the past years are simply corrections in the market that need to happen to reflect true economic activity. When humans overvalue any market, that market will eventually need to be devalued to reflect its true worth.
Complaining about imperfections of the market is the same as complaining about human imperfections; because the market is simply defined as free individuals engaging in economic activity.
Likewise having the government control the market is also defined as having the government control individuals ability to engage in economic activity..... AKA Government Tyranny.
Finally, Today's Liberals say they are pro freedom of individuals' right to choose, yet they often support harsh government control over people's rights to engage in free commerce. To me this is simply tyranny.
People are imperfect, having a bunch of imperfect people acting freely will never create a perfectly stable economy. But it's much more desirable than having an imperfect Government Commanding everyone like it's perfect just because everyone voted for it.
|
On July 07 2010 06:21 Sputty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 06:04 deadbutmoving wrote:
The internet has a liberal bias because most people are too lazy to study history or economics. Liberalism is simple, easy, and "nice". American Conservatism is complex, deep, and demanding. Ask yourself which one you would rather follow... unfortunately most people are too lazy to study things that don't give them an immediate benefit... How much history have you studied? What is your historical education based on? Do you have any credentials?
Common sense is my credentials.
Let me guess, You want me to get a Liberal education from a Liberal University, by Liberal professors, composed, paid for, and created by Liberals.
To you, the only credentials you would ever trust are ....... Liberal credentials.
|
One note on the word "to work".
Something that "works", works for a function, an end.
You can't say that such and such economy or market works, without establishing first what the ends are. The world's a big place, and no market has a single end, as no market is composed of a single person.
|
On July 07 2010 06:34 deadbutmoving wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 06:21 Sputty wrote:On July 07 2010 06:04 deadbutmoving wrote:
The internet has a liberal bias because most people are too lazy to study history or economics. Liberalism is simple, easy, and "nice". American Conservatism is complex, deep, and demanding. Ask yourself which one you would rather follow... unfortunately most people are too lazy to study things that don't give them an immediate benefit... How much history have you studied? What is your historical education based on? Do you have any credentials? Common sense is my credentials. Let me guess, You want me to get a Liberal education from a Liberal University, by Liberal professors, composed, paid for, and created by Liberals. To you, the only credentials you would ever trust are ....... Liberal credentials.
So none at all? You're an idiot and there's not much to say. Also, you lack the basic understanding to understand the difference between modern liberal political beliefs and the meaning of 'liberal education'. If you're completely ignorant, choose to look at things to confirm your beliefs you should just keep your mouth shut
|
On July 06 2010 10:52 Sleight wrote:
Right or left on the spectrum are basically irrelevant. All political discussions boil down to 3 characters.
1) He who knows better. (The loud-mouthed liberal/conservative who are sure Obama is the best/worst)
2) He who doesn't feel like it is anyone's business (The true libertarians/radical lefties who recognize that as soon as the government says who we can and can't marry, they can just as easily say what we can or can't do otherwise)
3) People who are busy having lives and recognize they aren't well-informed (these are theoretical people, none have ever been maintained in captivity)
Cheers!
I quote myself to reiterate how true 1) sounds as this thread continues. Also, I was asked which one I fall into. I like to believe that I am a libertarian, aka 2), but have been accused of liberalism to no end. I am firmly against the US government involvement in restricting civil liberties, which apparently makes me a flaming liberal in this day and age.
My belief is that most of everyone is probably stupid to decide well for themselves, so deciding for someone else is even a worse of an idea.
Also, for the conservatives accusing liberals of this and liberals accusing conservatives of that... You are all idiots. We all are. Accept this. Move on with your lives. And I am sure everyone is wrong on plenty of things, just by virtue of us all being mostly selfish and pretty focused on what would fit in nicely with ourselves.
|
On July 07 2010 06:09 Djzapz wrote:
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
Having imperfect people run their own lives is better than having imperfect people running other people's lives.
Neither system can perfect because ALL HUMANS ARE IMPERFECT, however one is free the other is tyrannical.
You seem to believe that Government can somehow run everything perfectly just because they were voted into power. This is what I call the Illusion of Democracy. And this is Precisely why the founding fathers of America hated Democracies. The founders loved Liberty NOT Democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
