|
|
On October 31 2012 12:03 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:00 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. "crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there. So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question. You honestly think every poor person is sitting around watching NFL on an LCD screen?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HwSlJ.gif)
For instance, some 62% of households earning less than $20,000 annually owned between two and four televisions, according to the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy.
About one-third of the lowest income households had either LCD or plasma TVs.
So no, not every poor person has an LCD TV. Just around 33%.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:08 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:03 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:00 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity?
And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states.
And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. "crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there. So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question. You honestly think every poor person is sitting around watching NFL on an LCD screen? Show nested quote +For instance, some 62% of households earning less than $20,000 annually owned between two and four televisions, according to the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy. Show nested quote +About one-third of the lowest income households had either LCD or plasma TVs. So no, not every poor person has an LCD TV. Just around 33%.
On October 31 2012 12:07 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:05 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 12:03 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:00 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them.
2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc.
3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. "crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there. So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question. You honestly think every poor person is sitting around watching NFL on an LCD screen? Every? No. But a lot of them do. Just as an anecdote that your post reminded me of: We had a 70' flatscreen at our shelter. We extended the lights-out curfew one time when I was there. It was the Packers Monday Night game. JUST SAYIN' Hahah nice. Anyway, just keep in mind I'm talking about poverty before outside assistance. I'm talking about the status people would be in if it wasn't for government or some form of organizational assistance.
|
On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive.
How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides.
|
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot.
That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism.
|
On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides.
I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me.
And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money."
My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut.
I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view.
On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism.
The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism.
There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society.
Though, I don't believe I'm advocating a higher percentage of government assistance. Tax reform would pretty much be less government assistance by removing deductions. And I'm for government reform in its entirety and for building a more efficient government, not just tossing money around.
|
On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism.
My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood.
My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw.
Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid.
|
On October 31 2012 12:17 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society.
Sure. So how about, 70% capitalism, 30% government? I think 30% is enough to provide education, order, defense, and social services. What do you think?
|
On October 31 2012 11:09 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Every time farvacola responds to me, it looks like this.
Paragraph 1: (wholly unnecessary) Ad hominems, inexplicable non sequiturs, criticisms of Republican straw men or advocates which I never even mentioned.
Paragraph 2: A string of regurgitated leftist jargon ie. "stratification of dispersion of capital" which does absolutely nothing to address the points that I actually made in the post he's quoting.
What I'm left with is this ball of rage he feels towards right-wingers and I have no idea what to do with it, so I usually ignore it.
I will respond to the last point you made though, since that is at least slightly relevant to my post. A normative philosophy is a goal, and an understanding of economics is necessary to know the proper and most effective means to that goal. Taking the backwards route, trying to come up with some economic theory which justifies your pre-existing normative beliefs, means you don't really care about achieving your stated goal, you simply care about justifying your world view or enjoying the emotional benefit of your stated intentions.
Economics is not a normative science. If I could describe economics in one word, it would be the study of: trade-offs. You have to have a reasonable assessment of the consequences of policies and the trade-offs which occur with every decision if you actually want to achieve your normative desires. Rejecting that a trade-off exists or rejecting the actual consequences of policies because it does not align with your ideology is unproductive.
First off, if I gave you the impression that I am at all angry, I apologize; I'm rather chipper, and probably used some rather austere language. In any case, I'm afraid you'll have to put the scarecrow back to field, for although my eyesight is not what it once was, I am addressing your words and your words only.
You stated outright that "the whole theory is nonsense", in what is presumably a reference to a progressive fiscal policy as outlined by DoubleReed in the post you were addressing. You argued against it as though it were a magically conceived of theory, and I thought it useful to point out that instead it is rooted in the likes of GDP/employment trends, industry specific stimulus analysis, and budget reports; data points one can look at in assemblage when one conceives of economics on a grand scale. Furthermore, historical analysis as it pertains to the impact of government policies such as those enacted under the New Deal directly addresses your guarantee that the government is always less efficient and that higher taxes always lead to negative externalities. This is patently false.
Perhaps a little game of "Use the Thesaurus" could assist in helping you to understand some of the more complex lexical constructions. Stratification is a sort of separation, dispersion a sort of diffusion or scattering, and you know what capital means. To put it all together, "stratification of dispersion of capital" is referencing the inequal scattering of capital amongst corporate and marketplace entities as per the specifics of their place amongst others; the technology conglomerate feels the push and pull of aggregate demand and liquidable income very differently than the health provider or the online merchant. Concordantly, the idiosyncratic nature of markets like that of healthcare and those of high environmental impact requires that the government interact with them differently than more typical agglomerations of exchange. In other words, where and how the money goes, in addition to its creation in the first place, is a worthwhile place for analysis, and must always play a role in how the government regards it's taxable population.
Your point on normativity is exactly the sort of nonsense that gets in the way of real dialogue between those who disagree. It seems incredibly silly to me for someone to ridicule normativity only to then pretend that "If I could describe economics in one word, it would be the study of: trade-offs." doesn't itself hinge on a linguistically normative move to provide a "simpler" explanation as though it already exists. No one intelligent wants anyone to sincerely address issues of national import from the reference point of "lets try and pack this shit into one word." And yet, you approach questions of economics like this time and time again, as though the specifics are always "regurgitated leftist jargon". Here's a hint: they're not.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:17 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society. Sure. So how about, 70% capitalism, 30% government? I think 30% is enough to provide education, order, defense, and social services. What do you think?
Sorry, I'm not sure how those percentages would translate into real life terms. :p
|
On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides.
That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer.
|
On October 31 2012 12:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:17 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society. Sure. So how about, 70% capitalism, 30% government? I think 30% is enough to provide education, order, defense, and social services. What do you think?
I will take whatever Denmark/Norway has, don't know how that translates into perecentages though.
|
On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid.
What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone.
Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind.
|
On October 31 2012 12:20 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:17 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society. Sure. So how about, 70% capitalism, 30% government? I think 30% is enough to provide education, order, defense, and social services. What do you think? Sorry, I'm not sure how those percentages would translate into real life terms. :p
I think he's insinuating a 30% flat tax.
|
On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view.
And the same thing happens with businesses as well. It's staggering the amount that people think government wastes without realizing many of the same practices happen in business. There are so many dead end projects and jobs that serve only to return a favor to a friend.
Also, the fact that, at every turn, budget cuts are looming for every department is pretty good evidence that they are extremely restricted.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:25 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:20 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:17 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society. Sure. So how about, 70% capitalism, 30% government? I think 30% is enough to provide education, order, defense, and social services. What do you think? Sorry, I'm not sure how those percentages would translate into real life terms. :p I think he's insinuating a 30% flat tax.
Haha, in any case, it's not really something we can slap a number on.
|
On October 31 2012 12:27 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:25 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 12:20 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:17 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society. Sure. So how about, 70% capitalism, 30% government? I think 30% is enough to provide education, order, defense, and social services. What do you think? Sorry, I'm not sure how those percentages would translate into real life terms. :p I think he's insinuating a 30% flat tax. Haha, in any case, it's not really something we can slap a number on.
Except we do. It's called a tax rate.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:18 BlueBird. wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. My mom's school she taught at a few years ago couldn't afford paper and pencils, it was an extremely poor neighborhood. My high school, in the same exact city, but a much nicer area, had a brand new baseball field, a bunch of fancy electronics in the classrooms, etc. Property taxes ftw. Yes I have heard about people spending money to maintain the budget, I think those rules are stupid. What state do you live in? I live in California. In my state, the teacher's union and administrators instructs the teachers to say that they have no money for a $5 ring of paper for the classroom, and then they spend $21,000,000 on proposition 32 alone. Obviously it's not the same everywhere, and I don't want to paint with too wide a brush here. But people who champion government as the savior are either ignorant of these situations or intentionally blind.
About as ignorant and blind as those who champion capitalists as saviors, as if Wall Street and BP wouldn't and don't screw us every chance they get.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:27 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:25 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 12:20 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:19 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:17 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid."
There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. I've worked in government. My wife works in government. My parents work in government. I know how it works, trust me. And most of the time, it isn't "tightly budgeted." Most of the time, it's "We better spend the rest of our money before next fiscal year or our budget will get cut, so go out and waste some money." My wife is a school teacher. Her school recently bought those aforementioned LCD TV's for all the classrooms. They didn't actually go to the classrooms, they are sitting in storage. They just didn't want their budget cut. I know people hate anecdotal stories so much, but I can't ignore the experiences which have shaped my world view. On October 31 2012 12:12 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can talk about poverty before outside assistance if you want. I can talk about poverty before market capitalism. I will win. By a long shot. That's assuming I'm advocating a stance that says we must eliminate capitalism. The higher the percentage of government assistance, the lower the percentage of capitalism. There's a balance to be struck. You can't have a 100% capitalist society and you can't have a 100% socialist society. Sure. So how about, 70% capitalism, 30% government? I think 30% is enough to provide education, order, defense, and social services. What do you think? Sorry, I'm not sure how those percentages would translate into real life terms. :p I think he's insinuating a 30% flat tax. Haha, in any case, it's not really something we can slap a number on. Except we do. It's called a tax rate.
We do but I'm saying it's not something we can/should do. Like really, how can we just say something so arbitrary as, "This amount of government will be perfectly sufficient." Things change, and fast. Wars, financial crises, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
