|
|
On June 20 2012 01:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:09 0neder wrote:
[To quote Milton Friedman, "So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system." So why don't we get to work on this? Seems like a worthy project. edit: Unless of course Mr. Friedman is the ultimate nostradamus of economic theory, in which case holy shit are we all fucked.
Easier said than done. The young idealists have been trying since the dawn of time! It would probably be easier for Dustin Browder to come up with good SC2 game design ideas without borrowing from Brood War or his silly C&C games. Zing! =)
How spoiled must we all be in 2012 for you to assess our current situation in such a way! How myopic we have gotten in our gilded cages. People have tried everything else over millennia and it has only led to greater suffering and evil. Unfortunately, every generation there seems to be a wave of spoiled arrogance in thinking that their own unparalleled prosperity relative to world history is somehow insufficient. And so the cycle of learning wisdom the hard way continues. Well, so we all throw tantrums when we have to stop spending more than we earn. Soon enough, we'll learn some humility when our 'me' generation ushers in the ultimate global economic depression.
Maybe one hates mormons, or hate rich people, or hates republicans, or hates socially awkward people, but regardless of all that, I would think given our current situation that almost everyone would at least consider someone with actual executive experience in solving economic, organizational, and budget problems, compared to the incumbent.
|
What, so they get to have a revolution 200 years ago and give us glorious glorious democratic capitalism and now, sorry, party's over, end of history's here, shut up and put on your suit kid?
edit: "They've tried everything over millennia?" lol. How clever and persistent all these ancestors of ours were.
edit again: Well, so we all throw tantrums when we have to stop spending more than we earn.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you know absolutely nothing about my life, so don't strawman my inner motivations.
edit more: Also, the "me" generation already ushered in the global depression, they're called the baby boomers.
|
On June 20 2012 01:27 sam!zdat wrote:
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you know absolutely nothing about my life, so don't strawman my inner motivations.
edit more: Also, the "me" generation already ushered in the global depression, they're called the baby boomers.
1 - I was speaking generally of course. But based on our brief discussion so far, I think it's easy to say that I do actually know more than absolutely nothing about your life and motivations. For example, you are posting on a site for video game enthusiasts who have spent thousands of hours of their lives in virtual leisure and get to wait 25-30 years before they actually start contributing to the economy and society. Things have come a long way pretty quickly, wouldn't you say?
2 - The baby boomers sure taught their young protégés a thing or two, didn't they? =)
|
On June 20 2012 01:24 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:15 sam!zdat wrote:On June 20 2012 01:09 0neder wrote:
[To quote Milton Friedman, "So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. That there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system." So why don't we get to work on this? Seems like a worthy project. edit: Unless of course Mr. Friedman is the ultimate nostradamus of economic theory, in which case holy shit are we all fucked. Easier said than done. The young idealists have been trying since the dawn of time! It would probably be easier for Dustin Browder to come up with good SC2 game design ideas without borrowing from Brood War or his silly C&C games. Zing! =) How spoiled must we all be in 2012 for you to assess our current situation in such a way! How myopic we have gotten in our gilded cages. People have tried everything else over millennia and it has only led to greater suffering and evil. Unfortunately, every generation there seems to be a wave of spoiled arrogance in thinking that their own unparalleled prosperity relative to world history is somehow insufficient. And so the cycle of learning wisdom the hard way continues. Well, so we all throw tantrums when we have to stop spending more than we earn. Soon enough, we'll learn some humility when our 'me' generation ushers in the ultimate global economic depression. Maybe one hates mormons, or hate rich people, or hates republicans, or hates socially awkward people, but regardless of all that, I would think given our current situation that almost everyone would at least consider someone with actual executive experience in solving economic, organizational, and budget problems, compared to the incumbent.
So...
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses(which are designed to simply make as much profit as possible) will have more experience running the economy in the government(which is designed to serve the needs of its people) than a person who has been in the government position for 4 years? How anyone can argue that Romney has more experience than Obama is totally insane. Obama has been the fucking president for 4 years now. I'm pretty sure that would mean he has more job experience than Romney. Yes, I realize that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, but it's still insane to argue that has more experience than Obama. But what do I know, I'm a spoiled young idealist...
And you think laissez faire economics has been the most successful in history when the entire 19th century(which was dominated by laissez faire economics) was filled with financial panics and crises? While the era immediately following WW2 up until the 70s, which was preceded by a massive amount of government spending and dominated by Keynesian economics, was probably the most prosperous economic period in American history?
It seems like you're the one who is ignoring history.
|
United States18840 Posts
On June 20 2012 01:39 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:27 sam!zdat wrote:
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you know absolutely nothing about my life, so don't strawman my inner motivations.
edit more: Also, the "me" generation already ushered in the global depression, they're called the baby boomers. 1 - I was speaking generally of course. But based on our brief discussion so far, I think it's easy to say that I do actually know more than absolutely nothing about your life and motivations. For example, you are posting on a site for video game enthusiasts who have spent thousands of hours of their lives in virtual leisure and get to wait 25-30 years before they actually start contributing to the economy and society. Things have come a long way pretty quickly, wouldn't you say? 2 - The baby boomers sure taught their young protégés a thing or two, didn't they? =)
This is one of the dumbest things I've read on TL, and coming from such a long time member? While you may enjoy your weekly visit to the fortune teller in which she tells you your whole life story based on a wallet photo, I dare say your decision to label the bulk of TL as totally lacking in contribution to society a tad bit presumptuous.
|
On June 20 2012 01:48 Josealtron wrote:
So...
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses(which are designed to simply make as much profit as possible) will have more experience running the economy in the government(which is designed to serve the needs of its people) False dichotomy. You make money my serving people's needs or wants.
And you think laissez faire economics has been the most successful in history when the entire 19th century(which was dominated by laissez faire economics) was filled with financial panics and crises? While the era immediately following WW2 up until the 70s, which was preceded by a massive amount of government spending and dominated by Keynesian economics, was probably the most prosperous economic period in American history?.
While Keynesianism was implemented, it hardly has claim to the success of the 20th century because it was concurrent with relative peace and unparalleled innovation and population growth that drove economic growth. That's as silly as a 'jobs saved' statistic. How has Keynesianism been working out for Europe or, for that matter, America, lately?
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses will have more experience running the economy in the government than a person who has been in the government position for 4 years? How anyone can argue that Romney has more experience than Obama is totally insane. Obama has been the fucking president for 4 years now. I'm pretty sure that would mean he has more job experience than Romney. Yes, I realize that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, but it's still insane to argue that has more experience than Obama. But what do I know, I'm a spoiled young idealist...
When I was talking about experience I thought we were assuming experience succeeding. If you want someone with experience paralyzing the economy through volatile, simplistic, and unpredictable public policy, then I guess that's your definition. Even if Obama ever played SimCity(game reference!), he'd understand that tax revenues do not directly correlate with tax rates, not that that's even what we should be debating right now. No, I'll take my chances with the guy who turned around an olympic program buried in debt and has a little more real-world experience with do-or-die financial constraints where he can't just take more money by force.
|
On June 20 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:39 0neder wrote:On June 20 2012 01:27 sam!zdat wrote:
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you know absolutely nothing about my life, so don't strawman my inner motivations.
edit more: Also, the "me" generation already ushered in the global depression, they're called the baby boomers. 1 - I was speaking generally of course. But based on our brief discussion so far, I think it's easy to say that I do actually know more than absolutely nothing about your life and motivations. For example, you are posting on a site for video game enthusiasts who have spent thousands of hours of their lives in virtual leisure and get to wait 25-30 years before they actually start contributing to the economy and society. Things have come a long way pretty quickly, wouldn't you say? 2 - The baby boomers sure taught their young protégés a thing or two, didn't they? =) This is one of the dumbest things I've read on TL, and coming from such a long time member? While you may enjoy your weekly visit to the fortune teller in which she tells you your whole life story based on a wallet photo, I dare say your decision to label the bulk of TL as totally lacking in contribution to society a tad bit presumptuous.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth, kind sir.
I said that TL is a hub for video game enthusiasts, probably most of which have surely enjoyed such economic prosperity that they have been free to spend thousands of hours of their youth playing video games. I also said that the demographic of this web site is mostly people 15-30 who have enjoyed a society where they have more or less 25 years to learn, mature, and become educated before actually having to contribute to the economy, as opposed to you working on a farm or in a factory since you were 10.
You heard:
-I can tell you whole life story based on a wallet photo
-the bulk of TL is totally lacking in contribution to society
??????
Either you're putting words in my mouth, or my communication skills really suck. If so, I apologize. =)
|
This is where I think we're at right now in terms of electoral votes.
241 Obama
206 Romney
91 Up for Grabs
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=nbK
I agree with the current base 270towin EV predictions...and I'm giving PA/NH to Obama. And I'm giving NC to Romney.
Philadelphia is to big...and Obama will carry that 85%, and carry PA, no matter what the rest of the state does.
New Hampshire...small state but Obama beat McCain by 10% there in '08. IDK if Romney can overcome that.
NC, was very close in '08... but I think Romney will pull it out. Bev Perdue was horrible as governor. And it looks like with the recent vote on gay marriage.. and the huge lead for the Republicans in the Governor's race...I think you can count NC for Romney.
I live in Virginia and I really don't know what VA will do. It will come down to 3 counties in Northern VA. Prince William, Loudoun, and Fairfax. That is where a majority of the population + swing voters are. The rest of the state you pretty much know how they will vote. We have a race for Senator here that is very close as well.
|
How has Keynesianism been working out for Europe or, for that matter, America, lately?
You're clearly not European or read anything about Europe. Just about all of Europe is undergoing extreme austerity, and it's clear to just about everyone who isn't a German central banker (or perhaps a British PM?) that austerity is working out terribly. America has undergone some austerity as well, but I would trade away my brother (only the annoying one) for a crisis response a bit more similar to America's.
Citing current Europe as an example of Keynesian policy is either downright laughable, or downright intellectually disgusting--depending on your sense of humour.
|
On June 20 2012 02:28 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:48 Josealtron wrote:
So...
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses(which are designed to simply make as much profit as possible) will have more experience running the economy in the government(which is designed to serve the needs of its people) False dichotomy. You make money my serving people's needs or wants.
Naive correspondence. Not necessarily the case. Also, claim assumes unexamined equivalence between "wants" and "needs."
|
|
|
On June 20 2012 01:20 Lightwip wrote:
The wonderful end result of a free enterprise system is a series of bubbles and recessions that eventually lead into a hole that an economy can't dig itself out of without government help. See: The Great Depression.
Government has an important place in economics. To think otherwise is to put too much faith in the moneygrubbers of big business.
As opposed to the end result of any economic system ever?
Empires crash, empires always crash, it is inevitable, the only thing you can do is to learn from past mistakes and delay the next collapse for the next empire.
|
On June 20 2012 02:48 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +How has Keynesianism been working out for Europe or, for that matter, America, lately? You're clearly not European or read anything about Europe. Just about all of Europe is undergoing extreme austerity, and it's clear to just about everyone who isn't a German central banker (or perhaps a British PM?) that austerity is working out terribly. America has undergone some austerity as well, but I would trade away my brother (only the annoying one) for a crisis response a bit more similar to America's. Citing current Europe as an example of Keynesian policy is either downright laughable, or downright intellectually disgusting--depending on your sense of humour.
"Austerity is working out terribly"
No, actually the terrible pain being experienced is simply the natural consequence of living beyond your means. Buying things on credit will probably feel great for a while, and you may even get used to the lifestyle and consider it the norm. But once the cards max and the bill collectors start pounding on your door, you are gonna start to feel pretty shitty.
In other words you are trying to equate actually living within your means to be some radical and terrible economic policy when it's really nothing more than common sense, because you've become accustomed to the current radical and terrible economic policies.
By the way, you cannot claim that Europe is undergoing "extreme austerity" when most of the nations in EU are still running under budget deficits.
|
United States18840 Posts
On June 20 2012 03:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 02:48 TheKwas wrote:How has Keynesianism been working out for Europe or, for that matter, America, lately? You're clearly not European or read anything about Europe. Just about all of Europe is undergoing extreme austerity, and it's clear to just about everyone who isn't a German central banker (or perhaps a British PM?) that austerity is working out terribly. America has undergone some austerity as well, but I would trade away my brother (only the annoying one) for a crisis response a bit more similar to America's. Citing current Europe as an example of Keynesian policy is either downright laughable, or downright intellectually disgusting--depending on your sense of humour. "Austerity is working out terribly" No, actually the terrible pain being experienced is simply the natural consequence of living beyond your means. Buying things on credit will probably feel great for a while, and you may even get used to the lifestyle and consider it the norm. But once the cards max and the bill collectors start pounding on your door, you are gonna start to feel pretty shitty. In other words you are trying to equate actually living within your means to be some radical and terrible economic policy when it's really nothing more than common sense, because you've become accustomed to the current radical and terrible economic policies. By the way, you cannot claim that Europe is undergoing "extreme austerity" when most of the nations in EU are still running under budget deficits.
Why not exactly? The degree with which one measures a nation's austerity is not fixed to some static norm, and many European countries enacted vast and sweeping changes, changes certainly dramatic enough to warrant the label of "extreme austerity", at least in some cases.
|
On June 20 2012 01:48 Josealtron wrote:
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses(which are designed to simply make as much profit as possible) will have more experience running the economy in the government(which is designed to serve the needs of its people) than a person who has been in the government position for 4 years? How anyone can argue that Romney has more experience than Obama is totally insane. Obama has been the fucking president for 4 years now. I'm pretty sure that would mean he has more job experience than Romney. Yes, I realize that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, but it's still insane to argue that has more experience than Obama. But what do I know, I'm a spoiled young idealist...
Here's the problem. The role of the U.S. Government is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT "to serve the needs of its people". Holy shit. The role of the people is to serve the needs of the people. WTF do you think a free market is ?
|
United States18840 Posts
On June 20 2012 03:54 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:48 Josealtron wrote:
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses(which are designed to simply make as much profit as possible) will have more experience running the economy in the government(which is designed to serve the needs of its people) than a person who has been in the government position for 4 years? How anyone can argue that Romney has more experience than Obama is totally insane. Obama has been the fucking president for 4 years now. I'm pretty sure that would mean he has more job experience than Romney. Yes, I realize that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, but it's still insane to argue that has more experience than Obama. But what do I know, I'm a spoiled young idealist...
Here's the problem. The role of the U.S. Government is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT "to serve the needs of its people". Holy shit. The role of the people is to serve the needs of the people. WTF do you think a free market is ?
So, other than pedantics and an all consuming distrust for government, is this post meant to convey anything else? If you think an understanding of the US government as a largely flawed but still best case system through which our society can hopefully flourish is indefensible, well I'm not sure why you'd even get into a debate in the first place.
|
On June 20 2012 03:54 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:48 Josealtron wrote:
You think someone who has spent his life running businesses(which are designed to simply make as much profit as possible) will have more experience running the economy in the government(which is designed to serve the needs of its people) than a person who has been in the government position for 4 years? How anyone can argue that Romney has more experience than Obama is totally insane. Obama has been the fucking president for 4 years now. I'm pretty sure that would mean he has more job experience than Romney. Yes, I realize that Romney was governor of Massachusetts, but it's still insane to argue that has more experience than Obama. But what do I know, I'm a spoiled young idealist...
Here's the problem. The role of the U.S. Government is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT "to serve the needs of its people". Holy shit. The role of the people is to serve the needs of the people. WTF do you think a free market is ?
Can you offer any reasoning for why I should accept this position?
|
False dichotomy. You make money my serving people's needs or wants.
As was said above, not necessarily. Romney made money by buying/selling businesses, and the results put tons of people out of jobs.
While Keynesianism was implemented, it hardly has claim to the success of the 20th century because it was concurrent with relative peace and unparalleled innovation and population growth that drove economic growth. That's as silly as a 'jobs saved' statistic. How has Keynesianism been working out for Europe or, for that matter, America, lately?
You think the 20th century had "relative peace"? It certainly wasn't any more peaceful than the 19th century. And the economic growth aided innovation and the population growth just as much as the innovation aided the economic growth.
If you've been paying attention, ever since Reagan's presidency we've been pursuing more supply side/"trickle-down", deregulated, economics and as was said above, Europe has also been going through huge austerity measures as of late. It's laughable to say that our current crisis was the result of Keynesianism when that's not at all what's been implemented.
When I was talking about experience I thought we were assuming experience succeeding. If you want someone with experience paralyzing the economy through volatile, simplistic, and unpredictable public policy, then I guess that's your definition. Even if Obama ever played SimCity(game reference!), he'd understand that tax revenues do not directly correlate with tax rates, not that that's even what we should be debating right now. No, I'll take my chances with the guy who turned around an olympic program buried in debt and has a little more real-world experience with do-or-die financial constraints where he can't just take more money by force.
Actually, the economy's been growing since the recession(though slowly), so it's hardly paralyzed. And the only 2 major pieces of legislation passed by the Obama Administration have been the health care bill and the stimulus package, and most economists agree that the stimulus package saved many jobs and was good for the economy(sources have been posted about this multiple times in this thread so I'm not gonna bother looking them up again). It's too early to say either way on the health care bill. Most of Obama's ideas have been shot down by the Republican congress (like the jobs bill last fall) so saying that he's paralyzed the economy is a joke, especially considering the economy has been improving.
Here's the problem. The role of the U.S. Government is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT "to serve the needs of its people". Holy shit. The role of the people is to serve the needs of the people. WTF do you think a free market is ?
Building infrastructure? Passing/enforcing laws? Protecting the rights of its citizens? How is this not serving the needs of its people?
|
On June 20 2012 03:27 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 01:20 Lightwip wrote:
The wonderful end result of a free enterprise system is a series of bubbles and recessions that eventually lead into a hole that an economy can't dig itself out of without government help. See: The Great Depression.
Government has an important place in economics. To think otherwise is to put too much faith in the moneygrubbers of big business. As opposed to the end result of any economic system ever? Empires crash, empires always crash, it is inevitable, the only thing you can do is to learn from past mistakes and delay the next collapse for the next empire.
The clear proper response to a system that can't succeed without government help is... + Show Spoiler +
|
On June 20 2012 01:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2012 20:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 19 2012 14:25 sam!zdat wrote:On June 19 2012 12:43 DoubleReed wrote:
This is a good thing. We want to always be questioning why we believe the things we believe. We never want to be complacent about why we believe things. You can't do this without other people outrightly challenging your beliefs, even if you are undoubtedly correct.
This is why freedom of speech is so incredibly important. A utopia would be a place where freedom of speech isn't necessary. That's a scary thought indeed. Disagree strongly. What you point out is INTEGRAL to Utopia, not hostile to it. Consider:
When everyone knows beauty is beauty,
this is bad.
When everyone knows good is good,
this is not good.
So being and nonbeing produce each other:
difficulty and ease complement each other,
long and short shape each other,
high and low contrast with each other,
voice and echoes conform to each other,
before and after go along with each other.
So sages manage effortless service
and carry out unspoken guidance.
All beings work, without exception:
if they live without possessiveness,
act without presumption,
and do not dwell on success,
then by this very nondwelling
success will not leave
-Daodejing 2
What happens if people speak out against the utopia status quo? You have a very particular idea about what utopia is supposed to be that is not what I am talking about. You assume already that it is "dystopia" My point is that if we are going to make a better world it will address all of these problems that you point out. Show nested quote +
We work without exception? What about pleasure and leisure? And the 'do not dwell on success' also sounds a little weird, honestly, like once again this may be a world without pleasure and entertainment.
Can you read these lines in another way? "All beings work, without exception" can be interpreted many different ways - can you hold all of them in your mind at once? What is "work?" What are different things that "exception" could mean? There is a difference between "having no success" and "not dwelling on success" - what is it? Note that "by this very nondwelling/success will not leave," so what we have here is not a rejection of success. What is success, anyway? I don't know where you get the idea about no pleasure or entertainment. Nothing about that here at all.
A utopia is a perfect society. If people are speaking out against the way that society is run (which, I'm claiming, is inevitable) then it's not a utopia. The whole point is that it cannot be improved. I did not mean to imply that people would be silenced if they speak out against the status quo, it was actually a question. What happens if you do?
I didn't read it has 'having no success.' I read it as 'we're not supposed to bask in how awesome our job was, because we still have more work to do.' Well I might disagree. I like basking. I like leisure. I want to enjoy what a nice job I've done for a little while.
The passage you gave had nothing about entertainment and leisure. Everything was about work. Don't you think that's a little weird?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
