On June 22 2012 02:13 Lightwip wrote: Come now, this game is extremely fun. Let's privatize the military so that we can have the free market resolve any inefficiencies in the program that aren't profitable. The power of free enterprise will prevail.
Uh. And you think we haven't?
Lockheed Martin? Boeing? General Dynamics? Northrop Grumman? Raytheon?
Ever hear of those guys?
Do you want to even begin to compare those guys to a state-owned militrary company like in China or Russia?
Sure, contractors are great(at overcharging), but who do you think pays for this military hardware? The free market?
These defense contractors need us to constantly be at war in order to maintain their profit levels, and they can contribute to campaigns (and Super PACs) to put a lot of pressure on politicians to look out for those interests. Meanwhile soldiers and their families pay the ultimate price for this, and the country can't afford to be throwing away money on one occupation after another.
Hmm, while defense contractors rely on the US Military to stay in business, I don't think they necessarily need there to be war going on. Only the threat of war and the possibility of falling behind. Staying ahead in the arms race is an endless pursuit of new weapons and support systems. Eventually, many of these technologies find new uses in the commercial sector as consumer goods. Additionally, the US also exports military goods to other countries as a way of lowering the unit cost of developing and producing new military hardware. Indeed it is a military-industrial complex and Eisenhower warns us to be wary of the politcal power of this sector of the economy. Vigilence is needed to keep this power in check.
As for other complexes out there, perhaps a financial-congressional complex? I'm referring to the concept of "too big to fail" and the moral hazard that can result from it. Financial institutions are a necessary part of the economy, allowing for efficient pricing of company stocks, bond pricing, hedging risk, lending money, etc. These institutions need to be big to handle both the volume of financial transactions and the financial needs of big business and thus wield enormous political influence. They lobby politicians and those politicians support their interests. And so financial policy is a big issue in congress. Again the public must be aware of what is happening to prevent this relationship from getting out of control.
Perhaps another is the "complexity complex" (made up term). My thought is that certain industries require such specialized knowledge that the average person can only rely on the interpretation of specialists to be able to form an opinion on a political issues.
In fact, that's very frequently the case. So if you're talking limits and stuff, then you could possibly have several, or even infinite possibilities of utopias, which renders the term meaningless imo.
Why would that render it meaningless? There are theoretical constructs in mathematics that involve infinities and are not meaningless. (edit: I'm not sure that it is infinite, but assuming it were)
Second of all, I am not proposing conditions of optimality, I am only proposing conditions to make things better incrementally. So I can say "having this law is worse than not having this law." Think of it more like evolution. Evolution is very much an optimization process, but it doesn't ever end. It's constantly in flux. There's no end result to evolution, and there's no ideal to strive for.
I've studied some in the philosophy of biology, and this is also an open question. Evolutionary systems have emergent structure, which is not the same as a naive teleology (i.e. there's certainly no "perfect organism" which evolution tries to create), but there is something to the idea that complex systems can generate their own sort of telos - consider attractors in chaotic systems, as a simple illustration. Anyway, I think this question is terribly interesting, but exactly what kind of a thing evolution is, and how exactly it does what it does, remains to be seen.
edit: I think it might be fruitful at this point to suggest that utopia might be defined in terms of a set of principles which can be manifested in an indeterminate number of physical forms as actually-existing utopias. My own idea of utopia is a kind of generative society, so I am not hostile at all to the analogy to evolution.
Second of all, I am not proposing conditions of optimality, I am only proposing conditions to make things better incrementally.
"society with property A would be better than society with property B" implies "a society with property B would not be optimal", therefore it is a condition of optimality, albeit a negative one.
I mean useless as a discussion. Here you are trying to define utopia in such a way that it works. Utopia already has denotation and comes with quite a large girth of connotations. It's kind of like moving the goal posts. Yes I'm sure if you redefine the word it can work perfectly well. Why don't you use a different word or make up one of your own?
And again, skepticism demands that you can't assume that a utopia exists until it is demonstrated or proven.
Please do not think that George Orwell or some other second-rate thinker like that has the last word on utopia - what you think of when you think of the word is a purely twentieth century phenomenon, and is highly culturally situated.
I'll stop bugging you on this point. But I will say that I think the conversation is far from useless - in fact, it is far more useful than the sort of irrelevant banalities that people actually talk about when they talk about politics.
Enjoy your future.
And again, skepticism demands that you can't assume that a utopia exists until it is demonstrated or proven.
This is really beside the point. Why do people always go around demanding proof for things that aren't the sort of thing one proves? So exhausting. People should reflect more critically on their positivism.
(and skepticism is a very impoverished epistemology - the principle to which you should rather appeal is "suspended judgment and rigorous critical reflection")
On June 22 2012 02:13 Lightwip wrote: Come now, this game is extremely fun. Let's privatize the military so that we can have the free market resolve any inefficiencies in the program that aren't profitable. The power of free enterprise will prevail.
Uh. And you think we haven't?
Lockheed Martin? Boeing? General Dynamics? Northrop Grumman? Raytheon?
Ever hear of those guys?
Do you want to even begin to compare those guys to a state-owned militrary company like in China or Russia?
Sure, contractors are great(at overcharging), but who do you think pays for this military hardware? The free market?
These defense contractors need us to constantly be at war in order to maintain their profit levels, and they can contribute to campaigns (and Super PACs) to put a lot of pressure on politicians to look out for those interests. Meanwhile soldiers and their families pay the ultimate price for this, and the country can't afford to be throwing away money on one occupation after another.
As for other complexes out there, perhaps a financial-congressional complex?
Although it is clear which is Obama, I believe the same applies to the Republicants... however the road to such an end state, represented by both candidates, is faster with Obama and that is the only reason I would support Romney in this case. The religious right will have the same end results because once you start to control speech, abortion, religion in school and state then you end up with the same thing; there is no way to draw a line without having total control.
On June 23 2012 01:29 Epocalypse wrote: Good article on Socialism vs Fascism <--- which is Obama? http://bit.ly/MBLI05
Although it is clear which is Obama, I believe the same applies to the Republicants... however the road to such an end state, represented by both candidates, is faster with Obama and that is the only reason I would support Romney in this case. The religious right will have the same end results because once you start to control speech, abortion, religion in school and state then you end up with the same thing; there is no way to draw a line without having total control.
Thomas Sowell does not write good articles, sorry. He once suggested that Obama's creation of a relief fund for the BP oil spill equated him with Hitler. If you can't see the incredible stupidity in that, well you probably enjoyed that article.
On June 23 2012 01:29 Epocalypse wrote: Good article on Socialism vs Fascism <--- which is Obama? http://bit.ly/MBLI05
Although it is clear which is Obama, I believe the same applies to the Republicants... however the road to such an end state, represented by both candidates, is faster with Obama and that is the only reason I would support Romney in this case. The religious right will have the same end results because once you start to control speech, abortion, religion in school and state then you end up with the same thing; there is no way to draw a line without having total control.
Thomas Sowell does not write good articles, sorry. He once suggested that Obama's creation of a relief fund for the BP oil spill equated him with Hitler. If you can't see the incredible stupidity in that, well you probably enjoyed that article.
Link? And have you weighed the merits and demerits of this article? Maybe you can specifically address some of its points.
Phase 1 of Operation Call Out Romney's Bullshit complete.
To put this context, Romney gave a long speech to the NALEO the day before, talking about the need for long-term immigration reform, albeit in relatively broad strokes. Obama stabs him in the front by reminding the audience that he won the Republican party nomination and took out Rick Perry by promising to veto the Dream Act, and taking a hard line stance against immigration.
Obama needs to keep hammering Romney on his lack of integrity/consistency to stand a chance. Even if people secretly believe Romney is more moderate than the far-right positions he has taken during his campaign, at minimum it reveals that he's a charlaton that will pander to anyone.
On June 23 2012 01:29 Epocalypse wrote: Good article on Socialism vs Fascism <--- which is Obama? http://bit.ly/MBLI05
Although it is clear which is Obama, I believe the same applies to the Republicants... however the road to such an end state, represented by both candidates, is faster with Obama and that is the only reason I would support Romney in this case. The religious right will have the same end results because once you start to control speech, abortion, religion in school and state then you end up with the same thing; there is no way to draw a line without having total control.
Thomas Sowell does not write good articles, sorry. He once suggested that Obama's creation of a relief fund for the BP oil spill equated him with Hitler. If you can't see the incredible stupidity in that, well you probably enjoyed that article.
Link? And have you weighed the merits and demerits of this article? Maybe you can specifically address some of its points.
And yeah, Sowell's argumentation, much like that employed by the likes of Ann Coulter, Oliver North, and Michael Savage, revolves around an indecent means of political comparison predicated on grandiose oversimplification. Here are some excerpts from the article.
"Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s. Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left."
So here we have an insistence that everyone considered fascists left of center during the 20's, with a passing reference to W.E.B Du Bois and an incredibly biased contemporary piece of political opinion as evidence. A specious claim at best.
"What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat." This is unabashed biased political projection that makes static assumptions in regards to political definitions that are fundamentally fluidic in nature. In other words, an anti-Obama argument that revolves around defining the "left" and the "right" is really not an argument at all.
On June 23 2012 04:13 Mohdoo wrote: If gas prices keep going down, that's gonna be checkmate.
Lol. Pretty sure US elections are more complicated than "gas prices".
There are a lot of issues up in the air in this election, and we are still a very long way from the election. But considering how close Romney is to Obama in the polls and the fact that he is now out-fundraising him, I think one can say with confidence that Obama by no means has Romney in 'checkmate'. Just because you want him to win doesn't make it happen lol.
I'm going with the simplest equation for who wins, the past elections were measure by GDP growth. At 3% growth it is a literal toss up, at less than 3% the challenger wins, at greater than 3% the incumbent wins. Some guy did a study of the past 8 presidential elections accurately picking the winner and the percent of the vote earned based on GDP growth (getting 7/8 correct, obviously missing the gore/bush which accurately had the % of vote earned but missed the winner because of something the model doesn't check, so I consider it 8/8). It's only for the voting year that GDP is considered. Maybe someone else knows the guys website, I didn't bookmark it when I first read about his scientific method.
On June 23 2012 04:13 Mohdoo wrote: If gas prices keep going down, that's gonna be checkmate.
Lol. Pretty sure US elections are more complicated than "gas prices".
There are a lot of issues up in the air in this election, and we are still a very long way from the election. But considering how close Romney is to Obama in the polls and the fact that he is now out-fundraising him, I think one can say with confidence that Obama by no means has Romney in 'checkmate'. Just because you want him to win doesn't make it happen lol.
Romney's entire campaign is based around the fact that he will create a more financially viable united states. Gas prices are extremely central to that. Gas prices being low towards election times gives Romney a lot less to rag on Obama about.
On June 23 2012 01:29 Epocalypse wrote: Good article on Socialism vs Fascism <--- which is Obama? http://bit.ly/MBLI05
Although it is clear which is Obama, I believe the same applies to the Republicants... however the road to such an end state, represented by both candidates, is faster with Obama and that is the only reason I would support Romney in this case. The religious right will have the same end results because once you start to control speech, abortion, religion in school and state then you end up with the same thing; there is no way to draw a line without having total control.
Thomas Sowell does not write good articles, sorry. He once suggested that Obama's creation of a relief fund for the BP oil spill equated him with Hitler. If you can't see the incredible stupidity in that, well you probably enjoyed that article.
Link? And have you weighed the merits and demerits of this article? Maybe you can specifically address some of its points.
And yeah, Sowell's argumentation, much like that employed by the likes of Ann Coulter, Oliver North, and Michael Savage, revolves around an indecent means of political comparison predicated on grandiose oversimplification. Here are some excerpts from the article.
"Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s. Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left."
So here we have an insistence that everyone considered fascists left of center during the 20's, with a passing reference to W.E.B Du Bois and an incredibly biased contemporary piece of political opinion as evidence. A specious claim at best.
"What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat." This is unabashed biased political projection that makes static assumptions in regards to political definitions that are fundamentally fluidic in nature. In other words, an anti-Obama argument that revolves around defining the "left" and the "right" is really not an argument at all.
I don't like the left to right scale in the first place. But fascism and socialism are both variations of "Collectivism" The difference between the two is just as Sowell described it. And ultimately both violate properly defined "Individual Rights" (this is a redundant term as rights only can belong to individuals...but necessary to distinguish from today's claim of rights such as a right to a doctor's time and effort) The scale should be Collectivism on one side, Capitalism on the other. No party today represents Capitalism, despite what they claim. No party today understands Capitalism and its necessary defense.
"A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free—a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny.
The American system of checks and balances was just such an achievement. And although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of statism, the incomparable achievement was the concept of a constitution as a means of limiting and restricting the power of the government." - Ayn Rand
These two articles are the first ones I've read from Sowell, I haven't heard of the other people you've mentioned. In the article that you link to my only disagreement was Sowell's defense of the US as a "Democracy" which unfortunately it is turning into (and to its demise) However, a proper government is not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic. - So his premise is false and therefore negates the articles integrity. However that does not mean one cannot extract useful points. As for the BP oil spill, I do not know enough to judge Sowell's representation, he mentions that money is being stolen from BP however does not demonstrate why and leaves the reader in the dark. Also I read a long history of the wrongful destruction of the gold standard by FDR, but this was a long time ago and I cannot remember the details. I have "The Roosevelt Myth" on my bookshelf but it's not a priority of mine. Here's a link to the PDF for anybody interested. http://bit.ly/NiEYnc
Ultimately both parties are atrocious, however I believe Romney would be less aggressive in change toward the negative as compared to Obama. Both Obama and Romney, however, in a historical perspective would be considered monsters by past presidential standards. FDR, on the other hand, might have said "Obama, don't show your cards so much or they might figure out what you're trying to accomplish."
On June 23 2012 04:13 Mohdoo wrote: If gas prices keep going down, that's gonna be checkmate.
Lol. Pretty sure US elections are more complicated than "gas prices".
There are a lot of issues up in the air in this election, and we are still a very long way from the election. But considering how close Romney is to Obama in the polls and the fact that he is now out-fundraising him, I think one can say with confidence that Obama by no means has Romney in 'checkmate'. Just because you want him to win doesn't make it happen lol.
Romney's entire campaign is based around the fact that he will create a more financially viable united states. Gas prices are extremely central to that. Gas prices being low towards election times gives Romney a lot less to rag on Obama about.
The only reason Romney could have any effect on gas prices is if he frees up the market to do what it does best. By lifting restrictions, regulations, and lowering taxes, gas and all other things will go down in price. After all, when you raise taxes on corporations guess who pays those taxes? Not the corporations! They simply raise the price of the product and the consumer then foots the bill. This is straight as can be and Obama knows it too. Unfortunately it's the middle to lower classes that suffer most the more you stray away from Capitalism.
"The middle class is the heart, the lifeblood, the energy source of a free, industrial economy, i.e., of capitalism; it did not and cannot exist under any other system; it is the product of upward mobility, incompatible with frozen social castes. Do not ask, therefore, for whom the bell of inflation is tolling; it tolls for you. It is not at the destruction of a handful of the rich that inflation is aimed (the rich are mostly in the vanguard of the destroyers), but at the middle class." - Ayn Rand
To take a simple example: Walmart took the lower class and raised them to the middle by making everything affordable. On the other hand, inflation, tax hikes, all work against affordable goods... the rich need not worry, they can afford it. It's the middle and lower classes who suffer when such policies are put in place.
On June 23 2012 04:13 Mohdoo wrote: If gas prices keep going down, that's gonna be checkmate.
Lol. Pretty sure US elections are more complicated than "gas prices".
There are a lot of issues up in the air in this election, and we are still a very long way from the election. But considering how close Romney is to Obama in the polls and the fact that he is now out-fundraising him, I think one can say with confidence that Obama by no means has Romney in 'checkmate'. Just because you want him to win doesn't make it happen lol.
Romney's entire campaign is based around the fact that he will create a more financially viable united states. Gas prices are extremely central to that. Gas prices being low towards election times gives Romney a lot less to rag on Obama about.
The only reason Romney could have any effect on gas prices is if he frees up the market to do what it does best. By lifting restrictions, regulations, and lowering taxes, gas and all other things will go down in price. After all, when you raise taxes on corporations guess who pays those taxes? Not the corporations! They simply raise the price of the product and the consumer then foots the bill. This is straight as can be and Obama knows it too. Unfortunately it's the middle to lower classes that suffer most the more you stray away from Capitalism.
"The middle class is the heart, the lifeblood, the energy source of a free, industrial economy, i.e., of capitalism; it did not and cannot exist under any other system; it is the product of upward mobility, incompatible with frozen social castes. Do not ask, therefore, for whom the bell of inflation is tolling; it tolls for you. It is not at the destruction of a handful of the rich that inflation is aimed (the rich are mostly in the vanguard of the destroyers), but at the middle class." - Ayn Rand
To take a simple example: Walmart took the lower class and raised them to the middle by making everything affordable. On the other hand, inflation, tax hikes, all work against affordable goods... the rich need not worry, they can afford it. It's the middle and lower classes who suffer when such policies are put in place.
Ugh.....posts like this hurt my brain. Corporations just "raise prices" in response to increased taxes? What are you even...?
That's just straight up wrong. Taxes, according to free market theory (I say theory with a grain of salt here, too....), generate inefficiencies in the market (which, I think, are measured by the difference between supply and demand curve at the given price, correct me if I'm wrong, econ's been awhile), with the degree of those inefficiencies dependent on the elasticity of the demand curve. Consumers end up paying more, but corporations don't increase prices, the taxes are the increased price themselves....
That's like really basic econ stuff, which as always has a bunch of overly simplified assumptions around it....and let's not forget about taxes actually being useful for correcting externalities not captures within markets.
But hey, let's all be right-wing and quote Ayn Rand (a quote that, itself, barely says anything at all and none of it worthwhile, by the way) and say shit that makes no sense but that we somehow believe justifies libertarian ideology.
And again, freeing up the oil market....what? Like lifting taxes which pays for the infrastructure necessary to run an oil based economy (-> roads)? Taxes on oil/gas are already low in America, and the entire industry generates massive externalities that need to be rectified in some way (yay environmental destruction!). I'm assuming the response to all of these issues is going to be "privatize all the things!", of course.....
AND let's not forget that oil is actually an important global commodity, and as such it's prices are determined by global demand, something the president actually has essentially no control over unless he/she starts implementing *gasp* non-free-market solutions.
To put this context, Romney gave a long speech to the NALEO the day before, talking about the need for long-term immigration reform, albeit in relatively broad strokes. Obama stabs him in the front by reminding the audience that he won the Republican party nomination and took out Rick Perry by promising to veto the Dream Act, and taking a hard line stance against immigration.
Obama needs to keep hammering Romney on his lack of integrity/consistency to stand a chance. Even if people secretly believe Romney is more moderate than the far-right positions he has taken during his campaign, at minimum it reveals that he's a charlaton that will pander to anyone.
He's a republican candidate... It won't be very hard to hammer him for integrity/consistency issues... See it's not like Obama really did anything in the White house that was "ground breaking" but he's just flat out a better public speaker than everyone else right now... It's borderline embarassing Romney is even in the debate, he's more redneck than the Red Green show, and he's sold himself more times through "favours" than a thai hooker.
I think we are all missing Ron Paul, I mean no one talks about him in the media (because they are told not to would be my general thought) but he's gaining heat ... Like I mean really gaining heat, "embarassing" is what was stated in the video by how much he actually has backing him.
EDITS
Shit doublecheck this shit, I actually had exams past month... He's still running right? He was ripping shit.
Looks like he is kinda on the fence, support still is growing though according to various sources I'm reading now.
On June 23 2012 09:12 BallinWitStalin wrote: That's just straight up wrong. Taxes, according to free market theory (I say theory with a grain of salt here, too....), generate inefficiencies in the market (which, I think, are measured by the difference between supply and demand curve at the given price, correct me if I'm wrong, econ's been awhile), with the degree of those inefficiencies dependent on the elasticity of the demand curve. Consumers end up paying more, but corporations don't increase prices, the taxes are the increased price themselves....
Was talking about Corporate taxes. Yes, when you raise Corp taxes corps then increase the price of their goods and pass it along to the consumer.
AND let's not forget that oil is actually an important global commodity, and as such it's prices are determined by global demand, something the president actually has essentially no control over unless he/she starts implementing *gasp* non-free-market solutions.
You're correct here, it is an international market and that's why it's the harder to control international prices... the whole "Speculators are the reason" and "oil tyranny this..." conspiracy is retard and Obama has gone on the record saying it's speculator's faults.
EPT
