US government shutdown - Page 86

On October 10 2013 22:54 Alex1Sun wrote:

I'll comment on the second part only. I feel that there is some truth in it, but only up to a certain point. Fully centralized economic planning is no doubt bad for economic development, as evidenced by the fall of USSR and many other pro-communistic regimes. However median living standards in US are quite subpar in comparison to most socialist/capitalist hybrid economies, such as Canada, Australia and a number of Western and Northern European countries.

The problem, as I see it, is that unregulated markets (as well as a markets regulated by business-bribed governments) are prone to business oligopoly or even monopoly/duopoly, which leads to high business profits only for large businesses combined with crappy services, unfair prices and low median wages. Also modern consumers are often swayed by advertisements more than by quality or price. Therefore some control by the government as well as some limited products and services provided directly by the government appear to be the best solution. The main problem with this hybrid socialist/capitalist approach is that for it to be efficient the government should be relatively independent from the big business and no too corrupt. Unfortunately the later is not always the case (hint: Greece). As for the USA, it may well not be ready for more socialism right now, not sure...

On October 11 2013 00:58 Vegetarian wrote:


I agree that living standards are worse in the US than a lot of other seemingly socialist countries. However, I think the USA gets an unfair reputation of being a capitalist economy. Taxes are higher in the USA than in China and most other countries. USA Corporate taxes are some of the highest in the world. The government debt to GDP ratio, if you count unfunded liabilities, is the largest in the world. Regulations in the USA are so burdensome that many companies have been relocating and moving operations overseas.

I've never heard of a way that I think regulation could work other than through the invisible hand of the market. The way I see it if the government is granted the power to regulate an industry then overnight one thing will change. The companies in that industry will no longer be competing against each other solely to provide a better product or service at a better value than their competition. Regulation introduces another way for companies to gain market share through lobbying the government to use the regulatory power to their advantage or to the detriment of their competitors. The most heavily regulated industry in the USA is finance and I don't think I am alone in considering it the most corrupt industry in this country,

You say that consumers can be gullible and choose products wrongly in an unregulated market. But, government officials are no different except that they are in charge of spending other peoples money and not their own. This is also very subjective. In a free market no one can force you to buy a product or service so if someone chooses to buy a product or service they have made a determination that it is a beneficial transaction for them. Retailers also provide a check on manufacturers. Most stores are not going to want to stock faulty or contaminated products as they know they would eventually lose market share to a store that becomes known for better quality products or one that has a more favorable return policy.

Lastly, the market really does self-regulate. GMO products are not labelled by the FDA in the USA, yet there is a private company that certifies products as non gmo and puts their stamp/reputation on products they approve. http://www.nongmoproject.org/ This company and others like consumerlab.com for vitamin supplements, and consumerreports indirectly regulate industries by offering reviews and tests of products. Companies like this would lose market share or go out of business if they approved a product that was later determined to be faulty as they would lose credibility if this occurred. On the other hand if a government regulatory agency like the FDA approves a drug that later turns out be unsafe the FDA does not lose its monopoly.

Taxes are higher in the USA than in China and most other countries. USA Corporate taxes are some of the highest in the world. The government debt to GDP ratio, if you count unfunded liabilities, is the largest in the world. Regulations in the USA are so burdensome that many companies have been relocating and moving operations overseas.

On October 11 2013 01:20 mcc wrote:

Considering that you link to mises.org I assume you are one of those people who claim that displayed preference is actual preference. That is contrary to what we know about human brain. The argument that the fact that government organizations consist of humans means they cannot know better than singular human is of course nonsensical. There is something called expertise, some people just know better. Of course the hard thing is to make sure that the decisions are made by the people with actual expertise and prevent them from bending the system for their gain. In many areas of life this actually is successfully done. Properly designed organizations of the type like FDA and other regulatory agencies work pretty well. Much better than self-regulatory attempts in many cases. Self-regulatory agencies do not solve one-off scams that do not care about repeat customers. You can argue that if you buy something from such a business it is your fault, but history shows that such a scenario is extremely common even in completely unregulated markets and thus solving it is a task of the government as per its task description.

As for your examples of self-regulatory agencies, you can do better. There are actually successful examples of such that are relevant. Those two that you mentioned cannot lose basically anything by doing anything as GMOs vs non-GMO is completely irrelevant as both of those products are checked by FDA for health hazards. Same goes for vitamin supplements. And so what they are actually doing ? Checking if there is some GMO in the product, who cares, there is probably no functional difference. And vitamin supplements are one big scam, sorry, in 99% completely unnecessary product whose sales are driven purely by misinformed consumers.

EDIT: Also US taxes are not higher than in most other developed countries. Also for you previous post, can you provide any example of welfare state going bankrupt, you say it is inevitable, but the incidence of such events is rather low (non-existent basically).

On October 10 2013 20:17 paralleluniverse wrote:
Remember when the shutdown was about Obamacare?

Now, Republicans have changed their ransom. Their talking points these past few days have shifted. There's no mention of Obamacare, and it's all about budget negotiations and gutting welfare. Budget negotiations which they've rejected dozens of times before they decided to hold the economy to ransom.

Just goes to show how clueless and desperate their strategy is. A week ago, a Republican congressman said to a reporter:

This statement gets truer by the day.

No, Republicans won't get anything out of this. Obama cannot negotiate or offer anything. Because if he does so, this legitimizes hostage-taking, and the next time the debt ceiling needs to be raised or a government shutdown needs to be avoided, the minority party (e.g. a Democratic House against a Republican President), will threaten to destroy the economy unless their political agenda is implemented (e.g. raising taxes on the rich). This strategy of blackmail is an affront to the democratic process, regardless of the party of the President, and CANNOT be allowed to succeed. There is no choice but to give nothing.

On October 11 2013 01:51 jeremysaint wrote:
vegetarian, your statement below regarding corporate taxes is demonstrably false.

"I agree that living standards are worse in the US than a lot of other seemingly socialist countries. However, I think the USA gets an unfair reputation of being a capitalist economy. Taxes are higher in the USA than in China and most other countries. USA Corporate taxes are some of the highest in the world. "

the usa corporate tax rate is one of the lowest in the world and in some cases it is less that 0.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057306/Thirty-biggest-U-S-companies-paid-zero-income-tax-years-despite-making-combined-profits-160billion.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/16-giant-corporations-have-basically-stopped-paying-taxes

the official maximum rate of 39 percent is on the high side, but since the system is designed so that no one pays that, it doesnt matter.

this was not hard to find out, and for that matter is pretty common knowledge.

On October 11 2013 02:13 Vegetarian wrote:


Try reading the articles that you cited. An excerpt for you to consider: "The statutory U.S. corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world;"

Not sure how my statement is false when your article corroborates it. Further, you don't seem to understand that the 35% rate is not the full corporate tax. You need to take payroll taxes into account as well as the dividend tax rate of 15%. For comparison, in Communist China the corporate tax rate is 25% and the dividend tax is 10%.

And, just because the giant politically connected companies that are large enough to be able to take advantage of loopholes that they lobbied for don't pay the absurd tax rate doesn't mean other companies don't. The 30 largest companies are not indicative of the rate that most companies pay in the USA.

On October 11 2013 02:10 Kaitlin wrote:


Obama wasn't and couldn't give in on Obamacare. Obama never said he wouldn't negotiate, just that he wouldn't negotiate over Obamacare. He WILL negotiate with Republicans and the Republicans WILL extract more budgetary concessions from Obama and the Democrats. In fact, every debt ceiling negotiation which the Republicans choose to negotiate concessions through, they will.

On October 11 2013 01:53 Vegetarian wrote:


The FDA has a horrendous track record of approving unsafe drugs, artificial sweeteners, and other food additives. You also make no argument as to how government regulation can overcome my arguments against it. How do you see government regulation solving scams better than the free market? Can you give an explanation? I have already given lengthy ones. I am also curious about these extremely common scenarios you speak of in unregulated markets can you give even one example?

GMO vs non GMO is not irrelevant. The FDA approves gmo food because large agricultural firms in the USA lobby the FDA despite the growing evidence that they are not safe for human consumption. GMOS are banned or restricted in all of the EU, Japan, Australia and a bunch of other developed countries.

Contrary to your post vitamin supplements are not tested by the FDA. Consumerlab.com tests them for purity and traces of heavy metals and other toxins. And, I think you have it backwards on vitamin supplements. I think they are definitely necessary in the modern environment if you are trying to achieve optimal health. I am not arguing you cant survive to age 70 without supplements, but with soil erosion and modern environmental toxins you will be hard pressed to have optimal health without taking any supplements.

On October 11 2013 02:20 HellRoxYa wrote:


The concept is simple: Government institutions work for the people, private institutions (businesses) work for their shareholders.

Safe food is a public issue, where whoever handles it should be responsible to those it affects. This very basic argument leads up to conclude that it should not be handled by private interests. If you have a problem with the FDA it's probably because it, like many if not most other government institutions in the US, is bought and paid for by private interests. Pretending this problem of corruption would magically go away if you directly shifted it over to the private sector is a ridiculous claim. Clean up the FDA and make it work like intended instead of pretending that it can't work.

As usual the problem is that you need reform in the US. No corruption, no lobbying (or at least, reasonable lobbying). The problem is not, however, that the government handles issues of safety for the population. It doesn't help that one half in US political debates maintain this vision of government = bad because it leads politicians from that side to time and again validate their arguments by literally making the government not work optimally. Even clearer when they make parts of the government not work at all, like right now. Or when they make sure actual improvements to healthcare (don't really care if you're against big government, single-payer systems are more economical, even if you don't also find them inherently moral like I do) are reduced to something like the ACA, which is just a hollow shell of what it could be.

Lastly, what the hell does "soil erosion" and "environmental toxins" have to do with eating food without supplements? The problem is eating the right food, not that the right food cannot be found. Although the latter is becoming a bigger and bigger problem in the US, but not because of soil erosion or environmental issues. (It's because of social attitudes and big business which together create a situation where fast food restaurants and fast food in stores becomes more and more popular while healthy alternatives are left unsold, leading stores and restaurants that serve these healthy alternatives to either change their stock or menu or close)

businesses can only appease their shareholders by increasing the value of their company which they can only do by offering better products or services to the people than their competitors.

On October 11 2013 03:08 ddrddrddrddr wrote:


That is naiive. You can do it by buying up competitors, undercutting, propaganda, lobby for regulations against competitor's interests, cut costs, out sourcing, etc. Better product is one of maaaany ways to profit.

On October 11 2013 03:13 WhiteDog wrote:

You argue that countries with high taxation rate have lower living conditions, then when someone argue that "socialists" countries have both higher taxation rate and living conditions, you respond that the US does not really have a low taxation rate if you compare it to... China.
Your whole point of view are based on nothing but the negation of what is.

On October 11 2013 03:26 Vegetarian wrote:


No, you should reread my posts if you even read them in the first place. Countries that have a high taxation rate will have lower economic growth than countries with a lower tax rate. And this is very evident in socialist countries that experienced higher rates of growth before they instituted higher tax rates and welfare states.

Someone argued that, but just like you they were unable to source their claims since USA corporate taxes are the highest of any developed country in the world. Nothing is stopping you from comparing tax rates of the USA to EU countries, I chose to compare USA taxes to China because I found it amusing that the communists have lower rates of taxation than we do.

Someone argued that, but just like you they were unable to source their claims since USA corporate taxes are the highest of any developed country in the world. Nothing is stopping you from comparing tax rates of the USA to EU countries, I chose to compare USA taxes to China because I found it amusing that the communists have lower rates of taxation than we do.

On October 11 2013 01:53 Vegetarian wrote:


The FDA has a horrendous track record of approving unsafe drugs, artificial sweeteners, and other food additives. You also make no argument as to how government regulation can overcome my arguments against it. How do you see government regulation solving scams better than the free market? Can you give an explanation? I have already given lengthy ones. I am also curious about these extremely common scenarios you speak of in unregulated markets can you give even one example?

GMO vs non GMO is not irrelevant. The FDA approves gmo food because large agricultural firms in the USA lobby the FDA despite the growing evidence that they are not safe for human consumption. GMOS are banned or restricted in all of the EU, Japan, Australia and a bunch of other developed countries.

Contrary to your post vitamin supplements are not tested by the FDA. Consumerlab.com tests them for purity and traces of heavy metals and other toxins. And, I think you have it backwards on vitamin supplements. I think they are definitely necessary in the modern environment if you are trying to achieve optimal health. I am not arguing you cant survive to age 70 without supplements, but with soil erosion and modern environmental toxins you will be hard pressed to have optimal health without taking any supplements.