Printable View
The problem is there are many areas of research the private sector will not fund for one reason or another and some types of research that are too expensive so the Govt steps in here. If the Govt didn't get involved there are many medical devices and procedures that simply would not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by ats200
And yet I wonder why the Govt is speeding headlong toward financial insolvencyQuote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Ahhh the old addage comes to mind...
"Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
Come on gents seriously, some of us are old enough to remember when Insurance itself was voluntary, so were seat belts, infant seats, smoking in a car even, it was the insurance companies and their lobbyists that changed all that.. If you seriously think these devices will continue to be "voluntary" yer smoking the wrong pipe :)
And now we have a proof that 'wrong' is relative :pQuote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
I truly believe it would still exist but there's really no way to validly argue either side of this. If the private sector isn't funding something important, it's because the government is. If there were no government run education system, would there be no schools? Yes, there would be, and I would almost guarantee they'd be far superior. I believe this same concept would translate into any sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
If there's no private demand for an industry, it shouldn't exist.
I find all that government vs. private business bashing ridiculous.
The free market is great at doing profitable stuff efficiently, the government is for doing stuff that need to be done even if they are unprofitable, just because that's part of having a functioning society. Not everything in this world is based on making profit.
Do you think if the government wouldn't be providing things like laws, judicial system, or law enforcement those won't exist? They will come from private entities and would be far superior for those who can afford them and suck really badly for those who can't.
I think you're confused on what exactly is meant by government vs. private business.
Government does have a use and a reason, they are what you described. Laws, enforcement, judicial, legislative, etc. All of these duties are clearly outlined in documents made long ago.
Capitalism comes into play with everything else. Reverting back to education which I think is a good example, of course some private sector schools would be better than others and some would be astronomically priced. But there would also be a market for good, average schools. Does everyone deserve an education? Yes. Is it currently being provided to them? No.
I'm not far out of high school, about 5 years, but I know for a fact that they hand out diplomas like candy on Halloween. I have to admit that many of my friends, and myself included, did not deserve to graduate. The system is a joke and needs to be fixed. If you don't put in the time and work, you fail and you dig ditches. If you're committed and intelligent, you go on to something else. It's not reasonable to tell every kid that they can be an astronaut or lawyer - it just wont happen.
(that turned into more of an argument about our schools, but this was the result of the public, government run, system)
Sure, if you want to look at the specific case of the federal government of the USA instead of considering the role of a government in the philosophical sense, you may even end up with an extremely narrow understanding of something specific for over 200 years ago. But if you want to be strict purist you better give up your internet or phone service in favor of communicating through letters only.Quote:
Originally Posted by ats200
Last I checked there were plenty of fantastic private schools, some of my friends teach there. May be you could've spent the 50,000/year tuition to go to one of them instead of to the inferior government system and could've had different results.Quote:
Originally Posted by ats200
I apologize, I thought we were referring to the US whose governmental basis was pretty much a revolution for the modern world. Maybe if it had stayed as it was intended instead of growing into the unstoppable monstrosity it is today, we'd be more successful as a whole. Of course it's different when you look at the concept of government in a philosophical sense, there are numerous different types that can be argued.
Do you know why there are private schools? Because public schools suck and someone wanted to change things. If there were no public schools, there would be affordable private schools and it would have a huge demand and be very profitable.
Look at the higher education industry. There are plenty of options for all ranges. Some are state schools and some are private. I could have gone to Harvard and been in debt for my entire life, a cheaper private school, maybe for an associates degree, or a state funded school for a degree far inferior to one from Harvard.
Let's face it - rich people will always have an advantage and lower and middle class people will always struggle. It's true today, it was true in the 20s, and it'll be true 50 years from now. The difference is that the government has absolutely no business in any private industry and I'd of much rather paid to go to high school and actually received some sort of benefit from my classes rather than getting it for "free" and wasting all those years. I have no problem being raised middle class, but I'll work my ass off to try to make sure my family has it a little bit better when that time comes.
Should the government be controlling our currency? No. absolutely not. The list keeps getting bigger.
Uhm, you may want to try again, perhaps after consulting with a history textbook. Private education predates public education by thousands of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by ats200
I don't now of any single piece of evidence that would support such assertion. At the same time you can have you hearts desire of cases historical, and contemporary, when the government has not been involved with education and they are characterized by the lack, not the availability ofQuote:
Originally Posted by ats200
Indeed look at it - plenty of options, yet high quality affordable education is lacking. The only exception is the university of california system, which is government. The worst buy - the bottom tier 'for profit' institutions which are bordering with a fraud/scam.Quote:
Originally Posted by ats200
Do you want another example - straight razors. Purely for profit driven market and guess how many people buy the likes of zee-pk and douglas cutlery?
The difference with education is that the choices of the parents affect the rest of the life of their children and we're talking huge fraction of the population.
The free market dynamics produces huge disparities, that seem to only increase with time, so the more you're screwed the more you'll be screwed, until the society simply falls apart. In other words the equilibrium you're assuming does not exist and unless you start in the upper classes you are going to be getting worse (that's statistically, of course, which is the model for a society).Quote:
Originally Posted by ats200
Before just going with the purely ideological assumption that you'll be better off, you really want to look at the distribution of the local taxes which are the ones that fund education in most places. Chances are that you were subsidized by those in the higher income brackets, so if you simply take your (actually your parents') money that went into the education it'd only be enough to purchase worse education than what you received.Quote:
Originally Posted by ats200
BTW nobody is forcing you to live with the government controlled currency. Where I live there are alternative currencies that the local hippies have been using for at least twenty years. I hear other places in the country have such things as well. And as of several years ago there are internet currencies as well. If the government controlled currency was such an evil you'd think that the free market would've taken care and made all the alternative local currencies expand to national.
Or people can be simply self sufficient and for the few things they are not do bartering. It's not like it's never happened before.
Remember sitting on your father's lap and driving the car yourself? Do that with your kid's and see what happens when Officer Friendly pulls you over. Reminds me of the quote from Franklin, :Anybody who would give up their essential liberty for security deserves neither." And this is what has happened and is still happening now.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
Last time I looked there was no pill you took in the morning before you went to class to make you attentive and want to learn. If H.S was a waste take some responsibility. If you wanted to do well in school what held you back? Were the staff really that horrible?
Private schools can cherry pick students and have the ability to lavish time and money which public schools don't.
I can sit here and pick apart your responses too. The reality is that it's just a difference in opinion and ideology.
If it were so clear that one side were better than the other regarding anything with the government, there would be no debates, arguments, or different political parties.
I happen to believe the government should stay away, you feel they should be more involved. I'd never think differently of someone for not having the same thoughts as I do but we all know topics like these are pointless because we're not going to sway opinions. Something big has to happen before people change their minds and until it does, there will be opposing viewpoints. For example, no one is going to argue that cigarettes aren't bad for you anymore.
This is incorrect. What I think is that there are things the government ought to be more involved in than it is now, and others where it ought to be less involved in or not at all. And those are not fixed once and for all by an ideology or historical fact, but have change over time as is needed for the better function of the society. I'd call that more a matter of worldview, not an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ats200
The problem is that in reality, the government only grows. I might agree with your position if I ever saw government actually remove itself from anything. I hear about new laws all the time but never about repealing them. For the last 40+ years at least, government has only increased it's intervention...its meddling...in markets and society.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Further, assuming your position is correct, and the federal government should "change over time", there is a process for that, the amendment process. I find it unconscionable that we have so long ignored the law of the land.
Pardon my candor, but that sounds really arrogant.Quote:
I'd call that more a matter of worldview, not an opinion.
Hey, don't blame me, this isn't my country and I don't have any part in how it's run. I say if you don't like what your politicians do, elect better ones. And if you can't do that, may be the way the founding fathers set it up isn't all that great after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by eflatminor
I didn't realize you had no skin in the game. Sorry to have wasted the bandwidth.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Uhm, it's dangerous to extrapolate without having any knowledge of the pertinent facts. I live in USA and pay taxes that support the USA government. Not being an american for years I've paid more than the americans, without getting the benefits that they do because that's what the law is. So, I'd fall under that taxation without representation thing, which I'm perfectly fine with it, as it's my own choice.
But yeah, I'd argue that I've put more skin in the game than most (and knowing the income and tax distributions in this country, this is also a factually true statement).
I think it's gotten to the point where this is an argument more than a discussion.
"You're just being contrary"
"No I'm not"
Monty Python - Argument Clinic - YouTube
Attachment 88191Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
"Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"
They say, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." So why do we repeat things that we know aren't working?
There's major changes coming to all of our countries. And God help us all.
It's funny how folks keep harping on how Govt has grown so much but I never hear about how corporations have grown so big. In fact they are the ones who sit in the background and really control things including Govt and it's because of them Govt has gotten so big in many areas.
That's a fair point until you realize that the only way corporations get so big is via CRONY capitalism, which always requires a big government politician on the other side of that equation. Rather than criticizing companies that have taken advantage of favorable tax rates, loopholes or bailouts, I choose direct my ire towards the government bureaucrats that meddle in markets not permitted by the Constitution. As much as I dislike companies that were bailed out or that get political favors, they are not breaking the law and they are acting in the best interest of their stakeholders. Big gov meddling exceeds the confines of the Constitution and as one look at the debt will show, they do not act in the best interest of the taxpayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Be angry at both big business and big government, but please don't think that "your guy" in government will be immune to the campaign contributions and favors that business is happy to offer in exchange for political protection/favorable regulation/bailouts, etc. Nobody has magic beans in their pocket. Only those politicians that stand against ANY meddling in markets can possibly reduce the influence of big corporations. After all, if one is not willing to even entertain the idea of picking winners or loser in a market, they can't be bought by big business.
Yes and also remember all those tax codes were written by the rich folks and corporations through their lobbyists so as to create such favoritism. The type of political system we have begs the problems. It (meaning the problems) have been around since the earliest times even in the days of small govt and the corruption was probably worse back in the 1800s.Quote:
Originally Posted by eflatminor
Don't meddle with the markets and you return to the extreme boom and bust cycles tied to capitalism that has plagued this country since it's inception. No, big Govt doesn't prevent this however it mutes it and helps pick up the pieces.
I couldn't disagree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
+100. Sad really that in my country capitalism bashing, and the "eat the rich" mentality has become so ubiquitous. Show me historical proof that ANY system has done better over the long haul than unfettered capitalism. Granted, we Americans tend to be a bit slow on the uptake sometimes but isn't the EU about to implode because womb to tomb security that is all the rage in socialism just is NOT sustainable. A Cuban friend at work is equally puzzled by America's infatuation with socialism. He says in Cuban everyone is equal, equally miserable. Cuba, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Vietnam, tell me one place at one time in history where a government ensuring equal results for all has ever worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by eflatminor
Capitalism is far from perfect but I don't know that it's all together accurate to say that it has plagued our country since it's inception. How many stories have you heard about people who rolled into Ellis Island with $5 in their pocket and unable to speak a syllable of English only to become well to do business owners a few years later. Limited oversight is not a bad thing but the problem is governments everywhere have never been very good at limiting anything to pragmatic levels. Slippery slopes are often exaggerated but this one need not be. In the last hundred years or so we've done some good things with government oversight (child labor laws, time off, benefits for workers etc.) Regrettably though, large segments of the population has become dependent on the government to do for them what they should be doing for themselves. Not to mention what the entitlment attitude has done to the once powerful "protestant work ethic" or what the firmly entrenched welfare state has done to destroy the American family.
You know, the negative about having a bottle opener on your car key ring is it makes it difficult to open your beers while you're driving...
Just thought I'd mention that in case they put little cameras in our cars. The whole world has gone completely insane, I don't actually trust insurance companies to pay up, anyway. I bet they all back out and during the upcoming zombie apocalypse anyway, or whatever comes after they unleash that new strain of chicken flu they cooked up. Anyone hear about that?
I'm going to be a cross between Henry David Thoreau and that guy in The omega Man (or I Am Legend). I think maybe I should start working on a shaving cream recipe now...
I have a friend working as anauditor for a major insurence company who said that a couple of years ago, the insurence industry were tinkering with the idea of getting a law passed to have all new production cars fitted with brethylizer starters and having older cars retro fitted with them at no cost. They had the backing of the Federal and state governments and knew they would have the backing of manysafety advocacy groups. They've shelved the idea for now though because they were getting some tension from both the auto industry and the law enforcement unions. My friend said that it is only a matter of time before the idea gets put back on the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider
Entitlement attitude?
How about corporate welfare and entitlement attitude from them? All the laws that are and have been passed written by lobbyists and corporate interests to benefit them? What's the difference?
Just because a segment abuses something doesn't mean you throw it out. You regulate more har har but that means bigger govt doesn't it?
I think the main problem which stems all the issues is that we have a two-party system. In my opinion, it will NEVER work again in the future of the US. Everyone votes and lobbies based on self interest and will oppose the other party at all costs.
As extremist as it sounds, the US will have to go through an overthrow of some sort before anything gets better. We keep electing criminals and horrible people because the only people who can actually afford to legitimately run are those with financial backing from the political powerhouses. Look at Ron Paul for example - I believe he'd be great and change a lot of things but because he's not favored by the party (because he's not a puppet), he gets relatively no recognition, air time, or serious consideration. I'm sure the Dems have candidates like this also of which I am unaware.
I should say I don't drive over the limit, though I do at times have one or two stubbies on a long trip. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus
Actually I have said it. The problem is most people think that they are two entities, no they are not, one has bought and paid for the other. The problem on the Democrat side of the aisle is that they think the Govt.(owned by banks, oil, insurance, etc) should have regulatory control over the banks, oil, insurance companies. The problem on the Republican side of the aisle is that they think Capitalism equates with free markets, individual liberty and Jesus Christ. Neither view is correct. The truth is that the corporations control the govt of the US, notice who got the stimulus? How many people are still looking for that "shovel ready job"? What we have is socialism for the sake of the Capitalists/Industrialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
I hear it all the timeQuote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
edit: kelly beat me to it
(as an outsider) of course they are the same. That's going to happen when big corporations fund the 'race'.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Capitalism equates to Jesus? Seriously? I would have thought Socialism would have been closer. I think we're starting to see the fall of Capitalism. In fact, I think we're about a 1/4 of the way into the fall...I'll give a year, tops...
Who do you think is pushing and funding the fall?
The bit about JC is to give a you a sense of the self righteousness of some of those on the right.
Ummm, us?Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
I don't know a lot about this sort of stuff, but I read that the basics of capitalism is of course making profit and keeping the shareholders happy. That means you must either sell more stuff, or reduce costs of production. Some costs are fixed. The problem is there is technically a finite number of products consumers 'need', so you need to cajole them into buying different 'better' things, like stripy toothpaste and electric toothbrushes. But there's only so far you can push that, so you then reduce costs of production my exploiting your workers (reducing salaries and terms and conditions of employment). Of course, the 'knowledgeable' 'Western' populace only stand so much of that, so then you ship manufacturing off shore to Asia, where they're (for a time) only too happy to be exploited, because at least they have a job and don't starve. But then they get 'cashed up' to some degree, look around at what 'we' have got, and want it too. And why shouldn't they? But the planet we live on can't sustain that, so we say they can't have what we have. (and that includes food, water and shelter). The next chapter is the rampaging hoards that live mainly in the equatorial regions (those regions where the greater population live and those areas prone to extreme weather with the changing climate) come and GET what we, in the polar regions, still have, because our climate can still sustain food growth, to some extent.
I do try to resist Capitalism as much as I can, but I must admit I'm typing this on a brand new lap top. My move the straight razor shaving (and all things vintage; (cameras, cufflinks, fountain pens, etc etc) is related to me NOT wanting to be part of a greedy capitalist consumerist society.
OK, I'll go now...bye
(PS, the Nazi party also thought that God had given them the right to do what they did...)
Isn't the line between the two entities getting finer every day?Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
IMO society, markets and governments are manipulated, and that takes money.
Edit: Cap it al ism Noun
An economic AND political system in which a country's trade and industry are CONTROLLED by private owners for profit.
This is the first definition I found on Google there are a number of others, to be fair I picked the first and did not choose. Notice in the definition that it is not just an economic system.
As an aside I wonder what does the guy that has all the money in the world want? Power? A quick study of George Soros should answer this.
I can't say I disagree. Politicians and lobbyists (representing people with lots of money) do have quite a cozy and long lasting relationship. Politicians, needless to say are on the gravy train with biscuit wheels as long as they cater to special interest groups who in turn donate gobs of money above the table and God only knows how much under the table to keep politicians friendly to their interests in office. The politicians are rewarded with a career where they are paid lavish quantities of money for very little work and the special interest groups are provided with legislation that keeps their racket alive and well too. The result is pretty predictable, the interests of regular working people, who can't buy people in government to represent their interests, are alone somewhere in the middle paying for both corporate and personal welfare and struggling to get by. It is indeed a difficult problem but the idea that government can or would in any way regulate what amounts to a sweetheart deal for them, out of existence is patently ridiculous. It's like leaving a couple dozen doughnuts in the custody of a room full of fat women. "Stimulus", "shovel ready jobs" and indeed "eat the rich" and "class warfare" are all just marketing campaigns and saber rattling to ensure the appearance of having the people's best interests in mind. If I really had the answer to the problem I'd be in alot better shape than I am right now but I suspect that the key is to take the politicians out of industry and the industries out of politics. A true free market economy would be one where no business was "too big to fail". Those that excelled and made gobs of money would do so because of exemplary business practices and taking care of their people as opposed to what politicians they had in their pockets or what government money they could belly up to the trough for. In my little universe, government would take a laisez fair approach to business and visa versa. Lobbying and unions would be illegal and all politicians would be limited to two terms in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
I've always found it a perverse irony that purely socialist countries never seem to have much of a middle class. There's filthy rich and appaulingly poor, nothing in between. The poor are, for all intent and purpose, the serfs, those that do the grunt work for the "benevolent" masters in return for whatever scraps they are thrown. No one is truly free or in charge of building their own lives and upward mobility is a pipe dream. The socialist system, whose big selling point is equality (in theory) is anything but in practice. No doubt our current system is very broken but moving toward socialism or trusting in a "benevolent" master to keep us all equal is definitely NOT the answer.
PS: For the record, I'm as right wing as they come but definitely not an evangelical. I simply believe that people should be left alone to build the best lives their talents and ambitions would allow. Government's role, in as much as they have one, is to ensure equal opportunity and NOT equal results. Far too often in the modern world, bad behavior on the part of government, industry or just individuals is rewarded and or celebrated and I just can't get on board with that.
