[besson3c]

Let me try to help you guys...

Your tactics thus far have been essentially to intentionally exaggerate an incident and take some liberties with it to shine light on something in the hopes that we will clue in to something. This is what many in here have done, as has the McCain campaign. The problem with this tactic is that once somebody realizes that these assertions are being exaggerated, they are seen as manipulative fear mongering. Once they are perceived as fear mongering, the next time you want to make a similar argument it is much harder to be heard. If there ever was a clear case of what you are trying to alert us to, it will be much harder to communicate this message to our audience, which has frankly grown numb. Once there is perception of fear mongering, you've basically abandoned everybody with enough intelligence to see through this. Your audience will feel swindled, just as many of you you do with regards to climate change theory. You've read the story of the Boy that Cried Wolf, right? At this point, I barely read the new PaperNotes/Abe/Big Mac/Stupendousman "Obama is a scary Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Dictator" threads, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

However, there is some legitimacy to your argument. I believe what you are trying to say, most accurately put, is with the Joe the Plumber incident "what Obama has said suggests that his economic problem solving tactics tend to involve the use of wealth redistribution". The problem with this argument is that this particular incident taken out of context does not suggest a trend, particularly because as many others have said, there are already many bipartisan widely accepted forms of wealth redistribution, particularly because his tax code is far from unprecedented in US history, and particularly because to some these claims may seem like simply parsing words that were made in an isolated incident. Most people seemed comfortable with Bill Clinton's tax code, and if you disagree with this, you need to tackle this far more broadly rather than treating this as some new and unprecedented thing. If you want to make the argument that wealth redistribution is always or inherently wrong (like somebody like vmarks might), that is most welcome too, but again, you ought to take the Joe the Plumber interactions out of the picture so that you can debate this more broadly.

However, maybe you're right, maybe over time we'll come to discover that there is a trend here - this is where there may be legitimacy, and if there is this will be of concern to many. I believe that your best tactics involve exercising enough patience now in order to make this argument later, when and if you can put together an airtight case.

Otherwise, if you continue to just bludgeon us with claims that Obama is, in fact, a secret Socialist/Marxist/Communist now, you are most welcome to, but you really are not going to convince any of us, and like I said, if there ever is a clear case of this, you'll have to live with the very real possibility of being ignored because of how your persistent, seemingly hourly new assertions of red scare have numbed us.

[besson3c]

Oh, and the same applies to assertions that Obama is a terrorist, and many of the other variations of "Obama is a bad guy" on my GML.

I welcome your intellectual arguments, but seriously, flailing around trying to find something that gains you some traction is a losing strategy.

[climber]

Ok I will bite,

First I consider myself a Libertarian, a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal, I think the function of the government (especially the federal one) should be very limited. It has no business in health care and or retirement, hence my general dislike of medicare and SS. I tend to vote Republican due to a shortage of viable Libertarian candidates, I generally perceive them slightly less likely to grow the role of the federal government than the Democrats. Although Bush has done a pretty good job wasting billions on Homeland security. I would most prefer a candidate that ran on the platform of reducing if not outright axing most of these wasteful programs. A good federal government would a lot smaller than the combined state governments would be.

Socially I rarely side with the Republicans. I am absolutely sick of them telling others how to live their lives with their moral agenda. Specifically I am pro choice, pro gay rights, etc. Although I do part from the left with my pro-gun stance.

So who do I vote for? I have usually based my decision on finances first, and that has typically meant Republican, but this time I really wish I could have chosen a Democrat. One that shares at least some of the fiscally conservative beliefs that I think most of middle america agrees. Unfortunately Obama is not that man, I think he is the Democrat most likely to expand the role of the Government just like FDR did back in the 30's.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by climber 

Ok I will bite,

First I consider myself a Libertarian, a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal, I think the function of the government (especially the federal one) should be very limited. It has no business in health care and or retirement, hence my general dislike of medicare and SS. I tend to vote Republican due to a shortage of viable Libertarian candidates, I generally perceive them slightly less likely to grow the role of the federal government than the Democrats. Although Bush has done a pretty good job wasting billions on Homeland security. I would most prefer a candidate that ran on the platform of reducing if not outright axing most of these wasteful programs. A good federal government would a lot smaller than the combined state governments would be.

Socially I rarely side with the Republicans. I am absolutely sick of them telling others how to live their lives with their moral agenda. Specifically I am pro choice, pro gay rights, etc. Although I do part from the left with my pro-gun stance.

So who do I vote for? I have usually based my decision on finances first, and that has typically meant Republican, but this time I really wish I could have chosen a Democrat. One that shares at least some of the fiscally conservative beliefs that I think most of middle america agrees. Unfortunately Obama is not that man, I think he is the Democrat most likely to expand the role of the Government just like FDR did back in the 30's.

This seems a little tangential to my post, but you've raised some interesting points, and I guess in the PL beggers can't be choosers, so let's delve into this...

I essentially share many of your ideas, especially socially, but what I've never been comfortable with on the Libertarian side is what would be proposed to replace programs like Medicare and Social Security? As great as it sounds for government to not interfere, what I think many people overlook is our costs of them *not* interfering. That is, say Medicare is killed off tomorrow. What do all of the sick people without health insurance do? Under our existing system they would visit the ER, and who pays for those visits? Us, and the ER is not the most cost effective and sensible place to send somebody who no insurance to who may need something that a family doctor can help with. What about children whose parents don't have health insurance?

All of these people "falling through the cracks" puts a great strain on all of us, and evidently when you put things in these sorts of terms I think we can all agree that there are no perfect solutions.

My take on this is to think of these sorts of infrastructures as sort of like a game of Sim Country, where we simply figure out what dials to turn and what levers are necessary to be pulled to find the best balance of everything that benefits the most people at the cheapest cost - ABSOLUTELY SEPARATE from issues of morality, equality, fairness, etc, as these sorts of issues usually tend to blind people as to what simply makes the most sense from a purely pragmatic standpoint.

However, we do have common ground, as I think you do with Obama as well. We can still make the government we have work efficiently, kill off wasteful programs that net us little return, and do everything humanly possible to make our systems far more efficient and less wasteful. There is always room for improvement here, and we should always strive for improvement with constant tweaking, perfecting, and reexamination.

I think the goals of most Libertarians is to ensure the maximum amount of personal freedom, and keep their personal checks to the government to a minimum. If, hypothetically speaking, it is literally cheaper to run a public health care system (as some studies have shown), this may absolutely make some shudder and be at complete odds with their ideals and philosophies, but if at the end of the day it accomplishes the goals of the aforementioned, I would think that this would seem sensible to most.

[climber]

Perhaps a little Tangential, I was trying to define why I did not to vote for him, which is not because he is a Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Dictator, even though he probably is

Oh, and I do believe he WILL raise taxes on the middle class as soon as he figures out that is the ONLY was he can pay for his new social programs.

[Doofy]

All you have to do to see how Blairbama will operate is look at what's been going on in the UK for the last eleven years.

Expect creepy little stealth taxes to show their face, in the name of perhaps "climate change".
Expect more government spying on you, in the name of the public good.
Expect pensions to dwindle as the fed plunders them for cash.
Expect to be told outright lies about inflation and the like.

Been there, done that. Your turn now, you idiots.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This seems a little tangential to my post, but you've raised some interesting points, and I guess in the PL beggers can't be choosers, so let's delve into this...

I essentially share many of your ideas, especially socially, but what I've never been comfortable with on the Libertarian side is what would be proposed to replace programs like Medicare and Social Security? As great as it sounds for government to not interfere, what I think many people overlook is our costs of them *not* interfering. That is, say Medicare is killed off tomorrow. What do all of the sick people without health insurance do? Under our existing system they would visit the ER, and who pays for those visits? Us, and the ER is not the most cost effective and sensible place to send somebody who no insurance to who may need something that a family doctor can help with. What about children whose parents don't have health insurance?

I've always understood that to a Libertarian/objectivist/minarchist, a person who does not have the money to pay for health care simply does not deserve it and does not deserve sympathy either. For a person who is so unproductive that they have no money to pay is morally corrupt--it doesn't matter the reason.

Of course, I also understand that the idealistic view of a Libertarian society is that its government interference which causes things like investment bubbles, monopolies and expensive healthcare--(though exactly how that happens has never been explained to me). If open heart surgery cost $100 a pop because of the effect of glorious competition then perhaps this would be a workable solution. This only works in Ayn Rand books however. It seems like a lot of high school/college age kids read those books and poof! There are some flavor of Libertarian or objectivist.

I think the quickest way to a truly socialist or even communist society is to actually to try and create a such a society. When the peasants kill off the elite strata (about 2 months later) there will be all kinds of government programs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by climber 

Perhaps a little Tangential, I was trying to define why I did not to vote for him, which is not because he is a Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Dictator, even though he probably is

Oh, and I do believe he WILL raise taxes on the middle class as soon as he figures out that is the ONLY was he can pay for his new social programs.

He may have to raise taxes, but one never knows. It could be said that McCain's complete non-solution of offering $5000 tax credits would have fallen fall short in reducing your health care costs too, so I'm not sure how one could be so sure about this regardless of whether you saw wisdom in McCain's solution.

I'm assuming you had health care in mind here, since it seems to represent the biggest potentially new social program.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

All you have to do to see how Blairbama will operate is look at what's been going on in the UK for the last eleven years.

Expect creepy little stealth taxes to show their face, in the name of perhaps "climate change".
Expect more government spying on you, in the name of the public good.
Expect pensions to dwindle as the fed plunders them for cash.
Expect to be told outright lies about inflation and the like.

Been there, done that. Your turn now, you idiots.

I don't know enough about British politics, but I'm troubled by your comparison. It seems too much like an apples vs. oranges comparison to me, one that makes the assumption that what didn't work for the UK would hypothetically not work for the US in precisely the same way, especially when it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the two different systems of government/strategies/countries.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know enough about British politics, but I'm troubled by your comparison. It seems too much like an apples vs. oranges comparison to me, one that makes the assumption that what didn't work for the UK would hypothetically not work for the US in precisely the same way, especially when it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the two different strategies.

There's no difference. It's all the same. Even down to the mass hysteria on winning, the words "change" and "hope" bandied about all the time, the candidate's speeches. It's damn near identical.
Heck, Blairbama and his wife even have the same profession as Blair and his bint (what happened to all the lawyer jokes - did we forget that we don't like lawyers or something?).

I've lost track of the amount of people in the UK who've said to me "doesn't he remind you of someone?" and meant Blair. Blairbama is a Blair clone, straight out of the same factory.

And there's the problem. Not many people in the US follow world politics so you haven't seen Blairbama in action before. And even those that have seem to think that the US is somehow different, somehow immune to the ravages of such leaders.

Well, you're in for a big shock. From where I'm sitting it'll be extremely amusing watching you all squirm as your country slowly dies.

[besson3c]

I'm puzzled how about a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and seemingly an ally of George Bush and his foreign policy is a clone of somebody who has spent the last several years drawing contrasts to Bush and speaking forcefully against the Iraq war, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt that there are other similarities...

However, the bottom line and well kept secret, is that we've succeeded as a country under both Republican and Democrat leaders. Their abilities, intelligence, level of competency, ability to communicate, inspire, lead, direct, manage, manipulate, and the climate may have more to do than where they stand on certain policies and what their philosophical differences are. You can put somebody through a litmus test of where they stand on various issues and come up with somebody who seems perfect, only for them to be unsuccessful as a leader, and the reverse is true as well.

In other words, even if there are similarities between the philosophies of Blair and Obama, there are still too many variables to account for to otherwise accurately call them clones in terms of how they run government, at least this soon.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This seems a little tangential to my post, but you've raised some interesting points, and I guess in the PL beggers can't be choosers, so let's delve into this...

I essentially share many of your ideas, especially socially, but what I've never been comfortable with on the Libertarian side is what would be proposed to replace programs like Medicare and Social Security? As great as it sounds for government to not interfere, what I think many people overlook is our costs of them *not* interfering. That is, say Medicare is killed off tomorrow. What do all of the sick people without health insurance do? Under our existing system they would visit the ER, and who pays for those visits? Us, and the ER is not the most cost effective and sensible place to send somebody who no insurance to who may need something that a family doctor can help with. What about children whose parents don't have health insurance?

All of these people "falling through the cracks" puts a great strain on all of us, and evidently when you put things in these sorts of terms I think we can all agree that there are no perfect solutions.

My take on this is to think of these sorts of infrastructures as sort of like a game of Sim Country, where we simply figure out what dials to turn and what levers are necessary to be pulled to find the best balance of everything that benefits the most people at the cheapest cost - ABSOLUTELY SEPARATE from issues of morality, equality, fairness, etc, as these sorts of issues usually tend to blind people as to what simply makes the most sense from a purely pragmatic standpoint.

However, we do have common ground, as I think you do with Obama as well. We can still make the government we have work efficiently, kill off wasteful programs that net us little return, and do everything humanly possible to make our systems far more efficient and less wasteful. There is always room for improvement here, and we should always strive for improvement with constant tweaking, perfecting, and reexamination.

I think the goals of most Libertarians is to ensure the maximum amount of personal freedom, and keep their personal checks to the government to a minimum. If, hypothetically speaking, it is literally cheaper to run a public health care system (as some studies have shown), this may absolutely make some shudder and be at complete odds with their ideals and philosophies, but if at the end of the day it accomplishes the goals of the aforementioned, I would think that this would seem sensible to most.

Well, if the US government didn't have such a dismal record with, well, everything except the military, I'd be more open to the idea. So far I've just seen people comparing the US to the UK system, and the #1 stat I like looking at is cancer survival rates (I have a vested interest), and the UK looks like the third world in that respect. Even with all their easily available preventative medical care.

Once you set the monster free, you can't put it back in the box.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm puzzled how about a staunch supporter of the Iraq war and seemingly an ally of George Bush and his foreign policy is a clone of somebody who has spent the last several years drawing contrasts to Bush and speaking forcefully against the Iraq war, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt that there are other similarities...

Blair isn't a staunch supporter of Bush at all. Blair's an opportunist knobhead who'll take any chance he can get to introduce more control mechanisms to herd the sheeple. War on terror = more CCTV.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, the bottom line and well kept secret, is that we've succeeded as a country under both Republican and Democrat leaders.

We? Last I heard, you were still a Canuckistani.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Well, if the US government didn't have such a dismal record with, well, everything except the military, I'd be more open to the idea. So far I've just seen people comparing the US to the UK system, and the #1 stat I like looking at is cancer survival rates (I have a vested interest), and the UK looks like the third world in that respect. Even with all their easily available preventative medical care.

Once you set the monster free, you can't put it back in the box.

I think it's wrong to fixate on what any other country has done as a preview of what we'd get. For starters, in a country like Canada (and I think the UK), private insurance is not able to compete with public insurance (in the case of Canada, this applies to most, but not all provinces, last I checked). Obama has said that you can keep your private insurance, if you wish to. Right off the bat, this is a key difference.

This is going to be a very tough thing to sell, Americans generally don't do so well with any kind of change. It may be that what is passed is even more of a hybrid public/private system. My understanding is that Canada's system is sort of a public/private hybrid - especially in provinces that permit private health options, so perhaps if you really wanted to make a comparison Canada would be a better candidate than the UK, which I believe is pure public system? Of course, it could be said now that we already have a public/private hybrid with Medicare.

As far as the dismal record of the government, I couldn't agree more, but I believe that the solution is to reform our politics so that dismal records are not accepted. Simply trying to minimize the damage they can cause is a losing battle, I think, because we *need* the government for some things, plain and simple - for example, monitoring and regulation of our markets....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Blair isn't a staunch supporter of Bush at all. Blair's an opportunist knobhead who'll take any chance he can get to introduce more control mechanisms to herd the sheeple. War on terror = more CCTV.

So do you think the war on terror here is an attempt to control and manipulate people?

We? Last I heard, you were still a Canuckistani.

I'm a permanent resident who is now eligible to apply for citizenship. It's debatable whether I should use the word "we", but I'm a legal US resident for life or as long as I want it, so while I'm living here (and have been for many years), I tend to think of myself as having a stake in matters.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think it's wrong to fixate on what any other country has done as a preview of what we'd get. For starters, in a country like Canada (and I think the UK), private insurance is not able to compete with public insurance (in the case of Canada, this applies to most, but not all provinces, last I checked). Obama has said that you can keep your private insurance, if you wish to. Right off the bat, this is a key difference.

So why have I got private insurance then Bess?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is going to be a very tough thing to sell, Americans generally don't do so well with any kind of change. It may be that what is passed is even more of a hybrid public/private system. My understanding is that Canada's system is sort of a public/private hybrid - especially in provinces that permit private health options, so perhaps if you really wanted to make a comparison Canada would be a better candidate than the UK, which I believe is pure public system?

Dude, it's quite clear that you haven't the faintest clue as to what you're on about. Might be wise to stop digging.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So do you think the war on terror here is an attempt to control and manipulate people?

Yep.
It's also there to... ...ummm... ..."manipulate" your economy a little.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So why have I got private insurance then Bess?



Dude, it's quite clear that you haven't the faintest clue as to what you're on about. Might be wise to stop digging.

If I didn't make it clear enough that I know next to nothing about health in the UK, then I apologize. I do know a fair bit about how it works in Canada though.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep.
It's also there to... ...ummm... ..."manipulate" your economy a little.

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done differently if you managed US foreign policy over the last 8 years?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done differently if you managed US foreign policy over the last 8 years?

1) Open the north shore.
2) Default on all national debts.
3) Isolate (become Switzerland, basically).

...and that's the only way you're ever going to be free of your little foreign outings. Anyone who tells you otherwise is BSing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

1) Open the north shore.
2) Default on all national debts.
3) Isolate (become Switzerland, basically).

...and that's the only way you're ever going to be free of your little foreign outings. Anyone who tells you otherwise is BSing.

How would business be done with non-US countries, then?

[climber]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He may have to raise taxes, but one never knows. It could be said that McCain's complete non-solution of offering $5000 tax credits would have fallen fall short in reducing your health care costs too, so I'm not sure how one could be so sure about this regardless of whether you saw wisdom in McCain's solution.

I'm assuming you had health care in mind here, since it seems to represent the biggest potentially new social program.

He ran on a platform that on one hand promised these new social programs and on the other promised "relief" for the middle class. I for one know this promise was empty at best, if not an outright lie. Now it will get blamed on the Economy or something, but it WILL happen regardless. I would have more respect if he had been more truthful, but then that is not how you win elections these days is it?

Yes I was talking about health care. And to answer your question about SS and medicare, you get rid of it by phasing it out. Provide real alternatives in the market place for people to put their money into instead. I believe the private sector could provide much more than either program does now. We could start by allowing people to put their pre-tax dollars into a private alternatives. No one with more than 10 years left in the workforce really expects either program to be there for themselves, most of us see it as the house of cards/pyramid scheme that it is today.

If you want lower prices in health care we need to return to true competition. Right now the insurance customer is the Employer. When the average family has as many choices in health care insurance as they do for auto insurance you will see prices become competitive.

You make an interesting observation about people going to the ER for their care because they do not have health insurance. If the number of uninsured continues to climb that will increase as well. Why shouldn't it? Our current system does not really motivate people to make healthy choices or spend money on insurance. When they have a heart attack they have access to essentially the same care I do, with only a few exceptions.

I realize I am over simplifying this a bit, and certainly there are cases were the un-insured do not have access to healthcare, but I do not have a problem with that. Life is all about choices, there will always be people that choose to smoke, stay obese, never exercise, eat a poor diet, ignore their cholesterol and hypertension, and choose to buy a bigger SUV instead of buying health care insurance. I wish these people would pay their share, and I do not believe they do right now. Does everyone really deserve to reap ALL the rewards western medicine can provide?

Ultimately the the biggest problem with Health Care is expectations. Collectively we expect the best that science and technology can achieve, but collectively we can not afford it. Simply put we can not afford millions of dollars of health care for everyone. Not everyone will be able someday have their hearts/ kidneys/ pancreas grown in a lab and replaced when their original equipment inevitably fails. But right now most of the US expects access to every experimental drug/treatment, even if it costs tens-of thousands of dollars and has not even come close to being proven effective. They expect that transplant even if they ignored the disease that a caused it, or invested a single dime to pay for it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would business be done with non-US countries, then?

Countries don't do business with countries. People do business with people.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Countries don't do business with countries. People do business with people.

Except of course when they sell tanks, jets and stuff that goes boom!

[design219]

Get yourself ready for the new world order.

http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_yo...orde_10121.php

just a tad unsafe for work

[subego]

besson,

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the question: what's the difference between a salesman and a tech? The answer is that the salesman listens to the client's problem and then proposes a solution, while the tech tells the client what their problem is in an effort to prove how smart they are.

You're a tech. Takes one to know one.

FWIW, you have no need to prove to me how smart you are. I think you're very smart.

I think many people overlook is our costs of them *not* interfering.

This is what I mean by tech. As the person you are trying to "sell" an idea to, you have told me I'm too stupid to have noticed my problem. I'm insulted. You lost the sale before I got a word in.

Now I'm not really insulted, though I'll admit I kinda was the last time you made the exact same proposition, and I told you then how insulting it was. I guess it didn't stick, but I was insulted at the time, so my technique was off.

If I'm comfortable to make one bold statement about your personality, I'll make another. You clearly want to understand. I wouldn't bother with any of this if I wasn't absolutely sure of it.

I also want to make clear this is by no means the only thing that has led to lack of a satisfactory answer for you. It's just not the greatest start. I make no excuses for other peoples' bad behavior, and there's plenty more of that.


As to the actual answer to your question, recapping where we were is easy. After the stuff above (which took more posts last time) I wanted to make sure you were familiar with this diagram:



I'm guessing you are, but it doesn't hurt to make sure.

[goMac]

I'm tired of this argument. No market economy works without regulation. The right can continue preaching their magic economics. It doesn't work. It's the foundation of government. No economist worth anything will tell you an economy will work without regulation.

Market failures aren't cured by magic dust, they aren't cured by time. They simply aren't. And despite some people here closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears, they indisputably exist. The government exists to curb market failures by forcing the market into fair competition, by moving wealth or other means.

Even at the right wing universities where I've had economics no one is seriously insane enough to suggest that no government interference will produce a stable market. The only place I've seen that suggested is from a few nutters here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No economist worth anything will tell you an economy will work without regulation.

And no barber worth anything will tell you that you don't need a haircut.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

All you have to do to see how Blairbama will operate is look at what's been going on in the UK for the last eleven years.

Expect creepy little stealth taxes to show their face, in the name of perhaps "climate change".
Expect more government spying on you, in the name of the public good.
Expect pensions to dwindle as the fed plunders them for cash.
Expect to be told outright lies about inflation and the like.

Been there, done that. Your turn now, you idiots.

That sounds a hell of a lot like the past eight years.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Otherwise, if you continue to just bludgeon us with claims that Obama is, in fact, a secret Socialist/Marxist/Communist now, you are most welcome to, but you really are not going to convince any of us

The Beloved Dear Leader of Revolutionary Change is disgusted that you could demote him to being an Evil Capitalist placed in power by ruling Elites!

[PaperNotes]

Sing praises to Dear Leader

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3dC2aDHtEqk

Ooops I mean

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uoXMn_nJK90

Ooops sorry, this is the right link

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GExiNDBojfs

[vmarks]

The government does not exist to curb so-called "market failures."

The government exists to offer a means of enforcing contracts. In fact, the US federal government has no authority to curb the market.

Furthermore, what are these 'right wing universities'?

Because politicians love to fiddle, no market escapes regulation.
However, you can compare a *more* free market to a *less* free market, and come to conclusions about the value of freedom to trade.

My own feeling? We need separation of markets and state.

You may gasp "Not possible! What about market failure?!?" And yet when our country was founded, all governments chose the religion that their citizens would observe. Religious freedom was thought to be impossible; a sure road to hell.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You may gasp "Not possible! What about market failure?!?" And yet when our country was founded, all governments chose the religion that their citizens would observe. Religious freedom was thought to be impossible; a sure road to hell.

Religious freedom is entirely not comparable.

The founders of capitalism all recognized that market failures do happen, and they need outside help to be solved. I mean, this isn't an ideological feel goodery about no government and religious freedom and so forth. There are many people who dedicate their lives to finding out how to solve market failures, and I'm sure they'd really love to hear about your no government solution.

Completely free markets only work on a very small level. Very small towns, small communities, places where one person starting up a new business could truly compete. Otherwise, the market has shown that things like monopolies simply don't work themselves out in the market. There have been many occasions where the government waits for a market failure to work itself out, it hasn't, and the government's lack of action has been a waste of everyone's time and money. I hardly see why the answer to that is creating a government that is entirely incapable of reacting.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The founders of capitalism all recognized that market failures do happen

LOL

Who are these "Founders of Capitalism"???????

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

LOL

Who are these "Founders of Capitalism"???????

Well, Adam Smith would be the big one... Past him there are several others. Marx was the latest big name really to study market failures, but his answer was "not capitalism", so he doesn't really count.

You really had to ask that question?

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep.
It's also there to... ...ummm... ..."manipulate" your economy a little.

Boy, I do wonder how Germany ever became one of the world's most powerful economies. We have a regulated social market economy for how many decades now?

PB.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Boy, I do wonder how Germany ever became one of the world's most powerful economies.

Oh I dunno. Maybe something to do with us and the yanks rebuilding the place for you after your little bouts of ugliness?

Anyway. WTF has your question got to do with my statement? WTF has the Fatherland's economy got to do with the yank economy? You off the meds or lost your copy of Mein Kampf or something?

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oh I dunno. Maybe something to do with us and the yanks rebuilding the place for you after your little bouts of ugliness?

You might want to check history books. The typical action after WW2 was to un-build German industry. Some plans were even to turn Germany back into agricultural status again. It took some time to perceive the future Soviets as the bigger threat and menace than the ex Nazis, hence stopping the export of German industries into Sieger countries.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Anyway. WTF has your question got to do with my statement? WTF has the Fatherland's economy got to do with the yank economy? You off the meds or lost your copy of Mein Kampf or something?

Woah! A Nazi reference in under ten seconds! You Britons really are predictable

Now back to topic: You try all the time to depict Obama's (potential!) plans of regulation and rules for the economy as bad, manipulative, unfree, dangerous, etc etc.
I say: Germany's social economy has these rules and boundaries etc. for about one hundred years and still they are all the time one of the world's largest and leading economies. And no, this has nothing directly to do with wars Germany was involved in.

PB.

[Doofy]

I'll ask again: WTF has any of this to do with my response to Bess?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Completely free markets only work on a very small level. Very small towns, small communities, places where one person starting up a new business could truly compete. Otherwise, the market has shown that things like monopolies simply don't work themselves out in the market.

Monopolies are not necessarily a market failure. They're equally a reward by the market.

Monopolies are the natural goal of businesses aspiring to be successful, and the proper reward of companies that deliver what their customers desire.

When monopolies cease to deliver what their customers want, they leave an opening for competition, and may cease to be a monopoly, or even cease to be an independent company, being purchased by a competitor.

There have been many occasions where the government waits for a market failure to work itself out, it hasn't, and the government's lack of action has been a waste of everyone's time and money. I hardly see why the answer to that is creating a government that is entirely incapable of reacting.

Please cite these examples of market failure. I'd be curious to have some examples of your choosing to talk about.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Monopolies are not necessarily a market failure. They're equally a reward by the market.

Monopolies are the natural goal of businesses aspiring to be successful, and the proper reward of companies that deliver what their customers desire.

When monopolies cease to deliver what their customers want, they leave an opening for competition, and may cease to be a monopoly, or even cease to be an independent company, being purchased by a competitor.


Please cite these examples of market failure. I'd be curious to have some examples of your choosing to talk about.

Market failures: Enron, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, AIG, GM, Ford

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

When monopolies cease to deliver what their customers want, they leave an opening for competition, and may cease to be a monopoly, or even cease to be an independent company, being purchased by a competitor.

Or they may just use their vast piles of cash to bury any competition before it gets off the ground, as was the case when antitrust laws came about. You can't get bought by your competition if you buy them first.

I think this is what goMac was talking about when it said they "don't just work themselves out." Getting a large share of a market can be the reward of very good business practices, but once you're in that position, it's possible to become a big, self-perpetuating problem. The only reason we're not on MicrosoftNN is because Microsoft wanted to keep Apple in business so as not to get more antitrust suits rammed up their mail slots.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

GM, Ford

...and the failure of these two companies has nothing at all to do with the marxist push for the new religion of environmentalism (i.e. government interference in the market in the form of punitive taxes on "gas guzzlers").

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

...and the failure of these two companies has nothing at all to do with the marxist push for the new religion of environmentalism (i.e. government interference in the market in the form of punitive taxes on "gas guzzlers").

The gas guzzler tax made the auto companies fail?



No, it has everything to do with (1) escalating health care costs from the employer-based coverage model and (2) high gas prices resulting in low-demand for large SUVs, which the auto companies overproduced.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

The gas guzzler tax made the auto companies fail?

In general. Not your stupid gas guzzler tax.
Which is why I said "punitive taxes on "gas guzzlers"" rather than "the gas guzzler tax".

Honestly, it's like debating with fsking illiterates.

Originally Posted by The Crook 

No, it has everything to do with (1) escalating health care costs from the employer-based coverage model and (2) high gas prices resulting in low-demand for large SUVs, which the auto companies overproduced.

And the government had absolutely nothing to do with those two things. Nothing at all.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In general. Not your stupid gas guzzler tax.
Which is why I said "punitive taxes on "gas guzzlers"" rather than "the gas guzzler tax".

I have no idea what you're talking about.

We have a "gas guzzler tax" which is punitive tax on gas guzzlers. Are there other taxes we impose on gas guzzlers that we don't impose on other vehicles? Or do you just mean "gas guzzler" in the vague sense of "anything gas powered?" If so, how folksy and colloquial of you. But not exactly the clearest choice of words. Gas guzzler has a specific meaning in the tax context.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And the government had absolutely nothing to do with those two things. Nothing at all.

We certainly did!

The government (1) relied on the employer-based health care coverage system when a universal system would have alleviated the auto companies' health care crunch and (2) our relatively low gas prices compared to other western democracies encouraged the auto companies to build huge fuel-slurping SUVs instead of the more fuel-efficient small vehicles that higher gas taxes would have encouraged.

[subego]

The entire agenda section of change.gov has been yanked.

Edit: oops, wrong thread.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

I have no idea

That much is clear.

Originally Posted by The Crook 

We have a "gas guzzler tax" which is punitive tax on gas guzzlers. Are there other taxes we impose on gas guzzlers that we don't impose on other vehicles?

You think that vehicle manufacturers don't suffer from changing "green" targets and the resultant taxation (i.e. congestion charging, parking charging, etc.) in their global markets?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The entire agenda section of change.gov has been yanked.

Is it just me or is that an odd thing to happen?

[subego]

It's not just you.