Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - For the first time in 5 years...

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

For the first time in 5 years...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: For the first time in 5 years...

mises wrote:

Government accountability? To who?

It's citizenry.

mises wrote:

At what penalty? What consequence will be had?

Removal from power through legitimate voting, something which should happen at much more frequent intervals.

mises wrote:

Did you know that Paulson committed securities fraud about 6 months ago? We all know. The SEC knows. Every dog on Wall Street knows. Do you think Paulson will have any punishment?

I suspect if you did a national survey to see who actually does know this, you would find it was no where near "everyone." Comparatively few people are as interested in news of this type as you are. Comparatively few people are even as interested as I am, which is less interested than you are.

It's an apathy problem.

mises wrote:

Fox. How naive are you?

Not naive enough to trust these businesses with services vital to society's continuance with no regulation or accountability whatsoever.

mises wrote:

They. Wouldn't. Exist.

Article. Of. Faith.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:36 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

mises wrote:

Which ones do you feel are worthy? Start with that.

Non-exhaustive list of examples of social programs that are worthy (though, at times, incorrectly implemented to varying degrees):
-Fire Fighting Services
-Public Libraries
-Temporary Unemployment Assistance
-Public Education
-Food Stamps
-Medical Assistance
-Road Construction and Maintenance

I would like to consider a certain suite of regulation in this category as well, including the regulation of food and drugs, the regulation of automotive emissions, the regulation of automotive safety, and the regulation of manufacturing emissions. While these things may not be actual "services" per se, their focus on the quality of life of citizen makes me want to include them as such.

Fantastic.

But why does this have to be on the Federal level? Why can't states individually decide whether to provide these things?

Because that makes it far too easy for individuals who don't need them to avoid assisting those who do.

I understand that the more conservative amongst you don't feel that those who benefit the most from our society should give back the most as well, and I won't try to dissuade you of that, but it's not something I can accept. Programs like these should be at the Federal level to ensure the ultra-wealthy -- who have no need of these programs -- cannot avoid assisting in their funding.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: For the first time in 5 years...

Quote:

It's citizenry.

Removal from power through legitimate voting, something which should happen at much more frequent intervals.

How's that working out?

Quote:

When I speak of "everyone" I mean those who need to know. Your average Joe doesn't understand the difference between credit and debit (thanks, public education) let alone our absolutely suicidal financial system and as such the opinion of the average Joe is worthless. This is one of the primary reasons the state must be severely limited. The masses are far too easily duped because they're dupes. It is very easy for a state to get 50%+1 of the population to agree to just about anything.

Quote:

Not naive enough to trust these businesses with services vital to society's continuance with no regulation or accountability whatsoever.

Is this what libertarians believe? If company "x" create a product that kills Joe, we says "poor Joe"?

Quote:

Article. Of. Faith.

No, it isn't. In truth, it is plainly impossible to clearly identify where the state stops and large private enterprise begins. We have state capitalism or corporatism. The whole system is designed to perpetuate and expand corporate power. That's why average people can't get ahead and the wealthy get everything they want. The system is gamed. The only way to prevent this is to severely limit the ability of the state to behave in ways that would benefit large corporations.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: For the first time in 5 years...

mises wrote:

When I speak of "everyone" I mean those who need to know.

That's fine, but for citizen-driven accountability to come into play, the people who need to know are a much larger group than the one you are referring to.

mises wrote:

Your average Joe doesn't understand the difference between credit and debit (thanks, public education) let alone our absolutely suicidal financial system and as such the opinion of the average Joe is worthless.

And you feel the answer is to plunge this average Joe into a totally unregulated market where companies can tell him any lie about their product they wish (goodbye regulation), and assume he's smart enough to make the sort of intelligent choices in his purchases required to fuel such a market. Where his employers can fire him at any moment for any reason, including the color of his skin, his gender, his sexual orientation, and so forth (goodbye civil rights), and when it comes time to find education for his child, let him shop around and hope he doesn't decide to go bargain basement with his child's schooling (or for that matter, hope he doesn't get fired and stop being able to pay for said education; maybe Joe Jr. doesn't need that fancy book learning anyway).

mises wrote:

This is one of the primary reasons the state must be severely limited. The masses are far too easily duped because they're dupes.

And because they are dupes, they'll be totally screwed in a totally free market.

mises wrote:

Is this what libertarians believe? If company "x" create a product that kills Joe, we says "poor Joe"?

Preventing company x from producing dangerous product y is socialist. The Libertarian response is that the Joe can sue under the law later, but we've all ready seen companies are more than willing to produce dangerous products if they feel the lawsuits will cost them less than making the product safe in the firstplace. I don't find that acceptable.

mises wrote:

Quote:

Article. Of. Faith.

No, it isn't.

Until or unless you present data collected from purely free-market driven economies on the scale of the United States, saying monopolies functionally cannot occur in such an economy is an article of faith.

Which of these massive purely free market economies are you drawing conclusions from?

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

mises wrote:

Which ones do you feel are worthy? Start with that.

Fantastic.

But why does this have to be on the Federal level? Why can't states individually decide whether to provide these things?

Fox wrote:

Because that makes it far too easy for individuals who don't need them to avoid assisting those who do.

How? It gives the average person a closer forum. They don't have to have the money and influence to hire a lobbyist in D.C.. They can go straight to the capitol statehouse to petition.

Federalism means that each state can decide for itself. My bet is that all 50 states decide to keep public firehouses.

Fox wrote:

I understand that the more conservative amongst you don't feel that those who benefit the most from our society should give back the most as well, and I won't try to dissuade you of that, but it's not something I can accept.

You don't understand where I'm coming from at all. Where have I ever stated that I'm against a progressive income tax? I said I'm against an EXPANSIVE FEDERAL income tax.

Why don't you stop characterizing my arguments and try and listen? Just because Ron Paul says something doesn't mean I believe it.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Fox wrote:

Because that makes it far too easy for individuals who don't need them to avoid assisting those who do.

How?

By leaving states that choose to indulge in such programs for States that choose not to, or choose to do so to a much lesser degree. This in turn damages service-heavy states income flows, which in turn makes them less able to provide those services. Only by organizing such services at a Federal level can you avoid this.

There's a reason conservatives would prefer these social programs to occur at these lower levels of government, after all.

Kuros wrote:

Federalism means that each state can decide for itself. My bet is that all 50 states decide to keep public firehouses.

Medical assistance, on the other hand...

Kuros wrote:

You don't understand where I'm coming from at all. Where have I ever stated that I'm against a progressive income tax? I said I'm against a FEDERAL income tax.

I do understand, but Federal income tax is the only assured way to effectively and fairly gather income tax nation wide, for the reason I articulated above. If you reduce income tax to a state level, it becomes far too easy for high-earners to minimize their tax burden via legal residency in this or that state, which accommodates them paying far less. It may not be identical to just outright lowering their tax rates, but it is tantamount to it.

Kuros wrote:

Why don't you stop characterizing my arguments and try and listen? Just because Ron Paul says something doesn't mean I believe it.

Please don't jump to conclusions. If I misinterpret something you say, I am sorry, but I feel I am understanding what you are saying and responding to it. I understand your argument is about the reduction of these things to the State level instead of their outright abolition, and I have responded as such. If I misinterpetted something, I'm sorry.

I don't think you are comparable to Ron Paul in your outlook; we disagree on quite a bit, but you're in reality. Razz

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: For the first time in 5 years...

Quote:

That's fine, but for citizen-driven accountability to come into play, the people who need to know are a much larger group than the one you are referring to.

There is no accountability. Never will be. But look, Janet Jackson popped a nipple! Better fine NBC... Or the Canadian version: "look at the Americans!"

Quote:

Yes.

Quote:

Where his employers can fire him at any moment for any reason, including the color of his skin, his gender, his sexual orientation, and so forth (goodbye civil rights)

Yes. If one firm is dumb enough to fire not on the basis of productivity but aesthetics, then their competition will benefit.

Quote:

, and when it comes time to find education for his child, let him shop around and hope he doesn't decide to go bargain basement with his child's schooling (or for that matter, hope he doesn't get fired and stop being able to pay for said education; maybe Joe Jr. doesn't need that fancy book learning anyway).

Mainstream libertarians agree, or tend to agree, with public funding for education.

Quote:

And because they are dupes, they'll be totally screwed in a totally free market.

You don't get it. The entire system is gamed against you. You are the mark. I'm the mark. You would be much better off without all this interference in your life. So would everybody else, less the top 10%, on balance.

Quote:

Preventing company x from producing dangerous product y is socialist.

No, socialism is when the means of production are controlled by "the people" in the form of a coercive state. The next step, communism, is when that state has naturally dissolved due to the now increased enlightenment of the peasantry. Their false consciousness is gone.

Preventative regulation, which is ineffective, in serious cases can easily fall under "protection of persons".

Quote:

The Libertarian response is that the Joe can sue under the law later, but we've all ready seen companies are more than willing to produce dangerous products if they feel the lawsuits will cost them less than making the product safe in the firstplace. I don't find that acceptable.

I find it perfectly acceptable. I'll trade the minor harm from defective consumer products for the war on drugs in a heartbeat. In the US there are 3 million men in prison for non-violent drug offenses. So shit, maybe some small local car company would produce a defective transmission. This wouldn't come close to the hourly harm caused by the state.

Quote:

No, it isn't. It would not be possible for later national and multi-national firms to exist without the "goods" provided to them by the state.

Quote:

Which of these massive purely free market economies are you drawing conclusions from?

All of them. Which is none. But it is easy enough to look at a firm, and the % or total amount of revenue or comparative advantage that is provided by the state and make an educated guess as to the viability of that firm without those free benefits.

First, wipe out the financial services industry. Then the large energy firms. Any firm with a strong dependence on immaterial property rights (pharma, tech), any firm that needs free roads, any firm that pollutes without paying. And so on. Look at the system of bribery for government handouts. Tax benefits and land giveaways to "create jobs". Regulatory changes to prevent or dilute competition. Etc. The function of the state is to protect her clients.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:21 pm Post subject:

Great thread. It's hard to argue that Govt spending, beyond a certain point, provides a net benefit. I think you would find that point to be surprisingly low.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: For the first time in 5 years...

mises wrote:

Quote:

That's fine, but for citizen-driven accountability to come into play, the people who need to know are a much larger group than the one you are referring to.

There is no accountability. Never will be.

Untrue, people collectively simply fail to take advantage of it as they should.

mises wrote:

Quote:

Where his employers can fire him at any moment for any reason, including the color of his skin, his gender, his sexual orientation, and so forth (goodbye civil rights)

Yes. If one firm is dumb enough to fire not on the basis of productivity but aesthetics, then their competition will benefit.

Historically, they have been at varying points in time, and individuals have suffered as a result.

mises wrote:

Quote:

Mainstream libertarians agree, or tend to agree, with public funding for education.

I'm addressing Libertarian philosophy as a whole; I agree most people aren't unreasonable enough to take Libertarian philosophy that far.

mises wrote:

Quote:

And because they are dupes, they'll be totally screwed in a totally free market.

You don't get it. The entire system is gamed against you.

Unless you're at the top, the entire system is against you no matter what; those in power of any variety will always seek to keep you out of it. The difference is, in your Libertarian society that will never change, while in a more extensively governed society at least the goal is to get past that (since democratic government's goal is to be for the people), and as such it could hypothetically occur. I understand you feel my optimism on this matter is naive.

mises wrote:

Quote:

Preventing company x from producing dangerous product y is socialist.

No, socialism is when the means of production are controlled by "the people" in the form of a coercive state.

True, and telling a company "You can't produce x" is an act of control, by the state, upon the means of production, which is why it is a Socialist measure.

mises wrote:

Preventative regulation, which is ineffective, in serious cases can easily fall under "protection of persons".

I agree, as long as you're willing to resort to a Socialist measure to protect people.

mises wrote:

Quote:

I find it perfectly acceptable.

I know.

mises wrote:

I'll trade the minor harm from defective consumer products for the war on drugs in a heartbeat.

I don't support the war on drugs.

mises wrote:

Quote:

No, it isn't. It would not be possible for later national and multi-national firms to exist without the "goods" provided to them by the state.

Another article of faith. "In this situation that doesn't happen in reality, and has never happened in reality, I assert x would occur." That's faith. That doesn't necessarily disprove it, but then I can't disprove God exists either.

mises wrote:

Quote:

Which of these massive purely free market economies are you drawing conclusions from?

All of them. Which is none.

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:45 am Post subject:

I've always been really, as in very very, conservative in my worldview until I started Grad School and started studying Finance and Economics. Although, I suppose I started questioning such conservative principles when I discovered that many conservatives fear Mexicans more than they do Government. This has all lead to a bunch of talk of government imposed nonsense to come, REAL ID and E-verify. Also, The whole thing with Terry Schivo(sp?) and the gay marriage debate made me think... WTF? Who cares? 2 books that really changed my mind that I suggest you read are FA Hayek's The Road To Serfdom and H. Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. So, maybe I am a libertarian of the Hayek/Freidman tradition. Hayek had some good things to say about the Rule of Law/Regulation/Taxes or whatever in Serfdom. The analogy he used was Rules of the Road. It doesn't matter what side of the Road you drive on or what the speed limit is, just so long as all rules are easily understood. Changes, like say construction, are fine so long as they are announced well in advance and not sporadic and arbitrary. Both books are good reads that define [classical] liberal philosophy really well. Last edited by Pluto on Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:49 am Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Great thread. It's hard to argue that Govt spending, beyond a certain point, provides a net benefit. I think you would find that point to be surprisingly low.

Um, don't you mean, "up to a certain point?"

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:09 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Great thread. It's hard to argue that Govt spending, beyond a certain point, provides a net benefit. I think you would find that point to be surprisingly low.

Um, don't you mean, "up to a certain point?"

No, that's what I meant. It's difficult to argue that govt spending, beyond the obvious eg Army, Police, schools (though not administered by govt) and a few others, provide a net benefit than if they were provided through the free market.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Great thread. It's hard to argue that Govt spending, beyond a certain point, provides a net benefit. I think you would find that point to be surprisingly low.

Um, don't you mean, "up to a certain point?"

Only if you measure benefit purely and only in terms of economic efficiency. I certainly see a benefit in cleaner air, safer products, more and more accurate information about the products I buy, and so forth, even if they come at the cost of some potential growth due to the fact that they can only be achieved through government regulation.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

bacasper wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Great thread. It's hard to argue that Govt spending, beyond a certain point, provides a net benefit. I think you would find that point to be surprisingly low.

Um, don't you mean, "up to a certain point?"

I guess you are more risk adverse than I. I'm happy to take on a little more risk in my day to day life in order that we might live a far better, and safer life in the near future.

The trouble with what you advocate, and it is a noble if not mis-guided goal, is that we stifle growth to the point that there is none!

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:31 pm Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

I guess you are more risk adverse than I. I'm happy to take on a little more risk in my day to day life in order that we might live a far better, and safer life in the near future.

I am very risk adverse when it comes to the quality of life of millions of people, yes. I'm also having a hard time imaginging how moderately higher economic growth results in far better, safer lives in the near future. Less pollution regulation, less medicinal regulation, less economic regulation, less product safety regulation, and so forth seem to me to be factors that would make for a less safe future for the common man. How does the increased economic growth you predict would happen compensate for those things and make our lives safer?

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

The trouble with what you advocate, and it is a noble if not mis-guided goal, is that we stifle growth to the point that there is none!

To be fair, history has shown you can have moderate regulation while still having non-zero economic growth. I agree it can be taken too far, but it need not be.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe