|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
The political environment will improve when people start paying more real attention to it. The internet really does make that a possibility, so I try to remain optimistic. If we experience an overall cultural shift away from "people who are informed by the media" to "people who inform themselves through actively seeking out data", then we have a reasonable chance at a more politically aware populace that makes better voting decisions. I'd like to see how that turns out before I give up. |
Umm ok, so you say, "The internet really does make that a possibility so I try to remain optimistic." Yet in the next sentence you say, "IF we experience an overall cultural shift away from 'people who are informed by the media' to 'people who inform themselves through actively seeking out data'"
So I guess you're arguing that the internet enables people to seek out that data more easily, so therefore there could be a cultural shift- correct?
Dude, once again, you're being way optimistic. You have to accept the fact that people on this forum are the exception and not the rule. In general, people could care less about what's going on in the political world. I mean did TV and mass media make the general populace any more informed? Even though they allowed one to obtain data more easily? Eh not that I'm aware of.
I think people have used the internet to reinfoce their ideas. Just human nature. And I think TV has evolved that way too. It used to be fairly neutral, but now you have Fox News vs. MSNBC. Why? Because people want to reinforce their perception of the world. Ironically enough newspapers went the opposite route. Perhaps that is one reason they're doing so poorly 
In short, yes, the internet has made it easier for a person to obtain information. That just helps people such as you and me, who wanted to seek it out to begin with. As for your average joe, eh, I doubt it has really changed their perception of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The political environment will improve when people start paying more real attention to it. The internet really does make that a possibility, so I try to remain optimistic. If we experience an overall cultural shift away from "people who are informed by the media" to "people who inform themselves through actively seeking out data", then we have a reasonable chance at a more politically aware populace that makes better voting decisions. I'd like to see how that turns out before I give up. |
Umm ok, so you say, "The internet really does make that a possibility so I try to remain optimistic." Yet in the next sentence you say, "IF we experience an overall cultural shift away from 'people who are informed by the media' to 'people who inform themselves through actively seeking out data'"
So I guess you're arguing that the internet enables people to seek out that data more easily, so therefore there could be a cultural shift- correct? |
Correct.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Dude, once again, you're being way optimistic. You have to accept the fact that people on this forum are the exception and not the rule. In general, people could care less about what's going on in the political world. |
And that's either going to change, or none of our speculation here matters at all, because so long as the population remains politically apathetic, reform of any variety is fundamentally impossible.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| I mean did TV and mass media make the general populace any more informed? Even though they allowed one to obtain data more easily? Eh not that I'm aware of. |
Yeah I think TV probably has made people more informed than they would be without it. It just hasn't been enough.
I understand the point you're trying to make, though, which is why I'm talking about optimism rather than certainty. But, if people don't use the incredible tools they've been given to start getting more informed, then it doesn't matter what system would be better or worse. We won't get it. Our choices are optimism or despair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| And it shouldn't. I think the only people who support farm subsidies are farmers who receive farm subsidies. These subsidies are a big factor in why many Americans are overweight. And food stamps give food to the poor but do not direct production/distribution, as far as I know. Though if that is your model for a medical system (health stamps) we'll agree. |
It's a possibility, though not the one that I'd put forward as my first choice. And frankly, I think a public option would both be more effective at controlling costs and be more in line with free market values.
| mises wrote: |
| I don't disagree with a health system that covers all. Despite my extreme fiscal conservatism, it is sensible and ethical and I support it. But Obama's policy (the Massachusetts policy) is unreasonable. The Canadian system is unsustainable. |
Well, a discussion about specifics is much different than a discussion about principles. I've all ready said I'm not a fan at all of the system that's on its way through right now, for very obvious reasons. It will almost certainly do more harm than good.
| mises wrote: |
| The people don't matter. Not in my country or yours. The problem is corporate personhood (and similar for NGO's, unions and trade groups). Only individual voters should be able to lobby government. |
While I don't agree that it's quite that extreme, I do agree corporate personhood is an immense problem that needs to be resolved, and soon. Corporations -- and, for that matter, unions -- should have no voice in our politics. If members of corporations or unions want to have a voice, they can speak as individuals.
| mises wrote: |
| You and I have no power in the face of a union or mega-firm. That most people don't seem all that involved is a symptom of their lack of power. They're rational. |
Not as much as you might think. I didn't have a lot of hope for that anyway, and frankly I think it was far too broad in scope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Pick. The California model or the Texas model. Big government/little government.
|
Ya-Ta may not respect the choice, he's ready to say goodbye to Federalism.
Anyway, I agree. Pick your state. I wouldn't want 50 Texases any more than I'd want 50 Californias. |
Ahem. In a thread supposed to be about Rick Perry we get the same old economic arguments...Since that's the way it goes, why are there only two choices, Texas and California? Low tax/low service vs Tax-payer-revolt-gone-mad.
Somehow I feel this particular debate is rigged. 
|
You can't take my quote to mean there are only two choices, Ya-Ta; I actually support Federalism. I don't believe in Utopias. You're right, California is indefensible. But that doesn't mean you can't attack Texas for its weaknesses. And there are 48 other states you can draw on for comparisons, too.
But the Cali/Texas debate is convenient because the two could be considerably weighty countries on their own, and they have similar demographics.
Rick Perry seems to me like an opportunist, and his flirtation with secession is embarrassing. But that wouldn't keep me from moving to Texas. |
My rejection of the Texas vs California choice was aimed at mises, not you, Kuros.
California is a mess as I think pretty much everyone agrees. From my perspective, it's the poster child for direct democracy gone bad. Our system is supposed to work through compromise worked out in legislative bodies who have overall control of the whole process. California has single-issue referendums that torpedo the process.
I agree with your assessment of Rick Perry although I'd go much further than 'embarrassing' to describe his flirtation with secession. One of my major complaints with federalism is the slippery slope of states rights with secession being the extremist conclusion. It's far too easy for secession to be used as a threat and a bludgeon for every issue where there is disagreement. It's one country; it's majority rule; pout when you lose but then get to work to change things within the system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm surprised no one brought up yet how Texas has a Constitutionally weak governor regardless of who's sitting in office. Perry's taken a comparatively hands off approach because he has no other choice in that position thanks to the Texas Constitution. If he were to become President, all bets would be off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001313-a-milestone-road-becoming-a-third-world-economy
| Quote: |
A Milestone on the Road to Becoming a Third-World Economy
by Bill Watkins 01/06/2010
Northrop Grumman Corp started California�s New Year by announcing it is moving its headquarters to the Washington D.C. area. Unfortunately, they are neither the first nor the last major corporation to leave Southern California. It is a trend, one that may not last much longer, though since aren�t that many major corporations still headquartered in greater Los Angeles.
For decades, Southern California was the center of the aerospace world, a basic part of the Southern California�s DNA. Now, once Northrop leaves, there will be no major aerospace companies still headquartered in Southern California.
Aerospace is not the only industry abandoning Southern California. The region was once host to financial giants, like Bank of America, Security Pacific Bank, Countrywide, and First Interstate. Today, there are none. California was once a major automobile manufacturing state, with a dozen plants. Even the entertainment industry is slowly shifting away from its Hollywood roots.
When you lose corporate headquarters, you lose more than jobs. You lose the tax base, the leadership, the philanthropic giving, and the intangibles. Corporate headquarters are usually very good citizens.
Many local political leaders ignore this business� exodus, or make excuses. The decline of the U.S. defense spending, aerospace spending in particular, is often given as a reason for the decline. But the last decade was not a bad one for defense; the industry thrived, just not in Southern California.
The reasons for this exodus are both simpler and less flattering than those usually given. One big reason is selfishness. California�s decline chose to consume, and not to produce. Wealthy, aging, Baby Boomers control the state. In the cause of �quality of life,� or �the environment,� they have succeeded in limiting opportunity for everyone else.
The other big reason for decline lies with governments, state and local, that now exist to serve themselves and not their citizens. The level of government goods and services, even infrastructure and basics, has declined, but state spending, adjusted for inflation and population, has continued to soar. The difference has been going into public employee�s pockets, through higher salaries, benefits, and generous retirement programs.
Remarkably, no Southern California economic sector is in ascendancy. Unemployment remains well above the national average, particularly in the middle class Inland Empire. The growth in bankruptcies has been about twice that of the United States. The state is becoming less equitable, the divide between those who have and those who do not have constantly growing, the middle class declining.
Southern California is starting to look a lot like a third-world economy, service based, inequitable, serving a wealthy, mostly aging few, with little opportunity for younger workers and a large underclass. Changing the region�s prospects will be very difficult. Nothing short of a major generational change in leadership is likely to change the current sad trajectory. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Inquiring minds are asking "Why Is California Broke?" It's a good question. Please consider ...
* California has the 3rd highest state income tax in the nation: 9.55% tax bracket at $47,055 and 10.55% at $1,000,000 - Tax Foundation 2010 State Business Tax Climate Table 2
* California has the highest state sales tax rate in the nation by far at 8.25%. Indiana is next highest at 7%. Table 15
* California corporate income tax rate is 3rd worst in the nation with a rate of 8.84%. - Table 2 and Table 8
* California ranks 13th in property taxes. Table 2
* California has the fourth highest capital gains tax 9.55%. - Capital Gains Tax Rates By State
* California has the highest gasoline tax as of January 2010, averaging 65 cents/gallon. The national average is 47.4% - API Motor Fuel Taxes
* California has one of the highest state vehicle license car taxes, 1.15% per year on value of vehicle, up from 0.65% in 2008. [expired link]
So where's the money going?
* 1 in 5 in LA County receiving public aid, nearly 2.2 million people as of February 2009. 20% in Los Angeles County receive public aid
* California has 12% of the nation�s population, but 36% of the country�s TANF (�Temporary� Assistance for Needy Families) welfare recipients � more than the next 8 states combined. Unlike other states, this �temporary� assistance becomes much more permanent in CA. July, 2009 California has more recipients in key welfare category than next eight states combined.
* California prison guards highest paid in the nation. The maximum pay of California's prison guards is nearly 40 percent higher than that of the highest-paid guards in 10 other states and the federal government, according to a study by the California Department of Personnel Administration. Cal-Taxletter
* California teachers easily the highest paid in the nation. National Education Association
* California now has the lowest bond ratings of any state, two steps above junk. The new rating affects about $72 billion of general obligation and lease-supported bonds. July 15 California bond rating cut again
* California ranks 44th worst in �2008 lawsuit climate.� Institute For Legal Reform
* California, a destitute state, still gives away college education at fire sale prices. California community college tuition is by far the lowest in the nation. Nationwide, the average community college tuition is 4.5 times higher than California CC�s. This ridiculously low tuition devalues education to students � resulting in a 30+% drop rate for class completion. Moreover, 2/3 of California CC students pay no tuition at all � filling out a simple unverified �hardship� form that exempts them from any tuition payment, or receiving grants and tax credits for their full tuition. [Expired Link]
* California offers thousands of absolutely free adult continuing education classes. In San Diego, over 1,400 classes for everything from baking pastries to ballroom dancing are offered totally at taxpayer expense. San Diego Continuing Education
* California residential electricity costs 13.81 cents per kilowatthour. The national average is 6.99-8.49. US Department of Energy
* It costs 38% more to build solar panels in California than in Tennessee � which is why European corporations have invested $2.3 billion in two Tennessee manufacturing plants to build solar panels for our state. March 5, 2009 More Solar Companies Producing Elsewhere to Sell to California |
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-is-california-broke.html
Simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
CALIFORNIA is broken...but not because it is socialist...it's actually overboard capitalistic...to the point of being the 7th largest economy on it's own.
It would still be #1 in popularity/business/etc. by a longshot...but things are so overgone capitalistic crazy, that everyone is demanding their little tiny houses they got are worth 3/4 of a million dollars...and won't budge below that.
TEXAS works because people can't try to sell their houses for 3/4 million dollars...no one makes enough money to afford those prices. In California, the world's 7th largest economy, people CAN still pay those prices.
Now if you are talking about where a person who ISN'T uber-rich and wants to survive on a modest wage and get a house...then Texas works great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
