Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The Next President of the United States

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

The Next President of the United States
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:04 am Post subject:

Quote:

Cost of living is lower in Korea than the States too. Would you apply the same logic?

Yes. 2,0 million won is 1800 USD or 21600/yr. Could you imagine living on 22k/yr in the US as a grown man? All those Canucks you see talking about how "good the money" is in the ROK kinda demonstrate my point eh? Even add in the apartment. 30k? Rough.

Quote:

Sound, reasonable regulation and taxation need not end in that. We can have relatively free markets for non-essentials while still socializing when it comes to the necessities of life or matters of human safety.

Like shoes? Apples? Camon. If you want political allocation of "essential goods" you'll get Cuba for essential goods.

Quote:

We can have financial regulation without having bank bailouts.

Small and/or federally-politically unimportant banks didn't get bailouts. The gigantic federal government is a static target for lobbying. A decentralized economy has no need for bailouts. Even a centralized one doesn't, but industry becomes to strong that you get it. Any regulation should incentive small, local business.

Quote:

It just takes a populace that actually gives a damn. But if the populace doesn't give a damn, nothing can protect them.

What can they do? This is where we really part. You want a gigantic beast in DC that is accountable? That is not possible. Some things are not possible Fox. Local government must be strongest.

Quote:

California isn't a failure of government services, it's a failure of fiscal responsibility. Government services and fiscal responsibility can co-exist. Norway is an example.

Norway is full of Norwegians. Consensus is easy there. And it has fewer people than the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale metro. You progressive types have to stop looking at small homogeneous Scandinavian states as the model of gigantic, diverse and fractured USA.

Quote:

Do they really all have strengths and weaknesses? What, in your opinion, are the strengths of San Fransisco?

I was just being polite re: SF. God help the USA if SF's way of doing things dominates.

Quote:

What we can agree on is that Texas' system has availed it in the economic crisis.

Good. That's a very good quality.

Quote:

The introduction of a uniform, non-profit public health care system could be applied equally to each state while still benefiting some states more than others.

Best, deal with that on the state level. What will work for Vermont may not work in Florida or Texas. It is the United States, not the United State, no? I admire American Federalism. DC has proved itself completely incapable of reasonable legislation.

My bias regarding education is that the school system has little to zero impact on students. Kids that will do well, do well. See all the Korean kids in crappy schools in DC/LA. The problems are elsewhere (the home).

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_1_chicago-crime.html

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:42 am Post subject:

San Francisco strengths are: 1. Highly educated work force. Also close proximity to high education centers (stanford, UCB, UCSF) and the Silicon Valley. 2. Access to Asia. It is a hub for flights to Asia, and the 2nd biggest port on the West Coast is in the area (Oakland). 3. Its scenery and tourist sites. Those are the reasons SF stays afloat and its economy hasn't totally collapsed. As that SF Weekly Mises posted a few weeks ago, SF has gotten by DESPITE local government for those reasons primarily. Well not so much #2, I threw that one in, but you get the idea.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:48 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

Cost of living is lower in Korea than the States too. Would you apply the same logic?

2.0 million won for a Korean isn't analogous to 30k in the States. 2.0 million won is roughly their average income for a working man (and that's 2.0 million without housing included). The equivalent average income for an American man is about $45,000 a year. I think it would be hard to make the case that the Korean is better off by any reasonable standard, frankly. Except, perhaps, with regards to availibility of health care. Wink

mises wrote:

Quote:

Like shoes? Apples? Camon. If you want political allocation of "essential goods" you'll get Cuba for essential goods.

Plenty of countries have socialized when it comes to healthcare, for example, without becoming analogous to Cuba with regards to health care. The same goes for education, road infrastructure, and so forth. Things everyone needs.

mises wrote:

Quote:

We can have financial regulation without having bank bailouts.

I agree regulation should incentivize small, local business, but in most cases it needn't even do that. Really the most important purpose of business regulation is regarding information; consumers need accurate information to make good choices. Regulation to prevent businesses from lying about their products, either with regards to content or with regards to effect. Regulations preventing credit companies from hiding the real cost of credit from the consumer. Regulation preventing credit ratings industries from essentially deceiving investors about the quality of investments. This kind of thing would do a lot of good without actually putting unjust burden on companies.

mises wrote:

Quote:

It just takes a populace that actually gives a damn. But if the populace doesn't give a damn, nothing can protect them.

What can they do? This is where we really part. You want a gigantic beast in DC that is accountable? That is not possible. Some things are not possible Fox. Local government must be strongest.

An answer must be achieved. Large nations will always have some sort of over-arching governmental structure. Without a diligent citizen base, said governmental structure will inevitably incrementally increase over time both in power and in corruption. Federal government can't function if local government can trump it, and if local government can't trump it, Federal government will inevitably take more and more power into its own hands. This is where we really part because I just don't think "Let's tone down the Federal government and get more local," is an effective answer.

mises wrote:

Quote:

California isn't a failure of government services, it's a failure of fiscal responsibility. Government services and fiscal responsibility can co-exist. Norway is an example.

Alternatively, you conservative types need to understand that part of the diversity of the United States is political diversity, and so long as said political diversity exists there will be factions agitating for more governmental involvement. It's an inevitability. So, we can either follow the lead of successful countries in this regard, or we can have a mess. Big, effective government or big, ineffective government. Those are our choices in the real world. Small government isn't in the cards. This is the reality. Even if you somehow summoned up the political momentum to sweep something like that through right now, it wouldn't be long before things went back to how they were previously.

mises wrote:

Quote:

The introduction of a uniform, non-profit public health care system could be applied equally to each state while still benefiting some states more than others.

It's very hard for me to imagine a non-profit, competitive public health option that couldn't work in every state. And because it's an opt-in system, if there was little need for it in certain states, people simply wouldn't participate.

mises wrote:

My bias regarding education is that the school system has little to zero impact on students. Kids that will do well, do well.

I feel similarly up to the advanced level, at which point I think additional spending really can help get the most out of your best and brightest, especially with regards to the sciences.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:12 am Post subject:

A lower income (the GDP of Texas being lower, as your referenced) does not mean a lower standard of living. 2k/month goes much farther in Korea than it would in the USA. Just as a 40k/yr salary would go much farther in Texas than in California or NY. That is the comparison.

So, to use your point. A 38k/yr for a Texan is comparable to 44k/yr for a Californian. Especially since Cali's 10% income tax kicks in at 44k/yr.

Quote:

The health care systems you like are going to be perfectly insolvent in the very near future. Admire them while you can. Demographics are a mo'fo.

Anyways, should food be politically distributed? No? Why then must medical services? Why does the state require me to go to a guy with a decades worth of education (and half a million in debt) to get a broken toe looked at? Fox, this is why health care is expensive. It is regulated to all hell.

Quote:

Reasonable but entirely irrelevant. Texas isn't competitive for these reasons. The red-tape is easy and the taxes are low. It's that simple. California, NY, NJ etc push business out by not valuing their contribution and taking business for granted. The firm I work for advises all NY/Cali based firms to leave for Nevada, Texas, Florida and Tenn. And many do. It's rational. That's what we're talking about here. I have no opposition to consumer financial protection. I have opposition to Cali's 10% personal income taxes.

Quote:

Exactly! So you progressives can drive California into the ground and conservatives can do the opposite in Wyoming and Texas. This is federalism. Right?

Quote:

So, we can either follow the lead of successful countries in this regard,

Such as who. You're the biggest. Russia? China? Canada is big, but has fewer people than California. And it has a federal system. Which big successful country?

Quote:

Small government isn't in the cards. This is the reality.

I strongly disagree. Prepare for the great wave of bond defaults in the US. The biggest to be the Feds. This is the time of big government. It will destroy the economy.

Quote:

It won't happen. DC is ruined. Gotta look local. Look, Hope and Change. Majorities everywhere. What did they accomplish. They're going to force poor people to buy a defective product. Do you think the political environment is going to get better than now for your schemes?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:29 pm Post subject:

Pluto wrote:

Also, look at employment in TX, MN and ND and you'll see comparatively low jobless rates. Then look at FL, NV, CA and MI. Those four states were the epicenters of the RE catastrophe that took place. Subsequently, they are also the states with the highest unemployment rates. Mises, I'm surprised you missed this.

California needed a housing bubble to maintain employment at a level similar to bubble-free Texas.

But comparative stats are tough in this environment of economic carnage and distortions.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject:

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. Confused

Quote:

he's ready to say goodbye to Federalism

I've never been a huge fan of the federal system anyway. In my view, the disadvantages out weigh the advantages.

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Pluto wrote:

California needed a housing bubble to maintain employment at a level similar to bubble-free Texas.

But comparative stats are tough in this environment of economic carnage and distortions.

I don't mean to say that the regressions from the varying states are homogeneous. This is only a pattern I have observed. There seems to be a correlation between the epicenters of the housing busts, the debt and current unemployment. I am actually going back through Human Action right now and I think Mises makes a good case in Chapter 20, sections 7 & 8. States do an excellent job of consuming/squandering capital and don't have a good track record at investing capital. This is why I think Nevada and Florida are well positioned to do better that either California and Michigan. It helps entrepreneurs when they aren't running into the tax man or a regulator at every step in trying to build their businesses. Texas will continue to comparatively well, in my opinion.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:34 pm Post subject:

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.

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.

Beeyee

Joined: 29 May 2007

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:49 pm Post subject:

It's possible that the elite are grooming him for that role. He has attended Bilderberg on at least one occasion, in clear violation of the Logan act.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:11 pm Post subject:

There is no way the country could stay united if not for federalism. There is no large democratic country that doesn't have a federalist system. If china were to ever become democratic, it too would have to develop a federal system.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:22 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

I agree 2k/month goes farther in Korea than it would in the USA, but the guy who is earning 2k/month in Korea would be earning substantially more for the same work in the USA. Likewise, the guy who earns 40k/year in Texas would be earning more in California. Higher cost of living is off-set by higher wages. However, if you're in a high cost, high wage position, you've got more mobility, because your savings will translate into more value if you move into a low cost area than if someone from a low cost area moves into a high cost area.

mises wrote:

So, to use your point. A 38k/yr for a Texan is comparable to 44k/yr for a Californian. Especially since Cali's 10% income tax kicks in at 44k/yr.

Comparable in terms of what they can buy locally. Not necessarily comparable if they decide to move, at which point what matters is how much they were able to put away despite the cost of living. What we really need to consider is how much a person could save in a given month in either location, on average. I don't know the savings data for Texas and California, but an example I can give is teaching English in Korea and China. In each case, you're able to earn a wage which puts you roughly in the middle of the pack and affords you a comparable standard of living, but Korea comes out ahead savings-wise because you're being paid more in terms of the value you'll be able to transfer back home in the form of savings. Higher cost of living + higher wages = the % of your salary you're able to back is worth more. That might not avail you much if you stay in one place your whole life, but if you move, it can have an impact.

I also think it needs to be pointed out -- again -- that Texas has spent most of the last 15 years at a higher unemployment rate than the national average. It's only this economic crisis that has changed that. I'm not defending California in this regard, it didn't really do any better. But lots of states did, and that includes big spending states. Texas' system has only resulted in below average levels of unemployment in the last few years. While gaining an advantage during an economic crisis is nice, when it comes at the expense of doing worse outside of said crisis, I'm not sure I'd applaud it.

mises wrote:

Quote:

What do you mean no? Yes, it should to some extent, and we do do it to some extent. That's what food stamps are. It's also what government subsidization of farming is. Politics has a thorough affect on America's food supply.

mises wrote:

Why then must medical services? Why does the state require me to go to a guy with a decades worth of education (and half a million in debt) to get a broken toe looked at? Fox, this is why health care is expensive. It is regulated to all hell.

I've never been shy about admitting many current regulations are destructive. When I champion regulation, what I'm speaking in defense of is constructive regulation. I've given plenty of examples of that in my time here I think. I'm not an ideologue on this matter, though; there's plenty of bad regulation out there, and yes, some of it is responsible for high health care costs. But, that's not the only reason. Insurance companies do play a role. Indeed, if one considers how they operate, they inevitably play a role. Both these things can be addressed.

mises wrote:

I'm not going to argue here. I agree with you. The red-tape is the one of the two I think is a point where Texas definitely is doing something right. Red-tape should always be kept to a minimum. However, the taxes matter is different. From what I can see, Texas is under-taxing. It's lowered Taxes below it's sustainability threshold, even in light of how little it spends. So far it's gotten by through accounting tricks (like under-valuing the future entitlement costs), but evidently it's looking at a budget deficit of its own. I think that it's very telling that a state like Texas, which is renown as a low spender is facing a budget deficit due to its low taxes. We're talking bargain basement, lure businesses in at any cost low here. Sure, businesses like it, but that's not going to matter much if Texas is to remain solvent in the long-term.

mises wrote:

Quote:

Exactly! So you progressives can drive California into the ground and conservatives can do the opposite in Wyoming and Texas. This is federalism. Right?

Except that because each group is agitating for change in the direction of their respective political ideologies at both a state and federal level, your ability to do that is limited. Opponents of abortion aren't just going for state limitation, they'll want a federal ban. Proponents of credit card regulation will probably want said ban nation wide, and so forth.

For some things, okay, state level makes some sense. But any business regulation important enough to have is probably important enough to have nation wide. Further, I feel that excessive variance between state laws on important matters results in population polarization, which in turn empowers political extremists.

mises wrote:

Quote:

So, we can either follow the lead of successful countries in this regard,

Such as who. You're the biggest. Russia? China? Canada is big, but has fewer people than California. And it has a federal system. Which big successful country?

I don't think it's an obvious truth that small-country models can't be applied to big countries.

mises wrote:

Quote:

Small government isn't in the cards. This is the reality.

I strongly disagree. Prepare for the great wave of bond defaults in the US. The biggest to be the Feds. This is the time of big government. It will destroy the economy.

I guess we'll see.

mises wrote:

Quote:

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.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

There is no way the country could stay united if not for federalism. There is no large democratic country that doesn't have a federalist system. If china were to ever become democratic, it too would have to develop a federal system.

I think I should put forward that I'm not arguing against Federalism itself. Rather, I'm simply saying I think most business regulation and taxation of business income should be handled at the Federal level.

pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:08 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

I disagree. I say let the States compete for businesses.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:49 pm Post subject:

pkang0202 wrote:

Fox wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

I disagree. I say let the States compete for businesses.

Thanks for your opinion on the topic.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:34 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

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.

Which city/why?

Also, it isn't really an either/or. They're guides, right? Texas is not perfect, nor is California but the thrust of their success and failures provides a map for effective policy.

Fox, you have a stamina for pages of debate that I can't keep up with.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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. 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.

This will ruin your day Fox:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUTeWAK__CBI&pos=9

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 Next
Page 2 of 3

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