The Couch

Government subsidized

Comments on Government subsidized

Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#51 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/11 - 8:47 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

exactly. that is how debate works. an impasse is an impasse. yes, it is as simple as that.

also, claiming someone's statement is "loaded" without giving any evidence to support such a claim is clearly an appeal to emotion. something you seem to be advising against?


He is reiterating what I said without any points to fact, just throwing in some different language.

I said I geared my compassion in a different way. He said I was "selective." This is important because it implies that I only show compassion for select groups. This is not true, I hope war and poverty end tomorrow.

Did he introduce any new facts, or make an argument against some fact I presented? No, he just altered the wording of what I had already said in order to exaggerate a point he was trying to convey.

If I were to falsely call someone something, or make a statement with no evidence that isn't the same as "loaded language."

Loading language is like calling pro-choicers pro-babykillers.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#52 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/11 - 9:20 PM:

Z wrote:
He is reiterating what I said without any points to fact, just throwing in some different language.

he was making an observation, one that was completely fair given the course of conversation to that point.

Z wrote:
This is important because it implies that I only show compassion for select groups.

and where exactly had you said anything to the contrary, before this last post of yours?

Z wrote:
This is not true, I hope war and poverty end tomorrow.

so a collaborative effort to end poverty is something you would actively participate in?

Z wrote:
If I were to falsely call someone something, or make a statement with no evidence that isn't the same as "loaded language."

when did anyone say it was?
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#53 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/11 - 9:35 PM:

1. Fair in your mind. I don't really care about the fairness of the debate, just stating facts.

2. Shouldn't be necessary to do so.

3. Yes. By creating more resources, not taking from one person and giving to some one else. You're just changing who is poor.

4. Misread your post a little. Either way, I wasn't appealing to emotion, just stating a fact.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#54 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/11 - 10:47 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:
1. Fair in your mind. I don't really care about the fairness of the debate, just stating facts.

2. Shouldn't be necessary to do so.

well, if you don't care about the fairness of the debate, you're right. it's moot.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#55 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/07/11 - 8:31 AM:

3. Yes. By creating more resources, not taking from one person and giving to some one else. You're just changing who is poor.


I doubt very much that taxes ever made many people poor if progressive taxes were used. There were times when only the poorest were taxed, of course, and it's fair to say that they came off far worse. Those were, of course, barbaric, feodal times. Nowadays, most modern countries have progressive taxes. There's still a whole lot of needless poverty, but it's what passes for a civilised system these days. As in, the poor pay less, but usually stay poor (possibly a little less poor), and the richer pay more, but stay rich nevertheless (possibly a little less rich). Earning 100 or 200 million a year - having a 12 meter or a 15 meter luxury yacht - it makes no real difference. Not to mention those convenient little tax loopholes that only someone with an expensive accountant can afford to use.

Equal justice? Rarely, if ever. Equal opportunity? Nonexistant. The rich being worse off than others? Absurd.


"Creating more resources" Nobody has dared say this in a while now, except maybe some goofy perpetuum mobile freaks. I'd very much like to see you explain that one.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#56 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/07/11 - 3:25 PM:

An interesting, somewhat related article.

"America ain't broke! The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers."
www.huffingtonpost.com/mich...is-not-broke_b_832006.html
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#57 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/07/11 - 4:01 PM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:


I doubt very much that taxes ever made many people poor if progressive taxes were used. There were times when only the poorest were taxed, of course, and it's fair to say that they came off far worse. Those were, of course, barbaric, feodal times. Nowadays, most modern countries have progressive taxes. There's still a whole lot of needless poverty, but it's what passes for a civilised system these days. As in, the poor pay less, but usually stay poor (possibly a little less poor), and the richer pay more, but stay rich nevertheless (possibly a little less rich). Earning 100 or 200 million a year - having a 12 meter or a 15 meter luxury yacht - it makes no real difference. Not to mention those convenient little tax loopholes that only someone with an expensive accountant can afford to use.

Equal justice? Rarely, if ever. Equal opportunity? Nonexistant. The rich being worse off than others? Absurd.


"Creating more resources" Nobody has dared say this in a while now, except maybe some goofy perpetuum mobile freaks. I'd very much like to see you explain that one.


I'm not talking about the extremely rich.

It's the middle class that suffers because they are the ones that end up having to work their ass off to take care of the poor. We've seen in recent years the middle class begin to slip away into poverty.

Should all taxes be progressive? Cigarette and alcohol tax are regressive.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#58 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 2:07 AM:

It's the middle class that suffers because they are the ones that end up having to work their ass off to take care of the poor. We've seen in recent years the middle class begin to slip away into poverty.


That has nothing to do with taxes that are too high, more likely it has to do with taxes that are too low (I suppose it's mostly the taxation of corporations and the super-rich that's too low). The USA have far less taxes than most developed countries and, as a result, huge budget problems. If the government can't do the necessary investments to support the economy
- infrastructure: roads, railroads, harbours
- research and development: the time that the west will be passed, by india, china and other fast developing countries, in the field of technological advancement, is not far off.
- on a related subject: materials will grow more and more expensive: oil to start with, but others just as well. We need far more technological advances in materials recycling and we need them fast.
- medical care - so that people don't go bancrupt all the time and might still add to the economy after getting sick

trouble (recession) is on its way. Obviously. There's a pretty good quote on the subject: 'it's the economy ....'

Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#59 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 8:37 AM:

The U.S. has the highest GDP, and the highest GDP per capita.

China has a rapidly increasing GDP per capita because it was so low to begin with, it's still very low especially in comparison to ours.

The U.S. is consistently at the top of the class in Nobel Prize Laureates.

We are -in- a recession. This is the natural state of things, the economy is constantly going through cycles. Being that the U.S. has such a strong economy, we aren't feeling the recession as much as other countries.

I'd challenge you to back up your claims. It seems like you're just spewing propaganda. Not really you're fault, People are always going to try to convince you that we're doing terrible and that the U.S. is about to crumble

In reality we are doing excellent, especially in comparison to the rest of the world. This is largely due to free-market system, it has created an environment where competition is prevalent and there is incentive for entrepreneurship.

If anything China has only seen increases in their GDP and GDP per capita after establishing a more capitalist economic system, that is DECREASING their taxes. Their recent prosperity isn't a result of their socialism.

The U.S. does have some flawed systems though, you're right. Medicare and social security are massively inefficient for example.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#60 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 10:06 AM:

The U.S. has the highest GDP, and the highest GDP per capita.


Hate to burst your bubble, but that's pretty far from the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)


'd challenge you to back up your claims. It seems like you're just spewing propaganda.


There's the accusation again. Ad homs don't do you any credit. Take it easy.

In reality we are doing excellent, especially in comparison to the rest of the world.


Yeh. Compared to some parts of the world, I'll grant you that. But for how long? When I look at the USA, I see a lot of problems with regard to the support of the economy, social structures and environmental protection. It won't last, it's not sustainable, and something's gonna give.
Don't take it too hard, I have similar criticisms for most other countries. Including my own.

In reality we are doing excellent, especially in comparison to the rest of the world. This is largely due to free-market system, it has created an environment where competition is prevalent and there is incentive for entrepreneurship.

If anything China has only seen increases in their GDP and GDP per capita after establishing a more capitalist economic system, that is DECREASING their taxes. Their recent prosperity isn't a result of their socialism.


I think you've got the wrong angle here. I'm a strong believer in entrepreneureship. Heck, I'm married to 'une entrepreneuse'. What I'm pointing at is the lack of some essential support systems and - worse even - lack of foresight. China is not sustainable either (not by a long shot), but it's huge and still developing, so that it will probably hold out longer than your country and mine.

Development will happen at some point in every region of the world, pretty much regardless of the exact parameters of the social circumstances (China, India and all the other fast developing countries have a huge variety of political systems). We've had our turn a while back. The question is now how you'll structure your society to render it - here's that word again - sustainable. It's something we'll have to be smart about. Defending the nest and kicking everyone off (including the government) won't do much good in the long term, because money will roll.

It's already rolling. Can you say 150 $ per barrel?

We are -in- a recession. This is the natural state of things, the economy is constantly going through cycles. Being that the U.S. has such a strong economy, we aren't feeling the recession as much as other countries.


I think this is a naïve statement. The problem is structural - material shortage. The era of limitless resources is over. Time to face the music.

Edited by smokinpristiformis on 03/08/11 - 10:14 AM
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#61 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 12:10 PM:

GDP Per Capita
U.S. - 47,132
China - 4,520
India - 1,176

How exactly are you bursting my bubble?

smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#62 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 12:12 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:
GDP Per Capita
U.S. - 47,132
China - 4,520
India - 1,176

How exactly are you bursting my bubble?




Ok, fair's fair. I'm not bursting your bubble, Norway is.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#63 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 12:20 PM:

"I think this is a naïve statement. The problem is structural - material shortage. The era of limitless resources is over. Time to face the music. "

The problem, if there is one, will work itself out in a free-market system.

The more you consciously attempt to reallocate resources using an inefficient system the more goes to waste.

If the government doesn't fix roads someone from the private sector will, and they will do it for much cheaper and they will do a better job. Nearly anything the government does can be done much more efficiently by the private sector.

Don't take my statement as an attack on you, I don't discredit your knowledge, I just think the economy of the U.S. gets a very skewed portrayal by the global media. Not to mention the fear-mongers within the U.S. that are looking for votes and party affiliation with promises of "the cure."
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#64 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 12:24 PM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:



Ok, fair's fair. I'm not bursting your bubble, Norway is.


Haha. I was talking about China, the U.S. and India. (The countries you had earlier mentioned.)

Of course there are a number of smaller countries with much higher GDP's.

I think most of those countries (Sweden for example) have strong capitalist economic foundations.

smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#65 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 12:44 PM:

If the government doesn't fix roads someone from the private sector will, and they will do it for much cheaper and they will do a better job. Nearly anything the government does can be done much more efficiently by the private sector.


Whereas that might very well be true. Some things won't be done due to social dilemma's.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#66 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 12:47 PM:

Valid point. I'm not saying there is no need for any government intervention whatsoever, I'm saying it ought to be as minimal as possible.

When times are good governments should reduce spending, and when they are bad governments should reduce spending even less.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#67 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 2:32 PM:

When times are good governments should reduce spending, and when they are bad governments should reduce spending even less.


Actually, the practice is that governments increase spending in hard times to fuel the economy and allow everyone to keep their head above water until the hard times pass by.

I think that the current crisis is more important, more fundamental than the previous ones and that the governments urgently need to invest heavily in progress in technology and sustainability to resolve the underlying problems.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#68 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/11 - 5:06 PM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:


Actually, the practice is that governments increase spending in hard times to fuel the economy and allow everyone to keep their head above water until the hard times pass by.

I think that the current crisis is more important, more fundamental than the previous ones and that the governments urgently need to invest heavily in progress in technology and sustainability to resolve the underlying problems.


I know what the practice is.

I just don't agree with it.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#69 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 3:29 AM:

What I don't agree with is this:

The problem, if there is one, will work itself out in a free-market system.



I can't understand the almost religious belief in the absolute free market system. It's a good system in the sense that economical initiative is encouraged, but it is by definition short-sighted (and therefore unsustainable when left to its own devices) and unethical. There's a lot of compensation needed for the huge problems that result from these two major bugs.

The material shortage, global warming and pollution will always be resolved at some point in the future. It might take two hundred, and it might take two thousand, and it might take two million years (nuclear waste). The economical and political system is not relevant with regard to the question wwhether it will be resolved. However, the way our governments and societies deal with the upcoming problems is absolutely crucial with regard to the cost of the solution. Acting with such short-sightedness means taking a loan on the future of which you don't know what the interest is. It's a risk I'm not prepared to take.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#70 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/11 - 11:27 AM:

Unethical?

Based on what? Your own definition of what's ethical?

You're mistaking me for an libertarian anarchist. I said government intervention should be minimal, not nonexistent.

Should the government intervene in cases like Katrina and global warming? Sure. Should they provide a standing army? Yes.

Should they pay for your cough because you didn't feel like getting a job? No. Buy your own cough medicine, pay for your own doctor's bill.

And what do you mean by material shortage? Did the sun go out or something?
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#71 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 9:17 AM:

Unethical?

Based on what? Your own definition of what's ethical?


No, I simply mean that it has no ethics.


Should they pay for your cough because you didn't feel like getting a job? No. Buy your own cough medicine, pay for your own doctor's bill.


Absurd argument. People get sick. Many get such severe diseases that they can't even pay for the treatment. Rarely because they want to.


And what do you mean by material shortage?


WTF?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#72 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 9:29 AM:

"Absurd argument"

No.

For Zen to say, "Buy your own cough medicine, pay for your own doctor's bill", is a commonsensical statement, not absurd or argument.

What IS absurd is the idea that because one gets a warm and fuzzy feeling from 'helping' it follows that everyone gets that same warm and fuzzy feeling. What’s absurd is the notion that because one 'gives', everyone 'should' give. What's absurd is enforced compassion.

#

"Many get such severe diseases that they can't even pay for the treatment"

So what?

If I develop a horrific cancer and can't pay for my treatment: I die.

Not YOUR problem.
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#73 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 9:47 AM:

Smokis, most of the problems you mentioned are very well publicized and specific problems. Global warming we've all heard of, pollution ties into this.

I'm not sure I'm familiar with some sort of drastic shortage of materials. What materials? Wood, cotton, oil, water? Shortage of raw materials? Intermediate goods?

We all die some day, smokis. Why drain the rest of society if a specific individual does not have the resources to combat their disease?

Would if be absurd for an 80 year old man ask society to poor all of their resources into finding the cure for natural death from old age because he feared his own death?
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#74 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 6:08 AM:

For Zen to say, "Buy your own cough medicine, pay for your own doctor's bill", is a commonsensical statement, not absurd or argument.


I was rather pointing at the implication that all people who receive medical social support are leeches of society who go to the doctor because they don't want to work.


So what?

If I develop a horrific cancer and can't pay for my treatment: I die.

Not YOUR problem.



I find that very sad, almost revolting. I've found this view with you and a few of your countrymen and I've given up trying to convince you otherwise.



What IS absurd is the idea that because one gets a warm and fuzzy feeling from 'helping' it follows that everyone gets that same warm and fuzzy feeling. What’s absurd is the notion that because one 'gives', everyone 'should' give. What's absurd is enforced compassion.


You and I give and take every day. When you go to the supermarket, you give money and take the groceries. It's a deal.

This is the same in a social support system: You pay the contribution and in exchange you've got the guarantie that sickness won't cause you to go bancrupt.

It's a general, global insurance. Sometimes you have to make a deal as a society.


I'm not sure I'm familiar with some sort of drastic shortage of materials. What materials? Wood, cotton, oil, water? Shortage of raw materials? Intermediate goods?


Water, fossil fuels, phosphorus (fertilizer), iron and other metals, rich soil, clean air, are the first few things that come to mind.

The point is not that these things will cease to exist. The point is that we're using so much of it, so fast and at such environmental and social costs that the current modus operandi is not sustainable. We can't simply keep mining the diminishing natural resources of ore and oil because while supply is declining, demand is rising and the prices will follow (it happened in 2008 and it's happening now). The resulting cost of living will start to drive more and more people into poverty. We can't keep on polluting water and air because we need more and more of it to provide for a growing world's population.

There is an urgent need for new approaches: recycling, purification, higher efficiëncy, more effective and intelligent technology. All that, not so much because things will run out, but to guarantie that a human standard of living conditions may be provided. The alternative is that only the richest can afford a decent life, while many regions in the world have been plundered of their natural resources at the expense of the poor and to the benefit of the rich (you and me).

You might not care much whether millions of people are deprived of their means to have a decent life as long as you've got all you need. That's not ok, but there's not much I can do about it.


We all die some day, smokis. Why drain the rest of society if a specific individual does not have the resources to combat their disease?


Because a human life has value and because we can. It really isn't that great a sacrifice.


Would if be absurd for an 80 year old man ask society to poor all of their resources into finding the cure for natural death from old age because he feared his own death?


Again with the absurd examples. Earlier they were leeches, now they're idiots asking to be cured of old age. These are human beings we're talking about, right? They do get unlucky from time to time. They get sick or injured, sometimes they even need expensive treatment. That's life. But we can defend ourselves against bad luck by sticking together.

Edited by smokinpristiformis on 03/14/11 - 6:15 AM
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#75 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 9:20 AM:

"I find that very sad, almost revolting."

As revolting, I'm sure, as I find the notion of 'we' over 'I'.

*shrug*

#

"This is the same in a social support system"

No, it most certainly is NOT.

I choose which grocer to go to...I may choose to not go at all and stay home to tend my garden or butcher a pig or whatever. I'm not obligated to shop and not obligated shop any specific place or with any specific vendor. On the other hand: your 'social support system' is generally a mandatory affair. I must participate or be penalized.

No: not the same kind of animal AT ALL.

#

"Sometimes you have to make a deal as a society"

No: most of the time I have to deal WITH individuals...but: I'm not obligated to 'make deals' or compromises with any one or ones.

Certainly: I’m not obligated to accommodate 'we'.

*shrug*


You, Willem, must do as you are meant to (as your conscience dictates), as am I.

The difference seems to be: when I assert myself, I make no demands of any one (except to get the hell out of my face and my wallet); when someone who shares your sentiments asserts him- or her-self that person seems more than wiling to force me into cage because I won't submit or comply or 'see' the 'rightness' of his or her position.

By asserting 'I': I ask nothing but to be left alone.

By (your) asserting 'we': 'I' automatically become suspect.

Am I wrong?
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.