Free Money for All!

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by MattR, Jan 24, 2008.

  1. Wingtips1

    Wingtips1 Member+

    May 3, 2004
    02116
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    but you're taking productive money out of the economy through gov't to 'prop up' those unemployed folks. hardly a sound long-term economic policy.
     
  2. Wingtips1

    Wingtips1 Member+

    May 3, 2004
    02116
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    no, they are the ones who get gov't assistance. gov't is in place to assure those that cannot meet basic life skills are looked after (mentally challenged, physically disabled as two examples). those who chose to drop out of high school and are now on the streets through the poor choices they've made don't deserve the help of the gov't.
     
  3. Wingtips1

    Wingtips1 Member+

    May 3, 2004
    02116
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    we'd allow private companies to build and operate the jails, with inmates providing labor so that the jail owner is able to profit from the service to society.
    and also, you should know that we believe the gov't is there to protect the citizens. so police protection is one beneficial use of tax revenues. your knowledge of libertarian principles is, not surprisingly, quite limited.
     
  4. MattR

    MattR Member+

    Jun 14, 2003
    Reston
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm sorry wingtips, but this is totally incorrect. Currently, every man, woman and child in America is on the dole. The government provides us with education from the age of 5 - 18. Most universities we attend are public, and most of us pay with some sort of deferred or state-sponsored loan program. Gasoline prices are kept artificially low thanks to low taxes, kissing the Saudis, and occasional very expensive wars in the middle east. Airline costs are kept artificially low thanks to bailouts every 4-5 years. The government continues to borrow cash and put it into pork projects, government contractors, military bases, research institutes, and other efforts that would have been closed long ago except the effect on the economy would be too great. The economy has been continually propped up by the Federal Reserve by emergency rate cuts and the printing of money when necessary, which is apparently anytime it looks like the dow might drop a few hundred points. The government has also bailed out companies such as Dodge and Harley-Davidson when asked.

    The idea that a middle-class American, who has used the government crutch for education, transportation, and employment somehow "earns" their food, and that a lower-class American relies on government handouts is a dangerous and blurry line.
     
  5. Wingtips1

    Wingtips1 Member+

    May 3, 2004
    02116
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    not a single true libertarian wants gov't sponsored schools, the gov't collecting then redistributing money for "research" and pet projects, and taxpayer funded bailouts of private companies.

    how do you know this? who is to say that if that money was left in private hands, the researchers wouldn't be able to draw venture funding and develop new medicines? who is to say that private companies wouldn't purchase the highways and bridges and better maintain them? who is to say that the gov't contractors wouldn't find private pursuits if Washington handed over it's pet projects to the private sector? most everything you mentioned has been proven to work in a more efficient manner in the private realm. so why not cast it all off.
     
  6. Pathogen

    Pathogen Member

    Jul 19, 2004
    Like you care.
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You know, if the government would have given the last few CEOs I've had to work for enough incentive not to work, those companies would have been much better off. People want to bitch about the lower end of the incompetent scale sucking off the gubmint teet. But the a-holes at the top do far more damage with thier incompetent involvement. Hell, George Bush is the biggest arguement for why everyone shouldn't necessarily be gainfully employed.
     
  7. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You realize that by working for incompetence you are enabling incompetence, right?
     
  8. Pathogen

    Pathogen Member

    Jul 19, 2004
    Like you care.
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh yeah, because we can all have the power of the board of governors to determine who we work for. Hi, I'm Earth. Have we met?
     
  9. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You could change jobs if it's so bad.
     
  10. John Galt

    John Galt Member

    Aug 30, 2001
    Atlanta
    nuh-uh.
     
  11. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Are too are too are too!!!!
     
  12. wolfp10

    wolfp10 Member

    Sep 25, 2005
    Easier said than done.
     
  13. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not really
     
  14. John Galt

    John Galt Member

    Aug 30, 2001
    Atlanta
    yeah-huh
     
  15. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    nope nope nope nope nope
     
  16. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Some common sense from Steven Lansberg on "Why the Stimulus Shouldn't Stimulate You"

    As a general rule, economic policies command bipartisan support only when they're incoherent. Take, for example, the fiscal stimulus package now bulldozing its way through the legislative process. It's poorly conceived, it's unlikely to work, and it's sure to do a lot of collateral damage.

    The idea, we're told, is to stave off an all-out recession by stimulating both investment (through tax cuts for businesses) and consumption (through tax rebates to individuals). But hold it right there.

    Investment and consumption are natural rivals.

    Investment means converting resources into machines and factories; consumption means converting those same resources into TV sets and motorboats. In anything but the very short run, more of one means less of the other.

    Ah, say the package's more honest proponents, that's exactly what we care about -- the very short run. And in the very short run, we can have more of everything if only we put more people to work.

    Fine, but what makes you think that this package will put anyone to work? The idea behind the stimulus deal is to give people tax cuts so they'll feel richer and spend more. But government can't make people richer on average; all it can do is shuffle wealth around. To pay Peter, you must tax Paul (or at least promise to tax Paul in the future, when your debts come due). Peter spends more, but Paul spends less.

    Now maybe you can time things so Peter goes on a spending spree today but Paul doesn't tighten his belt until next month. (Then again, maybe you can't: Paul's no fool, and he's likely to start cutting back as soon as he sees higher taxes on the horizon.) But even if you manage to pull this trick off, sooner or later you must tax Paul. So today's fiscal stimulus comes at the expense of tomorrow's fiscal drag.

    Moreover, even if you do somehow manage to increase spending, that doesn't mean you'll put Americans to work. More likely, you'll put Asians to work producing goods for the U.S. market. President Bush seems to have become confused on this key point because he misunderstands supply-side economics. He has vaguely remembered that tax cuts put people to work, but he's forgotten that only marginal tax cuts put people to work. Non-marginal tax cuts -- such as the ones in the stimulus package -- have exactly the opposite effect, when they have any effect at all.


    ...
    Read the rest
     
  17. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There aren't jobs for everyone, and there never will be. So that answer is just dumb.

    But, hey, it's easy to make dumb arguments when you're not worried about how you're going to feed your children.

    Who said it was a sound economic policy, short- or long-term?

    I certainly didn't.
     
  18. saosebastiao

    saosebastiao New Member

    May 22, 2005
    :D

    You know...you are making it sound like you have no control over your life at all.
     
  19. saosebastiao

    saosebastiao New Member

    May 22, 2005
    I know a lot of people!:D
     
  20. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    We don't help those people to help those people, we help those people because it helps ourselves. You guys are always promoting your studies showing the fluid nature of classes in America, why not keep these people alive long enough to go into the next class up and start being productive? And as long as the government keeps those people fed and homed, they stay on the government's side. In 1930's America, the class of people who could not get jobs were given help by the government. In 1920's and 30's Germany, those people were given help by a private organization. They changed their aliegences. Because people don't only follow themselves - they follow leaders. And groups kick ass over a bunch of individuals.
    And what happens when the business goes out because a bunch of unskilled workers that require expensive housing and guards don't produce enough profit? What's going to happen when the business's profit comes from people that can't leave and are surrounded by guards with guns? We already have private prisons, and we already have prison workers doing menial tasks. They still require large payments from government.
    Because they already can but they don't. At least not for projects that won't make them money. They are always going to pick tiny blue diamonds over the next antibiotics because that is what makes money. And money is not the determining factor in what humanity really needs.

    --

    If you accept that there is a market where good ideas for business compete with each other and the best survive, what is so strange about the idea that governments compete with each other and the best survive? There is a reason that places have particular governments at particular times, and it isn't the whimsical styles of the governed. From this idea, we can tell what time and place libertarianism is the ideal form of government. It's when everything has turned to crap.
     
  21. saosebastiao

    saosebastiao New Member

    May 22, 2005
     
  22. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wrong.

    Wrong.

    Well, kind of... Hong Kong had the distinct advantage of being propped up by Britain, and thus gaining all of the advantages that come from already having climbed the ladder. "Neoliberalism" only works well when you've got a technological edge with your trading partners - if you are starting out behind, "neoliberalism" is an unmitigated disaster.

    I admittedly know less about these particular states, and don't feel motivated enough to look it all up, tho I'd be shocked if they broke from the pattern of neoliberal failures. I mean, even in our own history periods dominated by neoliberal policies have had slower growth.

    Why not mention South Korea? That's always cited as a "free trade" success story (especially in comparison to North Korea), even tho it's not true.
     
  23. Smurfquake

    Smurfquake Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 8, 2000
    San Carlos, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah, that would be great. You know what else would be cool? When someone gets convicted of a crime, the government could hold an auction where all of the jail owners could bid on the convict based on the quality of labor they think the convict can perform. They could maybe put a chain around the convict's neck, and put him up on a stage, and then rip his shirt off or something so the jail owners can see what kind of physical specimen he is. And if it's a woman... bonus! The hot chicks will sell for so much more than the ugly ones. Who cares what kind of work they end up doing in the privatized jail? It's not like a libertarian government is going to regulate that.

    No privatization of the police force? Darn, that takes away the next step, where the jail owners could hire their own police to go arrest people, then hold their own trials to convict them (with their own hired judges) and then sentence them to a lifetime of unpaid labor for the jail owners. But I guess you have to have principles.
     
  24. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They wouldn't need to regulate it. The free market regulates itself. You see, people would find mistreatment of prisoners distasteful, and so would boycott the products made by the prisons which have inhumane conditions. So, in order to promote sales, the private owners of the prisons would have to implement (and publicly promote, of course) fair, morally acceptable practices. The profit motive will keep them moral! No regulation required.
     
  25. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    We're not in the 1960's anymore. All the early antibiotics were very cheap to develop because we just stole tricks that molds developed over a billion years of evolution. We've used them all up. Modern antibiotics have to be painstakingly designed by looking for defects within pathogens, and that takes a great deal of effort and lots of failures. It becomes even worse because of the intelligent use of antibiotics, which is designed to limit the exposure of the newest drugs to the environment. So you go from a market where the item is cheap to develop and is widely used to one where new drugs are very hard to develop, and will be used sparingly. And if it works, then the patient only uses it for a few weeks, instead of lifetimes for things like heart medications or lifestyle drugs. The numbers of antibiotic drugs being put into the market has been falling for years now, and if you look at the future pipeline it gets scary.
    Sure I know this. If you dig down a few feet in Grozny and wait a bit, you can get a hole full of gasoline from all the waste dumped there. Doesn't that seem horribly wasteful now? Couldn't a little foresight have preserved those resources? Like what is going on with natural gas flaring right now. Unthinking following of the market produces the same growth and decline graphs as animals or plants or bacteria. We have the ability to remember, the ability to reason, and the ability to determine the future. We should use those abilities.
     

Share This Page