51 replies to this topic

[EmbraceUnity]

Full Member,

The starbucks reference doesn't contribute meaningfully to discourse. Government-managed social safety nets are not going to go away, because the government knows what will happen if they take it away. The people will rebel... violently if necessary. Now, given your choice between a bloated, bureaucratic, and unfair needs-based system which creates perverse incentives, or a system which is just a pure dividend, which would you choose?

Edited by progressive, 29 January 2009 - 05:14 AM.

[niner]

socialism isn't the answer, but neither is the unbridled free market

That's a false dichotomy. We are a society of laws. Total economic freedom doesn't mean total anarchy. It is assumed that reaonable laws to prevent abuse will be made and followed, regardless of how much of the economy is owned/controlled by the government. Part of the problem right now is that there are competely unreasonable laws that are touted as preventing abuse that are completely ineffective and expensive and restrictive of business. Just because someone argues that these insane laws need to be repealed doesn't mean they want no laws at all for preventing abuse- that's a logical fallacy- quite the opposite, they want to replace them with unobtrustive laws that actually WORK.

The "unbridled free market" doesn't imply total anarchy, just economic anarchy or nearly that. I'm curious about these completely unreasonable laws that are touted as preventing abuse that are completely ineffective and expensive and restrictive of business. What exactly are you thinking of there? SarbOx? What would an unobtrusive law that actually WORKS look like?

[niner]

Full Member,

The starbucks reference doesn't contribute meaningfully to discourse. Government-managed social safety nets are not going to go away, because the government knows what will happen if they take it away. The people will rebel... violently if necessary. Now, given your choice between a bloated, bureaucratic, and unfair needs-based system which creates perverse incentives, or a system which is just a pure dividend, which would you choose?

I think the Starbucks example isn't so bad; it at least shows what happens if you put four bucks a day in an investment account for 55 years, and it was kind of funny. So here I am, defending FM. Somebody phone hell and ask if they need blankets... I'll also take issue with the people rebelling if the safety net were removed. That might be true if we had a safety net. To be sure, if you're an oldster, then you're all set. For everyone else, you're kind of screwed in America if you don't have money. I suppose there's food stamps and section 8. AFDC is nothing to write home about, but it's there, with a time limit. If we pulled all of it overnight while the wealthy continued to drive shiny hundred thousand dollar cars, you might see some trouble, but if we chiseled them away over time they could probably be done away with. Welfare reform didn't seem to raise too many hackles.

You know, we have the EITC; as long as you had a minimal earned income, you could get an amount of money that would be comparable to the Starbucks example. If you put it in a Roth IRA every year, you could retire a millionaire while never making more than poverty wages. This is an actual possibility today, yet I doubt that one in a thousand people would do it. I'm not sure that making it be six or ten times as much money, and removing the condition of having earned income would change people's fiscal behavior all that much. But maybe I'm being too cynical.

[RighteousReason]

socialism isn't the answer, but neither is the unbridled free market

That's a false dichotomy. We are a society of laws. Total economic freedom doesn't mean total anarchy. It is assumed that reaonable laws to prevent abuse will be made and followed, regardless of how much of the economy is owned/controlled by the government. Part of the problem right now is that there are competely unreasonable laws that are touted as preventing abuse that are completely ineffective and expensive and restrictive of business. Just because someone argues that these insane laws need to be repealed doesn't mean they want no laws at all for preventing abuse- that's a logical fallacy- quite the opposite, they want to replace them with unobtrustive laws that actually WORK.

The "unbridled free market" doesn't imply total anarchy, just economic anarchy or nearly that. I'm curious about these completely unreasonable laws that are touted as preventing abuse that are completely ineffective and expensive and restrictive of business. What exactly are you thinking of there? SarbOx? What would an unobtrusive law that actually WORKS look like?

Exactly, Sarbanes-Oxley

[RighteousReason]

Progressive, your motivation is right but your solution is wrong.

The solution is in the unlimited power of freedom. The solution is to remove all forms of government-created blocks and taxation on productivity, entrepreneurship and economic success. That is the maximum incentive for success that any government can offer short of using its police power to steal from others.

The solution isn't unsustainable economic socialism. The amount of money you would have to steal would never be enough. That is the path to the end of civilization, and complete hell. That is the path that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are hurtling the United States down right this moment at an unprecedented rate. I'm glad you followed the philosophy to its logical conclusion and revealed the absurdity that results, because it allows me to illustrate my and Michael Savage's original point in this thread that much more clearly.

Should the basic income be given to children?

I don't think a basic income should be given to children, as is the case with the Alaskan Permanent Fund. It would give too much incentive toward overpopulation and be too costly and unproductive.

Where are we going to get the 6.5 Trillion?

Such a program would have to be phased in slowly, obviously. Also, it wouldn't be 6.5 trillion, it would be more like 4 trillion without children counted. That number would be reduced to approximately 2.5 trillion since Social Security and welfare would become obsolete. More money could be saved by cutting wasteful corporate subsidies and the bloated military budget. The rest could be raised through speculation taxes, georgist land value taxes, estate taxes, resource taxes, and carbon taxes.

Of course it all depends on your definition of a Basic Income. If 15,000 can take care of basic necessities then that would reduce the cost by 1/4th. Even if it were only a 5,000 dollar citizen's dividend similar to the Alaskan Permanent Fund, it would provide immense benefits. Income would be less tied to employment, and thus people could be more free to pursue their own endeavors.

Government-managed social safety nets are not going to go away, because the government knows what will happen if they take it away. The people will rebel... violently if necessary. Now, given your choice between a bloated, bureaucratic, and unfair needs-based system which creates perverse incentives, or a system which is just a pure dividend, which would you choose?

WHOOSH!

[EmbraceUnity]

The solution isn't unsustainable economic socialism.

Correct. The solution is sustainable social democracy. Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable pay-as-you-go systems in their present forms. A Basic Income would make Social Security obsolete, and eliminate perverse incentives of needs-based welfare to boot. For healthcare, if we switch away from our horrible current system to a Canadian-style national health insurance system, our system would be cheaper, more efficient, and sustainable while providing equal access. What is unsustainable is when private healthcare costs are rising at 10% per year in the US, whilst countries like Canada use their collective purchasing power to haggle prices down.

I think that governments should avoid using price controls, corporate subsidies, and other such things, but we do have a responsibility as a rich nation to take care of the basic needs of our citizens. I'm not saying everyone should have a ferrari, I'm saying all adult citizens, regardless of financial standing, should receive a subsistence income and that dividend should be equal for everyone. This would actually undermine many of the arguments for subsidies and price controls. What argument could one possibly make for paying farmers not to farm if everyone will be able to eat regardless?

Above that basic income people could work in the free market, but it would all be of their own volition, not because they need to work to survive (wage slavery). This would be a huge boost to innovation as well since it would give inventors and hobbyists more time to create the technology that produces true wealth. Marshall Brain, founder of HowStuffWorks, argues that a basic income is a necessity because automation and robotics will create structural unemployment, as humans are no longer needed in production processes.

There are other ways to stimulate technological development which I also strongly support. I think it would be great if instead of throwing hundreds of billions into pork barrel projects and tax cuts, we create a handful of one billion dollar prizes for the first person to create a better solar cell, a better battery, a better water desalinization machine, etc. with the stipulation that the winning design is placed in the public domain.

Edited by progressive, 30 January 2009 - 12:36 AM.

[RighteousReason]

For healthcare, if we switch away from our horrible current system to a Canadian-style national health insurance system, our system would be cheaper, more efficient, and sustainable while providing equal access.

I'm just going to laugh at you now. Remind me never to talk to you about anything political.

Hahaha...

[niner]

socialism isn't the answer, but neither is the unbridled free market

That's a false dichotomy. We are a society of laws. Total economic freedom doesn't mean total anarchy. It is assumed that reaonable laws to prevent abuse will be made and followed, regardless of how much of the economy is owned/controlled by the government. Part of the problem right now is that there are competely unreasonable laws that are touted as preventing abuse that are completely ineffective and expensive and restrictive of business. Just because someone argues that these insane laws need to be repealed doesn't mean they want no laws at all for preventing abuse- that's a logical fallacy- quite the opposite, they want to replace them with unobtrustive laws that actually WORK.

The "unbridled free market" doesn't imply total anarchy, just economic anarchy or nearly that. I'm curious about these completely unreasonable laws that are touted as preventing abuse that are completely ineffective and expensive and restrictive of business. What exactly are you thinking of there? SarbOx? What would an unobtrusive law that actually WORKS look like?

Exactly, Sarbanes-Oxley

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I know there's a lot of grousing about Sarbanes-Oxley. I think that it could probably use some refinement, but I don't think that it's quite the millstone around the neck of business that some seem to think. We were doing pretty well with it for a long time, and no one is suggesting that it had anything to do with the current mess. To call it "completely unreasonable" and "completely ineffective" is uncalled-for hyperbole. So how would you change things to make it better? Which one of the Right Wing Anger Brokers got you wound up about Sarbanes-Oxley, of all things? Was that a Michael Savage production?

[EmbraceUnity]

For healthcare, if we switch away from our horrible current system to a Canadian-style national health insurance system, our system would be cheaper, more efficient, and sustainable while providing equal access.

I'm just going to laugh at you now. Remind me never to talk to you about anything political.

Hahaha...

Canada spends less per person on healthcare than the US, and yet more of their healthcare costs are covered. That is simply a fact

http://en.wikipedia....e_in_comparison

Monopsony power and standardized records and paperwork are the main reasons.

True, wait times can sometimes be longer, though a healthcare voucher system to supplement the single payer system is often proposed as an idea for those who wish to spend more for treatment.

[sUper GeNius]

For healthcare, if we switch away from our horrible current system to a Canadian-style national health insurance system, our system would be cheaper, more efficient, and sustainable while providing equal access.

I'm just going to laugh at you now. Remind me never to talk to you about anything political.

Hahaha...

Canada spends less per person on healthcare than the US, and yet more of their healthcare costs are covered. That is simply a fact

http://en.wikipedia....e_in_comparison

Monopsony power and standardized records and paperwork are the main reasons.

True, wait times can sometimes be longer, though a healthcare voucher system to supplement the single payer system is often proposed as an idea for those who wish to spend more for treatment.

I seem to remember that in Canada, buying "more healthcare" out of your pocket was actually illegal, until a court recently ruled to allow it. Question. Why do Canadians with the dough cross the border and get procedures and tests here? I read an article several years ago in the Philly Inquirer that in Britain, you'd be lucky to be allowed bypass surgery if you're over age 75. It happens routinely here, and I can't imagine Americans putting up with less.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 30 January 2009 - 04:50 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

I seem to remember that in Canada, buying "more healthcare" out of your pocket was actually illegal, until a court recently ruled to allow it. Question. Why do Canadians with the dough cross the border and get procedures and tests here? I read an article several years ago in the Philly Inquirer that in Britain, you'd be lucky to be allowed bypass surgery if you're over age 75. It happens routinely here, and I can't imagine Americans putting up with less.

There are two problems with that logic. a) many Americans go to Canada for treatment as well, and thousands upon thousands buy their prescription drugs from Canada because the exact same drugs are much cheaper there. b) Canadians live 3 years longer on average

[sUper GeNius]

I seem to remember that in Canada, buying "more healthcare" out of your pocket was actually illegal, until a court recently ruled to allow it. Question. Why do Canadians with the dough cross the border and get procedures and tests here? I read an article several years ago in the Philly Inquirer that in Britain, you'd be lucky to be allowed bypass surgery if you're over age 75. It happens routinely here, and I can't imagine Americans putting up with less.

There are two problems with that logic. a) many Americans go to Canada for treatment as well, and thousands upon thousands buy their prescription drugs from Canada because the exact same drugs are much cheaper there. b) Canadians live 3 years longer on average

Why are they "problems?" Can you give some examples of Americans going to Canada and why? The thousands that buy their prescriptions from Canada do so because Canadian prices are less expensive, as they are controlled by the government. In effect, Americans subsidize Canadians. As far as the three years, if true, is not necessary indicative of the quality of healthcare. It probably has to do with some Americans who don't have insurance not getting preventative care.

[EmbraceUnity]

Why are they "problems?" Can you give some examples of Americans going to Canada and why? The thousands that buy their prescriptions from Canada do so because Canadian prices are less expensive, as they are controlled by the government. In effect, Americans subsidize Canadians. As far as the three years, if true, is not necessary indicative of the quality of healthcare. It probably has to do with some Americans who don't have insurance not getting preventative care.

The cheap drugs seem to be the main reason Americans travel to Canada for healthcare, but also for medicinal marijuana. The prices of drugs are not controlled by the Canadian government any more than Walmart controls prices. The single payer system simply leverages its buying power as the largest buyer.

It probably has to do with some Americans who don't have insurance not getting preventative care.

And that is acceptable? Perhaps it removes the "excess population," eh Scrooge? Seriously though, Canada spends less and covers everyone... there is simply no excuse for being uncompassionate when compassion is even good for your bottom line. Friedrich von Hayek himself supported national health insurance. He even supported the Basic Income!

Here is a review of the book Hayek on Hayek by a libertarian think tank:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0994e.asp

Hayek's two critics are in no way his intellectual equals, but at several points in the discussion they ask him some point-blank questions. Does he support laws setting a maximum number of hours in the workday? Hayek: "Yes, if it is not carried too far. It is one of those regulations which creates equal conditions throughout the system." Does he agree with a minimum-wage law? Hayek: "A general, flat minimum-wage law for all industry is permissible, but I do not think that is a particularly wise method of achieving the end." Did he support the TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority]? Hayek: "There is a great deal of the TVA to which no economist in repute, and certainly not the laissez-faire people, will object. Flood control and building dams are recognized functions of the government." Does he think a system of social insurance is a harmful form of planning? Hayek: "Certainly not a system of social insurance as such, not even with the government helping to organize it. The only point where the problem can arise is how far to make it compulsory. . . ." Does he support a guaranteed minimum income? Hayek: "I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country." Does he believe that America needs a central bank? Hayek: "That the monetary system must be under central control has never, to my mind, been denied by any sensible person." Does he oppose war-time economic controls and planning? Hayek: "No, because you might sacrifice for a time part of your freedom to preserve it in the long run. . . . During the war, we all have to go to some extent totalitarian."

Edited by progressive, 30 January 2009 - 06:15 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

Why are they "problems?" Can you give some examples of Americans going to Canada and why? The thousands that buy their prescriptions from Canada do so because Canadian prices are less expensive, as they are controlled by the government. In effect, Americans subsidize Canadians. As far as the three years, if true, is not necessary indicative of the quality of healthcare. It probably has to do with some Americans who don't have insurance not getting preventative care.

The cheap drugs seem to be the main reason Americans travel to Canada for healthcare, but also for medicinal marijuana. The prices of drugs are not controlled by the Canadian government any more than Walmart controls prices. The single payer system simply leverages its buying power as the largest buyer.

It probably has to do with some Americans who don't have insurance not getting preventative care.

And that is acceptable? Perhaps it removes the "excess population," eh Scrooge? Seriously though, Canada spends less and covers everyone... there is simply no excuse for being uncompassionate when compassion is even good for your bottom line. Friedrich von Hayek himself supported national health insurance. He even supported the Basic Income!

Here is a review of the book Hayek on Hayek by a libertarian think tank:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0994e.asp

Hayek's two critics are in no way his intellectual equals, but at several points in the discussion they ask him some point-blank questions. Does he support laws setting a maximum number of hours in the workday? Hayek: "Yes, if it is not carried too far. It is one of those regulations which creates equal conditions throughout the system." Does he agree with a minimum-wage law? Hayek: "A general, flat minimum-wage law for all industry is permissible, but I do not think that is a particularly wise method of achieving the end." Did he support the TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority]? Hayek: "There is a great deal of the TVA to which no economist in repute, and certainly not the laissez-faire people, will object. Flood control and building dams are recognized functions of the government." Does he think a system of social insurance is a harmful form of planning? Hayek: "Certainly not a system of social insurance as such, not even with the government helping to organize it. The only point where the problem can arise is how far to make it compulsory. . . ." Does he support a guaranteed minimum income? Hayek: "I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country." Does he believe that America needs a central bank? Hayek: "That the monetary system must be under central control has never, to my mind, been denied by any sensible person." Does he oppose war-time economic controls and planning? Hayek: "No, because you might sacrifice for a time part of your freedom to preserve it in the long run. . . . During the war, we all have to go to some extent totalitarian."

Hmm. This paper has "price control" written all over. Guess what? Canada sets prices. And Americans subsidize those prices.

http://www.brooklaw....ii_nakagawa.pdf

As far as Americans not having health insurance, I did not say that was acceptable. It is not. Availability, however, is a different concept than quality. Mean age is not a very good way to compare the quality of health care, (as opposed to the overall system, including access) if some of the individuals are not receiving care.

You failed to address the fact that many Canadians cross the border to get healthcare in the Unites States. Is that because the quality healthcare in the US is worse?

[RighteousReason]

socialism isn't the answer, but neither is the unbridled free market

That's a false dichotomy. We are a society of laws. Total economic freedom doesn't mean total anarchy. It is assumed that reaonable laws to prevent abuse will be made and followed, regardless of how much of the economy is owned/controlled by the government. Part of the problem right now is that there are competely unreasonable laws that are touted as preventing abuse that are completely ineffective and expensive and restrictive of business. Just because someone argues that these insane laws need to be repealed doesn't mean they want no laws at all for preventing abuse- that's a logical fallacy- quite the opposite, they want to replace them with unobtrustive laws that actually WORK.

The "unbridled free market" doesn't imply total anarchy, just economic anarchy or nearly that. I'm curious about these completely unreasonable laws that are touted as preventing abuse that are completely ineffective and expensive and restrictive of business. What exactly are you thinking of there? SarbOx? What would an unobtrusive law that actually WORKS look like?

Exactly, Sarbanes-Oxley

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I know there's a lot of grousing about Sarbanes-Oxley. I think that it could probably use some refinement, but I don't think that it's quite the millstone around the neck of business that some seem to think. We were doing pretty well with it for a long time, and no one is suggesting that it had anything to do with the current mess. To call it "completely unreasonable" and "completely ineffective" is uncalled-for hyperbole. So how would you change things to make it better? Which one of the Right Wing Anger Brokers got you wound up about Sarbanes-Oxley, of all things? Was that a Michael Savage production?

The creator of Home Depot is quoted as saying he could have never started up his business in today's environment because of all the government restrictions and barriers. I know a lot of conservative leaders have this belief. None of them are evil "anger brokers". The main person that comes to mind is Newt Gingrich.

Frankly this is only a side point. The main point is that "complete government control of the economy" and "total anarchy of a lawless free market" is a false dichotomy- it is possible to keep the government completely out of the private sector except to make and enforce laws that are unrestrictive of business that actually identify and prevent illegal abuses.

And all of these laws are entirely a side point to the policy of using the police power of government to tax economic productivity and give it to economically unproductive people.

I know it is "progressive" to give money to the poor people, but this why charities were invented, people! Charitable donations are freakin tax deductible, too!

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."
Ayn Rand

I hate to repeat myself, but I will do so here to refocus anybody that isn't completely blind and deaf on the original point:

The solution is in the unlimited power of freedom. The solution is to remove all forms of government-created blocks and taxation on productivity, entrepreneurship and economic success. That is the maximum incentive for success that any government can offer short of using its police power to steal from others.

The solution isn't unsustainable economic socialism. The amount of money you would have to steal would never be enough. That is the path to the end of civilization, and complete hell. That is the path that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are hurtling the United States down right this moment at an unprecedented rate. I'm glad you followed the philosophy to its logical conclusion and revealed the absurdity that results, because it allows me to illustrate my and Michael Savage's original point in this thread that much more clearly.

Edited by advancdaltruist, 30 January 2009 - 06:07 PM.

[RighteousReason]

And this Economic Holocaust package isn't even entirely about the petty theft of wealth redistribution. This is all about preserving political power, and incidentally continuing the Bush plan of systematically undermining the viability of a continuing Western economy by propping up huge, economically-impotent spending plans on debt and simultaneously restricting ourselves in every way possible from ever being able to pay it back.

This is why Michael Savage and I are throwing every alarm and predicting all fucking armageddon to rain down. Would something as ridiculously massive as another World War II even be able to recover our economy, assuming anybody survived the next one, if the American people don't WAKE THE FUCK UP?

Edited by advancdaltruist, 30 January 2009 - 06:11 PM.

[RighteousReason]

Funny enough I just turned on CNBC and they are talking all about the potential for "armageddon" in the stock market, the dollar, what the best "armageddon trade" is, and so on.

[niner]

The creator of Home Depot is quoted as saying he could have never started up his business in today's environment because of all the government restrictions and barriers. I know a lot of conservative leaders have this belief. None of them are evil "anger brokers". The main person that comes to mind is Newt Gingrich.

Frankly this is only a side point. The main point is that "complete government control of the economy" and "total anarchy of a lawless free market" is a false dichotomy- it is possible to keep the government completely out of the private sector except to make and enforce laws that are unrestrictive of business that actually identify and prevent illegal abuses.

And all of these laws are entirely a side point to the policy of using the police power of government to tax economic productivity and give it to economically unproductive people.

The creator of Home Depot couldn't start his business under SarbOx? That's funny, a lot of other people have been able to. It's true, a lot of conservative leaders have this belief, but is it true? Two "anger brokers" who come to mind are Neal Boortz and Michael Savage. They seem to have gotten you pretty angry ("WAKE THE FUCK UP!"), but are they giving you correct information? I think not. Honestly, AA, I think you're a smart guy, but you need to broaden your sources.

I completely agree that "complete government control of the economy" and "total anarchy of a lawless free market" are absurd extremes. Markets are great, but they need rules and rule enforcers in order to function optimally. We are now looking at the effects of a failure of regulation. The ideal would be a system that is minimally restrictive, while still restraining activities that are harmful to society. Now that the free marketeers have come close to destroying the economy, you can expect a higher level of regulation. The best you can hope for is that Congress doesn't go overboard and over-regulate. I don't think that is going to happen in the present environment. (If the environment changes sufficiently ("Armageddon"), all bets are off.

Your statement above about having laws that are "unrestrictive" of business yet prevent abuses strikes me as impossible. There have to be some restrictions; the goal should be that there aren't too many restrictions. Restrictions on the market have costs in both implementation and in reduced value creation. Restrictions return value to society by reducing harmful abuses and reducing externalities. The goal should be to craft a regulation regime where societal value, the net of the aforementioned terms, is maximized. One might also consider that there are cases where "restrictions" can actually improve value creation, for example by making a market more competitive.

[EmbraceUnity]

Hmm. This paper has "price control" written all over. Guess what? Canada sets prices. And Americans subsidize those prices.

http://www.brooklaw....ii_nakagawa.pdf

As far as Americans not having health insurance, I did not say that was acceptable. It is not. Availability, however, is a different concept than quality. Mean age is not a very good way to compare the quality of health care, (as opposed to the overall system, including access) if some of the individuals are not receiving care.

You failed to address the fact that many Canadians cross the border to get healthcare in the Unites States. Is that because the quality healthcare in the US is worse?

That was a very interesting paper, thanks. It is true that I am not an expert on Canadian healthcare price controls. Nevertheless, I was under the assumption that leveraging buying power was the main point of a single payer system, and that does seem to be the main reason why Canada pays less. Even that article recognizes that the "PMPRB" of Canada plays a limited role. Price controls are a separate issue from a single payer system. I was arguing for the cost-effectiveness of the single payer system, and you have provided no reasons to believe otherwise. That article explicitly points out that the US pays by far the most of any country for drugs.

It seems pretty apparent from the statistics that Canada's health system beats ours on nearly every indicator. You haven't provided any evidence that shows the US system is higher quality. I did mention that wait times can be an issue, though if a single payer system allows for healthcare vouchers and supplemental insurance, it should be able to buy better care just as one can in the US.

It may be possible that among the lucky people in the US who have health insurance, that they have slightly higher life expectancies, though I have seen no evidence for this and I couldn't imagine it being more than a fraction of a year difference. Is that honestly worth paying double per capita on healthcare?

Canada pays $3,678 per person, we pay $6,714 ... as the baby boomers get older that will only worsen.

Edited by progressive, 30 January 2009 - 09:53 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

I know it is "progressive" to give money to the poor people, but this why charities were invented, people! Charitable donations are freakin tax deductible, too!

Whether a business is forced to cough up money, or whether the choose to, it's still a form of a tax, isn't it, a drag.

[RighteousReason]

I know it is "progressive" to give money to the poor people, but this why charities were invented, people! Charitable donations are freakin tax deductible, too!

Whether a business is forced to cough up money, or whether the choose to, it's still a form of a tax, isn't it, a drag.

That makes no sense at all dude

Edited by advancdaltruist, 31 January 2009 - 12:57 AM.

[RighteousReason]

The creator of Home Depot is quoted as saying he could have never started up his business in today's environment because of all the government restrictions and barriers. I know a lot of conservative leaders have this belief. None of them are evil "anger brokers". The main person that comes to mind is Newt Gingrich.

Frankly this is only a side point. The main point is that "complete government control of the economy" and "total anarchy of a lawless free market" is a false dichotomy- it is possible to keep the government completely out of the private sector except to make and enforce laws that are unrestrictive of business that actually identify and prevent illegal abuses.

And all of these laws are entirely a side point to the policy of using the police power of government to tax economic productivity and give it to economically unproductive people.

The creator of Home Depot couldn't start his business under SarbOx? That's funny, a lot of other people have been able to. It's true, a lot of conservative leaders have this belief, but is it true? Two "anger brokers" who come to mind are Neal Boortz and Michael Savage. They seem to have gotten you pretty angry ("WAKE THE FUCK UP!"), but are they giving you correct information? I think not. Honestly, AA, I think you're a smart guy, but you need to broaden your sources.

I completely agree that "complete government control of the economy" and "total anarchy of a lawless free market" are absurd extremes. Markets are great, but they need rules and rule enforcers in order to function optimally. We are now looking at the effects of a failure of regulation. The ideal would be a system that is minimally restrictive, while still restraining activities that are harmful to society. Now that the free marketeers have come close to destroying the economy, you can expect a higher level of regulation. The best you can hope for is that Congress doesn't go overboard and over-regulate. I don't think that is going to happen in the present environment. (If the environment changes sufficiently ("Armageddon"), all bets are off.

Your statement above about having laws that are "unrestrictive" of business yet prevent abuses strikes me as impossible. There have to be some restrictions; the goal should be that there aren't too many restrictions. Restrictions on the market have costs in both implementation and in reduced value creation. Restrictions return value to society by reducing harmful abuses and reducing externalities. The goal should be to craft a regulation regime where societal value, the net of the aforementioned terms, is maximized. One might also consider that there are cases where "restrictions" can actually improve value creation, for example by making a market more competitive.

None of this makes any sense either, dude.