|
There is so much wrong with that first post, it's hard to even take it seriously. I'll pick off some of the easy ones, though.quote:If you're concern is largely for the material well-being of society's most vulnerable, surely you'd want the economy to be as physically productive as possible? The problem facing the poor is not that they make $8.50 and not $15 an hour. The problem is that they don't have enough basic "stuff" to give them a reasonable standard of living. And why don't they? They economy is not physically productive enough to provide them with needed and desired goods or there are artificial impediments to employment and/or entrepreneurship that constrains their available options. The problem is not scarcity, in this country, the problem is the fact that 1% of the population has 50% of the capital. If there was a more even distribution we wouldn't have half the same problems we currently have. But the inequality of capital provides incentive for people to focus not on actual productivity but specialized productivity. This shows itself in high budgets for R&D on luxury items like watches, jewelry, ect. In food, it drives production to things like high end nitch food which consumes disproportionate land and water for the amount of food produced. The disproportionate allocation of natural resources to these items raises the cost of staples and feeds into the problem. We can fix this three ways. Raise wages (effective through the raising of minimum wage) which will help, but not fix, income inequality providing incentive to businesses to reallocate those resources on goods and services needed by the majority of citizens. The other is direct subsidy where the government pays companies to take the action that needs done and pays for it through taxation. And lastly, the government can take control of the means of production, allocating it's use directly through government employment. Pretty sure #1 is going to get your panties in the least bunches there, buddy so maybe just be happy the pitchforks aren't out yet. quote:Had any other principle of property ownership and use-rights been adopted, the human race would have died off. This is not hyperbole. No, it's not hyperbole it's a flat out bald faced lie that you are hand waving away. Hunting and gathering societies are almost always collectives, as they have been studied. Most ancient societies had only the barest belief in personal property, with anything being able to be used for the collective good if need arose. Moving forward, Jewish law was so strict on the fact that you didn't actually have full ownership of your crops and production that you would be ostracized, fined or physically punished if you tried to prevent the poor from coming onto your property and taking food to eat. You apparently have studied exactly NOTHING of actual scholarly value on this subject but try to sneak this bullshit past as fact? Get the gently caress out of here. quote:Libertarians oppose the existence of so-called "intellectual property" at all. Bullshit. Libertarians are an amalgamated mess of bickering and contrary philosophies. They have no central ethos or centrally held beliefs that hold true across self identifying members. This is your core problem, you are reading a few writers and pretending the majority of libertarians agree with you but like the fascist movement there is no core document to point to. This results in everyone screaming "no true scotsman" when, in this case, it appears Scotland was a mystical land that people keep projecting their own personal beliefs on. Anubis fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Oct 9, 2015 |
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I can tell you as someone in government that most of our administrative bloat, and I mean most in the sense of "the majority cause of", is peoples inherent mistrust of government acting for their benefit. If for example I want to invest in a radio system to have for emergency communications, I have to document that I have requested 3 seperate bids for delivering said system if the cost of that system would exceed $X. It doesnt matter that said system may only have one vendor in the entire economic region delivering the product on spec, the assumption is always that there is too many staff working for the government, who must not be working very hard and the government is obviously wasting money somewhere even though the entire budget is visible to the public and theres no service anyone can point to as being done inefficiently. I always loved how agencies would be punished for having emergency funds because they'd budget a reasonable amount for hardware failures but got lucky they have to spend the money anyway otherwise the following year we wouldn't get the money for needed repairs. Seriously, I think you could cut about 2% of administrative costs if they'd just allow agencies to handle their own emergency funds in lock box style interest bearing accounts with a 10-20% annual budget balance cap for each agency. The way we do federal department budgeting is insane, and the only reason we do it that way is because people constantly want to cut to the bone. And somehow it's still better than what some companies try to pull to make their end of quarter balance sheets hit market expectations. Anubis fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Primo price in Kansas, though. And there's no way that'd eeeeeeeever turn out to be a bad investment a couple decades down the line. Not sure $620 an acre (2015 money) can really be called a primo price.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 01:21
|
|