To Bail or Not to Bail...

[Marginal]

According to Thomas Jefferson, a country's people should overthrow its government every 20 years in order to keep the balance of power in check. We are over 200 years behind, and now our government has so much power, it has been systematically taking away our rights.

Mao agreed with this. The cultural revolution worked so well in China.

 

[BlackDragon37]

World peace is an impossible goal because morality is subjective, not objective.

 

[Jaxel]

Mao agreed with this. The cultural revolution worked so well in China.

I love how the arguments you use to refute my arguments, only end up making it easier for me. Mao may have agreed with constant government upheaval, but when we took power, he instituted a COMMUNIST (read: Socialist, giving ultimate power to the governing body) government. Look how that worked out for China. Their government has power, and is quickly becoming a super power; but its people are in shambles, public health is a joke, and pollution is skyrocketting. The EXACT same thing that happened in the USSR.

Nothing makes the government clean up the country; if its not in the government's interest, it doesn't happen. Without a free market, nothing is taken care of. The free market actually promotes generosity and philanthrophy. As I said before, once the government touched the welfare system in 1965, welfare and unemployment stagnated. Now its getting even worse because we've had a government for the past 8 years that took even more power. Everything the government touches, turns to shit. We've seen it with the school systems, the welfare systems, the real estate system, and the healthcare system. And people expect the financial system to be different?

Stupidity isn't trying something, and failing. Stupidity is trying the same thing twice, and expecting a different result.

 

[iKotomi]

Jaxel, it's hard to take your arguments seriously when they sound like dogmatic regurgitation. Especially when your arguments are wrong.

The free market tends to find an efficient allocation. There is absolutely no evidence theoretical or pragmatic to show that it finds an equitable allocation. And it ONLY works when people follow laws. That is according to Milton Friedman, the single most influential economist regarding free market theory.

The free market can not function properly without laws, and property rights, as there is no way to correct for externalities using prices. As long as there are common goods, there will always be overproduction of bad things (like pollution), and underproduction of good things (like education).

You claim that the world is better when Dick can't pull a gun on Jane to get what he wants from Jane. Yet you provide no evidence that that's what happens in non free market economies. Because it doesn't. That happens when there is anarchy, and has nothing to do with the market structure. It happens when there are markets too, and the presence of government does not in fact increase the amount of crime.

 

[Jaxel]

You claim that the world is better when Dick can't pull a gun on Jane to get what he wants from Jane. Yet you provide no evidence that that's what happens in non free market economies. Because it doesn't. That happens when there is anarchy, and has nothing to do with the market structure. It happens when there are markets too, and the presence of government does not in fact increase the amount of crime.

Look at ANY third world country where there is a single leading power; usually a Drug Lord.

Oh... and umm... PROHIBITION. Prime example of where government intervention created crime where none had existed before.

 

[iKotomi]

Correlation does not imply causation.

The primary reason why crime exists is because there is unmet demand and ineffective law enforcement. It just so happens that unmet demand tends to occur on a larger scale in non free market economies. But as long as poverty exists (it will always exist since poverty is relative) there will be crime, regardless of whether or not the market is free.

 

[Marginal]

Correlation does not imply causation.

The primary reason why crime exists is because there is unmet demand and ineffective law enforcement. It just so happens that unmet demand tends to occur on a larger scale in non free market economies. But as long as poverty exists (it will always exist since poverty is relative) there will be crime, regardless of whether or not the market is free.

Stupidity exists regardless of whether demand is met.

 

[D_Matt_Ma]

This discussion is getting away from bailouts and more towards the better economic model. So here's some advice from a smart economist who also happens to have a name similar to D_Matt_Ma.

There will always be poor people. You will fail at helping them. Get over it. So what if capitalism has problems. It beats the alternative.

There will always be people who try to cheat the system no matter what market structure. Might as well pick the one with the highest net value, which is capitalism. Yes, there will be poor people. So what? You're assuming that there is no such thing as people who deserve to be dirt poor and some that deserve to be dictator rich. It's hard to accept that there are people that are so superior in the world that they should be treated like royalty, but guess what, THERE ARE. Live with it. I meet kings of the world once in awhile, and most of them deserve it. If you got a problem with it, then you get rich. Otherwise, you're just jealous, especially if you're in American, where there is no such thing as a POOR PERSON.

Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty. Remember that.

 

[iKotomi]

You're assuming that there is no such thing as people who deserve to be dirt poor and some that deserve to be dictator rich. It's hard to accept that there are people that are so superior in the world that they should be treated like royalty, but guess what, THERE ARE.

Keep thinking you can justify the disproportionate amount of suffering in the world by picking certain economic concepts that support your interests while forgetting about the rest of the picture. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Marginal]

Keep thinking you can justify the disproportionate amount of suffering in the world by picking certain economic concepts that support your interests while forgetting about the rest of the picture. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

He's made it clear he sleeps better knowing this. Proves he's superior genetic stock.

 

[BlackDragon37]

Keep thinking you can justify the disproportionate amount of suffering in the world by picking certain economic concepts that support your interests while forgetting about the rest of the picture. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

You seriously think that wealth can be distributed fairly?

 

[Marginal]

You seriously think that wealth can be distributed fairly?

It's the calculating someone's overall merit by how much they make that's repugnant and insane.

 

[iKotomi]

You seriously think that wealth can be distributed fairly?

I don't believe in income redistribution. I do believe that there is a way to allow a greater equality in opportunity than a lassaize-faire approach that rewards people that already have large amounts of capital (social, physical, etc.). Any real economist knows that opportunity is how you ultimately help poor people the best.

Bending the model to conclude that poor people are forever doomed is sickening, especially when you justify it by spouting out bullshit that there are people who deserve to be rich or dirt poor. Because that is totally wrong. They are rich or poor ultimately because that is the environment they are born in. A poor person has to work disproportionately harder to even dream of having the same chances as a rich person. I don't envy rich people, nor do I ask for their money. I just don't believe that most of them did something that I could have done that made them deserve to be richer than I am.

 

[Archangel]

Any real economist knows that opportunity is how you ultimately help poor people the best.

Ugh. Please don't beg the question, it makes my brain hurt. You're smarter than that.

 

[D_Matt_Ma]

He's made it clear he sleeps better knowing this. Proves he's superior genetic stock.

I have insomnia. But even if I didn't, I would NOT sleep well at night because this is NOT the way it works. If it did, unions wouldn't exist and politiciains would not get paid anywhere near the amount they do.

As for all you people thinking I am so mean and heartless, here's a dose of reality. You do not deserve to have fun. You do not deserve to have a family. Owning a home and retiring are also not rights. You do not deserve second chances. People who want any of the above must make sacrifices. If you want the above badly enough, you wouldn't be on this board talking, as SC4 is also a luxury.

Here's hoping CA files bankruptcy.

 

[Jaxel]

In the immortal words of the Dread Pirate Roberts...

LIFE IS PAIN! Anyone who is telling you otherwise, is trying to sell you something.

 

[Pendragonsfall]

Blah blah blah *quotes Hobbes*

 

[Marginal]

I have insomnia. But even if I didn't, I would NOT sleep well at night because this is NOT the way it works. If it did, unions wouldn't exist and politiciains would not get paid anywhere near the amount they do.

Unions are part of the free market aren't they? Someone wants a service, then both parties ultimately have to agree on a price for that service. If one side doesn't want to pay what the service is worth, then the providers don't have to just bend over and take whatever is thrown their way.

 

[D_Matt_Ma]

Unions are part of the free market aren't they? Someone wants a service, then both parties ultimately have to agree on a price for that service. If one side doesn't want to pay what the service is worth, then the providers don't have to just bend over and take whatever is thrown their way.

Unless of course the unions are not following the free market rule. You work in a union (the CA teacher's union is a slimeball in this regards). They take your union dues. Perfectly legal and acceptable. They then take those union dues and put it in case you go on strike. That's how GOOD unions operate.

And then there are the whack ones, who raise union due fees for political contributions. They take your money and use it to support a cause that you may not agree with. That might be something as a candidate running for office, a ballot proposition, or any other cause. And you can't say anything about it or else you won't be able to teach in a public school.

Now when people vote for legitimate policies, the unions run some stupid propoganda saying, "Oh, the poor teachers. We gotta give them more. BLAH BLAH BLAH." And the naive people fall for it. Like I said earlier, we insist that all people have equal voting power, no matter how naive or stupid they are. And yet, when we get into problems, like our state budget crisis, they don't take any of the responsibilities. That is why we can't have bail outs. We need the stupid naive people to suffer so they learn their lesson (or leave, whichever comes first). In the case of California, it seems to be the latter, as many successful people already left. So sad.

 

[Marginal]

And then there are the whack ones, who raise union due fees for political contributions. They take your money and use it to support a cause that you may not agree with. That might be something as a candidate running for office, a ballot proposition, or any other cause. And you can't say anything about it or else you won't be able to teach in a public school.

My sister's a teacher. Not a union member yet though. She looked into charter schools, but they pay nothing (awesome after 8 years of graduate work etc) and have onerous hiring processes, and can fire you whenever they like. Least the public schools presume that teaching is almost a worthwhile profession, and respect the first amendment 'cause of the unions.

A lot of what those unions have to deal with are political issues. Not surprising they developed a strong lobby.

Now when people vote for legitimate policies, the unions run some stupid propoganda saying, "Oh, the poor teachers. We gotta give them more. BLAH BLAH BLAH." And the naive people fall for it. Like I said earlier, we insist that all people have equal voting power, no matter how naive or stupid they are. And yet, when we get into problems, like our state budget crisis, they don't take any of the responsibilities. That is why we can't have bail outs. We need the stupid naive people to suffer so they learn their lesson (or leave the country, whichever comes first).

They don't really have equal voting power. That's why they're electing reps etc in the first place.

The bailouts are for those "superior" genetic specimens that ran their companies into the ground more than they are for the random street bumpkin.