Quote from: Heather on February 12, 2013, 12:49:10 PM
The irony in all this is I kinda hijacked this thread from the economic summit it had become. And I have no problem with you wanting to mix and stir the conversation. 

this LOL

now to respond to

Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 08:34:39 AM
Look, in order to truly understand the fallacies,  contradictions and incoherent philosophical statements that make Objectivism a hack philosophy, you have to have a boring background in philosophy, but mainly what is most criticized is what Ms. Rand describes as the nature of existence and the nature of the individual,  But there are simple things one can notice in the incoherence what objectivists state. Rand champions the individual, but not just any individual, just an individuals who conform to her norms and standards, if so can you truly be an individual if you are not following Rand's moral purposes?

Now for economics and finance. all these talks about the debt sound to me like people do not understand basic financial concepts like net present values of borrowed money, the effects of inflation on the value of currency, or the effects of leverage on returns. These are smart people, so I'm not going to believe that they don't understand these things, so I'm going with the option, that they do understand and tell half truths in order to scare the less informed.

OK, I get the Rand critique.  She tried to define people and used morals and virtuosness as a barometer.  I understand life is much more complex and trying to live up to her standards is quite difficult.  It seems as if you think Ayn rejects people for not living up to  these standards? maybe, but I don't know her personally to make that call.  does she condemn those who live immoral lives? maybe, but she also says that there is always time to change. she assumes morality is a universal human aspect and I guess that could be debated? if a man has no morality... does that make him less of a man? interesting question...

To me, Ayn says that, as people, we should try to live as moral and virtuous beings.  we should chase our dreams, live for happiness and self esteem... for love :-) treat people how you want to be treated, don't use violence, coercion to get your way... be a good person...  I like the idea of being a good person for the sake of being a good person :-)

in all seriousness, I would love to talk more about this, maybe some specific fallacies and specific incoherentness of hers you claim?... maybe we should create a new thread?



your economic response used a couple of terms I've never heard of, ill have to do some research... maybe that makes me an ignorant? I still do feel that people and gov have spent too much time trying to figure out the magic of the market by using such complex terms and equations that it is impossible to keep up... I think of it as a waste of time... I think the market is organic and can't be coerced into doing one thing or another.  is it silly for me to think economists hide  behind complexity? maybe, but it sure as hell works... what better way to make people not care about something than to make it complex as all hell to understand.  same goes for taxes and regulation... the more complex, the less people resist out of fear of being stupid, dumb, or ignorant. 

i'm not sure how the nominal value, or NPV of money changes and makes it ok for 17 trillion in debt?  i guess that assumes the gov makes money?  really they just take money... their spending doesn't create returns so they have to take more from us when the time comes.  also, the gov can leverage returns? so the fed can buy bad assets to ensure people have good assets?  something like that? hmmm, i'm not too familiar.  the effect of inflation on currency?  you mean like the more money you print, the less its worth?  sorry if i'm ignorant... but i don't see how these kind of things make it ok for us to have so much debt... but at the same time, we have the most nukes in the world... we can have the biggest debt on the planet and it won't matter! lol forgive me if i'm not understanding you, but my perspective says "gov" shouldn't interfere in the economy... or really anything else for that matter lol.  i imagine the gov as playing wack-a-mole... where each mole is a "problem" they think they can fix.  just a never ending game of trying to fix everything and ends up spending everyone's money and makes things worse for everyone along the way ~ but still selling it to us as ~ "we're doing it for you! be thankful"

check out these economic rap battles... they are fun.. I'm Team Freddy :-)
Rap battles!

Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 09:52:16 AM
The thing is, I'm basically living in a country that is a libertarian paradise. It doesn't work.

where is that?

Economic rap battles. ..hysterical lol

Quote from: Jen on February 12, 2013, 02:40:59 PM
Economic rap battles. ..hysterical lol

my fav part is the beginning where they are like calling out their names and saying "John Maynard Keynes" and "FA Hayek" lol like they're gangster

Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 10:15:09 AM
Actually, debating with someone who holds different beliefs than you, makes people become further entrenched in their held viewpoints.

i'm not really trying to debate, but have a discussion and maybe learn some new things

this is how i imagine this current disccusion

i say "this is what i understand"
you say "no, it really means this"
then i say "ok, let me try and understand how your view can be so different than mine, care to help me if i don't get it right away?"

i'd hope it would go both ways and i can offer some brain food to you, but then again i'm just an ignorant libertarian who believes in hack philosophies... i wonder where i went wrong in life?  damn trying to be a consistent moral human being!  lol

Quote from: oZma on February 12, 2013, 02:47:59 PM


but then again i'm just an ignorant libertarian who believes in hack philosophies... i wonder where i went wrong in life?  damn trying to be a consistent moral human being!  lol

I don't think your views ignorant. People disagree it happens! It doesn't mean your opinion isn't valid. I may have not have agreed with you on the whole anarchy thing. But that doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. Besides you put way much more thought into economics than I ever have. So I can't argue with you on that subject.

ok, I'm sorry about the harsh words.

I don't think you're ignorant.

It's just that Objectivism makes no sense whatsoever and Liberatrians are nothing more than tools of corporations.

Neither side is right. You need to meet in the middle. Over-regulation and allowing private practice to take 100% control are both terrible ideas. However, that doesn't mean that govt is unnecessary.

Quote from: DianaP on February 12, 2013, 04:20:07 PM
Neither side is right. You need to meet in the middle. Over-regulation and allowing private practice to take 100% control are both terrible ideas. However, that doesn't mean that govt is unnecessary.

You're right Diana, too bad congress doesn't get it!

Quote from: DianaP on February 12, 2013, 04:20:07 PM
Neither side is right. You need to meet in the middle. Over-regulation and allowing private practice to take 100% control are both terrible ideas. However, that doesn't mean that govt is unnecessary.

I am totally sure there is a point where you regulate too much, but over-deregulation can lead to some pretty disastrous results.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html

Even Alan Greenspan had to admit it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=0

Quote from: DianaP on February 12, 2013, 04:20:07 PM
Neither side is right. You need to meet in the middle. Over-regulation and allowing private practice to take 100% control are both terrible ideas. However, that doesn't mean that govt is unnecessary.

I agree, but does regulation NEED to be done by gov? is it the most efficient way? through coercion? the most practical? is it then appropriate to say that gov has a monopoly on regulation? are you really saying that nobody anywhere can think of a better way to accomplish it? and if there was a better way, would you support it, or would you stay a loyal subject of the gov?

how do we know when regulation has gone to far? should hair braiders need a license? do you need a license to fish? on your own property? should corporations be able to influence gov through lobbyists to pass regulations that prevent competition? how do we know gov is even doing a good job at regulation? by what measurement? without competition, we can't choose the best regulations or the best regulators... it becomes arbitrary in a sense... you can't have a nutrition blog because you didn't get a nutritionist license or didn't go to school for that?  how do we know that we have gone to far?

I guess that's my perspective on gov... monopolies fail because they exploit their customers. by no means am I discrediting the past accomplishments of the gov, they helped tremendously... but are they still relevant? how would we know without some kind of competition?

also, you need people on both sides of the game of tug of war... well to keep the game going

do you understand my point?  i'm not agaisnt government per se, but against monopolies i'm for being consistent

Mhm the push and pull of different points of view.  Keeps things in the reasonable zone.

You know when you went to far with deregulation when it causes the economy to collapse.  You wish you could have known before that happened tho lol.  Knowing when you've gone too far with regulation is harder to quantify.  More common sense than anything, but that can be pretty arbitrary I agree.  I think in the US at least, you will get major pushback for anything you ever try to regulate, so that probably keeps over-regulation at bay?  idk.

Well, the govt. doesn't have a monopoly, per se. At least not any one branch. The govt. is one entity and is easy to monitor. Plus, the alternative would be to have businesses regulate themselves, which would lead to disaster. After all, one of the 6 fundamental characteristics of a market economy is a profit motive. People do what it takes to get cash. Therefore, businesses cannot be trusted to regulate themselves without bias.

The govt. is full of checks and balances. I guess you can say that gridlock is good in that sense, so long as it's not excessive. Gridlock means that there is compromising between people in govt that represent those with opposing views. In that way, you can say that govt. is one big internal competition. Govt leaders represent people, and people disagree. Therefore, congressional debates are good in that they promote consideration of everyone's views instead of having one group pass anything willy-nilly. Of course, debate has turned into complete gridlock, and that needs to be fixed. Having everyone regulate themselves would mean that a lot of disagreements go without compromise.

Once again, I am not for excessive regulation (but I think you should have some sort of nutrition background before you give advice on such a critical topic, so long as we're on the example).

Besides, govt. is one big tug-of-war. There are opposing views and many considerations. The federal govt has checks for itself. The Supreme Court deems laws constitutional, Congress approves of presidential appointees, etc, etc. That's not even going into state and local levels of govt, which get ever more complicated. It's even in the Constitutional Bill of Rights that any power not granted to the federal govt in the Constitution or prohibited in the US by govt at all goes to the states, with the powers given to the federal govt being those requiring centralization, such as establishing a currency or declaring war. The Supremacy Clause is a fail safe in the event that state and federal interests collide on an issue such as trade, but that doesn't change the fact that states still have power that the federal govt can't touch, such as granting licenses for driving, for example.

A federalist govt, by definition, is a big competition.

Quote from: Jen on February 12, 2013, 09:09:54 PM
Mhm the push and pull of different points of view.  Keeps things in the reasonable zone.

You know when you went to far with deregulation when it causes the economy to collapse.  You wish you could have known before that happened tho lol.  Knowing when you've gone too far with regulation is harder to quantify.  More common sense than anything, but that can be pretty arbitrary I agree.  I think in the US at least, you will get major pushback for anything you ever try to regulate, so that probably keeps over-regulation at bay?  idk.

yep! we encounter a few problems though

#1 things rarely get de-regulated... politicians are praised for their bills, not for the bills they renacted
#2 common sense to one, is not common sense to another... thats why we should stick to regulating very simple, straight forward things
#3 politicians regulate from biased sources... lobbyists... yes some may be for good intentions, but how do you know?
#4 bills, most of the times have misleading titles like the "Violence Against Women Act" ~ what are you FOR violence against women?  the Patriot Act... what are you not a patriot? these bureaucrats strive on ambiguity and aren't help responsible for the unforeseen consequences... those consequences just lead to more bills, more regulations and we end up getting regulated to death ~ although this is purely conjecture

When a law becomes so impossible to understand that the ordinary citizen must look to the "super expert," the law becomes a trap and not a viable guideline.  This is the world we live in... we have created a industry of people, lawyers, whose entire job it is to "understand" the rules and regulations of the elites.  I think we are, today, over regulated.

Quote
Plus, the alternative would be to have businesses regulate themselves, which would lead to disaster.

I never said the alternative would be businesses regulating themselves... Maybe another third party? I don't know?  I'm just saying, there is more than "two" ways to regulate skin a cat.

To say you can't think of another way regulation could happen is like saying...

well, replace "build the roads" with "regulate the private sector"

Quote from: monica.soto on February 12, 2013, 03:51:45 PM
It's just that Objectivism makes no sense whatsoever and Liberatrians are nothing more than tools of corporations.

it makes sense to me! and i'm not a tool of any corporation... i just want to be free from coercion but i suppose you could argue that big corporations have somehow convinced me to be a libertarian so i help work to abolish the government as we know it and then corporations will also be free from coercion and can start working in the free market and start to rip everyone off?  sure... but sounds conspiracyish

I would say that a removal of the party system and a focus on political merits of each candidate would be better, but who am I kidding? All of the information you need is a smartphone away, and people use them to look at pictures of cats. 

Quote from: DianaP on February 12, 2013, 09:24:01 PM
I would say that a removal of the party system and a focus on political merits of each candidate would be better, but who am I kidding? All of the information you need is a smartphone away, and people use them to look at pictures of cats. 

yeah, its very hard to get people to care... its sad... but its most likely because people don't know how to "talk" about these things and end up yelling, screaming, and hating eachother AND politics has gotten so darn complex that the regular person CANNOT even understand anything without getting a political science degree so even trying to talk about it is a waste of time for many. 

this is why i am thankful for the internets, and the youtubes <--- great resource!  citizen journalists > mass media journalists lets just HOPE the internet NEVER gets 'regulated'

and i would argue that the internet has rendered many "regulations" obsolete... things like the CONSUMERIST provide a voice to the corporations the way politicians never could have.  rating systems ensure we get the greatest of quality products! we don't need as much regulation when we have the internet!

My post about deregulation was referring to Wall St. which has had the opposite trajectory of most industries, in that we (Alan Greenspan for the longest) have slowly but surely been pulling regulation away from it.  This is because Wall St. has a lot of power to push it that direction.  It seemed to be working fine till disaster happened.  But they still want us to deregulate it more, of course.

And yeah.  The internet.  That is one (sort of) model of (sort of) anarchy, and I love that it is exactly the way it is.  So there.  And when they start regulating it (which they will) they will ruin it.

Quote from: oZma on February 12, 2013, 09:36:27 PM
yeah, its very hard to get people to care... its sad... but its most likely because people don't know how to "talk" about these things and end up yelling, screaming, and hating eachother AND politics has gotten so darn complex that the regular person CANNOT even understand without getting a political science degree so even trying to talk about it is a waste of time for many. 

Hun, I'm a political science major, with a specialization in American politics, and all it's taught me is "what's the point?" As the Political Science chair at my alma mater said "you can't earn a poli sci degree and maintain an interest in politics." I know, this post contributes nothing...

ETA: for clarity, I definitely don't feel that I adequately understand the complexities of government. Mostly because there are so many competing theories that try to explain various phenomenon that it's hard to find one that explains everything without anomalies (to us Kuhnian language). It's really one of those things "the more you know, the less you know that you know."

Liar, Liar, pants on fire! This from the very liberal MSNBC:

President Obama put a rosy spin on several accomplishments of his administration in his 2013 State of the Union address.

The president claimed that "both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion." But that's only an estimate of deficit reduction through fiscal year 2022, and it would be lower if the White House used a different starting point.

Obama touted the growth of 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past three years, but there has been a net loss of 600,000 manufacturing jobs since he took office. The recent growth also has stalled since July 2012.

He claimed that "we have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas." Actual mileage is improving, but Obama's "doubled" claim refers to a desired miles-per-gallon average for model year 2025.

Obama said the Affordable Care Act "is helping to slow the growth of health care costs." It may be helping, but the slower growth for health care spending began in 2009, before the law was enacted, and is due at least partly to the down economy.

The president also made an exaggerated claim of bipartisanship. He said that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney agreed with him that the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living. But Romney backed off that view during the campaign.

Analysis

President Barack Obama gave his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday, laying out his legislative agenda for the coming year and achievements of his time in office. But Obama puffed up his record.

Deficit Reduction

Obama said the administration and Congress "have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion." A bipartisan group called the estimate "very reasonable." But it is only an estimate — and a debatable one at that — for deficit reduction from budgets through fiscal year 2022. Exactly how much will be cut will be up to future Congresses.

And, even if Congress meets those deficit-reduction goals, deficit spending will continue and the federal debt will grow larger — unless much more is done.

NOTE:

A number of posts that dealt primarily with Global Warming and environmental concerns have be split off into a separate topic, in the forum.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,135650.0.html