|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 21, 2010 08:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
a society can grow economically only, when all paarticipants of a society benefit from the growth
This is incorrect. If at least one person is made better off while everyone else stays the same, that is already an improvement.
The state can't create jobs in net - it can create them somewhere only by destroying jobs of higher value elsewhere. In the case of firefighters, this kind of inefficiency cannot be avoided, because protection from fire has significant externalities (similar to police), and thus it may be more efficient for the government to run it, despite government's inherent inefficiency.
Generally, the market is inherently more efficient than government, because it works on voluntary exchange in which both participants are made better off. The government is inefficient because it takes that money and spends it elsewhere - if it was that useful, the individual could have bought it for themselves. There's only a loss to be had if the government selects and buys groceries for us.
As for going to space, you can't really prove that it was the best way we could've allocated those resources. Yes, we see the benefits, but if that amount of money had been invested elsewhere, perhaps we'd see even higher benefits.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 09:28 AM |
|
|
Mvass, the mistake you and your liberal books make is, that society means more than a page in an accountant's book, and other things than win and loss and economic benefits matter.
Economically spoken, for example, it would be better to simply eliminate people who have reached a certain age in combination with a certain level of sickness: why waste resources on them?
So there's more behind society than the eco-liberal nonsense you are thoughtlessly reiterating. Do yourself a favor and start thinking for yourself.
In any case it is obvious hat you either don't or don't want to understand what I'm saying it should strike you odd that you come up with your liberal "laws", but have to concede all kinds of exceptions for them. A good rule is, that a rule is all the worse the more excpetions there are.
In any case we are a bit off the issue here, so I stop this - it's useless to try and talk with people who are dogmatic in their opinion, and dogmas I see enough in your posts. Let's see:
Quote:
If at least one person is made better off while everyone else stays the same, that is already an improvement.
This is simply incorrect. Wht you describe is individual improvement, since it has no influence on society. Example: I find a precious stone in the earth and put it on my shelf.
Quote:
The state can't create jobs in net - it can create them somewhere only by destroying jobs of higher value elsewhere.
Dogmatic bull.
Quote:
Generally, the market is inherently more efficient than government, because it works on voluntary exchange in which both participants are made better off. The government is inefficient because it takes that money and spends it elsewhere - if it was that useful, the individual could have bought it for themselves.
Dogmatic bull again. As shown, efficiency - or profit - isn't the only motive regulating society; if it was, it was a poor society indeed. Which makes this an invald point.
You simply have to broaden your approach here, Mvass, and widen your idea of "profitable". Economy isn't all there is.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 10:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So you're saying it's up to the individuals (perhaps forming a class action) and the states of Louisiana, Missouri and Florida (and maybe soon Alabama), and the various industries affected to sue BP to pieces separately? (Just wondering)
Yes. The proper venue according to the Constitution is the courts, not the executive branch. The president has no authority to makd such rulings and BP was not granted a trial.
@JJ
Quote:
However, there is a lot of stuff society as a a whole will profit, therefore society as a whole - the state - is paying up. It's impractical to let private corps deal with these things, and there are enough of these things to give everyone a job, provided society is working in a correct way.
The US fecderal government has very few legitimate Constitutional roles.
The government does not create jobs. At least not jobs that generate wealth. Government jobs are a drain on wealth and national prosperity. Government jobs tend to be staffed by incompetent moraons who basicly have lifetime tenure. It is almost impossible to fire a government beaurocrat and they are accountable to no one since they were not elected. The military is one of the few exceptions to the incopetence rule.
The size of the government should be kept as small as possible so that it is not too much of a drain on the economy and so that it is in line with the Constitution.
In a free market societ a private corporation will come up with better solutions to problems than a government beaurocrat could ever dream of.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 11:17 AM |
|
|
Good Lord, Elodin, I didn't know, that for you for example the US Army is a bunch of Quote:
incompetent moraons who basicly have lifetime tenure
.
Or, if not, that the US Army was a private business.
I idn't think you were one of the Commies wanting to disband Army and Police, butz you learn something new every day. I've thoroughly misjudged you there.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 11:35 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills, as I clearly stated "The military is one of the few exceptions to the incopetence rule."
____________
Revelation
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 11:57 AM |
|
|
Hmm you've obviously not ever been IN the military Elodin. I can assure you, they fit the incompetence rule..easily. We are not really here to talk about the Military though are we.
Lets do a little thing I like to call - Opinions vs Facts..and opinions stated as facts.
When somebody labels somebody something, regardless what it is, it is their 'opinion', even if based on something they themselves might have observed. I could sit down with somebody, talk with them for a bit, and call them (for instance) a 'closet homosexual' because of a way they acted..but that would be colored by my opinion. Thus it is in no way yet a FACT.
Now if I asked said person. "Are you a closet homosexual?" and they said "No." they still MIGHT be, but chances are they are not. Who would know better then themselves?
But wait...there is more. If they say.. "I might be." that doesn't automatically make it true either, it means they are unsure. Bah getting off on a tangent again..focus Mytical focus.
Anyhow, opinions presented as fact are not indeed fact. Nor is the opinion of even dozens of others. That is immaterial. Which is why it is impossible to 'prove' somebody has a specific belief or thought in their head unless that person comes out and says. "I believe (or think) X." Wait...even that might not be necessarily true.
Going back to my ramblings. Let us say that the person says "Absolutely not." they believe this. I can't tell you how many people I know who say this with absolute conviction..only to turn around later and say "I was fooling myself."
People change, and their mind changes. Information they might not have had prior comes to light, and especially with philosophical things like Marxism (or Christianity for that matter) people can and have changed their mind. (Not that anything but other people's OPINION of their interpretation of what Obama might or might not have said..)
I know I myself have changed (and keep an open mind) my mind thousands of times on what I believe. At one time, I was convinced that the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause existed. At one time, I believed I had a friend that was a full blooded American Indian that lived in my closet. At one time, I believed that a christian community would not turn it's back on somebody who needed it most. Now I do not believe these things to be true, but for all but the imaginary friend I had .. I keep an open mind about.
Short of having Obama to take a polygraph test (and even then they have been beaten before...) and admit to a particular belief..there is no PROOF (just opinion presented as proof) that he is ANYTHING at all.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 12:02 PM |
|
|
"The incompetence rule"?
Can we quote that as Elodin's Incompetence Rule?
"Governments are generally incompetent with a few exceptions, one of it being the military."
You should write a book: "Elodin's Collected Wisdom - Golden Rules and Their Exceptions"
But my reading comprehension is clearly not good good enough to grasp this wealth of wisdom, since I just seem to be Unable to imagine why a bunch of incompetent moronic bearocrats should suddenly be competent when it comes to building something as dangerous and yet so crucially important as an army, not to mention letting them fiddle about with it.
So don't bother with an answer, my reading comprehension doesn't allow me to understand the pearls you throw before the swine.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 03:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
No, I want a minimal government that makes sure there is no fraud or private coercion, and deals with the public goods problem. That's all.
I find that reasonable.
I disagree with you on a few minor issues on the eqonomic plane, but thats minor after all. I think your system is unviable, but anyhow unless its put to the test we get no results.
Well good luck on getting stuff done, if you enter politics.
Quote:
Quote:
The government does not create jobs. At least not jobs that generate wealth. Government jobs are a drain on wealth and national prosperity. Government jobs tend to be staffed by incompetent moraons who basicly have lifetime tenure. It is almost impossible to fire a government beaurocrat and they are accountable to no one since they were not elected. The military is one of the few exceptions to the incopetence rule.
So government = bureaucrat, which again in term leads to ineffectivity.
Could a reform that removed as much bureaucracy as possible solve this problem?
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 03:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The government does not create jobs. At least not jobs that generate wealth. Government jobs are a drain on wealth and national prosperity. Government jobs tend to be staffed by incompetent moraons who basicly have lifetime tenure. It is almost impossible to fire a government beaurocrat and they are accountable to no one since they were not elected. The military is one of the few exceptions to the incopetence rule.
I've worked for the state and federal government. You are wrong. Government jobs are not staffed by incompetent morons. Most have educations and can be fired or leave due to term-limits. Most of the higher ups are there on the whim of someone even higher up.
Both of the directors for the Michigan Commission on Disability Concerns and the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development program were appointed and could be fired for cause. Additionally, both could be replaced after an election if the elected did not like them or simply wanted to make his or her own appointments.
As to the draining on the wealth and national prosperity, I disagree. Take the Department of Transportation found in each state for example. They tick a lot of people off and feel wasteful with how much time it takes to get everything done, but they keep the roads running, which benefits wealth and national prosperity. The FDA keeps us safe from potentially harmful drugs and food, Department of Human Services helps impoverished people to get by, and many other government organizations help keep society running, which benefits the wealth and national prosperity.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 03:43 PM |
|
|
That is complete and utter nonsense, since you have to make a difference between the government jobs and the jobs a government creates.
All governmenal administrative jobs that "help govern" are governmental jobs. All jobs created with governmental money are jobs created by the government.
Take for example the corporations Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman and General Dyamics. Most of the jobs within these corps are build on tax money. Fighter planes, cruise missiles and battle tanks are something THE STATE is ordering to develop, financing and therefore CREATING.
That way the government - or state - is creating a lot more jobs as you eople here seem to realize. Which is normal: what is the tax money supposed to do than create jobs? If you order highways to build, you create jobs.
The thing is, that WELFARE is creating a job as well - the job of doing NOTHING and getting a minimum amount of money for it. This "job" is heavy competetion for the low-pay jobs, obviously, since the work "doing nothing" is o much better than doing warehouse ork for the same amount of money, especially since it allows taking on - albeit illegally - a second job.
The better way is to create DIFFERENT jobs instead of "doing nothing", and there is no shortage of jobs that COULD be created. I named long-term waste-cleaning as one possible field. This has to be done with public money, since noone will pay voluntarly for cleaning the waste off of an industrial wasteland whose owner is long broke and gone.
Of ourse there is a ton more possible jobs.
The main thing to realize is, that unemployment is negative for the whole economy and has to be avoided. If an otherwise growing economy produces growing or not sinking unemployment, then wealth is flowing into the wrong direction.
Consequentially CORPS must be taxed harder to bring in the money necessary to create the missing jobs that the corps are not creating (because labor is too expensive for them), and not the working public.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 04:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Government jobs are a drain on wealth and national prosperity. Government jobs tend to be staffed by incompetent moraons who basicly have lifetime tenure.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but I work in the federal government, and I can assure you that government jobs do not "tend to be staffed by incompetent moraons[sic] who basicly[sic] have lifetime tenure". In point of fact, most of the people who take federal jobs at my level do so because they believe in helping people. I make less money in my federal job than I probably could in the private sector. I am here because I know that what I'm doing helps the taxpayer; I help keep the taxpayer safe from harm and protect them from private companies that, in the absense of regulatory structure, would put harmful products on the marketplace - products that YOU consume every day. And yet instead of thanking us for the important jobs we do, you insult us. For your information, I work very hard. I do not have "lifetime tenure". I could easily be fired if I abused the strong code of ethics to which I am held. So next time you feel like calling a bunch of people you don't even know "incompetent moraons"[sic], maybe you should pause for a second and actually ask them what they do and why they do it, and think about what your life might be like if there weren't thousands of people, like myself, who dedicated their lives to protecting you from harm.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 04:12 PM |
|
|
@Mytical
Actually, I would say the troops are NOT incompetent, but the current commander in chief certainly is.
Yes, there are things I used to believe that I no longer believe. For instance, once I was naive enough to think that everyone wanted to know the truth. Now I know that that not only is not the case but that some people will deliberately lie about others and other groups of people that they don't like merely because they hold different beliefs.
Quote:
Short of having Obama to take a polygraph test (and even then they have been beaten before...) and admit to a particular belief..there is no PROOF (just opinion presented as proof) that he is ANYTHING at all.
The evidence that I have presented thus far is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a Marxist.
@JJ
Quote:
But my reading comprehension is clearly not good good enough to grasp this wealth of wisdom, since I just seem to be Unable to imagine why a bunch of incompetent moronic bearocrats should suddenly be competent when it comes to building something as dangerous and yet so crucially important as an army, not to mention letting them fiddle about with it.
The troops themselves are quite comppetent but the moronic beaurocrats are not.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The FDA
Going by all the stuff I have read on the F and Drug Administration over the last year, their are quite imcompetent compared to other countries.
They have approved GMO food without properly using the precaution principal, they have even got backfire over not have doing enough testing.
But then again, thats regulation.
The FDA itself might be quite competent in contrast, ironically.
Edit: Elodins point is valid, the way the regulation is done is incompetent.
Elodin: Evidence and source please
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 04:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, there are things I used to believe that I no longer believe. For instance, once I was naive enough to think that everyone wanted to know the truth. Now I know that that not only is not the case but that some people will deliberately lie about others and other groups of people that they don't like merely because they hold different beliefs.
Soylent green is people! Soylent green is people!
I also love how he doesn't respond to the people who actually do work for the government.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 04:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I make less money in my federal job than I probably could in the private sector.
Me too, even though technically I'm not a federal employee. We just get our funding through federal grant money and were established by Congress.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 04:40 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:45, 21 Jun 2010.
|
@JJ
Quote:
Take for example the corporations Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman and General Dyamics. Most of the jobs within these corps are build on tax money. Fighter planes, cruise missiles and battle tanks are something THE STATE is ordering to develop, financing and therefore CREATING.
Utter nonsense. Ordering a product is not creating a job. Every time I go to Walmart or place an online order for a game I am not creating a job. That is just silly.
Jobs are created by entrepreneurs. The hated "evil capitalist pigs."
The government is a drain on national wealth and prosperity. It is inefficient and the money could be used better in private hands. Of course, there are certain necessary government functions, like national defense.
@Corribus
Quote:
In point of fact, most of the people who take federal jobs at my level do so because they believe in helping people. I make less money in my federal job than I probably could in the private sector.
That runs counter to what a study found this year. Government jobs in general pay far more and have much better benefits than the same positions in the private sector.
Oh, and it is laughable to say that most government bureaucrats are there with an attitude of a public servant.
Clicky
Quote:
Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.
Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
.....
"The data flip the conventional wisdom on its head," says Cato Institute budget analyst Chris Edwards, a critic of federal pay policy. "Federal workers make substantially more than private workers, not less, in addition to having a large advantage in benefits."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 04:48 PM |
|
|
|
Elodin, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Go to school, read some books, but stop making a fool out of yourself, it's getting awkward.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 05:33 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:36, 21 Jun 2010.
|
@JJ
It would be nice if would stop throwing out insults and instead address my points. But I want to address a couple of previous comments of yours I have not addressed.
Quote:
The thing is, that WELFARE is creating a job as well - the job of doing NOTHING and getting a minimum amount of money for it.
Sorry, being a free loader is not a job. Free loaders are doing nothing productive and are a drain on the nation's wealth and prosperity.
Quote:
The better way is to create DIFFERENT jobs instead of "doing nothing", and there is no shortage of jobs that COULD be created.
The government creating new government positions is a drain on the nation's wealth and prosperity. The money the government takes from the people to man such positions is money that has been taken away from the private sector. Money that could have been used to produce actual jobs for wealth generation.
The government does not have to make a profit and will always be less efficient than the private sector. The government does not generate wealth. The private sector does.
Quote:
Consequentially CORPS must be taxed harder to bring in the money necessary to create the missing jobs that the corps are not creating (because labor is too expensive for them), and not the working public.
Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. When you raise the tax on a business the business will pass the tax along to the consumer because the business has to make a profit to stay in business. That seems to be a rather difficult concept for some people to grasp.
Higher taxes means the people have less money to spend, which means a lower demand for good, which means more people get laid off which means more people have less money to spend.....
Your suggestion that corporations be taxes "harder" means a lower national prosperity if such a misguided plan is implemented.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 06:06 PM |
|
|
|
Every word is too much - you want to be ignorant, so keep that way and have fun with it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 06:14 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Society is an aggregation of individuals. So anything that helps individuals more than it harms them is a benefit for society.
Quote:
Economically spoken, for example, it would be better to simply eliminate people who have reached a certain age in combination with a certain level of sickness: why waste resources on them?
This is a very vague question, and thus I have difficulty answering it. Who is "wasting" resources on them? The taxpayer? Well, then certainly it's better if the taxpayer isn't forced to spend money on them. Their children? Their children want to have their parents around, so it's not a waste. Value is subjective, so if someone who values it is paying for it, it's not a waste. And what does "eliminate" mean/ Should the government burst into retired people's houses and kill everyone inside? No, of course not. I'm not sure what you mean by this question, so I cannot answer it adequately.
Calling what I say dogmatic isn't going to disprove what I'm saying. People have their own preferences, and know them better than anyone else does. Thus, when they spend their own money, it is more efficient and thus makes them happier more than if anybody else did it for them. That's the basic principle.
OD:
You're focusing on what is seen, instead of looking at the bigger picture of both what is seen and not seen. Yes, these people are working - but who's to say things wouldn't work better if the resources were allocated by the market? For example, the FDA isn't all that great. They err to the side of caution - but they still err. "Drug kills people!" makes headlines. "People die here and there who wouldn't have died if the FDA approved a drug" does not.
del_diablo:
Reducing bureaucracy would reduce inefficiency, but some inefficiency is just in the nature of government. Sometimes it's more efficient for the government to do something despite the inefficient way it does it, such as in the case of police, but most of the time it's just misdirection of resources, like farm subsidies.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
