Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Downturn

3 (6%)

Recession

20 (40%)

Depression

11 (22%)

Paradigm Shift

6 (12%)

Apocalypse

10 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[Yanlin]

I just never take off my flame retardant suit. I always use it.

[mainiac]

So the reason that government is wasteful is because we don't believe in our politicians?

The typical size of a government, worldwide, is 30%-35% of the GDP of the nation.  Since WWII, the typical size of the US government has been 20%-19% of the GDP.  This is including the massive entitlement programs like social security which represent about half of the US government.  Obama's massive stimulus will bring the size of the US government to about 26% of the GDP, for two years, followed by a cut to less then 20% again.

The largest the government ever got since WWII was about 24% of the GDP, under Ronald Reagan in 1983.  Yet Ronald Regan is the hero of so called "small government conservatism", a movement with no actual claim on small government.

Bill Clinton was attacked as a "tax and spend liberal."  But under Clinton, the size of the government fell to the smallest levels in 30 years, from  about 23% to about 18% of GDP.

The reason why government is wasteful?  Because the American public confuses tax cuts with efficient government.  Not one republican president since Eisenhower has done a damn thing to make the government more efficient.  Yet people complain that it's the democrats are burdening them with inefficient government.  Why?  Because the democrats have the audacity to budget like adults, rather then making insane promises.

If you want lean government, don't vote for politicians who don't believe in good government.  Those who want to govern, can govern effectively and make the government more efficient.  Those who have set out to destroy government, make really crappy stewards.

[Andir]

Temporary nationalization of a banking system does not equate totalitarianism.  It does not mean that all the private banks would suddenly disappear and be replaced by a monolithic Big Brother Bank.  It means the government would dissolve assets these banks can't get rid of themselves, while they continue to otherwise manage their own affairs.  Then, after a certain time or conditions are met, the banks are released back out as public companies, as would be written into the the bill authorizing the action from the get go (or you can be sure it would never pass anyway).

The problem I have with Bailouts is that people have no sense of loss or care.  They think that they just have to bring down enough people and someone will step in and fix their mistakes.  People need to fail to learn.

When you say "people", who are you talking about exactly?  The managers of these firms?  Voters?  There's a lot of blame being cast about in here, and I can't tell where it's all falling.

The people would be anyone that could lose from poor decisions in business or investment.  Nothing is definite, but everyone wants it to be.

The US postal service is a good example of your replacing monolithic big brother type business.  Before the government instantiated the postal service, there were companies that made a living transferring post to every edge of the continent.  The Pony Express, etc.  Over time, the companies couldn't compete against a government funded (backed by tax dollars) company and had to go out of business.  I'm afraid that the banks will do the same.  There better be some STIFF limitations on time and power of these "partially nationalized" banks or the only bank people will use is the federally owned.  Normal people (the same ignorant people we are talking about in the other thread) will assume that the federal bank is the only secure bank and put all their money there.  This will drive privatized banks out of business.  The same thing happens in the software industry with Microsoft.  People assume that Microsoft has the best technology simply because they are bigger.  They put their faith in the name assuming that they will not disappear tomorrow.  If you had a choice between a bank backed by the government or a bank backed by nothing but trust that they won't shut down tomorrow... which would you choose to put your money in?  Many people will want to protect their money and will want legislation to bring all banks under this nationalization or extend the nationalization citing deregulation bumps in the past when the hammer finally drops on "de-nationalization" of these banks.

[mainiac]

The US postal service is a good example of your replacing monolithic big brother type business.

The US postal service dates back to the 18th century and was the first postal service in this country.  It wasn't the postal service that drove private mail out of business, it was the telegraph, another private messaging service.  And the US postal service offers bare bone prices that we the lifeblood of American business until the invention of e-mail.  Compare the cost of a letter to Alaska to the cost of a FedEx across the street.

Do you really think any private business would be willing to offer nationwide mail delivery for prices as low as the US postal service?

Hell, even look at the DMV, the punching bag of government haters everywhere.  How much did the DMV charge you for handling your paperwork?  How much does your insurance company charge you for handling your paperwork?  Sure, the service is crappy, it's because they are running a cheap operation!

[Yanlin]

Alright. I give up.

[Aqizzar]

The US postal service is a good example of your replacing monolithic big brother type business.  Before the government instantiated the postal service, there were companies that made a living transferring post to every edge of the continent.  The Pony Express, etc.  Over time, the companies couldn't compete against a government funded (backed by tax dollars) company and had to go out of business.

I'll be sure to tell my former co-workers at UPS that we were all part of a group contact high.

Really, that's just completely wrong.  Yes, the Post Office is inefficient and incompetent.  That's exactly why there are private alternatives, because there's no law against running your own postal delivery service, and private companies being beholden to their bottom line, figured out how to work faster and more reliably.

There better be some STIFF limitations on time and power of these "partially nationalized" banks or the only bank people will use is the federally owned.  Normal people (the same ignorant people we are talking about in the other thread) will assume that the federal bank is the only secure bank and put all their money there.  This will drive privatized banks out of business.  ...  Many people will want to protect their money and will want legislation to bring all banks under this nationalization or extend the nationalization citing deregulation bumps in the past when the hammer finally drops on "de-nationalization" of these banks.

I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass, you know.  Limited, temporary nationalization is entirely doable, has been been proven to work, does not put private banks out of business, and does not destroy people's confidence in private banking any more than private banking's own incompetent management does already.

[Andir]

The US postal service is a good example of your replacing monolithic big brother type business.

The US postal service dates back to the 18th century and was the first postal service in this country.  It wasn't the postal service that drove private mail out of business, it was the telegraph, another private messaging service.  And the US postal service offers bare bone prices that we the lifeblood of American business until the invention of e-mail.  Compare the cost of a letter to Alaska to the cost of a FedEx across the street.

Do you really think any private business would be willing to offer nationwide mail delivery for prices as low as the US postal service?

Hell, even look at the DMV, the punching bag of government haters everywhere.  How much did the DMV charge you for handling your paperwork?  How much does your insurance company charge you for handling your paperwork?  Sure, the service is crappy, it's because they are running a cheap operation!

Incorrect... the Postal service wasn't started until the Second Congress started it.  There were several postal companies operating up to and after that point.  I hate pointing to wikipedia, but it's fairly accurate here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#History

[Andir]

The US postal service is a good example of your replacing monolithic big brother type business.  Before the government instantiated the postal service, there were companies that made a living transferring post to every edge of the continent.  The Pony Express, etc.  Over time, the companies couldn't compete against a government funded (backed by tax dollars) company and had to go out of business.

I'll be sure to tell my former co-workers at UPS that we were all part of a group contact high.

I work for UPS, Corporate level to be precise.  There are multiple examples and documents floating around that point out the "unfair" practices that the USPS perform on a daily basis that could be construed to be anti-competitive.  UPS makes it by offering parcel service and logistics today.  Something that the postal service didn't offer for a long period of time and something that they "offload" to Fed-Ex today.

[Aqizzar]

I'll be sure to tell my former co-workers at UPS that we were all part of a group contact high.

I work for UPS, Corporate level to be precise.  There are multiple examples and documents floating around that point out the "unfair" practices that the USPS perform on a daily basis that could be construed to be anti-competitive.  UPS makes it by offering parcel service and logistics today.  Something that the postal service didn't offer for a long period of time and something that they "offload" to Fed-Ex today.
[/quote]

That hardly proves your point about a federal postal service putting private post out of business.  Quite the opposite in fact.

[Granite26]

Temporary nationalization of a banking system does not equate totalitarianism.  It does not mean that all the private banks would suddenly disappear and be replaced by a monolithic Big Brother Bank.  It means the government would dissolve assets these banks can't get rid of themselves, while they continue to otherwise manage their own affairs.  Then, after a certain time or conditions are met, the banks are released back out as public companies, as would be written into the the bill authorizing the action from the get go (or you can be sure it would never pass anyway).

Is it an absolution of responsibility, both on the part of the poorly run banks and the fools who bought into them?  Yes.  Will it fix the solvency problem crippling the business world?  Yes.  Is one more important than the other?  Yes, and which is a matter of ideology.  But it's a choice with practical outcomes - favoring one side of the argument will accomplish nothing but further paralysis, while the other will allow credit to keep sound companies operating and employing.

All in all, you need to get over yourself, and realize that sometimes the system does work as advertised, and that people aren't stupid just because they make decisions you wouldn't.  Cynicism and indignation does not make you factually correct, and the government is not out to get you.  You live in America, you're subject to it's system.  In the end, you've got a pretty limited selection of choices.

Do you want to vote for a guy who promises to make the government help you, and maybe fucks it up along the way?  Or do you want to vote for a guy who actively promises he'll keep the government from trying to help you?

Do you want to live within the system and find good results under the noise of criticism?  Or do you want to live within the system and be ineffectually pissed off about it?

Those are your options.  If you're not happy with them, find a candidate for a meaningful office who agrees with your views and help him win.  If that sounds like an unrealistically daunting challenge, you're right.  No one ever promised you life would be accommodating.

We're obviously coming from very different places.  I'm trying pretty hard to stay away from ad hominim attacks (pigheaded?) or straw men (mainiac, I never said word one about Dems, Reps or Reagan...)

I never said it equated to totalitarianism.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  I DID say that the government has a piss poor record of releasing power it's taken.  Feel free to argue that point if you will/can, but please refrain from arguing some nebulous point you think is associated with what I'm saying (the word is hyperbole there).  I also made several historical allusions to previous 'this power you give me I will lay down' situations, which you seem to be completely ignoring due to an apparent innate trust of elected officials.

I also disagree with your assessment of both the short term and long term effects of the government getting involved, another area where you seem to be stating 'facts' that come from nowhere but your own worldview.  No matter what you think, stating something as fact does not make it so.

Do you want to vote for a guy who promises to make the government help you, and maybe fucks it up along the way?  Or do you want to vote for a guy who actively promises he'll keep the government from trying to help you?

Actually, in every case I vote for the guy who says that government isn't the answer.  I'm also willing to suffer the slings and arrows of normal economic fluctuation rather than pay money to flatten the curves, especially since my understanding of economics is that this behaviour depresses the long term growth.

I don't believe the government is out to get me, but I do believe that politicians are in the business of helping the few at the cost of the many.  Wealth transfers from urban to rural environments, tariffs and subsidies all amount to exactly that.  Many people pay a little bit to help the few a lot, for no reason than the few will vote for that cause and the many don't find it important enough to vote based soley on.  Since I am not willing to use the legal bludgeon of the government to acquire unearned rewards, I am on the losing end of that cycle.

Oh, and if someone that honestly understands the situations disagrees with me, that's fine.  The problem is, it's established fact that voters vote based on the current economic situation rather than the actual positions of the candidates.  Name recognition and the advantages of incumbency count more than actual politics or even record (unless the incumbent really screws the pooch).  Democrats won in many districts not because of a shift in politics in the area, but because of significantly greater turnout from certain demographics (mainly the young voters).  These aren't differences of opinion, they're simple facts granting advantages to certain groups.  I think that I am entitled to a righteous sense of disgust when my researched informed vote counts as much as someone who is voting for Obama because MTV told him to, and coincidentally voted for other people he'd never even heard of while he was there.

If that makes me self-righteous, so be it.

[Andir]

That hardly proves your point about a federal postal service putting private post out of business.  Quite the opposite in fact.

UPS sprung up in 1930 as a solution to a problem the postal service didn't provide.  Parcel shipping, store to home drop off.  UPS survived on parcel... not postal for a long time along-side USPS.  There's a big difference.  UPS has recently been trying to branch out to find other revenue to remain alive because it can't compete with USPS rates.  They've been buying up freight companies to find a niche that the USPS can't take over.  They've been looking into warehousing and logistics to maintain the company.  USPS parcel shipping is hurting the company due to "unfair" shipping rates.  People want cheap shipping, but they don't realize it's coming out of their taxes, and if they do they are right in assuming that since they pay for it anyway, they might as well use it.  The same could very well happen to banks.  Just because one country pulled it off doesn't mean that our government will release that power when it's time.

[Aqizzar]

The selective-quote-response-breakdown post is always a sign that an argument has gotten out of hand.  Let me preface this by saying I'm willing to concede rhetorical ground here, and that this can be considered settled.

I never said it equated to totalitarianism.  Please don't put words in my mouth. 

I was specifically referring to this-

You may be anxious to give up any form of personal responsibility or independence, but I'll kindly thank you from assuming that it is a given fact that the government should shove a gun in my face to make me do what you think is right, and worse yet make me pay for the bullet beforehand.

Maybe I'm not getting exactly what you were referring to, but it sounded like the kind of Ted Kaczynskism that equates any notion of the government regulating behavior as being being forced to smile at gunpoint.

I also made several historical allusions to previous 'this power you give me I will lay down' situations, which you seem to be completely ignoring due to an apparent innate trust of elected officials. ... I also disagree with your assessment of both the short term and long term effects of the government getting involved, another area where you seem to be stating 'facts' that come from nowhere but your own worldview.

Allusion is exactly the problem.  You didn't point to any specific example.  I know there are, but don't pretend that you put effort into your argument that wasn't there.  As for my counter example, no there isn't one, because the United States has never nationalized an industry like that.  Which is why I pointed to another country that did do what I described, and in due time, released the power it claimed.  You can bet your bottom dollar that a bill authorizing a nationalization would never make it's way out of Congress without an extremely clear annunciation of when that power will be released.  Your innate distrust of elected officials doesn't make that any less real.

Actually, in every case I vote for the guy who says that government isn't the answer.  ...  Wealth transfers from urban to rural environments, tariffs and subsidies all amount to exactly that.  Many people pay a little bit to help the few a lot, for no reason than the few will vote for that cause and the many don't find it important enough to vote based soley on.

I'd ask why you bother voting at all then.  As mainiac aptly pointed out, the only modern President who reduced the size of the government was Bill Clinton.  If there's one lesson to be taken from the political playbooks of the last 40 years, it's that a politician who campaigns saying the government is always the problem and should be shrunk, will upon victory, not shrink anything while dismantling programs to send the same expenditure to the already rich just as you criticize.  Somehow, the 'small government' people have managed to hold onto that mantle while doing absolutely nothing to prove their claim to it.  I agree with every criticism you have of the voting habits of idiots, but if all it takes to earn your vote is a promise to not make the government more functional, then I think you're being as duped as any others.

I'm also willing to suffer the slings and arrows of normal economic fluctuation rather than pay money to flatten the curves, especially since my understanding of economics is that this behaviour depresses the long term growth.

This is where I'm willing to consider the argument closed, because you've proven me wrong.  I assumed going into this that, like every other so-called libertarian I've met online, you were going into a free-market position with the unconscious assumption that supporting a deregulated market would magically immunize you to it's faults.  Every free-marketeer I've argued with before was somehow convinced that no matter the results of a market crash, they'd be riding in style just by virtue of being smarter and cooler than everyone else.  It's soured my opinion of the title, and I went into this the same way.  If you're willing to say "I support a free-market solution in all circumstances, even if the natural crashes associated with it's longterm cycles make me a hobo through no fault of my own", then kudos to you for staking out an honest position.

This then is where we'd have to close this, because as you said we're coming into the argument from two different angles.  I certainly can't convince you of the merits of my recovery plan, if you don't thing flattening the growth/crash curve is a proper goal in the first place.  Let us have our honest disagreement and be done then, and more power to you.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Just wanted to pop in to provide a point that I didn't see anyone bring up.

The USPS has a legally enforced monopoly on letter service. They have the exclusive right to use residential mailboxes, and if you do still want to run a private letter service, it is actually illegal to have prices that are competitive with the USPS first class mail rate. For example, an $8 "next business day" letter is legal, but a $0.75 "when we get around to it" letter is not... unless $0.42 of that is a normal postage stamp put on there despite only your company handling the letter, just to placate the USPS.

[Aqizzar]

Just wanted to pop in to provide a point that I didn't see anyone bring up.

The USPS has a legally enforced monopoly on letter service. They have the exclusive right to use residential mailboxes, and if you do still want to run a private letter service, it is actually illegal to have prices that are competitive with the USPS first class mail rate. For example, an $8 "next business day" letter is legal, but a $0.75 "when we get around to it" letter is not... unless $0.42 of that is a normal postage stamp put on there despite only your company handling the letter, just to placate the USPS.

I was not aware of this.  Certainly explains quite a few things.

Consider all my previous statements about postal business irrelevant.

[Andir]

The selective-quote-response-breakdown post is always a sign that an argument has gotten out of hand.  Let me preface this by saying I'm willing to concede rhetorical ground here, and that this can be considered settled.

That's why I love this country and hate to see it go to a federally controlled state.  People have choices with state defined boundaries and if we remove those, I wouldn't be able to go to Michigan if I disliked the taxes in Ohio.  If we all go under one control, and one point of view by killing off the minority view, then we may be successful in the books but to what end?

Edit:  Love it that we can disagree and live under different notions of right vs. wrong that is... not that we can create incredibly complicated quotation structures.