Print

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

[Eagle_eye]

Actually, the mechanism used to produce penicillin was discovered at Oxford, a government funded university.

The cult like insistence that the government is always inefficient and the private sector is always wonderful is absurd. Could a private company have put a man on the moon in 1969? Could a private company possibly have raised the funds to build the interstate highway system? Of course not. The amount of cooperation between different production chains in the first, and the sheer amount of money necessary for the second would make that impossible. Private corporations could never have won world war two. Left to their own devices, they would have gouged prices for war materials to such a degree that the U.S. would never have been able to keep up with the centralized German and Japanese government production. Perhaps the Soviets would have eventually pulled through, perhaps not. It would have been a far bloodier conflict for sure.  During that period the United States was effectively a planned economy. The following decades had some of the highest growth in U.S. history. How does that confirm the inefficiency and economic damage caused by the government?

[Willfor]

That doesn't change the fact that it's inefficient, and was during every single thing you mentioned.

You should try to argue instead that it is a necessary inefficiency, which is a separate truth. One that is far harder to argue for in the midst of so many devout anarchists, but one that I love because I am so anti-anarchy.

[GreatJustice]

Actually, the mechanism used to produce penicillin was discovered at Oxford, a government funded university.

The discovery that it was of medical benefit was discovered at St. Mary's, a voluntarily funded hospital.

The cult like insistence that the government is always inefficient and the private sector is always wonderful is absurd. Could a private company have put a man on the moon in 1969?

...Why would it want to? Private companies wouldn't dig a fifty square kilometre pit and fill it back up again either.

Could a private company possibly have raised the funds to build the interstate highway system? Of course not.

I don't know. Could it? Private companies would have an extraordinarily hard time making roads as things are due to zoning regulations and so on, not to mention the fact that roads fall under the jurisdiction of the DoT.

Private corporations could never have won world war two. Left to their own devices, they would have gouged prices for war materials to such a degree that the U.S. would never have been able to keep up with the centralized German and Japanese government production. Perhaps the Soviets would have eventually pulled through, perhaps not. It would have been a far bloodier conflict for sure.  During that period the United States was effectively a planned economy. The following decades had some of the highest growth in U.S. history. How does that confirm the inefficiency and economic damage caused by the government?

Its worth noting that "War Socialism" was tried in Germany in both wars, and in both cases it ended up with everyone starving and a shortage of vital war materials. In Japan there was also a shortage of vital war materials, but then Japan didn't have anything approaching a market economy up until the postwar era and had no industrial might to speak of. In America, it was only viewed by Americans as a "necessity" during the war, which featured massive crackdowns on union strikes and a huge decline in the standard of living. After the war, politicians supporting an end to war measures and restrictions were elected overwhelmingly despite massive opposition from entrenched federal departments claiming that the Depression would return if they stopped spending.

[USEC_OFFICER]

The discovery that it was of medical benefit was discovered at St. Mary's, a voluntarily funded hospital.

The cult like insistence that the government is always inefficient and the private sector is always wonderful is absurd. Could a private company have put a man on the moon in 1969?

...Why would it want to? Private companies wouldn't dig a fifty square kilometre pit and fill it back up again either.

Of course you'd need two companies to do that. One to dig the hole, and the other to fill it back up again. Probably with toxic waste or something, like they did with Love Canal.

Private corporations could never have won world war two. Left to their own devices, they would have gouged prices for war materials to such a degree that the U.S. would never have been able to keep up with the centralized German and Japanese government production. Perhaps the Soviets would have eventually pulled through, perhaps not. It would have been a far bloodier conflict for sure.  During that period the United States was effectively a planned economy. The following decades had some of the highest growth in U.S. history. How does that confirm the inefficiency and economic damage caused by the government?

Its worth noting that "War Socialism" was tried in Germany in both wars, and in both cases it ended up with everyone starving and a shortage of vital war materials. In Japan there was also a shortage of vital war materials, but then Japan didn't have anything approaching a market economy up until the postwar era and had no industrial might to speak of.

Please excuse me while I bang my head against a wall repeatedly. The lack of resources in Germany and Japan had absolutely nothing to do with their government. Japan and Germany were resource poor and relied on import for important materials like coal, nickel and rubber. Part of the reason that Japan became so expansionist was so that they could get their hands on the parts of Asia that were rich in these resources and thus fuel their industries.

[GreatJustice]

Of course you'd need two companies to do that. One to dig the hole, and the other to fill it back up again. Probably with toxic waste or something, like they did with Love Canal.

I doubt they'd be able to manage to create quite as big of a mess as the TVA though.

Please excuse me while I bang my head against a wall repeatedly. The lack of resources in Germany and Japan had absolutely nothing to do with their government. Japan and Germany were resource poor and relied on import for important materials like coal, nickel and rubber. Part of the reason that Japan became so expansionist was so that they could get their hands on the parts of Asia that were rich in these resources and thus fuel their industries.

Japan yes, though they DID have a notable recession followed by starvation following a massive increase in interventionism in the 1920s (to be contrasted to the laissez-faire prevailing attitude in the US at the time) and only began their imperialistic actions in earnest after that (and any economy can be fueled off of the loot of conquered nations, but few would advocate that as a sustainable policy).

Germany, not so much. Germany was ALWAYS one of the most resource rich nations of Europe, and it had an exceptionally robust economy/concentration of industry up until the introduction of War Socialism and WW1, whereupon starvation and scarcity set in.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Of course you'd need two companies to do that. One to dig the hole, and the other to fill it back up again. Probably with toxic waste or something, like they did with Love Canal.

I doubt they'd be able to manage to create quite as big of a mess as the TVA though.

Probably because they would have allowed the fly ash to escape into the atmosphere instead of trying to clean it up.

Japan yes, though they DID have a notable recession followed by starvation following a massive increase in interventionism in the 1920s (to be contrasted to the laissez-faire prevailing attitude in the US at the time) and only began their imperialistic actions in earnest after that (and any economy can be fueled off of the loot of conquered nations, but few would advocate that as a sustainable policy).

Of course Japan was going to have a recession in the 1920s. Japan's major exports were luxury goods like silk. After WWI nobody had the money to buy luxuries, and at the end of 1929 the Great Depression hit, which only worsened the situation. And I'd like to point out that Japan was imperialistic well before WWI. The Russo-Japanese War was fought in 1905 over Machuria as part of their imperialistic agendas. Japan joined the allies in WWI so that they could get Germany's Asian processions and the resources they had.

Germany, not so much. Germany was ALWAYS one of the most resource rich nations of Europe, and it had an exceptionally robust economy/concentration of industry up until the introduction of War Socialism and WW1, whereupon starvation and scarcity set in.

I'm not talking about industry here. I'm talking about natural resources. Germany may be resource rich in some areas, but not all of them and it definitively did not have enough farmland to feed its entire population. Germany has always been vulnerable to blockades, which is why the German–Soviet Credit Agreements were signed despite the hatred that the two countries and their ideologies.

[Eagle_eye]

The most resource rich areas of Germany were all lost at Versailles. Germany as it was at the beginning of WWII had pretty minimal resource wealth.

[darkrider2]

I've noticed that people who say the government is completely inefficient and wastes tons of money are always the same people who will defend the ridiculous oodles of money that get spent on the Department of Defense.

Hold on I'm getting a call from our news correspondent at the pentagon.

Yes, what is it James.

Breaking News: Hello Tom I'm standing outside the pentagon where we've just received news that yes, the Department of Defense is still part of the government. If any claims of independence or privatization are made, we'll be sure to inform you. Back to you Tom.

Well, you heard it here first folks. Now our next story, cute cat videos.

[SalmonGod]

How about the legendary efficiency of those private contractors (mercenaries) the DoD is increasingly fond of?

[darkrider2]

How about the legendary efficiency of those private contractors (mercenaries) the DoD is increasingly fond of?

Oh those private 'security' forces that are notorious for gunning down unarmed civilians in broad daylight? Yeah I love those guys.

[Duuvian]

For GreatJustice's benefit:

There was a hole in the bottom of the Sea (and the government for once didn't have the means to do anything about it, and left it to the private sector to fix it until the government had to bring out a $20 billion dollar stick to make them do something effective other than PR campaigns]

[10ebbor10]

Don't forget the time oil diggers actually dug a hole in a lake and hit a salt mine.

The most resource rich areas of Germany were all lost at Versailles. Germany as it was at the beginning of WWII had pretty minimal resource wealth.

They didn't use them at Versailles. (Not all of them anyway). France (backed up by Belgium) did "invade" a rather large part of their terretory during the interbellum though, when Germany failed to pay the war payments. (Which were rather ridiculous)

[palsch]

Because it's only fun when we have really controversial meat to chew over.

Obama looks likely to issue an executive order on cybersecurity after the bills fail in the Senate.

That whole post is interesting, not least because it highlights the three areas the cybersecurity legislation was supposed to address, in order of controversy;

1) Authorisation of new research, reforms of existing programs and similar miscellaneous filler.
Likely easily done with an executive order and minimal fuss, albeit more limited given funding limitations.

2) Setting private security standards.
This was the part the Republicans and Chamber of Commerce hated. The strongest form proposed was a set of full regulations with security requirements for organisations running critical infrastructure. The weakest (but still rejected) was voluntary regulations with positive incentives to meet them.

It seems that at least some watered down version could be established under an executive order, granting the DHS the power to set standards and then offer immunity - through a law designed for anti-terror purposes - for those who meet such standards. That would be a strong incentive for companies to meet at least some minimum standard of electronic security discipline by removing liability for security failures when they do occur.

3) Information sharing.
This was the part that cause privacy and civil liberty problems. No version of the information sharing section was particularly good in the original bill.

This is also the part that really needs watching. The post I linked gives a strong anti-privacy case (disturbing for a conservative/libertarian site like Volokh...) while I take a near opposite view (although I think some extremely limited data sharing with strong protections and penalties as far as use of data goes could fly, although probably not under an executive order).


All in all, a few things that would be improvements over the congressional CISPA/Senate bills;
- Guarantee cybersecurity remains a civilian issue. Republicans wanted it handed off to the DHS.
- Removes (or greatly reduces) the possibility of the most extreme measures, which tended to be the worst.
- Obama is more likely to want a fight with the CoC than with privacy interests, which suits me just fine.

Worth watching, because this could play a huge role in the security debates during the election.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Obama stated opposition to the cybersecurity bill and an intent to veto if it passed the Senate, so I don't know why anyone would think he'd substitute it with an executive order.

[palsch]

Obama stated opposition to the cybersecurity bill and an intent to veto if it passed the Senate, so I don't know why anyone would think he'd substitute it with an executive order.

Because he pushed hard for a cybersecurity bill. He threatened the House version of CISPA with a veto for various reasons. Primarily because it was disgusting with regards to privacy concerns and lacked any form of regulatory system. This statement from the administration during the Senate debate was in reference to the Lieberman-Collins compromise bill, but lays out the types of provisions he wanted. There is also Obama's own WSJ editorial which makes cybersecurity a priority.

This approach stays true to our values as a society that cherishes free enterprise and the rights of the individual. Cybersecurity standards would be developed in partnership between government and industry. For the majority of critical infrastructure companies already meeting these standards, nothing more would be expected. Companies needing to upgrade their security would have the flexibility to decide how best to do so using the wide range of innovative products and services available in the marketplace. Moreover, our approach protects the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. Indeed, I will veto any bill that lacks strong privacy and civil-liberties protections.
...
Today we can see the cyber threat to the networks upon which so much of our modern American lives depend. We have the opportunity—and the responsibility—to take action now and stay a step ahead of our adversaries. For the sake of our national and economic security, I urge the Senate to pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 and Congress to send me comprehensive legislation so I can sign it into law.

If you believe what's been passed around the more conservative and libertarian sites I tend to read, he said this while allowing the Senate bill to fail. Essentially he wants this fight.