Government support is essential to life and liberty

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14476
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by JO 753 » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:09 pm

Comprehensive SEC oversight?! :lol: :lol:

Apparently you didnt pay much attention to the newz on this story.

Its valid to use this az an example for gummit incompetence, but also az an example uv how private enterprize can do bad thingz.

The lesson you shoud learn iz that people will do bad andor stupid thingz. Having a government agensy in place at least offerz the possibilty uv keeping a lid on thingz.

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by rickoshay85 » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:26 pm

JO 753 wrote:Comprehensive SEC oversight?! :lol: :lol:

Apparently you didnt pay much attention to the newz on this story.

Its valid to use this az an example for gummit incompetence, but also az an example uv how private enterprize can do bad thingz.

The lesson you shoud learn iz that people will do bad and or stupid thingz. Having a government agensy in place at least offerz the possibilty uv keeping a lid on thingz.
Not only that but government is the only source of the big money industry needs to take on big projects and hire workers to do the jobs, especially now when new jobs are essential to our economy.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

Datinsky
Poster
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Datinsky » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:38 am

rickoshay85 wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Comprehensive SEC oversight?! :lol: :lol:

Apparently you didnt pay much attention to the newz on this story.

Its valid to use this az an example for gummit incompetence, but also az an example uv how private enterprize can do bad thingz.

The lesson you shoud learn iz that people will do bad and or stupid thingz. Having a government agensy in place at least offerz the possibilty uv keeping a lid on thingz.
Not only that but government is the only source of the big money industry needs to take on big projects and hire workers to do the jobs, especially now when new jobs are essential to our economy.
Rickoshay,

Let's try this a different way. If the country NEEDS jobs, how exactly would you advocate they create them? If we could organize the government, and have it work the way Rick thinks it ought to work, what would this look like?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5503
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Austin Harper » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:20 pm

Datinsky wrote:The FAA regulates the airways in the United States. How in the world (no pun) do all these airplanes fly from the US to any foreign country? The FAA isn't regulating these locations?
Through coordination with the JAA in Europe or other similar government organizations in other countries.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by rickoshay85 » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:43 pm

Datinsky wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Comprehensive SEC oversight?! :lol: :lol:

Apparently you didnt pay much attention to the newz on this story.

Its valid to use this az an example for gummit incompetence, but also az an example uv how private enterprize can do bad thingz.

The lesson you shoud learn iz that people will do bad and or stupid thingz. Having a government agensy in place at least offerz the possibilty uv keeping a lid on thingz.
Not only that but government is the only source of the big money industry needs to take on big projects and hire workers to do the jobs, especially now when new jobs are essential to our economy.
Rickoshay,

Let's try this a different way. If the country NEEDS jobs, how exactly would you advocate they create them?
Government backed projects. like the military, NASA, dams, roads, schools, crumbling infrastructure. With more workers bringing home paychecks, taxes will increase, buying will increase, and that will create non government jobs and help balance the budget. Of course this is just economy 101, so I'm probably telling you things you already know.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4088
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by bigtim » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:24 am

The largest creator of jobs is small business
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OutOfBreath » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:10 am

bigtim wrote:The largest creator of jobs is small business
Definitely, no contest.

However, many economies are rigged in such a way that if the state stops or reduces spending, those businesses don't earn money and go out of business. So even if they hire the most people, doesn't mean that's where the action in the economy really is. In my region, the oil business keeps say 5% of the work force directly employed. However, without the oil, the livelihood for businesses doing everything from ship-building to catering would take a substantial hit, as those keep another 10-20% of the work force occupied.

So alot of small businesses depend on the bigger ones (or state) for their existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the state of small businesses, far from it. But they do depend on bigger ones. I had a small business consisting of myself doing statistical analysis for other companies for a little while. Without big companies, I wouldn't get any work to do.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by rickoshay85 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:08 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:
bigtim wrote:The largest creator of jobs is small business
Definitely, no contest.

However, many economies are rigged in such a way that if the state stops or reduces spending, those businesses don't earn money and go out of business. So even if they hire the most people, doesn't mean that's where the action in the economy really is. In my region, the oil business keeps say 5% of the work force directly employed. However, without the oil, the livelihood for businesses doing everything from ship-building to catering would take a substantial hit, as those keep another 10-20% of the work force occupied.

So alot of small businesses depend on the bigger ones (or state) for their existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the state of small businesses, far from it. But they do depend on bigger ones. I had a small business consisting of myself doing statistical analysis for other companies for a little while. Without big companies, I wouldn't get any work to do.

Peace
Dan
The odds of a new small business lasting a year was one out of twenty during the good years, including my business. So why should it be any different now?
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11899
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OlegTheBatty » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:44 pm

rickoshay85 wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:
bigtim wrote:The largest creator of jobs is small business
Definitely, no contest.

However, many economies are rigged in such a way that if the state stops or reduces spending, those businesses don't earn money and go out of business. So even if they hire the most people, doesn't mean that's where the action in the economy really is. In my region, the oil business keeps say 5% of the work force directly employed. However, without the oil, the livelihood for businesses doing everything from ship-building to catering would take a substantial hit, as those keep another 10-20% of the work force occupied.

So alot of small businesses depend on the bigger ones (or state) for their existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the state of small businesses, far from it. But they do depend on bigger ones. I had a small business consisting of myself doing statistical analysis for other companies for a little while. Without big companies, I wouldn't get any work to do.

Peace
Dan
The odds of a new small business lasting a year was one out of twenty during the good years, including my business. So why should it be any different now?
Your research needs an upgrade.

One way of looking at it.
And another

When a government builds a bridge, they don't hire a bunch of construction workers, they contract out to a construction company. That company will do some of the work with their own employees, and will subcontract some of it to more specialized businesses. The government may be the ultimate source of funds, but private enterprise builds the bridge.

Government funded infrastructure projects create jobs that are every bit as real as private enterprise jobs because they are private enterprise jobs.

Most government bailout packages had limited success because most of the money went to bailing out banks instead of job creation.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by rickoshay85 » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:54 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:
bigtim wrote:The largest creator of jobs is small business
Definitely, no contest.

However, many economies are rigged in such a way that if the state stops or reduces spending, those businesses don't earn money and go out of business. So even if they hire the most people, doesn't mean that's where the action in the economy really is. In my region, the oil business keeps say 5% of the work force directly employed. However, without the oil, the livelihood for businesses doing everything from ship-building to catering would take a substantial hit, as those keep another 10-20% of the work force occupied.

So alot of small businesses depend on the bigger ones (or state) for their existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the state of small businesses, far from it. But they do depend on bigger ones. I had a small business consisting of myself doing statistical analysis for other companies for a little while. Without big companies, I wouldn't get any work to do.

Peace
Dan
The odds of a new small business lasting a year was one out of twenty during the good years, including my business. So why should it be any different now?
Your research needs an upgrade.

One way of looking at it.
And another

When a government builds a bridge, they don't hire a bunch of construction workers, they contract out to a construction company. That company will do some of the work with their own employees, and will subcontract some of it to more specialized businesses. The government may be the ultimate source of funds, but private enterprise builds the bridge.

Government funded infrastructure projects create jobs that are every bit as real as private enterprise jobs because they are private enterprise jobs.

Most government bailout packages had limited success because most of the money went to bailing out banks instead of job creation.
True, but there is still a lot of the stimulus package left. I read somewhere that large infrastructure projects take two to three years to put together, so the best is yet to come.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

Tom Palven
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6149
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Tom Palven » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:51 am

rickoshay85 wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:
bigtim wrote:The largest creator of jobs is small business
Definitely, no contest.

However, many economies are rigged in such a way that if the state stops or reduces spending, those businesses don't earn money and go out of business. So even if they hire the most people, doesn't mean that's where the action in the economy really is. In my region, the oil business keeps say 5% of the work force directly employed. However, without the oil, the livelihood for businesses doing everything from ship-building to catering would take a substantial hit, as those keep another 10-20% of the work force occupied.

So alot of small businesses depend on the bigger ones (or state) for their existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the state of small businesses, far from it. But they do depend on bigger ones. I had a small business consisting of myself doing statistical analysis for other companies for a little while. Without big companies, I wouldn't get any work to do.

Peace
Dan
The odds of a new small business lasting a year was one out of twenty during the good years, including my business. So why should it be any different now?
Your research needs an upgrade.

One way of looking at it.
And another

When a government builds a bridge, they don't hire a bunch of construction workers, they contract out to a construction company. That company will do some of the work with their own employees, and will subcontract some of it to more specialized businesses. The government may be the ultimate source of funds, but private enterprise builds the bridge.

Government funded infrastructure projects create jobs that are every bit as real as private enterprise jobs because they are private enterprise jobs.

Most government bailout packages had limited success because most of the money went to bailing out banks instead of job creation.
True, but there is still a lot of the stimulus package left. I read somewhere that large infrastructure projects take two to three years to put together, so the best is yet to come.
:shock:
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Datinsky
Poster
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Datinsky » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:46 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:
bigtim wrote:The largest creator of jobs is small business
Definitely, no contest.

However, many economies are rigged in such a way that if the state stops or reduces spending, those businesses don't earn money and go out of business. So even if they hire the most people, doesn't mean that's where the action in the economy really is. In my region, the oil business keeps say 5% of the work force directly employed. However, without the oil, the livelihood for businesses doing everything from ship-building to catering would take a substantial hit, as those keep another 10-20% of the work force occupied.

So alot of small businesses depend on the bigger ones (or state) for their existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the state of small businesses, far from it. But they do depend on bigger ones. I had a small business consisting of myself doing statistical analysis for other companies for a little while. Without big companies, I wouldn't get any work to do.

Dan
The odds of a new small business lasting a year was one out of twenty during the good years, including my business. So why should it be any different now?
Your research needs an upgrade.

One way of looking at it.
And another

When a government builds a bridge, they don't hire a bunch of construction workers, they contract out to a construction company. That company will do some of the work with their own employees, and will subcontract some of it to more specialized businesses. The government may be the ultimate source of funds, but private enterprise builds the bridge.

Government funded infrastructure projects create jobs that are every bit as real as private enterprise jobs because they are private enterprise jobs.

Most government bailout packages had limited success because most of the money went to bailing out banks instead of job creation.


Oleg,

I am stunned at the simplicity of your thinking. Basing your argument on the claim that government creates real jobs is amazing in its ignorance.

Fallacy of Public Works for “Providing Employment”
July 20, 2007

Suppose the government decides to build a bridge. There can be no objection to building the bridge if it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary to the taxpayers collectively than the things for which they would have individually spent their money if it had not been taxed away from them.But a bridge built primarily to “provide employment” is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. “Projects” have to be invented. Instead of thinking only of where bridges must be built, the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built.

Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly heard after it has been completed. The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence.
http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/cate ... y-hazlitt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your theory is built upon a faulty foundation. Please do some basic research, of opposing views on this fallacy, and get back to us.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:54 am

If you're smart, the government starts building projects that are socio-economically profitable in a down-turn. You utilize those workers that no longer work on private projects and keep them off the welfare budgets, while getting worthwhile infrastructure.

Of course building any old thing just to build is stupid. But building something that is deemed worthwhile while keeping people employed is very much a winning strategy.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11899
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OlegTheBatty » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:00 am

Datinsky wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:
bigtim wrote:The largest creator of jobs is small business
Definitely, no contest.

However, many economies are rigged in such a way that if the state stops or reduces spending, those businesses don't earn money and go out of business. So even if they hire the most people, doesn't mean that's where the action in the economy really is. In my region, the oil business keeps say 5% of the work force directly employed. However, without the oil, the livelihood for businesses doing everything from ship-building to catering would take a substantial hit, as those keep another 10-20% of the work force occupied.

So alot of small businesses depend on the bigger ones (or state) for their existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the state of small businesses, far from it. But they do depend on bigger ones. I had a small business consisting of myself doing statistical analysis for other companies for a little while. Without big companies, I wouldn't get any work to do.

Dan
The odds of a new small business lasting a year was one out of twenty during the good years, including my business. So why should it be any different now?
Your research needs an upgrade.

One way of looking at it.
And another

When a government builds a bridge, they don't hire a bunch of construction workers, they contract out to a construction company. That company will do some of the work with their own employees, and will subcontract some of it to more specialized businesses. The government may be the ultimate source of funds, but private enterprise builds the bridge.

Government funded infrastructure projects create jobs that are every bit as real as private enterprise jobs because they are private enterprise jobs.

Most government bailout packages had limited success because most of the money went to bailing out banks instead of job creation.
Oleg,

I am stunned at the simplicity of your thinking. Basing your argument on the claim that government creates real jobs is amazing in its ignorance.
Your theory is built upon a faulty foundation. Please do some basic research, of opposing views on this fallacy, and get back to us.
Your critique is built of straw and misdirection. I see no point in addressing any of it.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Datinsky
Poster
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Datinsky » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:27 am

Definitely, no contest.

However, many economies are rigged in such a way that if the state stops or reduces spending, those businesses don't earn money and go out of business. So even if they hire the most people, doesn't mean that's where the action in the economy really is. In my region, the oil business keeps say 5% of the work force directly employed. However, without the oil, the livelihood for businesses doing everything from ship-building to catering would take a substantial hit, as those keep another 10-20% of the work force occupied.

So alot of small businesses depend on the bigger ones (or state) for their existence. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the state of small businesses, far from it. But they do depend on bigger ones. I had a small business consisting of myself doing statistical analysis for other companies for a little while. Without big companies, I wouldn't get any work to do.

Dan[/quote]


The odds of a new small business lasting a year was one out of twenty during the good years, including my business. So why should it be any different now?[/quote]
Your research needs an upgrade.

When a government builds a bridge, they don't hire a bunch of construction workers, they contract out to a construction company. That company will do some of the work with their own employees, and will subcontract some of it to more specialized businesses. The government may be the ultimate source of funds, but private enterprise builds the bridge.

Government funded infrastructure projects create jobs that are every bit as real as private enterprise jobs because they are private enterprise jobs.

Most government bailout packages had limited success because most of the money went to bailing out banks instead of job creation.[/quote]
Oleg,

I am stunned at the simplicity of your thinking. Basing your argument on the claim that government creates real jobs is amazing in its ignorance.
Your theory is built upon a faulty foundation. Please do some basic research, of opposing views on this fallacy, and get back to us.[/quote]
Your critique is built of straw and misdirection. I see no point in addressing any of it.[/quote]


You address it by saying you're not going to address it. How crude. Show me a strawman or misdirection. I addressed your issue head on. You cant address it, because you have nothing backing up your claim. This issue, about government public works creating jobs, has been discussed and dispensed with when our country had some intellectual honesty.

Your position has some merit in your mind because on the surface it looks like someone working when they perform a public works project, hence employment. But, it does not take into account the unseen loses that this program took from prohibiting other things from happening in the private sector. Since government can not create wealth, it must appropriate from other sources i.e. the private sector, to fund this program resulting (macro economics) in a zero sum gain.

At this time people like you, are simply ignoring past examples, thinking you have thought of a novel new direction to take our country in i.e. public works.

It reminds me of a saying: Anything new is usually not correct, and anything correct is usually not new.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14476
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by JO 753 » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:05 pm

So, Dat, how will your ideal conservative government deal with a situation in wich there are no productive jobz at all anywhere? Not here. Not in China. Or Venezuala, Cambodia or where ever people are so poor they can be payed next to nothing?

Look to the founding fatherz for the anserz wen automated factoryz employ nobody and virtually all service jobz are dun by droidz, and droidz are like carz are now - expensive wen new, but so many uzed wunz around, you can't giv your old wun away.

Let me write your next post for you:
Nonsense. You've been watching too much science fiction. There will always be work for people who have the fortitude to get an education and learn a marketable skill. Some proffessions can never be filled by machines. Would you go to a robot doctor or hire a robot lawyer?

Your simpleminded fallacies are exactly what I would expect from a spelling challanged liberal.
Why do you think the so called job creatorz arent creating any jobz here? Cheap labor elsewhere. Wut happenz wen they can get a lower labor cost here, thus saving the shipping cost? To be competativ, to stay in bizness, they simply will not hav a choice.

We are haf way there already.

Datinsky
Poster
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Datinsky » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:01 pm

JO 753 wrote:So, Dat, how will your ideal conservative government deal with a situation in wich there are no productive jobz at all anywhere? Not here. Not in China. Or Venezuala, Cambodia or where ever people are so poor they can be payed next to nothing?

Look to the founding fatherz for the anserz wen automated factoryz employ nobody and virtually all service jobz are dun by droidz, and droidz are like carz are now - expensive wen new, but so many uzed wunz around, you can't giv your old wun away.

Let me write your next post for you:
Nonsense. You've been watching too much science fiction. There will always be work for people who have the fortitude to get an education and learn a marketable skill. Some proffessions can never be filled by machines. Would you go to a robot doctor or hire a robot lawyer?

Your simpleminded fallacies are exactly what I would expect from a spelling challanged liberal.
Why do you think the so called job creatorz arent creating any jobz here? Cheap labor elsewhere. Wut happenz wen they can get a lower labor cost here, thus saving the shipping cost? To be competativ, to stay in bizness, they simply will not hav a choice.

We are haf way there already.
JO,

You start from a faulty premise, and end up in the wrong direction, which you are not even aware of. (I know a dangling preposition)

A job is not an end of itself. You don't set out to "create jobs", that is the public works fallacy. You set up the conditions of a productive environment, then natural creativity, ingenuity and just plain olde, "I dont want to live like {!#%@}" anymore, and things start to happen. Since you have a natural distaste for your fellow man, it seems clear that leaving anything in the hands these people would be anathema to your thinking.

Keep using terms like "productive jobs", which has no meaning, and you will never gain understanding of the situation as a whole. Man doesn't live in poverty by choice, it takes a dedicated and repressive government action to accomplish this on a systemic level. Private companies can't do it even if they were left totally without any regulation. Why? Because, man has a natural instinct to fight back, or find alternatives, or negate their advantage. It is very hard to "fight back" against an organized government.

I bet you hate Eli Whitney. When he invented the cotton gin he put all those poor cotton pickers out of work. Would you have been on the union side of the cotton pickers back then to "fight" against the implementation of the cotton gin because it removed productive jobs?

The heights a country can achieve is not based on focusing on our lowest common denominator, i.e. the unskilled, uneducated labor force. You do realize that America has the best feed, most educated and highest weight ratio of any "poor" people in the world? We do not have people starving in the streets, and our idea of poor is not having a cell phone. In fact, our level of poverty is considered middle class in most nations. This is due to the economic prosperity of America the last 60 years. (even with all its flaws)

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by rickoshay85 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:50 pm

JO 753 wrote:So, Dat, how will your ideal conservative government deal with a situation in wich there are no productive jobz at all anywhere? Not here. Not in China. Or Venezuala, Cambodia or where ever people are so poor they can be payed next to nothing?

Look to the founding fatherz for the anserz wen automated factoryz employ nobody and virtually all service jobz are dun by droidz, and droidz are like carz are now - expensive wen new, but so many uzed wunz around, you can't giv your old wun away.

Let me write your next post for you:
Nonsense. You've been watching too much science fiction. There will always be work for people who have the fortitude to get an education and learn a marketable skill. Some proffessions can never be filled by machines. Would you go to a robot doctor or hire a robot lawyer?

Your simpleminded fallacies are exactly what I would expect from a spelling challanged liberal.
Why do you think the so called job creatorz arent creating any jobz here?
One reason is survival politics, Congress wouldn't approve Obama's job bill.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

Dana69
Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Dana69 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:12 am

rickoshay85 wrote:
JO 753 wrote:So, Dat, how will your ideal conservative government deal with a situation in wich there are no productive jobz at all anywhere? Not here. Not in China. Or Venezuala, Cambodia or where ever people are so poor they can be payed next to nothing?

Look to the founding fatherz for the anserz wen automated factoryz employ nobody and virtually all service jobz are dun by droidz, and droidz are like carz are now - expensive wen new, but so many uzed wunz around, you can't giv your old wun away.

Let me write your next post for you:
Nonsense. You've been watching too much science fiction. There will always be work for people who have the fortitude to get an education and learn a marketable skill. Some proffessions can never be filled by machines. Would you go to a robot doctor or hire a robot lawyer?

Your simpleminded fallacies are exactly what I would expect from a spelling challanged liberal.
Why do you think the so called job creatorz arent creating any jobz here?
One reason is survival politics, Congress wouldn't approve Obama's job bill.
Rickoshay85,

Edumacate me, how are jobs created? Better yet, how can a bill titled "Jobs Bill" create jobs?

User avatar
The Sea is Mine
BANNED
Posts: 388
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:32 am

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by The Sea is Mine » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:45 am

I am glad the mainstream media is picking up on this issue. Here is a clip from NBC dateline.

It shows the female advantage in our society and the abuse of men and how it is accepted and laughed at. what is wrong with pointing out this fact? How can you justify this? this is a direct question that I would like an answer to.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Men's rights worldwide!

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:32 am

Dana69 wrote: Edumacate me, how are jobs created? Better yet, how can a bill titled "Jobs Bill" create jobs?
Jobs are created when businesses make money and expand their operations, or when new people start new businesses. This can be stimulated by policy in order to make it easier and more profitable to take on employees, the state could hire people directly to work in the state, and the state could plow money into infrastructure projects etc, which will make the relevant businesses take on more workers, as there is more work to do.

Unless the state hires the people itself, it cannot "create jobs" directly. It can stimulate job growth (or lessen the job loss) in several indirect ways though.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:52 am

Datinsky wrote: Oleg, I am stunned at the simplicity of your thinking. Basing your argument on the claim that government creates real jobs is amazing in its ignorance. .
Oleg is spot on. Shall we start with basic macro economics. Read this and show me the errors. ( I have a university economics background as econometrics is part of taxation modelling...also part of my background)
http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-n ... rator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dana69
Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Dana69 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:24 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Datinsky wrote: Oleg, I am stunned at the simplicity of your thinking. Basing your argument on the claim that government creates real jobs is amazing in its ignorance. .
Oleg is spot on. Shall we start with basic macro economics. Read this and show me the errors. ( I have a university economics background as econometrics is part of taxation modelling...also part of my background)
http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-n ... rator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wow, you really want to go down this road? Ok, first assumption has no basis. WHY would a company decide to build a $300 million dollar production facility in the UK? Before you answer, as quick primer, please read the Broken Window Fallacy, and Henry Hazlitts Public Works Fallacy. If you can get through these simple concepts, we can at least have a foundation to build on. http://www.fee.org/library/books/econom ... on/#0.1_L5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just as a side note, Keynes was and is flawed. There is no such thing as full employment, and using some kind of spiritual economic spending will not get you there. The faulty assumption Keynes builds on is that jobs are an end of themselves, and that demand itself drives production.WRONG!!!!! Secondly, aggregate demand effects are asymmetric. Whereas collapsing demand can quickly damage long-term expectations and rapidly increase
unemployment forcing government to spend ore and more useless currency to prop up a flawed process in hopes of maintaining that end of itself, a job.... Hack....

There can be no strategic spending out side of supply and demand rules that will allow for results he contemplates. Keynes didn't distinguish between the short-run and the long-run as Classical economists tend to. He argued that the economy could settle at any equilibrium level of income at any time, and it was the government job to use appropriate policies to ensure that this equilibrium was a good one for the economy. This is pure conjecture with not a shred of substance behind the premise. Can you show me a working example of any of his theories operating as predicted?

As a side note, I don't even want to bring up the possibility that this $300M company may fail, then what?. Gasp....but, we can talk about that after you have boned up on some simple economic principles.

Dana69
Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Dana69 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:37 am

OutOfBreath wrote:
Dana69 wrote: Edumacate me, how are jobs created? Better yet, how can a bill titled "Jobs Bill" create jobs?
Jobs are created when businesses make money and expand their operations, or when new people start new businesses. This can be stimulated by policy in order to make it easier and more profitable to take on employees, the state could hire people directly to work in the state, and the state could plow money into infrastructure projects etc, which will make the relevant businesses take on more workers, as there is more work to do.

Unless the state hires the people itself, it cannot "create jobs" directly. It can stimulate job growth (or lessen the job loss) in several indirect ways though.

Peace
Dan
Dan,

Not a bad primer on this behavior. If you believe what you stated, then yu can understand that the"Jobs Bill" passed by Obama, does none of this. He is attempting to artificially create jobs by direct spending of taxes to stimulate government expansion. He is not a believer in reducing burdens on business to make an environment conducive to business growth.

Also, you mention the State could "plow" money into infrastructure. This is called externalization, and the money has to come from somewhere, which means more taxes, increasing burdens on businesses, or consumers, which reduces their buying power. Please Henry Hazlitts Public Works fallacy http://www.fee.org/library/books/econom ... on/#0.1_L5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You cannot avoid consequences of government spending. It must come from somewhere since government itself does not create wealth. Until one grasps this fundamental concept, everything that flows is flawed.

BTW, I am not saying government spending is not warranted. Clearly it is necessary on very specific grounds, but when it is used as some kind of economic stimulus, it is flawed. Government has no business in business because it is not business.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:52 am

Dana69 wrote:Dan,

Not a bad primer on this behavior. If you believe what you stated, then yu can understand that the"Jobs Bill" passed by Obama, does none of this. He is attempting to artificially create jobs by direct spending of taxes to stimulate government expansion. He is not a believer in reducing burdens on business to make an environment conducive to business growth.
Haven't paid much attention to the Obama bill so I won't opine on that specifically. He's probably not a republican.
Also, you mention the State could "plow" money into infrastructure. This is called externalization, and the money has to come from somewhere, which means more taxes, increasing burdens on businesses, or consumers, which reduces their buying power. Please Henry Hazlitts Public Works fallacy http://www.fee.org/library/books/econom ... on/#0.1_L5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Which is why the projects must be profitable socio-economically. If they are, you can basically finance them by their own positive effect on future tax receipts.
You cannot avoid consequences of government spending. It must come from somewhere since government itself does not create wealth. Until one grasps this fundamental concept, everything that flows is flawed.
Government may not produce wealth in itself, but it produces public services which have value and can increase profits elsewhere. An economy must be set up to allow for a good distribution of resources, yes. There is no inherent reson why the state can't run the businesses themselves and make that money. It's just that we choose for all such acitivity to be private, and thus by definition, the state is "all expense"

BTW, I am not saying government spending is not warranted. Clearly it is necessary on very specific grounds, but when it is used as some kind of economic stimulus, it is flawed. Government has no business in business because it is not business.
Government have business wherever the democratic majority decides it have business. As for whether the job stimulus package is a good idea or not, I dunno. I note many economists say it's fair enough, although it doesn't solve deeper issues.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:06 pm

Dana69 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Datinsky wrote: Oleg, I am stunned at the simplicity of your thinking. Basing your argument on the claim that government creates real jobs is amazing in its ignorance. .
Oleg is spot on. Shall we start with basic macro economics. Read this and show me the errors. ( I have a university economics background as econometrics is part of taxation modelling...also part of my background)
http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-n ... rator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wow, you really want to go down this road? Ok, first assumption has no basis.
1) What is the first assumption I have made. Have you simply ignored the link that I asked you to read and comment on that? (That's not very bright is it?)
Dana69 wrote: WHY would a company decide to build a $300 million dollar production facility in the UK?
Try reading. The £300 million increase in business capital investment is given as an exercise on economic multipliers....not about a company's choice of location.

http://www.fee.org/library/books/econom ... on/#0.1_L5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum
You may be a fan of HENRY HAZLITT's complete misunderstanding of macroeconomics in 1946 and failed to note all the errors. Some of us who studied economics at the end of the 20th century, after post war recessions and the data gathered there from, are a bit more up to date. Did you notice the mathematical errors? (probably not)
Dana69 wrote: Just as a side note, Keynes was and is flawed. There is no such thing as full employment
That's right. Can you list the three main reasons in modern economic theory for this or do you prefer a 1946 Pocket Book with the by-line "Buy Me" by a literary and finance editor , with no economics degree?
Dana69 wrote: Keynes didn't distinguish between the short-run and the long-run as Classical economists tend to.
"Keynes argued that saving and investment are not the main determinants of interest rates, especially in the short run". Try to do some basic reading before making stuff up.
Dana69 wrote:As a side note, I don't even want to bring up the possibility that this $300M company may fail, then what?.
The £300 million increase in business capital investment by a foreign company is given as an exercise on economic multipliers. It is not a real company, in the same way Star Trek is not a documentary and Jesus didn't write down "turn the other cheek" in English.

Dana69
Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Dana69 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:10 pm

Mathew,

I have read your article and:

1. It doesn't discuss cutting spending in order to *decrease* demand when
the economy is "overheated."
2. It doesn't discuss how international trade and especially international
capital movement makes fiscal policy (as opposed to monetary policy) much
less effective.
3. Why should the State control the money supply?
4. Even assuming the State controls the money supply, why should we expect
politicians (or bureaucrats) to make correct decisions for the good of the
economy, rather than based on their self-interest or what will benefit their
group (such as a particular political party, or their particular agency) at
the expense of others? (This is the basic question of Public Choice
economics, which is one of my specialties.)
5. Even assuming the government is trying to make fiscal policy that will
benefit the economy, why not do it by cutting taxes rather than increasing
spending?
6. Spending on government programs is often either worthless (e.g. the
equivalent of paying people to dig ditches and then fill them up again) or
actually harmful (such as the War on Drugs, or minimum wage laws and other
labor regulations and many environmental regulations, and of course all
subsidies for anything). Therefore, increasing spending in order to
stimulate the economy might actually make things worse, like spending more
on health care but using it to pay for worthless quacks, or even for
leeching.

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by rickoshay85 » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:12 pm

Dana69: Even assuming the government is trying to make fiscal policy that will
benefit the economy, why not do it by cutting taxes rather than increasing
spending?

Cutting taxes means cutting jobs and needed services, not a great idea in the middle of a recession. What's really needed is jobs, and in the present atmosphere of fear and apprehension, companies, both large and small, won't take any risks.

FDR, Ike and all other presidents had recessions during their watches, and all, both Dems and Reps, solved them with new government contracts and raising the National debt to pay for them... It worked then, so why shouldn't it work now?
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:27 pm

Dana69 wrote: Mathew, I have read your article and:

1. It doesn't discuss cutting spending in order to *decrease* demand when
the economy is "overheated."
Why should it? As most modern economies use both Keynesian and Monetary economic tools interacting with each other, they rely on Monetary policy to do this in the private sector. As Keynesian multipliers are aimed at increasing liquidity in the private sector it is monetary policy that is more effective as Government services have a base line of public expectation (ie schools, social security etc)
Dana69 wrote: 2. It doesn't discuss how international trade and especially international capital movement makes fiscal policy (as opposed to monetary policy) much less effective.
That's is an additional layer that we will move onto next if you wish that includes issues like international tax & currency arbitrage , however I note you say it is "less effective" so are you are no longer saying "government creates real jobs is amazing in its ignorance?"
Dana69 wrote: 3. Why should the State control the money supply?
In America in the 1850's there were 1760 different currencies and money was printed left right & centre by individual banks. This did stimulate the US economy but brought other problems that we can discuss if you wish.
Dana69 wrote: 4. Even assuming the State controls the money supply, why should we expect politicians (or bureaucrats) to make correct decisions for the good of the
economy, rather than based on their self-interest or what will benefit their
group.
I totally agree. It took more than 20 years and four Australian governments to emplace the 1975 "White" report and introduce GST( VAT/ broad-based sales tax).
Dana69 wrote: 5. Even assuming the government is trying to make fiscal policy that will benefit the economy, why not do it by cutting taxes rather than increasing
spending?
The Australian government prefers more realistic Laffer curves compared to the USA to maintain the tax base and the government's AAA rating.
Dana69 wrote: 6. Spending on government programs is often .....worthless
That's right, but that doesn't mean Keynesian economics is wrong does it?

Dana69
Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Dana69 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:37 am

[quote="Matthew Ellard"][quote="Dana69"] Mathew, I have read your article and:


Why should it? As most modern economies use both Keynesian and Monetary economic tools interacting with each other, they rely on Monetary policy to do this in the private sector. As Keynesian multipliers are aimed at increasing liquidity in the private sector it is monetary policy that is more effective as Government services have a base line of public expectation (ie schools, social security etc)

Mathew,

I am sorry, but I need to take issue with the concept of multipliers. The multiplier is a part of Keynesian theory that says, essentially, that $1 in government spending can lead to $3, $4, or even $5 in economic growth (depending upon consumption rates); tax cuts have a similar, though slightly smaller, effect.

Nothing has been more corrosive to the cause of government and fiscal sanity than the “multiplier.” It has minimized much of the consequences of deficit spending and debt build-up, while at the same time providing a bias in favor of the larger-government option (spending) over the theoretically smaller-government one (tax cuts).

economists are beginning to take a long, hard look at the effects of government spending on the economy to calculate (as best as can be done) the multiplier.

The International Monetary Fund came up with . . . 0.7 (John B. Taylor, Wall Street Pit http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1219.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), and the European Central Bank (which looked at the EU) settled on . . . (0.5).

In other words, the effect of government spending in the economy did not multiply; in fact, it didn’t even increase; it eroded.

The importance of this cannot be underestimated. In effect, government spending does not have a greater impact on the economy than letting the consumers and business spend the money on their own (one could even argue a lesser impact). Questions about government spending, how to balance budgets (i.e., cut spending or raise taxes), etc., without the “multiplier” bias, can no longer be answered simply by whatever increases government spending.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:03 am

Dana69 wrote: Matthew, I am sorry, but I need to take issue with the concept of multipliers. The multiplier is a part of Keynesian theory that says, essentially, that $1 in government spending can lead to $3, $4, or even $5 in economic growth (depending upon consumption rates); tax cuts have a similar, though slightly smaller, effect.
Err....no.... think about it....tax is an integral part of aggregate demand multipliers and is calculated according to the tax nature, consumption, income or capital gains. You have to play with all variables at the same time. (tax, savings, velocity and stimulation input)

The Australian government gives Johnny $100.
Johnny pays Sam $100. Sam pays 10% tax on $100, saves $20, pays $70 to Peter.
Peter pays Eric $70. Eric pays 10% tax on $70 saves 20% and pays Robert $50.40c
Robert pays Simon $50.4. Simon pays 10% tax saves 20% and pays Mike $34.69c


And this is exactly what happened.....The Australian government gave every Australian who lodged a tax return $900 "cash" in 2007. We didn't have a recession. The ATO got back about 32% of it's gift through sales tax before we even consider income tax revenue from increased GDP in the long run.

Dana69 wrote:Nothing has been more corrosive to the cause of government and fiscal sanity than the “multiplier.” It has minimized much of the consequences of deficit spending and debt build-up, while at the same time providing a bias in favor of the larger-government option (spending) over the theoretically smaller-government one (tax cuts).
Complete Crap. Our GDP and Federal tax revenue increased.
Dana69 wrote:economists are beginning to take a long, hard look at the effects of government spending on the economy to calculate (as best as can be done) the multiplier. The International Monetary Fund came up with . . . 0.7 (John B. Taylor, Wall Street Pit http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1219.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), and the European Central Bank (which looked at the EU) settled on . . . (0.5).

In other words, the effect of government spending in the economy did not multiply; in fact, it didn’t even increase; it eroded.
In the "short run". Read the paper you quoted again and stop fudging

Nabarun Ghoshal
Regular Poster
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:49 pm
Custom Title: In Search of Truth
Location: Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nabarun Ghoshal » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:00 am

It is fun to see our all-powerful American brothers becoming so concerned about the nature of the "State" which they term as "Government". I refer to the following thread and wait to see if it can help increase their knowledge about it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... v/ch01.htm

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34744
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Gord » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:10 am

Nabarun Ghoshal wrote:It is fun to see our all-powerful American brothers becoming so concerned about the nature of the "State" which they term as "Government". I refer to the following thread and wait to see if it can help increase their knowledge about it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... v/ch01.htm
I can't click on that link the CIA will catch me!! :afdb:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Dana69
Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Dana69 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:32 am

The Australian government gives Johnny $100.
Johnny pays Sam $100. Sam pays 10% tax on $100, saves $20, pays $70 to Peter.
Peter pays Eric $70. Eric pays 10% tax on $70 saves 20% and pays Robert $50.40c
Robert pays Simon $50.4. Simon pays 10% tax saves 20% and pays Mike $34.69c


And this is exactly what happened.....The Australian government gave every Australian who lodged a tax return $900 "cash" in 2007. We didn't have a recession. The ATO got back about 32% of it's gift through sales tax before we even consider income tax revenue from increased GDP in the long run. [/color]

Hmm..I don't really want to derail your beautiful symmetry of perfect government monetary symbiosis, but where did the bountiful Australian government get $900 to pay each person? Did they borrow it, earn it, or create it out of thin air?

Seems like you believe Australia is prospering and it is all due to Keynesian theory in practice. Do I have the correct? If so, how long has Australia practiced this form of Keynesian theory?

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:00 pm

rickoshay85 wrote:With no government money there would only be manufacturing for profit and very few buyers...

No Army, Navy, Airforce, NSA, FBI, FAA, FDA, SEC, NASA, Congress, politicians (including Tea party), police, fire departments, public schools, electric power, lights telephones, TVs, computers, radios, lights, AC, ports, beaches, freeways, streets, parks, sidewalks, street lights, bridges, sewers, sewer disposal, traffic control, highways, public services, libraries, judges, Supreme Court, all of Washington DC,
Governments, as in public sectors as in communist societies can provide all the above. The evidence is there from the former USSR, China, Cuba and others. (How well they did it is another matter.)

I am not aware of any country, ever which has had no government and is purely a business system that has been able to provide all of the above. There are some companies who have provided a lot of the above for its workers, going back to Robert Owen and New Lanark through to the huge far eastern corporations such as Hyundai and Toyota. Then there are companies that have been close to being a country, for example the Hudson's Bay Company and the East India Company. But they still reported back to a government who had the final say in their existence.

For a private sector business to create all of the above, it would have to act like a government. That strongly suggests government is indeed essential to life and liberty.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Nabarun Ghoshal
Regular Poster
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:49 pm
Custom Title: In Search of Truth
Location: Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nabarun Ghoshal » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:05 pm

Gord wrote:
Nabarun Ghoshal wrote:It is fun to see our all-powerful American brothers becoming so concerned about the nature of the "State" which they term as "Government". I refer to the following thread and wait to see if it can help increase their knowledge about it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... v/ch01.htm
I can't click on that link the CIA will catch me!! :afdb:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4088
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by bigtim » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:06 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

Dana69
Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Dana69 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:15 pm

Nessie wrote:
rickoshay85 wrote:With no government money there would only be manufacturing for profit and very few buyers...

No Army, Navy, Airforce, NSA, FBI, FAA, FDA, SEC, NASA, Congress, politicians (including Tea party), police, fire departments, public schools, electric power, lights telephones, TVs, computers, radios, lights, AC, ports, beaches, freeways, streets, parks, sidewalks, street lights, bridges, sewers, sewer disposal, traffic control, highways, public services, libraries, judges, Supreme Court, all of Washington DC,
Governments, as in public sectors as in communist societies can provide all the above. The evidence is there from the former USSR, China, Cuba and others. (How well they did it is another matter.)

I am not aware of any country, ever which has had no government and is purely a business system that has been able to provide all of the above. There are some companies who have provided a lot of the above for its workers, going back to Robert Owen and New Lanark through to the huge far eastern corporations such as Hyundai and Toyota. Then there are companies that have been close to being a country, for example the Hudson's Bay Company and the East India Company. But they still reported back to a government who had the final say in their existence.

For a private sector business to create all of the above, it would have to act like a government. That strongly suggests government is indeed essential to life and liberty.
Nessie,

I am a Libertarian, but I do not reach to the level of anarchy. I agree with you that government in some form is essential and proper. The debate is about to what extent and are their limitations. A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

A government that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man’s nature—is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man’s survival.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement. The role of government should be to facilitate these conditions, but also be subordinate to the rules itself.

The true discussion is about the nature of government, not that there ought, or not to be one.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Nessie » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:32 pm

What I am trying to show is that government and business overlap, some time to huge extents so that one is barely distinguishable from the other.

So from that I would say governments can create 'real jobs' and 'wealth'.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Dana69
Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Government support is essential to life and liberty

Post by Dana69 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Nessie wrote:What I am trying to show is that government and business overlap, some time to huge extents so that one is barely distinguishable from the other.

So from that I would say governments can create 'real jobs' and 'wealth'.
Government does not engage in manufacturing or production, hallmarks of creating wealth. Also, since government is restricted from simply printing money (which is not wealth anyway), and only borrow, I would say that government can not create wealth on its own. Wealth is a self derived process based on creating something of value. Government can certainly facilitate such, but usually it is at the expense of another, so it would kind of destroy the meaning of wealth. At least in my opinion. Of course, sometimes the nature of these discussions, comes down to semantics about what the definition of wealth is, or is not.