McCain Clinton 08

[GabonX]

It might be better to teach creationism in a cultures class instead of a science class, but I think it's a good thing to try to understand what other people believe.

[Snorri1234]

It might be better to teach creationism in a cultures class instead of a science class, but I think it's a good thing to try to understand what other people believe.

It's undoubtely better to teach it in cultures class. Creationism isn't science.

[Austin82701]

Obama wouldn't even be involved in the election if Clinton was nominated! And Clinton would win because of her determination and willpower.

[bradleybadly]

Noone likes to pay taxes, the problem first and foremost is how the money is spent, not on how much you pay.

Oh come on! If you pay a huge amount of taxes then you don't have as much ability to provide for yourself or your family. The amount of taxes you pay is a big deal. I agree with you that the government should be responsible in how it spends its money but the point you are not getting is that govt. continually doesn't do a good job at spending money wisely - yet they want more of it to justify new programs. I say let them prove themselves first before requesting more, especially when they want to be in charge of health care!!

complaining about a maximum of 35% taxes is ridiculous, complaining about the 52% we have would be more understandable.

You'll think differently when you grow up and have to take care of a family.

And yes, I think there are way more important things than the government taking your money. Like the bureaucracy and corruption that ensures your money is spent on things like a second vacation home, instead of schools and public buildings.

How in the hell does bureaucracy & corruption force someone to spend money on a 2nd vacation home? And how do you know that people are spending money on 2nd vacation homes instead of schools & public buildings? This is just another general statement on your part.

You know who also promised tax cuts? Bush.

Uhh yeah, Snorri. He actually also got them passed and fulfilled his campaign promise. If you're saying that actually didn't happen then you're either delusional or lying to yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

and he just got more tax rebates passed through this year too.

You're saying they don't receive donations from those groups?

No but it would be nice if you actually pointed out specific companies with specific campaign donations. You're just using the phrase "big" this or "big" that as if the fact that a company is big is evil. Big companies employ a large amount of people like myself. Even liberal people are allowed to work for these big companies and make big amounts of money. Making money is not evil. It lets people provide for their families.

Obviously, but I haven't heard any candidate actually explain how to fix that. The problem I see is that it's mainly the candidates that talk in vague language about "accountability" without explaining what they mean by that.

No no no no no. Damn it, Snorri you're just talking now and not thinking about what you're saying. There have been actual laws passed which force schools to show improvement in testing results in order to receive money from the feds. States have to show that their students are achieving specific basic skills in order to receive money. I'm not sure if I agree 100% with it but at least it's a specific standard that's part of our law. It's not vague language. I'll ask you this again, how old are you? I'm 28 now and remember this stuff getting passed. I think you just like to argue because anyone 25 or older would know this stuff just from watching the news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

Take for example the thread bebud just started with calling democrats "socialists" and republicans "capitalists". That's the most ridiculous thing you can say. Both parties are very much capitalist, especially when compared to the rest of the western world. Making the comparison there creates a false distinction, as people think the two parties are inconsolable.

I didn't see that thread but bedub seems like he knows what he's generally talking about. I'll just say that the Democrats are more socialist than the Republicans and the Republicans are more capitalistic than the Democrats. But yeah when you compare them to the Europeans I guess both parties would look pretty similar.

Ofcourse, teaching kids creationism in science-class and acting like it's as valid as evolution might not be the best thing to do. And considering that is the whole focus of the debate...

I guess my point was is that we have to live with people we don't agree with all the time. One of the places we can interact safely with people we don't agree with is the classroom. We should be able to bounce ideas around and discuss them in a classroom. I should still be able to say creationists are bullshitters of the first order at the end of the day though. I don't give a hoot if someone wants to believe in God or face the east and pray 7 times a day but when they start trying to convert me during my lunch break or get special time off during the day is when I start to get pissed.

[Snorri1234]

Oh come on! If you pay a huge amount of taxes then you don't have as much ability to provide for yourself or your family. The amount of taxes you pay is a big deal.

I see. You think that the amount of taxation people receive taxes their ability to provide for themselves and their family, instead of taxing their ability to provide luxury for themselves and their family...
That's just plain bullshit. I understand you feel that you earned it and don't want to give some of it to the government, but to claim it harms your ability to provide for your family is ridiculous. Unless you're unable to manage your earnings, the taxation doesn't mean you can't buy groceries or a house, just that you won't be able to buy everything you'd want.

I agree with you that the government should be responsible in how it spends its money but the point you are not getting is that govt. continually doesn't do a good job at spending money wisely - yet they want more of it to justify new programs. I say let them prove themselves first before requesting more, especially when they want to be in charge of health care!!

I agree in principle, but the problem is that I think the first step should be spending the money wisely and the second step lowering the taxes.

You'll think differently when you grow up and have to take care of a family.

Yeah....what? If I finish med-school, I'll be likely paying 52% of my income on taxes. And that's merely the income tax, I'm not even talking about the taxes on products which is about 20% for most things.

How in the hell does bureaucracy & corruption force someone to spend money on a 2nd vacation home? And how do you know that people are spending money on 2nd vacation homes instead of schools & public buildings? This is just another general statement on your part.

No I meant that the corruption means politicians get more money to provide for their luxury, instead of making sure the money is sent to the places that need them.

Uhh yeah, Snorri. He actually also got them passed and fulfilled his campaign promise. If you're saying that actually didn't happen then you're either delusional or lying to yourself.

I know, what I meant to say was that those tax cuts were for the rich, not the people who'd benefit the most i.e. the poorer classes.

No but it would be nice if you actually pointed out specific companies with specific campaign donations. You're just using the phrase "big" this or "big" that as if the fact that a company is big is evil. Big companies employ a large amount of people like myself. Even liberal people are allowed to work for these big companies and make big amounts of money. Making money is not evil. It lets people provide for their families.

No making money is not evil.

However, if you're denying that presidential candidates receive money from bussiness' who might have an agenda then I must ask what you are smoking. Oil&gas companies and ceo's and stuff have donated over 11 millions dollars to politicians this year.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by my statement. I am saying that all candidates receive money from special interest groups, and I think that harms their ability to keep their promises. If you've just received a lot of money from the tabacco-industry, you'd reconsider voting on or passing a bill that would harm their earnings.

No no no no no. Damn it, Snorri you're just talking now and not thinking about what you're saying. There have been actual laws passed which force schools to show improvement in testing results in order to receive money from the feds. States have to show that their students are achieving specific basic skills in order to receive money. I'm not sure if I agree 100% with it but at least it's a specific standard that's part of our law. It's not vague language. I'll ask you this again, how old are you? I'm 28 now and remember this stuff getting passed. I think you just like to argue because anyone 25 or older would know this stuff just from watching the news.

And you don't think schools will artifically increase their testresults to get their funding? Because I'm dead-certain they do. That's no big secret, it's the reason why all current presidential candidates are saying the No Child Left behind act hasn't worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

Are you a Bush supporter? Because I'm pretty certain most people have shown the massive flaws in the NCLB act. (Then again, the internet is way more liberal than the real world so that may just be the make-up of the internet. I just thought it didn't have much of a support.)

I didn't see that thread but bedub seems like he knows what he's generally talking about. I'll just say that the Democrats are more socialist than the Republicans and the Republicans are more capitalistic than the Democrats. But yeah when you compare them to the Europeans I guess both parties would look pretty similar.

Well yeah that has been basically my point. It's not that there is no difference between the two parties, it's that the difference isn't exactly very big.

I guess my point was is that we have to live with people we don't agree with all the time. One of the places we can interact safely with people we don't agree with is the classroom. We should be able to bounce ideas around and discuss them in a classroom. I should still be able to say creationists are bullshitters of the first order at the end of the day though. I don't give a hoot if someone wants to believe in God or face the east and pray 7 times a day but when they start trying to convert me during my lunch break or get special time off during the day is when I start to get pissed.

Well I agree with that. I'm not opposed to letting kids know about creationism, I'm just opposed to teaching it as a valid theory.

[Napoleon Ier]

Now I know you're all caught up in noble ideas of social justice and uniting the proletariat and so forth, but a novel idea some neo-classical economists (those friends of the evil capitalist kulak types, by the way) are suggesting is that cutting taxes actually stimulates economic growth by encouraging investment and consumption.

Oh I'm not a fan of taxing people excessively, but to act like taxes are the most evil invention ever really just irks me. Especially when cutting taxes is used as an excuse to attract the poorer people.

I should note that cutting taxes won't be done unless the bureaucracy is also reformed, something I can't imagine happening soon.

Income taxes are legalised theft.

"Some people think plunder loses all its immorality if it is legalised. Personally, I cannot imagine a more disturbing situation."

--Frédéric Bastiat.

[Snorri1234]

Now I know you're all caught up in noble ideas of social justice and uniting the proletariat and so forth, but a novel idea some neo-classical economists (those friends of the evil capitalist kulak types, by the way) are suggesting is that cutting taxes actually stimulates economic growth by encouraging investment and consumption.

Oh I'm not a fan of taxing people excessively, but to act like taxes are the most evil invention ever really just irks me. Especially when cutting taxes is used as an excuse to attract the poorer people.

I should note that cutting taxes won't be done unless the bureaucracy is also reformed, something I can't imagine happening soon.

Income taxes are legalised theft.

"Some people think plunder loses all its immorality if it is legalised. Personally, I cannot imagine a more disturbing situation."

--Frédéric Bastiat.

And your solution is what? Anarchy?

[reminisco]

Income taxes are legalised theft.

"Some people think plunder loses all its immorality if it is legalised. Personally, I cannot imagine a more disturbing situation."

--Frédéric Bastiat.

And your solution is what? Anarchy?

no, he probably advocates for Theocratic Fascism.

instead of TAXES, we can all just TITHE.

[bradleybadly]

I see. You think that the amount of taxation people receive taxes their ability to provide for themselves and their family, instead of taxing their ability to provide luxury for themselves and their family...
That's just plain bullshit. I understand you feel that you earned it and don't want to give some of it to the government, but to claim it harms your ability to provide for your family is ridiculous. Unless you're unable to manage your earnings, the taxation doesn't mean you can't buy groceries or a house, just that you won't be able to buy everything you'd want.

The ability to use my own money and spend it the way I see it should be my inherent right. I like how you tried to change it to make it look like providing for one's family is spending it on luxury. You'll see there's no such thing once you provide for your own family.

No, I don't feel that I earned anything, I know I did because I was there when the work was performed. I actually physically did the work and filled out a time card claiming the hours I put in so yes, I did earn it.

What gives you (and by you I mean most liberals actually) the right to define what I should and shouldn't decide to spend my money on? Hell, what you might think is a luxury I might consider a necessity. Who are liberals to be telling other people what is right and wrong to spend their money on? I'm sorry but excessive taxation does restrict peoples purchasing power.

Yeah....what? If I finish med-school, I'll be likely paying 52% of my income on taxes. And that's merely the income tax, I'm not even talking about the taxes on products which is about 20% for most things.

First off good luck in med school, seriously. I don't see how you have the time to come to conquer club and debate stuff but if you can pull it off then more power to you.

So what if you're ok with paying 52%. That doesn't mean other people in your tax bracket are happy with it. You can't speak for everyone.

No I meant that the corruption means politicians get more money to provide for their luxury, instead of making sure the money is sent to the places that need them.

You still haven't said what kind of corruption you're talking about. You also haven't proven which congress people are doing this and robbing money from programs. I will agree that people get caught with bribes but that just shows that the free press and watchdog groups are doing their job.

I know, what I meant to say was that those tax cuts were for the rich, not the people who'd benefit the most i.e. the poorer classes.

Did you actually read the legislation? The greatest reduction in tax rates were for the poor. I think you're just repeating stuff you've heard other liberals say. Actually, I was pissed off that the richer brackets didn't receive a bigger tax rate cut because they're the ones who provide the most jobs for people.

The line that the tax cuts only help the rich is bullshit.

No making money is not evil. However, if you're denying that presidential candidates receive money from bussiness' who might have an agenda then I must ask what you are smoking. Oil&gas companies and ceo's and stuff have donated over 11 millions dollars to politicians this year.

That information is open to anyone. It has to be publicly disclosed. There's no secret agenda. Businesses are made up of people who are trying to make money which you just admitted is not an evil practice. So now oil and gas companies are bad because they donate money to candidates?

I think you misunderstood what I meant by my statement. I am saying that all candidates receive money from special interest groups, and I think that harms their ability to keep their promises. If you've just received a lot of money from the tabacco-industry, you'd reconsider voting on or passing a bill that would harm their earnings.

and people would know all about those donations and could make up their minds on whether to vote for those candidates or not. You're acting like something secret is taking place. Of course an office holder would take into account whether a bill would harm a company's earnings or a whole sector of the economy for that matter. Companies employ people! In one sentence you're saying that making money is not evil but then your other statements make it seem like you think it's terrible. You act like these companies are big blobs rolling over cities and ravaging them.

And you don't think schools will artifically increase their testresults to get their funding? Because I'm dead-certain they do. That's no big secret, it's the reason why all current presidential candidates are saying the No Child Left behind act hasn't worked.

So you don't trust these school districts to be truthful? Doesn't sound like they're worthy of educating our kids then. You have to have some measuring stick to judge whether schools are doing their job or not. If you don't like testing standards that what's your solution?

Are you a Bush supporter?

Yeah, I thought that was pretty obvious to everyone by now Although I don't agree with his religious views and he spends like a madman. Are you a Bush criticizer?

It's not that there is no difference between the two parties, it's that the difference isn't exactly very big.

That's not what Monica Lewinsky said! Hey, I'm just kidding (It was really Jennifer Flowers)

[got tonkaed]

Now I know you're all caught up in noble ideas of social justice and uniting the proletariat and so forth, but a novel idea some neo-classical economists (those friends of the evil capitalist kulak types, by the way) are suggesting is that cutting taxes actually stimulates economic growth by encouraging investment and consumption.

Oh I'm not a fan of taxing people excessively, but to act like taxes are the most evil invention ever really just irks me. Especially when cutting taxes is used as an excuse to attract the poorer people.

I should note that cutting taxes won't be done unless the bureaucracy is also reformed, something I can't imagine happening soon.

Income taxes are legalised theft.

"Some people think plunder loses all its immorality if it is legalised. Personally, I cannot imagine a more disturbing situation."

--Frédéric Bastiat.

I honestly think its posts like these that have made me stop posting in more of these threads. While its fun to quote things, if you actually think this is a defensible position when you extend it, im just not sure many people can bridge a divide with you that comes anywhere near compromise.

[Snorri1234]

That information is open to anyone. It has to be publicly disclosed. There's no secret agenda. Businesses are made up of people who are trying to make money which you just admitted is not an evil practice. So now oil and gas companies are bad because they donate money to candidates?

No, the candidates are bad because they accept that money. I perfectly understand why companies would donate money.

and people would know all about those donations and could make up their minds on whether to vote for those candidates or not.

Since every candidate receives money, I fail to see how voting one or the other will make a difference.

You're acting like something secret is taking place. Of course an office holder would take into account whether a bill would harm a company's earnings or a whole sector of the economy for that matter. Companies employ people! In one sentence you're saying that making money is not evil but then your other statements make it seem like you think it's terrible. You act like these companies are big blobs rolling over cities and ravaging them.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying?
These companies are big blobs. They're not lead by a hardworking ceo with a mustache who's last name is the same as the companies name and who has worked himself up from humble beginnings to leading a prosperous company with loving and caring workers as is the common republican fantasy. They're lead by a board of directors who all have a degree in economy or law or whatever and who are rather good at preventing any instances that may reflect negatively on the company and it's profit. These guys manage to give themselves about 10 million dollars as a goodbye gift when they're forced to resign because the company was losing money.
These companies are not nice in any way. They don't care about their employees, they care about maximizing profit and minimizing expenses.

So you don't trust these school districts to be truthful? Doesn't sound like they're worthy of educating our kids then. You have to have some measuring stick to judge whether schools are doing their job or not. If you don't like testing standards that what's your solution?

I don't trust them because it has already been shown they've cheated.

As for my solution, schools should be watched more closely so you see kids are actually being taught usefull stuff and not answers to a test. I haven't given much thought to the american schoolsystem though, as I'm more concerned about my own.

[Neutrino]

Question to Napoleon and Bradley: What do you propose as a replacement? Any government, even a very small one, as you seem to favor, will require a certain amount of cash to actually function as a government, (probably quite a lot. There are quite a few unavoidable functions that governments perform) and I doubt it'll be able to generate that sans tax.

[Napoleon Ier]

Question to Napoleon and Bradley: What do you propose as a replacement? Any government, even a very small one, as you seem to favor, will require a certain amount of cash to actually function as a government, (probably quite a lot. There are quite a few unavoidable functions that governments perform) and I doubt it'll be able to generate that sans tax.

Tax goods, investment, issue securities...but I object to payroll tax as a general (not rigid) rule.

[bradleybadly]

Since every candidate receives money, I fail to see how voting one or the other will make a difference.

I guess because some groups donate to Republicans and other groups who oppose them donate to the Democrats. I sort of see what you're saying here but I think you're generalizing. Sometimes I kind of say to myself f*ck 'EM ALL! so maybe you feel the same way.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying?

No but it's kind of hard to see where you're coming from when you first make a general statement and then later say 'what I meant to say was this'. On one hand you're telling us that you don't think making money is evil but then you go on to make the case that it is evil. It's not a consistent position you're making.

These companies are big blobs. They're not lead by a hardworking ceo with a mustache who's last name is the same as the companies name and who has worked himself up from humble beginnings to leading a prosperous company with loving and caring workers as is the common republican fantasy.

How do you know that CEO's aren't hardworking? Do you have special inside information where you can document that they're just sitting around? Where is it written in the law that CEO's have to work themselves up from humble beginnings and I don't think that Republicans fantasize about it. I also don't see why a company must have loving and caring workers as a requirement. I know I don't like the Christians in the mail room but if I kick their ass they'll shape up and work hard. We all want to make the company prosperous because it pays our wages.

They're lead by a board of directors who all have a degree in economy or law or whatever and who are rather good at preventing any instances that may reflect negatively on the company and it's profit. These guys manage to give themselves about 10 million dollars as a goodbye gift when they're forced to resign because the company was losing money.

Why wouldn't they try to present a positive image of their companies. You said it wasn't evil to make money but now you're attacking their desire to make profit. You're right about some of these CEO's being a bunch of fucking leeches and running out on their companies but you can't say that about a majority of them.

These companies are not nice in any way. They don't care about their employees, they care about maximizing profit and minimizing expenses.

That's bullshit. Companies provide goods and services to people. They risk their own money to do this. There is no law that says they have to care about their employees but it's insane to think that they would mistreat their people because it would cost extra time and money to find replacements. It's not profitable.

Why is maximizing profit and minimizing expenses a bad thing? That's how businesses stay in business! They can't employ people or provide goods and services if they're bankrupt!

I don't trust them because it has already been shown they've cheated.

Where? When? I will probably agree with you on this but I just want you to show me a specific school district, administrator, or group of teachers which did this instead of making a general accusation.

As for my solution, schools should be watched more closely so you see kids are actually being taught usefull stuff and not answers to a test. I haven't given much thought to the american schoolsystem though, as I'm more concerned about my own.

You're right, but how can the govt. actually watch every single school in America? I hear you on the whole teaching them to pass a test thing. But tests, however they are administered, are really the only objective way of testing knowledge or skills. I'm assuming by useful you're talking about the ability to read, perform well in math, and other basics.

Question to Bradley: What do you propose as a replacement? Any government, even a very small one, as you seem to favor, will require a certain amount of cash to actually function as a government, (probably quite a lot. There are quite a few unavoidable functions that governments perform) and I doubt it'll be able to generate that sans tax.

I'm not proposing a replacement but a gradual revising of the tax code. If people keep more of their own income they will be able to provide better for themselves and the govt. will have to do less. Now I will ask you a question: Why the hell should a govt. who mismanages it's current spending be (a) allowed to receive more money and (b) be allowed to manage the health care of its citizens?

[Snorri1234]

I guess because some groups donate to Republicans and other groups who oppose them donate to the Democrats. I sort of see what you're saying here but I think you're generalizing. Sometimes I kind of say to myself f*ck 'EM ALL! so maybe you feel the same way.

Yup. My main beef with it is that lots of groups donate both to democrats and republicans. I don't care if a pro-life organization donates to republicans because that's logical.

No but it's kind of hard to see where you're coming from when you first make a general statement and then later say 'what I meant to say was this'. On one hand you're telling us that you don't think making money is evil but then you go on to make the case that it is evil. It's not a consistent position you're making.

Maybe I'm not being very clear. I get that a lot.

How do you know that CEO's aren't hardworking? Do you have special inside information where you can document that they're just sitting around? Where is it written in the law that CEO's have to work themselves up from humble beginnings and I don't think that Republicans fantasize about it. I also don't see why a company must have loving and caring workers as a requirement. I know I don't like the Christians in the mail room but if I kick their ass they'll shape up and work hard. We all want to make the company prosperous because it pays our wages.

Well the main thing about humble beginnings and all that is that would make ceo's care more about their workers. I gather you're familiar with companies who lay off (or fire as normal people say) a few hundred workers but have CEO's who aren't suffering anything?
Because those companies rule this globe.

Why wouldn't they try to present a positive image of their companies. You said it wasn't evil to make money but now you're attacking their desire to make profit. You're right about some of these CEO's being a bunch of fucking leeches and running out on their companies but you can't say that about a majority of them.

It's not the preventing a negative image, it's preventing that image by doing rather immoral things. Bribing former workers so they won't tell the press and all that.

That's bullshit. Companies provide goods and services to people. They risk their own money to do this. There is no law that says they have to care about their employees but it's insane to think that they would mistreat their people because it would cost extra time and money to find replacements. It's not profitable.
Why is maximizing profit and minimizing expenses a bad thing? That's how businesses stay in business! They can't employ people or provide goods and services if they're bankrupt!

They maximize profit at the cost of their employees. Sure, not every company does this, but there is a large part that does.

Where? When? I will probably agree with you on this but I just want you to show me a specific school district, administrator, or group of teachers which did this instead of making a general accusation.

I can't really recall a specific instance, but I remember reading about a few schools in a book called Freakonomics. Whatever, it's not really important. I could search for them but I'm sorta lazy now and beer isn't helping.

You're right, but how can the govt. actually watch every single school in America? I hear you on the whole teaching them to pass a test thing. But tests, however they are administered, are really the only objective way of testing knowledge or skills. I'm assuming by useful you're talking about the ability to read, perform well in math, and other basics.

Yes.
You're right that watching every single school is a rather difficult task. But on the other hand the learning how to pass tests thing is also rather scary. I teach a few students at a local school, and I encountered a couple of students who didn't know how to divide fractures! These kids were 2 years seperated from university and they didn't know how to do something that should've been taught in their first year at highschool!
Worse, these kids weren't failing or anything.

Really the only way to solve this would be by going back to the older systems. I don't know about the US, but over here they decided about 20 years ago that students should learn by self-study and using computers and all that. It, unsuprisingly, failed because the government couldn't comprehend the fact kids don't like studying.

Maybe the requirement for passing classes should be raised. Since a lot of kids just try to pass the class and don't try to actually learn anything, forcing them to get higher grades would make them learn more.

Anyway, I'm not educated on the US system enough to really give better solutions. The NCLB-act had a good idea in principle but it wasn't put into practice correctly.

I'm not proposing a replacement but a gradual revising of the tax code. If people keep more of their own income they will be able to provide better for themselves and the govt. will have to do less. Now I will ask you a question: Why the hell should a govt. who mismanages it's current spending be (a) allowed to receive more money and (b) be allowed to manage the health care of its citizens?

(a) they shouldn't, but this is not about increasing taxes (b) the USA spends more money on healthcare per capita and as a percentage of it's GDP than any other nation in the world. This includes all those "socialist" countries with universal healthcare. The quality of the healthcare isn't actually better than any european country either.

[bradleybadly]

I can't really recall a specific instance, but I remember reading about a few schools in a book called Freakonomics. Whatever, it's not really important. I could search for them but I'm sorta lazy now and beer isn't helping.

Drink one for me, would ya! My mother-in-law is coming over later.

[Napoleon Ier]

I can't really recall a specific instance, but I remember reading about a few schools in a book called Freakonomics. Whatever, it's not really important. I could search for them but I'm sorta lazy now and beer isn't helping.

You've pointed out that the US spends more on healthcare and education, that the budget for education has tripled since the 80s whilst schools aren't improving, and that healthcare isn't any better in the US than anywhere else, and there's a very good reason for that: the market isn't being allowed to naturally select good providers and weed out the inefficient.

Come on snorri...big government, subjugation to distant, impersonal, central authorities, crushing taxes, rules and regulations are all the ancient ways of the past: embrace the law of the market and ultimate freedom for humanity.

[Snorri1234]

You've pointed out that the US spends more on healthcare and education, that the budget for education has tripled since the 80s whilst schools aren't improving, and that healthcare isn't any better in the US than anywhere else, and there's a very good reason for that: the market isn't being allowed to naturally select good providers and weed out the inefficient.

Bullshit, the reason for it is that insurance-companies like big profits. For this reason they hire people whose job it is to deny their costumers money due to them not having disclosed all information about their health ever.

[Snorri1234]

Your problem is that you think "for profit" is always a good idea. You don't recognise instances that are unique and work better without free market thinking.

This thinking has led to the closing down of almost every postoffice in my country and the privatizing of that sector for example, because managers think it's a company like any other without recognising the unique function of mail delivering. Some things are not meant to be profitable in themselves but merely help other things make profit. The service they provide is unique and essential, trying to squeeze money out of it will only cause problems.

[Napoleon Ier]

You've pointed out that the US spends more on healthcare and education, that the budget for education has tripled since the 80s whilst schools aren't improving, and that healthcare isn't any better in the US than anywhere else, and there's a very good reason for that: the market isn't being allowed to naturally select good providers and weed out the inefficient.

Bullshit, the reason for it is that insurance-companies like big profits. For this reason they hire people whose job it is to deny their costumers money due to them not having disclosed all information about their health ever.

In which case its a shit insurance company that no-one will get a policy with, and it will go out of business.

Similarily, in your mail example, people have to be willing to pay more in order to get a service in some less-profiable areas. However, competition means companies have to provide their services at he margin.

Y'see, the market, snorri, works at the margin! In a truly free market, profit can only come if companies work giving quality (read market-specific, or taylored to the needs of consumers) at the lowest price, or some other company's gonna butt right in and take consumers away. This would happen, but government regulations, tax and legal issues now make thos kind of competition impossible. Take the post, the problem you're concerned about: its illegal to carry the post for profit in the US: but why? Surely if a rational (or irrational, it doesn't really matter so long as its mutually voluntary) individual prefers having the post carried y someone else and is willing to pay a small (or large) price for the improved service, what right does government have to stop this mutually beneficial and voluntary transaction between consenting parties?

[Napoleon Ier]

Your problem is that you think "for profit" is always a good idea. You don't recognise instances that are unique and work better without free market thinking.

This thinking has led to the closing down of almost every postoffice in my country and the privatizing of that sector for example, because managers think it's a company like any other without recognising the unique function of mail delivering. Some things are not meant to be profitable in themselves but merely help other things make profit. The service they provide is unique and essential, trying to squeeze money out of it will only cause problems.

How? In a free economy, the private sector has to work at the margin, and this works precisely ecause profits drop off to zero if they don't.

[reminisco]

How? In a free economy, the private sector has to work at the margin, and this works precisely ecause profits drop off to zero if they don't.

because the free economy needs help.

Snorri is spot on with his comments.

the government built and maintains the interstate highway system in the USA, and although it was built for the purpose of defense, it stimulated entirely new "free economies". the same way the Postal Service aided information economies.

this is why i think the US gov't should invest in Fiber Optic lines across the nation. it would stimulate the information industry the same way the post office did before it. and would more effective stimulate the economy than $600 tax rebates or bailing out failed i-banks.

if such a service is privatized, it removes the "free" part of the economy, and makes it possible for private interests to dominate supply. much like the railroad barons in American history, or the way GM bought up all of the mass transit lines in LA and systematically dismantled them -- all part of a larger plan to force an autocentric society upon the USA, which of course, has worked.

[Snorri1234]

In which case its a shit insurance company that no-one will get a policy with, and it will go out of business.

This would be true if the insurance company didn't already collect most of the money from the person before not giving anything back and therefore not needing the person anymore. These insurance companies aren't facing bankruptcy, they are facing bigger and bigger piles of cash.

Similarily, in your mail example, people have to be willing to pay more in order to get a service in some less-profiable areas. However, competition means companies have to provide their services at he margin.

Y'see, the market, snorri, works at the margin! In a truly free market, profit can only come if companies work giving quality (read market-specific, or taylored to the needs of consumers) at the lowest price, or some other company's gonna butt right in and take consumers away. This would happen, but government regulations, tax and legal issues now make thos kind of competition impossible. Take the post, the problem you're concerned about: its illegal to carry the post for profit in the US: but why? Surely if a rational (or irrational, it doesn't really matter so long as its mutually voluntary) individual prefers having the post carried y someone else and is willing to pay a small (or large) price for the improved service, what right does government have to stop this mutually beneficial and voluntary transaction between consenting parties?

And the nature of humans ensures that no truly free market will ever exist. Government regulations, tax and legal issues have actually prevented economic monopolies by companies. The principle of the "True free market" is just as iddylic as communism as it hinges on the idea that people don't do morally rephrensible stuff for money.
If a small companies starts providing equal services to customers at a lower price than that of the big company, the big company will do anything in it's power to destroy that small company. And since it has more money it will last longer in the battle.

And you want to give the government less power over this so that they won't be able to do a lot about it?

[Snorri1234]

if such a service is privatized, it removes the "free" part of the economy, and makes it possible for private interests to dominate supply.

Don't be silly, a "true free market" will solve all these problems because people wouldn't be dicks then.

[Napoleon Ier]

People can be dicks, within the bounds of the law, which mustn't inhibit voluntary transactions between consenting individuals. That's the beauty of the market: its the only system that takes into account the fact that people are dicks. In fact, John Nash won a nobel prize for his research into the way people being egocentrical dicks, working towards their own profit, will through a series of systems of negative feedback and equilibriums, adjust to give an economy which tends towards perfection.

Think of it as Darwinian natural selection: for companies and business. Sure, it won't be perfect, but empirically, throughout history, the freer the economy, the more prosperous society becomes.