Coffeehouse Thread

52 posts

Conversation Locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.

What I hate about being a Southerner

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • Maddus Mattus

    @Dr Herbie: If you have laws for the curriculum, then there is a regulated market.

    You cannot agree or disagree with a free market. It's the dance of the producer and the consumer, no one else. The market is not always right. That's why we have booms and busts. By interfering with this pattern, the booms and busts (especially the busts) will be more severe.

    If the schools produce a high number of drones, instead of free thinkers, the businesses will determine their value when they leave school. If the businesses determine that it does not place a lot of value on drones, they will pay a less rate to the student. In this scenario the student is the only one to blame, he bet on drone and lost. As a result students will flock to the free thinkers curriculum.

    Now if government sticks it's nose in and dictate the curriculum (or part of it) by law, the student is no longer responsible for the decision. Therefore it's unfair for him to bear the consequences. So as a result of this failure, we need to also regulate businesses to hire drones. And as a result of this failure we need to bail out the banks where the drones work. The disease that is regulation spreads it's tentacles everywhere. You cannot plan people. And frankly I think it's an insult to the intelligence of a student and an attack on his freedom.

  • Dr Herbie

    @Maddus Mattus: Then there is no such thing as a free market and there never has been -- government influence always affects the market either directly or indirectly.

    Herbie

  • Maddus Mattus

    @Dr Herbie: There is a case to be made for a government in a free market society. The free market is very fragile, you need to protect it. And you do this by protecting the freedom of individuals.

    What you see throughout history is that countries that adopt free market policies, and protection of this market, hugely increased their standards of living. We can see it happening right now in the BIRC countries.

    edit;

    This is also what made the US to the superpower that it is/was. People flocked by the millions to the US for a chance to grow up in a society where you are free to chase your own rainbow. It did not have any migration laws, because it did not need to protect the nanny state. Business was booming, the US owned the largest portion of businesses around the world. But in less then 30 years they went from the worlds largest creditor, to the worlds largest debtor. When we clean this mess up here in the EU, the spotlight will be on the US. You guys will have to go over this fiscal cliff, my concern is if Obama is up for the task or will he kick the can down the road. At least with Romney you would have had someone with some economic sense at the wheel.

  • SteveRichter

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    When we clean this mess up here in the EU, the spotlight will be on the US. You guys will have to go over this fiscal cliff, my concern is if Obama is up for the task or will he kick the can down the road. At least with Romney you would have had someone with some economic sense at the wheel.

    I think the EU has a better political structure than the US. In the EU financially responsible countries can firewall themselves off from the reckless countries. It is Germany choice whether it wants to loan more money to Greece, Italy and Spain. In the US the feds control the central bank and also have a multil trillion $ annual budget. I do not think the EU has taxing and spending authority.

  • ScanIAm

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @Dr Herbie: There is a case to be made for a government in a free market society. The free market is very fragile, you need to protect it. And you do this by protecting the freedom of individuals.

    It is not, however, the only thing that needs protection in a society and to be honest, when the chips are down, it's certainly not the first thing that needs protection.  Unless and until we are willing to change our societal rules to 'suceed or die', we have other responsibilities besides simply free market protection.

    What you see throughout history is that countries that adopt free market policies, and protection of this market, hugely increased their standards of living. We can see it happening right now in the BIRC countries.

    What you see right now in those countries is what happens when any country goes from the 3rd world to first.

    edit;

    This is also what made the US to the superpower that it is/was. People flocked by the millions to the US for a chance to grow up in a society where you are free to chase your own rainbow. It did not have any migration laws, because it did not need to protect the nanny state. Business was booming, the US owned the largest portion of businesses around the world. But in less then 30 years they went from the worlds largest creditor, to the worlds largest debtor. When we clean this mess up here in the EU, the spotlight will be on the US. You guys will have to go over this fiscal cliff, my concern is if Obama is up for the task or will he kick the can down the road. At least with Romney you would have had someone with some economic sense at the wheel.

    And we've run out of un-owned resources and people to exploit, so we aren't able to continue the boom times.  We _could_ invade canada or mexico...

    BRIC  countries are already starting to slow their growth and will continue to do so because growth isn't sustainable forever.  Unless we find new resources here or get out of the gravity well into space, growth like we just saw for the last 100-200 years is just not going to happen.

  • Maddus Mattus

    , ScanIAm wrote

    It is not, however, the only thing that needs protection in a society and to be honest, when the chips are down, it's certainly not the first thing that needs protection.  Unless and until we are willing to change our societal rules to 'suceed or die', we have other responsibilities besides simply free market protection.

    When the chips are down, when you have a bust, it's in everybody's best interest to see the bust go bust. To prevent a bust to bust is to kick the can down the road and create a bigger bust when you no longer can afford to kick the can.

    What you see right now in those countries is what happens when any country goes from the 3rd world to first.

    And what is fueling that transition? Government? No, production in a free market.

    We've been trying to fuel this transition for 50 years with government money, didn't do any good. Actually, it did more harm then good. And now in just a few years of trade, these countries can rise from the gutter on their own merit.

    And we've run out of un-owned resources and people to exploit, so we aren't able to continue the boom times.  We _could_ invade canada or mexico...

    Hogwash. You are in the middle of a shale gas revolution that make America the next Saudi Arabia. Technology is what drives the efficient use of the resources you have. No need to invade other countries.

    BRIC  countries are already starting to slow their growth and will continue to do so because growth isn't sustainable forever.  Unless we find new resources here or get out of the gravity well into space, growth like we just saw for the last 100-200 years is just not going to happen.

    There are plenty of resources, it's a myth that resources are dwindling. Just take a look at the total economic reserves of oil. It's up from millions of barrels to billions of barrels in 50 years. All due to better technology.

  • Maddus Mattus

    , SteveRichter wrote

    I think the EU has a better political structure than the US. In the EU financially responsible countries can firewall themselves off from the reckless countries. It is Germany choice whether it wants to loan more money to Greece, Italy and Spain. In the US the feds control the central bank and also have a multil trillion $ annual budget. I do not think the EU has taxing and spending authority.

    Nope, sorry,..

    Look up the ESM treaty. We have no say.

    Want to vote for member of the EC? Can't.

    Want to vote for a member in EP that is not from your country? Can't.

    Want to vote for a president of the EU? Can't.

    Want to vote via a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon? You can, but they will ignore the outcome.

    Want to vote for a national parliament? You can, but they have no real power anymore, Brussels decides what's right and wrong, as EU law weighs heavier then domestic law.

    So, you want to be less free, by all means! come to the EU!

  • Sven Groot

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Want to vote for a national parliament? You can, but they have no real power anymore, Brussels decides what's right and wrong, as EU law weighs heavier then domestic law.

    Examples? With reliable source, please.

  • cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    When the chips are down, when you have a bust, it's in everybody's best interest to see the bust go bust. To prevent a bust to bust is to kick the can down the road and create a bigger bust when you no longer can afford to kick the can.

    Yeah, because having a global economic depression is in everybody's interesting. Hell, if we're going to allow the entire global economy crumble because it's good for us, why not allow the governments that once fostered these economic systems to crumble as well? Government sucks. It can't do anything better than private, profit-motivated industry can, and we're just kicking the can down the road by keeping government around.

    The entire world could use period of lawlessness like in Somalia. The masses of poor will rape and pillage the rich, and things will all even out in the end. Then the entire world can start anew. The Earth is resilient. We can deplete all of the natural resources, because people will eventually die and turn into petroleum just like the dinosaurs did. The world is funny like that. Things just eventually work out, and all countries will be lifted from poverty and be even stronger because the free market will prevail!

    We'll just have to a wait a few million years, and everything will be back to normal. Just you watch!

  • Bass

    @Maddus Mattus:

    What you see throughout history is that countries that adopt free market policies, and protection of this market, hugely increased their standards of living. We can see it happening right now in the BIRC countries

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

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


    If the USA were to take example from any of these BRIC countries, we'd have to nationalize far more of the economy than we currently do.

  • cbae

    This notion that nationalization of industries being antithetical to competition only applied when you're talking about the insular economies of the former Soviet bloc.

    The chaebols of South Korea are essentially nationalized companies, but they compete very well on an international level.

    Just as we talk about how unhealthy it is for infighting between WinDiv and DevDiv within Microsoft, it would be equally unhealthy for there to be "infighting" between Microsoft and Apple, if US technology companies had to compete individually, without government backing, against nationalized companies like Samsung as well as huge nationalized technology companies that may someday arise from China, India, etc.

    I've spoken out against companies becoming "too-big-to-fail", and have argued for regulations preventing this, but that's only from the context of these companies being private companies that needn't answer to the government yet reap the benefit of the safety net that the government is willing to offer. I would be all for allowing "too-big-to-fail" companies to exist as long as they are nationalized. Hey, I like lower taxes too. So if some guy from the Netherlands buys a product from a US company that benefits from the "too-big-to-fail" safety net, then I expect the profits to go directly toward lowering MY taxes.

  • Maddus Mattus

    @Bass: you confuse ownership with regulation. The first has nothing to do with the latter. You can ask yourself if it's fair that government has private property, but that's a different debate.

    @cbae: weeeee another move to Somalia argument. Don't project your solution of running away onto me. I love my country and want to see it prosper. If you want to continue to kick the can down the road, throwing your country into an even bigger depression, by my guest.

    You can always print more money or raise the debt ceiling some more. That's a solution they are all to familiar with in Zimbabwe. Lets see you buy a burger for a million dollars. As soon as the spotlights shift,.. I sure hope you are up to the challenge.

    @Sven Groot: recently, something with children an migration that was in violation with EU law. Will google it once I get home.

    There is the example of the income calculated insurance premium, could also be in violation with eu law, so it was canned.

    The examples are numerous. It's in the treaties, don't know why you need concrete examples.

     

     

  • cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: weeeee another move to Somalia argument. Don't project your solution of running away onto me. I love my country and want to see it prosper. If you want to continue to kick the can down the road, throwing your country into an even bigger depression, by my guest.

    You can always print more money or raise the debt ceiling some more. That's a solution they are all to familiar with in Zimbabwe. Lets see you buy a burger for a million dollars. As soon as the spotlights shift,.. I sure hope you are up to the challenge.

    And I really don't need to hear your diatribes about your own government. Keep it to yourself, please. This is a discussion about US POLITICS, and I didn't see anybody here railing about the US government or even government in general until you started posting your crap. Thank you for your unsolicited advice for the residents of our country. We'll take it on advisement. Really, we will.

    But we've heard enough. You're now repeating yourself. You said you were going to steer clear of this thread, so do as you said. For everybody's benefit.

  • ScanIAm

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    When the chips are down, when you have a bust, it's in everybody's best interest to see the bust go bust. To prevent a bust to bust is to kick the can down the road and create a bigger bust when you no longer can afford to kick the can.

    I have no idea what that paragraph means and your inability to use meaningful grammar or puntiation is tiresome.  If you are going to argue coherently, do .... ya know what, nevermind.

    I'm not falling into your trap, again.

    You are wrong.  You have been shown to be wrong over and over again, and you keep coming back with cartoonish misunderstandings of what government, society, and commerce is and does.  You purposefully ignore any and all logic, and frankly, I cannot f*cking believe I even cared enough to hit submit on this post.

    You, sir, are a troll.

  • Bass

    @Maddus Mattus:

    Fair enough.

  • blowdart

    OK when this descends into aiming posts at individuals then no. Just no.


    I will note that every time you all start on economics, global warming, politics, religion I end up locking the thread. Believe it or not I have better things to do. So, please, don't take threads off topic into those areas. I'd rather not have my day spoiled.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.