Matt Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools, or health insurance for all?Unless you mean his "other plans" might include [...] getting himself one of the millions of new government jobs just mandated.Why is that a bad thing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Well, let me start with a related story. Local governments are always on the lookout for more tax income. New homes? They get a piece of that. New industry? Piece of it. New commercial properties? Piece of it. New banks? Next to nothing. Having a bank close by is a good thing for the people who need one, and for other reasons, but increasing local revenue isn't one of those reasons. Many local governments put a limit on the number of banks allowed within their territory just for this reason: It's a net drain on the local economy. Government jobs are like that. They provide jobs for those who qualify, but add little to a country's productivity, and it's easy to make the case that government jobs are a drain on a country's productivity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bubba Bob Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Government created jobs don't help the economy. I could explain why, but this guy did a much better job --http://www.gazette.com/opinion/government_...money_bill.htmlAlso, Ive said it before and will say it again, FDR's "New Deal" made the great depression much worse than it had to be. In most other parts of the world the "great depression" was just an economic recession. America had it worse than virtually anyone else! The reason? The gub'ment trying to get us out of the depression! This latest bill is 10 times worse than what FDR did. This is what Jim Cramer has to say also - Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Doesn't anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools, or health insurance for all?The problem that we often end up with lousy public schools and inadequate health insurance for random subsets of the population. The US sucks at socialism.This is what Jim Cramer has to say also - Sigh. I suppose I have to support the stimulus now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bozodog Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Oh Matt, Matt, Matt... You are young, you're supposed to be socialistic. After all that is/was your position in your family and household for what, twenty whole years? Family is your government, and have always given you what they think you need. Since you are willing to think, unlike many, let me introduce you to some food for thought. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Adam Smith, the father of economicsIf you have doubts about Adam Smith's prediction, ask yourself which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied and those with most complaints. Would they be profit motivated arenas such supermarkets, video or clothing stores, or be nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas such as public schools, postal delivery or motor vehicle registration? By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?Now turn a few words around and have a glimpse at Washington DC."He (the politician) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the politician, the soldier, or the lawyer, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (I borrow this insight from my debate buddy, Harold) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Since you are willing to think, unlike many, let me introduce you to some food for thought.Are we going to have a dead economist quote competition? The paragraph in Marx's Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie that contains the infamous "opiate of the masses" line is absolutely beautiful even in translation.If you have doubts about Adam Smith's prediction, ask yourself which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied and those with most complaints. Would they be profit motivated arenas such supermarkets, video or clothing stores, or be nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas such as public schools, postal delivery or motor vehicle registration? By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?The obvious problem with this line of argument is that there are no "nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas". I'll let Harold explain:"He (the politician) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the politician, the soldier, or the lawyer, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (I borrow this insight from my debate buddy, Harold) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 ... The US sucks at socialism. ... Well, we've been pretty darned successful for more than 200 years without it. Let's name all the countries that have retained their original socialist government for more than 200 years: ? Well, maybe NOBODY is "good" at socialism. I know what that means, do you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Let's name all the countries that have retained their original socialist government for more than 200 years:?Considering that socialism is less than 200 years old, I'm not surprised that it's a short list. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Oh Matt, Matt, Matt... You are young, you're supposed to be socialistic. Considering that socialism is less than 200 years old, I'm not surprised that it's a short list.Indeed.Not to say we should be like China... as they have their fair share of problems (especially in government)... but look at their economic success. Many experts say they're on track to be the world's next powerhouse.By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?I never said we should be 100% socialistic, but I don't understand why people complain about Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. I'd like anyone to tell me that they won't take their Social Security, or if they lose their job they won't take their Unemployment help. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Not to say we should be like China... as they have their fair share of problems (especially in government)... but look at their economic success. Many experts say they're on track to be the world's next powerhouse.The Chinese are as bad at socialism as we are. AFAICT they're what socialists call 'state capitalists'. Possibly fascists depending on how you interpret the word. They also seem to be in very serious trouble at the moment.I never said we should be 100% socialistic, but I don't understand why people complain about Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. I'd like anyone to tell me that they won't take their Social Security, or if they lose their job they won't take their Unemployment help.I don't understand why people think those are examples of socialism. They're welfare. There's a difference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
isteve Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I'd like anyone to tell me that they won't take their Social Security, or if they lose their job they won't take their Unemployment help.Unemployment is paid for in part by employers and means you had a job and probably want another. And I most likely will never get social security. I work for a municipality, we have a much better retirement plan. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bubba Bob Posted February 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Sigh. I suppose I have to support the stimulus now.JCL >>>> I take it you're not a Cramer fan? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 ... I most likely will never get social security. I work for a municipality, we have a much better retirement plan. You're welcome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.