Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


US Government Will Never Fix It's Financial Problems


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
115 replies to this topic

#41 Bregma   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4763

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:16 PM

From the perspective of an outsider, it's the assumption that the Democratic Party has much to do with "left wing" politics that is faulty. Seriously, it's joked up in Canada that the US has no left-wing - just a hard right-wing party and a moderate centrist party. You can probably figure out which party is which.

Er, no, it's a hard-right party and a moderate-right party. The only time I hear reasonably centrist politics from Americans is when I talk to actual people on the street (and it very much depends on which street I'm visiting and if they know I'm Canadian or not).
Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer

Sponsor:

#42 Shippou   Members   -  Reputation: 1318

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:23 PM


The blue dots are almost a picture-perfect portrait of the urban areas. The red dots, conversely, outline the rural. The producers. This election, more than any election I have witnessed in the context of this place, struck fear into the hearts of the producers of this country. We had record voter turnouts, and record new-voter registrations, levels unheard of in any past election.


Are you joking?

Urban areas generate GDP while rural areas receive 20 billion plus in farm subsidies. If you believe food is the only commodity that matters try building a tractor or weather satellite from sand and corn.


Property taxes for farmers are outrageous ... but if you want to start point "subsidy" fingers, who gets more subsidy money? Large urban areas.
Federal subsidized housing cost $28 Billion in 2011 ....

Edited by Shippou, 27 November 2012 - 12:23 PM.

 Reactions To Technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

- Douglas Adams 2002


 


#43 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:23 PM


From the perspective of an outsider, it's the assumption that the Democratic Party has much to do with "left wing" politics that is faulty. Seriously, it's joked up in Canada that the US has no left-wing - just a hard right-wing party and a moderate centrist party. You can probably figure out which party is which.

Er, no, it's a hard-right party and a moderate-right party. The only time I hear reasonably centrist politics from Americans is when I talk to actual people on the street (and it very much depends on which street I'm visiting and if they know I'm Canadian or not).

Generall all Republicans/Democrats are in the upper right quadrant of the political compass (moderately fiscally conservative and moderately authoritarian).

DAT COMPASS

NOW WITH PRIMARIES

I would personally prefer someone on the far right in the purple, which is nobody afaik.

Edited by way2lazy2care, 27 November 2012 - 12:27 PM.


#44 Kaze   Members   -  Reputation: 948

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:34 PM



The blue dots are almost a picture-perfect portrait of the urban areas. The red dots, conversely, outline the rural. The producers. This election, more than any election I have witnessed in the context of this place, struck fear into the hearts of the producers of this country. We had record voter turnouts, and record new-voter registrations, levels unheard of in any past election.


Are you joking?

Urban areas generate GDP while rural areas receive 20 billion plus in farm subsidies. If you believe food is the only commodity that matters try building a tractor or weather satellite from sand and corn.


Property taxes for farmers are outrageous ... but if you want to start point "subsidy" fingers, who gets more subsidy money? Large urban areas.
Federal subsidized housing cost $28 Billion in 2011 ....


But your still ignoring that urban areas spend more because they make more since:
a: US has more exports than just agricultural
b: modern agricultural is dependant on products produced in urban areas.

My point is that a lot of the republican self righteousness seems to come from look at allocation per land area unit rather than per capita.

#45 Shippou   Members   -  Reputation: 1318

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:43 PM




The blue dots are almost a picture-perfect portrait of the urban areas. The red dots, conversely, outline the rural. The producers. This election, more than any election I have witnessed in the context of this place, struck fear into the hearts of the producers of this country. We had record voter turnouts, and record new-voter registrations, levels unheard of in any past election.


Are you joking?

Urban areas generate GDP while rural areas receive 20 billion plus in farm subsidies. If you believe food is the only commodity that matters try building a tractor or weather satellite from sand and corn.


Property taxes for farmers are outrageous ... but if you want to start point "subsidy" fingers, who gets more subsidy money? Large urban areas.
Federal subsidized housing cost $28 Billion in 2011 ....


But your still ignoring that urban areas spend more because they make more since:
a: US has more exports than just agricultural
b: modern agricultural is dependant on products produced in urban areas.

My point is that a lot of the republican self righteousness seems to come from look at allocation per land area unit rather than per capita.

You can't eat money.
Cities do not provide food, and are reliant on agriculture to feed them.

 Reactions To Technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

- Douglas Adams 2002


 


#46 Kaze   Members   -  Reputation: 948

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:50 PM

You can't eat money.
Cities do not provide food, and are reliant on agriculture to feed them.


So are you some kind of anarcho communist?

Farmers don't live in a separate universe from the rest of society and if the free market says one pound of wheat is equal to one hour of software development then both are valid way to contribute to society.

Edited by Kaze, 27 November 2012 - 12:51 PM.


#47 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6966

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:51 PM

If you believe food is the only commodity that matters try building a tractor or weather satellite from sand and corn.

/facepalm/ JTippets was talking about for survival. Try building a tractor or satellite without any food. Your workers would die.
[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#48 Kaze   Members   -  Reputation: 948

Posted 27 November 2012 - 12:57 PM


If you believe food is the only commodity that matters try building a tractor or weather satellite from sand and corn.

/facepalm/ JTippets was talking about for survival. Try building a tractor or satellite without any food. Your workers would die.


I thought we were talking about real world economics and not some hypothetical zombie apocalypse.

#49 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6966

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:02 PM



If you believe food is the only commodity that matters try building a tractor or weather satellite from sand and corn.

/facepalm/ JTippets was talking about for survival. Try building a tractor or satellite without any food. Your workers would die.


I thought we were talking about real world economics and not some hypothetical zombie apocalypse.

How you got "hypothetical zombie apocalypse" out of what I said, I don't know. Agriculture is absolutely a part of "real world economics," and if the economy collapses, which is what we're talking about in this thread, agriculture is going to become waaay more important than it is now. And if the economy doesn't collapse, it's still true that hurting the agricultural industry actually hurts the entire population/economy because everything depends on it, everything is built on it. If you can't see that, then I'm talking to a brick wall.
[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#50 Kaze   Members   -  Reputation: 948

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:07 PM

Agriculture is a important part of the economy but its not the only part.

Subsistence farming nations are very poor compared to more diverse economies as farmers with more access to equipment and materials can produce far more food per capita.

#51 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:25 PM

I thought we were talking about real world economics and not some hypothetical zombie apocalypse.

Did you read the whole post you originally replied to before you replied to it or did you just pick out that one paragraph?

#52 Shippou   Members   -  Reputation: 1318

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:25 PM

Farmers don't live in a separate universe from the rest of society and if the free market says one pound of wheat is equal to one hour of software development then both are valid way to contribute to society.


Working an hour of programming will net you with X amount of printed paper, which you use as a trade for 1 LB of wheat.
The problem is, the 1 LB of wheat is not set by the free market, but by a commodity exchange .
I have studied this for quite some time, trying to figure out how it actually works in real life. With out going into a lecture in commodity economics, most of the people who are at the exchanges have no intention of buying or selling any physical goods. They create their own futures notes, which they buy and sell ( perfectly legal ). The way these folks act, is how the market price for the said item is set.
For example if a trader want the prices to go up a bit, they create a bunch buy contracts, than sell them off. The price goes up. Just before the buy contracts are callable, they create sell contracts, which they use to cancel out their buy contracts ( again this is legal ).

So it is not free economy pricing that sets the price of your wheat, it's commodity traders.

Edited by Shippou, 27 November 2012 - 01:27 PM.

 Reactions To Technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

- Douglas Adams 2002


 


#53 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6966

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:37 PM

Agriculture is a important part of the economy but its not the only part.

No one ever said it was the only part. In fact, JTippets explicitly says it's not the only part...

Subsistence farming nations are very poor compared to more diverse economies as farmers with more access to equipment and materials can produce far more food per capita.

No one said farming is how you get rich. Just that it's a critical part of life (and the economy).

Did you read all of what JTippets wrote?
[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#54 Kaze   Members   -  Reputation: 948

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:41 PM

I read the usual BS arguments that group A of people is better than Group B of people because A's C is way better than B's C.

#55 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6966

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:48 PM

I read the usual BS arguments that group A of people is better than Group B of people because A's C is way better than B's C.

So in other words, no, you didn't read it. Good to know. Now I can go on ignoring you.
[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#56 kuramayoko10   Members   -  Reputation: 386

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:58 PM

Hmm... I guess everyone found out in this thread (by its own means) how the human society is and will be problematic.

This thread started with Shippou giving a wake up call on the matter as he seeked advices and insights.
Then, people started describing their ideas of a better system and world, showing a slight cooperation. But then, egocentrism comes back and now I read a discussion over misunderstandings and things that does not matter to society, only to each one's ego.
That is the problem in every system, the human factor and its ego. Period.

Edited by kuramayoko10, 27 November 2012 - 01:58 PM.

Programming is an art. Game programming is a masterpiece!

#57 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6966

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:07 PM

Hmm... I guess everyone found out in this thread (by its own means) how the human society is and will be problematic.

This thread started with Shippou giving a wake up call on the matter as he seeked advices and insights.
Then, people started describing their ideas of a better system and world, showing a slight cooperation. But then, egocentrism comes back and now I read a discussion over misunderstandings and things that does not matter to society, only to each one's ego.
That is the problem in every system, the human factor and its ego. Period.

Is it ego, or is it laziness? Because I don't see an ego war going on as much as I see a dispute about laziness (because the way I see it, it seems like* Kaze was too lazy to fully read and understand what JTippets posted)
*I could be fully wrong, but to be honest and frank, this is how it's coming across. Kaze, you don't have to agree with anything JTippets said at all, but really, the points you started pulling out (of context) were far and away from the points JTippets was making. And then a "yes/no" question turned into a "dodge the answer" response that doesn't even properly characterize what JTippets was saying.
[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#58 Oberon_Command   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1795

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:13 PM


I read the usual BS arguments that group A of people is better than Group B of people because A's C is way better than B's C.

So in other words, no, you didn't read it. Good to know. Now I can go on ignoring you.


To be fair, it is pretty easy to interpret that post in that manner. I am sympathetic to points JTippets raises - farmers are an important part of society, and I can understand a little bitterness at the ignorance and general apathy of consumers regarding their food source - but the message I initially got from JTippets' post was essentially, "farmer citizens are best citizens because they provide food to all the city-dwelling moochers who don't give back their fair share. Communism is bad for farmers and free market capitalism is good for farmers, so we should just do free market capitalism. Also the democrats are dirty communists!"

And my first thought was, "right, and who cares whether or not what works for small rural communities where everyone knows and helps each other is actually a good idea for large urbanized cities where few people know and help each other directly as would happen in those communities?"

I hope you understand that my summarization is hyperbole.

Edited by Oberon_Command, 27 November 2012 - 02:25 PM.


#59 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2139

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:23 PM

Christ why does it always have to be this false dichotomy?

The options are not Friedmanist capitalism vs. Stalinist communism. Both are unworkable and frankly, immoral.

In broad strokes, western democracies were more socialist in the mid to late 20th century, where they took a turn to the right. Clearly this has failed. That doesn't mean that we need to either
a) accelerate faster into the free market deregulation that lead us here (Ron Paul et al) or
b) tear down the bourgeois elite and nationalise everything (occupy, etc)

How about a measured approach? Soften the hardline capitalism. Swing a bit to the left. Go back to what worked.

Frankly, the US electorate needs to grow the fuck up. They need realise that "socialism" is not communism, it's not a dirty word and a socialist economy has some benefits for all citizens. You don't have to start singing the "internationale", but maybe reinstate glass-stegall and have the rich realise that it won't kill them to pay a bit more tax.


Meh, who am I kidding? It won't happen. People will keep watching Fox News and in a few years, you'll be owned by communist China anyway.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

#60 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6966

Posted 27 November 2012 - 02:47 PM



I read the usual BS arguments that group A of people is better than Group B of people because A's C is way better than B's C.

So in other words, no, you didn't read it. Good to know. Now I can go on ignoring you.


To be fair, it is pretty easy to interpret that post in that manner. I am sympathetic to points JTippets raises - farmers are an important part of society, and I can understand a little bitterness at the ignorance and general apathy of consumers regarding their food source - but the message I initially got from JTippets' post was essentially, "farmer citizens are best citizens because they provide food to all the city-dwelling moochers who don't give back their fair share. Communism is bad for farmers and free market capitalism is good for farmers, so we should just do free market capitalism. Also the democrats are dirty communists!"

And my first thought was, "right, and who cares whether or not what works for small rural communities where everyone knows and helps each other is actually a good idea for large urbanized cities where few people know and help each other directly as would happen in those communities?"

I hope you understand that my summarization is hyperbole.

Re-reading it, I guess I can see how one might have seen it like that. I read it more as "On a very small scale, socialistic practices might work well, because they can't afford to allow laziness to creep in. Taken to a massive scale, however, laziness is likely to creep in and spread like a cancer, and then it's only a matter of time for bigger problems to develop than the socialist state originally set out to solve. Laziness isn't something you just wish away, and we don't have an altruistic way of not allowing laziness to creep in either, despite the (hopefully) altruistic desires of a social state. The people who play one of the most critical roles in a socialist society also happen to be one of the most overlooked/underappreciated: the agricultural industry. (Now I'm speaking as if I were JTippets in this next sentence, but know they're my words, not necessarily his) I'm just realizing how much this might impact me, and knowing that I share the same feelings that others I know in this industry have, I can tell you right now it won't work; laziness will ruin the system, and pretending like laziness won't be a problem isn't going to go well; but we can't (or at least don't know how to) solve the laziness problem, and realistically speaking, it's only a matter of time that the workers/providers revolt against the lazy, and now how great of a solution is the socialist state? Or laziness is beaten out of the system through economic collapse or force, neither of which are desirable either."

Edit: I should say there are degrees of socialism. There are socialist ideas that I think are just fine, and others I don't, and others I have no clue/opinion on. But I can say that, given our current "big" politicians, I don't have enough faith in them to pull anything off, socialist or not.

But I'm out of this thread, I actually hate economics/politics. I don't even know why I jumped in :)

Edited by Cornstalks, 27 November 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS