Political Fart Noise Part II

[CRed05]

What about all of those Western European and Asian countries that have embraced certain aspects of socialism and are doing just fine? Are they gonna grow out of it too?

 

That's right, just like the US, they have adopted a social program here and there but they aren't without their downsides. You hand over a little bit of your freedom and ability to make a choice each time a new social program is adopted.

 

What about all the other countries than went full on, balls to the wall socialists that aren't doing so well? Are you aware of what's happening in Venezuala right now?

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/venezuela-biggest-humanitarian-crisis-you-havent-heard

[greg1647545532]

That's right, just like the US, they have adopted a social program here and there but they aren't without their downsides. You hand over a little bit of your freedom and ability to make a choice each time a new social program is adopted.

 

What about all the other countries than went full on, balls to the wall socialists that aren't doing so well? Are you aware of what's happening in Venezuala right now?

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/venezuela-biggest-humanitarian-crisis-you-havent-heard

 

Everyone's aware of what's happening in that dictator-run shithole. Do I honestly strike you as someone who's not informed?

 

Venezuala's problem isn't that they want "too socialist," it's that it's a mismanaged fuck up of a government. And they gave us Pastor Maldonado, so there's really no forgiving them.

 

Capitalism can work great until it doesn't. Socialism can work great until it doesn't. Treating either one as the savior of mankind is a mistake, but so is ignoring obviously successful systems, or treating some metric of success as the end-all be-all of success (e.g., touting the potential economic mobility of capitalism while ignoring that very few people actually move up or down the socioeconomic ladder in practice).

[TTQ B4U]

TL;DR version: If you hear "socialism" and like snowflake Tim it immediately triggers your feelings of "red scare" and makes you want to scream "wolverines", then congrats you are gullible and ignorant. You are doubly so if you also believe in a "free market".

 

 

First injecting race then move onto personal attacks of some sort. Again, typical of your posts. Whatever you feel works for you and makes you feel good.

[Geeto67]

 

Venezuala's problem isn't that they want "too socialist," it's that it's a mismanaged fuck up of a government. And they gave us Pastor Maldonado, so there's really no forgiving them.

 

awww...low blow. He did pretty well with a Williams FW34 car in 2012.

[Geeto67]

First injecting race then move onto personal attacks of some sort. Again, typical of your posts. Whatever you feel works for you and makes you feel good.

 

and this is not a personal attack how?

 

I'm surprised Kerry hasn't moved out of country.

 

I don't know what's worse, that you feign the high road or that somehow you think that's being clever.

 

I like you Tim, your my favorite ignorant, paranoid, slightly racist cars and coffee acquaintance.

[CRed05]

it's a mismanaged fuck up of a government.

 

That's the problem! Governments have a long history of mismanaging and fucking things up, so why would I trust them with anything?

 

There are a handful of countries killing it right now in socialized healthcare and education. Mostly German and Scandinavian countries, where taxes are crazy expensive, but quality of life seems high, a trade off I think I'm personally willing to make...until an incompetent government gets in power. At least here we have the 2nd amendment to protect us, no other country does.

[TTQ B4U]

and this is not a personal attack how?

 

 

pointing out your actions is attacking you?

[Geeto67]

That's the problem! Governments have a long history of mismanaging and fucking things up, so why would I trust them with anything?

 

Parents have a long history of mismanaging and fucking kids up, so why trust them with kids?

 

Dry Cleaners have a long history of mismanaging and fucking shirts up, so why would I trust them with laundry?

 

Arbys restaurants have a long history of mismanaging and fucking my order up, so why would I trust them with lunch?

 

Popes have a long history of mismanaging and fucking things up, so why would I trust them with the worlds largest land holder and a following of 1.3 billion people?

 

 

get my point yet? You can literally say that about anything in general and basically you end up with the same stupid false statement.

 

You have to look at things on a case by case or issue by issue basis - generalizing statements in this arena are just toxic cynicism.

[Geeto67]

pointing out your actions is attacking you?

 

 

right back at you. I thought you liked it when people told it like it is and called it like they saw it. I see you talking out your ass and ignoring facts to maintain your bias I call you ignorant - seems pretty objective to me considering that is the literal definition of ignorance.

[greg1647545532]

That's the problem! Governments have a long history of mismanaging and fucking things up, so why would I trust them with anything?

 

Because the alternative sucks? I mean, Reagan's "Government is the problem" was pretty successful marketing to the moron demographic but let's be honest, it's a lot easier to complain about society than to offer up suggestions for how to improve it. If we consider government a necessary evil, keep a close eye on it and make sure we're collecting good data to ensure it's working, that's really all we can ask for.

 

Electing a bunch of anti-science, anti-intellectual troglodytes who rail against government while refusing to consider actual "evidence" of things that "work" or "don't work" isn't any better at ensuring liberty. That's how you end up with brown kids in cages and people believing that it's Clinton's fault. But I digress.

[TTQ B4U]

right back at you. I thought you liked it when people told it like it is and called it like they saw it. I see you talking out your ass and ignoring facts to maintain your bias I call you ignorant - seems pretty objective to me considering that is the literal definition of ignorance.

 

 

you ignore the facts too my friend but I won't call you a snowflake. again, step one of the program is for those you're defending to own up to their issues and be responsible, but apparently you don't care if they are or not. Kerry-on with making excuses for them and blaming others. The rest of us will continue on with our lives and raise our kids like responsible citizens who made that choice and own it.

[Geeto67]

you ignore the facts too my friend but I won't call you a snowflake.

 

Do you prefer overly sensitive? or Triggered? I mean, what's the appropriate term for a butthurt conservative that doesn't offend his manhood? I don't want to be offensive so you tell me what you want to be called...

[TTQ B4U]

Do you prefer overly sensitive? or Triggered? I mean, what's the appropriate term for a butthurt conservative that doesn't offend his manhood? I don't want to be offensive so you tell me what you want to be called...

 

 

If you want to continue to injecting race then move onto personal attacks as you typically do then by all means keeping floating your own boat. Your ego must need fed.

[CRed05]

Parents have a long history of mismanaging and fucking kids up, so why trust them with kids?

 

Shit parents are a tiny % of the overall parent population. I bet there have been much more shit governments than good ones.

 

Dry Cleaners have a long history of mismanaging and fucking shirts up, so why would I trust them with laundry?

 

In the free market, if you go to a consistently shitty dry cleaner, you have the option, and are free to not take your clothes there anymore and take it somewhere else.

 

Arbys restaurants have a long history of mismanaging and fucking my order up, so why would I trust them with lunch?

 

In the free market, if you go to an Arbys that keeps fucking up your order, you have the option, and are free to not eat at Arbys anymore and eat somewhere else.

 

Popes have a long history of mismanaging and fucking things up, so why would I trust them with the worlds largest land holder and a following of 1.3 billion people?

 

You shouldn't. Religion is bullshit, it's a way of governing people based on fairy tales and the pope is the king/president. They claim they're doing God's work, doing it for the people, but they're just there to have power over others.

 

 

Government institutions have no need to offer the best service or product, especially when it's the required to use their service by law and you have no other option. Competition breeds greatness, survival of the fittest. It's not even Economics 101, it's Life 101.

 

But don't just take my word for it, just look at history.

[greg1647545532]

But don't just take my word for it, just look at history.

 

Not for nothing, but people looking at the history of capitalism is why socialism and communism exist. People got fed up with poor working conditions, ravaged environments, and lack of social equity.

 

The success of capitalism can't be ignored, that's true, but to say that it's a system that results in "greatness" only works for certain definitions of greatness. At its core, it's just a system that self selects for maximum economic efficiency. Whether or not we want maximum economic efficiency is still a matter that should be debated on a case by case basis. Certainly, economic efficiency results in lots of affordable goods (a rising tide lifts all boats, as conservatives love to say), but what if those are fishing boats and there's a limited supply of natural resources? In unregulated capitalism, the fishermen would try and out-compete each other until there were no fish left, at which point they'd all starve. That doesn't sound like greatness to me, nor to the fisherman, who have generally supported fishing quotas in the interest of long term survival. Quotas which need to be debated by politicians, documented by lawyers, and enforced by a strong government, of course.

[CRed05]

Because the alternative sucks? I mean, Reagan's "Government is the problem" was pretty successful marketing to the moron demographic but let's be honest, it's a lot easier to complain about society than to offer up suggestions for how to improve it. If we consider government a necessary evil, keep a close eye on it and make sure we're collecting good data to ensure it's working, that's really all we can ask for.

 

Electing a bunch of anti-science, anti-intellectual troglodytes who rail against government while refusing to consider actual "evidence" of things that "work" or "don't work" isn't any better at ensuring liberty. That's how you end up with brown kids in cages and people believing that it's Clinton's fault. But I digress.

 

I'm with you 100%. In my ideal world, everyone would be intellectual and know everything about science and always make the right decisions. Unfortunately for us all, that's just not how life works. People make mistakes and in a democracy elect corrupt assholes into power.

 

The law that just recently passed in Florida, about schools now having to have "In God We Trust" displayed on school premises. If we had one socialized school system, every school in America would have to get that displayed, and there's nothing you could do about it because the government said so and all districts would be the same. There's a good chance that 1) There are no more private schools because of laws or they couldn't compete 2) Taxes are so high now that you can't afford another school.

[Geeto67]

Shit parents are a tiny % of the overall parent population. I bet there have been much more shit governments than good ones.

 

 

 

In the free market, if you go to a consistently shitty dry cleaner, you have the option, and are free to not take your clothes there anymore and take it somewhere else.

 

 

 

In the free market, if you go to an Arbys that keeps fucking up your order, you have the option, and are free to not eat at Arbys anymore and eat somewhere else.

 

It flew over your head. You are saying "governments" as in all governments fuck things up and can't be trusted...just like all dry cleaners fuck things up, not one particular one. It's funny, you distrust all governments because of the actions of a few but you don't distrust all dry cleaners because of the fuck ups of a few. You are more forgiving of a dry cleaner where you have almost no control over the process beyond selection, than you do a government where you do have some ability to affect the process if you want to.

 

If you don't like a government that you feel is fucking things up, you can choose another government by either electing different politicians or moving. That last one? that's called immigration and seems real popular to talk about these days.

You shouldn't. Religion is bullshit, it's a way of governing people based on fairy tales and the pope is the king/president. They claim they're doing God's work, doing it for the people, but they're just there to have power over others.

 

Well at least we agree on one thing.

 

Government institutions have no need to offer the best service or product, especially when it's the required to use their service by law and you have no other option. Competition breeds greatness, survival of the fittest. It's not even Economics 101, it's Life 101.

 

But don't just take my word for it, just look at history.

 

And yet Historically, governments are continually striving for improvement, and even offering incentives to get people to assist in offering the best services. But that's the mundane crap that doesn't get talked about. The existence of Soldier Pensions, the GI bill, and VA healthcare all seem boring compared to the sacking of Rome or the crusades. Profit is not the only incentive, and sometimes it's the worst kind of incentive (see current pharmaceutical system) - Profit and a beneficial system to the end user are not connected concepts.

[CRed05]

Not for nothing, but people looking at the history of capitalism is why socialism and communism exist. People got fed up with poor working conditions, ravaged environments, and lack of social equity.

 

The success of capitalism can't be ignored, that's true, but to say that it's a system that results in "greatness" only works for certain definitions of greatness. At its core, it's just a system that self selects for maximum economic efficiency. Whether or not we want maximum economic efficiency is still a matter that should be debated on a case by case basis. Certainly, economic efficiency results in lots of affordable goods (a rising tide lifts all boats, as conservatives love to say), but what if those are fishing boats and there's a limited supply of natural resources? In unregulated capitalism, the fishermen would try and out-compete each other until there were no fish left, at which point they'd all starve. That doesn't sound like greatness to me, nor to the fisherman, who have generally supported fishing quotas in the interest of long term survival. Quotas which need to be debated by politicians, documented by lawyers, and enforced by a strong government, of course.

 

Well we've had enough history now to see both capitalism and communism and are able to measure the pros and cons and see which is the best (not perfect) model.

 

Of course you need regulations, but you have to do it as little as possible - only when it's absolutely necessary. It's better to cut your hair too long than too short.

[greg1647545532]

Well we've had enough history now to see both capitalism and communism and are able to measure the pros and cons and see which is the best (not perfect) model.

 

Yeah but only Fox News viewers think that communism is going to come roaring back any day now.

 

Of course you need regulations, but you have to do it as little as possible - only when it's absolutely necessary. It's better to cut your hair too long than too short.

 

I hate this saying though. What does "as little as possible" even mean? Who are these people we're arguing against who are calling for unnecessary regulation? Are there people writing regulations just for funsies?

 

Every regulation seems absolutely necessary to somebody. We need to clearly define the metrics that we want to use to define what makes America successful, and we need to measure every regulation against whether or not it results in better or worse outcomes based on those metrics. If that ultimately means a "lot" of regulations, then I guess a lot of regulations are necessary. If it ultimately means not very many regulations, then so be it. (At this point, I know several posters who are thinking, "Of course fewer regulations will result in better outcomes," believing that without evidence of course).

[CRed05]

You are saying "governments" as in all governments fuck things up and can't be trusted...just like all dry cleaners fuck things up, not one particular one. It's funny, you distrust all governments because of the actions of a few but you don't distrust all dry cleaners because of the fuck ups of a few. You are more forgiving of a dry cleaner where you have almost no control over the process beyond selection, than you do a government where you do have some ability to affect the process if you want to. If you don't like a government that you feel is fucking things up, you can choose another government by either electing different politicians or moving. That last one? that's called immigration and seems real popular to talk about these days.

 

Well do you trust the government today? The Trump administration? Could you imagine what it would be like if they had even greater control over your life? You and I both didn't want Trump to win, but he did, so in a way we had no control over who won even though we voted. At least all the dry cleaner will do is fuck up my favorite shirt, not confiscate my land because it's owned by the state now.

 

So the moving thing hits close to home. People love to tell white people in South Africa to just move out of Africa if you're tired of the crime and bullshit. It's incredibly difficult. First of all, any country worth moving to requires a reason for you to come in. "I'm coming here to look for a job" doesn't fly. Second, you need a big chunk of money. Lastly, "why should I change my name, he's the one who sucks!"

 

And yet Historically, governments are continually striving for improvement, and even offering incentives to get people to assist in offering the best services. But that's the mundane crap that doesn't get talked about. The existence of Soldier Pensions, the GI bill, and VA healthcare all seem boring compared to the sacking of Rome or the crusades. Profit is not the only incentive, and sometimes it's the worst kind of incentive (see current pharmaceutical system) - Profit and a beneficial system to the end user are not connected concepts.

 

That's right. The Soviet Union wanted to be the best country in the world, so did Nazi Germany, so does Mexico, so do Venezuela, so does Zimbabwe so does North Korea. Constantly coming up with improvements. Trump wants to make a lot of improvements too, he even wrote it on a hat.

[CRed05]

I hate this saying though. What does "as little as possible" even mean? Who are these people we're arguing against who are calling for unnecessary regulation? Are there people writing regulations just for funsies?

 

Every regulation seems absolutely necessary to somebody. We need to clearly define the metrics that we want to use to define what makes America successful, and we need to measure every regulation against whether or not it results in better or worse outcomes based on those metrics. If that ultimately means a "lot" of regulations, then I guess a lot of regulations are necessary. If it ultimately means not very many regulations, then so be it. (At this point, I know several posters who are thinking, "Of course fewer regulations will result in better outcomes," believing that without evidence of course).

 

I suppose I'm calling out the people in the pole saying to "socialize all the things" because they believe in it so much.

 

Well I truly believe that the fewer regulations the better. Fewer regulations means more freedom for you and I, freedom to innovate, freedom to compete...a level playing field. If a new regulation comes out, you have to ask where it's coming from and what is the purpose of it. Regulations will put one person down and lift another up. Some regulations are necessary or we'd all just be hosts for the massive amounts of cancer growing on us from chemicals and radiation vented into the atmosphere.

[greg1647545532]

You say the fewer the better but then you say some are necessary. If we get rid of the necessary ones, isn't that fewer? And therefore better?

 

See my point?

[CRed05]

You say the fewer the better but then you say some are necessary. If we get rid of the necessary ones, isn't that fewer? And therefore better?

 

See my point?

 

Sure.

 

Just because it was good to regulate one thing, doesn't mean we now need to start regulating everything. Also don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[10phone2]

 

Every regulation seems absolutely necessary to somebody. We need to clearly define the metrics that we want to use to define what makes America successful, and we need to measure every regulation against whether or not it results in better or worse outcomes based on those metrics. If that ultimately means a "lot" of regulations, then I guess a lot of regulations are necessary. If it ultimately means not very many regulations, then so be it. (At this point, I know several posters who are thinking, "Of course fewer regulations will result in better outcomes," believing that without evidence of course).

 

well played and thank you. Yes we have our philosophical differences, but I agree this abstract problem solving regardless of agenda is the way to move forward to find the best option.

[Geeto67]

 

Every regulation seems absolutely necessary to somebody. We need to clearly define the metrics that we want to use to define what makes America successful, and we need to measure every regulation against whether or not it results in better or worse outcomes based on those metrics. If that ultimately means a "lot" of regulations, then I guess a lot of regulations are necessary. If it ultimately means not very many regulations, then so be it. (At this point, I know several posters who are thinking, "Of course fewer regulations will result in better outcomes," believing that without evidence of course).

 

A lot of this is what actually happens at the drafting phase. There is always some dispute as to how to interpret the data, but that's the real republican/democrat battleground in congress.

 

What is more problematic is how to keep it going - in banking regulations are continuously under review and enforcement grows and shrinks relative to what the regulators seems concerned about and what what banks push back on - so if management of third party PI data starts to be a concern at one or two banks or because of some high profile breeches then the regulators are going to test all banks on this - whereas if the regulators come in and say they want to test diversity in lending and the banks independently push back and say our HMDA LAR's don't support raising any concerns, the regulators back off and look at something else. If there is a proposed new regulation, the agency proposing it will socalize it with the banks for notes.

 

And the banking regulation is kind of the ideal, but that's in an industry with active strong participants, many don't have as strong active participants that force the regulators back and don't have the political clout to lobby and provide notes to legislate - so while a regulation may seem like a good idea at the time of implementation, it may become outdated quickly and not updated because the regulators don't have an interest in changing it and the industry doesn't have the power. Add in that it is very difficult to have laws and regulations invalidated (even when they become completely unnecessary) and you end up with where we are now with a lot of spaces. A good example of this is the Steel industry or the railroad industry - once giants, but whose power has been undercut by obsolesce and foreign competition, and whose regulators are busy with other thriving industries in their scope (like Airlines and alternative energy).

 

then there are industries where the private industry has more power and leverage than the regulators so there is very little reform even when there is a need, and a public outcry or even a threat to national security via a health epidemic. A good example of this is the Pharmaceutical industry where they have more political clout than can be overcome by any politician, and so we have to live with an opoid crisis that they directly cause and continue to feed.

 

And then there are industries that are so fast moving that they just need constant oversight and continuous laws and updates. Stock trading is a good example of this - millions of small traders who have no political clout but who spend every single waking work hour looking for an advantage or a loophole or something they can exploit.

 

All these types of industries can and do use the initial approach regarding metric based regulatory implementation, but the continued oversight and interaction is where things branch out.

 

I should point out that there is also the rare situation where an industry can effectively block information and data to prevent regulation from happening, regardless of political clout. This is the situation we have today with the NRA and the gun industry who despite being relatively small, have managed to block any regulatory advancement by halting research. This isn't the first time we have seen this, the Tobacco industry did this as well, and it didn't work out well for them in the end. These situations tend to create a powder keg situation where public outcry and lack of movement will eventually come to a head and the pendulum will swing the other way but not along rational lines.

 

Another problem is that most lay people don't understand this at all. They look at regulations like affirmative action and think it forces construction companies to hire a 98lb weakling to swing a sledgehammer just because she is a women when in fact that isn't how it works at all, so the people who vote politicians in who can legislate these regulations get manipulated by political platforms by appealing to their ignorance and emotions.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Geeto67