Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
What to do to reduce unemployemnt?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:47 pm    Post subject: Re: What to do to reduce unemployemnt? Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
aidanjt wrote:
pjp wrote:
By definition, government jobs are a drain on resources. Government doesn't generate revenue, it consumes taxes taken from revenue generators.

That is just silly nonsense. Just because revenue hasn't been raised it doesn't mean value hasn't been created. There's incredible value in a road network, business would grind to a halt without them. The same goes with national defence, policing, and all manner of things. This idea that government is only ever unproductive is the worst kind of thoughtless hyperbole.

why do you make the assumption that private entities would not pick up the slack? have you never heard of private roads? or corporate owned towns? or blackwater? it's not a choice between government and nothing. it's a choice between government and what the market does. look at a large state like florida where TONS of the roads are privately owned. what you're saying is just not factually true.


That's tricky to do when you have density like you have in england. Private anything only works if you have competition, and we simply don't have space to have 5 parallel roads between A and B just to have competition.

Look at the mess of UK energy suppliers. One of the most free energy markets in the world. Rolling blackout predicted in a few years because of a collective lack on investment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16104
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Maybe. The bit you're missing though is that a society, and an economy, achieves its most prosperous, happiest, best potential with a big, fat, healthy middle.
I agree that our current system has problems, but I disagree that forcing me to have less, then taking more on top of that produces what you describe. It may produce what you think you want, but I disagree with the interpretation of the results.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidanjt wrote:
notageek wrote:
John-Boy wrote:
Enforced work camps for long term unemployed.
:lol:

You laugh, but it's actually not far off from the right wing sentiment in England. They already have workfare programmes.


I think you are far from off it...or far off from it. What I think is china. Go from there.

Low payment jobs...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gabrielg
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
I disagree that forcing me to have less, then taking more on top of that produces what you describe. It may produce what you think you want, but I disagree with the interpretation of the results.


I don't think anybody should be forced to have less (=work less). I think that the norm should be for people to work less, that's all. You can always have 2 jobs or 1.5 jobs if you really want to.
And I disagree with taxing like crazy. That is something which has to be fixed. You can tax the rich more, fair enough, but that won't end the problem (I think... maybe it actually will).
I always thought that inheritance shouldn't exist and that you could do a lot of things with what people leave behind or you will force people to actually do something with it while they are alive - this is another topic though.

The sad thing is that good strategies might work for long term, but you will always make the people transitioning through change suffer in the short/medium term, and that almost always means a full generation or more, so basically you're asking people to screw themselves for their whole life to benefit their children (or other people's children). So, the level of screwing people while any transition goes on has to be controlled, meaning that the transition might take longer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gabrielg wrote:
I always thought that inheritance shouldn't exist


Yes. Inheritance (beyond a certain, reasonable amount) is big a problem which leads to privileged elites who didn't earn their position in society through hard work or talent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
gabrielg wrote:
I always thought that inheritance shouldn't exist


Yes. Inheritance (beyond a certain, reasonable amount) is big a problem which leads to privileged elites who didn't earn their position in society through hard work or talent.


On the other hand, only a collectivist drone without any natural empathic ability would think it was awesome to work your way up, make some money, and then give it to welfare.

Rich people for the most part do a lot of philantropy, with or without tax breaks. Never seen state do the same.

If there is ever a state in making according to your taste, I sure as hell hope I don't have to live there. Brainless zombie leechers motivated by envy is bad. And it aint that fucking hard to work yourself up to middle class, if you have brains. Hell, I came to sweden with a small backpack, no diploma, and I had 600 swiss franks, 2 pair of jeans, 3 pairs of t-shirts and underwear, some socks, jacket and shoes. After 10 years I was in middle class range, good job, and all that. I probably payed more taxes then some home-bred leftie retard demanding that people pay more taxes cos its comfortable to sit on your ass all day long.

Providing for your offspring and family is the strongest motivator there is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16104
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gabrielg wrote:
I don't think anybody should be forced to have less (=work less). I think that the norm should be for people to work less, that's all. You can always have 2 jobs or 1.5 jobs if you really want to.
Maybe I misread, or inferred something, but I thought someone had written that to reduce unemployment, more people should be working fewer hours. Somewhere in there is going to be a policy which forces some to not work as much as they would like, or need.

gabrielg wrote:
And I disagree with taxing like crazy. [...] You can tax the rich more, fair enough [...] I always thought that inheritance shouldn't exist
Wow. I'd hate to see what you thought of as crazy. I think we're already beyond crazy.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
Providing for your offspring and family is the strongest motivator there is.


Which is why I qualified that with "beyond a certain, reasonable amount".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gabrielg
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
Rich people for the most part do a lot of philantropy, with or without tax breaks. Never seen state do the same.

That's where I want to go... let rich people do a lot of philanthropy while they are alive - that generates jobs!

For the rest that you wrote, well, like I said, it's part of another topic. I do agree with your observations regarding state as we know it today, and I probably I talking about the whole world, not just one "state".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gabrielg
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Wow. I'd hate to see what you thought of as crazy. I think we're already beyond crazy.


Yeap :-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tylerwylie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 456
Location: /US/Illinois

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gabrielg wrote:
I always thought that inheritance shouldn't exist
Disgusting
mcgruff wrote:
Yes. Inheritance (beyond a certain, reasonable amount) is big a problem which leads to privileged elites who didn't earn their position in society through hard work or talent.
Double disgusting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tylerwylie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 456
Location: /US/Illinois

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What to do to reduce unemployemnt? Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
That's tricky to do when you have density like you have in england. Private anything only works if you have competition, and we simply don't have space to have 5 parallel roads between A and B just to have competition.


One must not dismiss or ignore the ethics, morals, and benefits of more freedom and liberty due to a lack of one's own entrepreneurial creativity and imagination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Prenj wrote:
Providing for your offspring and family is the strongest motivator there is.

Which is why I qualified that with "beyond a certain, reasonable amount".

Who are you (and those like you) to define what is a reasonable amount to leave to my kids, if I should have them. Or to leave to my sisters kids if I don't have any of my own under my lifetime?

You don't know me, yet you feel entitled to what I produce? Why? You are born in western countries, had access to more then I had, yet you are comfortable sitting on your WASP ass and feel entitled to something someone else produced? Why? You had all the headstart in the world.

Instead of taking from those who made something, you should fight for reduced taxes and quality public education so that more can make it, and get that feeling of empowerement over their own predicament. But no, you want to "tax the rich elite" of some sorts. Why not focus instead on getting value for the money that is already in the system, like reducing government to something that is functional, not taxing actual productive members of society so that zombies can be priviledged instead. Or fight political lobbyism. Fight the fact that Halliburtons and alike can create and use war for profit. But noooo, lets tax "rich individuals". Damn vampires.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tylerwylie wrote:
...


lol tinywillie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
But noooo, lets tax "rich individuals". Damn vampires.


I didn't say anything about tax...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
aidanjt wrote:
pjp wrote:
By definition, government jobs are a drain on resources. Government doesn't generate revenue, it consumes taxes taken from revenue generators.

That is just silly nonsense. Just because revenue hasn't been raised it doesn't mean value hasn't been created. There's incredible value in a road network, business would grind to a halt without them. The same goes with national defence, policing, and all manner of things. This idea that government is only ever unproductive is the worst kind of thoughtless hyperbole.

why do you make the assumption that private entities would not pick up the slack? have you never heard of private roads? or corporate owned towns? or blackwater? it's not a choice between government and nothing. it's a choice between government and what the market does. look at a large state like florida where TONS of the roads are privately owned. what you're saying is just not factually true.

Wow, Florida and Blackwater as examples of libertarian paradise. You really are quite the salesman.

So Florida has a large number of private roads. Good for them. But let's put those roads in context. Florida is a modern state, with a massive government infrastructure, and furthermore, it is a part of the US, an even more massive government. Without all of this government, it is hard to imagine private roads working nearly as well.

First, the roads themselves need to be built safely. Laws and regulations enforced by the government ensure (or at least mostly ensure) that roads are built and maintained in a safe way, whether they are private or public. The typical libertarian response here is that people won't drive on unsafe roads, forcing private road owners to build only safe roads or go out of business. This argument doesn't really hold up empirically - over and over again, it has been government regulation, not market pressure, that has increased safety. Even if it did hold up, it only works in the presence of market forces, and to maintain market forces, competition is needed. Ensuring competition requires government to prevent monopolies, so you are still left with a reliance on government.

What about enforcement? How do you prevent someone from using your private road without paying? Currently, private road operators can rely on the government to enforce the law, so when someone uses the road without paying, the state provides the punishment. If the state did not play that role, the road company would also have to be an enforcement company. Would they need to maintain their own police force? Or contract with some private security force? Maybe a free market in security forces is a better policy than state police forces. Even then though, who polices the security forces? As some level, there must be a government, enforcing laws, to ensure stability.

What if a crime is committed on the road? Does the private road operator need to maintain detectives to investigate the crimes and prosecutors to try the cases and a court system to fairly adjudicate the cases? What about jails to house the perpetrators? They rely on the state to perform all these functions now.

What about accidents? You probably need an insurance system, governed by regulations to ensure fairness and prevent fraud. Is the road company going to administer that?

How about ensuring that transportation is available to everyone? What if a private road company decides that it doesn't want to allow african americans to drive on its roads? What if all of the private road operators in Florida decide the same thing? If there are no public roads, it seems that this would be a significant problem. Again, the libertarian argument that if there is a desire for roads from African Americans, then someone will fulfill that desire has proven again and again to be empirically false. The free market is amazing, but it doesn't do everything.

So sure, privatize what you can. The less the government needs to do, the better. But don't pretend that because privatizing some small portion of the commons is successful, that therefore everything can be privatized. And don't conclude from a small example of privatization that everything the government does can be done equally well by a free market.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Boy
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 439
Location: Desperately seeking moksha in all the wrong places

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Yes. Inheritance (beyond a certain, reasonable amount) is big a problem which leads to privileged elites who didn't earn their position in society through hard work or talent.


All property is theft.
_________________
Only in our dreams are we free. The rest of the time we need wages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think "property should be earned" is closer to what I said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
I think "property should be earned" is closer to what I said.


What I own you have no say over. You want it? Either buy it from me or convince me to give it to you voluntarily. What you advocate is theft.
_________________
Joe Biden wrote:
1987, when the skirts were short, the brews were cold, and you couldn’t walk 2 feet without stepping into some grade-A tang.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spent
n00b
n00b


Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 51
Location: Bawlmer Hon!

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's frighting to see so many people that totally hate any sort of freedom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
I think "property should be earned" is closer to what I said.


So how does what you just wrote fit in with "taxing anybody"? The moment you tax someone, you have transfer of wealth, meaning whoever is on the other side hasn't earned it.

You simply make no sense. Stop posting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:52 am    Post subject: Re: What to do to reduce unemployemnt? Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
big dave wrote:
aidanjt wrote:
pjp wrote:
By definition, government jobs are a drain on resources. Government doesn't generate revenue, it consumes taxes taken from revenue generators.

That is just silly nonsense. Just because revenue hasn't been raised it doesn't mean value hasn't been created. There's incredible value in a road network, business would grind to a halt without them. The same goes with national defence, policing, and all manner of things. This idea that government is only ever unproductive is the worst kind of thoughtless hyperbole.

why do you make the assumption that private entities would not pick up the slack? have you never heard of private roads? or corporate owned towns? or blackwater? it's not a choice between government and nothing. it's a choice between government and what the market does. look at a large state like florida where TONS of the roads are privately owned. what you're saying is just not factually true.


That's tricky to do when you have density like you have in england. Private anything only works if you have competition, and we simply don't have space to have 5 parallel roads between A and B just to have competition.

Look at the mess of UK energy suppliers. One of the most free energy markets in the world. Rolling blackout predicted in a few years because of a collective lack on investment.

did you never take economics, or did you just fail at it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
big dave wrote:
aidanjt wrote:
pjp wrote:
By definition, government jobs are a drain on resources. Government doesn't generate revenue, it consumes taxes taken from revenue generators.

That is just silly nonsense. Just because revenue hasn't been raised it doesn't mean value hasn't been created. There's incredible value in a road network, business would grind to a halt without them. The same goes with national defence, policing, and all manner of things. This idea that government is only ever unproductive is the worst kind of thoughtless hyperbole.

why do you make the assumption that private entities would not pick up the slack? have you never heard of private roads? or corporate owned towns? or blackwater? it's not a choice between government and nothing. it's a choice between government and what the market does. look at a large state like florida where TONS of the roads are privately owned. what you're saying is just not factually true.

Wow, Florida and Blackwater as examples of libertarian paradise. You really are quite the salesman.

So Florida has a large number of private roads. Good for them. But let's put those roads in context. Florida is a modern state, with a massive government infrastructure, and furthermore, it is a part of the US, an even more massive government. Without all of this government, it is hard to imagine private roads working nearly as well.

First, the roads themselves need to be built safely. Laws and regulations enforced by the government ensure (or at least mostly ensure) that roads are built and maintained in a safe way, whether they are private or public. The typical libertarian response here is that people won't drive on unsafe roads, forcing private road owners to build only safe roads or go out of business. This argument doesn't really hold up empirically - over and over again, it has been government regulation, not market pressure, that has increased safety. Even if it did hold up, it only works in the presence of market forces, and to maintain market forces, competition is needed. Ensuring competition requires government to prevent monopolies, so you are still left with a reliance on government.

What about enforcement? How do you prevent someone from using your private road without paying? Currently, private road operators can rely on the government to enforce the law, so when someone uses the road without paying, the state provides the punishment. If the state did not play that role, the road company would also have to be an enforcement company. Would they need to maintain their own police force? Or contract with some private security force? Maybe a free market in security forces is a better policy than state police forces. Even then though, who polices the security forces? As some level, there must be a government, enforcing laws, to ensure stability.

What if a crime is committed on the road? Does the private road operator need to maintain detectives to investigate the crimes and prosecutors to try the cases and a court system to fairly adjudicate the cases? What about jails to house the perpetrators? They rely on the state to perform all these functions now.

What about accidents? You probably need an insurance system, governed by regulations to ensure fairness and prevent fraud. Is the road company going to administer that?

How about ensuring that transportation is available to everyone? What if a private road company decides that it doesn't want to allow african americans to drive on its roads? What if all of the private road operators in Florida decide the same thing? If there are no public roads, it seems that this would be a significant problem. Again, the libertarian argument that if there is a desire for roads from African Americans, then someone will fulfill that desire has proven again and again to be empirically false. The free market is amazing, but it doesn't do everything.

So sure, privatize what you can. The less the government needs to do, the better. But don't pretend that because privatizing some small portion of the commons is successful, that therefore everything can be privatized. And don't conclude from a small example of privatization that everything the government does can be done equally well by a free market.

most of your questions have been solved long ago. if you paid attention in economics, you'd have known this. did you even take econ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
most of your questions have been solved long ago. if you paid attention in economics, you'd have known this. did you even take econ?

Unfortunately, I have never taken an econ course. Since most of my questions have been solved long ago, you should have no problem providing a summary of the results. I assume you mean solved as in "implemented in a large scale system, and demonstrated to work", and not as in "someone wrote a paper once with a solution".

While you are at it, you might as well describe what you think the Coase theorem says, and how it applies to juniper's post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 757
Location: EU

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:08 am    Post subject: Re: What to do to reduce unemployemnt? Reply with quote

big dave wrote:

did you never take economics, or did you just fail at it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem


no (no econ, no fail), but I can read. Can you? Read the page you posted.

richk449 wrote:

While you are at it, you might as well describe what you think the Coase theorem says, and how it applies to juniper's post.


I too am all ears. Especially because of this criticism (first elucidated by Coase himself).

Quote:

Ronald Coase's work emphasised a problem in applying the Coase theorem: transactions are "often extremely costly, sufficiently costly at any rate to prevent many transactions that would be carried out in a world in which the pricing system worked without cost." (Coase, 1960—first paragraph of section VI.) This isn't a criticism of the theorem itself, since the theorem considers only those situations in which there are no transaction costs. Instead, it is an objection to applications of the theorem that neglect this crucial assumption.
So, a key criticism is that the theorem is almost always inapplicable in economic reality, because real-world transaction costs are rarely low enough to allow for efficient bargaining. (That was the conclusion of Coase's original paper, making him the first 'critic' of using the theorem as a practical solution.) Economist James Meade argued that even in a simple case of a beekeeper's bees pollinating a nearby farmer's crops, Coasean bargaining is inefficient. (Though bee-keepers and farmers do make contracts and have for some time.)[5]


The main example Coase was referring to was frequency allocation in radio signals, which clearly has more expansion room than the land near London.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum