The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Government and Politics

Government and Politics Government and Politics Forum including laws, elections, government structure, and political theory


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 11th, 2011, 04:28 PM   #1
Senator
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 758

Gallup: obama approval/disapproval 41/51

The american leftwing experiment is rapidly fading.
Patrick is offline  
Old October 11th, 2011, 04:31 PM   #2
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
The american leftwing experiment is rapidly fading.
You think Obama is left wing. I find the naivety of rightists to be amusing.
David is offline  
Old October 11th, 2011, 05:30 PM   #3
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Really? Again with the left/right wing nonsense? How many times have you two had this back and forth "debate" instead of talking about the REAL ISSUES? This is a perfect emulation of the stupidity of politics (not calling you guys stupid).
myp is offline  
Old October 11th, 2011, 08:41 PM   #4
Senator
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 758

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
You think Obama is left wing. I find the naivety of rightists to be amusing.
What would qualify him as leftwing? Establishing a gulag??
Patrick is offline  
Old October 11th, 2011, 08:45 PM   #5
Senator
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 758

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Really? Again with the left/right wing nonsense? How many times have you two had this back and forth "debate" instead of talking about the REAL ISSUES? This is a perfect emulation of the stupidity of politics (not calling you guys stupid).
That there are "wings" is "nonsense"? I just imagined it? I'll be happy to debate issues, but trying to debate HERE is (usually) like getting in tug-o-war contest, where there's nobody pulling on the opponent side. But I'm happy to just put my ideas on the net for lurkers, plus of of course the occasional entertaining (at a "junk food" level) swat on David.
Patrick is offline  
Old October 11th, 2011, 09:09 PM   #6
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
What would qualify him as leftwing? Establishing a gulag??
Establishing worker-owned corporations, universal healthcare, lower tuition and stronger labor laws (not necessarily pro-union mind you) would be a nice start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
That there are "wings" is "nonsense"? I just imagined it? I'll be happy to debate issues, but trying to debate HERE is (usually) like getting in tug-o-war contest, where there's nobody pulling on the opponent side. But I'm happy to just put my ideas on the net for lurkers, plus of of course the occasional entertaining (at a "junk food" level) swat on David.
Better to be junk food then rat poison like yourself.
David is offline  
Old October 11th, 2011, 09:20 PM   #7
Senator
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 758

Just curious how the leftwing mind works - why should people get lower tuition?
Patrick is offline  
Old October 12th, 2011, 06:44 AM   #8
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
Just curious how the leftwing mind works - why should people get lower tuition?
Education is the foundation of a strong economy and society. The cheaper it is the easier it is to get an education and the better education a person can get.
David is offline  
Old October 12th, 2011, 07:36 AM   #9
Senator
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 758

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Education is the foundation of a strong economy and society. The cheaper it is the easier it is to get an education and the better education a person can get.
Presumably you grasp that if it's cheap for them, in one way or another it's a tax on society which must PAY for it, which tends to DEGRADE the society.

Why don't you apply that to other things?

"A person can't do work if he hasn't had enough food, so food should be cheap or free."

"We have a highly mobile society, in order to get everyone to function as efficiently as possible in that context, gas, cars, and air travel should be cheap or free."

"Computers have become the backbone of our society, therefore they should be cheap or free."

"A person can't work if they're sick, therefore medical care should be free."

Etc etc etc etc - think about it. Starting point: unless you ressurect slavery, nobody will provide all this stuff for free or below market price. Who pays for it?
Patrick is offline  
Old October 12th, 2011, 07:42 AM   #10
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
Presumably you grasp that if it's cheap for them, in one way or another it's a tax on society which must PAY for it, which tends to DEGRADE the society.

Why don't you apply that to other things?

"A person can't do work if he hasn't had enough food, so food should be cheap or free."

"We have a highly mobile society, in order to get everyone to function as efficiently as possible in that context, gas, cars, and air travel should be cheap or free."

"Computers have become the backbone of our society, therefore they should be cheap or free."

"A person can't work if they're sick, therefore medical care should be free."

Etc etc etc etc - think about it. Starting point: unless you ressurect slavery, nobody will provide all this stuff for free or below market price. Who pays for it?
Actually yes but that requires that we move to a non-monetary economy. Such a move would mean about a decade of economic depression and I doubt people's willingness to suffer even short-term pain.
David is offline  
Old October 12th, 2011, 09:42 AM   #11
Senator
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 758

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Actually yes but that requires that we move to a non-monetary economy. Such a move would mean about a decade of economic depression and I doubt people's willingness to suffer even short-term pain.
A "non-monetary economy"?? What would that be - barter??? I'll trade you my goat for an airplane ticket to san francisco???

OK. enough. You've lost your marbles.
Patrick is offline  
Old October 12th, 2011, 08:21 PM   #12
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
A "non-monetary economy"?? What would that be - barter??? I'll trade you my goat for an airplane ticket to san francisco???

OK. enough. You've lost your marbles.
It would be an economy in which everything was provided as needed but that would require eliminating the worker (otherwise the need for paychecks would keep the need for money) However doing this would, until the new economic model was fully implemented, result in the worse economic depression in history which is why I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

In this model someone who needed to fly would just hop on the plane, someone who needed house would just move into the 1st empty house that they liked, etc. The lack of money would mean no production costs and the lack of workers would mean no wages to pay and no need to give anyone a day off. It would be a matter of logistics rather then capital (and logistics) to keep the economy going and logistics is a far more stable foundation for an economy then capital that can gain and lose value for any number of reasons outside any 1 person's control.
David is offline  
Old October 13th, 2011, 07:56 AM   #13
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
It would be an economy in which everything was provided as needed but that would require eliminating the worker (otherwise the need for paychecks would keep the need for money) However doing this would, until the new economic model was fully implemented, result in the worse economic depression in history which is why I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
How exactly do you plan on making that happen? Similar ideas are instilled in theoretical communism, but they do not work in real life. Incentives guide the world, not ideologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
In this model someone who needed to fly would just hop on the plane, someone who needed house would just move into the 1st empty house that they liked, etc.
That is a moral hazard. The producers that are being stretched too much would simply stop or limit production and there goes the system. And even before that they probably wouldn't have enough resources anyway so you'd end up rationing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
The lack of money would mean no production costs and the lack of workers would mean no wages to pay and no need to give anyone a day off.
There are still production costs. Money is a store of value. Other things that constitute value include time, labor, tangibles, etc. Money is simply used to more efficiently swap these things. You aren't going to get rid of costs so long as people believe their time and things are worth something. And they aren't going to stop believing that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
It would be a matter of logistics rather then capital (and logistics) to keep the economy going and logistics is a far more stable foundation for an economy then capital that can gain and lose value for any number of reasons outside any 1 person's control.
I suggest you read more about capital theories because I think you don't know what capital actually means. As for value, it is subjective so things will lose and gain value in any situation as people change their minds.
myp is offline  
Old October 13th, 2011, 08:10 AM   #14
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
How exactly do you plan on making that happen? Similar ideas are instilled in theoretical communism, but they do not work in real life. Incentives guide the world, not ideologies.


That is a moral hazard. The producers that are being stretched too much would simply stop or limit production and there goes the system. And even before that they probably wouldn't have enough resources anyway so you'd end up rationing.


There are still production costs. Money is a store of value. Other things that constitute value include time, labor, tangibles, etc. Money is simply used to more efficiently swap these things. You aren't going to get rid of costs so long as people believe their time and things are worth something. And they aren't going to stop believing that.


I suggest you read more about capital theories because I think you don't know what capital actually means. As for value, it is subjective so things will lose and gain value in any situation as people change their minds.
I'm assuming a totally automated economy from resource gathering to production to distribution. There would be no (Human) labor (except what people did voluntarily) at all in this system. The problem with communist theory was that until the last 1 or so years the only way to have done this as to turn everyone into slaves which is about as un-communist as you can get.
David is offline  
Old October 13th, 2011, 12:13 PM   #15
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
I'm assuming a totally automated economy from resource gathering to production to distribution. There would be no (Human) labor (except what people did voluntarily) at all in this system. The problem with communist theory was that until the last 1 or so years the only way to have done this as to turn everyone into slaves which is about as un-communist as you can get.
Been reading Fresco lately or something? A completely automated economy is not currently possible. There are many services that machines cannot do at least until you invent advanced AI. Things like consulting and analyzing are one- humans can often do those things much better than current computers. Then you have innovation and experimentation/studies which robots can't do.

Arguably, you will never have a completely automated economy because there are some jobs (for example prostitution) that require humans and any perfect substitute that is man-made will be a human.

All that aside, who do you think will control these machines, etc.? It is logistically not viable and politically (when it comes to freedoms) very dangerous.

And when it comes to your idea that everyone will have everything they want- that makes no sense and is impossible. Economics looks at the distribution of limited resources. The Earth has limited resources. Everyone can't have everything they want.
myp is offline  
Old October 13th, 2011, 12:24 PM   #16
Senator
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 758

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
It would be an economy in which everything was provided as needed but that would require eliminating the worker (otherwise the need for paychecks would keep the need for money) However doing this would, until the new economic model was fully implemented, result in the worse economic depression in history which is why I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

In this model someone who needed to fly would just hop on the plane, someone who needed house would just move into the 1st empty house that they liked, etc. The lack of money would mean no production costs and the lack of workers would mean no wages to pay and no need to give anyone a day off. It would be a matter of logistics rather then capital (and logistics) to keep the economy going and logistics is a far more stable foundation for an economy then capital that can gain and lose value for any number of reasons outside any 1 person's control.
So if I want a diamond watch, I just pop over to Cartier's and pick it up? If I want a Rolls Royce, I go to the showroom and say I'll take the silver one?
Patrick is offline  
Old October 13th, 2011, 12:34 PM   #17
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
So if I want a diamond watch, I just pop over to Cartier's and pick it up? If I want a Rolls Royce, I go to the showroom and say I'll take the silver one?
Can you pick me up one of each too while you're out?
myp is offline  
Old October 13th, 2011, 01:02 PM   #18
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Been reading Fresco lately or something? A completely automated economy is not currently possible. There are many services that machines cannot do at least until you invent advanced AI. Things like consulting and analyzing are one- humans can often do those things much better than current computers. Then you have innovation and experimentation/studies which robots can't do.

Arguably, you will never have a completely automated economy because there are some jobs (for example prostitution) that require humans and any perfect substitute that is man-made will be a human.

All that aside, who do you think will control these machines, etc.? It is logistically not viable and politically (when it comes to freedoms) very dangerous.

And when it comes to your idea that everyone will have everything they want- that makes no sense and is impossible. Economics looks at the distribution of limited resources. The Earth has limited resources. Everyone can't have everything they want.
We're about a decade from computers smarter then us and factories, mines, etc. can and are already be automated but unions, for obvious reasons, hold it up as best they can.
David is offline  
Old October 13th, 2011, 01:07 PM   #19
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,664

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
So if I want a diamond watch, I just pop over to Cartier's and pick it up? If I want a Rolls Royce, I go to the showroom and say I'll take the silver one?
Why would you want a piece of graphite? You can get a 24k diamond for about $300, the big ticket rocks have their price artificially inflated by the demand cartel. Piratically speaking diamonds are good for anything other the industrial uses. As for the car, you could do better for cheaper by just building your own, you're paying for the name.
David is offline  
Old October 13th, 2011, 01:10 PM   #20
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: US
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
We're about a decade from computers smarter then us and factories, mines, etc. can and are already be automated but unions, for obvious reasons, hold it up as best they can.
I don't know where you are getting that decade figure from- source?

Either way, you still haven't addressed most of my points- sure physically laborious jobs are going away, but what about all the other jobs. The jobs that require thinking- the innovation, etc.?

You always seem to make these grand claims and then when I bring up problems in it you give a generic response that usually doesn't address most or even any of my points. Do you actually have answers to these questions and just don't feel like typing or are you just ignoring them and living in a falsely ideological mindset?
myp is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Government and Politics

Tags
41 or 51 , approval or disapproval , gallup , obama



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama Literary Agent Says Obama Born in Kenya Jack Fate Current Events 7 June 24th, 2012 10:21 AM
Obama's Approval Plunges Below Worst-Ever President Carter CatholicCrusader Government and Politics 1 December 1st, 2011 06:17 AM
Obama approval dropping like a rock Patrick Government and Politics 11 September 3rd, 2011 01:52 AM
High approval ratings for Obama omej Current Events 2 January 24th, 2009 09:24 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.