Reforming Democracy

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:34 am

uglypeoplefucking wrote:i think the preponderance of evidence indicates that most advocates of affirmative action and hate crime legislation are in fact well-intentioned.
I agree, but that does not counter what is being said. Hitler was well-intentioned, while simultaneously making a power grab. If I believe that the best thing for everyone is that I'm in charge of their lives, it fits both qualifications...

Please note, I am not calling anyone Hitler, I am pointing out that tyranny does not require poor intentions.

Intentions mean jack-all, is a more accurate response.

Edit: Some other good examples; Jim Jones thought he was saving peoples souls. The Westboro Baptist Church does too.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Sat Aug 09, 2014 4:30 am

Uccisore wrote:Gib, looks like that present line of conversation ran its course. Now what?


Now we take a much needed break. :lol:

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Intentions mean jack-all, is a more accurate response.


Unless you're trying to decide how to deal with a person. You would deal with someone who's purposeful trying to lie and manipulate you much differently than you would someone who is simply mistaken or brainwashed.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:56 am

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The biggest missing measurement would be an over time aspect. While within a small amount of time yes, you might see a small lift in the wealth of the "poor" as money is given to them, and a reduction in the wealth of the "rich." Over time, the reduction in the amount of wealth of the rich results in less investment from the "rich," which ultimately, results in a reduction in the wealth of the "poor." We cannot predict what the future holds, regardless how much Marxists tell you otherwise. We are however, great at projecting our current problems into the future. When we limit the amount of money that can be made we limit the amount of money made. Money is knowledge transfer...


Time, yes--over time the system might degrade further. You talked about "investments" from the rich, and I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the picture it conjured in my mind was that as the economy drops overall (the red arrow), the rich will have less, which means when it comes around to next tax season, they can't be taxed as much, which means the poor don't get as much. Over a long period of time, the amount that the poor get could dwindle down to 0 (I suppose this is why Ucci's all right with temporary socialist intervention--if it worked).

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
gib wrote:What this seems to suggest is that even if the government imposes a tax rate of (say) 0.001% and gives the proceeds to even just one homeless shelter, the entire economy takes a hit and even the homeless end up worse off.

Yes, though few people would want such a thing. There are roads and Military to pay for.


Right, poor wording. Let's say (X + 0.0001)% where X goes to everything else (roads, military).

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
gib wrote:Now I know you said the government is exceptionally inefficient at reallocating resources appropriately, but I have to believe that some of our tax dollars do end up going to those who, in a socialist system, are deemed to require it. So I'm guessing the reality is probably something more like a mix of the two graphs above:

mixed market.jpg

This graph is little different than the first.


The difference is that in the first two graphs (the before and after graphs), the curve is rotated about the exact center (the rich are taxed the most so they go down, the poor get those taxes in the form of social aid so they go up, thus the curve rotates--i.e. it flattens). In the "mixed" graph which you're questioning, I did the same thing except dropped the "after" graph by a little in addition to rotating it (that's what the red arrow represents). Note that the two graphs cross near the lower left, not the center--because it's dropped.

Rotation without dropping (first 2 graphs in last post):

overlapped.jpg
overlapped.jpg (44.28 KiB) Viewed 2503 times


Rotation plus small drop:

mixed market.jpg
mixed market.jpg (48.94 KiB) Viewed 2503 times


Rotation plus huge drop:

poor get poorer.jpg
poor get poorer.jpg (46.21 KiB) Viewed 2503 times


What I was trying to convey with this is that even if the economy as a whole drops, the poor may still get something via social aid. It all depends on how much money the poor can get, and at what rate, balanced with how badly the economy drops due to the damaging effects of socialism. In the last graph above, for example, I tried to render a picture of what would happen if the damage to the economy was so severe that even the tax dollars that are supposed to go to the poor isn't enough--the poor get poorer even then.

But you were right above--the effects of time are not taken into consideration with these graphs.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Yes, I think we need a base line, as I think of it. But, I think there needs to be a consent fight on where that line is. With many things changing as equilibrium is sought (I am pro politics, they must happen, we must fight over these things, true piece can never be reached). The problem is, we have never been temporary on any of these things. They have never been given some sort of kick start, then allowed to drop. Instead they become "rights" that people fight tooth and nail to keep going... See Affirmative Action.


Right, and it's obvious why if you think about it. In order to be in constant battle, you have to have two factions against each other, one saying "we need to draw the line here," the other saying "no, we need to draw the line here." In other words, where ever that point of equilibrium is supposed to be, neither faction is going to agree on it. So you must have one faction pushing to have the line farther to the right than it should be and the other pushing to have the line farther to the left than it should be--the equilibrium coming about in virtue of these two opposing force balancing each other. But when they become imbalanced, who's going to referee? Who's going to blow the whistle and say "Woaw, guys, we're missing the mark!" Both factions are going to disagree as that "mark" isn't where either faction thinks it should be.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:(I still feel stupid for that sarcastic comment, a good example of how our assumptions are not always other peoples assumptions.)


Why would you feel stupid? I'm the one who didn't catch on.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Any proof that people starve?


I was still talking in the context of the pie metaphor (you know, starving from not enough pie?).

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The costs to produce drugs is a hard thing to pin down, yes, it may have only cost $.50 to make that pill when looking at what the pill is made up of, but did you include all of the research that was done? Not every pill is a success, did you include all of the costs of the failures? If we only look at the make up of the pill, and say it costs $.50, then only allow the maker to charge $.55 for each one. We are refusing to pay the costs of making the pill. This results in a shortage, as no one is making money, making that pill. It is like looking at a chair, knowing that it is only $15 worth of wood, and refusing to pay the $75 that the maker has put on it, even though we have no idea the skill level of the maker or the amount of time going into the chair, or the costs of the machines used to make it, we only know the cost of the wood... If the government put a price limit on chair to $16, the result would be no one would make good chairs.

So the result is either 1) people stop producing drugs, or 2) people start producing shitty drugs (most likely both, I'm guessing).

When Canada put the price limit on medicine, so that no one gets put out in the cold (which were your words at the time), the result is that Americans paid the difference, and Americans stood out in the cold, so that Canada did not have too.

What do you mean "paid the difference"? You mean the US literally paid manufacturers in the drug industry the difference to cover their cost and keep them afloat?

If I get nothing else across to you, this would be my choice of things. Costs do not stop happening, just because we refuse to pay them. Instead, we are saying, these things are not good places to apply resources, and no one will apply resources to them. While we may not care much when it comes to chairs, medicine is a pretty big deal, especially new medicines.


Agreed.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It took me long enough to make it clear. :lol:


Hey, I'm a slow learner... and like I said, this is all new to me (I took one economics course in university, and my best friend and I spent half the time making fun of our professor instead of listening).

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The people in support of slavery were reduced in the amount of pro-slavery votes that they had because of it.


You mean if they forced their slaves to vote pro-slavery, don't you? Or were there slaves who felt comfortable in their enslavement and wanted it that way?

Thanks again for the Thomas Sowell videos. You aren't kidding--he really is a very interesting guy.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:33 am

gib wrote:Time, yes--over time the system might degrade further. You talked about "investments" from the rich, and I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the picture it conjured in my mind was that as the economy drops overall (the red arrow), the rich will have less, which means when it comes around to next tax season, they can't be taxed as much, which means the poor don't get as much. Over a long period of time, the amount that the poor get could dwindle down to 0 (I suppose this is why Ucci's all right with temporary socialist intervention--if it worked).
The richest people often don't "create" things, it is actually one of the arguments made by Marxists, and other leftists. That these people don't deserve to make money, because they don't "create" things. Instead they are investors. Putting their money into businesses, then taking a profit if the business succeeds, much like a bank loans money. Mit Romney made a lot of his money doing exactly that... Combined with other things... That is, he would give money to a company, often one that was going out of business. Mit and his company would come in, process numbers, and cut the extraneous costs, allowing the company to start being successful again.

This is why liberals were able to find people "fired" by him as he "down sized" the company. Often, these people would have lost their jobs anyway, it's just instead, everyone at the company would loose their job...

It's also why he stepped in to help with the Olympics in Salt Lake City, he was qualified... It is also why some people voted for him for president, despite other things he did (here I'm talking about me).

When taxes are taken from the rich, regardless of what is done with them, less of this money is then invested, simply because they have less. This results in less money being given to allow companies to succeed. Most companies need start up cash, particularly poor people companies. By limiting the amount of money the "rich" can keep, we also limit the amount of money invested in the poor...

Sadly, unlike this situation, were the poor own the money they make, minus the amount they owe to the "rich" we instead funnel it through the government, which takes its bit, then give it to the poor. It results in nothing being produced, nothing being earned. And, the poor don't really own the money, instead they must exchange it for their votes, and control from the government, by people, like Liz, and UPF who are only acting with positive interests.

I've said it before, I don't' believe in conspiracy theories. People don't know how to keep their mouths shut, (the old saying, three people can keep a secret if two are dead comes to mind) but that does not mean, enough miss informed people, with good intentions can't make singularly stupid decisions together. Funny enough, Men In Black (the movie) had a great line about this, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."



Ok, so maybe the lines about aliens makes it not quite right but the intention is right. ;-)

Millions of people live on this planet, and they each make millions of decisions every damn day. Those decisions cost, because everything costs, it is just the way of the world, if we lived in infinite abundance, we wouldn't have this problem. But we don't. Those decisions cost. Because costs are knowledge, people think that passing all the choices people make to experts in a guided government are going to be able to make those decisions better than the individuals without "all" the knowledge... But no one can know all the knowledge, it's just not possible, it's too much data. Deciding to eat cereal instead of eggs and bacon, because of time constants is an economic decision, attempting to pass that knowledge to a government entity, then back down to the individual is impossible... But that is what would have to happen for the Government to actually be more efficient. So, instead we must rely on every individual making decisions for themselves, so that their failure and success may indicate to other what the best way to do things is... Humans, and every other kind of animal, has been doing this for so long it's amazing...

This is one part of the problem with socialism, ignoring communism completely, socialism at its heart would allow humans to make those small decisions, but if a human becomes successful because of those decisions, the success is handed over to the government, who up to that point had no hand in the making of that success. By limiting the amount of success a person can achieve, results in a limitation on how much a person will achieve.

Yes, we can divert that success to failures, to keep people from falling down to far, which also reduces the cost of failure... Which means people are going to be more risky... Which may cause one to think, but then they take more risks... To which a reply of, but is that more successful? Sure, sometimes doing the dangerous stunt works out, think jack ass the tv show, it is a bunch of people taking risks in the name of being rich... And if they failed horribly, became maimed instead of becoming famous, then rich, they could just live off of the government... That is something socialism supports rather well...

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
gib wrote:What this seems to suggest is that even if the government imposes a tax rate of (say) 0.001% and gives the proceeds to even just one homeless shelter, the entire economy takes a hit and even the homeless end up worse off.

Yes, though few people would want such a thing. There are roads and Military to pay for.
Right, poor wording. Let's say (X + 0.0001)% where X goes to everything else (roads, military).
*Snort* Even here we must fight on how much to were.

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
gib wrote:Now I know you said the government is exceptionally inefficient at reallocating resources appropriately, but I have to believe that some of our tax dollars do end up going to those who, in a socialist system, are deemed to require it. So I'm guessing the reality is probably something more like a mix of the two graphs above:
This graph is little different than the first.
The difference is that in the first two graphs (the before and after graphs), the curve is rotated about the exact center (the rich are taxed the most so they go down, the poor get those taxes in the form of social aid so they go up, thus the curve rotates--i.e. it flattens). In the "mixed" graph which you're questioning, I did the same thing except dropped the "after" graph by a little in addition to rotating it (that's what the red arrow represents). Note that the two graphs cross near the lower left, not the center--because it's dropped.

What I was trying to convey with this is that even if the economy as a whole drops, the poor may still get something via social aid. It all depends on how much money the poor can get, and at what rate, balanced with how badly the economy drops due to the damaging effects of socialism. In the last graph above, for example, I tried to render a picture of what would happen if the damage to the economy was so severe that even the tax dollars that are supposed to go to the poor isn't enough--the poor get poorer even then.

But you were right above--the effects of time are not taken into consideration with these graphs.
If you take the point as arbitrary, based on random chance from when you making the chart, combined with a lack of real numbers, instead conveying an idea of what is going on, there is no difference...

I hate going back here, but, read, Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. You, by now, understand what I mean when I call him the man. He rights clearly and effectively. It might help get these thoughts across... and, I don't know that you care about this part, but he uses very little math. It is not super important to get how economics works across.

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Yes, I think we need a base line, as I think of it. But, I think there needs to be a consent fight on where that line is. With many things changing as equilibrium is sought (I am pro politics, they must happen, we must fight over these things, true piece can never be reached). The problem is, we have never been temporary on any of these things. They have never been given some sort of kick start, then allowed to drop. Instead they become "rights" that people fight tooth and nail to keep going... See Affirmative Action.
Right, and it's obvious why if you think about it. In order to be in constant battle, you have to have two factions against each other, one saying "we need to draw the line here," the other saying "no, we need to draw the line here." In other words, where ever that point of equilibrium is supposed to be, neither faction is going to agree on it. So you must have one faction pushing to have the line farther to the right than it should be and the other pushing to have the line farther to the left than it should be--the equilibrium coming about in virtue of these two opposing force balancing each other. But when they become imbalanced, who's going to referee? Who's going to blow the whistle and say "Woaw, guys, we're missing the mark!" Both factions are going to disagree as that "mark" isn't where either faction thinks it should be.
I don't want a referee, because I cannot trust that such a person would be impartial. I point to you, you started off, and very much still, support a socialist ideal, yet I don't imagine you see yourself as partial. How can you not be though? Name a person that not only has no opinion, but also has a deep understanding? I've floundered with getting these idea's across to you, and, we can both agree, you are at least in theory open to the idea's... But, what if we spend four years really smashing away at them, do you think you would come out the same?

It's the skeptic in me that causes me to be conservative, and when necessary, libertarian. My skeptic would not believe a person claiming to be a referee on anything this important.

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:(I still feel stupid for that sarcastic comment, a good example of how our assumptions are not always other peoples assumptions.)
Why would you feel stupid? I'm the one who didn't catch on.
I've said it before, sarcasm does not carry through in writing. I said it as an admonishment to someone playing stupid games with me... Then I turn around an assume that my sarcastic comment would carry across... It is stupid, I understand that.

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Any proof that people starve?
I was still talking in the context of the pie metaphor (you know, starving from not enough pie?).
mmmm Pie.

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The costs to produce drugs is a hard thing to pin down, yes, it may have only cost $.50 to make that pill when looking at what the pill is made up of, but did you include all of the research that was done? Not every pill is a success, did you include all of the costs of the failures? If we only look at the make up of the pill, and say it costs $.50, then only allow the maker to charge $.55 for each one. We are refusing to pay the costs of making the pill. This results in a shortage, as no one is making money, making that pill. It is like looking at a chair, knowing that it is only $15 worth of wood, and refusing to pay the $75 that the maker has put on it, even though we have no idea the skill level of the maker or the amount of time going into the chair, or the costs of the machines used to make it, we only know the cost of the wood... If the government put a price limit on chair to $16, the result would be no one would make good chairs.So the result is either 1) people stop producing drugs, or 2) people start producing shitty drugs (most likely both, I'm guessing).yeah, people are ass holes.

When Canada put the price limit on medicine, so that no one gets put out in the cold (which were your words at the time), the result is that Americans paid the difference, and Americans stood out in the cold, so that Canada did not have too.

What do you mean "paid the difference"? You mean the US literally paid manufacturers in the drug industry the difference to cover their cost and keep them afloat?Roughly, yes.

If I get nothing else across to you, this would be my choice of things. Costs do not stop happening, just because we refuse to pay them. Instead, we are saying, these things are not good places to apply resources, and no one will apply resources to them. While we may not care much when it comes to chairs, medicine is a pretty big deal, especially new medicines.
Agreed.
Sweden has been having a big scare about the limited amount of new drugs being produced, in Sweden, despite the amount of money the put towards it.

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It took me long enough to make it clear. :lol:


Hey, I'm a slow learner... and like I said, this is all new to me (I took one economics course in university, and my best friend and I spent half the time making fun of our professor instead of listening).
My last economics class I spent writing a role-playing game... I passed it without needing to take the final... I think I was one of two...

To be fair to everyone else, at that point I had started obsessing about economics after a bad Macroeconomics teacher made me wonder what I was missing, that and I heard Thomas Sowell speak for the first time...

It'd be like giving a teenager a test on being depressed...

gib wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The people in support of slavery were reduced in the amount of pro-slavery votes that they had because of it.
You mean if they forced their slaves to vote pro-slavery, don't you?
*Representative government.* The number of people in an area mattered for how many people got to be in the House of Representatives representing each group. The pro-slavery people wanted each slave to count as a full person, so that they could have more representatives. Anti-slavery people disagreed... 3/5th's for all its stupidity is better than the full amount.

gib wrote: Or were there slaves who felt comfortable in their enslavement and wanted it that way?
I have trouble believing anyone wants to be a slave, yet, people accept worse exchanges... Leading me to believe people want to feel safe, more than free... Not that I would give anyone a choice.

gib wrote:Thanks again for the Thomas Sowell videos. You aren't kidding--he really is a very interesting guy.
He is amazing. His writing is as good as his speaking... If only because he can provide more evidence to back up what can effectively only be rhetoric when speaking.

“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Sat Aug 09, 2014 1:35 pm

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
uglypeoplefucking wrote:i think the preponderance of evidence indicates that most advocates of affirmative action and hate crime legislation are in fact well-intentioned.
I agree, but that does not counter what is being said. Hitler was well-intentioned, while simultaneously making a power grab. If I believe that the best thing for everyone is that I'm in charge of their lives, it fits both qualifications...

Please note, I am not calling anyone Hitler, I am pointing out that tyranny does not require poor intentions.

Intentions mean jack-all, is a more accurate response.

Edit: Some other good examples; Jim Jones thought he was saving peoples souls. The Westboro Baptist Church does too.


Yeah i understand that - but what i'm saying is that people actually think affirmative action helps minorities and hate speech legislation protects them. For the most part people who support such things believe that they are doing right by minorities - and i would also add most of them are not Marxists and probably have never read him anymore than i have. So, support for affirmative action and hate speech laws is not the result of a conscious cynical decision by a bunch of Marxists to surreptitiously outlaw conservative viewpoints and buy minority votes, rather it's a decision by some people to support things that they think will help others. That doesn't speak in favor of affirmative action or hate speech laws, but it does defend their supporters from the characterization being offered here.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Sat Aug 09, 2014 2:45 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Yeah i understand that - but what i'm saying is that people actually think affirmative action helps minorities and hate speech legislation protects them. For the most part people who support such things believe that they are doing right by minorities - and i would also add most of them are not Marxists and probably have never read him anymore than i have. So, support for affirmative action and hate speech laws is not the result of a conscious cynical decision by a bunch of Marxists to surreptitiously outlaw conservative viewpoints and buy minority votes, rather it's a decision by some people to support things that they think will help others. That doesn't speak in favor of affirmative action or hate speech laws, but it does defend their supporters from the characterization being offered here.
I can accept that.
But is that enough (not my acceptance, the defense), if the consequences are the same, even if they are on the up and up? The "bad" policies supporters gain more power, allowing more "bad" policies?

It is one reason I do not support the increase in government, even in the name of goodness, regardless, power is being handed to people with very poor track records of doing anything well. Like handing Michael Bay a beloved franchise... Nothing promotes the idea that it'll be good... (GOD DAMN IT!!! :angry-cussingblack: :angry-banghead: ... Though I suppose because it is Bay, :angry-steamingears: is more accurate.)

Even if there was absolute proof that socialism works, that a single entity could guide us to a "better place for all"/Utopia, I'd still have trouble believing our government should be the one doing it. The truth is, this is one of many reasons why, Communism fails, and will continue to fail. Why Socialism is just failure light...
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Uccisore » Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:27 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Uccisore wrote:Yeah dude, clearly since you, a liberal, aren't in favor of affirmative action, that demonstrates that the liberals that keep it in place aren't doing it to manipulate the minority vote. What was I thinking. Clearly they are in favor of institutionalized racism for the good of all of us! Hate crime legislation is the same way. I'm glad you aren't in favor of it, but that doesn't change the fact that those that are, are Marxists pushing for authoritarian control over what politcal views are allowed to be expressed.


i think the preponderance of evidence indicates that most advocates of affirmative action and hate crime legislation are in fact well-intentioned.


Yes, making sure the DNC has a sizable minority voting bloc for generations to come, and restricting the political speech of opponents ARE good intentions for these people. It's not like they're trying to blow up the Moon or something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:28 pm

Eric,

Thanks for clarifying what you mean by the "investments" of the rich (I didn't post the whole quote here--trying to save space). It sounds as though you and I have roughly the same concept: socialism results in the tax dollars of the rich, which would otherwise be invested more wisely, efficiently, and directly into problems that actually need it, being diverted towards ends and causes that are much less wise, more inefficient, and possibly even towards problems of socialism's own making.

So socialism's bad, is what I'm getting.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:If you take the point as arbitrary, based on random chance from when you making the chart, combined with a lack of real numbers, instead conveying an idea of what is going on, there is no difference...

I hate going back here, but, read, Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. You, by now, understand what I mean when I call him the man. He rights clearly and effectively. It might help get these thoughts across... and, I don't know that you care about this part, but he uses very little math. It is not super important to get how economics works across.


Good. I'm a very visual person, not mathematical (hence the lack of numbers in the graph--well, there is 0th percentile and 100th percentile...)

I'm not sure what you were getting at before recommending Basic Economics, but I get the impression you don't quite understand where I'm going with the graphs. I ask you questions--sometimes technical, sometimes quite detailed--I might pursue a tangent of questioning that probably seems irrelevant to you or to miss the point--I sometimes whip up graphs to get the point across; your answers to these questions help me clarify the concepts you're trying to convey to me. Your answer to my current question (to which I needed the graphs to make clear)--are there any circumstances or contexts in which socialism does raise the standards of living of those deemed to need social aid?--goes a long way towards helping me understanding your point of view in all its detail.

You seem to think I'm arguing against you--because I'm not embracing your main point (that socialism, in the end, is just bad)--but in fact, these arguments, these questions, and these challenges to your view, all serve to make your main point more clear to me--which is what I'm ultimately trying to do.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I don't want a referee...


Who said anything about wanting a referee?

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I point to you, you started off, and very much still, support a socialist ideal, yet I don't imagine you see yourself as partial. How can you not be though? Name a person that not only has no opinion, but also has a deep understanding? I've floundered with getting these idea's across to you, and, we can both agree, you are at least in theory open to the idea's... But, what if we spend four years really smashing away at them, do you think you would come out the same?


No, and I'm already very much persuaded (and inspired!) towards of your views (don't take my reluctance to reveal that to mean I'm not being won over). Do I support a socialist ideal? It would probably seem so to you. Someone striving to remain neutral or balanced (not always succeeding) would seem very much a leftist to me if I were standing far to the right. But I have been quite forthcoming about my sympathies for the left in this thread. I "came clean" here (scroll to the bottom), giving my reasons for being a leftist sympathizer (my Canadian identity and my humanism), and then drew back on that claim here, hoping not to be thrown into the "religious liberal" bin that Ucci has in mind. So there's no secrets here.

On the other hand, your efforts to explain to me the pitfalls and failures of socialism, along with the potentials and successes of the free market, are very much persuading me towards the right (so they're not in vein). They've even inspired me, as I said, as the vision you've conjured up--that of a society growing in wealth and the poor and needy being taken care of via charitable acts--seems almost like a utopia. It's an absolutely wonderful vision! It inspires incredible hope and awe! So as far as the economy goes, I'm more or less won over (which means I'm done with this line of questioning aimed at justifying socialism).

Where I still sympathize with the left is in my moral stance, which I explained here (scroll down to the last paragraph, the one before I address kowalskil), but from what you and Ucci have been telling me, this morality is more or less shared by both the left and the right (except maybe for the radicals on each end), so I don't see why that should be so treacherous.

It's very hard to stay neutral, Eric--though I denounced my identification with Ucci's religious liberals, I still find myself pulled to the left a little, and though I'm resisting (on purpose), I find myself very inspired by your amazing right-wing utopia--I'm pulled in both directions. But I'm going to continue to at least try to be as balanced as I can.

Pride in my Canadian identity is something I can swallow (and believe me, it has taken quite a beating), but I won't give up my humanism nor my morality.

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:What do you mean "paid the difference"? You mean the US literally paid manufacturers in the drug industry the difference to cover their cost and keep them afloat?Roughly, yes.


Then Canadians owe Americans a huge apology. I wanted to be sure I understood what I'd be apologizing for before doing so, but here goes:

*cough* *cough* (<-- clearing my throat)

ON BEHALF OF ALL CANADIANS, I, GIBRAN SHAH, A LOWLY CANADIAN CITIZEN, APOLOGIZE FOR THE PRICE CAPS WE--CANADIANS COLLECTIVELY--IMPOSED ON THE PRICE OF DRUGS IN OUR COUNTRY, THEREBY COMPELLING AMERICANS TO BAIL US OUT OF WHAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN A TOTAL MEDICAL DISASTER. THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THE ENORMOUS HIT AMERICANS TOOK TO THEIR ECONOMY IN THE NAME OF RESCUING THEIR FRIENDS TO THE NORTH FROM WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISASTROUS SELF-INDUCED MOVE OF SELF-DESTRUCTION BORNE OF SHEER IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY.

That's the best I can do. I know it's not enough, but if you want more, you're going to have to talk to my government. ;) :lol:

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:My last economics class I spent writing a role-playing game... I passed it without needing to take the final... I think I was one of two...


^^ I hate people like you :lol:

I haven't watched your latest Sowell video post yet, but I probably will sometime today.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:37 pm

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:
uglypeoplefucking wrote:Yeah i understand that - but what i'm saying is that people actually think affirmative action helps minorities and hate speech legislation protects them. For the most part people who support such things believe that they are doing right by minorities - and i would also add most of them are not Marxists and probably have never read him anymore than i have. So, support for affirmative action and hate speech laws is not the result of a conscious cynical decision by a bunch of Marxists to surreptitiously outlaw conservative viewpoints and buy minority votes, rather it's a decision by some people to support things that they think will help others. That doesn't speak in favor of affirmative action or hate speech laws, but it does defend their supporters from the characterization being offered here.
I can accept that.
But is that enough (not my acceptance, the defense), if the consequences are the same, even if they are on the up and up? The "bad" policies supporters gain more power, allowing more "bad" policies?


i don't offer it as a defense of bad policies. The consequences are what they are, unfortunately. i just want to point out that the policies themselves are not part of a cynical, conspiratorial scheme sponsored by stealth Marxists.

It is one reason I do not support the increase in government, even in the name of goodness, regardless, power is being handed to people with very poor track records of doing anything well. Like handing Michael Bay a beloved franchise... Nothing promotes the idea that it'll be good... (GOD DAMN IT!!! :angry-cussingblack: :angry-banghead: ... Though I suppose because it is Bay, :angry-steamingears: is more accurate.)


At the end of the day it all depends on taste and trust. A lot of people like Bay, and pay accordingly. A lot of people like public funding and trust the government in ways they don't trust private corporations, and so vote Democrat. i like public funding and believe government has greater accountability than the private sphere. i would much rather have an elected president, governor, mayor, whatehaveyou, making decisions for the nation, city, state, whatehaveyou, than a CEO with a golden parachute on his back who therefore has no accountability. Neither is ideal, of course, but there is no utopian solution, as you have said.

Even if there was absolute proof that socialism works, that a single entity could guide us to a "better place for all"/Utopia, I'd still have trouble believing our government should be the one doing it. The truth is, this is one of many reasons why, Communism fails, and will continue to fail. Why Socialism is just failure light...


That's what i would say to any pure communist or pure socialist if i ever met one in this country, which i never have. At least, not any over the age of 25 or so. But regardless, it's not about the shortcomings of government so much as it's about people not wanting and needing all the same things, and allowing each person to pursue their own desires even if they are different from ours. Total communism/socialism, like total libertarianism, can't happen effectively because human nature doesn't allow for it. We are both individuals AND products of society, and so the best policies will always be a mix of socialism and libertarianism. i think for the most part mainstream American conservatives (as opposed to American libertarians) and mainstream American liberals (as opposed to the socialists in academe) agree on that latter point, they simply disagree on what the ratio of socialism to libertarianism ought be. This is why i think socialism/communism as used in the rhetoric of the right-wing are just political strawmen - for the most part, there aren't many Americans that really WANT to see the US go entirely socialist, and even fewer who want to see it go entirely communist.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:32 pm

You guys have great timing ;)
(Reality isn't so kind. Everything doesn't work out the way you want it to. That's why...) As long as you don’t get your hopes up, you can take anything... You feel less pain.

(Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.)

What do you think? To tell you the truth... I worry too much about what others think of me. I hate that side of me... That's why I didn't want anyone to get to know me. I wanted to hide that side of myself. I hate it.
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:23 pm

When you guys killed me 2000 years ago; I might have went a bit overboard in trying to get your attention. There might be a few pleasant surprises in the near future.
(Reality isn't so kind. Everything doesn't work out the way you want it to. That's why...) As long as you don’t get your hopes up, you can take anything... You feel less pain.

(Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.)

What do you think? To tell you the truth... I worry too much about what others think of me. I hate that side of me... That's why I didn't want anyone to get to know me. I wanted to hide that side of myself. I hate it.
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:13 pm

Phred the Phukhead wrote:When you guys killed me 2000 years ago; I might have went a bit overboard in trying to get your attention. There might be a few pleasant surprises in the near future.


Okaaaay.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:13 am

Liz, I enjoyed this. It, in many ways, illustrates many of the things I've talked about, particularly the #1/last point.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:16 pm

“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby gib » Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Thanks for another great video, Eric.

So are we done with our exchange?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:02 pm

gib wrote:Thanks for another great video, Eric.

So are we done with our exchange?

Probably...
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Demography

Postby Arminius » Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:00 am

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:

If we really want to reform Western "societies" and economies, we must take into account the correlation between wealth, intelligence/knowledge and demography.

As I said: We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence).

What is said in that video is merely partly right because it suggests that the knowledge would depend of the so called "free market", and again: that is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a "free market". (2.) Knowledgte depends also on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.

When it comes to speak about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge for a "society" and its economy, then it is primarily important to do it (1.) in connection with culture, (2.) in connection with (the history of) culture, (3.) in connection with economy, .... That does not mean that economy is somehow unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological and cultural issue (remember and see above: "long time") - and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western "societies" -, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present (although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but will not have anymore in the future.

So first of all a "society" has to have people with knowledge and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with a trustful will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of this people because they have enriched the economy and via economy also the "society".

And b.t.w.: In order to get the final direction, this thread should not be called "Reforming Democracy", but "Reforming Demography" (see above). :)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby lizbethrose » Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:59 am

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Liz, I enjoyed this. It, in many ways, illustrates many of the things I've talked about, particularly the #1/last point.

I enjoyed it as well, Eric, although it really didn't add much to my knowledge base. Sorry. I'm not sure where I learned some of the things I know; perhaps from my study of General Semantics, or maybe it's because I'm an English/Theatre type and have a terrific imagination. (BYW, I thought my idea of color-coded food stamps was pretty innovative even if it was human engineering.)

And I'll be sorry when the thread peters out ultimately, as it appears to be doing. I don't think any of us has arrived at a solution--whether it's reforming democracy or demography. History has shown, imm, that theories may be fine--like Sowell's free-market theory--but they don't always work as they're supposed to. A large part of that is the nature of the human animal.

A free market economy would be great if it weren't for people; the same is true for limiting government's regulatory function--most people just don't let morality get in the way of expediency. Added to that is the drive for 'wealth', not as knowledge, but as evidenced by buying 'power.' Ask people what one thing would make them happiest--9 out of 10 will probably say, "I wish I had the money to . . ."

Corporations are no different. New drugs are developed all the time, for example, but prices for drugs don't go down--not even for drugs that have been on the market for decades. Generic drugs were supposed to be the answer, but the generic drug manufacturers went through a sort of ecological food chain eating frenzy. Little companies were eaten by bigger companies, which were then eaten by even larger companies--all the way up the chain until corporations absorbed them. Then the big guys fixed prices so as to be 'competitive'--with each other.

I could go on, but I won't bother. I'd only be repeating myself.

It's been. . .

Enjoy,

Liz :)
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Reforming Demography

Postby gib » Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:28 pm

Arminius wrote:What is said in that video is merely partly right because it suggests that the knowledge would depend of the so called "free market", and again: that is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a "free market". (2.) Knowledgte depends also on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.


I agree with you Arminius that culture is a very important factor to think about. I'm going to abstain from this thread for a few days, but when I get back I'd like to go into this.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Reforming Demography

Postby Arminius » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:31 pm

"Affirmative action" is racism and sexism, the increased form of racism.

"Affirmative action" has such results (for example):


                              ("SCUM" means Valerie Solanas' manifesto, "SCUM Manifesto". And it's evident what "#killallmen" means.)

And if you want to get of the top of racism and sexism, you only have to observe the white autoracism and male autosexism (the increased form of autracism), thus the autoracisms and autosexism of the male whites. Funny? No! Dangerous!


That "liberal" "professor" is white and male.

Do you have any question?
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:55 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:17 pm

Wrong thread...
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Reforming Demography

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:31 pm

Arminius wrote:If we really want to reform Western "societies" and economies, we must take into account the correlation between wealth, intelligence/knowledge and demography.

As I said: We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence).

What is said in that video is merely partly right because it suggests that the knowledge would depend of the so called "free market", and again: that is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a "free market". (2.) Knowledgte depends also on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.

When it comes to speak about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge for a "society" and its economy, then it is primarily important to do it (1.) in connection with culture, (2.) in connection with (the history of) culture, (3.) in connection with economy, .... That does not mean that economy is somehow unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological and cultural issue (remember and see above: "long time") - and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western "societies" -, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present (although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but will not have anymore in the future.

So first of all a "society" has to have people with knowledge and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with a trustful will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of this people because they have enriched the economy and via economy also the "society".

And b.t.w.: In order to get the final direction, this thread should not be called "Reforming Democracy", but "Reforming Demography" (see above). :)
I disagree with your conclusion. While I'll acknowledge that there is a correlation between Wealth and children produced by an individual, I do not think it amounts to anything significant. There is a larger correlation between not having children until marriage, instead of government limiting the amount of children a person can have, should we instead demand that they cannot have them until they are in a stable marriage? Or, should only the rich be allowed to reproduce, as they have more money to hand out to the children they have. Few would argue that Bill Gates should be so limited to two, he can hand out so much more to the two he has.

Or, could we instead stay the hell out of people's lives, stop assuming we know what is best based on our biases... That is the entirety of my argument through this thread... Really my argument to everything that gives more power to government. At the very, very least, because one day someone in the government is going to decide the thing you like to do is damaging to you, and that shouldn't be allowed. I bet I could find someone to argue that Philosophy boards are damaging to the participants.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Democracy

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:40 pm

lizbethrose wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Liz, I enjoyed this. It, in many ways, illustrates many of the things I've talked about, particularly the #1/last point.

I enjoyed it as well, Eric, although it really didn't add much to my knowledge base. Sorry. I'm not sure where I learned some of the things I know; perhaps from my study of General Semantics, or maybe it's because I'm an English/Theatre type and have a terrific imagination. (BYW, I thought my idea of color-coded food stamps was pretty innovative even if it was human engineering.)
I can accept all of that, even that the color-coded thing was clever, my problem is that it is human engineering. Which would be done by people, who suck.

lizbethrose wrote:And I'll be sorry when the thread peters out ultimately, as it appears to be doing. I don't think any of us has arrived at a solution--whether it's reforming democracy or demography. History has shown, imm, that theories may be fine--like Sowell's free-market theory--but they don't always work as they're supposed to. A large part of that is the nature of the human animal.
Not really Sowell's, it's been around for a long freaking time.

Adam Smith wrote a book about it a long time ago, "The Wealth of Nations." (1776)

lizbethrose wrote:A free market economy would be great if it weren't for people; the same is true for limiting government's regulatory function--most people just don't let morality get in the way of expediency. Added to that is the drive for 'wealth', not as knowledge, but as evidenced by buying 'power.' Ask people what one thing would make them happiest--9 out of 10 will probably say, "I wish I had the money to . . ."
But, in one, the people that suck only have the power to screw up their own lives. In the government run one, the people who suck are often in charge of everyone else.

lizbethrose wrote:Corporations are no different. New drugs are developed all the time, for example, but prices for drugs don't go down--not even for drugs that have been on the market for decades.
Prove it.

lizbethrose wrote:Generic drugs were supposed to be the answer, but the generic drug manufacturers went through a sort of ecological food chain eating frenzy. Little companies were eaten by bigger companies, which were then eaten by even larger companies--all the way up the chain until corporations absorbed them. Then the big guys fixed prices so as to be 'competitive'--with each other.
FIxed pricing has never been proved to happen in a significant way in a free market. It only happens when the government steps in and allows them to do so.

lizbethrose wrote:I could go on, but I won't bother. I'd only be repeating myself.
I know the feeling.

lizbethrose wrote:It's been. . .
Has it?

lizbethrose wrote:
Enjoy,
NEVER!

lizbethrose wrote:Liz :)

Me.
:banana-dance:
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Reforming Demography

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:06 am

Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Or, should only the rich be allowed to reproduce ....

No. As I already said (here, here, here, here), each human should have the right and the duty to reproduce himself / herself; that should and would lead to an ideal case with the reproduction rate 1. If someone wants to have more or less than one child, he or her would have to pay for it.

If the reproduction rate is higher than 1, it would be reduced soon because there are enough humans who don't want to reproduce themselves. If the reproduction rate is lower than 1, the state or a professionell corporation would have to add the reproduction rate by "reproduction managers" ("state mothers" or "professionell mothers") who are paid by those who don't want to reproduce themselves.

If we do not solve the demographic problem, we will get very much bigger problems!
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Reforming Demography

Postby Eric_The_Pipe » Fri Aug 15, 2014 5:46 am

Arminius wrote:
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Or, should only the rich be allowed to reproduce ....

No. As I already said (here, here, here, here), each human should have the right and the duty to reproduce himself / herself; that should and would lead to an ideal case with the reproduction rate 1. If someone wants to have more or less than one child, he or her would have to pay for it.

If the reproduction rate is higher than 1, it would be reduced soon because there are enough humans who don't want to reproduce themselves. If the reproduction rate is lower than 1, the state or a professional corporation would have to add the reproduction rate by "reproduction managers" ("state mothers" or "professional mothers") who are paid by those who don't want to reproduce themselves.

If we do not solve the demographic problem, we will get very much bigger problems!

I disagree.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell

"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas

The Newest EconPop: Economics of Demolition Man

The man, Thomas Sowell: Wealth, Poverty and Politics

Sowell's Writing
User avatar
Eric_The_Pipe
Thinker
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Colorado

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users