Regulation

[Amnesiac]

I have two questions, VT.

First, why don't you guys like talking about economics? I mean, seriously, every economics-related thread here in ROTW dies too quickly. I'm tired of seeing bullshit about ghosts and other not-really-debates here. It's time we talked about one of the most divisive and influential issues in American politics today: government regulation of the economy.

I'd like to know what you guys think of regulation. Do you support government-mandated healthcare? Any government healthcare plan at all? Government bailouts? Feel free to explain your position on how involved the government should be in the economy here.

[Iceman]

Bailouts = What the fuck America?

[Bluesman]

Bailouts are ridiculous... if you want my full explanation go to my thread on bailouts. Obamacare is also ridiculous... basically my views are that we need a smaller government, and we need a government that STAYS THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES, unless it is absolutely necessary to intervene.

[Amnesiac]

Bailouts = What the fuck America?

Bailouts are ridiculous... if you want my full explanation go to my thread on bailouts. Obamacare is also ridiculous... basically my views are that we need a smaller government, and we need a government that STAYS THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES, unless it is absolutely necessary to intervene.

I agree with both of you on 'Obamacare' (although I have a passionate hatred for people who make cheesy puns using Obama's name) and the bailouts.

However, you have to realize that "smaller government" isn't just an economic philosophy. It has to apply to social politics as well.

Also, I believe corporations should be banned from lobbying government officials to bias policies in their favor. This is part of my separation of government and the economy idea. Government shouldn't be mandating corporations, and corporations shouldn't be mandating the government.

The rule of law must be upheld, though. Regulations of stuff like food safety and the environment are essential for protecting the rights of the individual. However, regulating things like what can be broadcast on television, how healthcare companies run their own policies and what sex toys can be sold are all unnecessary. The economy, for the most part, is capable of regulating itself. However, there are exceptions.

[Korashk]

Government regulation of the economy is always bad. Any problem that the government "needs" to regulate the economy to fix can be traced back to previous regulation creating that problem in the first place.

[Iceman]

And the education committe is just fucked up. What are they trying to teach us anymore? Absolutetly nothing!

[Amnesiac]

Government regulation of the economy is always bad. Any problem that the government "needs" to regulate the economy to fix can be traced back to previous regulation creating that problem in the first place.

I guess. There is, however, a difference between regulation and upholding the rule of law.

And the education committe is just fucked up. What are they trying to teach us anymore? Absolutetly nothing!

Education in the United States is a complex issue. It's argued that we need public education to compete with other nations, which is true. However, the funding behind it is a bureaucratic nightmare. I do believe the Department of Education's funding needs to be expanded so that it can meet the demands of America's millions of schoolchildren. The education 'system' needs a complete reform to cut costs. And, of course, the authority of schools needs to be severely limited to avoid infringing on constitutional rights.

[Korashk]

I guess. There is, however, a difference between regulation and upholding the rule of law.
I know, punishing a company for releasing a harmful product is not economic regulation.

It's argued that we need public education to compete with other nations, which is true.
No it isn't, in a free market education would not only be cheaper, it would be of better quality. I probably don't need to explain the concept to you.

[Iceman]

I would rather read, A Communist Manifesto, than The Great Gatsby. I would rather learn about what really did happen, rather then what they want us to believe happened. I want to learn both sides of the story, not just our biased side.

[Amnesiac]

I know, punishing a company for releasing a harmful product is not economic regulation.

Indeed. Yet so many corporations consider it to be exactly that.


No it isn't, in a free market education would not only be cheaper, it would be of better quality. I probably don't need to explain the concept to you.

I can envision an America with a privatized education system, and it looks great. The problem is getting there. The U.S.'s public education system is enormous, as we all know; shutting it down would have an adverse effect on the economy since so many companies rely on it – textbook manufacturers, food distribution corporations, bus manufacturers, ect. Also, there's probably a severe lack of private schools to take in the millions of students that would need to enroll in one.

Obviously, shutting down public education would take years, if not decades. It would also require support from both parties, which is the exact opposite of the current situation – both parties support public education.

I would rather read, A Communist Manifesto, than The Great Gatsby. I would rather learn about what really did happen, rather then what they want us to believe happened. I want to learn both sides of the story, not just our biased side.

Indeed. Schools need to make education on economics more of a priority. Like the philosophy or not, The Communist Manifesto is one of the most important documents of the last 150 years.

[Iceman]

Exactly. I really wanted a dual-credit philosophy class at my high school but they don't have it. We need to be less concerned on passing TAKS, and learning every fucking detail of the english language, and more conerned on things that we will actually need, use, and put to use in the future.
I'm absolutely fed up with the older generations downing on the younger generations. It's like what the fuck, we don't want to be taught this kind of thing. And they say this country is going to doom because of us. But they are the ones teaching us, controlling us, and holding us back.

[Amnesiac]

Exactly. I really wanted a dual-credit philosophy class at my high school but they don't have it. We need to be less concerned on passing TAKS, and learning every fucking detail of the english language, and more conerned on things that we will actually need, use, and put to use in the future.
I'm absolutely fed up with the older generations downing on the younger generations. It's like what the fuck, we don't want to be taught this kind of thing. And they say this country is going to doom because of us. But they are the ones teaching us, controlling us, and holding us back.

I completely agree with you, especially about TAKS. However, I don't want to derail this thread into stuff about how corrupt and arbitrary the education system is, so I think you should make a separate thread about it.

If I were in control of the DOE I'd change so many things it isn't even funny.

[Iceman]

Well back to topic, healthcare is a blowoff. It's unnecessary, and cost way to much money

[Korashk]

Socko, you say "fuck" and its derivatives altogether too often. It's just off-putting.

@CA:
I do realize that the transition from controlled economy to a free market would be a long and arduous process. It's still something that needs to happen, and that is daunting.

[Amnesiac]

Well back to topic, healthcare is a blowoff. It's unnecessary, and cost way to much money

The problem I have with the healthcare legislation is that it's essentially the Democrats telling healthcare companies what they can and can't do. I mean, yes, there needs to be legislation protecting the rights of the individual, but we shouldn't be forcing people to buy health insurance nor should we be forcing healthcare companies to change their policies.

Any corporation will change its tactics if enough people complain. Government intervention is completely unnecessary.

@CA:
I do realize that the transition from controlled economy to a free market would be a long and arduous process. It's still something that needs to happen, and that is daunting.

The problem is that I don't see it ever happening, really. The powers enumerated by the Constitiution to the federal government concerning regulation will always be taken advantage of. The only possible way to really have smaller government is to elect libertarians to power. Unfortunately, too many people don't realize how good their policies really are.

[Iceman]

Socko, you say "fuck" and its derivatives altogether too often. It's just off-putting.

@CA:
I do realize that the transition from controlled economy to a free market would be a long and arduous process. It's still something that needs to happen, and that is daunting.

I said it three times. That is "altogether too often"? :no:

And yes, government intervention is uneeded.

[CaptainObvious]

Anyone who opposes the bailouts does not understand enough about the economy. The liquidity crisis in which America found itself was damaging enough - had it become a liquidity freeze, the results would have been disastrous. Does bailing out the banks feel right? Not at all. But you're willing to rape the economy for the moral high ground?

Obamacare isn't super, but it's better than what existed before. America really just needs to stop fucking around and put together the kind of multi-pronged public health effort (including a public option) that it needs to reverse the obscene spiraling of health care costs.

[Iceman]

Anyone who opposes the bailouts does not understand enough about the economy. The liquidity crisis in which America found itself was damaging enough - had it become a liquidity freeze, the results would have been disastrous. Does bailing out the banks feel right? Not at all. But you're willing to rape the economy for the moral high ground?

What would happen if that bank failed though?



America really just needs to stop fucking

I wouldn't say that I got in trouble :P

[CaptainObvious]

What would happen if that bank failed though

The massive web of counterparty credit relationships between the largest Wall Street banks and myriad other businesses in the US and abroad would have dragged the economy to its knees and we'd be far, far worse off today than we are as is.

[Iceman]

But like Chevy. Did that bailout have a point?

[Korashk]

I said it three times. That is "altogether too often"? :no:
It's not just this thread.

Anyone who opposes the bailouts does not understand enough about the economy. The liquidity crisis in which America found itself was damaging enough - had it become a liquidity freeze, the results would have been disastrous. Does bailing out the banks feel right? Not at all. But you're willing to rape the economy for the moral high ground?
I opposed them ideologically, but practically I knew that they were "needed" to fix a problem that was the government's fault in the first place.

Obamacare isn't super, but it's better than what existed before. America really just needs to stop fucking around and put together the kind of multi-pronged public health effort (including a public option) that it needs to reverse the obscene spiraling of health care costs.
Costs wouldn't be spiraling if there was actually competition in the market. Most people don't even participate in that market because the get their coverage through their employer.

[Iceman]

Blah. Watch a movie every now in then. I don't say it that much, like you are trying to frame me for.

Commander: Where is the thread where you discussed the natural selection of bailouts?

[Amnesiac]

Sorry I'm late, I have debate cases to write :P

The massive web of counterparty credit relationships between the largest Wall Street banks and myriad other businesses in the US and abroad would have dragged the economy to its knees and we'd be far, far worse off today than we are as is.

Blah. Watch a movie every now in then. I don't say it that much, like you are trying to frame me for.

Commander: Where is the thread where you discussed the natural selection of bailouts?

Anyone who opposes the bailouts does not understand enough about the economy. The liquidity crisis in which America found itself was damaging enough - had it become a liquidity freeze, the results would have been disastrous. Does bailing out the banks feel right? Not at all. But you're willing to rape the economy for the moral high ground?

I reluctantly agree that the bailouts (not for the car companies, but for the banks) were an unfortunate necessity. In the economy, there's exceptions to every ideology.

Obamacare isn't super, but it's better than what existed before. America really just needs to stop fucking around and put together the kind of multi-pronged public health effort (including a public option) that it needs to reverse the obscene spiraling of health care costs.

The only public healthcare option I'd support is one that would encourage competition. Preferably, I wouldn't like one at all – deregulation can lower costs, like what happened with the airline industry.

Blah. Watch a movie every now in then. I don't say it that much, like you are trying to frame me for.

Commander: Where is the thread where you discussed the natural selection of bailouts?

For once, I agree with you. When a company goes under, it's natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection). The economy is kind of like Darwin's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin) theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). The fittest survive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) and pass on their 'traits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait_(biology))' (or business practices) that are more successful, while the weaker die off.

It's not the government's job to bail out companies that weren't good enough.

[Peace God]

First, why don't you guys like talking about economics?
I actually really dislike discussing/thinking about economics...there's too much guesswork and gray areas, plus I barely have any knowledge on the subject. That being said, I do try to contribute to a discussion if I have something worth saying.

[Amnesiac]

I actually really dislike discussing/thinking about economics...there's too much guesswork and gray areas, plus I barely have any knowledge on the subject. That being said, I do try to contribute to a discussion if I have something worth saying.

Yeah, I guess it's not as exciting, but it's a hell of a lot better than what I've seen recently here on ROTW. Still, understanding economics isn't that difficult, and it's a huge issue. But yeah, it's up to you if you wanna debate it.

[The Dark Lord]

No it isn't, in a free market education would not only be cheaper, it would be of better quality. I probably don't need to explain the concept to you.

The problem with free market education is that it would create a two-tier nation with the middle class getting education, college/university education and the well paid jobs, whilst the poor get poorer and thicker. This, I believe, would have an adverse affect on the economy as many people would be too poorly educated to find paid work.

With regards to state funded healthcare (or Obamacare), in Britain we have the national health service (NHS) which is tax payer funded, although some areas are privatised, and it's ineffecient, unhelpful and expensive. This is the problem with state funded programs, they don't represent value for money in many cases.

Finally the government needed to bailout the banks. Without the bailout millions of people would have lost their savings and we would have been in a depression, not a recession. The government needs to tackle their deficit, Reagan legitimised the deficit in the 1980s and America can no longer cope with large budget deficits.

[Perseus]

I would rather read, A Communist Manifesto, than The Great Gatsby. I would rather learn about what really did happen, rather then what they want us to believe happened. I want to learn both sides of the story, not just our biased side.

I'd rather read The Great Gatsby because it's actually interesting. I don't want to read some book about economics in literature class. I want to read literature that has a story and complex characters, though I'm not saying The Great Gatsby has either of those, because it really doesn't, but I like the book.

The thing about bailouts for me is I'd rather have the government stepping in and saving corporations, most notably banks, since if they banks go out of business, you, the avergae day person, are pretty much losing money, which is not good. I'd rather not have tons of corporations and banks fail, which leads into a depression, such as the Great Depression and the Panic of 1893 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893). Bailouts and stimulus packages I'm all for. Though, I don't know anything about economics since I'm not an economist.

[Bluesman]

I would rather read, A Communist Manifesto, than The Great Gatsby. I would rather learn about what really did happen, rather then what they want us to believe happened. I want to learn both sides of the story, not just our biased side.

I'm pretty late replying to this, but I agree completely. Take WWII for example. The curriculum completely excludes anything terrible that the US did. Take putting Asians in prison camps... not a word about that. The US education system is completely biased for the US. Don't get me wrong, I am a patriot and I love this country, but we have done terrible things, and students MUST hear about them as well as the good that we have done.

[Perseus]

I'm pretty late replying to this, but I agree completely. Take WWII for example. The curriculum completely excludes anything terrible that the US did. Take putting Asians in prison camps... not a word about that. The US education system is completely biased for the US. Don't get me wrong, I am a patriot and I love this country, but we have done terrible things, and students MUST hear about them as well as the good that we have done.

Actually, I learned that in school in like sixth grade or eighth grade. I don't remember which, but I know I learned it in school.

[Bluesman]

Actually, I learned that in school in like sixth grade or eighth grade. I don't remember which, but I know I learned it in school.

It was in the reading material, but it was never taught. If you cared to read the whole textbook, you could find out, but it wasn't in the curriculum. Meh... probably not that big of a deal, but stuff like that just pisses me off. We can't go teaching people that the US is the world's diamond in the rough, when in reality we have done some pretty horrible things too.

[Korashk]

The problem with free market education is that it would create a two-tier nation with the middle class getting education, college/university education and the well paid jobs, whilst the poor get poorer and thicker. This, I believe, would have an adverse affect on the economy as many people would be too poorly educated to find paid work.
While the idea of a free market educational system is one that only exists in theory, according to that theory are wrong in thinking that only the middle class/rich would be ale to afford the higher forms. You're also wrong in thinking that the poor get poorer. Capitalism is not a zero-sum system. EVERYBODY gets richer, not just the already rich. All you have to do is compare income levels of various countries to find this out.

I'd rather be poor in Hong Kong than middle class in China.

This is the problem with state funded programs, they don't represent value for money in many cases.
That's why they should be done away with.

[Perseus]

It was in the reading material, but it was never taught. If you cared to read the whole textbook, you could find out, but it wasn't in the curriculum. Meh... probably not that big of a deal, but stuff like that just pisses me off. We can't go teaching people that the US is the world's diamond in the rough, when in reality we have done some pretty horrible things too.

No. I was taught that here in Georgia is what I'm saying. Different teachers teach different things because of different standards.

[Bluesman]

No. I was taught that here in Georgia is what I'm saying. Different teachers teach different things because of different standards.

That's true... there are many times I wished I lived in the south. It seems like a much more "no BS" place. The farthest south I've ever gotten is Beaufort, SC, and it was a much friendlier, happier place than PA. Oh well...