iawai: Biological Ali: iawai: And more importantly - if these were REALLY valuable services that businesses needed to make a profit, why do we need to socialize them again? Shouldn't this be an argument for privatization of the roads/schools/police/fire?

I was considering doing a point-by-point rebuttal of that post, but after reading this bit, I get the feeling that you might just be having a bit of fun there.

Totally serious, but having fun doing it.

If you're serious, the following links should resolve most of the dilemmas you think you've spotted:

Public good

Collective action problem

tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: LOOK! She now has 4x as much money as Brown!!!
whoa, she is going to kill Brown in ads volume because she has 4x as much money.

you sound rather desperate.

you say that a lot about people who point out the truth. why is that?

No, no, this time he's right. You *do* sound rather desperate.

90% of the GOP cheerleaders in an economics thread will fail to get the right answer for the same reason.

They NEVER understand externalities. I think they just either didn't make it to the third week of class or they think that economics is by nature all individualist and bootstrappy so they just don't like the notion and ignore it.

Weaver95: Hydra: They all eminate from the same central philosophy that so many Farkers here subscribe to: that more top-down solutions imposed by central planners in government bureaucracies can solve the economic malaise that has been plaguing us since the onset of the financial crisis. Exhibit A.

there's an entire universe of false assumptions in this statement alone....

No, there isn't. Let me break that statement down:

"central philosophy that so many Farkers here subscribe to"

Most Farkers are self-described "liberals" in the American sense of the word (drawing a distinction between the modern definition and the classical definition of the term). Modern-day liberals get most of their economic philosophy from the Keynesian school. This school of thought finds itself right at home within the Progressive movement - which many Democrats would proudly call themselves.

"top-down solutions imposed by central planners in government bureaucracies"

Top-down solutions - by their very nature of being "top-down" - are imposed by central planners through the government bureaucracies that are established to regulate/control the various industries they're dictated to by legislation. These are solutions right in line with Keynesian and Progressive thinking, which are largely embraced by a majority of Farkers.

"...can solve the economic malaise that has been plaguing us since the onset of the financial crisis"

The "economic malaise" to which I referred is, of course, the slow growth and relatively high unemployment that we're currently experiencing. We MUST understand what caused the crisis in the first place - intervention in the markets by various government institutions (the Federal Reserve, Fannie/Freddie, FDIC, etc.) with power bought and given to the government by rent-seekers (Wall Street, corporations, ratings agencies, entrenched interests looking to solidify their positions in their respective markets, etc.). This didn't start only 30 years ago like so many Farkers like to claim (since Reagan is always an easy boogeyman for them to use) - this shiat started much longer ago.

The problem is that Keynesians and Progressives alike both believe that ever larger and more intrusive interventions can fix the apparent problems of the business cycle (setting aside their inability to diagnose the problem in the first place). It's analogous to a drunk who passed out and woke up with a hangover - they look only at the symptoms (the pain from the hangover) and propose the same solutions over and over again: get ever more drunk. This can work for a while until the drunkard dies from alcohol poisoning (that is, a collapse of the currency used to "stimulate" economic growth).


so basically, you don't like Warren because she's...a democrat?

No; that's simply the way you seemed to misinterpret what I've said.

That seems to be the only reason you like her, though.

Hydra: Weaver95: Hydra: They all eminate from the same central philosophy that so many Farkers here subscribe to: that more top-down solutions imposed by central planners in government bureaucracies can solve the economic malaise that has been plaguing us since the onset of the financial crisis. Exhibit A.

there's an entire universe of false assumptions in this statement alone....

No, there isn't. Let me break that statement down:

"central philosophy that so many Farkers here subscribe to"

Most Farkers are self-described "liberals" in the American sense of the word (drawing a distinction between the modern definition and the classical definition of the term). Modern-day liberals get most of their economic philosophy from the Keynesian school. This school of thought finds itself right at home within the Progressive movement - which many Democrats would proudly call themselves.

"top-down solutions imposed by central planners in government bureaucracies"

Top-down solutions - by their very nature of being "top-down" - are imposed by central planners through the government bureaucracies that are established to regulate/control the various industries they're dictated to by legislation. These are solutions right in line with Keynesian and Progressive thinking, which are largely embraced by a majority of Farkers.

"...can solve the economic malaise that has been plaguing us since the onset of the financial crisis"

The "economic malaise" to which I referred is, of course, the slow growth and relatively high unemployment that we're currently experiencing. We MUST understand what caused the crisis in the first place - intervention in the markets by various government institutions (the Federal Reserve, Fannie/Freddie, FDIC, etc.) with power bought and given to the government by rent-seekers (Wall Street, corporations, ratings agencies, entrenched interests looking to solidify their positions in their respective markets, etc.). This didn't start only 30 years ago like so many Fa ...

This is what republicans actually think democrats believe

tenpoundsofcheese: Weaver95: tenpoundsofcheese: LOOK! She now has 4x as much money as Brown!!!
whoa, she is going to kill Brown in ads volume because she has 4x as much money.

you sound rather desperate.

you say that a lot about people who point out the truth. why is that?

because you sound very desperate to me. like...you don't want to even admit the possiblity Warrent could win. For example - by any standard you'd care to name, Warren is doing well. in about 3 months she'd rasied several million dollars. thats half of what Brown has in the bank. now - you might not like Warren very much...but it's certainly worth noting that she's raising a LOT of money very quickly. when someone raises a LOT of cash very fast, that indicates a lot of interest and support for their ideas. Again - no harm in acknowledging those facts.....but you don't even look at them. with you, it's always bad for 'the libruls'. nothing ever goes their way, they can never do anything right and they will always fail.

to me, that smacks of despiration. it says - no SCREAMS - insecurity. something for you to ponder anyways.

Hydra: Most Farkers are self-described "liberals" in the American sense of the word (drawing a distinction between the modern definition and the classical definition of the term). Modern-day liberals get most of their economic philosophy from the Keynesian school. This school of thought finds itself right at home within the Progressive movement - which many Democrats would proudly call themselves.

the only assumption you can make about farkers in the politics tab is that they're all nuts. Everything else is a guess. if you want to go around assuming that everyone here is a 'liberal' you go right ahead with your bad self...but you're going to make a LOT of mistakes.

tenpoundsofcheese: My comment was that the subtard lied in the headline, that is all. Or are you claiming that the subtard headline is accurate?

note the use of perjorative adjectives? that's not a question, that's an assault. you WANT to pick a fight, don't you? Because you don't want to discuss Warren or her policies....you have to derail the conversation before it starts.

hmm.

Tigger: 90% of the GOP cheerleaders in an economics thread will fail to get the right answer for the same reason.

They NEVER understand externalities. I think they just either didn't make it to the third week of class or they think that economics is by nature all individualist and bootstrappy so they just don't like the notion and ignore it.

Only 90%? Seems way too low, but I'll defer since I haven't been prowling this tab for some time.

tenpoundsofcheese: uhhh, this thread is about the money she raised in relationship to her opponent. (hint: you can learn that if you read the headline).

If you want to DERAIL the thread by talking about her policies, go ahead, but don't whine that someone is talking about what the FARKING headline is actually about.

And why did Warren raise so much money in such a short time...? Because people LIKE what she says. they like her policy positions. so a discussion of how she raises that cash is certainly valid.

Weaver95: the only assumption you can make about farkers in the politics tab is that they're all nuts. Everything else is a guess. if you want to go around assuming that everyone here is a 'liberal' you go right ahead with your bad self...but you're going to make a LOT of mistakes.

Good god, Weaver; it's not like you're new here or anything - this should be obvious to you. Do you not see how many ThinkProgress, DailyKOS, and TPM articles with favorable, non-trollish headlines are greenlit? Do you not notice the margin of pro-Obama vs. anti-Obama comments in the threads? By what margin do you think Obama would win if the election were held on Fark, even if you choose a moderate Republican like Romney? 20 points? 30? How much of a landslide would it be?

Do you REALLY think the general political leaning here is spread anywhere CLOSE to evenly between those on the "left" vs. those on the "right"? Good god, just look through any abortion thread.

tenpoundsofcheese: by the way, I take your answer and your lamely attempted deflection as a "no".
thank you.

if that's what lets you sleep at night, sure - you can believe as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast, if you try real hard.

Hydra: Good god, Weaver; it's not like you're new here or anything - this should be obvious to you. Do you not see how many ThinkProgress, DailyKOS, and TPM articles with favorable, non-trollish headlines are greenlit? Do you not notice the margin of pro-Obama vs. anti-Obama comments in the threads? By what margin do you think Obama would win if the election were held on Fark, even if you choose a moderate Republican like Romney? 20 points? 30? How much of a landslide would it be?

that might give you reason to assume that some of the mods and a couple admins are 'liberal' but even so, that's a stretch. remember - you and I don't 'greenlight' anything. that's the admins.

Do you REALLY think the general political leaning here is spread anywhere CLOSE to evenly between those on the "left" vs. those on the "right"? Good god, just look through any abortion thread.

given that fark isn't 'left leaning' any more than it's sane, i'd say you need to work on this theory some more. as for the rest of the country, I think most people are moderate and nowhere near the level of crazy you see among the inner circle of evangelical dominionist theocrats currently infesting the Republican party these days.

tenpoundsofcheese: Ignoring the lie of the headline is not valid.

you keep using that word....I don't think it means what you think it means.

tenpoundsofcheese: Ok, so what you are saying is the headline accurately reflects the story.

Got it.

Whew, you are the one who is desperate.

hey, you're the one going around desperately trying to neatly label the world and file it away into cubbyholes.

tenpoundsofcheese: Whew, you are the one who is desperate.

No, he's still got you there.

Lenny_da_Hog: tenpoundsofcheese: Whew, you are the one who is desperate.

No, he's still got you there.

a lot of our better known GOP shills are sounding more and more desperate these days.

iawai: The whole welfare economics model of neo-classical economics falls apart when you consider that people can freely work together to get "social benefits".

What people freely working together to get social benefits may look like.

iawai: Biological Ali: iawai: The whole welfare economics model of neo-classical economics falls apart when you consider that people can freely work together to get "social benefits".

What people freely working together to get social benefits may look like.

You misunderstand the word "freely."

Maybe in North Korea, sure. But in the US, people are free to choose their own government.

Guntram Shatterhand: That's because it's going to take a lot of mental gymnastics to justify Romney as the Chosen one. Supporting Romney isn't just about selling out their 'deeply held values' to vote out Obama, but admitting that the days of getting their asses kissed by the Party are now officially over. They will vote for Mormon Obama and LIKE it. They don't have the balls to make a stand.

In a weird way, this is even better than 2008: in order to 'win' they have to lose. And some of those tards are finally putting that together.

yeah, but by now you pretty much have to be a master level adept of doublethink to still vote Republican. do you think the rank and file GOP voters are finally reaching a point where they can't accept the cognitive dissonance any longer?

Fart_Machine: iawai: The public goods argument is just a way to excuse forcing other people to pay for what you want to see. Everything that is a public good has been historically provided by private actors, usually at a much lower cost and at a much higher quality than when those things are provided by the govt (see: lighthouses, roads, rail, light rail, public commons, et al).

Yes, I'm sure the interstate highway system was a far worse alternative than individual private entities putting together a patchwork quilt of roadways based on their areas of need. The railroads themselves were financed with government bonds. Likewise many of the technology we use today were initially researched and funded by government entities (everything from the internet to the GPS). It's fascinating to see people suddenly want to re-write history or return to the days when fire and police department services were only available to those who paid the most money.

==

The Pony Express from 1860 to 1861 was to prove that the Central Nevada Route across Nevada and Utah and the sections of the Oregon Trail across Wyoming and Nebraska was viable during the winter. With the American Civil War raging and a secessionist movement in California gaining steam, the apparent need for the railroad became more urgent.

In 1861 Curtis again introduced a bill to establish the railroad, but it did not pass. After the secession of the southern states, the House of Representatives on May 6, 1862, and the Senate on June 20 finally approved it. Lincoln signed it into law on July 1. The act established the two main lines-the Central Pacific from the west and the Union Pacific from the mid-west. Other rail lines were encouraged to build feeder lines.

Each was required to build only 50 miles (80 km) in the first year; after that, only 50 miles (80 km) more were required each year. Each railroad received $16,000 per mile ($9,940/km) built over an easy grade, $32,000 per mile ($19,880/km) in the high plains, and $48,000 per mile ($29,830/km) in the mountains. This payment was in the form of government bonds that the companies could resell. To allow the railroads to raise additional money Congress provided additional assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants of federal lands. They were granted right-of-ways of 400 feet (100 m) plus 10 square miles (26 km2) of land (ten sections) adjacent to the track for every mile of track built. To avoid a railroad monopoly on good land, the land was not given away in a continuous swath but in a "checkerboard" pattern leaving federal land in between that could be purchased from the government. The land grant railroads, receiving millions of acres of public land, sold bonds based on the value of the lands, sold the land to settlers, used the money to build their railroads, and contributed to a rapid settlement of the West. The total area of the land grants to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific was even larger than the area of the state of Texas: federal government land grants totaled about 5,261,000,000 square meters and state government land grants totaled about 1,983,000,000 square meters. The race was on to see which railroad company could build the longest section of track and receive the most land and government bonds.

The bonds and land grants have been frequently characterised as a government subsidy. However, historian Stephen Ambrose has argued against this since the companies repaid both the capital and interest. He also argues that although the companies were able to sell the land grants in the Sacramento Valley and Nebraska at "a good price", most of the land in Wyoming, Utah and Nevada was "virtually worthless".

Bootstrap.

jigger: Biological Ali: Maybe in North Korea, sure. But in the US, people are free to choose their own government.

[cache.ohinternet.com image 280x218]

Sure, I guess republicanism is kind of funny, but I don't think it's that funny.

Biological Ali: Maybe in North Korea, sure. But in the US, people are free to choose their own government.

That's not what his point was.

Government by its very nature coerces. There is nothing ever "free" about it. When you pay taxes, you do so at the point of a gun because if you don't, they'll take it away by force or throw you in jail.

In the private sector, you're not forced to use any particular producer. Producers don't have the legal authority to force people to use their services. When you walk into a sandwich shop, you're free to exchange your dollars for a sandwich or to walk right out and spend it on something else. Also, if the guy serving the sandwich does a bad job, you're not forced to do business with him.

The government takes your money by force to pay for a sandwich that goes to someone else, and the guy serving the sandwich can give out free sandwiches to other people who vote to keep him in his job to keep giving them free sandwiches - while making you pay for all of them. The best you can do is try to convince everyone else to give up their free sandwiches - good luck with that.


/the only difference between us and North Korea is that we get to vote on who holds the gun

Hydra: In the private sector, you're not forced to use any particular producer.

you haven't been paying very close attention to RIAA lately, have you? or cable companies...cell phone providers....

iawai: I can choose a govt that doesn't participate in the Drug War, aggressive wars overseas, participate in moral demagoguery upon it's own people, extorts and debases money without recourse, places burdensome regulations on small businesses that keep small businesses from competing, or showers benefits on powerful cronies?

That's news to me.

You being outvoted doesn't make it not free, any more so than you being on the minority side of company's shareholders meeting. Nobody promised you a world where everyone agrees with you. So if you're upset about the issues that you keep getting outvoted on, you should direct your ire to the proper place - towards the people who voted that way. Railing against the mere concept of government - as though it's some disembodied spectre that just magicked itself into existence - isn't going to get you anywhere.