Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 28

 

2011-01-17 13:12:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."

"The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else." "

'When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.

Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.
Yeah, no kidding....  Apparently, only the private sector has the ability to benefit society by "spreading the wealth."

Another humorous aspect to all this is that a lot of America's rise to prominence after WW2 was built on massive infrastructure improvements from public spending -- like the interstate highway system.  If we had taken the advice of Austrian school economists back then, our highway system would be much smaller in scope, and our growth would have been much more limited as a result.
the private sector benefits society by providing jobs so people can earn a living, not by throwing away all of their profits.

infrastructure is a function of govt. and tax should be collected for, ( which I covered). Thanks for agreeing with me Turquoise.
2011-01-17 13:13:00
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5435|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."

"The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else." "

'When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.

Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.
Which has nothing to do with what I have been saying. Whatever the govt. does, whatever it spends, however it regulates or legislates it does so with money generated by someone other than itself. Period.
That's a bit simple even for you.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-01-17 13:13:47)

2011-01-17 13:29:44
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6942|United States of America

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.

Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.
Which has nothing to do with what I have been saying. Whatever the govt. does, whatever it spends, however it regulates or legislates it does so with money generated by someone other than itself. Period.
That's a bit simple even for you.
Doesn't the government print (i.e. generate) that money?
2011-01-17 13:33:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.

Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.
Which has nothing to do with what I have been saying. Whatever the govt. does, whatever it spends, however it regulates or legislates it does so with money generated by someone other than itself. Period.
That's a bit simple even for you.
That is not an argument against what I have been saying.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-17 13:33:43)

2011-01-17 13:33:57
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6754

lowing, i always thought of you as conservative, you seem to be anarchist lately. you do agree the gov.'t provides services that only the gov.'t could provide, amirite?
2011-01-17 13:41:04
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

burnzz wrote:

lowing, i always thought of you as conservative, you seem to be anarchist lately. you do agree the gov.'t provides services that only the gov.'t could provide, amirite?
You are correct, however it provides those services by redistributing wealth not by generating it.
2011-01-17 13:48:23
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5435|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:


Which has nothing to do with what I have been saying. Whatever the govt. does, whatever it spends, however it regulates or legislates it does so with money generated by someone other than itself. Period.
That's a bit simple even for you.
That is not an argument against what I have been saying.
That's right, it's just simple truth.
2011-01-17 13:50:45
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:


That's a bit simple even for you.
That is not an argument against what I have been saying.
That's right, it's just simple truth.
if it is so simple show me where I am wrong, instead of just saying it.
2011-01-17 13:54:21
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5435|Sydney
Why? You never listen to what anyone has to say anyway.
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
2011-01-17 13:58:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Jaekus wrote:

Why? You never listen to what anyone has to say anyway.
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
lol, I always listen, don't confuse disagreeing with not listening.

Now then. show me where the govt. generates wealth on its own without taking money from anyone.
2011-01-17 14:05:39
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5435|Sydney
Show me how you generate money without taking it from anyone (ie. employer, or if a business, customers).
2011-01-17 14:07:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Jaekus wrote:

Show me how you generate money without taking it from anyone (ie. employer, or if a business, customers).
I don't generate money, I earn it, in trade for my labor, in the context that you speak. I generate it by taking the money I EARN and invest it.

Your turn.
2011-01-17 14:10:42
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5435|Sydney
If you can't see how the government genrerates money I suggest you go back to high school.
2011-01-17 14:12:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6662|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.

Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.
Yeah, no kidding....  Apparently, only the private sector has the ability to benefit society by "spreading the wealth."

Another humorous aspect to all this is that a lot of America's rise to prominence after WW2 was built on massive infrastructure improvements from public spending -- like the interstate highway system.  If we had taken the advice of Austrian school economists back then, our highway system would be much smaller in scope, and our growth would have been much more limited as a result.
the private sector benefits society by providing jobs so people can earn a living, not by throwing away all of their profits.

infrastructure is a function of govt. and tax should be collected for, ( which I covered). Thanks for agreeing with me Turquoise.
Well, the problem is that certain infrastructures seem not to be regarded as such.  For example, there seems to be a combination of lousy management and vastly disparate funding in our education systems -- an infrastructure that some people seem keen on completely privatizing.

Most First World countries also view an NHS as a vital infrastructure, but apparently, we don't -- despite having a population that is becoming increasingly dependent on Medicare.

In short, American politics seem to be dysfunctional on recognizing what is an infrastructure and what isn't.
2011-01-17 14:13:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Jaekus wrote:

If you can't see how the government genrerates money I suggest you go back to high school.
lol again, a non-answer, answer.
2011-01-17 14:18:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Yeah, no kidding....  Apparently, only the private sector has the ability to benefit society by "spreading the wealth."

Another humorous aspect to all this is that a lot of America's rise to prominence after WW2 was built on massive infrastructure improvements from public spending -- like the interstate highway system.  If we had taken the advice of Austrian school economists back then, our highway system would be much smaller in scope, and our growth would have been much more limited as a result.
the private sector benefits society by providing jobs so people can earn a living, not by throwing away all of their profits.

infrastructure is a function of govt. and tax should be collected for, ( which I covered). Thanks for agreeing with me Turquoise.
Well, the problem is that certain infrastructures seem not to be regarded as such.  For example, there seems to be a combination of lousy management and vastly disparate funding in our education systems -- an infrastructure that some people seem keen on completely privatizing.

Most First World countries also view an NHS as a vital infrastructure, but apparently, we don't -- despite having a population that is becoming increasingly dependent on Medicare.

In short, American politics seem to be dysfunctional on recognizing what is an infrastructure and what isn't.
I have no problem with privatized education. There seems to be an argument that the quality of education in a competing market is better than that of public education. Besides, there is also the argument that  I should not be forced to send my kids to an inferior public school just because of the vicinity in which I live to that school. In fact public education is just another example of how the govt. takes our money for one of its programs, and fucks it up.
2011-01-17 14:22:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6662|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

I have no problem with privatized education. There seems to be an argument that the quality of education in a competing market is better than that of public education. Besides, there is also the argument that  I should not be forced to send my kids to an inferior public school just because of the vicinity in which I live to that school. In fact public education is just another example of how the govt. takes our money for one of its programs, and fucks it up.
Well, there's clearly evidence that the principle of public education isn't the problem.  Plenty of our peers have very good, fully socialized education systems -- like Finland.

So the question that arises is...  why are we so bad at it compared to them?  What makes our local governments so inefficient and incompetent?
2011-01-17 14:32:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have no problem with privatized education. There seems to be an argument that the quality of education in a competing market is better than that of public education. Besides, there is also the argument that  I should not be forced to send my kids to an inferior public school just because of the vicinity in which I live to that school. In fact public education is just another example of how the govt. takes our money for one of its programs, and fucks it up.
Well, there's clearly evidence that the principle of public education isn't the problem.  Plenty of our peers have very good, fully socialized education systems -- like Finland.

So the question that arises is...  why are we so bad at it compared to them?  What makes our local governments so inefficient and incompetent?
Hmmm, a 2 party system that are polar opposites from each other IE the ball never moves forward.

Political Correctness in an effort to appease those that do not embrace our way of life.

We are an arrogant, lazy society used to having it easy.

We are an increasingly entitled society as well, it is viewed as easier to take from the "lucky" than it is to find our own way.

We have become a pussified and needy society, and our govt. is trying to win votes by pacifying the lot, and it can not keep up with the ever increasing demands on it.

in short who needs a quality education when we are entitled to everything?

Europe remembers what suffering really is, and they want to avoid it and work toward that goal. The US has forgotten what it means to suffer. We are too busy being entitled.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-17 14:49:04)

2011-01-17 14:48:43
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6662|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have no problem with privatized education. There seems to be an argument that the quality of education in a competing market is better than that of public education. Besides, there is also the argument that  I should not be forced to send my kids to an inferior public school just because of the vicinity in which I live to that school. In fact public education is just another example of how the govt. takes our money for one of its programs, and fucks it up.
Well, there's clearly evidence that the principle of public education isn't the problem.  Plenty of our peers have very good, fully socialized education systems -- like Finland.

So the question that arises is...  why are we so bad at it compared to them?  What makes our local governments so inefficient and incompetent?
Hmmm, a 2 party system that are polar opposites from each other IE the ball never moves forward.

Political Correctness in an effort to appease those that do not embrace our way of life.

We are an arrogant, lazy society used to having it easy.

We are an increasingly entitled society as well, it is viewed as easier to take from the "lucky" than it is to find our own way.

We have become a pussified and needy society, and our govt. is trying to win votes by pacifying the lot, and it can not keep up with the demands on it.

in short who needs a quality education when we are entitled to everything?

Europe remembers what suffering really is, and they want to avoid it and work toward that goal. The US has forgotten what it means to suffer. We are too busy being entitled.
That's an interesting argument and not one that I would've expected.  The thing that seems strangest about it though is that most European nations have much more expansive entitlement programs than we do.  If anything, it looks like the PIG states in Europe are actually more what could be described as lazy since they demand more entitlements without having the proper taxation for them.

That being said, I would agree with you that some nations (like Germany) are very productive and work as hard if not harder than we do.

There are certainly some people in America that are lazy and demand a lot of entitlements without giving much in return, but as far as our actual programs go, we have far less of an entitlement structure than most of Europe.

In keeping consistent with my example, Finland's entitlement programs are a lot more comprehensive than ours, but they still retain a far better pre-collegiate education system than us.
2011-01-17 14:55:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, there's clearly evidence that the principle of public education isn't the problem.  Plenty of our peers have very good, fully socialized education systems -- like Finland.

So the question that arises is...  why are we so bad at it compared to them?  What makes our local governments so inefficient and incompetent?
Hmmm, a 2 party system that are polar opposites from each other IE the ball never moves forward.

Political Correctness in an effort to appease those that do not embrace our way of life.

We are an arrogant, lazy society used to having it easy.

We are an increasingly entitled society as well, it is viewed as easier to take from the "lucky" than it is to find our own way.

We have become a pussified and needy society, and our govt. is trying to win votes by pacifying the lot, and it can not keep up with the demands on it.

in short who needs a quality education when we are entitled to everything?

Europe remembers what suffering really is, and they want to avoid it and work toward that goal. The US has forgotten what it means to suffer. We are too busy being entitled.
That's an interesting argument and not one that I would've expected.  The thing that seems strangest about it though is that most European nations have much more expansive entitlement programs than we do.  If anything, it looks like the PIG states in Europe are actually more what could be described as lazy since they demand more entitlements without having the proper taxation for them.

That being said, I would agree with you that some nations (like Germany) are very productive and work as hard if not harder than we do.

There are certainly some people in America that are lazy and demand a lot of entitlements without giving much in return, but as far as our actual programs go, we have far less of an entitlement structure than most of Europe.

In keeping consistent with my example, Finland's entitlement programs are a lot more comprehensive than ours, but they still retain a far better pre-collegiate education system than us.
Is Finlands govt. constantly in danger of loosing its power like our govt. is in the US? I really am asking because I don't know.

I feel because our govt. is constantly in danger of regime change that it scrambles to appease for votes and does not necessarily do for the people what really is in the best interest of the people. I i guess what I am saying is, sometimes the answer should be NO. Therefore it is constantly throwing good money to bad programs or it throws good money away in an effort to APPEAR as if it is really doing something, again for the almighty vote, when in fact it is hindering real progress.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-17 16:21:55)

2011-01-18 04:56:25
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6611

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."

"The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else." "

'When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
I was right, lowing IS talking about the Army.

Still, this is all funny from a nation built on foreign debt and printed money.
this Nation was not Built on Foreign debt and Foreign money and how do you figure he is talking about the army. To his credit it is tough to  hang in there and debate when you go off on these tangents and thoughts. Stick to the topic or withdraw. 

" It's good etiquette when your down 3 or 4 major pieces "
2011-01-18 04:59:02
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6611

lowing wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

lowing wrote:


Without the company there would be no national defense, therefore no govt.

We must first agree that the govt. does not PRODUCE wealth. It takes wealth. can we agree on this point?
i dunno the people in northern virginia are pretty damn wealthy
they might be, what is the point?
Class envy ?
2011-01-18 05:35:08
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5494|Cleveland, Ohio

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

lowing wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

i dunno the people in northern virginia are pretty damn wealthy
they might be, what is the point?
Class envy ?
lol

wow you seem to be missing the whole conversation

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-01-18 07:02:35)

2011-01-18 06:04:49
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6662|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Is Finlands govt. constantly in danger of loosing its power like our govt. is in the US? I really am asking because I don't know.

I feel because our govt. is constantly in danger of regime change that it scrambles to appease for votes and does not necessarily do for the people what really is in the best interest of the people. I i guess what I am saying is, sometimes the answer should be NO. Therefore it is constantly throwing good money to bad programs or it throws good money away in an effort to APPEAR as if it is really doing something, again for the almighty vote, when in fact it is hindering real progress.
If you're suggesting that special interests have destroyed our system, I would agree.  Yes, Finland is very culturally homogeneous compared to us, and the difference between their political left and right is much less significant than the difference between ours.

This is part of why I feel that humans are best governed in small groups with mostly homogeneous cultures.

Nevertheless, while I acknowledge the challenges of living in a very large country with a very diverse population, I think it is rather sad that we implement halfassed programs due to our bickering.

Surely, we can do better than this.
2011-01-18 07:41:27
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6440|Ireland

Jaekus wrote:

If you can't see how the government genrerates money I suggest you go back to high school.
Not sure what the fixation is on "Generating Money" but the real debate you two are trying to have is the old "Creation of Wealth" vs "Debt".

The Government regulates wealth and debt that is created by people.  In doing so it "balances" the debt load on the private sector through monetary polices (tax rate, interest rate, tax system).

The Dollar gets its value by the debt load it represents (debt creates the dollar so the dollar = wealth).  Wealth is created many ways and there is NOT a fixed amount of wealth in the world like many people believe.

This Debt load right now for a US dollar is spread among 300+ million people, in the '70s it was spread among ~100 million people.  Our government loves immigration because of this, it keeps the paramid scheme going awhile longer.

Physical Wealth is like owning your house, a business with a factory with equipment all paid for, anything material without a lean against it, something that can acquire another's debt (dollar).  In reality the government owns most physical wealth in America.  This is why we have property tax, the government owns your house(land) in reality and through this system ultimately owns most wealth its citizens create or aquire.  This is what balances the debt load on the dollar.

If I really wanted to argue with Lowing I would just say that America could generate money by building a military and then using it to overthrow another country and then charge property tax to the people that live there.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 28

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard