Is the economy really improving?

[JJ Husker]

What is bad Socialism/good Socialism?

Of course opinions vary and it can be rather subjective...but, as an easy example; The interstate road system. I think most people would agree that it is a good thing and benefits a large percentage of our country. It is not equally paid for or used by every person so therefore it is a form of redistributing funds from some people to benefit others. An example of bad socialism might be something like forcing people to buy a product, like health insurance, from a private or government sponsored source, and fining or punishing people who do not comply, all under the guise if it being best for society as a whole. I think reasonable people can have disagreements over which things are good and which are bad.

 

I realize I may not be using the textbook definition of socialism in all cases, but you get the drift.

[JJ Husker]

Rand is ... an interesting character. She has her, well, let's say particular brand of politics and paints fantastical worlds populated by cartoonish villainy representing what she disagrees with, and supremely idealized heroes representing her own thinking. Her heroes, of course, triumph against all odds. It's a comfortable indulgence.

 

(I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, as a caveat).

I would agree that her heroes are idealized and they tend to triumph against the odds. In that aspect her stories are a bit self serving to her beliefs. However, I would disagree with the characterization that her world's are fantastical or that the villains are all cartoonish. It is scary how close she comes to the truth in many cases today, considering the times in which she wrote the works.

 

You absolutely have to read Atlas Shrugged. It is far more refined as to her thoughts on collectivism and is more relevant today than The Fountainhead. You may very well not agree with her political views but it really is a must read. If nothing else, it is a well told and worthwhile read.

[HuskerNation1]

More evidence that we are in the worst economic recovery in the post World War II America.

http://blogs.wsj.com...rld-war-ii-era/

Moreover, he's also the only President in US History to never have 3% growth in any of the quarters in which he was POTUS.

http://www.zerohedge...ar-3-gdp-growth

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a whole bunch of failed economies that ended up that way precisely by the way you seem to want things to work.[/size]

Explain.[/size]

How's the U.S.S.R. doing these days? Or quite a few other no longer existent Eastern bloc countries/economies?

I mean that is basically what we're talking about here isn't it....heavy handed government attempting to control the economy supposedly for the social good?

 

Or, if you prefer something much closer to home, how about the failing economies all across Europe...austerity measures brought on by social policy making. I don't think it requires much explanation but rather just a little study of how these things have historically gone.

You realize you're talking about a very wide range of styles of government and social policies, from state-run to extremely lax regulations, right?

 

If governments on the far right, middle and far left all fail economically, aren't we saying all economies are destined to fail at some point?

 

Could you cite an ideal economic system and set of governmental polices/regulations from history (or today)?

 

CONSERVATIVE CAPITALISM BRO

How about classical liberalism? Or, in other words, non-progressive liberalism.

 

When I read arguments about "regulators pushing social goods" I shudder. More like pushing certain agendas.

[knapplc]

So you're saying Obama is the worst good president we've had.

[BigRedBuster]

More evidence that we are in the worst economic recovery in the post World War II America.

http://blogs.wsj.com...rld-war-ii-era/

Moreover, he's also the only President in US History to never have 3% growth in any of the quarters in which he was POTUS.

http://www.zerohedge...ar-3-gdp-growth

Why do they only show a graph going back to 1950?

[cm husker]

Take the fact that the United States ranks 20th in the world in internet speeds. Greater, faster connectivity is the sort of public good that could improve access and spur economic activity for everyone. There's a social, public interest. There is *not* an economic interest for the couple of telecom giants that are already delivering enormous profits to their owners and top stakeholders.

 

Take research, which covers everything from microelectronics innovation that spurs growth and enables better products and competition in tech sectors, to health research which develops new medical techniques or informs public health policymakers. These are things that industry alone can't do, not because they are evil, but because they don't have nearly the same luxury for risk in their R&D as they try to push out products and outsell their competitors.

 

Take education, which most of us do believe is a public good. The public has an interest in an educated citizenry aware of our country's history and knowledgeable about its civic institutions. Companies just need technically proficient workers, which is hardly the same thing.

You're looking at this backwards.

 

Why is bringing faster internet to more of the US not in the interest of telecom companies? Is it because the users of such internet can't make enough productive use of that access to pay the price associated with the resources required to provide that speed? Yes, of course that's the answer.

 

It's also misleading to use national rankings when evaluating things like this. Speeds in rural America are much lower than the infrastructure in NY or LA, for example. An analogy would be, why not build 4 lane highways throughout the panhandle so we can move more goods out there? Obviously because every dollar (unit of productivity) invested out there means less invested elsewhere. So while it seems that we'd be making people in areas more productive, we'd be getting a very low ROI. Same with bringing faster wifi to people who aren't productive and likely aren't going to be more productive even with better wifi.

 

Your proposal is based on the thinking that leads to bridges to nowhere and empty Chinese ghost cities.

 

Regarding research, you make a conclusatory jump to "companies can't do this without taxpayers donating their own productivity to help those companies" but you don't connect why that's true, let alone how we effectively identify who taxpayers should subsidize. That's the problem with all of the grand schemes. They are heavy on rhetoric but fall apart in the details and you end up with taxpayers (mainly middle and lower class taxpayers) being asked to sacrifice their own productivity in favor of special interests. And I've seen no compelling argument for why government is a better investor in R&D than private companies.

 

Your education example also looks at things backward. It doesn't matter so much what a company wants. It matters what the consumers of education want (in this case the parents of kids). It doesn't necessarily follow that we need socialized, rather than private, education to achieve those goals. i think everyone should receive an education, but that doesn't mean the system of public education is efficiently achieving that goal.

[knapplc]

Why is bringing faster internet to more of the US not in the interest of telecom companies? Is it because the users of such internet can't make enough productive use of that access to pay the price associated with the resources required to provide that speed? Yes, of course that's the answer.

 

 

[cm husker]

Why's that funny or confusing?

 

If users in rural areas could make productive use of faster speeds (not just to watch Netflix and surf huskerboard), then they could pay a telecom to outlay that investment.

 

Do low speed users just expect charity? If high speed internet is important to them, then they should move to an urban area.

[BigRedBuster]

With that attitude, much of Nebraska would still be without electricity.

[cm husker]

With that attitude, much of Nebraska would still be without electricity.

How do you figure that?

 

And even accepting that's true, why is it a bad thing? People should pay their own ways. And if something isn't productive enough to make it worthwhile, they should do something else. I see this play out among conservative farmers in California who want others to subsidize their water usage and fruit prices.

 

That said, I've repeatedly advocated for a minimum income for adult citizens, so I'm not taking a "let them die in the streets" perspective.

 

Just wondering why we should subsidize some personal choices but not others and how alleged conservative in particular reconcile the distinctions.

[knapplc]

The internet is no more a "personal choice" than clean water or electricity. It's like some people are stuck in 1987 or something.

[cm husker]

The internet is no more a "personal choice" than clean water or electricity. It's like some people are stuck in 1987 or something.

I never said it was a "personal choice" but choosing to live somewhere remote doesn't mean those of us who don't live in a remote location should pay for the remote person's stuff.

 

If I choose to live on a mountain peak in Montana, should society have to build infrastructure for me to have road access and high speed internet?

 

In what world does that make sense?

 

There are a lot of ways to get "basic needs" met; making one citizen work to pay for another citizen's decisions is rarely the efficient approach.

[cm husker]

The internet is no more a "personal choice" than clean water or electricity. It's like some people are stuck in 1987 or something.

For the sake of fun, what is your list of "non personal choice" products as of today?

 

Is the list the same for people in rural Nebraska and urban Baltimore? Is it the same as the one for people in Beverly Hills or the Florida Keys?

 

What about for people in China, UK or DRC?

 

See the problem with your approach?

[knapplc]

Focus. This isn't the statement you made. To refresh your memory, you said:

 

Why is bringing faster internet to more of the US not in the interest of telecom companies? Is it because the users of such internet can't make enough productive use of that access to pay the price associated with the resources required to provide that speed? Yes, of course that's the answer.

 

 

This is in response to zoogs talking about America lagging behind in world internet speeds. We aren't talking about mountain peaks, we're talking about cities from New York down to towns like Holdrege, NE.