User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 15 of 15

  1. #11
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    As you can guess, moved from here.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Bullshit. The Bill O'Reilly argument may work for far right idiots, but it won't work on me. Show me the stats of how many impoverished Americans have color television, cable, more vehicles, internet access, etc. You can't because the stats they use are for all Americans. They let people assume that those who are genuinely impoverished have those luxuries, when anyone who knows the least bit about statistics could tell you it is an illogical argument to make. And as far as living quarters, you realize that for someone living at minimum wage, the rent of the average living quarters cost around 40% of their income as opposed to around 25% in the 70's. So don't try pushing off the idea that living quarters are getting cheaper and bigger because the rich have gotten so much richer that they can build more large homes and distort the stats so it looks like everyone has gotten a boost.
    The increase in the cost of housing is less than the increase in the value of housing. It's simple math, really.

    If you want to blame someone for the lack of low-income housing, blame the government. Rent controls and zoning laws have resulted in the destruction of far more housing units than they've facilitated the creation of. Developers would build low income housing, because there's a market for it, but laws make it unprofitable (limits on the number of units per acre, etc). As a result, only the government bothers to build low income housing in many situations (projects). And we all know what wonderful places projects are to live in. It's a socialist utopia!

    And arguing that technological advances are an improvement on the standard of living is a weak argument to make. Yay! We have great things like color television and the internet that they didn't have in the 70's! But did they have the same level of water and air pollution in the 70's? Did they have the same level of obesity and generally poor health resulting from the resulting sedentary lifestyle of those "advances"? I love how you right wingers paint only half the picture.
    The rich can afford transportation, regardless of the cost. But the invention of the automobile has allowed the poor far greater mobility than was previously possible. Cable television and the internet have given the poor access to a variety of entertainment and information that only the rich could afford, previously. No, you have it backwards. Technological advances improve the standard of living of the poor more than the rich. The rich have ALWAYS lead easy lives. But the poor are much, much better off than they were a few hundred years ago, though we've seen some regression (socially) in the last 40 years.

    As far as health is concerned, if you sit on your ass and don't exercise, that's your choice. But I suppose if you want government controlled health care, enforcing exercise regimens wouldn't be out of the question. Maybe we could all do some calisthenics every morning, like they did in Oceania.

    Yes, the vast majority of the top 1% has always been the same top 1%. That is how inheritance works. The rich get to pass on their wealth to their kids, and keep the wealth in the family. You realize that legacy kids are three times more likely to be accepted at an Ivy league school than non legacy kids even though legacy kids score below average on college entrance exams as compared to non legacy kids.
    You're confusing wealth with income. Some wealthy people, statistically, would also be considered part of the working poor at times. I'll let you think about how that might be possible. Hooray statistics.

    As far as legacy children go, so fucking what? Ive league schools are private. They can do whatever the hell they want. If they want to damage their reputations by engaging in that practice, that's their choice.

    Irresponsible restriction of the market can cause monopolies to form. Just as not restricting at all can cause monopolies to form. Don't make the irrational assumption that just because some monopolies have formed from government involvement, that none form solely based on the market. History makes of fool of you when you make arbitrary judgments like that.
    Name one monopoly that has formed without being enabled by the government.

    You just argued that it would be alright for people to economically sell themselves into slavery. And if blacklisting had been economically inefficient then it would have never existed, so I think you are contradicting yourself.
    Indentured servitude is not slavery.

    Blacklisting has become less efficient as individuals have become more mobile. It would have been eliminated with or without government regulation because people can move much more easily now, than in the past.

    Citing one example of the working poor is a rather pathetic debate technique. The majority of working poor are single mothers. In fact, single mothers are statistically the most likely to be impoverished in this country. The numbers don't lie even when you try to distort the facts by overgeneralizing it.
    Yes, and when 'working poor' income statistics are collected, they don't include income supplements (welfare, medicare, etc). So those income statistics are flawed. It doesn't show their effective income. It paints a bleaker picture than exists in reality.

    Who argued for protectionism? If you want to talk about automobiles, then lets look to our country where the automobile industry is in increasing trouble because it can't compete against foreign fuel standards. Why buy a Ford that gets 20 miles to the gallon when you can buy a Toyota that gets 40?
    You have been arguing that government intervention can stop monopolies. I have been giving examples of government intervention that causes monopolies.

    And if you don't have regulations then you get inferior and unsafe products. As is evident from our dogs dieing and our children getting sick from products we imported from the very unregulated business districts of China. Funny how a communist country can have freer markets than America.
    I'm not against all regulation, only regulations that are not economically viable. The cost of medical treatment for children who have used toys imported from China is greater than the cost imposed through regulation of the manufacture of those toys, so it's economically viable. Most regulation cannot pass that test.

    What has caused the problem is allowing market interests to control the government and not the other way around.
    The rich will always be more effective at using the government for their own interests than the poor. That will never, ever change. The only solution is to limit government.

    Have you considered that the much more socialistic countries of Western Europe have far better health than Americans on average, far lower obesity, and lower infant mortality? And they still have McDonalds there. Funny how that works.
    Much more socialistic? The US is far more socialistic than you realize, apparently. This US is nowhere close to having the free market economy we had in the 1800s. We can thank the FDR and LBJ for that.

    Its the truth. Look it up if you don't believe me.
    Provide your own sources. I'm tired of doing your work for you.

    I love how you left out the 46,000 heart disease deaths. It doesn't change the fact that people are killed by others who choose to violate their freedom.
    We were talking about cancer. Heart disease is not cancer. Chill with the F, use your T.

    Agreed. I overstated according to those stats. But those stats don't cover the number of people whose health is deteriorated due to second hand smoke that don't develop cancer or heart disease. Far more than 50,000 people are affected each year by second hand smoke. Also you forget that the cigarette companies target young consumers to replace their dieing demographic.
    You were caught with your pants down, and now you're backtracking. Pardon me for not giving the crap you type much weight when you make up statistics to advance your agenda.

    Agreed, and economic force as is imposed by an unregulated capitalistic system is no exception. Forcing people to cooperate to survive is just as immoral as a government forcing them to cooperate.
    No, it's not. Government control is absolute.

    Agreed. I think it would be better to deal with it on a case by case basis, but within the system we have now, government intervention is a necessity.
    No, you were raised to believe it's a necessity.

    All of this is beside my original point. It appears that you agree with me that social freedom cannot be divorced from economic freedom.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #13
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Yuck. This debate has become distasteful. I agree with Zergling that this is going to involve nothing but nitpicking and insulting. I come to my conclusions from the economics I have studied and you have come to your conclusions from the economics you have studied. It's as simple as that. As far as how I was raised, I come from small town Wyoming, so I sincerely doubt I was raised to have my views. And I'm not "backtracking" on the smoking issue because I flat out said that "it isn't unlikely" meaning I don't know for sure, I never made the claim that it is likely that more people die from second hand smoke. Obviously I have already proven many times how you have distorted the statistics outright, so don't go after me for "making up stats" when anyone who can read can see who is manipulating the information here. Honestly, I can see that this is going to be the same old NTJ tactics of arbitrary redefinition, retorsion, etc. But anywho, I'll let you have the final stabs at the issue. You have not presented any arguments that I haven't heard regurgitated over and over again on INTJ central anyways. Even that smoking scenario has been spouted so many times that it has become cliche.

    There is just too much grief along the socioeconomic spectrum to have an intelligent discussion about it. People have gone to war for and died for less than we are debating now, and that proves my point above all else. The economy is in inherent conflict with liberty, whether it is "free" or "restricted". But since we don't live in a perfect world, government will always influence the market and the market will always influence the government. We both agree that only a liberty driven market and a liberty driven government could eliminate such back and forth influence (even though we disagree on what constitutes free choice), but not everyone values liberty as it is more profitable for some on both sides to limit choice. So I will seek compromise and leave the uncompromising neolibs to their ideologically driven doom.

    One does not have to look at the description of the test to know that neolibs pride themselves on being uncompromising, so there isn't any sense in discussing probable solutions that benefit everyone with you since you will only accept it if everyone comes to your side.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  4. #14
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zergling View Post
    As for diseases, things like sewage treatment, vaccines, ability to produce lots of antibiotics, and the technology that lets people figure out how the diseases work have helped put a dent in diseases.
    We were talking about how the "standard of living" had increased from the 70's. I don't think there has been an incredible amount of development in any of those areas over the last 30 years. At least not anymore than necessary to offset the costs of a lot of the problems that advancing technology has caused.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #15
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    We were talking about how the "standard of living" had increased from the 70's. I don't think there has been an incredible amount of development in any of those areas over the last 30 years. At least not anymore than necessary to offset the costs of a lot of the problems that advancing technology has caused.
    I was not talking about the 1970's, i was talking in general with technology.

    However, it is important to separate issues coming from technological development itself from more people using the technology. Energy efficiency seems to have increased over time, but increasing use of the technology can cancel that out.

Similar Threads

  1. Political compass and MBTI
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-26-2015, 09:11 AM
  2. Political Compass Test
    By metaphours in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 03-27-2015, 08:30 PM
  3. Political Compass Test
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 245
    Last Post: 03-18-2012, 02:03 PM
  4. Where are you on the Political Compass?
    By Red Herring in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-28-2011, 11:31 PM
  5. Political Compass Test
    By Meursault in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 12:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO