Where the GOP goes from here

Post Reply New Topic

I will give you an historic example.

The San Fransisco Earthquake of 1906. What the quake did not take down the fires destroyed. The Army came in to do two things.

1. Deter looting.

2. Blast fire breaks with dynamite to hinder the spread of the fire.

Once the Army had restored order to the area, private parties and firms undertook the rebuilding of the city. The city was mostly rebuilt in three years!! Can you see any government operation being that efficient? You bet you can't. After ten year, almost all signs of the destruction ceased to exist. San Francisco was rebuilt -privately- and every successfully. So the idea of having a private version of FEMA is not all that ridiculous.

ruveyn

And then the private sector does all it can to squeeze money out of people in order to get access to that advance.

This is such a lie I get so sick of hearing. People create wealth by doing things that benefit themselves and others, not accumulating money and hoarding it away like squirrels. When people are paid to do something productive they are "creating wealth" with their productivity. They can be paid by anyone, including government. They don't have to be working in the "private sector" for a bunch of random shareholders' personal profit. Government needs to take on certain productive activities that the private sector is simply uninterested in dealing with (likely because they don't see any immediate profit they can extract from it).

When there are not enough jobs to go around the fundamental problem is people are not sharing. You b***h and moan if people get welfare with no work requirement, you b***h and moan if government makes them work for their "welfare" instead by creating a job the private hoarders are unable or unwilling to create "for profit". There's simply no way to win with you! You sound like Maria Antoniette "Let Them Eat Cake!! !". I can only conclude that you want the "losers" who can't find work to starve since there is no obligation to anyone to prevent such a situation. I don't see how you can fault people for not wanting to live in your lovely world.

It's not, "Let them eat cake," but rather, "I got mine." My well-funded roads, my well-funded education, my Medicare, my Social Security, etc. and screw the grandkids!

No. If I produce 10 units of a product, and 10 units of that product are consumed, no wealth is created. Wealth creation is an accumulation, not a consumption. If you produce 10 units and consume 11 units (one from savings), then you are consuming wealth. In order to create wealth, you must produce more than you consume, resulting in savings that are later used to acquire capital goods that facilitate further production. Wealth cannot be created by consumption, no matter how you run the numbers.

If the government uses capital goods in order to produce, then it's operating as a business, not a government. Government that uses taxation in order to pay for production is reallocating resources, not producing wealth.


I don't fault people who cannot survive on their own due to a medical issue. I don't fault people who can survive on their own for needing help for a few months to get back on their feet.

I fault people when they don't try. I fault government when it encourages people to not try and destroys resources people have to succeed on their own (jobs). If there aren't enough jobs, then people should make their own jobs in their own venture. It's disappointing that so many people think it's someone else's responsibility to get them work.

As for "the fundamental problem is people are not sharing", I don't even know how to take that statement seriously. We live in a world full of opportunities. Instead of going and taking from this huge pie of opportunity, you want me to go get my slice of the pie and then share it with you? Please, get off your ass and cut your own slice.

If the state had a great track record of running efficient programs that delivered vital services to people who need them when they need them without employing brigades of bureaucrats to sort reams of paperwork who soak up all the money put into the programs, then I and many other identified libertarians would have no problem supporting things like universal healthcare and strong welfare programs. But that's not the state's track record, is it?

But instead of being positive and presenting ideas to reform programs, the libertarian message is to tear it all down.

The US does not seem to have libertarians with a coherent plan other than roll back all the reforms of the 20th century so we can go back to the wonderful 19th century Gilded Age. Even Hong Kong and Singapore have government subsidies to make healthcare affordable to all. They simply require different percentage of copay based on income level but everyone pays at least 10% to discourage overuse. Doctors and providers are required to disclose prices to promote competition. It is not single payer but it is efficient and market friendly. I'd be happy for such a such a system in the US. The problem is American conservatives and libertarians are against any kind of subsidy because that is "redistribution" and goes against their whole social darwinist view of the world. Hong Kong and Singapore also have a progressive tax system even if the taxes are low. In contrast. American conservatives and libertarians want to abolish the income tax and replace it with a flat consumption/sales tax. The American brand of Randian market fundamentalism exists nowhere else in the world. It's all about turning the clock back to the 19th century. It's a bunch of radical extremism.

If I consume a bottle of anti-biotics and get will it enables me to go back to work and produce a value greater than the bottle of anti-biotics. You have a mistaken view of consumption. Consumption is not destruction. It is using one thing or service to produce another thing or service which often is of greater value than the thing used.

You have a zero sum view of the world which is just plain wrong.

ruveyn

All goods are consumed and destroyed, whether or not that leads to further production.

Nobody can "make their own job" without money to start with you dolt. You expect the destitute homeless to be able to get up and start their own business?

In a modern society we are dependent on technology and resources to survive. To obtain these resources one needs money. Nobody can completely "do it on their own". We need community to survive. If nobody is willing or able to hire the unemployed because all the wealth has been concentrated at the top the situation becomes broken. What you're doing is asking the unemployed to go out into the woods and forage for berries like hunter-gatherers because no one owes them anything. Only they can't because they would be trespassing on someone else's private property.

Also why are you talking at me? Trying to make this personal. Telling me to get off "my ass". This isn't about me you dumb prick. It's about how society fails to functions in your dumb egotistical libertarian utopia where nobody has any obligation to their neighbor. You are a completely hopeless jackass as are all libertarians.

People sneak across the Mexican border and do this every day! This country was built on people coming here with nothing and building a life for themselves.

.

Not true. Sometimes the added value is intangible. Let us say a person goes to see a movie. He pays, he watches. But suppose further the movie inspires him to do something valuable that he would not have done had he not seen the movie. And so on.....

Not all acts of use or consumption are dead end.

ruveyn

I didn't mean to suggest that consumption is a dead end -- just that goods are consumed, whether or not there is a resulting good or service at either a lesser or greater value.