PDA

View Full Version : All but 8 Senators vote for 700 billion dollar military spending increase



Famicommander
09-19-2017, 10:36 AM
With all the division in this country right now, it's good to see we can all agree that murdering brown people is worth any price.

For those wondering, the only ones who voed against it were
Corker, R-TN
Gillibrand, D-NY
Leahy, D-VT
Lee, R-UT
Merkley, D-OR
Paul, R-KY
Sanders, I-VT
Wyden, D-OR

Democrats are all talk on stopping the warfare state and Republicans don't even pretend they want to stop it.

FilthyRear
09-19-2017, 10:54 AM
They crippled NASA and now want some sort of fucking "Space Corps", because the muzzies are gonna start doing 9/11 IN SPAAAAAACE.

cdamm
09-19-2017, 11:02 AM
With all the division in this country right now, it's good to see we can all agree that murdering yellow people is worth any price.


ftfy.

Neo Ash
09-19-2017, 11:10 AM
Good. I don't see a problem with this. A strong military makes other countries think twice before doing stupid shit.

Evil Wasabi
09-19-2017, 11:26 AM
Good. I don't see a problem with this. A strong military makes other countries think twice before doing stupid shit.

It hasn't stopped the US from doing stupid shit though.

fakeXsound
09-19-2017, 11:29 AM
Good. I don't see a problem with this. A strong military makes other countries think twice before doing stupid shit.

We spend more on our military than most other industrialized countries combined. And then we claim we can't afford to provide healthcare to everyone in the country. Oh, and teachers have to buy pencils for their classrooms.

Evil Wasabi
09-19-2017, 11:33 AM
We spend more on our military than most other industrialized countries combined. And then we claim we can't afford to provide healthcare to everyone in the country. Oh, and teachers have to buy pencils for their classrooms.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/18/the-senates-military-spending-increase-alone-is-enough-to-make-public-college-free/

10x more than Russia.

Poppy
09-19-2017, 12:09 PM
Good. I don't see a problem with this. A strong military makes other countries think twice before doing stupid shit.

God damn sometimes I wish I could be simple and have a simple world view.

It must be very comfortable.

Famicommander
09-19-2017, 12:20 PM
Good. I don't see a problem with this. A strong military makes other countries think twice before doing stupid shit.

When was the last time our country was attacked without provocation?

I'll wait.

(hint: 9/11 was provoked and heavily motivated by Clinton's starvation blockade on Iraq that killed over half a million children)

SML
09-19-2017, 12:52 PM
Good. I don't see a problem with this. A strong military makes other countries think twice before doing stupid shit.

Israel loves doing stupid provocative shit since the US military is at its back.

SML
09-19-2017, 01:25 PM
(hint: 9/11 was provoked and heavily motivated by Clinton's starvation blockade on Iraq that killed over half a million children)

It's kind of buried in there, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver) though you can't really rely on primary sources to sort motivations from pretexts.

Evil Wasabi
09-19-2017, 01:55 PM
When was the last time our country was attacked without provocation?

I'll wait.


Bowling Green.

Poppy
09-19-2017, 05:21 PM
Bowling Green.

Charlottesville

Tung Fu ru
09-19-2017, 06:21 PM
Good. I don't see a problem with this. A strong military makes other countries think twice before doing stupid shit.

That sounds as smart as building a wall between the US and Mexico to fix illegal immigration.

Poppy
09-19-2017, 10:42 PM
That sounds as smart as building a wall between the US and Mexico to fix illegal immigration.

Ash probably thinks bringing the Marta system to the suburbs would increase crime

norton9478
09-20-2017, 04:33 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Bin Laden didn't really give a shit about the sanctions related starvation in Iraq.

norton9478
09-20-2017, 04:35 AM
When was the last time our country was attacked without provocation?



Fort Sumter

lachlan
09-20-2017, 05:51 AM
They crippled NASA and now want some sort of fucking "Space Corps", because the muzzies are gonna start doing 9/11 IN SPAAAAAACE.

They're funneling money into space again? About time... even if it means you guys build a moon space laser to evaporate minorities.

Evil Wasabi
09-20-2017, 07:38 AM
Australian space exploration:
Walkabout in the fuckin nowhere. No shit you don’t care.

lachlan
09-20-2017, 05:05 PM
Accurate, lets face it all we'd want is little patch up there to sink a few tinnies with a snag or two while we enjoy the view.

Poppy
09-21-2017, 12:46 AM
It's loik this plannit is soo shit. So we loik said, whateva, let's loik go colonize Maazz mate.

lachlan
09-21-2017, 05:42 AM
:lolz: Couldn't say it better myself.

lithy
09-21-2017, 10:44 AM
I generally don't like Corker but good on him for this vote at least.

Meanwhile the usual media continues to say that "no significant" legislation has passed during this administration.

I guess an additional $700B is just part for the course at this point while they draw lines in the sand about health insurance as a distraction.

Lukejaywalker23
09-22-2017, 08:59 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Bin Laden didn't really give a shit about the sanctions related starvation in Iraq.

Haha

Lukejaywalker23
09-22-2017, 09:03 PM
We spend more on our military than most other industrialized countries combined. And then we claim we can't afford to provide healthcare to everyone in the country. Oh, and teachers have to buy pencils for their classrooms.

Teachers shouldn't have to pay for pencils but I don't have a problem paying for my insurance as long as it's affordable. I dont need free shit. I take pride in providing for my family. Some people really do need government assistance and they should be helped.

SpamYouToDeath
09-23-2017, 07:51 PM
I dont need free shit. I take pride in providing for my family. Some people really do need government assistance and they should be helped.

The problem is, with insurance, this concentrates the risk pool that the government takes on. Health care is only affordable, on average, because most people are healthy. When you try to allocate government aid to just those "in need", you're implicitly taking on the worst cases and allowing the insurance companies to get away with dumping those people.

Also, government services aren't free, they're tax-funded. TANSTAAFL.

Lukejaywalker23
09-23-2017, 09:06 PM
The problem is, with insurance, this concentrates the risk pool that the government takes on. Health care is only affordable, on average, because most people are healthy. When you try to allocate government aid to just those "in need", you're implicitly taking on the worst cases and allowing the insurance companies to get away with dumping those people.

Also, government services aren't free, they're tax-funded. TANSTAAFL.

The whole medical industry is out of wack. Its gotten to unaffordable for the middle class person to afford health care. Not sure how to make everyone happy but from my perspective the premiums are almost impossible to pay.

Evil Wasabi
09-23-2017, 09:13 PM
The whole medical industry is out of wack. Its gotten to unaffordable for the middle class person to afford health care. Not sure how to make everyone happy but from my perspective the premiums are almost impossible to pay.

For the average person insurance can be suffocating. The model for insurance revolves around a pool of members, and when some of those members are really sick, everyone has to pick up the slack.

This is essentially socialism, but like, having the government involved is somehow worse for the redstate voters, because like, prolife and abstinence. I don’t know a better system for health insurance than single payer. And the reason people areagainst it is almost as old as the reason why one guy visits the presbyterian church on sundays and his neighbor the evangelical one. It’s just tradition and indoctrination.

Which is why I have a sex cult, where I can indoctrinate people into big orgies while practicing pro-life contraceptive sex, aka anal. It’s not much different than regular church, and as a religious group the property tax is 0.

lachlan
09-24-2017, 06:17 AM
A universal healthcare system.... I don't understand why the 'leader of the free world' can't get that sorted out.

SpamYouToDeath
09-24-2017, 11:41 AM
A universal healthcare system.... I don't understand why the 'leader of the free world' can't get that sorted out.

I had about eight thousand sarcastic replies ready. The truth is, the poorest Americans don't believe that they're poor; they therefore continually vote for policies that harm themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StXoESUueEc

madman
09-24-2017, 11:49 AM
I had about eight thousand sarcastic replies ready. The truth is, the poorest Americans don't believe that they're poor; they therefore continually vote for policies that harm themselves.
They know they're poor but they're sure they'd be millionaires if it wasn't for blax/Mexicans/muslims/democrats/the govt/taxes or whatever else the Republicans tell them are keeping them down.

norton9478
09-24-2017, 01:38 PM
I don't have a problem paying for my insurance as long as it's affordable.

That's nice. Anything else to add?


The whole medical industry is out of wack. Its gotten to unaffordable for the middle class person to afford health care.

Famicommander
09-24-2017, 04:01 PM
A universal healthcare system.... I don't understand why the 'leader of the free world' can't get that sorted out.

Realistically, we can't afford that or all this retarded military spending. Let alone both.

Just what we spend on social security, medicaid, medicare, and federal pensions alone is more than we could ever possibly afford.

SteveNK
09-24-2017, 05:54 PM
Realistically, we can't afford that or all this retarded military spending. Let alone both.

Just what we spend on social security, medicaid, medicare, and federal pensions alone is more than we could ever possibly afford.

Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around 110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people, so real guesstimate stuff, a universal health care system of a reasonable standard could cost about $750bn.

It wouldn't surprise me if medicaid and medicare somehow cost more than this already.

I'm not claiming to know anything about this, or why it might be, as this is obviously a complex subject, but it's an interesting starter thought for why america somehow can't afford it or won't do it.

Every country has it's oddities. I remember reading that the US spends more on air conditioning for it's troops than the entire UK defence budget.

wyo
09-24-2017, 06:17 PM
Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around 110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people, so real guesstimate stuff, a universal health care system of a reasonable standard could cost about $750bn.

It wouldn't surprise me if medicaid and medicare somehow cost more than this already.

I'm not claiming to know anything about this, or why it might be, as this is obviously a complex subject, but it's an interesting starter thought for why america somehow can't afford it or won't do it.

Every country has it's oddities. I remember reading that the US spends more on air conditioning for it's troops than the entire UK defence budget.

Not a bad deal really, especially when you consider Americans currently spend $3.4 trillion on medical care per year (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html).

Evil Wasabi
09-24-2017, 08:33 PM
Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around 110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people,

Still worth it.

I don’t want to live next to sick people.

K_K
09-25-2017, 02:05 AM
Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around 110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people, so real guesstimate stuff, a universal health care system of a reasonable standard could cost about $750bn.

It wouldn't surprise me if medicaid and medicare somehow cost more than this already.

I'm not claiming to know anything about this, or why it might be, as this is obviously a complex subject, but it's an interesting starter thought for why america somehow can't afford it or won't do it.

Every country has it's oddities. I remember reading that the US spends more on air conditioning for it's troops than the entire UK defence budget.

That's what they get for putting so many bases down south in the heat!

The other side to universal health care that I've always wondered is what the variances would be from state to state. I feel like in Texas you'd get a revolver, a bullet, and a bottle of whisky for any long term ailments. While Minnesota would bend over backwards, because they're just too nice.

Though really the fact that each state is like a mini country is a mess anyway. How can a leader lead when their legislation can be made redundant in some state senate somewhere?

Lukejaywalker23
09-25-2017, 06:51 AM
That's what they get for putting so many bases down south in the heat!

The other side to universal health care that I've always wondered is what the variances would be from state to state. I feel like in Texas you'd get a revolver, a bullet, and a bottle of whisky for any long term ailments. While Minnesota would bend over backwards, because they're just too nice.

Though really the fact that each state is like a mini country is a mess anyway. How can a leader lead when their legislation can be made redundant in some state senate somewhere?
We collect revolvers but we use modern handguns for day to day use.

Famicommander
09-25-2017, 04:46 PM
Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around 110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people, so real guesstimate stuff, a universal health care system of a reasonable standard could cost about $750bn.

It wouldn't surprise me if medicaid and medicare somehow cost more than this already.

I'm not claiming to know anything about this, or why it might be, as this is obviously a complex subject, but it's an interesting starter thought for why america somehow can't afford it or won't do it.

Every country has it's oddities. I remember reading that the US spends more on air conditioning for it's troops than the entire UK defence budget.

Whatever they say it costs is a giant lie. The costs of future payments of socialized programs are almost never accurately accounted for.

The official debt is irrelevant. It's the fiscal gap, which everybody conveniently ignores. The government accounts for these costs differently so they don't include them in the official figures, but the debts are real things which will have to be funded with real money.

As of 2015, by the US government's own figures, the fiscal gap between projected government revenue and the present day value of all the services promised to its citizens (medicare, medicaid, social security, federal pensions, etc) is over 210 trillion dollars.

That's over 20X the official debt.
https://www.kotlikoff.net/sites/default/files/Kotlikoffbudgetcom2-25-2015.pdf

And it's the same case pretty much everywhere else, including the UK. All of these socialized programs are unsustainable in the long term. All of these countries that rely upon them will cripple themselves economically, and a lot of them are making it worse by also engaging in overseas hegemony. Warfare, welfare, and inflation. That's what kills countries.

SteveNK
09-25-2017, 05:33 PM
Whatever they say it costs is a giant lie. The costs of future payments of socialized programs are almost never accurately accounted for.

The official debt is irrelevant. It's the fiscal gap, which everybody conveniently ignores. The government accounts for these costs differently so they don't include them in the official figures, but the debts are real things which will have to be funded with real money.

As of 2015, by the US government's own figures, the fiscal gap between projected government revenue and the present day value of all the services promised to its citizens (medicare, medicaid, social security, federal pensions, etc) is over 210 trillion dollars.

That's over 20X the official debt.
https://www.kotlikoff.net/sites/default/files/Kotlikoffbudgetcom2-25-2015.pdf

And it's the same case pretty much everywhere else, including the UK. All of these socialized programs are unsustainable in the long term. All of these countries that rely upon them will cripple themselves economically, and a lot of them are making it worse by also engaging in overseas hegemony. Warfare, welfare, and inflation. That's what kills countries.

If on that basis we assume the NHS numbers are a lie then we have to assume the medicaid and medicair numbers are also a lie, and most likely they're lying in a similar way so the comparison still holds as a talking point.

As for the present value of future promises, the blame will be laid with the opposite of whichever party is in power at the time, when the numbers come home to roost. I mean, is anyone here seriously thinking they're going to be getting a state pension when they retire?

Evil Wasabi
09-25-2017, 06:08 PM
Insurance is socialism. You buy into a pool with other members. The money used to treat your uncle’s care is taken from your wife’s potential. But everyone has to be playing and paying in order for it to continue.

The difference between having a single payer program with the government and having people buy it themselves is that the shit broke will need to stop biying their drugs and beer and start paying more taxes and display better health.

Not a real problem if my neighbor needs to stop smoking.

Famicommander
09-25-2017, 06:14 PM
Insurance is socialism. You buy into a pool with other members. The money used to treat your uncle’s care is taken from your wife’s potential. But everyone has to be playing and paying in order for it to continue.

The difference between having a single payer program with the government and having people buy it themselves is that the shit broke will need to stop biying their drugs and beer and start paying more taxes and display better health.

Not a real problem if my neighbor needs to stop smoking.

Insurance is voluntary, socialism is at gunpoint. Theoretically, insurance companies compete with each other for the benefit of the consumer. But presently insurance companies basically are in a symbiotic relationship with government, which is fascism, a form of socialism in itself. The solution isn't more socialism, it's less. On the free market insurance companies have to serve the ends of consumers, otherwise they'll lose business. There is no competition in socialism, when the state controls the means of production.

Distorting the price structure in the economy always harms the consumer. Usually the poorest first, as it's the rich that get to use the power of the state to distort it in the first place.

SpamYouToDeath
09-25-2017, 11:00 PM
Distorting the price structure in the economy always harms the consumer. Usually the poorest first, as it's the rich that get to use the power of the state to distort it in the first place.

This is a very broad assertion and is unsupported by reality. Countries with universal social health care pay far less than the US does.

Evil Wasabi
09-25-2017, 11:28 PM
Insurance is voluntary, socialism is at gunpoint. Theoretically, insurance companies compete with each other for the benefit of the consumer. But presently insurance companies basically are in a symbiotic relationship with government, which is fascism, a form of socialism in itself. The solution isn't more socialism, it's less. On the free market insurance companies have to serve the ends of consumers, otherwise they'll lose business. There is no competition in socialism, when the state controls the means of production.

Distorting the price structure in the economy always harms the consumer. Usually the poorest first, as it's the rich that get to use the power of the state to distort it in the first place.

If you think your voluntary health insurance is not socialism, then you deserve medicare.

norton9478
09-26-2017, 03:06 AM
Insurance is socialism. Voluntary or not.

The idea of insurance is also abhorrent to the Ayn Randians of the world.

Poppy
09-26-2017, 08:57 AM
Insurance is socialism. Voluntary or not.

The idea of insurance is also abhorrent to the Ayn Randians of the world.

And yet that cunt needed help to pay her medical bills, which she took under a pseudonym.

Famicommander
09-26-2017, 10:03 AM
If you think your voluntary health insurance is not socialism, then you deserve medicare.
Socialism means the state controls the pricing and means of production. On the free market, prices are set via voluntary exchange and the means of production are privately controlled.


Insurance is socialism. Voluntary or not.

The idea of insurance is also abhorrent to the Ayn Randians of the world.
Socialism is funded by taxation which is involuntary. If you really can't differentiate between people freely spending their own money on products of their choice and being forced to buy things at gunpoint by the state, there isn't a lot I can do for you.


And yet that cunt needed help to pay her medical bills, which she took under a pseudonym.
Who gives a shit what a dead fiction writer thinks?

Famicommander
09-26-2017, 10:08 AM
This is a very broad assertion and is unsupported by reality. Countries with universal social health care pay far less than the US does.

Actually, it's incredibly basic microeconomic theory and you can't make apples to oranges comparisons. Even assuming all governments are being honest about health care costs (they aren't), "healthcare" isn't one giant, homogenous product. Different people will have different health care needs based on their individual lifestyles, genetic makeups, locations, etc. And again, saying that the current US health care system comes anywhere close to resembling the free market is straight up retarded.

SpamYouToDeath
09-26-2017, 10:39 AM
Actually, it's incredibly basic microeconomic theory and you can't make apples to oranges comparisons. Even assuming all governments are being honest about health care costs (they aren't), "healthcare" isn't one giant, homogenous product. Different people will have different health care needs based on their individual lifestyles, genetic makeups, locations, etc. And again, saying that the current US health care system comes anywhere close to resembling the free market is straight up retarded.

You're dancing around the issue. Health care is a case where markets obviously don't produce a good outcome. We didn't start out with all these regulations - the market fails over and over, and we keep trying to prop it up. Each time, we do the minimal amount necessary to defer the problem. Each time, we end up with a worse outcome than the countries that just fixed it right away. Those countries which have a single universal risk pool, enforced by their government, pay far less than we do.

More generally, "incredibly basic microeconomic theory" is often wrong. The simple case of "have a market and let everyone compete" is great for making wrenches and screwdrivers. It relies on too many assumptions about human behavior, though, and falls apart under complex pressures.

I had a friend move to the UK recently.
https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/how-much-pay
We can debate philosophy until we're blue in the face. The simple fact is, social health care works better.

Famicommander
09-26-2017, 10:58 AM
You're dancing around the issue. Health care is a case where markets obviously don't produce a good outcome. We didn't start out with all these regulations - the market fails over and over, and we keep trying to prop it up. Each time, we do the minimal amount necessary to defer the problem. Each time, we end up with a worse outcome than the countries that just fixed it right away. Those countries which have a single universal risk pool, enforced by their government, pay far less than we do.

More generally, "incredibly basic microeconomic theory" is often wrong. The simple case of "have a market and let everyone compete" is great for making wrenches and screwdrivers. It relies on too many assumptions about human behavior, though, and falls apart under complex pressures.

I had a friend move to the UK recently.
https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/how-much-pay
We can debate philosophy until we're blue in the face. The simple fact is, social health care works better.

Microeconomic theory is derived from taking axiomatic truths and then spinning out the necessary logical implications.

So say microeconomic theory is "wrong" would be like ssying Euclidean Geometry is wrong. The method of discovering new knowledge in both fields is the same.

You can misinterpret the theory or apply its lessons incorrectly, but microeconomic theory is not wrong. That's like saying you can have round squares.

SpamYouToDeath
09-26-2017, 11:05 AM
You can misinterpret the theory or apply its lessons incorrectly, but microeconomic theory is not wrong. That's like saying you can have round squares.

I meant "wrong" in the sense that any theory is wrong. It's insufficient to explain the observed behavior. In this case, it's insufficient to explain why things like roads, schools, and hospitals don't work when you privatize them.

To get back on topic: spending money to guarantee everyone's medical care would certainly be a better use of taxes than our current military spending. There's no way we're getting our money's worth out of the defense budget right now. Diabetes probably killed 1000 times more Americans than terrorism last year, but we're not lining up to fight that.

Famicommander
09-26-2017, 11:15 AM
None of these things have ever been truly "privatized" in the modern world. Today thst word is code for fascism, not the free market. All of your arguments proceed from false premises.

And I'm against all military spending increases, so you're preaching to the choir there.

SML
09-26-2017, 12:41 PM
The free market can never fail. It can only be failed.

True communism has never been tried.

No true Scotsman...

greedostick
09-26-2017, 01:07 PM
We spend more on our military than most other industrialized countries combined. And then we claim we can't afford to provide healthcare to everyone in the country. Oh, and teachers have to buy pencils for their classrooms.

A solid military is more important than healthcare.

The problem with healthcare, and medicine in general, is that there are no laws in effect to keep pharmaceutical companies and hospitals from charging absurd amounts. You can buy prescription "A" in mexico for a few dollars, but in the USA prescription "A" is hundreds. You know they're making 99.5% profit off most prescriptions. Take the epipen for example. Someone who is a college graduate, and works in a good job can pay $280.00 for a prescription, but someone with no education can get it for $40.00. Our hospital charges $700.00 for an EKG. It's a 1 minute test. A stay in our ICU I heard is 20k a day. If you're a level 1 trauma, and go there, we're probably talking about a 200k visit or more. I won't even get into the amount of people who are illegal residents, that rack up hospital bills, and receive HCAP charity benefits, that sometimes pay 100% of their bills for several months. So then they come in and rack up the largest bill possible. I work in a registration office, which is shared with our financial advocates, and I would say easily 3 or 4 out of every 5 people getting financial help with bills are illegal or here on a green card.

Also, PLENTY of people are getting free healthcare. It's called Molina, Medicaid, and Caresource. Problem is that people getting it are usually just lazy piles of useless waste that leech off society. If those services were only made available to those who actually needed it, like the truly disabled, and MRDD, then it would be a great service. But the vast majority of those people have "depression", and don't work. Or popped out 5 kids in their 20's and don't work.

To some extent, most people have control over their healthcare. They can not sit on the couch all day, exercise, adn eat right, instead of eating fast food every day and smoking. If people actually took care of themselves, healthcare would not be so much an issue.

I personally am all for a strong military right now. Things seems to be getting worse on a daily basis, and have since 911.

but yeah, school should be free. It's one of the things that makes the most sense. If everyone was educated, most problems, wouldn't be a problem. Or at least not to the degree they are.

SML
09-26-2017, 01:20 PM
Get a load of this discussion and tell me people, individually or in groups, behave rationally, or that we can quantify "utility," or even identify it.

SML
09-26-2017, 01:39 PM
To some extent, most people have control over their healthcare. They can not sit on the couch all day, exercise, adn eat right, instead of eating fast food every day and smoking. If people actually took care of themselves, healthcare would not be so much an issue.

I personally am all for a strong military right now. Things seems to be getting worse on a daily basis, and have since 911.

Imagine the USA as a diabetic on a couch. Instead of "strengthening the military," he's "upping his doughnut intake." He's been doing this awhile, but man, he just can't get enough of those doughnuts. If anything, he's only gotten hungrier ever since the diagnosis.

Famicommander
09-26-2017, 01:41 PM
The free market can never fail. It can only be failed.

True communism has never been tried.

No true Scotsman...

The no true Scotsman fallacy only applies when someone refuses to define the parameters of a "true Scotsman" or moves the goalpost after the fact.

A truly free market is very easy to define and it's very easy to verify that we do not have one.

SML
09-26-2017, 01:44 PM
The no true Scotsman fallacy only applies when someone refuses to define the parameters of a "true Scotsman" or moves the goalpost after the fact.

A truly free market is very easy to define and it's very easy to verify that we do not have one.

You can't, just as easily, verify that true communism hasn't really been tried?

Tripredacus
09-26-2017, 01:48 PM
You can't, just as easily, verify that true communism hasn't really been tried?

You only need to find one example of it to disprove the claim. Everyone forgets about the Shakers.

Famicommander
09-26-2017, 01:50 PM
You can't, just as easily, verify that true communism hasn't really been tried?

Communism fails on its own premise. Yoi don't have to verify that it doesn't work; all you have to do is logically analyze its tenets and their implications.

Communism is the collective ownership of the means of production enforced by a totalitarian government. If there is only one true provider of goods and services (the state), there can be no market prices. And without market prices there can be no economic calculation, which means it is impossible for resources to be directed to their most productive uses.

SML
09-26-2017, 01:52 PM
Shakers weren't true communists. Sorry, it's never been tried!

SML
09-26-2017, 01:55 PM
Communism fails on its own premise. Yoi don't have to verify that it doesn't work; all you have to do is logically analyze its tenets and their implications.

Communism is the collective ownership of the means of production enforced by a totalitarian government. If there is only one true provider of goods and services (the state), there can be no market prices. And without market prices there can be no economic calculation, which means it is impossible for resources to be directed to their most productive uses.

I've got work in five, but why should I accept any economic premises more readily than I accept a Euclidean universe?

SML
09-26-2017, 02:16 PM
I'm not trying to be a sophist or a solipsist. Or an asshole.

I just don't believe that a "market" is any better at maximizing "utility" than a central committee or an algal bloom, though I do believe that a free market operates with about as much foresight as the bloom.

Famicommander
09-26-2017, 02:54 PM
I'm not trying to be a sophist or a solipsist. Or an asshole.

I just don't believe that a "market" is any better at maximizing "utility" than a central committee or an algal bloom, though I do believe that a free market operates with about as much foresight as the bloom.

Then you don't understand economics at all. Market prices are as necessary to economic prosperity as oxygen is for human life.

SML
09-26-2017, 03:49 PM
Let's say that "Market prices are as necessary to economic prosperity as oxygen is for human life."

Okay? And?

It's necessary for oxygen and fuel to be consumed in order for a fire to burn. A fire that "maximises utility" snuffs itself out the fastest.

The "market" valued the Moai of Rapa Nui as worth the resources and labor that were spent in their construction, at least at the time they went up. If we don't see them as such now, what changed?

Money is a metaphor. Economic models are metaphors. A person could consider my earlier metaphor about the USA as a diabetic doughnut addict apt or not, but no reasonable person would consider it perfect, or complete, just like no reasonable person would mistake a map for the mapped territory.

I'm reasonably confident that any "free market" you point to has some socialized costs it fails to acknowledge, and some that we all fail to recognize, just as a 19th century archaeologist might fail to recognize his methods would be considered vandalism by 21st century standards.

CrazyDean
09-26-2017, 06:47 PM
For those who think that increasing military spending is necessary, here's some info on aircraft carriers. According to Wikipedia, there are currently 19 carriers in the world. The US has the largest aircraft carriers by quite a large margin, and we have 11 of them. The last one cost $10B. The price doesn't include the research and tooling costs of the ship. Of course, this also doesn't include the ongoing costs such as paying the 2600+ sailors who work on it and the extremely high costs of replacement parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country#Numbers_of_fl eet_aircraft_carriers_by_country

SteveNK
09-26-2017, 06:54 PM
For those who think that increasing military spending is necessary, here's some info on aircraft carriers. According to Wikipedia, there are currently 19 carriers in the world. The US has the largest aircraft carriers by quite a large margin, and we have 11 of them. The last one cost $10B. The price doesn't include the research and tooling costs of the ship. Of course, this also doesn't include the ongoing costs such as paying the 2600+ sailors who work on it and the extremely high costs of replacement parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country#Numbers_of_fl eet_aircraft_carriers_by_country

Not really sure what that tells us.

It's common knowledge that the US outspends every other country on defence to a huge degree, but the question is whether it's worth it or not?

SpamYouToDeath
09-26-2017, 09:00 PM
Then you don't understand economics at all. Market prices are as necessary to economic prosperity as oxygen is for human life.

I bet you're a shrewd negotiator when you're keeling over in septic shock. Hold on, I think the hospital across town has a better price on appendectomies.

SML
09-26-2017, 09:50 PM
Free market solutions would have saved Puerto Rico by now. Or not. Either way It would be for the best.

Poppy
09-27-2017, 12:37 AM
Shakers weren't true communists. Sorry, it's never been tried!

"The farm" in summertown tennessee

norton9478
09-27-2017, 12:54 AM
Socialism means the state controls the pricing and means of production. On the free market, prices are set via voluntary exchange and the means of production are privately controlled.


Socialism is funded by taxation which is involuntary. If you really can't differentiate between people freely spending their own money on products of their choice and being forced to buy things at gunpoint by the state, there isn't a lot I can do for you.



You are using a singular, narrow definition of "Socialism".



Microeconomic theory is derived from taking axiomatic truths and then spinning out the necessary logical implications.

So say microeconomic theory is "wrong" would be like ssying Euclidean Geometry is wrong. The method of discovering new knowledge in both fields is the same.

You can misinterpret the theory or apply its lessons incorrectly, but microeconomic theory is not wrong. That's like saying you can have round squares.

Are we talking about microeconomics or macroeconomics?

norton9478
09-27-2017, 01:00 AM
A solid military is more important than healthcare.
.

Ridiculous.

SML
09-27-2017, 07:16 AM
"The farm" in summertown tennessee

I'll always be able to shift the goalposts, man. Tennessee, you say? Sorry, friend, the true communism is stateless!

Free market entrepreneurs aren't lining up to save Puerto Ricans? Sorry, without the nanny state, maybe people would have thought harder about living in Puerto Rico in the first place. Also, the Jones Act?

Libertarianism keeps getting co-opted by fascists? Freedom is hard!

I remember responding to family emails about creeping socialism with "well actually, if you look at it, the ACA is a *corporatist,* or "soft fascist," bill..." It's not like I'm unfamiliar with the scripts. I'm not some statist casual over here, but I do know that Kool Aid comes in many flavors.

Lukejaywalker23
09-27-2017, 07:24 AM
Not really sure what that tells us.

It's common knowledge that the US outspends every other country on defence to a huge degree, but the question is whether it's worth it or not?

I believe our military budget is to high but I don't know what number it should be to keep us safe. Is it 10b, 700m , 800b?

Lukejaywalker23
09-27-2017, 07:26 AM
I bet you're a shrewd negotiator when you're keeling over in septic shock. Hold on, I think the hospital across town has a better price on appendectomies.

You negotiate you ins prices in the emergency room?

CrazyDean
09-27-2017, 09:23 AM
I bet you're a shrewd negotiator when you're keeling over in septic shock. Hold on, I think the hospital across town has a better price on appendectomies.

It's funny that you should mention this. Actually, insurance companies do this all the time. Except they negotiate when the bill comes. It's weird that this is done at all. You can't negotiate with WalMart or Amazon. But, the insurance companies are able to negotiate with hospitals and doctors like some podunk flea market.

SpamYouToDeath
09-28-2017, 01:23 AM
You negotiate you ins prices in the emergency room?

The insurance is there to fund the payouts to the service providers, so the charges made by the hospital are a major component...

It's funny that you should mention this. Actually, insurance companies do this all the time. Except they negotiate when the bill comes. It's weird that this is done at all. You can't negotiate with WalMart or Amazon. But, the insurance companies are able to negotiate with hospitals and doctors like some podunk flea market.

...and they're all done in secret, with all the honesty and professionalism of a railroad baron bribing your mayor.

Lukejaywalker23
09-28-2017, 06:25 PM
The insurance is there to fund the payouts to the service providers, so the charges made by the hospital are a major component...


...and they're all done in secret, with all the honesty and professionalism of a railroad baron bribing your mayor.

They aren't done in secret. Unfortunately I was involved in this regarding a 40k hospital bill. Sure your not talking out your ass?

SpamYouToDeath
09-28-2017, 06:54 PM
They aren't done in secret. Unfortunately I was involved in this regarding a 40k hospital bill. Sure your not talking out your ass?

Positive.