[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Congress controls spending.
During the first six Bush the Bush years the Republicans spent too much and the Democrats spent even more wildly. I suspect if The US was not involved in the war then there would have been more fiscal soundness during the Bush years.
During the Clinton years the budget wasn’t balanced until the Republicans took control. [/quote]
This ^^^^
“Libs need to learn that government does not create wealth, it steals it.”
The internet would not exist if it hadn’t been for government research. How much money did Amazon or Google have to invest to make that happen? Zero. They are able to profit because of the dynamism of the public sector. The public took all the risk, the corporations made most of the profits. As is usually the case.
How is that not creating wealth?
[quote]molnes wrote:
“Libs need to learn that government does not create wealth, it steals it.”
The internet would not exist if it hadn’t been for government research. How much money did Amazon or Google have to invest to make that happen? Zero. They are able to profit because of the dynamism of the public sector. The public took all the risk, the corporations made most of the profits. As is usually the case.
How is that not creating wealth? [/quote]
Because private companies would have NEVA EVA thought of creating computer networks.
Got it.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
“Libs need to learn that government does not create wealth, it steals it.”
The internet would not exist if it hadn’t been for government research. How much money did Amazon or Google have to invest to make that happen? Zero. They are able to profit because of the dynamism of the public sector. The public took all the risk, the corporations made most of the profits. As is usually the case.
How is that not creating wealth? [/quote]
Because private companies would have NEVA EVA thought of creating computer networks.
Got it.
[/quote]
Al Gore. Al Gore…
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Corporations, more specifically their propaganda, are at fault. .[/quote]
You lost me right there. Dude, get a real angle on this, then, study up and come at us with an actual argument. Free will right? Choices I make are a result of something else for which I am not responsible for?
Who swipes the card? Again…
[/quote]
He actually makes a fair point although he takes it a few steps too far.
If I spent every day from when you were a little kid telling you how evil America was, chances are you would hate America. And even if you wouldn’t, 9/11 people would.
Advertising is the same as any other form of brainwashing and has a massive effect on people. Businesses are collectively spending billions of $ every year convincing you to buy shit. That has a powerful effect. It encourages a culture of consumption.
Ultimately at the end of the day we have free will, but it is influenced to an incredible degree by others.
And blaming it on the person who overspends will not fix anything. Even if it is his fault.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
“Libs need to learn that government does not create wealth, it steals it.”
The internet would not exist if it hadn’t been for government research. How much money did Amazon or Google have to invest to make that happen? Zero. They are able to profit because of the dynamism of the public sector. The public took all the risk, the corporations made most of the profits. As is usually the case.
How is that not creating wealth? [/quote]
Because private companies would have NEVA EVA thought of creating computer networks.
Got it.
[/quote]
They didn’t, and the government probably created trillions of dollars for private companies by developing that shit. The funny thing is now you have IT-billionaires bitching and complaining about paying taxes. Oh the irony.
Most meaningful research comes from the public sector. The money the private sector has made of this is ridiculous. I’m not against private companies making money of research, but you have to see that side of the equation when people are moaning about how the government is stealing from the private sector.
[quote]Because private companies would have NEVA EVA thought of creating computer networks.
Got it. [/quote]
private companies could have created roads, railways, airports, satellites, global networks, submarines, wholly equiped armies and atomic weapons but then, they wouldn’t have been private companies anymore.
they would have become, well, governements.
and obviously not democracies.
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
“Libs need to learn that government does not create wealth, it steals it.”
The internet would not exist if it hadn’t been for government research. How much money did Amazon or Google have to invest to make that happen? Zero. They are able to profit because of the dynamism of the public sector. The public took all the risk, the corporations made most of the profits. As is usually the case.
How is that not creating wealth? [/quote]
Because private companies would have NEVA EVA thought of creating computer networks.
Got it.
[/quote]
They didn’t, and the government probably created trillions of dollars for private companies by developing that shit. The funny thing is now you have IT-billionaires bitching and complaining about paying taxes. Oh the irony.
Most meaningful research comes from the public sector. The money the private sector has made of this is ridiculous. I’m not against private companies making money of research, but you have to see that side of the equation when people are moaning about how the government is stealing from the private sector.[/quote]
I do?
You can always point to what government has done with the stolen money, but not to what might have been had the money not been stolen.
So no, I am not really impressed that government can do what other entities can do at three times the cost and with a healhy dose of control mixed in.
We could have the internet now and the hypersupercomflabulator.
Unfortunately we only have the interwebz.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Because private companies would have NEVA EVA thought of creating computer networks.
Got it. [/quote]
private companies could have created roads, railways, airports, satellites, global networks, submarines, wholly equiped armies and atomic weapons but then, they wouldn’t have been private companies anymore.
they would have become, well, governements.
and obviously not democracies.[/quote]
I like the “not democracies” part.
Also, there is no profit in atomic weapons and nuclear submarines.
The rest they could have done and have done repeatedly.
no profit…
except not having to work in a kolkhoz everyday of your life ?
once upon a time, there was a word to describe someone who privately own (without an “healthy dose of control”) the security, the health, the information, the education, the subsistance of others.
It was called a Lord.
the real name of libertarianism is feudalism.
[quote]kamui wrote:
no profit…
except not having to work in a kholkhoz everyday of your life ?
once upon a time, there was a word to describe someone who privately own (without an “healthy dose of control”) the security, the health, the information, the education, the subsistance of others.
It was called a Lord.
the real name of libertarianism is feudalism.[/quote]
Not really, because wealth no longer depends on land ownership these days.
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, there is no profit in atomic weapons and nuclear submarines.
[/quote]
Orion sometimes you say some really strange things. If you can’t think of ways to make nuclear weapons profitable then you sir are no businessman. Even simple extortion could make you a lot of money.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, there is no profit in atomic weapons and nuclear submarines.
[/quote]
Orion sometimes you say some really strange things. If you can’t think of ways to make nuclear weapons profitable then you sir are no businessman. Even simple extortion could make you a lot of money.[/quote]
Untill someone else has them and then you have to maintain them to not be on the receiving end of extortion…
Meh.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, there is no profit in atomic weapons and nuclear submarines.
[/quote]
Orion sometimes you say some really strange things. If you can’t think of ways to make nuclear weapons profitable then you sir are no businessman. Even simple extortion could make you a lot of money.[/quote]
Untill someone else has them and then you have to maintain them to not be on the receiving end of extortion…
Meh.
[/quote]
This is like saying “…until some other company does it cheaper and you’re left with a huge stock of unsellable product!”
And yet people acually manage to run businesses.
You are on the wrong end of the argument here orion. You have said some sensible things in this thread but this isn’t one of them.
First we would need to deregulate insurance companies to allow them to sell to every state. If we do that, then the cost has no choice, but come down, because you would have a huge influx of new providers competing for our business. This would also allow companies to provide very customized and personilized plans. What is right for me is probally not right for my nieghbor. After 2-3 years of this we should be able to disolve medicare and medicaid. I would also offer doctors tax breaks for accepting all providers, this would mean no more out of network coverage. I would raise the retirement age to 70.
Any one 60 or over would get SS. Anyone younger than that would be on thier on to get a 401 k, IRA, or something like that. When SS was thought up the life expectancy was not as high as it is today. I would build a damn fence between the US and Mexico. It would be 30 or so feet high, and completly surrounded by razor wire. I would also electrify the fence, and on our side there would be a generous ammount of land mines. I would have the latest in security cameras, as well as actually National Guard personnel positioned so far apart. I would reform the immigration process to allow immigrants to come in as guest workers and provide an easier way to citizenship to DESERVING workers. Prayer goes back in school. I will not force anyone to pray, but were founded on Godly principels, and we are going to stay that way. We will teach evolution and the big bang as a THEORY, not fact. We will also teach creation.
[quote]ReignIB
What propaganda ? advertisement?
K, so I watched a hockey game on TV last night, 3 hours or so with commercial breaks etc.
From what I remember there were ads for Timberland steel toe boots, Mazda (don’t recall the model), Dodge Journey, local tire shop chain and a local personal injury lawyer.
Can you tell me which of these is going to compel me to “live beyond my means” ?
[/quote]
Propaganda is a term that includes pretty much anything that is used to influence peoples’ opinions. Government’s use propaganda to build support for wars, corporations use propaganda to build demand for their products, etc. It’s not just limited to adversiting, it includes movies, TV shows, toys, etc. (like when a little girl gets a barbie doll that has 100 clothing accessories, she’s going to be inclined to assume that’s how life goes). There’s a picture of the world presented that fits our current socio-economic model. People watch stuff like TV shows and assume that’s how life works. For example, when the military partners with hollywood to make a movie, they’re going to make the military look badass, and leave out the part where some soldiers kill themselves due to depression, because they want young men that see the movie to think “wow that’s badass, I want to be like that.”
You’re extremely naive if you really believe that billions of dollars advertising doesn’t seriously influence how we behave as a society. Specifically dealing with consumerism and adversiting think of it like this, if you didn’t constantly get pummeled with adversments all the time, you’d probably only buy stuff you needed. But, when you see hundreds of commercials every day as you’re watching TV, you’re more inclined to feel the need to buy things, often times things you don’t really need.
There’s actually a ton of work out there on the subject of propaganda if you are actually interested. Read Propaganda by Edward Bernays, Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann or The Public and its Problems by John Dewey, rather revealing works that offer the point of view of the elites themselves. If you want analysis of how the system works read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy by Alex Carey, or Democracy Inc. by Sheldon Wolin. If you want insight in to how pro-business, anti-government sentiment came to dominate post-WWII, read Selling Free Enterprise by Elizabeth Fones-Wolf. If you actually take the time to read any of these works, I’d be willing to bet you’d be shocked at what you learn.
[quote]Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion
The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages, and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough.
The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a very old one which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy. But it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technic, because it is now based on analysis rather than on rule of thumb. And so, as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner.
[/quote]
Our society is largely shaped by people that know what they’re doing, and they are very happy that people such as yourself don’t understand how these things work.
[quote]orion wrote:
You can always point to what government has done with the stolen money, but not to what might have been had the money not been stolen.
So no, I am not really impressed that government can do what other entities can do at three times the cost and with a healhy dose of control mixed in.
[/quote]
Private corporations wanted nothing to do with the internet until it was developed enough to be profitable. We can actually say with certainty that we would have no internet if the government didn’t develop it. No company is going to develop a technology that needs decades of development, the government can actually do that though.
It’s interesting how you claim the government only steals money without creating wealth, then when presented with a concrete example of the government creating wealth your response is that the government sucks anyway and private business would have been much better.
That’s how things have been happening for quite a while, the cost of development is socialized and then the profit is privatized. Corpoartions like it this way. We wouldn’t have telecommunication technology, planes, bombs, highways, etc. if the government didn’t put public money toward this stuff. Didn’t you get the memo though? Socialism is only “bad” when it benefits poor people, not rich people.
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
…
You’re extremely naive if you really believe that billions of dollars advertising doesn’t seriously influence how we behave as a society. Specifically dealing with consumerism and adversiting think of it like this, if you didn’t constantly get pummeled with adversments all the time, you’d probably only buy stuff you needed. But, when you see hundreds of commercials every day as you’re watching TV, you’re more inclined to feel the need to buy things, often times things you don’t really need.
…
[/quote]
Of course advertisement just like everything else you see or hear affects decisions ppl make, that’s not the question.
You are claiming that some sort of “big corporate propaganda machine” affecting population via advertisement and other means of communication is to be “blamed” for the materialistic society we live in (which it looks like you’re implying is “bad”).
I don’t see that. Yeah, there are ads everywhere, but what are they advertising?
I watch sports primarily - so the ads are revolving around beer (bud lite, miller lite and other crap which I’m not going to buy), pickup trucks (not gonna run out and buy one because of the ad), old spice/mitchum/axe deodorants, new movies, local deals - from TVs to tires etc.
Can you specifically point out which of these you see as being an example of “an evil instrument of corporate brainwashing” ?
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
[quote] orion wrote:
You can always point to what government has done with the stolen money, but not to what might have been had the money not been stolen.
So no, I am not really impressed that government can do what other entities can do at three times the cost and with a healhy dose of control mixed in.
[/quote]
Private corporations wanted nothing to do with the internet until it was developed enough to be profitable. We can actually say with certainty that we would have no internet if the government didn’t develop it. No company is going to develop a technology that needs decades of development, the government can actually do that though.
It’s interesting how you claim the government only steals money without creating wealth, then when presented with a concrete example of the government creating wealth your response is that the government sucks anyway and private business would have been much better.
That’s how things have been happening for quite a while, the cost of development is socialized and then the profit is privatized. Corpoartions like it this way. We wouldn’t have telecommunication technology, planes, bombs, highways, etc. if the government didn’t put public money toward this stuff. Didn’t you get the memo though? Socialism is only “bad” when it benefits poor people, not rich people.[/quote]
What you describe is fascism, or at least corporatism, not that Mussolino saw any serious difference there.
The point I take from this however is that as long as politicians have something to sell they will be bought. Now we can go two ways about this:
Either politicians have so little power to meddle with everday live as to make buying them unattractive, or we take away the means to bribe them by socialicising everything, thereby taking every little influence an average person has over his own life away.
Personally, I think the first alternative, but since you seem to be a person that thinks that some things can be known “for a fact”, even though they are highly speculative in nature, maybe you opt for the second alternative.
After all, if we can know “for a fact” what works and what does not, the exploratory function of the market is superfluous, and when these “facts” are known that all but garantuees that politicians will act in the best interest of the public.
Especially when they can be “influenced by elections”.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Also, there is no profit in atomic weapons and nuclear submarines.
[/quote]
Orion sometimes you say some really strange things. If you can’t think of ways to make nuclear weapons profitable then you sir are no businessman. Even simple extortion could make you a lot of money.[/quote]
The wealth that comes about due to the production of WMD is completely reversed by the wealth they destroy when they are used.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Can you specifically point out which of these you see as being an example of “an evil instrument of corporate brainwashing” ?
[/quote]
Okay bear with me here.
Evil isn’t really the right word to use, it’s not like there were a bunch of assholes that thought to themselves, “let’s destroy our country’s culture.” They were assholes no doubt, but is a twisted way they probably thought they were justified in their actions. It’s like when a child steals another child’s toy and then gets caught; the reaction to this is not going to be, “yeah, I stole it even though I knew it was wrong to do so.” More likely than not the child is going to convince himself that he was justified and you’re going to hear something like, “well he stole it from me first” or “he did this so I needed to take this toy from him to get even.” It’s easy to convince yourself that you’re justified in doing something, especially when you gain from that action. It’s not surprising that business leaders at the turn of the century thought that the economy would run much better if there was excessive demand for their products, because that was a situation that suited their needs.
Either way, as production started to become automated toward the end of the second industrial revolution, businesses could make more goods while employing less people. This presented a problem though because with less and less blue-collar jobs being worked, there was less demand for the products businesses were making. In response to this situation, the business class literally created the consumer culture. Products started being marketed to appeal to peoples’ unconscious desires. Buy these fancy clothes, they’ll make you feel creative and original. Buy this car, it will make you feel powerful and manly. Today, buy an iPod and you’ll be happy and creative because of all the music you can listen to. The point to take away is that this wasn’t a natural phenomenon, it was engineered by the business class early in the 20th century. If you really want a detailed description of how this plan was executed, let me know and I’ll get specific.
[quote]orion wrote:
What you describe is fascism, or at least corporatism, not that Mussolino saw any serious difference there.
The point I take from this however is that as long as politicians have something to sell they will be bought. Now we can go two ways about this:
Either politicians have so little power to meddle with everday live as to make buying them unattractive, or we take away the means to bribe them by socialicising everything, thereby taking every little influence an average person has over his own life away.
[/quote]
What I described is how the current economy works, except everyone loves freedom so it’s called the free-market around here. Go ahead, name a corporation in the fortune 500 and I’ll explain to you how it benefits from public funds. It won’t be hard because all of them do.
Your second point makes absolutely no sense. Either politicians are weak or they we socialize all their costs? That’s the only solution to them “being bought?” How about if we passed legislation that let them keep their power but stipulates that only actual US citizens, not PAC’s and not corporations, can make contributions to political campaigns? Then we might have a system where politicians actually had to appeal to their constituents.