Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Pencils, Aug 12, 2012.
you really are an idiot.
I accept your admission of defeat.
I love your spin on words.
I honestly admit that I don't know something. You use that as a gotcha moment.
So, you are insulting someone for being honest
Go fuck yourself.
^^ Ooh, he mad ^^
In a nutshell: Hoover's action was inaction. More specifically: His intervention was to do as little as possible directly.
If you want to split butthairs: Yes he intervened. Just barely and mostly indirectly. I can't make it any clearer than that.
The dam and infrastructure was back then the equivalent of the stimulus package we had recently. In both situations they both had the same result: Fail or barely put a dent in the grander problem.
The crest of the entire Hoover issue isn't the dam, infrastructure, or his response that made the Great Depression worse/extended. The issue is that Hoover was using volunteerism as a long term solution rather than the intended short term solution it is meant for. Rather than acknowledge that people needed direct help and people can't support others and themselves for extended periods of time, he just assumed people would help others indefinitely. That ended up making the situation worse.
A great analogy is that Hoover assumed a person stuck on the side of the road who ran out of gas would get gas from a passer by. Well, if the situation was ideal then that would be true. However, at the time, the only way that could happen is if a passer by would siphon gas out of their own tank because the nearest gas station is 500 miles away and there was a serious gas shortage. In that case: The passer by would end up in the same boat as that person in a short period of time.
OK, thanks. If you cannot accept universally accepted laws of economics, I have nothing further to say. You insist on saying that the seen is all that matters, when every economist in the world thinks otherwise.
That was me. Wrong button
LOL I figured.
I really wish I could find the PBS video I seen that explained it a lot better than I could.
This is maybe the only honest question in this thread. This is indeed a problem, as my previous post said.
please tell me why you reject the concept of opportunity costs. It makes no sense to me and I would like to understand.
Make it worth my while.
I am trying to figure out:
1) What exactly opportunity costs are. (Obviously I am not an economics expert nor do I make any pretext to being one).
2) What opportunity costs were fully involved in the Great Depression.
3) How this relates to using short term solutions (ie: volunteerism, bail outs, etc.) as a long term/permanent solution.
You said the dam created jobs (and power and water)
I agreed. The dam created jobs, power and water.
That is the seen.
The unseen is how those resources would have been used if they hadn't been used on that project.
If I have a dollar, I can use it to buy an apple or an orange. the opportunity cost is the one I did NOT chose. I have to decide: apple or orange. So what do I have give up to get what i did? If I pick the apple the opportunity cost was the orange. That reflects the scarcity of resources, which is the essential question of economics: How do we allocate scarce resources.
That is opportunity costs. So I am asking what did we give up in order to get that dam? How do we know the dam was the highest value for the resources available? What didn't get done with those resources that would have come into existence if the money hadn't been used on the dam?
If I have to send $100 to the government to build a dam, that means I can't drill the well I would have done with that $100. Multiply that by millions and you can begin to see the hidden but very real opportunity costs of all economic activity.
To be honest, I have no idea or data to give you as far as what other alternatives there was with the Hoover Dam. As far as I know: Hoover's logic was to create the dam for hydroelectric power and to get people working. Granted, the jobs it created was a drop in the bucket compared to the 24% unemployment.
However, I have not considered any of the unseen that you might have picked up on. What do you see as alternatives? Why do you suppose Hoover didn't do it?
I'd let gay couples adopt them...
All politicians want to be seen doing something rather than doing nothing.
Doing Something is seen,
Doing Nothing is unseen.
(hah, more opportunity costs, this time for the politician)
Plus, it gives them a feeling of power and satisfaction. hell, it'd give anyone a feeling of power and satisfaction. That's why Gandalf and what's er name both rejected the One Ring. They knew and rejected the consequences of accepting that much power. They knew it would inevitably corrupt them. Tolkien was a smart man. Would our politicians understood that lesson.
I was reluctant to bring up one item, but since AW so kindly gave me the perfect lead in...
The fact that there are people as smart as Anon Walker who can use their brains is all I need to know to feel good about the future. Her funny remark is actually one marvelous partial solution and it was thrown off as a casual joke, and a serious suggestion.
So, we get a dozen or so Anon Walkers talking about the problem and soon we'd have a couple dozens possibilities.In economics this role is played by the entrepreneur
As long as people are allowed to be entrepreneurs, then solutions to complex problems will be found.
Kinda like what we do in the AvS section, use a free for all anarchic no leader approach to solving a complex social problem, which I one reason I find it so funny that you object to my anarchism. You are practicing it every day.
A free for all, anarchic, no leader approach?
Wow, I bet that would surprise the moderators, admins, and owners of this website.
You know, since it's apparently an anarchic free for all.
WOOHOO, NO MORE MODS.
Godammit 612, stop saying stuff I agree with, it's confusing
A society with no laws and government? Wonder how that'd turn out?
Whateva, I do what I want. This is a free for all anarchist paradise! Stop trying to oppress me with your RULES, man!
It is an honest question, and the answer is government. This is a proper and just role for government, and this is one a government is uniquely suited to address.
tl;dr: Anarchy ≠ no rules. To think it does is to show instantly that you have no clue what anarcho- capitalism is. Like the music example earlier, you just told me we'll be playing in the key of G major minor.
You see, contrary to your misunderstanding about anarchy (no leaders) I've never said an anarchic society would have no rules. That is your assumption. I don't know why you make so many unwarranted assumptions, but this is another one. And since you already know about the non aggression principle I can only think that you don't put your thoughts together and make the obvious connections.
As for the mods, I've been on another site talking politics, and pretty much 100% of this site would be banned instantly for TOS violations. I called someone arrogant and got infracted for a 'personal attack.'
(see what you've done to me!!!!)
So, another thing about voluntary groups is the groups can have different rules. And now that I know about this rule, I don't violate it. I temper my language in response to the TOS (rules and regs, baby)
So think of the mods as the arbiters, mediators or judges. It's a good fit. We have the TOS (the rules) and we have at least two ways of enforcing those rules. We can ask a mod for help or we simply swarm the person (think the vaccination thread recently) and let them know what the site is about. There is even a hierarchy there, with local and global mods, analogous to local judges and appellate courts.
As far as I know, there are two secular approaches to law, common law and legislative. Since the one is fiat law, passed down from above, I see that as something less than just. So, keep the common law, throw out the legislative law.
Unless I missed the memo, there are no involuntary leaders here at WWP, only volunteers. Yes, Sue runs the site, and aren't we glad an entrepreneur cared enough to make it available to us? Now we don't have to, since, amazingly, this site arose when Enturb went down.
That is because someone saw a need a filled it. And all chanology benefits.
Someone says "Let's do a protest."
No one told him to do that. He just did it. On his own, no leader, except his own conscience. He put it out there, people respond.
This is how things get done. it isn't because some government gets formed. It get done because people spontaneously organize to create order from chaos, and do it best in a framework of basic, understandable rules that people agree to. Anonymous is an exemplar of emergent and spontaneous order, and WWP is an example of how a no leader approach works to solve complex social issues (scientology, anyone?)
Adhocrat, you said this forum was a free for all.
I pointed out we have mods.
You do not focus on the issues. The issue isn't some phrase with multiple meanings that you insist on defining only one way. If 'free for all' is all you got from my post, then fine.
Have I pointed out that you are an idiot?
If I haven't please accept my apologies.
Dodging the question again. If this forum is a free for all, why do we have mods?
I answered that already. Read my post again if you didn't get the answer.
Yeah, that's nice and all, but it's utterly divorced from reality. In a real society, anarchy has one rule: those who have power can do whatever they want, and all they need fear is someone stronger. That's the end result of your anarchy and your anarcho-capitalism: the strong prey on the weak. What you don't realize is the fact that a small commune or a website like this ≠ a modern society. You claim your ideal society would have rules. Who would enforce those rules should someone violate them? What would guarantee the rights of the minority and protect them from the tyranny of the majority? We've seen your ideal society. We've seen the end results of your utopia, and it is a hellish failed state called Somalia.
We've gone over this before.
I am tired of you doing this. I explain something, then three days later you are bringing up the same thing as if I never said a fucking word. So, if you throw out stupidities like "Ideal Society" then I will ignore you as worthless to a conversation. If you cannot learn, then I don't want to attempt to break through with your straw men arguments.
Talk about something we haven't covered or STFU.
Government is so horrible. After all, we spend $1.35 per kilowatt-hour generated by used generators from Dubai thanks to government. Government is both a consequence of and a necessity for civilization, certainly a civilization above the size of a small village.
Yes, we have covered it before. Your answer was utter bullshit three days ago, and six days ago, and it will continue to be bullshit years from now, you Objectivist, Randian asshole. People keep mentioning an "ideal society" because that's the only one where your monstrous ideas would work. Meanwhile, here in reality, your anarchy and anarcho-capitalism is a path to unimaginable suffering. People can be evil, capricious, cruel, and thoughtless. Many are, and when someone's rights are violated, that's why governments are needed. It truly baffles me that you simultaneously believe people are noble enough to peacefully coexist, yet ignoble enough to prefer what you falsely describe as tyranny when the moral arc of our civilization has bent towards more freedom, not less.
You can't distinguish between warring factions hoping to become the government, so they can rule the territory for themselves and the evolution of a peaceful society.
What role has Ethiopia played in Somalia politics? What role did the US play? How many drone strikes from our own government have been done in the area? Is it anarchy when the US strikes targets in Somalia and Yemen with Hellfire missile?
Do you know the first thing about xeer?
See, I actually research things I want to know about. so tell me, how many hours of your life have you spent studying Somalia?
Since you don't seem to be playing the same game I'm playing, I'll leave you to your fantasies.
(I don't get it. I say NO, they hear YES. shakes head and wanders off for greener pastures.)
No, it's actually that you can't recognize the difference between your dreams of a utopian society and the real world consequences of such beliefs being exercised in the real world. I see you've gone into your "always attack, never defend" mode. Do you still think 19th century orphanages were a model for dealing with orphaned and abused children? There will always be leaders, and those who want to be leaders. There will always be those who will follow those leaders, either through genuine belief or fear. When those leaders are warlords, we have Somalia, which arose from the anarchy after the overthrow of Mohamed Siad Barre, and this failed nation has deteriorated ever since. The only realistic way to mitigate that is by having checks on the power of leaders, and that means a government. A constitutional republic with representatives elected democratically through a multi-party process is the best way to achieve that in anything resembling a large scale.
Go play "who's the better idealist" with your fellow anarchist buddies. I'll play "how can I make reality better in a way that won't be a giant clusterfuck." Better yet, just die in a fire.
Answer these two questions. Humor us.
So, in your head, implying anarchy becomes a reality, no one will ever try to become government with bigger guns?
Sorry if reality doesn't match your expectations.
Thanks for addressing the argument. You're wrong (IMO) in several different ways:
- Victorian orphanages and workhouses were horrible. They're not something we can or should should wish upon our imaginary orphan. See below ("girls and boys of only six years old ... bundled into carts and transported like cattle, often hundreds of miles away, to work in the factories and mills of Britain’s industrial heartlands, where they would be beaten as they laboured 16 hours a day in exchange for a few spoonfuls of gruel")
- In the 19th century there were laws around poverty and destitution, there was government intervention. You're mistaken to think that it was all a matter of personal charity, and that "the government didn't handle the situation".
- Many people starved to death in the 19th century. The idea that that was a good system, or a system which could be relied upon to help those who needed help, is totally mistaken.
^ it seems to me that this - the way it treats its weakest members - is a test that your society would fail.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!