Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:One that has limited power and authority, not simply limited money. While social welfare spending causes deficit problems, it's expanded government authority that causes the problem of corruption and power imbalance.

Well, you're not really talking about anything, not anything specific anyway. You're vaguely alluding to the concept of government size, without clearly explaining how you assess the size of government, or even what the ideal size of government is.

biccat wrote:
If government doesn't have the authority to set wheat prices, then there will not be anyone lobbying for laws increasing wheat prices. So long as there are laws setting wheat prices, individuals/groups who have money to lobby will have an advantage over those who do not.

Any group with money to lobby, or corrupt, has a natural advantage over any group that does not. Its unavoidable.

Take your example of wheat prices. If no law exists to permit the government to set the price of wheat, then any interested party, with sufficient resources to lobby, will lobby for the creation of such a law should they view it as a valuable expenditure. The absence of a particular power has no necessary impact on the overall expenditure of resources on the influence of politicians, because politicians can, will, and have defined the scope of their own power.

biccat wrote:No, it's like saying "if there were no iPads, there wouldn't be any demand for iPads."

That is a stupid comparison which is also stupid.

Because no matter how small the government is THERE WOULD STILL BE GOVERNMENT.

The only way there'd be NO government is through anarchy, Biccat, and if you're arguing that then you'd probably actually agree with some of the nuttier members of the Occupy Whatever movement.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:No, it's like saying "if there were no iPads, there wouldn't be any demand for iPads."

That is a stupid comparison which is also stupid.

Its also misleading, because the absence of specific demand for an iPad does not preclude the existence of demand for a product that fulfills its general function; ie. "This laptop is cool, but it would be even cooler if it used a touchscreen and was half the size." In the case of government, it is known that the state serves in a regulatory capacity over certain elements of society, so it isn't a significant leap to claim that it would be good for it to do the same in other areas; leading to the expenditure of money to influence the state to do exactly that.

Please do not spam the forum. Thanks! ~Manchu

biccat wrote:This is your fallback position every time someone points out that your argument doesn't make sense. Simply stating "I'm right, you're wrong" isn't actually a hallmark of reasoned debate. It's simply bullying.

No, its the inevitable result of me providing you with a simple fact, and you not acknowledging it. Government is going to be a multi-trillion dollar entity in a modern economy like the US, no matter what. You can't change that.

Once I've pointed that out, there are two options available to you. You can accept this, and either modify or withdraw your argument, or you can find some way of arguing that government could actually be made much smaller than that. You haven't done any of that, you've just tried to pretend the figures I gave you don't exist.

At which point the only option available to me is to keep repeating it to you, over and over again, until you recognise or challenge it.

Since you appear to continue to intentionally misconstrue what I've been posting, I'll try it again. I'm talking about a limited government. One that has limited power and authority, not simply limited money.

Ha! I mean holy gak dude, that is funny.

I wrote this sentence in my first response to you on this;
"Never mind that outside of direct government spending, there is a vast amount of gain to be found in beneficial legislation, or just on matters of principle."

When you quoted me, you removed that part, claiming it was incomprehensible.

So here you are, getting confused by straight forward sentences, ignoring them in your response, then complaining about me misconstruing your claim to focus in purely on government spending...

If government doesn't have the authority to set wheat prices, then there will not be anyone lobbying for laws increasing wheat prices. So long as there are laws setting wheat prices, individuals/groups who have money to lobby will have an advantage over those who do not.

Uh huh. Never mind government doesn't set wheat prices, let's look at something they do regulate, like air safety. As long as government is attempting to ensure planes won't crash out of the sky, there will be lobbying by aircraft designers (to make their newly safety features mandatory, and make safety features developed by other manufacturers non-mandatory), and lobbying from airlines (to remove any costly safety features).

According to you, the left wing response would be to control how much money and facetime those parties could have with legislators, while the right wing response would be to... not regulate air traffic at all? Is that it?

Please do not spam the forum. Thanks! ~Manchu

sebster wrote:Once I've pointed that out, there are two options available to you. You can accept this, and either modify or withdraw your argument, or you can find some way of arguing that government could actually be made much smaller than that.

Um, no, because your basic fact is that government cannot actually be made smaller. If I accept that a multi-trillion dollar government is a requirement of a modern state, then I can't argue that a multi-trillion dollar government is not a requirement of a modern state.

If only there were some sort of graduate student on Dakka who could point out these types of logical fallacies.

sebster wrote:At which point the only option available to me is to keep repeating it to you, over and over again, until you recognise or challenge it.

So we're at an impasse. I present an argument as to why government should be reduced in scope. You say that I'm wrong and you're right and I should just accept that. I back up that argument, showing why a less powerful government is adventageous to both the public and private sectors. Now you're trying to back that up by saying that I'm wrong and you're right and I should just accept that.

sebster wrote:Ha! I mean holy gak dude, that is funny.

I wrote this sentence in my first response to you on this;
"Never mind that outside of direct government spending, there is a vast amount of gain to be found in beneficial legislation, or just on matters of principle."

When you quoted me, you removed that part, claiming it was incomprehensible.

Yes, because it's bad grammar and doesn't make sense. If you would care to try again, I would be happy to respond to your argument.

sebster wrote:Never mind government doesn't set wheat prices, let's look at something they do regulate, like air safety. As long as government is attempting to ensure planes won't crash out of the sky, there will be lobbying by aircraft designers (to make their newly safety features mandatory, and make safety features developed by other manufacturers non-mandatory), and lobbying from airlines (to remove any costly safety features).

According to you, the left wing response would be to control how much money and facetime those parties could have with legislators, while the right wing response would be to... not regulate air traffic at all? Is that it?

Yup, makes sense to me.

You see, companies like Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed and Cesna actually have a vested interest in not making unsafe planes. Further, companies like Delta, USAir, Northwest, and RyanAir actually have a vested interest in not buying unsafe planes, and not operating unsafe planes. Consumers who fly also have a vested interest in not flying in unsafe planes.

Therefore, there is a market interest in making safe planes, even without government regulation.

Taking it a step further, consider that the government is considering determining how far an aircraft can fly before needing to be checked between flights. Company A will say airplanes should travel 7000 miles between checkups. Company B will say airplanes should travel 8,000 miles. Both have technical evidence to support their position. Should the government err on the side of caution? Or should they let planes fly further between being checked?

Of course, what the government doesn't know is that Company A is considering a sale of aircraft to a carrier with a hub in LAX (SHA is 6500 miles). Company B is considering a sale to a carrier with a hub in ATL (SHA is 7500 miles). A determination of 7,000 will harm Company B. A determination of 8,000 will potentially harm A because of competition from B.

These types of situations arise constantly. That's why there's so much money in lobbying.

biccat wrote:Further, companies like Delta, USAir, Northwest, and RyanAir actually have a vested interest in not buying unsafe planes

They have a far bigger interest in making a profit. So they cut corners in the safety area to maximize profit.

This is not speculation. This is proven.

Capitalism does not fully regulate itself, it maximizes profits; any self-regulation is only relevant to capitalistic companies insofar as they maximize profits. In a no-regulation setting, a company is more likely to lie and cover up its safety failures than to actually do anything about them. Lying and covering up are cheaper for them in the short term and thus more obviously profitable.

biccat wrote:Um, no, because your basic fact is that government cannot actually be made smaller. If I accept that a multi-trillion dollar government is a requirement of a modern state, then I can't argue that a multi-trillion dollar government is not a requirement of a modern state.

No, it is a basic part of modern economies. I can't believe you can't see that. I've pointed it out to you in many, many threads now, a variety of ways. It is undeniable that government could be smaller. I can even see the argument for, and agree with in some places, that government ought to be smaller.

But to shrink government to the level where there would no longer be incentive to corrupt it is impossible. Roads and transport alone are too big for that to happen. Then you get into policing, and defence, support for research, education... I mean, seriously, exactly how small do you think government could be? How few dollars?

And even if that were the case, you'd still have all those other pieces of law that have nothing to do with government spending, like, say, gun control or abortion law.

So we're at an impasse. I present an argument as to why government should be reduced in scope.

And I explain that it is an absolute impossibility to reduce government to the level where there would no longer be any incentive to corrupt government. I provide numbers to demonstrate this. You ignore this, and make some vague argument about how smaller government is better (as if that were ever the issue being debated). I return to my point, that in a modern economy government at its absolute smallest would still be so big that the incentive to corrupt the system would remain. You complain that this is bullying, but still don't substantiate exactly how small this minimal government would actually be.

Yes, because it's bad grammar and doesn't make sense. If you would care to try again, I would be happy to respond to your argument.

Okay, feth it. Let's pretend that sentence is actually hard to follow. I'll rewrite, just to play this stupid game with you. How about;

Never mind that outside of direct government spending, individuals would still be motivated to corrupt the legislative process, in order to benefit financially from law that impacts them even though it doesn't relate to direct government spending (such as an insurance company wanting a cap put on payments awarded by a civil lawsuit) or purely on a matter of conviction to the individual (such as having abortion banned).

Yup, makes sense to me.

You see, companies like Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed and Cesna actually have a vested interest in not making unsafe planes. Further, companies like Delta, USAir, Northwest, and RyanAir actually have a vested interest in not buying unsafe planes, and not operating unsafe planes. Consumers who fly also have a vested interest in not flying in unsafe planes.

Uh huh. So when people on board an Airbus A380 see the engine explode and fall to the ground, in amidst the terror they can at least take solace in the fact that their near-death experience sent a valuable signal to the market, and incentivised Airbus to build safer engines the next time around.

Therefore, there is a market interest in making safe planes, even without government regulation.

Does that also apply to toys produced in anonymous workshops in China, do you think they're conducting extensive testing to ensure there is no choking hazard, and that the paint contains no harmful toxins?

These types of situations arise constantly. That's why there's so much money in lobbying.

And will continue to arise even if you make government as small as possible. So it becomes a nonsense to claim that you can solve corruption in government by simply making government smaller. It will never be so small as to remove the incentive to corrupt the process.

Instead, there must be controls over how people can affect the process. There must be controls over who can give money, and how much they can give.

I accept that politicians in Federal Government would be reluctant to bring in those changes, that system has put them in power and given them loads of money. Their incentive to maintain a corrupt system is obvious.

But it is incredible that you, who doesn't benefit from that process at all, would contort an argument to justify that state of affairs.

Besides, a very small government just focuses the corruption on the private side where there's little public scrutiny.

sebster wrote:No, it is a basic part of modern economies. I can't believe you can't see that. I've pointed it out to you in many, many threads now, a variety of ways.

I will note again, simply saying "because I said so" isn't an argument. Despite how many times and in how many threads you've posted it.

sebster wrote:But to shrink government to the level where there would no longer be incentive to corrupt it is impossible. Roads and transport alone are too big for that to happen. Then you get into policing, and defence, support for research, education... I mean, seriously, exactly how small do you think government could be? How few dollars?

Again, you're not understanding the argument. The issue I'm addressing isn't how many dollars government consumes but how much power government has. We here in the States have a document that (hypothetically) limits the powers of the government. It's the position of the current government (and has been for a while) that there aren't any practical limits on that power.

sebster wrote:And even if that were the case, you'd still have all those other pieces of law that have nothing to do with government spending, like, say, gun control or abortion law.

You're right that some minimum level of government power is necessary. And you're right that there will be lobbying on those measures. However, that's a far cry from saying that the current level of regulation is necessary or acceptable, or that reducing the level of regulation would have no effect on corruption/lobbying dollars.

sebster wrote:And I explain that it is an absolute impossibility to reduce government to the level where there would no longer be any incentive to corrupt government. I provide numbers to demonstrate this.

No, actually you haven't. But again, it's not about numbers, it's about the scope of regulation.

sebster wrote:You ignore this, and make some vague argument about how smaller government is better (as if that were ever the issue being debated).

Simply because you continue to misinterpret the argument doesn't change the issue being debate.

sebster wrote:I return to my point, that in a modern economy government at its absolute smallest would still be so big that the incentive to corrupt the system would remain. You complain that this is bullying, but still don't substantiate exactly how small this minimal government would actually be.

It's NOT ABOUT THE SIZE, it's about the SCOPE.

sebster wrote:Never mind that outside of direct government spending, individuals would still be motivated to corrupt the legislative process, in order to benefit financially from law that impacts them even though it doesn't relate to direct government spending (such as an insurance company wanting a cap put on payments awarded by a civil lawsuit) or purely on a matter of conviction to the individual (such as having abortion banned).

Better. My response to that argument would be that even if individuals are motivated to spend money on an issue, if the government is incapable of granting them the relief they seek they will not spend money on the issue.

Abolish the FAA and you'll see a reduction in lobbying from the aviation industry.

sebster wrote:Uh huh. So when people on board an Airbus A380 see the engine explode and fall to the ground, in amidst the terror they can at least take solace in the fact that their near-death experience sent a valuable signal to the market, and incentivised Airbus to build safer engines the next time around.

Is that better or worse than the fact that their near-death experience will be analyzed by a committee and referred to the appropriate rulemaking authority to propegate a rule on engine safety?

sebster wrote:Does that also apply to toys produced in anonymous workshops in China, do you think they're conducting extensive testing to ensure there is no choking hazard, and that the paint contains no harmful toxins?

I think that also applies to toys produced in anonymous workshops in China. Presumably, kids in China are exposed to these toys, despite the lack of regulation ensuring that there is no choking hazard and there aren't any harmful toxins. Is there a flood of deaths or injuries to kids using these toys?

When these toys get past regulators into the U.S. stream of commerce, how many kids die or are injured because of them? If you want to discuss the benefit of regulation you must first establish a baseline. If the problem sought to be solved by regulation doesn't exist, then what's the need for regulation?

sebster wrote:Instead, there must be controls over how people can affect the process. There must be controls over who can give money, and how much they can give.

Good idea.

Who is going to draft the rules?

sebster wrote:But it is incredible that you, who doesn't benefit from that process at all, would contort an argument to justify that state of affairs.

My starting position for any argument is based on a limited government and personal freedom. I don't attempt to contort my argument to justify an end result that is politically popular.

biccat wrote:I will note again, simply saying "because I said so" isn't an argument. Despite how many times and in how many threads you've posted it.

Because the state is essential to the free flow of capital, in reducing investment risk. Because the state is essential in funding research and development. Because the state is essential in enforcing property rights. Because government is essential in the provision of infrastructure

It's why you look at any developed country, and the government is somewhere over 20% of GDP. If you decided by some kind of magic that government simply must not be part of social welfare, you can cut that back by anywhere up to half, but you simply cannot bring it below 10%. In the US, that'd mean an annual budget of one and a half trillion.

I know you're going to continue with your 'nuh uh' campaign, but it really just is a thing that's true. In order to rebut it, you would need to find a developed country where government spends less than 10%, or you're going to have to go look at the US federal budget, and start picking out what doesn't need to be there, in an effort to get total spending down to a point where you get to say 'and now it's so small that the incentive to corrupt government is negligible'.

You can either do that, or concede the point. Anything else is just wasting our time.

Again, you're not understanding the argument. The issue I'm addressing isn't how many dollars government consumes but how much power government has. We here in the States have a document that (hypothetically) limits the powers of the government. It's the position of the current government (and has been for a while) that there aren't any practical limits on that power.

No, you simply aren't getting the point, and to be perfectly honest I have absolutely no idea why. It's a very simply point.

The issue is that government, either considered in terms of total dollars spent, or how much power it has, simply cannot be made so small that no-one would bother trying to corrupt.

If you ignore money, you still have to recognise that the simple function of balancing rights and priorities, on which individuals disagree (such as abortion or gun control), means there is an incentive to corrupt the process for one side to get their way.

You're right that some minimum level of government power is necessary. And you're right that there will be lobbying on those measures. However, that's a far cry from saying that the current level of regulation is necessary or acceptable, or that reducing the level of regulation would have no effect on corruption/lobbying dollars.

I'm not saying that the current level of government is necessary. You're just not listening.

I am saying that even with an incredibly severe cut to every part of government that could possibly be cut, you cannot reduce government to a level where people will not bother trying to corrupt it. The only way to reduce that corruption is to put controls on who can give money to government.

Simply because you continue to misinterpret the argument doesn't change the issue being debate.

You said this;
"The left wants more regulation, more government involvement, and wants corporations to act "ethically" by stopping spending. The right, on the other hand, wants less regulation, less government involvement and wants the governmenet to stop creating the incentives by which corporations spend money on politicians."

I replied with this;
"Any way you cut it, the government sector is going to be a very large part of the total economy. There is just no avoiding that in a modern economy. As such, there is always going to be a significant incentive for private individuals to benefit from distorting the system to access some of that cash. Never mind that outside of direct government spending, there is a vast amount of gain to be found in beneficial legislation, or just on matters of principle."

The debate hasn't moved from there, because all you've managed to do in response is say 'nuh uh, government can be small', and left me to respond with 'no, seriously, that's how big governments are, they simply can't be made so small that people won't bother trying to corrupt the democratic process'.

Better. My response to that argument would be that even if individuals are motivated to spend money on an issue, if the government is incapable of granting them the relief they seek they will not spend money on the issue.

That's not an answer. It's just your particularly vague general notion, repeated once more. It just ignores the point that government has to make a decision, and that decision will inevitably matter to people enough for them to use money and power to influence it.

Is that better or worse than the fact that their near-death experience will be analyzed by a committee and referred to the appropriate rulemaking authority to propegate a rule on engine safety?

It's better that before people got on the plane, the engine was required to meet safety standards.

I think that also applies to toys produced in anonymous workshops in China. Presumably, kids in China are exposed to these toys, despite the lack of regulation ensuring that there is no choking hazard and there aren't any harmful toxins. Is there a flood of deaths or injuries to kids using these toys?

I'm pretty sure no-one has ever been injured by poisonous toothpaste manufactured in China.

If the problem sought to be solved by regulation doesn't exist, then what's the need for regulation?

Seriously? Are you actually arguing for a return to buyer beware?

I mean, is that how far back we have to go to reach the actual core of your position?

Good idea.

Who is going to draft the rules?

Obviously, the rules would be drafted under the democratic process of the country involved. Obviously, you're now going to claim some nonsense about that being the same group of people, which is a delightful piece of rhetoric that really doesn't hold up to any plain and simple observation of how this legislation works in the real world.

Because in the real world, people are more than capable, as a group, to place restrictions on themselves, and the people that replace them.

My starting position for any argument is based on a limited government and personal freedom. I don't attempt to contort my argument to justify an end result that is politically popular.

If that were true, you'd recognise the need for limited government to be bound by rules protecting it's own fragile democracy. But you really don't care to fully think about the limitations of your ideology, and so here we are, arguing over the incredibly silly idea that government can be made so small that you can remove the need to protect it from moneyed interests.

sebster wrote:It's why you look at any developed country, and the government is somewhere over 20% of GDP. If you decided by some kind of magic that government simply must not be part of social welfare, you can cut that back by anywhere up to half, but you simply cannot bring it below 10%. In the US, that'd mean an annual budget of one and a half trillion.

Well, your first sentence is simply incorrect. The United States has operated under 20% of GDP (see table 1 about halfway down the page, particularly 2000 and 2001), and somehow remains a developed country.

Second, I note that you've excluded health and welfare spending from your list of 'essentials.' I think we could agree that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not 'essential' government programs. They could be (hypothetically if not practically) eliminated and the United States would remain a developed country. I also think that we could say the same about interest on the national debt. If it were to be wiped out (hypothetical, not practical), the government would still be functional.

Looking at the above link, we see that defense, non-defense discretionary, and the all-important 'other' category only make up 8.5% of GDP.

Ergo, the United States could remain a developed nation at less than 10% of GDP. Heck, if we were able to do that, I wouldn't really have a problem cutting defense in half and allocating up to 3% of GDP to social welfare spending (keeping us around 10%) for the truly needy.

But again, you're addressing an argument that I didn't make.

sebster wrote:That's not an answer. It's just your particularly vague general notion, repeated once more. It just ignores the point that government has to make a decision, and that decision will inevitably matter to people enough for them to use money and power to influence it.

No, you're missing the point. I'm saying that government shouldn't be making such decisions in the first place.

If you reduce the incentive to do X then you reduce the propensity of people to do X.

The rest of your post is full of conjecture, but if you really want to engage in pedantry I'll be happy to respond to the rest of it.

biccat wrote:
No, you're missing the point. I'm saying that government shouldn't be making such decisions in the first place.

By its nature the state must always make a decision to do, or not do, any particular thing; even if that thing is something so vague as "Regulate commerce, or not regulate commerce."

biccat wrote:
If you reduce the incentive to do X then you reduce the propensity of people to do X.

Yes, if the government has little incentive to regulate commerce due to popular opposition to the idea, then the government is unlikely to regulate commerce. But, because the government has the intrinsic capacity to regulate commerce, there will always be an incentive for interested parties to push for the regulation of commerce.

"If you reduce the incentive to do X then you reduce the propensity of people to do X."

And you propose to reduce the incentive... how?

Because... I haven't seen you produce a proposal that actually works, Biccat.

Even if, through some miraculous act of god, you managed to get all you wanted pushed into a constitutional ammendment-- about as permanent as you can get with US law-- people would still feel the incentive to change government and reverse that ammendment.

Melissia wrote:"If you reduce the incentive to do X then you reduce the propensity of people to do X."

And you propose to reduce the incentive... how?

Because... I haven't seen you produce a proposal that actually works, Biccat.

Even if, through some miraculous act of god, you managed to get all you wanted pushed into a constitutional ammendment-- about as permanent as you can get with US law-- people would still feel the incentive to change government and reverse that ammendment.

Of course, per usual, you're asking for the impossible.

Here's one proposal.

How about repealing the enabling laws of some administrative agencies that pass these regulations? Like the EPA, FAA, NHTS, HSA, or any other combination of 3-4 letters.

biccat wrote:Of course, per usual, you're asking for the impossible.

... I just rephrased what YOU are arguing for and asked you to actually propose something for it.

But yes, I agree, it is impossible. I'm glad you realized it.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Of course, per usual, you're asking for the impossible.

... I just rephrased what YOU are arguing for and asked you to actually propose something for it.

But yes, I agree, it is impossible. I'm glad you realized it.

What I'm arguing for is not impossible. What you're asking for is.

I could come up with a perfect solution that would work.

You would say that it won't work or contrive some scenario which you could conclude renders the example worthless.

I have already provided examples in this thread, for example aircraft regulation, which results in Sebster thinking I want people on airplanes to die.

Arguing against regulation doesn't work with people who believe in the infallability of government regulation.

biccat wrote:What I'm arguing for is not impossible. What you're asking for is.

Considering I'm asking you to provide a proposal to make what you're arguing for a possibility, if what I'm asking for is impossible, then what your arguing for is impossible.

You want to remove federal agencies? People will want to put them back in place. Or make a new one that does something similar. The demand won't vanish like you claim it will, it won't even really diminish-- it'll just change forms. And with such massive deregulation as you suggest, the corruption will simply change forms from government corruption to corporate corruption. MASSIVE corporate corruption, which will make people look back fondly on Enron and the like.

Melissia wrote:Considering I'm asking you to provide a proposal to make what you're arguing for a possibility, if what I'm asking for is impossible, then what your arguing for is impossible.

Then I'm sure you're willing to accept that any proposal which limits government spending is likewise impossible. Even if you pass a constitutional amendment banning spending money in politics, there will be a lot of money spent to repeal the amendment. If you pass a law prohibiting corporations from influencing elections, then you'll get individuals to lobby to repeal that law.

In fact, this is exactly what has happened since campaign funding restrictions have been instituted.

Melissia wrote:You want to remove federal agencies? People will want to put them back in place. Or make a new one that does something similar.

Actually, they generally won't. The will to institute regulations doesn't arise from companies who are affected by them, they arise from a political source - usually some politician who sees something and decides "something must be done!" Or they're ideologically driven to regulate some issue.

Companies then take advantage of this new proposed regulation to institute policies that benefit them. However, since it's usually more expensive to get a regulation passed to disadvantage a competitor than it is to simply provide a better product, most companies don't lobby for new regulations.

Melissia wrote:The demand won't vanish like you claim it will, it won't even really diminish-- it'll just change forms. And with such massive deregulation as you suggest, the corruption will simply change forms from government corruption to corporate corruption. MASSIVE corporate corruption, which will make people look back fondly on Enron and the like.

I think this illustrates my previous point quite well, thank you.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:You want to remove federal agencies? People will want to put them back in place. Or make a new one that does something similar.

Actually, they generally won't.

You can live in denial all you want, but these agencies, at one point, didn't exist-- and were brought into existence because of demand for them that wasn't being met in their absence.

If they are removed, the demand will still be there, all the stronger because people who wanted them remember having them. Your woefully bad misunderstanding of economics does not prove your point.

sebster wrote:And in amongst all that ugliness, you never even bothered to substantiate your assumption that the value of CEOs had grown by a factor of ten in the last two decades. It gives the impression you're only capable of parrotting cheap, nasty soundbites from Anne Coulter and not actually capable of substantiating your claims with original thoughts.

Whereas you are the definition of objective thought?
Your statements reek of a bloated opinion of your own self-righteous beliefs and the delusion that only you and the people you parrot are right. Anyone else is "ugly?" Surely you can do better than that? Are you writing drafts of your comments in crayon?

I have to substantiate that someone else is of a certain value? Is that your point? That's all you got?

LOL

biccat wrote:
Arguing against regulation doesn't work with people who believe in the infallability of government regulation.

No one has made the argument that government regulation is infallible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:
I have to substantiate that someone else is of a certain value? Is that your point? That's all you got?

I believe his point was that you didn't substantiate a key premise of your argument, and instead chose to emphasize talking points espoused by a self-proclaimed polemicist. Polemicists being, in case you're wondering, necessarily unreliable sources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Actually, they generally won't. The will to institute regulations doesn't arise from companies who are affected by them, they arise from a political source - usually some politician who sees something and decides "something must be done!" Or they're ideologically driven to regulate some issue.

Even if we accept what you're saying as true, there is still an incentive for corporations to lobby politicians in order to prevent regulatory legislation from being enacted, again showing that there is no necessary relationship between power and expenditures on lobbying.

Melissia wrote:If they are removed, the demand will still be there, all the stronger because people who wanted them remember having them. Your woefully bad misunderstanding of economics does not prove your point.

Believe it or not, it's not companies who are regulated by the EPA who wanted the EPA to exist. It was a political argument. Ditto for the FAA and the rest of the alphabet soup.

The fundamental problem is that people think these government programs are necessary and effective when the fact is that in most cases they are neither.

daedalus wrote:

Spoiler:

‎"They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." Huey Long, 1932



There is nothing new under the sun...

biccat wrote:Believe it or not, it's not companies who are regulated by the EPA who wanted the EPA to exist.

And that's relevant why oh wait it's not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The fundamental problem is that people think these government programs are necessary and effective when the fact is that in most cases they are neither.

The fundamental problem is peopel who think that corruption doesn't exist in capitalism without government.

So basically you're the problem.

Melissia wrote:The fundamental problem is peopel who think that corruption doesn't exist in capitalism without government.

The fundamental problem is that some people think that it's possible to legislate/regulate equality of outcomes in a randomized world.

Best,

The world isn't randomised.

Even if all government institutions vanished at once, it'd still not be "randomized"...

Oh, and:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/focus-0

US corporate tax
Nov 4th 2011, 16:06 by The Economist Online


The statutory federal income tax rate for big American companies is 35%. But a study by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, two Washington, DC-based think-tanks, has assessed the tax records of 280 companies from the Fortune 500 list with reliable pre-tax profit reports. Among these companies the average effective tax rate between 2008-10 was only 18.5%. While 71 companies paid over 30% of their profits in federal income tax, 30 enjoyed negative tax rates over the whole three year period. Pepco, an electricity company, had the lowest effective tax rate of -57.6%. Wells Fargo, a bank, received the biggest tax subsidy over the three years of almost $18 billion, and was one of 25 companies which took more than half of the total $223 billion subsidy claimed. In at least one of the three years, 78 firms paid no or negative tax rates, and legally-by writing off capital investments before they actually wear out (known as "accelerated depreciation"), making use of tax deductible stock options and industry-specific tax breaks, and offshore tax havens.

Amusing, that.... negative tax rates for big corporations...