• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

phattonez said:
It doesn't matter what most people think. If it's not capitalism, then it's not capitalism. Deal with the issue, not with a strawman.
Click to expand...

You are confusing description and prescription. To your peril.
 
misterman said:
You are confusing description and prescription. To your peril.
Click to expand...

No. If you want to argue against capitalism, argue against capitalism. Don't argue against a mixed economy and call it capitalism.
 
phattonez said:
No. If you want to argue against capitalism, argue against capitalism. Don't argue against a mixed economy and call it capitalism.
Click to expand...

Still doing it.

Good luck with convincing everyone that most white is actually gray.
 
misterman said:
Still doing it.

Good luck with convincing everyone that most white is actually gray.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that I have to convince people that a logical fallacy is actually a logical fallacy. :beatdeadhorse
 
phattonez said:
It's a shame that I have to convince people that a logical fallacy is actually a logical fallacy. :beatdeadhorse
Click to expand...

This isn't about fallacies. It's about language. If you insist that language follow pure logical rules, you're going to fail to get your point across.
 
phattonez said:
No. If you want to argue against capitalism, argue against capitalism. Don't argue against a mixed economy and call it capitalism.
Click to expand...

that's my biggest problem with the "oh the free market has failed healthcare" line. over half of US dollars on healthcare are spent by the government, and it heavily regulates the other half, and we have a free market?
 
cpwill said:
that's my biggest problem with the "oh the free market has failed healthcare" line. over half of US dollars on healthcare are spent by the government, and it heavily regulates the other half, and we have a free market?
Click to expand...

According to misterman, it's close enough. :tomato:
 
phattonez said:
According to misterman, it's close enough. :tomato:
Click to expand...

Massive straw man.

I never said anything is close enough. Some things are indeed close enough, but I never gave a number.

You, however, said you have no tolerance at all. You're the one who thinks white is gray if it contains .00001% of black.

Good luck with that.
 
misterman said:
Massive straw man.

I never said anything is close enough. Some things are indeed close enough, but I never gave a number.

You, however, said you have no tolerance at all. You're the one who thinks white is gray if it contains .00001% of black.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

I'm saying don't blame capitalism if you have an economy that isn't capitalist, especially if those parts that failed have government intervention (housing!).
 
phattonez said:
I'm saying don't blame capitalism if you have an economy that isn't capitalist, especially if those parts that failed have government intervention (housing!).
Click to expand...

No, you're saying a system with even the tiniest deviation from capitalism isn't capitalist. Which is why you're not getting anywhere, because you're trying to apply rules to language that just don't work.
 
misterman said:
Massive straw man.
I never said anything is close enough. Some things are indeed close enough, but I never gave a number.
You, however, said you have no tolerance at all. You're the one who thinks white is gray if it contains .00001% of black.
Click to expand...
No, you're saying a system with even the tiniest deviation from capitalism isn't capitalist. Which is why you're not getting anywhere, because you're trying to apply rules to language that just don't work.
Click to expand...
i don't know about less than a hundredth portion; but i'd say that over 50% makes it pretty solidly gray. And what we are talking about here are not tiny deviations; they are massive distortions of the marketplace.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
i don't know about less than a hundredth portion; but i'd say that over 50% makes it pretty solidly gray. And what we are talking about here are not tiny deviations; they are massive distortions of the marketplace.
Click to expand...

Tell it to Phattonez, he's the one who insists that less than a hundredth portion is gray, not me. Sure, over 50% is gray.
 
misterman said:
Tell it to Phattonez, he's the one who insists that less than a hundredth portion is gray, not me. Sure, over 50% is gray.
Click to expand...

Social security, welfare, federal reserve, Interstate Commerce Commission, FDIC, etc. How long before you say that this is a mixed economy, not a capitalist economy?
 
phattonez said:
Social security, welfare, federal reserve, Interstate Commerce Commission, FDIC, etc. How long before you say that this is a mixed economy, not a capitalist economy?
Click to expand...

WTF is your point? Under your conditions capitalism never truly existed, and it never will. But when we experience great instances of economic growth, you will be the first one to chalk it up to capitalism, and when there is stagnation it will be because of "interference".

The US is a mixed economy with very strong (if not the strongest in the world) capitalist/market underpinnings.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
WTF is your point? Under your conditions capitalism never truly existed, and it never will. But when we experience great instances of economic growth, you will be the first one to chalk it up to capitalism, and when there is stagnation it will be because of "interference".

The US is a mixed economy with very strong (if not the strongest in the world) capitalist/market underpinnings.
Click to expand...

I'd say that last sentence is extremely subjective. Think of everything in your house, and think of how much of it has touched government at some point. Your house? You get tax breaks, plus the government owns some mortgage companies. Your water? You buy it from the government. Your electricity? You buy it from the government. Glassware? Government subsidizes the recycling of glass. Same with fertilizer.

The fact remains, if we want to grow, then we have to strive toward capitalism. We are tending in the other direction.
 
misterman said:
Tell it to Phattonez, he's the one who insists that less than a hundredth portion is gray, not me. Sure, over 50% is gray.
Click to expand...

i think technically he might be correct, but with regards to a useful standard, can we at least dispense with the notion that the system we have currently is a "market / capitalist" system; in favor of accepting that what we have is a blended market / government system?
 
Last edited:
Anyone have figures on government expenditure as a percentage of gdp? Such info can shed light on the hue of capitalism in America.

:shrug:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Anyone have figures on government expenditure as a percentage of gdp? Such info can shed light on the hue of capitalism in America.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

How about GDP - PPR. Anything leftover is government.
 
phattonez said:
How about GDP - PPR. Anything leftover is government.
Click to expand...

List of countries with the lowest amount of Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP.

Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Bahamas, Singapore, Haiti.

Don't have a source, but I know this off the top of my head for some strange reason ;)

BTW, I am still asking you what percentage of the US economy is "centrally planned" and waiting for a response.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
List of countries with the lowest amount of Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP.

Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Bahamas, Singapore, Haiti.

Don't have a source, but I know this off the top of my head for some strange reason ;)
Click to expand...

Strange, but worthless. It's just correlation. These countries also probably have other mitigating factors, such as corruption and war.

BTW, I am still asking you what percentage of the US economy is "centrally planned" and waiting for a response.[/QUOTE]

I tried searching for PPR quickly and couldn't find it. Do you know the answer?
 
phattonez said:
Strange, but worthless. It's just correlation. These countries also probably have other mitigating factors, such as corruption and war.
Click to expand...

The point was to expose you to extreme ends; on the other side we have Iraq, Cuba, and Slovakia. Blindly stating "less government" achieves what?

BTW, I am still asking you what percentage of the US economy is "centrally planned" and waiting for a response.
Click to expand...

Last time i read up, about 34% of the US economy is represented via government expenditure (using the expenditure approach to national income accounting FWIW). I have little doubt it will approach the 40% mark in the near future.

I tried searching for PPR quickly and couldn't find it. Do you know the answer?
Click to expand...

That is because you are searching for a phantom stat.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
The point was to expose you to extreme ends; on the other side we have Iraq, Cuba, and Slovakia. Blindly stating "less government" achieves what?
Click to expand...

Less government, but an accountable government that does its job is what is most desirable.

Last time i read up, about 34% of the US economy is represented via government expenditure (using the expenditure approach to national income accounting FWIW). I have little doubt it will approach the 40% mark in the near future.
Click to expand...

Misterman, is this close enough to gray for you?

That is because you are searching for a phantom stat.
Click to expand...

Since when is PPR a phantom stat?
 
phattonez said:
Since when is PPR a phantom stat?
Click to expand...

Care to provide any info in regards to the stat? The wiki page was only a few sentences....
 
phattonez said:
Misterman, is this close enough to gray for you?
Click to expand...

Of course.

I never said gray isn't gray. I said white with a tiny drop of black isn't gray. Go read the thread.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Care to provide any info in regards to the stat? The wiki page was only a few sentences....
Click to expand...

To estimate the extent of government depredation on private product, we first find private product by deducting “product” or “income” originating in government and “government enterprise”— i.e., the payment of government salaries—from Gross National Product. We now have the Gross Private Product. Government depredations upon this GPP consist of the resources that government drains from the private sector, i.e., total government expenditures or receipts, whichever is the higher. This total subtracted from the GPP yields the private product remaining in private hands, which we may call PPR. The percentage of government depredation to gross private product yields an estimate of the burden of government’s fiscal operations on the private economy.

From America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom