• 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!

Teaching Economics to Liberals - Class is in Session

xpiher said:
Phycology is inner of the reasons why the stock market is a worthless indicator of how well the economy is doing

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
Click to expand...


There are some talking heads on the Fox News Saturday morning money shows who clearly don't understand the difference between our economy, and the stock market. Just this weekend one of them was asked if he thinks were are going to dip into another recession, his answer was about the stock market, not our economy. I've also noticed that they are all positive on our economy during weeks that the stock market does well, and negative towards our economy when the stock market doesn't do well.

We are all self centered to some extent or another. If we are bigtime into investing in the stock market, then we think of the stock market as the economy. If we have to work a real job, then we think of our paycheck our the economy. If we live off of social security, then our social security check becomes our view of the economy. Antique dealers think of the antique market as the economy.
 
Xerographica said:
It would be irrational to force people to give their taxes to representatives that did not share their interests.
....But please show some tolerance and allow us nonbelievers to directly allocate our taxes ourselves.
Click to expand...

There are two rational reasons why this can be problematic in today's system:

1. In some cases, you are not paying for what you get today, but what you received prior to adulthood, or even worse, the generation(s) past.

2. You must still allocate X taxes to things you may or may not agree with in order to maintain the very platform that affords you the opportunity to be picky about how you invest your tax dollars. Namely, some basic infrastructure (border control, law enforcement, etc.) whether you use it or not, and to provide in some way for those who cannot afford to contribute (the really disabled, orphans, etc.). How much and who gets those taxes, are up for discussion, but if you admit at least some will *have to* go that direction with or without your direct consent. Admitting this, and working on the more discretionary part, is more helpful imo.

If it helps, it's similar to a "self-evident claim" in philosophy. Just as one must accept logic in order to quibble logically about something, we must accept some aspects of our infrastructure as we quibble while safe and secure and liesurly enjoying our life (on top of our infrastructure).

I do agree that the idea that we all actively pick and choose how our taxes are spent via the election process is absurd, but it can't rapidly change from that any time soon. My guess is that things will hopefully steadily, and very slowly improve but over generations, not decades. And the only potential game-changer in terms of rapid reform that I can imagine, other than something completely out of left-field, would be interconnectivity/technology that can pull off more individual choice, with less tedious election-driven political nonsense in the way. Recent example touching on this:

Jennifer Pahlka: Coding a better government - YouTube
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
You feel the voters are too poorly informed to make a decision on a highway but the politicians are? And you accuse another poster of being an anarchist?

Many times politicians have built overpriced boondoggles, such as the bridge to nowhere, simply because they can. It's pork. I'd rather put my trust in the people.
Click to expand...

How many hours of study do you really think the voter gives to each issue at hand? Fourty? Twenty? A half hour? 30 seconds?

If you trust the general public more than the people that they elect, then you have never seen Funny Pictures at WalMart
 
cmakaioz said:
Please refrain from lying about other posters and what they have written. I made no such statement.

The statement you quoted was in reference to your scenario of people not giving out money to strangers, and your MISTAKEN conclusion that this somehow magically demonstrates that individuals always know how best to spend their money most effectively.

Had you actually asked me directly about congress, I'd point out that congress doesn't ask for anyone's taxes. Rather, taxes are forcibly extracted from the subject population, and you either pay them or risk having men with guns eventually haul you off to prison.

Unless you come clean on your misrepresentation, you're flushed into my troll file.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that "individuals always know how best to spend their money most effectively"? Unless you come clean on your misrepresentation, you're flushed into my troll file.

As I've said...values are subjective. They are entirely dependent on our own perspectives. Maybe you think spending your money on collecting blow up dolls is the best use of your money. Eh? Who am I to judge? It's not how I would spend my money. But here's the deal. You spend your money on what floats your boat and I'll spend my money on what floats my boat. What is the economic value of tolerance? It's priceless.

So when it comes to the public sector...you spend your taxes on what floats your boat and I'll spend my taxes on what floats my boat. Deal?
 
imagep said:
How many hours of study do you really think the voter gives to each issue at hand? Fourty? Twenty? A half hour? 30 seconds?

If you trust the general public more than the people that they elect, then you have never seen Funny Pictures at WalMart
Click to expand...

You really don't understand that taxpayers are the most productive citizens in America? Why isn't it self-evident to you that they are productive?
 
Mach said:
There are two rational reasons why this can be problematic in today's system:

1. In some cases, you are not paying for what you get today, but what you received prior to adulthood, or even worse, the generation(s) past.
Click to expand...

Can you specify exactly how this is problematic?

Mach said:
2. You must still allocate X taxes to things you may or may not agree with in order to maintain the very platform that affords you the opportunity to be picky about how you invest your tax dollars. Namely, some basic infrastructure (border control, law enforcement, etc.) whether you use it or not, and to provide in some way for those who cannot afford to contribute (the really disabled, orphans, etc.). How much and who gets those taxes, are up for discussion, but if you admit at least some will *have to* go that direction with or without your direct consent. Admitting this, and working on the more discretionary part, is more helpful imo.
Click to expand...

It's enough that people have to pay taxes. After that...it should be up to them to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. If something doesn't receive enough funding to get done...then guess what? Your arguments and evidence that you offered were not substantial enough to encourage people to shift their priorities. Don't let that stop you from encouraging them to shift their priorities. Obviously it sure hasn't stopped me.

Mach said:
If it helps, it's similar to a "self-evident claim" in philosophy. Just as one must accept logic in order to quibble logically about something, we must accept some aspects of our infrastructure as we quibble while safe and secure and liesurly enjoying our life (on top of our infrastructure).
Click to expand...

Great...if "we" hold these truths to be self-evident...then there shouldn't be a problem in allowing "us" to directly allocate our taxes.

Mach said:
I do agree that the idea that we all actively pick and choose how our taxes are spent via the election process is absurd, but it can't rapidly change from that any time soon. My guess is that things will hopefully steadily, and very slowly improve but over generations, not decades. And the only potential game-changer in terms of rapid reform that I can imagine, other than something completely out of left-field, would be interconnectivity/technology that can pull off more individual choice, with less tedious election-driven political nonsense in the way. Recent example touching on this:

Jennifer Pahlka: Coding a better government - YouTube
Click to expand...

The goal here is to help people understand why it's absurd for 538 congresspeople to spend 150 million people's taxes in the public sector. Let's be perfectly clear about this. Right? Why not? Why not get this information out there? Does it matter? How could it not matter? How could it not matter that your perspective does not matter in the public sector? What is the public sector there for if not for all of us? We don't exist to serve the public sector...the public sector exists to serve us.

What should the government do? The government should do what we pay it to do. No more...and no less.
 
Xerographica said:
You really don't understand that taxpayers are the most productive citizens in America? Why isn't it self-evident to you that they are productive?
Click to expand...

Just because they are productive doesn't mean that they are intelligent. A large percent of humans really don't have the intellectual capacity to budget well, thats why we have so many people who have decent salaries but who don't have a dime of net worth. A large percent of Americans have no idea how our gov works, and they don't want to know. A large percent of Americans are basically morons.

Our Founding Fathers were very smart people. Thats why they created a representative democracy and not a true democracy. Xero, do you really think that you are smarter than our founding fathers?
 
imagep said:
Just because they are productive doesn't mean that they are intelligent. A large percent of humans really don't have the intellectual capacity to budget well, thats why we have so many people who have decent salaries but who don't have a dime of net worth. A large percent of Americans have no idea how our gov works, and they don't want to know. A large percent of Americans are basically morons.

Our Founding Fathers were very smart people. Thats why they created a representative democracy and not a true democracy. Xero, do you really think that you are smarter than our founding fathers?
Click to expand...

From my perspective Brittney Spears isn't intelligent. But guess what? From other people's perspectives she produces something that they are willing to sacrifice for. Would I sacrifice for what she produces? Hells no. Would I prevent you from purchasing a ticket to a Brittney Spears concert? Hells no. You know why? Because I wouldn't want you to prevent me from purchasing a ticket to a Postal Service concert.

Do I have to know exactly how the Postal Service makes such glorious sounds if I want to purchase a ticket to their concert? Hells no. I just have to know that, from my perspective, they make such glorious sounds that it's worth my sacrifice.

What does the government do that's worth your sacrifice? I can't answer that question for you and you can't answer that question for me. That's how economics works...CLASS IS IN SESSION!!!
 
Xerographica said:
Where did I say that "individuals always know how best to spend their money most effectively"?
Click to expand...

Where? Here, in post #10

Xerographica said:
If you don't believe that you can spend your money better than I can spend your money...then we can really easily put it to the test. Just put your money where your mouth is by sending me $200 via paypal. Trust me...I'll spend it in your best interest by using it to help promote the Magna Carta movement.

Why aren't you going to send me the $200? Because you know for a fact that you can spend it "better" than I can.
Click to expand...

Your alleged fact is not a fact (there are circumstances under which someone other than yourself -- a trusted advisor with experience and skill in a relevant specific field -- could spend your money more effectively than you). Further, even if absolutely everyone answered this prompt/challenge scenario of yours in the same way (i.e. by refusing to give away the $200 to a potentially hostile stranger), it would not demonstrate the claim you've made...merely that people are (rightly) suspicious of such a request and tend to not respond positively to it. You have repeatedly dodged this point, and ignored the example I gave already.
 
megaprogman said:
The first one to come to mind is George Washington, but going past him...
Click to expand...
So you don't know much about history either. Do you think George Washington was an Independent? I do admit that I am amused.

More recently there was Ross Perot who changed the political dialog of this country.
Click to expand...

That is it? He changed the dialog? Awesome.

Ralph Nader got a lot accomplished, even though he was an independent
Click to expand...
What did he do? Are there any specifics? Or did he just drive us toward a bigger, more intrusive government?

Jesse Ventura is regarded by many as a good governer.
Click to expand...
Well. Okay. I cannot say.

Your list is wrong in the beginning and thin in the end.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Independents have elected several presidents in recent years. They have done so when a candidate has moved sufficiently to the center to attract enough independents so that when added to the 'core' of his particular party, has been enough votes to elect him. Clinton, in particular, comes to mind.
Click to expand...
So are they the unwitting dupes of the left? I can accept your assessment.

Several of the posts thus far tend to paint 'independents' as lacking in critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...
That might be unfair. It is equally likely that they are simply lazy.

It is more accurate, I think, to describe them as too smart to be aligned with any particular dogma that would attempt to restrict their ability to think for themselves.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Said poster refuses to answer the challenge explaining his position.

Oh, and instead of commenting on MY methods, perhaps it would be better to address the topic. In other words, your post was hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your methods?

Your "method" was to attack another poster through a third party.

This is the way of the wuss.
 
Personally, I don't know why people get so upset about "hijacked" or "derailed" threads. Clearly we have two distinct discussions simultaneously occurring in this one thread. One about labels and the other about economics. Does the ongoing discussion about labels prevent me from responding to comments and questions about economics? Not one bit. Threads aren't planes or trains that can only go one direction at a time. That's an absurd notion. [/rant]
 
Misterveritis said:
So you don't know much about history either. Do you think George Washington was an Independent? I do admit that I am amused.
Click to expand...

Washington refused to join a political party, and found partisan politics distasteful. Therefore he was an Independent, as he was not a member of a political party. It is generally believed that his sympathies tended to be pro-Federalist, but he never did join the Federalist Party.



Well. Okay. I cannot say.

Your list is wrong in the beginning and thin in the end.
Click to expand...

Ventura was a good governor in many respects. His best idea was the "Jesse Checks." Basically it was a rebate of excess sales taxes collected by the State.
 
MadLib said:
This is wrong on so many levels

1. Liberalism has always been about limited government, freedom, and civil liberties. It is completely distinct from socialism (although it is closer on the spectrum than conservatism, but using that logic conservatism = fascism) and came into existence a century earlier. Most liberals support capitalism (although not unregulated capitalism).
Click to expand...
Classical liberalism, today known as conservatism, is what you are identifying. Today's liberals will have nothing to do with limited government. Nothing. The Constitution is anathema to today's liberals. All else, freedom and liberties, flows from limited government.

Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. You have misguided beliefs on what socialism is. Socialism is simply the belief that the workers should own the means of production.
Click to expand...
This is evidence that you have not actually ready what Radical Karl wrote.
It actually has nothing to do with regulation.
Click to expand...
Regulating people and businesses to the point where they no longer "own" their property is similar in thrust to the seizure of private property by the communists. It is fascism but the two are very close in their goals to dominate, to control and to suppress the people for the benefit of themselves and the state. Statism is the more accurate term. But Marxism is close enough for most purposes.

In another thread you said that Obama was a Marxist because he supported regulations.
Click to expand...
I cannot recall saying that. He is a Marxist because his core beliefs are Marxist. Destroying capitalism through the use of the government's powers is a tactic. It is nothing more.

This, however, does not meet the basic test of what Marxist socialism is: workers owning the means of production.
Click to expand...
Do you believe the one term Marxist flexible president Barack Hussein Obama can take us to communism without first destroying capitalism? Has that ever occurred anywhere else. I believe your thinking on this point is very shallow. It may be your undoing.

It's just the government setting rules for corporations. No similarity whatsoever.
Click to expand...

This is shallow thinking. More than 80,000 regulations control every facet of our lives. This is tyranny. It is a tool to wreck individual freedom and capitalism.

Now, please stop drawing false equivalencies and pretending to know more about an ideology than its followers do. You are just damaging your own side.
Click to expand...
Hardly. But that you for the advice. I shall give it the attention it deserves.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What you are describing is not pattern recognition. What you are describing is belief with out analyzing. If you take a position because that's what position your ideology stands for, WITHOUT examining the issue, all you are doing is following something blindly. That demonstrates either no critical thinking skills or a refusal to use them. The greatest of cognitive skills is critical thinking. Blindly following an ideology ignores that.
Click to expand...
Somewhere you missed a step or two. With experiences and age comes the ability to recognize patterns. Do you know what heuristics are?
 
cmakaioz said:
Where? Here, in post #10

Your alleged fact is not a fact (there are circumstances under which someone other than yourself -- a trusted advisor with experience and skill in a relevant specific field -- could spend your money more effectively than you). Further, even if absolutely everyone answered this prompt/challenge scenario of yours in the same way (i.e. by refusing to give away the $200 to a potentially hostile stranger), it would not demonstrate the claim you've made...merely that people are (rightly) suspicious of such a request and tend to not respond positively to it. You have repeatedly dodged this point, and ignored the example I gave already.
Click to expand...

My alleged fact is not a fact? I can't prove it is a fact and you can't prove it's not a fact. But if I give you my money...it's a fact that I'm the only person qualified to evaluate how well you spend it. If I give you $200 to spend for me...what would you spend it on?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, like Xero, you don't understand how economics works. But I'll ask you the same question that he has refused to answer. Let's see if you do better: Prove that people in general will act rationally when allocating money to spend on governmental issues.
Click to expand...
You proved it yourself when you chose not to give him your money.
 
MadLib said:
You saying this adds your lack of knowledge in history to your lack of knowledge in politics. Washington was an independent. The Republican party was originally a third party. And independents aren't "wishy-washy." They simply hold a mixture of beliefs and choose not to align with a specific platform. There's nothing wrong with that unless you are a hack who thinks everyone has to agree with you or else they are wishy-washy or a communist.
Click to expand...
No. He was not.

Parties come and go. So?

Everyone need not agree with me. Some are stupid. Some are dull. Some are lazy.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
My mind is fine. No offense, but you don't seem to have the education to understand economic theory at all. You make the same false premise argument that Xero makes. It is difficult discussing this with you since your lack of understanding of basic issues of economics and how it intermingles with psychology and sociology are sorely lacking. Also, your lack of understanding of basic political definitions is also absent. This is what happens when one blindly sees things in only black or white.
Click to expand...
I guessed that you would be too inflexible to "get it".
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Show how how taxpayers would be rational/efficient in allocating money for government spending.
Click to expand...
It is dated and one of the books is very hard to ready but you might want to start with the short version of the Wealth of Nations. It can help you understand that which your heart already knows but that your liberal mind does not want to accept. In addition to the one paragraph AdamT discovered there are nearly 900 more pages that lay out how our ability to act in our self interests has led to the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest numbers of people in history.
 
Misterveritis said:
It is dated and one of the books is very hard to ready but you might want to start with the short version of the Wealth of Nations. It can help you understand that which your heart already knows but that your liberal mind does not want to accept. In addition to the one paragraph AdamT discovered there are nearly 900 more pages that lay out how our ability to act in our self interests has led to the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest numbers of people in history.
Click to expand...

Adam smith was in many ways much more moderate than the capitalists of today.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I never made the argument. I didn't say whether I supported it or didn't. The issue here is not my position, but the complete fallacy of your theory, which you STILL have not supported with an answer to my challenge. Here... I'll restate it so you can see it for the dozenth time in all of it's glory: Show how how taxpayers would be rational/efficient in allocating money for government spending. Now, I'll be kind and give you an out. If you DON'T want to answer my challenge, your alternative is to demonstrate why the mere concept of my challenge destroys your theory. All it takes is a little critical thinking, Xero. Come on... I know you have it in you.
Click to expand...

CC, it is in your blind spot. I believe you are incapable of seeing the truth. You know that you can spend your money better than anyone else. But you cannot bring yourself to accept that you are not alone. Everyone can spend their money better than anyone else. You have not challenged his theory. You have demonstrated its fundamental soundness. It is only your blindness that prevents you from seeing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom