• 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!

FDR's Greatist Blunder

FDR's Greatest Mistakes


  • Total voters
    49
If you disagree, you take it to court. Why do you ask questions you should already know the answer to? Take a civics class or something.

How can I establish what my subjective value is in dollar terms?

ED is one of those powers we leave in the government's hands because it should only be exercized by the collective will of the people, like the court systems

But the government doesn't always represent the collective will, nor can it determine if collective gain outweighs personal loss.
 
How can I establish what my subjective value is in dollar terms?
You can't. It's subjective, and it will never be agreed on. This is why we go by the objective value. Too bad about your subjective value, its irrelevent.


But the government doesn't always represent the collective will, nor can it determine if collective gain outweighs personal loss.

The government of the US, and the susidary governments inside it are made up of people who are either voted in or appointed by those voted in, so I'd say they do represent the collective will. Furthermore, the subjective value of something is not quantifiable, so it should not be factored in.
 
You can't. It's subjective, and it will never be agreed on. This is why we go by the objective value. Too bad about your subjective value, its irrelevent.

It's not irrelevant, hence why stealing even if you pay market value to the guy you steal from is wrong.

The government of the US, and the susidary governments inside it are made up of people who are either voted in or appointed by those voted in, so I'd say they do represent the collective will. Furthermore, the subjective value of something is not quantifiable, so it should not be factored in.

Again I move forward with my example that you didn't respond to. If I wanted to open up a park in my backyard, but needed the house next to me to do it, would I be justified as long as I paid him market value? The park would benefit everyone in the community and they all want it. So should I be allowed?
 
It's not irrelevant, hence why stealing even if you pay market value to the guy you steal from is wrong.
Alright, why is it not irrelevent in what is essentially a forced business deal?

Again I move forward with my example that you didn't respond to. If I wanted to open up a park in my backyard, but needed the house next to me to do it, would I be justified as long as I paid him market value? The park would benefit everyone in the community and they all want it. So should I be allowed?

No, because you're not a lawful governing body.
 
Alright, why is it not irrelevent in what is essentially a forced business deal?

Because it applies in all other business deals. Part of the right to own property means determining your own subjective value for that property.

No, because you're not a lawful governing body.

So if I had the use of force behind me, then I'd be a lawful governing body? Because that's what a lawful governing body ultimately is.
 
Because it applies in all other business deals. Part of the right to own property means determining your own subjective value for that property.
Not in this case, since if the government was willing to pay you what you wanted, ED wouldn't be an issue. It applies in all other business deals, but not this one.


So if I had the use of force behind me, then I'd be a lawful governing body? Because that's what a lawful governing body ultimately is.

A lawful governing body is one whose authority derives from the consent of the people. In our government, we choose our leaders. Therefore, it is a lawful governing body, as opposed to an illegitimate one.
 
hamilton2.JPG


This one.
 
Not in this case, since if the government was willing to pay you what you wanted, ED wouldn't be an issue. It applies in all other business deals, but not this one.

ED wouldn't be an issue if people were paid their subjective value. Since they're not, people are routinely cheated with ED.

A lawful governing body is one whose authority derives from the consent of the people. In our government, we choose our leaders. Therefore, it is a lawful governing body, as opposed to an illegitimate one.

And if I gain the consent of my neighbors then what's the problem?
 
ED wouldn't be an issue if people were paid their subjective value. Since they're not, people are routinely cheated with ED.
If you said that you wouldn't sell your property short of a billion dollars, and we needed the property to put up a levy to keep the river from flooding, there'd be a big problem. The property owner isn't going to ask for what they fairly think they should get for the land, they are going to try to get as much money as they can, because people are naturally greedy. That's the issue with your plan.


And if I gain the consent of my neighbors then what's the problem?

You're just playing stupid now to be argumentative, aren't you?
 
FDRs biggest blunder would HAVE to be the FDIC. It gave government a vested interest in protecting banks and this in turn gave banks free rein to act irresponsibly. Fractional reserve banking is a natural occurrence. When you take the limiting controls off of it (I.E. if you don't have enough money in your banks to cover you withdrawals you might get put out of business) we end up where we are today.
 
FDRs biggest blunder would HAVE to be the FDIC. It gave government a vested interest in protecting banks and this in turn gave banks free rein to act irresponsibly. Fractional reserve banking is a natural occurrence. When you take the limiting controls off of it (I.E. if you don't have enough money in your banks to cover you withdrawals you might get put out of business) we end up where we are today.

FDIC is protection for the depositors, not the banks, and it was passed back when the people were afraid to put their money in banks. Thanks to the recession, the same fears are alive today. That was why they raised the insurance up to $250,000, to stop possible runs on banks.

ricksfolly
 
FDIC is protection for the depositors, not the banks, and it was passed back when the people were afraid to put their money in banks. Thanks to the recession, the same fears are alive today. That was why they raised the insurance up to $250,000, to stop possible runs on banks.

ricksfolly

You are correct it's stated purpose is to protect the depositors. and it does or at least has.
However, It has caused several situations.
The natural check on banks over extending themselves is the threat that another bank will orchestrate a run on them and they will not have funds available to cover it. They go out of business, game over.
It didn't take long after the FDIC came along for banks to realize it was a great deal to put others out of business. Not only did it eliminate the competition but they also were able to get the depositors funds at full value. Individuals rarely receive funds from the FDIC. They are deposited into another FDIC bank.
The government realized this was bad. FDIC was having to pay out money to banks that were intentionally causing other banks to fail. They instituted regulations to prevent it from happening. This removed the natural check on the banks.
Now without having to worry about the competition taking them out, banks become free to make irresponsible decisions regarding their funding limits.
In all fairness the FDIC sets limits for these banks but they are lax about enforcement and as with all political decisions, the limits are often set because of political pressure and not by what they realistically should be. This is mostly responsible for huge mega banks we have.
When these poor decisions finally come to a head what happens? The government is on the hook for up to $100,000 for each and every depositor ($250,000 now) if the bank fails.
#1 they don't have the money to cover that.
#2 They don't want to.
So it becomes much cheaper for them "bail out" the bank and allow them to continue to operate, only providing the capital needed at the current time instead of having to pay out an ENORMOUS lump sum to cover the deposits of EVERY customer of the bank in question.
So you and I end up subsidizing the bad decisions of banks so they can continue to operate and make bad decisions under the protection of the government.
 
If you said that you wouldn't sell your property short of a billion dollars, and we needed the property to put up a levy to keep the river from flooding, there'd be a big problem. The property owner isn't going to ask for what they fairly think they should get for the land, they are going to try to get as much money as they can, because people are naturally greedy. That's the issue with your plan.

At some point you'll just find another place to build.

You're just playing stupid now to be argumentative, aren't you?

No, I'm trying to show you that consent of the governed doesn't give you the right to steal unless you are granted that right from every single member of the governed.
 
FDR's Greatest Blunder? He essentially destroyed everything he touched.
 
Back
Top Bottom