Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It took government to build the railroads, build the dams, build the highways, build the internet, put a man on the moon, put an end to polio and small pox and more.

The irony is that the government built interstate highways at the request of the elite, and to the disproportionate benefit of the elite. And for railroads, at great expense to workers.

As well, the national highway system is not universally recognized as a good thing. The national highway system is certainly linked to American's reliance on oil / cars, the rise of huge national corporations such as Walmart, corporate farming, etc. As well as allowing the federal government to subvert smaller, more local democracy by exploiting a dependence on federal highway funds.

Can you back up those claims with historical references? Was Eisenhower responding to requests from the elite? Did the elite benefit disproportionately? I agree that the interstate highway system isn't universally recognized as a good thing, but I would say that it's viewed that way by an overwhelming majority that likely falls above 90%. I agree that it's linked to American car culture, but I would say that the building of the suburbs was a much greater factor. I suppose it could be argued that the highway system made suburbs possible, but here in Fresno, the suburban expansion began three decades before the highways.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
The elites are ... the people who pay for political campaigns and who pull the strings of Congress.

You make some good points regarding the elites. What you're missing is, union leaders also fit into this category. It's the unions clout that is leading directly to corporate welfare for GM.

Please find me an example of a union leader who owns a yacht. Please find some evidence that puts union leaders into the top 1% of income earners (I ought to set that higher, to the top 10% of the top 1%, but I doubt you'll find any union leaders in that group). Please support your contention that union clout is leading to corporate welfare for GM with some facts. It seems to me that if that was the case, the bailout discussions regarding GM wouldn't have involved so much union bashing. And if union leaders belong with the elites and have as much clout as you say they do, then why is there so little mention of unions in the mainstream news? Why do newspapers have a business section but not a union section? In an above post I dropped three links about anti-union measures put forward by the Bush administration. To find those I had to scan nearly ten pages of google results, not because there was a lack of reports about government opposition to unions, but because most of those reports were printed in Marxist publications (Socialist Worker, World Socialist Web Site)
or by the AFL-CI (AFL-CIO Now Blog), and I was searching for third party accounts. What this indicates is that unions don't have the clout that you think they do.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
It's unions that don't want more successful, less expensive education for our nations children. In addition, unions don't universally benefit workers either, as they usually reject merit-based benefits in preference of seniority. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against unions - I'm just not in favor of giving them political preference any more than I'm in favor of giving it to the capitalists.

That article from the WaPo does not say what you implied it said (more on this later). Unions do want a more successful education for our nations children. That you say otherwise indicates that despite your assertions to the contrary, you are indeed against unions. Unions probably don't think we can get a more successful education for our nations children on the cheap. In fact, they likely say that the failures of our education system directly trace to our efforts to get something for nothing. In my view, the debate over vouchers and the passage of NCLB are major distractions from the root problem with our education system: it's massively underfunded. Earlier I linked to an article from the NYT reporting that in 2008, 70 of 96 Pentagon weapons programs were over-budget a sum-total of $296 billion. That's enough money for two years of state budget in California, I think we could get a lot of education with that kind of money. So it looks to me that Eisenhower was right. Every bomb we make means less books for our children. Of course, it seems to me that if the root problem was addressed, anti-union conservatives would loose an opportunity to bash teachers unions. I think vouchers etc. is less about fixing schools and more about destroying a political enemy, even if they have to take down the school system to do it. They might still get their way on that. They've made schools a horrible place to work in many respects, so that the turnover of new teachers is at unsustainable levels (Report Envisions Shortage of Teachers as Retirements Escalate) "...one of every three new teachers leaving the profession within five years...".

Regarding your other points, no policy ever benefits everyone universally, so that form of criticism, that you also leveled above, is completely unrealistic. Moreover, you seem to have mixed up benefits and pay. Merit based benefits is a horrible notion. Do you want to limit vacation time, pension plans, health care plans to only meritorious workers only? The merit based pay attack on unions falls apart under close inspection as well. It might sound enticing, but that is simply because most people tend to think they have merit and are deserving of fair pay. In actuality a merit based system makes it easier for an employer to underpay workers. They merely have to raise the bar higher than what any employee can do. It seems the goal is to turn all workers into piece workers, but I doubt you'll ever hear any anti-union rhetoric promoting piece work as a way to attract supporters. Piece work for everyone! The sad thing about this when applied to schools, is that these approaches ultimately rest on the assumption that children are little machines and schools are assembly lines.

Lastly, you say that you oppose giving unions any more political preference than is given to capitalists. The desire for equality and fair treatment is admirable, but aside from the historical reality that political preference more often goes to capitalists, you seem to forget that unions represent millions of people. There are far more workers than capitalists. A democratic political system, even one tempered with republican institutions meant to slow rates of change, ceases to be democratic when the preferences of the vast majority are repeatedly shunted aside in favor of the preferences of a small minority.

Regarding the WaPo article you linked with, it's taken down here and here. From the second link:

Quote:
...
Some years ago, a lot of DC kids applied for vouchers and got thrown into a lottery. Some of these kids were offered vouchers, some of these kids were not. But uh-oh! Of all the kids who were offered vouchers, 25 percent never used them. The Executive Summary compares all the applicants who were offered vouchers to all the applicants who weren’t offered vouchers. Somewhat counterintuitively, they thus lumped the kids who were offered vouchers but didn’t use them in with the kids who did use them. In short, you take all the applicants who were offered vouchers (including the kids who never used them): Those kids scored 3.1 months ahead of all the applicants who weren’t offered vouchers. It may seem odd to lump the kids who didn’t use their vouchers in with the kids who did use theirs, but that’s what the study refers to in its Executive Summary.

But uh-oh! Deeper in the study (page xxvi), Glod spotted more detailed data. If you compare the kids who actually used their vouchers to applicants who didn’t get offered vouchers, the difference in reading is 3.7 months. How many months is “nearly four?” As it turn out, 3.7!

We’re never sure why reporters say “nearly four” instead of “3.7.” But Glod was referring to that comparison—a comparison the study omits from its Executive Summary.
...

How do the students that used vouchers compare with the students who were offered them but didn't use them? How do the students who were offered vouchers but didn't use them compare with students who were not offered vouchers? These questions are important because they eliminate speculation that the children offered vouchers were doing better than their peers to begin with. In other words, as it stands now, the findings of the study can be dismissed as cherry picking. The students who did better with vouchers would have done well regardless.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
The real problem is, governments serve the elite. It's probably an axiom of human nature. Even if we luck out with leaders capable of not directly serving the elite, history shows our next leaders will likely not be so benevolent. I and many others believe that a smaller, more local, and less powerful government is less capable of screwing me over.

Back to the future eh? Local government is just as capable as national government when it comes to screwing people over as 75 years of Jim Crow demonstrated. Moreover, local government is less able to stand up to big business and thus more likely to collude with big business in order to screw people over. It wouldn't surprise me to find that when it comes to toxic waste and pollution that local governments have colluded with big business to screw people over far more often than they did something to stop it.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
Just for the heck of it, a quick analysis in a fivethirtyeight blog comment about how much money $250k/yr is:

Quote:
As to whether $250,000/year (and we are talking households here) makes somebody rich, give me a freakin' break. You are talking about the wealthiest 2% of the country. If 98% of the country is working or middle class then frankly class has lost all meaning. Lets not forget the first time home-buyer tax credit, either.

You can live here, which takes 89,000 out of your pocket each year (tax deductible).
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/140-West-69Th-Street-Unit-104_New-York_NY_10023_1106990083

Lets say 20,000 in medical expenses a year (which is deductible). And because we wouldn't deign to raise the kids ourselves, we'll hire a nanny for 12,000.

According to H&R block's tax calculator you would pay 29,000 in taxes.

Lets buy a new hybrid Escape every 5 years, so it'll run is 6,000 a year (we get a tax deduction too). Throw in another thousand for various costs, and another thousand for use of public transit.

200/week on food sounds about right. That makes $10,400.

Lets spend 10,000/year to send all 3 kids to private school, since we just love the diversity of New York, but don't want our kids to actually KNOW any minorities. So that runs us $30,000/year.

After all that you still have 52,500 left over for clothes, taxes I didn't cover and other sundries. Not bad considering that is higher than the average pre-tax income in the United States.

It's also worth pointing out that a person making exactly $250k/year wouldn't have to deal the increased rate. Only people making more than that would feel the 3% increase. One problem with that off the cuff analysis it's that it lends itself too easily to thinking of people making more than $250k/year as if they were people making $250k/year. $250k/year is just the cut off. A person making $250k/year probably has a lot more in common with a person making $50k/year than with a person making $5 million/year. That person's taxes would increase $142,500, but he would still take home $2,897,500 of the $4,750,000 taxed at the highest rate.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
O.K. So you've pointed to some examples. I don't understand your question, since I didn't state that the government wasn't involved in corporate welfare. As I wrote, your question presumed that government was involved in graft from the start, as if corporate welfare has been the rule since 1792. Now you suggest that corporate welfare constitutes an artificial barrier to entry into the market. How do you get from welfare to barrier? O.K. So you meant to say that license requirements are barriers to the market. It might help if you avoided mixing up your complaints. There are good arguments to be made in favor of easing licensing restrictions on radio stations.

Corporate welfare and regulation go hand in hand. Your distinction belies your lack of understand, in fact, much of your position I think relies on your lack of understanding of the relationship between business and government. I don't mean that disrespectfully. Simply because I haven't pointed out the relationship between govenment and monopoly specifically in each particular post doesn't mean I don't understand the issue. You're in such a rush to label me with your preconceptions you often miss the point.

Corporate welfare and regulation do not go hand in hand. The linkage depends on the absence of conflict of interest laws in campaign finance, laws that would restrict politicians, especially committee chairmen in Congress, from accepting contributions from persons and groups pushing a legislative agenda, or limit those contributions to smaller amounts. Corporate welfare comes about through regulation only when corporations complain that they lack the resources to comply with those regulations and ask the government to pick up the tab. Corporate welfare also comes about when government declares that securing their products constitutes a national priority, such as with oil.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
That doesn't mean that all government licensing should be abandoned. I don't think it would be wise for us to stop licensing and regulating doctors, engineers, pilots or truck drivers for that matter. If you want to frame that as cartelization, go right ahead, it only undermines the appeal of your ideology.

I don't know if ALL government licensing should be abandoned but most of it should. What you point to is cartelization. You are obviously willing to accept these types of government created cartels. Which means, when next I call you a monopolist the response "Yes" would be appropriate.

Again, I think you're taking every opportunity you can to apply the word cartel to what you don't like because it conjures up images of Mexican drug cartels. That I think licensing doctors is a good idea can be taken as indicating that I support a few specific instances of monopolies, but to stretch that into an accusation that I'm a monopolist is nonsense. It demonstrates your inability to see the world in anything but black and white. O.K., so your admission that some government licensing is acceptable means you can see a few shades of gray, but you're still missing out on millions of colors.

If you're truly interested in learning about cartels, and how they thrive in the absence of government, check out Michael T. Klare's latest article at tomdispatch.com: Boom Times for Criminal Syndicates

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
You suffer under two assumptions. That government is uniquely capable to identify and license the proper people for whichever role and that there can be no private alternative that functions as well or better.

You also believe that you, or whomever can effectively manage a series of barriers to entry better than millions of people acting in concert. It's really silly once you have the full understanding of it.

Those are false assertions. Who said anything about the government identifying the proper people? That's an interjection of your fear. The people who want licenses identify themselves by applying for them. The government is not the only entity capable of licensing, but it does have the unique capacity for neutrality in the matter, favoring neither licensees nor industry. And it is tasked with protecting the public, which is not a concern that a private alternative would have. What silly is the notion inherent in your assertion about what I believe that there is an invisible hand out there capable of getting the job done.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
He wouldn't recognize much that exists in our world. You said he would likely change his mind if he knew what became of the US in the last 200 years, but now you claim that he wouldn't, that he would stand by his remarks.

I'm having a hard time seeing where you drew that conclusion.

I think my remark there is fairly straight forward. I don't think that speculating about what Jefferson would say about the U.S. today if he came back is a fruitful endeavor. It's fanciful fiction, ala "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure".

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
That's all speculation. You can only guess at what he would support in light of the last 200 years. I'm not claiming he was a prophet or that critically analyzing his views is apostasy. Critical analysis is what I've been asking for. I've been drawing attention to his assertion that government is the institution that secures natural rights and asking how an anarchist could find that assertion agreeable when it seemingly contradicts anarchism.

Maybe his revision would embrace anarchism? I don't know. I admitted speculation on my part.

I wasn't asking about how Jefferson might revise his views, I was asking about how a present day anarchist might find that assertion from the Declaration of Independence agreeable when it contradicts the central tenet of anarchism. It seems to me that an anarchist would not put Jefferson high on his or her list of admirable thinkers because he asserted that government is the institution that secures natural rights.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
You're reading things in that aren't there. I'm not averse to engaging in such speculations. My goal was to prevent you from slipping out of the question.

Your goal was to kick a dead horse, kudos. In the words of GW, Mission Accomplished.

Your goal was to avoid the question. Kudos. You avoided it for several pages.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Actual Ponzi schemes are opt in too, so the difference is irrelevant to the categorization. The lack of health insurance can leave you dead as well. 18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance: More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care... That number has likely grown larger in the 7 years since that report was published.

But FICA isn't opt in, don't dodge the point.

I wasn't dodging the point. You were. Ponzi schemes are opt in, so how then can you say that something that isn't opt in constitutes a Ponzi scheme? And although health insurance is opt in, that link attests that the consequences of not opting in far too often mean death. The vast majority of people who don't opt in for health insurance, don't decline the option because they want to, they decline it because they can't afford it. In that they have no choice. And when it comes to car insurance, here in California it's mandatory. So too with many forms of house insurance.

At any rate, if private insurance operated as well as Social Security then insurance companies would be a lot more popular with the public than they are. When a person becomes eligible for Social Security, the process they have to go through to start receiving their benefit is relatively easy and their checks come on time and without hassle. That's a world of difference with what people experience when dealing with private insurers. In those situations many people find themselves confronted with obstacle after obstacle posed by large mega-corporations with the sole purpose of minimizing, if not outright preventing, insurance compensation. The list of horror stories could easily stretch for thousands of miles.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Now that's sad. Seriously, you think that's irrational and that I'm in denial about regulation as you turn around and proclaim that companies will voluntarily regulate themselves? Seriously? After the lead in toys, anti-freeze in toothpaste, and the recalls of peanut butter, tomatoes, spinach and so on? You're seriously deluded.

Right, I'm deluded, because every sin you list off took place under the watchful eye of the regulations you so cherish. Of course, they weren't enforced right, right. As always, you seek a better managed monopoly, never recognizing that managing a monopoly is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. Your super citizen had regulatory power over the products that killed people and failed them. How does that square? It doesn't, but by all means bring on the clowns.

The sins on that list took off when an administration that did not want them enforced took office. It wasn't the regulations that led to those problems, it was the lack of enforcement of those regulations, due to an administration that thinks like you do that the business should be unregulated. Enforcing regulation is not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That cliche is so overused, but if you want to follow it, then not enforcing regulations is akin to steaming full speed into an ice berg because you believe the hype that your ship is unsinkable when in fact it was built with below grade materials that didn't meet specifications and the calamity could have been avoided through rigorous inspection of the shipping yard that built the ship.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Have you ever worked in a packing house? I have...

Sounds like you were one of many government employees they'd dealt with and most of them folded like a house of cards. Hardly confidence inspiring.

So you'd rather throw the baby out with the bath? There are baby turds in the water!!! I'm not inspired with confidence!!!

Regarding my story, the entire episode could have been avoided if the farmer had done a better job of inspected his produce before he brought it in. The owl droppings were sitting right on top of the raisins in the bin. If he had spotted them and removed them, I would never have known. He could also have done a better job of covering his produce in order to avoid contamination. He blamed me, but I was doing my job. The failure was his, not mine.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I don't personally think self regulation is the silver bullet for every product but it has worked thus far for video games. I'd think more along the lines of third party companies that make a living by issue a seal of approval over X goods and marketing that seal. Think UL.

It worked for video games because the game industry responded quickly when the government began breathing down the back of their necks. The industry didn't decide before then that it needed to regulate itself. It responded to government pressure by regulating itself so that it could avoid government regulation. Underwriting Laboratories is an excellent organization, but I'm disappointed that it's moving away from it's not-for-profit origins.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
If you think the FDA is the one governmental arm completely immune to corruption then I'll know your opinion is constructed entirely for the purposes of this thread.

If nothing else allow a basket of non-governmental FDA-like organizations to exist. People like you, that believe in Uncle Sama Clause can strictly purchase FDA approved foods and take FDA approved drugs. Meanwhile, the other organizations can independently research and certify food goods and drugs.

Producers get multiply paths to bring their goods to market and the public gets an increased amount of choices.

The beauty of this is that the FDA would be defunct shortly after and this debate would be moot.

Where did you come up with the idea that I would think the FDA is immune to corruption? It would be naive to think that government agencies or private corporations were immune from corruption. But the lack of immunity to corruption is a poor reason to oppose regulation. The suggestion implied in your words is that society should abandon the law because the police are corruptible. What rubbish! People like me? What? Sorry bud, but there are a lot more people like me when it comes to food regulations than there are like you. I haven't said that there isn't any room for private organizations to independently research and certify food and drugs, but I would be skeptical regarding assertions by private organizations that they are indeed independent of those industries they claim to be keeping an eye on. Your claim that the FDA would be defunct if your dream plan came to fruition is utopian nonsense like most of what you preach.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
No, it's not justice and non-governmental food regulation is a complete joke.

Claiming a monopoly on a term as nebulous as justice and pretending to have full knowledge of the human potential regarding a complex issue is the height of arrogance.

Right, you're totally arrogant. Seriously, you trotted out the talk about justice, I disagreed with you on that and now you're calling me arrogant? That's pathetic!

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Aristotle? Is that "argument from antiquity" supposed to convince me to favor arbitration? It's not convincing. I'm not aware of any cases in recent history where arbitration served any interest but those of the powerful. You're trotting out a stale ideological prescription that only serves the interest of corporations.

There's a lot you're not aware of my man. You seemed to think arbitration was some new construct to rip off the common man when it has a long and successful history. If we confine this discussion to what you're aware of it on this issue we wouldn't have much to say would we?

You're not offering to enlighten me. You're pushing an "argument from antiquity" that isn't at all convincing. Arbitration may have a long history as you claim without reference, but even if true that wouldn't have any bearing on how corporations today use it in order to rip off the little guy. Don't mask current practice with ancient practice and expect people to believe you.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Rothbard cautions against it because it threatens his utopian illusion.

He makes a logical point it just doesn't serve your interest.

That would be an ideological point... [grin]

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Straw man. That's not the common argument for the existence of the state. It resembles an explanation for how the state came about, but such an explanation would not be the same as an argument in favor of the existence of the state.

His point stands. Giving all the guns and power to the Jones's is ridiculous on its face. That's the thrust of the paragraph which you didn't address.

His point doesn't stand. How could it? He cooked up a false scenario that he could manipulate to reach his predetermined ends. The idea that the people in his story would ever agree to give all the weapons to one family is ridiculous. If one family ever came to possess all the weapons, it was because they did so by force. A more reasonable scenario is that every family would send off a male family member to serve as part of the collective militia, yet it seems that thought doesn't ever cross his mind. Of course the scenario he presents is ridiculous, he meant it to be ridiculous because it served his attack on the state and it's "monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making". His claim that the scenario he presents is "the common argument for the existence of the state" is flat out wrong. He's arguing against a straw man.

The deeper problem with his scenario is that it's unrealistic from the start. We're supposed to assume that "we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo [anew] and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt". That's an interesting literary device for introducing notions built on the tabula rasa conception of human nature, but it's entirely unrealistic. I think you'll find a more realistic examination of what people do in that kind of situation in the television show Lost, even though that show can hardly be called realistic.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Can you back up those claims with historical references?

For someone seemingly so knowledgeable about history and resourceful enough to wade through 10 pages of google news results, I'm assuming you're being factitious for a reason? You don't have to look any further than wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#History

As for the disproportionate benefit; the direct subsidy of national highway system to any business that relies on interstate transportation of goods is so overwhelming I would hardly know where to begin. Surely you don't think Walmart could exist in any similar form without the interstate highway system? Nor Exxon, without the insatiable demand provided by the users? These two have, in the last few years, both held the title of largest public company in the world by market value. Heavily subsidized by our interstate highway system.

I do realize there are people that think they can have the benefit of interstate highways without the less desirable, direct consequences; a couple of which I mentioned in my last reply. I think they're wrong, and some of them seem fairly hypocritical.

Quote:
The elites are ... the people who pay for political campaigns and who pull the strings of Congress.

Please find me an example of a union leader who owns a yacht.

I was responding to your statement of the elites being in political control. Certainly you are just as knowledgeable as I am, if not more so, of the political contributions and lobbying done by unions?

Just in case, here's some help to get started:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=6Sf&q=unions+political+contributions&btnG=Search

As for unions supporting the GM bailout... you continue being intentionally factitious? Ron Gettelfinger's Senate testimony:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/GettelfingerSenateTestimony12408.pdf
As well as: "The Union of Automobile Workers and Detroit's Big Three want the same thing -- speedy congressional action to bail out the U.S. auto industry. "

The CEO's of the big three got no sympathy during the committee meetings. Surely you saw the clips of them being harshly condemned for the private jet flying. Hell, Obama practically fired Wagoner. It's my opinion, based on but impossible to completely substantiate by facts, that the only reason GM is not in bankruptcy is the unions.

Quote:
Unions do want a more successful education for our nations children. That you say otherwise indicates that despite your assertions to the contrary, you are indeed against unions.

I was being unfair; I'm sure unions want a successful education system. However, they certainly are not prioritizing it.

Quote:
In my view, the debate over vouchers and the passage of NCLB are major distractions from the root problem with our education system: it's massively underfunded.

Underfunded? Perhaps. We are tied for the highest spending per child in the world:
http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,2340,en_2649_201185_35341645_1_1_1_1,00.html

Quote:
OECD countries now spend an average of USD 7,343 per student per year between primary and tertiary education, but this masks a broad range of expenditure across countries. Switzerland and the U.S. spend the most, with average annual outlays per student of more than USD 11,000. At the other end of the scale, Mexico and the Slovak Republic spend around USD 2,000 per student per year. The drivers of expenditure per student vary across countries: among the five countries with the highest expenditure per student, Switzerland and the United States are two of the countries with the highest teachers’ salaries at secondary level of education whereas Austria, Denmark and Norway are among the countries with the lowest student to teaching staff ratio.

In spite of the fact that our federal government wastes money in other frivolous pursuits, perhaps money is not the only issue facing our education system. Other countries seem to do better on less. Maybe we should get serious about actual solutions instead of just throwing more money at the problem. Underfunding is a moot point anyways, vouchers are far cheaper than per child spending anyway (compare $7500 to the estimated $24,600 in DC). Parents win, taxpayers win, children win, schools win. Everyone wins but the teacher's unions.

Quote:
Merit based benefits is a horrible notion. Do you want to limit vacation time, pension plans, health care plans to only meritorious workers only? The merit based pay attack on unions falls apart under close inspection as well. It might sound enticing, but that is simply because most people tend to think they have merit and are deserving of fair pay. In actuality a merit based system makes it easier for an employer to underpay workers.

I do think that working harder and smarter should have the opportunity for reward, yes. How that would affect the ease of underpaying workers - well that's a bit hypothetical to argue.

But even beyond just benefits - now that California is getting budget cuts in education, who are they letting go? Not the worst teachers! They're letting go the least senior regardless of capability. As someone who has been through public education, I know there are terrible teachers out there who should be fired regardless of the budget; but I suppose seniority trumps educating our children.

I may be coming off as anti-union. I'm not. I respect that vast history of unions and the way they shaped our country and our rights. I also respect most of the people that work for unions, including the leaders and many of the lobbyists. I respect their decisions to strike and negotiate. Most of these actions take place between consenting adults and both sides will get the consequences (good and bad) of their decisions. But we're talking about educating our children here, not building a car. When it comes to teachers unions, I have immense opinions that their lobbying efforts and many of their policies and negotiations are serving themselves first, and our children last. Just because unions have great uses in some places in our society, does not mean they are good solution when it comes to teachers. We're humans; we have more tools than a hammer and not every problem is a nail.

Quote:
I think vouchers etc. is less about fixing schools and more about destroying a political enemy, even if they have to take down the school system to do it.

You think so? How does that explain the huge popularity among those that are eligible to use them? Are you suggesting the ~30K parents of the ~15K students in Milwaukee are actively trying to destroy a political enemy? Perhaps, just perhaps, parents want some say in where kids spend nearly half their waking hours 5 days a week? Rather than based on some arbitrary zoning line?

Quote:
Regarding the WaPo article you linked with, it's taken down here and here. From the second link:

...
Some years ago, a lot of DC kids applied for vouchers and got thrown into a lottery. Some of these kids were offered vouchers, some of these kids were not. But uh-oh! Of all the kids who were offered vouchers, 25 percent never used them. The Executive Summary compares all the applicants who were offered vouchers to all the applicants who weren’t offered vouchers. Somewhat counterintuitively, they thus lumped the kids who were offered vouchers but didn’t use them in with the kids who did use them. In short, you take all the applicants who were offered vouchers (including the kids who never used them): Those kids scored 3.1 months ahead of all the applicants who weren’t offered vouchers. It may seem odd to lump the kids who didn’t use their vouchers in with the kids who did use theirs, but that’s what the study refers to in its Executive Summary.

But uh-oh! Deeper in the study (page xxvi), Glod spotted more detailed data. If you compare the kids who actually used their vouchers to applicants who didn’t get offered vouchers, the difference in reading is 3.7 months. How many months is “nearly four?” As it turn out, 3.7!

We’re never sure why reporters say “nearly four” instead of “3.7.” But Glod was referring to that comparison—a comparison the study omits from its Executive Summary.
...


How do the students that used vouchers compare with the students who were offered them but didn't use them? How do the students who were offered vouchers but didn't use them compare with students who were not offered vouchers? These questions are important because they eliminate speculation that the children offered vouchers were doing better than their peers to begin with. In other words, as it stands now, the findings of the study can be dismissed as cherry picking. The students who did better with vouchers would have done well regardless.

Wow. I'm nearly speechless as to how you both mangled the actual study so badly. Well, I'm assuming you didn't read it, nor even the executive summary which your quoted author also gets terribly wrong.

Children whose parents were offered the vouchers but didn't use them were 3.1 months better than those who were not offered. Those who used the vouchers for all 3 years were 3.7 months better at reading than those who were not offered. This is extremely clear from the same page he references; and you both get completely wrong. In other words, the study says exactly what the WaPo says it does.

Maybe it's better explained by the actual study: from the executive summary: (my emphasis)

Quote:
After 3 years, there was a statistically significant positive impact on reading test
scores, but not math test scores. Overall, those offered a scholarship were performing
at statistically higher levels in reading equivalent to 3.1 months of additional
learning but at similar levels in math compared to students not offered a scholarship
(table 3). Analysis in prior years indicated no significant impacts overall on either
reading or math achievement

Across the full sample, there was a statistically significant impact on reading
achievement of 4.5 scale score points (effect size (ES) = .13)8 from the offer of a
scholarship and 5.3 scale score points (ES = .15) from the use of a scholarship
(table 3). These impacts are equivalent to 3.1 and 3.7 months of additional learning,
respectively

There was no statistically significant impact on math achievement, overall (ES = .03)
from the offer of a scholarship nor from the use of a scholarship (table 3)

Also, if you did even a cursory browse of the study, you would know that there was a random lottery process to distribute the vouchers...

The same study showed huge gains in parental satisfaction and perceived safety. Maybe it's just satisfaction at doing their part to destroy political enemies?

Quote:
Back to the future eh? Local government is just as capable as national government when it comes to screwing people over as 75 years of Jim Crow demonstrated. Moreover, local government is less able to stand up to big business and thus more likely to collude with big business in order to screw people over. It wouldn't surprise me to find that when it comes to toxic waste and pollution that local governments have colluded with big business to screw people over far more often than they did something to stop it.

Surely you're kidding. 75 years of Jim Crow? As opposed to 258 years of slavery? Given that choice... bring on the local government.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
In my view, the debate over vouchers and the passage of NCLB are major distractions from the root problem with our education system: it's massively underfunded.

Underfunded? Perhaps. We are tied for the highest spending per child in the world:
http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,2340,en_2649_201185_35341645_1_1_1_1,00.html

Quote:
OECD countries now spend an average of USD 7,343 per student per year between primary and tertiary education, but this masks a broad range of expenditure across countries. Switzerland and the U.S. spend the most, with average annual outlays per student of more than USD 11,000. At the other end of the scale, Mexico and the Slovak Republic spend around USD 2,000 per student per year. The drivers of expenditure per student vary across countries: among the five countries with the highest expenditure per student, Switzerland and the United States are two of the countries with the highest teachers’ salaries at secondary level of education whereas Austria, Denmark and Norway are among the countries with the lowest student to teaching staff ratio.

I recently saw that the U.S. teacher salary as a percentage of GDB per capita was lower than in many other countries. This suggests that teacher salary, while it may be higher than in some other countries, is also a signal to people considering what direction they want to go in life that teaching just isn't valued in the US as much as other countries. That's not to say that's definitely the reason for under performance in US schools, just that it's something that shouldn't be overlooked when talking about teacher pay.

That last sentence from your quote also illuminates another issue: students to teaching staff. And there's also students to administration officials. These are all things that should be considered when talking about education in the United States, not just absolute spending. I think there are budgetary problems with schools, just not necessarily first and foremost with actual teacher pay.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Can you back up those claims with historical references?

For someone seemingly so knowledgeable about history and resourceful enough to wade through 10 pages of google news results, I'm assuming you're being factitious for a reason?

Factitious? "not spontaneous or natural; artificial; contrived"? I don't think so. You seem put off that I would ask you to do your own homework. What's up with that?

Quote: Original post by gpgp
You don't have to look any further than wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#History

Ike was lobbied by automakers, but he had reasons of his own and the system was planned by FDR back in 1938. Clearly there's more to the story than can be described by the claim that it was requested by elites.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
As for the disproportionate benefit; the direct subsidy of national highway system to any business that relies on interstate transportation of goods is so overwhelming I would hardly know where to begin. Surely you don't think Walmart could exist in any similar form without the interstate highway system? Nor Exxon, without the insatiable demand provided by the users? These two have, in the last few years, both held the title of largest public company in the world by market value. Heavily subsidized by our interstate highway system.

Surely I think you could present evidence in statement form rather than posed as a series of rhetorical questions. You seem to know where to begin, but you haven't presented facts. So instead of leveling insulting questions, how about presenting some facts pertaining to the benefit the interstate system afforded to Walmart and Exxon. Yes, Walmart and Exxon are big business. Please tell me something I don't already know. How about comparing the direct subsidies made to Exxon and the tax cuts it receives with the indirect subsidy provided by the interstate system?

Quote: Original post by gpgp
I do realize there are people that think they can have the benefit of interstate highways without the less desirable, direct consequences; a couple of which I mentioned in my last reply. I think they're wrong, and some of them seem fairly hypocritical.

I responded to most of the points in your last reply. I agree that the interstate is linked to US reliance on oil and cars but I think it did more to lock that in that to cause it. Suburbia is the source of the dependency in my view. I also agree that the interstate is linked to the rise of Walmart, but given that Walmart really began to take off in the last 15 or 20 years and the interstate has been around for 45 years, it bears asking why didn't Walmart take off sooner? I don't agree that the rise of corporate farming can be attributed to the interstate. It seems to me that what set off the corporate rise that you seem to take issue with was a shift towards deregulation that occurred in the 1980's.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
The elites are ... the people who pay for political campaigns and who pull the strings of Congress.

Please find me an example of a union leader who owns a yacht.

I was responding to your statement of the elites being in political control. Certainly you are just as knowledgeable as I am, if not more so, of the political contributions and lobbying done by unions?

Just in case, here's some help to get started:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=6Sf&q=unions+political+contributions&btnG=Search

Yes, I'm aware that unions lobby. If EFCA passes you may have a point, but if it doesn't, you won't.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
As for unions supporting the GM bailout... you continue being intentionally factitious?

I don't think you know what that word means. Are you certain you haven't gotten it mixed up with facetious?

I didn't deny that unions supported the GM bailout, what I asked you to do was to "support your contention that union clout is leading to corporate welfare for GM with some facts."

Quote: Original post by gpgp
Ron Gettelfinger's Senate testimony:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/GettelfingerSenateTestimony12408.pdf
As well as: "The Union of Automobile Workers and Detroit's Big Three want the same thing -- speedy congressional action to bail out the U.S. auto industry. "

The CEO's of the big three got no sympathy during the committee meetings. Surely you saw the clips of them being harshly condemned for the private jet flying. Hell, Obama practically fired Wagoner. It's my opinion, based on but impossible to completely substantiate by facts, that the only reason GM is not in bankruptcy is the unions.

So the prospect that GM bankruptcy might break the back of American manufacturing has nothing to do with it? Or the prospect that it might drag Ford and Chrysler down with it, not to mention seriously damage foreign automakers operating in the states, has nothing to do with it? It seems to me that you've not looked into the matter very deeply and remain content to base your opinion on the shallow coverage in the media concerning who gained sympathy from Congress and who didn't.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
Unions do want a more successful education for our nations children. That you say otherwise indicates that despite your assertions to the contrary, you are indeed against unions.

I was being unfair; I'm sure unions want a successful education system. However, they certainly are not prioritizing it.

According to your conception of the priorities, which quite likely feature pay cuts for teachers at the top of the list.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
In my view, the debate over vouchers and the passage of NCLB are major distractions from the root problem with our education system: it's massively underfunded.

Underfunded? Perhaps. We are tied for the highest spending per child in the world:
http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,2340,en_2649_201185_35341645_1_1_1_1,00.html

Quote:
OECD countries now spend an average of USD 7,343 per student per year between primary and tertiary education, but this masks a broad range of expenditure across countries. Switzerland and the U.S. spend the most, with average annual outlays per student of more than USD 11,000. At the other end of the scale, Mexico and the Slovak Republic spend around USD 2,000 per student per year. The drivers of expenditure per student vary across countries: among the five countries with the highest expenditure per student, Switzerland and the United States are two of the countries with the highest teachers’ salaries at secondary level of education whereas Austria, Denmark and Norway are among the countries with the lowest student to teaching staff ratio.

"average annual outlays", Did you know that when Bill Gates visits a soup kitchen, the average annual income in the place skyrockets? One school district spends $2000 per student annual, another spends $20000 per student annually, together they spend an average of $11000 annually. In other words, those comparisons don't tell us much.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
In spite of the fact that our federal government wastes money in other frivolous pursuits, perhaps money is not the only issue facing our education system. Other countries seem to do better on less. Maybe we should get serious about actual solutions instead of just throwing more money at the problem.

Other countries, such as those in Europe, provide their citizens with health care and other welfare safety nets. Maybe we should get serious about solutions to our society at large rather than chasing after free market pipe dreams like vouchers that are bound to do for public education what deregulation did for Wall Street.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
Underfunding is a moot point anyways, vouchers are far cheaper than per child spending anyway (compare $7500 to the estimated $24,600 in DC). Parents win, taxpayers win, children win, schools win. Everyone wins but the teacher's unions.

The WaPo has been in the bag for vouchers for a long time, so it's not surprising that they would publish an op-ed on the topic penned by a CATO director. I disagree that everyone except the teacher's unions win, but that confirms my earlier assertion that you're anti-union. Keeping Public Schools Public: Free-Market Education Overall, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel estimated that about 10 percent of the schools visited demonstrate "alarming deficiencies" without "the ability, resources, knowledge or will to offer children even a mediocre education." Study finds results of MPS and voucher school students are similar The first research since the mid-1990s comparing the academic progress of students in Milwaukee's precedent-setting private school voucher program with students in Milwaukee Public Schools shows no major differences in success between the two groups. The Milwaukee Voucher Experiment: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly These facts are problematic for choice supporters for several reasons. First, if these parents had remained in the public schools, they could have been a potent force for change. They were educated, involved, placed an emphasis on education, and were angry. Second, these characteristics might help to explain their children's subsequent achievement success apart from the magic attributed to the private schools.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
Merit based benefits is a horrible notion. Do you want to limit vacation time, pension plans, health care plans to only meritorious workers only? The merit based pay attack on unions falls apart under close inspection as well. It might sound enticing, but that is simply because most people tend to think they have merit and are deserving of fair pay. In actuality a merit based system makes it easier for an employer to underpay workers.

I do think that working harder and smarter should have the opportunity for reward, yes. How that would affect the ease of underpaying workers - well that's a bit hypothetical to argue.

You assume the opportunity for reward will be real, that's far more hypothetical than my skepticism. I think it's interesting that you excised my remarks about piece work.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
But even beyond just benefits - now that California is getting budget cuts in education, who are they letting go? Not the worst teachers! They're letting go the least senior regardless of capability. As someone who has been through public education, I know there are terrible teachers out there who should be fired regardless of the budget; but I suppose seniority trumps educating our children.

How do you measure a teacher to determine which are the worst? Is that a subjective determination that you make? Do we put that to the students to vote on it? Do we measure teachers by how well their students do on tests? If so, do we reduce the scores of teachers in schools where the students live with both parents who are professionals with good jobs in crime free neighborhoods and do we increase the scores of teachers in schools where the students live with one parent who works part time in a crime ridden neighborhood?

California and all the other states should have been bailed out before AIG etc., but the fact remains that California schools have been underfunded since Prop. 13 passed back in the 1970's. I'm old enough to have seen the change that produced.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
I may be coming off as anti-union. I'm not. I respect that vast history of unions and the way they shaped our country and our rights. I also respect most of the people that work for unions, including the leaders and many of the lobbyists. I respect their decisions to strike and negotiate. Most of these actions take place between consenting adults and both sides will get the consequences (good and bad) of their decisions. But we're talking about educating our children here, not building a car. When it comes to teachers unions, I have immense opinions that their lobbying efforts and many of their policies and negotiations are serving themselves first, and our children last. Just because unions have great uses in some places in our society, does not mean they are good solution when it comes to teachers. We're humans; we have more tools than a hammer and not every problem is a nail.

What lobbying efforts, policies and negotiations specifically do you think serve them first and children last?

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
I think vouchers etc. is less about fixing schools and more about destroying a political enemy, even if they have to take down the school system to do it.

You think so? How does that explain the huge popularity among those that are eligible to use them? Are you suggesting the ~30K parents of the ~15K students in Milwaukee are actively trying to destroy a political enemy? Perhaps, just perhaps, parents want some say in where kids spend nearly half their waking hours 5 days a week? Rather than based on some arbitrary zoning line?

Yes, I think so. See my links above regarding Milwaukee and vouchers. See Rolling Back the 20th Century for the bigger picture.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
Regarding the WaPo article you linked with, it's taken down here and here. From the second link:

Quote:
Some years ago, a lot of DC kids applied for vouchers and got thrown into a lottery. Some of these kids were offered vouchers, some of these kids were not. But uh-oh! Of all the kids who were offered vouchers, 25 percent never used them. The Executive Summary compares all the applicants who were offered vouchers to all the applicants who weren’t offered vouchers. Somewhat counterintuitively, they thus lumped the kids who were offered vouchers but didn’t use them in with the kids who did use them. In short, you take all the applicants who were offered vouchers (including the kids who never used them): Those kids scored 3.1 months ahead of all the applicants who weren’t offered vouchers. It may seem odd to lump the kids who didn’t use their vouchers in with the kids who did use theirs, but that’s what the study refers to in its Executive Summary.

But uh-oh! Deeper in the study (page xxvi), Glod spotted more detailed data. If you compare the kids who actually used their vouchers to applicants who didn’t get offered vouchers, the difference in reading is 3.7 months. How many months is “nearly four?” As it turn out, 3.7!

We’re never sure why reporters say “nearly four” instead of “3.7.” But Glod was referring to that comparison—a comparison the study omits from its Executive Summary.
...

How do the students that used vouchers compare with the students who were offered them but didn't use them? How do the students who were offered vouchers but didn't use them compare with students who were not offered vouchers? These questions are important because they eliminate speculation that the children offered vouchers were doing better than their peers to begin with. In other words, as it stands now, the findings of the study can be dismissed as cherry picking. The students who did better with vouchers would have done well regardless.

Wow. I'm nearly speechless as to how you both mangled the actual study so badly. Well, I'm assuming you didn't read it, nor even the executive summary which your quoted author also gets terribly wrong.

No, I didn't read it. I read the WaPo article and the two links I dropped.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
Children whose parents were offered the vouchers but didn't use them were 3.1 months better than those who were not offered. Those who used the vouchers for all 3 years were 3.7 months better at reading than those who were not offered. This is extremely clear from the same page he references; and you both get completely wrong. In other words, the study says exactly what the WaPo says it does.

I think you've got it wrong. The snippet you cite below does not say what you says it does. You say that children offered vouchers but didn't use them were 3.1 months ahead of children who were not offered vouchers. The quote below says that children offered vouchers were 3.1 months ahead of children not offered vouchers. It makes no distinction between children offered vouchers who accepted them and children offered vouchers who did not. You claim it says there is a distinction, but the citation below does not make that distinction.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
Maybe it's better explained by the actual study: from the executive summary: (my emphasis)

Quote:
After 3 years, there was a statistically significant positive impact on reading test
scores, but not math test scores. Overall, those offered a scholarship were performing
at statistically higher levels in reading equivalent to 3.1 months of additional
learning but at similar levels in math compared to students not offered a scholarship
(table 3). Analysis in prior years indicated no significant impacts overall on either
reading or math achievement

Across the full sample, there was a statistically significant impact on reading
achievement of 4.5 scale score points (effect size (ES) = .13)8 from the offer of a
scholarship and 5.3 scale score points (ES = .15) from the use of a scholarship
(table 3). These impacts are equivalent to 3.1 and 3.7 months of additional learning,
respectively

There was no statistically significant impact on math achievement, overall (ES = .03)
from the offer of a scholarship nor from the use of a scholarship (table 3)

From that snippet it remains ambiguous whether or not the group offered a scholarship contains the group that used the scholarship. Logic suggests that it does. It seems to me that it would be quite difficult to use a scholarship if you were not offered a scholarship.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
Also, if you did even a cursory browse of the study, you would know that there was a random lottery process to distribute the vouchers...

Fair enough.

Quote: Original post by gpgp
The same study showed huge gains in parental satisfaction and perceived safety. Maybe it's just satisfaction at doing their part to destroy political enemies?

Maybe. Maybe they're just suckers for a good sales job.

Quote: Original post by gpgp

Quote:
Back to the future eh? Local government is just as capable as national government when it comes to screwing people over as 75 years of Jim Crow demonstrated. Moreover, local government is less able to stand up to big business and thus more likely to collude with big business in order to screw people over. It wouldn't surprise me to find that when it comes to toxic waste and pollution that local governments have colluded with big business to screw people over far more often than they did something to stop it.

Surely you're kidding. 75 years of Jim Crow? As opposed to 258 years of slavery? Given that choice... bring on the local government.

No, I'm not kidding. I'm also not posing a choice between slavery and second class citizenship, so let's drop that canard.

First you claim.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Corporate welfare and regulation do not go hand in hand.

Then you state

Quote: Corporate welfare comes about through regulation only when corporations complain that they lack the resources to comply with those regulations and ask the government to pick up the tab. Corporate welfare also comes about when government declares that securing their products constitutes a national priority, such as with oil.

You ignore that artificial barriers to entry amounts to corporate welfare by eliminating or reducing competition. That type of welfare would be impossible without the lending of government coercion.

Quote: Again, I think you're taking every opportunity you can to apply the word cartel to what you don't like because it conjures up images of Mexican drug cartels.

I think the body of your knowledge of cartelization theory is so limited that you keep relating it to the most recent use you can recall. You're not really at your best when you rely on ad hoc arguments.

Quote:
That I think licensing doctors is a good idea can be taken as indicating that I support a few specific instances of monopolies, but to stretch that into an accusation that I'm a monopolist is nonsense. It demonstrates your inability to see the world in anything but black and white. O.K., so your admission that some government licensing is acceptable means you can see a few shades of gray, but you're still missing out on millions of colors.

Which is meaningless when you reread it. For the record I can't think of a single instance of licensing that couldn't be provided privately as well or better than publicly. As always, you defer to the ubermensch and nothing can exist in its absence.

Quote:
If you're truly interested in learning about cartels, and how they thrive in the absence of government, check out Michael T. Klare's latest article at tomdispatch.com: Boom Times for Criminal Syndicates

I'll read the article in a bit. You presume too much to instruct me on cartelization theory. Congrats on reading an article and proclaiming yourself competent to dismiss my position. Very typical.

Quote:
Those are false assertions. Who said anything about the government identifying the proper people? That's an interjection of your fear. The people who want licenses identify themselves by applying for them.

And everyone that applies for a license receives one? And everyone that receives one is competent in their field? Your blindspot an all thing regarding the state are predictable.

Quote:
The government is not the only entity capable of licensing, but it does have the unique capacity for neutrality in the matter, favoring neither licensees nor industry. And it is tasked with protecting the public, which is not a concern that a private alternative would have. What silly is the notion inherent in your assertion about what I believe that there is an invisible hand out there capable of getting the job done.

More mental meandering. The UL proves your assertion false. Consumer Reports proves your assertion false. You have a very limited imagination in this regard.

Quote:
I wasn't dodging the point. You were. Ponzi schemes are opt in, so how then can you say that something that isn't opt in constitutes a Ponzi scheme? And although health insurance is opt in, that link attests that the consequences of not opting in far too often mean death. The vast majority of people who don't opt in for health insurance, don't decline the option because they want to, they decline it because they can't afford it. In that they have no choice. And when it comes to car insurance, here in California it's mandatory. So too with many forms of house insurance.

So there is no difference between choosing something and being forced with a gun to your head? I wish I had clients like you.

Quote:
At any rate, if private insurance operated as well as Social Security then insurance companies would be a lot more popular with the public than they are. When a person becomes eligible for Social Security, the process they have to go through to start receiving their benefit is relatively easy and their checks come on time and without hassle. That's a world of difference with what people experience when dealing with private insurers. In those situations many people find themselves confronted with obstacle after obstacle posed by large mega-corporations with the sole purpose of minimizing, if not outright preventing, insurance compensation. The list of horror stories could easily stretch for thousands of miles.

You're right, and the same is true of all heavily regulated sectors. Artificial barriers to entry and government cartelization has a variety of negative effects for the end user.

Quote:
The sins on that list took off when an administration that did not want them enforced took office. It wasn't the regulations that led to those problems, it was the lack of enforcement of those regulations, due to an administration that thinks like you do that the business should be unregulated. Enforcing regulation is not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That cliche is so overused, but if you want to follow it, then not enforcing regulations is akin to steaming full speed into an ice berg because you believe the hype that your ship is unsinkable when in fact it was built with below grade materials that didn't meet specifications and the calamity could have been avoided through rigorous inspection of the shipping yard that built the ship.

I suppose I should google and link the panoply of FDA failings under Clinton but it would be a waste of time. It doesn't fit your preconceptions so you'll discard it.

Quote:
Where did you come up with the idea that I would think the FDA is immune to corruption? It would be naive to think that government agencies or private corporations were immune from corruption. But the lack of immunity to corruption is a poor reason to oppose regulation. The suggestion implied in your words is that society should abandon the law because the police are corruptible. What rubbish! People like me? What? Sorry bud, but there are a lot more people like me when it comes to food regulations than there are like you. I haven't said that there isn't any room for private organizations to independently research and certify food and drugs, but I would be skeptical regarding assertions by private organizations that they are indeed independent of those industries they claim to be keeping an eye on. Your claim that the FDA would be defunct if your dream plan came to fruition is utopian nonsense like most of what you preach.

Of course, your lack of imagination means my ideology is utopian. Hey, it beats a reasoned debate. Let's slap a utopian tag on it and consider it a point scored.

Quote:
Right, you're totally arrogant. Seriously, you trotted out the talk about justice, I disagreed with you on that and now you're calling me arrogant? That's pathetic!

I'll accept pathetic, but I'm not the one claiming future knowledge of the entire scope of the human endeavour. That would be you.


edit** I actually went back and edited a decent portion of this. In my opinion this debate has played out. I don't think we're gaining much by me challenging your preconceptions and you calling me stupid and pathetic.


[Edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on April 11, 2009 8:57:05 PM]

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
First you claim.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Corporate welfare and regulation do not go hand in hand.

Then you state

Quote: Corporate welfare comes about through regulation only when corporations complain that they lack the resources to comply with those regulations and ask the government to pick up the tab. Corporate welfare also comes about when government declares that securing their products constitutes a national priority, such as with oil.

You ignore that artificial barriers to entry amounts to corporate welfare by eliminating or reducing competition. That type of welfare would be impossible without the lending of government coercion.

And you ignore that regulations can also increase competition, for example, when monopolies are broken up. My point is that regulations alone do not lead to corporate welfare. There are other factors involved, for example, a pliant legislature. More you your point, however, in many cases artificial barriers to entry are desirable, such as with the licensing example.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Again, I think you're taking every opportunity you can to apply the word cartel to what you don't like because it conjures up images of Mexican drug cartels.

I think the body of your knowledge of cartelization theory is so limited that you keep relating it to the most recent use you can recall. You're not really at your best when you rely on ad hoc arguments.

And yet I still manage to poke holes in your supposedly theoretical arguments...

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
That I think licensing doctors is a good idea can be taken as indicating that I support a few specific instances of monopolies, but to stretch that into an accusation that I'm a monopolist is nonsense. It demonstrates your inability to see the world in anything but black and white. O.K., so your admission that some government licensing is acceptable means you can see a few shades of gray, but you're still missing out on millions of colors.

Which is meaningless when you reread it. For the record I can't think of a single instance of licensing that couldn't be provided privately as well or better than publicly. As always, you defer to the ubermensch and nothing can exist in its absence.

You don't really know what an Übermensch is do you? Have you ever read any Nietzsche?

From what you've written, it's clear that you only see the world in a few shades of gray and you like to toss out words in ways that indicate you don't know what they mean.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
If you're truly interested in learning about cartels, and how they thrive in the absence of government, check out Michael T. Klare's latest article at tomdispatch.com: Boom Times for Criminal Syndicates

I'll read the article in a bit. You presume too much to instruct me on cartelization theory. Congrats on reading an article and proclaiming yourself competent to dismiss my position. Very typical.

I'm not instructing you on theory, I'm pointing you to an account of actual cartels in current operation. If your position accurately reflected reality I might pay attention to the theory you seem so fixated upon. Until then it comes across as a faith based ideology, the church of Mises and Rothbard so to speak.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Those are false assertions. Who said anything about the government identifying the proper people? That's an interjection of your fear. The people who want licenses identify themselves by applying for them.

And everyone that applies for a license receives one? And everyone that receives one is competent in their field? Your blindspot an all thing regarding the state are predictable.

No, not everyone who applies for a license receives one nor should they. Are you suggesting that with a private system that everyone who paid for a license would receive one? If I argued the way that you do, I wouldn't pose that as a question, I would assert it as your position. And no, not everyone who receives a license is competent in their field, but you can't lay blame for that on their being licenses. That's just human frailty. It would be the case with a private licensing system as well. And speaking of private licensing system, wouldn't that also constitute a barrier to entry of the kind you complained of above?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
The government is not the only entity capable of licensing, but it does have the unique capacity for neutrality in the matter, favoring neither licensees nor industry. And it is tasked with protecting the public, which is not a concern that a private alternative would have. What silly is the notion inherent in your assertion about what I believe that there is an invisible hand out there capable of getting the job done.

More mental meandering. The UL proves your assertion false. Consumer Reports proves your assertion false. You have a very limited imagination in this regard.

That was point by point and my imagination is just fine thank you. UL and Consumer Reports rate products, they don't hand out licenses. You're meandering. But since you've opened the door to shifting away from licensing towards private ratings, Moody's, Fitch Ratings, and Standard & Poor's demonstrated through their malfeasance the unreliability of your private prescription. For surface details see Moody's, S&P Employees Doubted Ratings, E-Mails Say, Problems found at ratings firms, Credit ratings fueled subprime boom.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
I wasn't dodging the point. You were. Ponzi schemes are opt in, so how then can you say that something that isn't opt in constitutes a Ponzi scheme? And although health insurance is opt in, that link attests that the consequences of not opting in far too often mean death. The vast majority of people who don't opt in for health insurance, don't decline the option because they want to, they decline it because they can't afford it. In that they have no choice. And when it comes to car insurance, here in California it's mandatory. So too with many forms of house insurance.

So there is no difference between choosing something and being forced with a gun to your head? I wish I had clients like you.

According to you there is no difference, but that's not what I claimed. Interestingly enough, you just expressed a desire to point a gun to the head of your clients to force them to bend to your will. Libertarian indeed...

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
At any rate, if private insurance operated as well as Social Security then insurance companies would be a lot more popular with the public than they are. When a person becomes eligible for Social Security, the process they have to go through to start receiving their benefit is relatively easy and their checks come on time and without hassle. That's a world of difference with what people experience when dealing with private insurers. In those situations many people find themselves confronted with obstacle after obstacle posed by large mega-corporations with the sole purpose of minimizing, if not outright preventing, insurance compensation. The list of horror stories could easily stretch for thousands of miles.

You're right, and the same is true of all heavily regulated sectors. Artificial barriers to entry and government cartelization has a variety of negative effects for the end user.

Insurance companies aren't stingy because of government regulation. They're stingy because they're obligated to pursue profits ahead of any other interest.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
The sins on that list took off when an administration that did not want them enforced took office. It wasn't the regulations that led to those problems, it was the lack of enforcement of those regulations, due to an administration that thinks like you do that the business should be unregulated. Enforcing regulation is not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That cliche is so overused, but if you want to follow it, then not enforcing regulations is akin to steaming full speed into an ice berg because you believe the hype that your ship is unsinkable when in fact it was built with below grade materials that didn't meet specifications and the calamity could have been avoided through rigorous inspection of the shipping yard that built the ship.

I suppose I should google and link the panoply of FDA failings under Clinton but it would be a waste of time. It doesn't fit your preconceptions so you'll discard it.

You forget that I'm no fan of Clinton's. His administration was soft on business crime as well.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Where did you come up with the idea that I would think the FDA is immune to corruption? It would be naive to think that government agencies or private corporations were immune from corruption. But the lack of immunity to corruption is a poor reason to oppose regulation. The suggestion implied in your words is that society should abandon the law because the police are corruptible. What rubbish! People like me? What? Sorry bud, but there are a lot more people like me when it comes to food regulations than there are like you. I haven't said that there isn't any room for private organizations to independently research and certify food and drugs, but I would be skeptical regarding assertions by private organizations that they are indeed independent of those industries they claim to be keeping an eye on. Your claim that the FDA would be defunct if your dream plan came to fruition is utopian nonsense like most of what you preach.

Of course, your lack of imagination means my ideology is utopian. Hey, it beats a reasoned debate. Let's slap a utopian tag on it and consider it a point scored.

Is that the best response you can come up with?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Right, you're totally arrogant. Seriously, you trotted out the talk about justice, I disagreed with you on that and now you're calling me arrogant? That's pathetic!

I'll accept pathetic, but I'm not the one claiming future knowledge of the entire scope of the human endeavour. That would be you.

Rubbish.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
edit** I actually went back and edited a decent portion of this. In my opinion this debate has played out. I don't think we're gaining much by me challenging your preconceptions and you calling me stupid and pathetic.

Fair enough.