Are those the only options? Why do we have to be either?
DaCrum is employing a rhetorical dicotomy. It is obviously false in the literal, but serves as an instrument of scale, with one at each end. So, no, you don't have those as the only options, but you can make comparisons to the relevant areas of the scale.
I didn't read what this implication of scale was, so if you get that, maybe you can base your arguments around what the scale implies.
Education, in and of itself, is very effective now, although there are problems keeping kids in school in a lot of places (which is largely due to bad living conditions [primarily in failing Blue states]);
Could you please cite some statistics for these claims?
we hear about crime a lot in this country, but the average crime rate is something like 6-7% and goes up and down with the unemployment rate (you're notice that Red states tend to have a lower crime rate
i do not understand this link's chart. could you please explain it for me, with the relevant statistics?
we have good healthcare--arguably some of the best quality in the world--and the problem lies in people affording it; the majority of people (that is to say >50%) are "moderately wealthy," but I guess that depends on your definition of wealth.
i won't talk about the relative wealth of people, because you're right, the standard is highly variable.
i would like to dispute some of your claims to us in the USA having good healthcare, though.
If we are compared to the whole world, regardless of wealth levels, I suppose it is true that we have good healthcare.
If you are comparing the system to a country of similar levels of wealth, we are actually not very highly rated.http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_h ... stems.html
this chart is a collection of statistics from the World Health Organization. the numbers represent the position of the country's rank in the list of any given category.
the last number on the right side of the chart is an aggregate number relating to the efficiency of the healthcare system of the country as a whole
If you go to the United States, you can see that we spend more than anyone else, with rank 1 for the amount of money spent per person.
and i will make this easier with a second link which simply is the numerical listing of the rank of countries under the World Health Organization's standards,http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
the united states is ranked 37 overall in healthcare for countries in the world.
not quite the best.
But that doesn't answer your question--A real-world example of small government that works and meets the conditions? America, circa 1910. [1
Perfect? No; still arguably very good.
that is not a current world example, ruffdraft. that is america in 1910. i'm not going to validate nor invalidate your argument that it is good or bad: it is not a real world example at the present time.
You want real, workable solutions to the current problems? Here ya go:
nvest in redevelopment of failed areas like Detroit, build governmental (State-run) lower-income housing and apartment complexes and homeless shelters/halfway houses. Encourage those living in homeless shelters/halfway houses to fucking shower, you rancid fucking hogs and give them clothes from Good Will so they can at least get jobs. Once they get jobs, they can move to low-income housing. In low-income housing, they can opt-in to low-cost skill training.
where are the jobs?
do you think that the number of want-ads exceeds the number of people looking for jobs in any average city?
Eliminate teacher's unions. I don't know how you would go about doing that just yet, but I'll try to work on a plan. However, eliminating teacher's unions would allow school districts to fire teachers that aren't doing their jobs; teachers that aren't doing their jobs are nothing but a drain on the economy; just look at New York and Washington DC.
why do unions exist in the first place for any job, then? would you be in favor in eliminating all unions?
Lower corporate taxes from ~15% to ~12.5%; further lower taxes to 10% for companies that are able to hire an additional 20% of their current reported employee workforce.
and if a workforce is not the most profitable way to reinvest the revenue from the lower taxes for even one company with a substantial amount of the nation's GDP, what do we do to provide as an additional incentive to hire that workforce?
Lower the upper tax bracket to 30% and eliminate some tax loopholes and exemptions; this might seem like a lower tax bracket, but the elimination of loopholes would arguably increase revenues at the same time.
i wouldn't immediately object to lowering the taxes if there were substantial bipartisan support for reforming our financial system to close corporate loopholes, but i would want to see the loopholes closed before legislation the tax cuts, and i would gladly allow for a stipulation of refund after the loopholes were closed in a special "one-fiscal-year" exemption to pay back the lost revenue in what were temporarily higher taxes.
could you help me find examples of legislation introduced by republicans or democrats that are financial reform that only (primarily) closes loopholes and (secondarily) promises future/immediate tax cuts? i'm having trouble in this regard... :(
what makes it especially difficult is that, while i can find legislation approaching the secondary condition, the primary condition is much harder to distinguish. :(
Lower the minimum wage by about $1.25; In some states, the minimum wage is as high as $8.25--at a certain point, businesses can be hurt by the minimum wage (for example, if you pay your employees $7/hour but you only do business at an average of $4/hour per worker). Additionally, in conjunction with low-income housing, people society could still function.
could you prove this with some sort of hypothetical "bill" that a person would have to pay to keep his housing with relationship to his job?
Paul Ryan. Seriously, if you actually look at the merits of his plan, he has some good ideas.
my grandmother and I disagree with his voucher system. Could you explain that in more detail to me? maybe i have misunderstood it. :)
Work to improve living conditions in cities that need it. The aforementioned examples are good starts. Then you build more parks and recreation areas.
Figure out how to eliminate Gang warfare and/or Gangs themselves.
Discourage single motherhood. Single-mother children (that is, children born out of wedlock and without a father figure growing up) account for the vast majority
of all crimes committed, which includes violent crimes such as rape, murder, and armed robbery.
Do you have any suggestions for gang problems/single mothers? Saying "figure it out" is not very concise as a plan. :(
also, i don't really trust the website you source. where is it getting its sources?
And yet I don't see you offering viable solutions to the current problems. Why don't you try to think of good solutions to the problems evident in the current system before telling people we need to adopt another country's system?
you do realize that offering another country's system, when there are suitable statistics available, IS offering a solution, don't you?
A solution to a problem is not--strictly speaking--dealing with only the variables of the outcomes of the problem. Doing only that is isolating the situation. An isolated situation is often loosely referred to as a "closed system". Another approach to problem-solving is the "open system", the adjustment of the parameters of the circumstances that create the problem in the first place.
By looking at another system, we can do statistical comparison in order to see the workings of each piece of any given problem. :)
You're implying that 100% of corporations are corrupt and that none of them do anything positive for the community, such as giving money to charity or funding their own community projects (Pizza Hut's "BOOK IT!" program, for example, and so on).
no, ruffdraft, he isn't implying that. :(
the issue is not that "all corporations are evil" along his line of thinking, it is that "one bad corporation can do a lot of bad very quickly in spite of many other good corporations".
How should we control a powerful corporation if it goes bad? I ask this under the idea that it is not even a common occurrence, but as an emergency.
Which ended up screwing us over, I might add.
do you believe that the government subsidizing of major industry leaders like U.S. Steel did not at all contribute to the United States' ability to manufacture weapons of war used in World War II?
Well, if that's true, answer me this: how does the money get to the bottom if it only goes one way?
Under demand-side economics, the answer would be simply: You pay disproportionate amounts of money to the poor, not the rich.
Would you have chartered accountants (i.e., people with intellectual skills) digging ditches, and ditch-diggers (i.e., people with manual skills) doing your taxes? Would you have an economist serving fries at McDonald's, and a kid who served food in McDonald's running a major corporation? What roles are you trying to say the "poor" should fill?
no one is questioning that people with skills should not be paid appropriately, but would you really suggest that the CEOs of every corporation that exists are all paid with money that is proportionate to the effort they put in, including exorbitant bonuses?
reminder: the fear is not that all CEOs are paid unfairly, but that just one can do significant damage.
ruffdraft, it may be that government corruption was once undoubtedly worse than corporate corruption, but the gap between which is worse has gotten smaller. would you disagree?
I'm not sure if you're asking me if the government is AS corrupt as corporations or if one or the other has significantly decreased.
[RD Note: "sanction?"]
So corruption is bad, but the shining, positive light is that it could be worse? How am I supposed to be happy about that?
i am not understanding what you mean by this statement. could you quote that part of my post and explain to me what you see it meaning?
The more powerful a government becomes, the more incentive there is for a corporation to take advantage of it. If a government is simply incompetent, the people that support the government eventually take matters into their own hands to fix the problems.
why would people eventually take matters into their own hands out of necessity? an incompetent government can still be strong enough to hamfist its way through social issues; would you disagree?
and i really don't understand this idea. what makes a corporation seek to corrupt the government? why should we worry about the government at all if the natural inclination for a corporation is to "take advantage" of a powerful government. are corporations naturally more powerful than the government? I don't get it :(
I likewise argue an assertion: Government size and government corruption are the leading causes of that.
but you said that corporations are the ones who have the incentive and ability to corrupt the government? i am getting confused, must be the pills.
what happened first? :( did a government become corrupt because it got bigger all on its own? but corruption stems from bribery, and only corporate or otherwise private wealth can cause corruption?
??? to me it seems like government corruption begins with a rich person offering a poltician money to do something illegal or to make something illegal legal.
i'm not sure how the strength of the government changes that condition. ??? :( i'm sorry that i'm not arguing well here.
Sure they do. If they produce a product that ends up injuring or killing people, they need to take it off the market and recall the ones that have been sold; if they don't, they're liable for all future damages from that product.
what about "planned obsolescence"? that is the idea of making a product that isn't very good so that people will have to buy replacements for it. in some industries, this can be legitimate, with necessarily temporarily goods or services, but would you really claim no corporation has ever unscrupulously made an effort towards planned obsolescence or never gotten caught until long after the fact?
You're right; threats, even empty, of boycott are sufficient.
i've regularly heard of people trying to boycott large corporations like wal-mart or mcdonalds. why is the threat of boycott not sufficient in these circumstances?
Where do you see that happening? Is it currently a problem anywhere?
well, local video stores were forced out by Blockbuster in the 90s, and more and more there is no market for local butchers or groceries beyond the local farmer's market for actual produce.
Do you have any evidence to support the idea that large chains of businesses are not in the majority of places Americans go to spend money? Do you really need evidence from me to validate my assertion that Americans DO go to corporate franchises?
How does a corporation force itself to remain at least marginally successful, and why is marginal success a problem for you?
Marginal success that drives on despite the concerns of the customers is a circumvention of the standard economic consumer cycle: They make enough money to stay in the black despite the protests of the people who don't want to use the products but must because of the necessity to use it.
King of the Hill had a good episode on it, lol. Hank worked for a local propane business, then the Mega-Lo Mart offered propane, and his business was shut down because they could not offer competing prices. He then could only find a job at the very Mega-Lo Mart that put him out of business, and even angrily working for them, he is regularly surprised by how cheap the products are. But he's not happy that he's become a servant of the people who took away his place of business.
I'm not offering it as an example in the real world, just a more cohesive narrative for the situation, lol. :)
Do you see this as a problem anywhere?
Well, would you say that in the United States, it is more likely for a person at any given time to go to a gas station that is franchised to a major petroleum company, or is it more likely to go to an independent gas station with no affiliation to any major companies whatsoever, with the ability to regulate their prices more flexibly?
I know of a few in Texas that are locally owned that make their living by operating cheaper than most corporately-owned gas stations, and the owners of these gas stations hate Kroger for its ability to take ten cents off a gallon of gas by spending money on groceries at Kroger, because it diminishes the lead the local business owners have managed to create.
Do you not think that the concerns of these gas station owners and their customers are representative of the problem in my argument?
Are you implying that everyone will only use "big-chain" grocery stores, even if they have to drive across town to get there, when the local grocery might be right down the street? People often shop at local stores for convenience rather than price. Price is not the sole, deciding factor when people buy.
i am actually glad that you bring this up, because more often, it is harder to drive to the farmer's market in Denton, out of the city's limits and into the country, than it is to go to the Wal-Mart a few blocks from the government loan-funded college housing that college students tend to have.
What I'm trying to say here is: are YOU really implying that big chain grocery stores, with their many many many many locations, are somehow less convenient in the majority of cases in the united states?
Do you really need me to go get you some evidence? Because to me, it seems pretty self-evident that big chain stores like wal-mart and kroger are able to force the ease and convenience of their brand way more efficiently than a local store.
You're right, it's not always about price: but large businesses tend to have the money to be able to make consideration for many of the other factors that the majority of potential customers might be interested in when making a purchase.
Do you see this as a problem anywhere?
to answer all instances of this question very simply: All over the United States.
The imaginary phenomenon, or the real one that hasn't happened anywhere, really?
no, the real phenomenon that has happened everywhere and all over the world for the last thirty years since the advent of companies like McDonald's or Wal-Mart that with nigh unlimited spending can force their way into markets they previously had no stake in.
Some economists even go so far as to say any advertisement whatsoever is an example of "monopoly power", that the very concept of "brand recognition" is an extension of the amount of influence a corporate entity has over its customers. But that's more an fyi of an opinion, not something that I will directly say I support. I just find the idea interesting. :O
edit: I fixed the weird quote issue i had earlier lol?