BLS number is BS

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Michael, Jul 25, 2013.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The good part, here's where we may agree:
    Referring to something as 'antiquated' is a logical fallacy.

    Here's where we may also agree:
    The use of the phrase 'sovereign nation' has no bearing on my question regarding morality, it's inconsequential to the question. Likewise, the tyranny of the minority seems to suggest a false dichotomy and similarly is inconsequential to the question.

    Here's where we may disagree:
    If you do not agree that 9 men voting to rape a single woman is immoral, that's a problem. Not a problem for you, but a problem for this conversation because I don't believe in moral relativism. Quite the opposite. I am of the opinion that Ethics can show some statements regarding morality to be universally true. Thus, abstractions like 'sovereign nation' really don't allow for any sort of a resolution. So, the more complex notions of taxing a laborer of something he already owns, is hardly going to be answered to any satisfaction and seems to be headed towards a question of outright disagreement or even one of semantics.

    My wrist is killing me and I'm going to call it a day.

    Yes, I understand that Kant supported a republic. He also believed in a magical sky-daddy. We both agree it doesn't really mater what Kant did or did not believe. I simply stated I was using his definition of anarchy. Given most people use the term incorrectly, I thought I'd mention that to you.

    Demand is objective is it? Mental constructs are objective? That's interesting given we've use the word 'subjective' for feelings. What about 'value'? Or 'love'? Are these similarly objective or subjective? What, if anything, is only subjective? Blue? And yet you also claim morality is subjective. That's interesting, but as I stated earlier, I disagree.

    Lastly, macro economics can not follow the hypothetico-deductive methodology: multiple experiments can not be conducted, samples (here societies) can not be controlled for, future retesting can not occur. Therefore, economics is not scientific in the sense of 'follows the scientific method'. It's more of subdiscipline of behavioural psychology.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well no one said you were a Republican. What was said is that the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party have almost become synonymous. They both hate government, the both hate government regulation, they both hate taxes, and they both share political candidates (e.g. Paul Rand). Libertarians often run on the Republican ticket.

    Where is your evidence the “one percenters” donate to the government? They don’t. And they pay less as a percentage of their income in tax than the average Joe Six Pack. What the “one percenters” do is fund political campaigns, lobbyists, special interests groups, political parties. They pay to deceive people like you in order to impose their will on everyone else, to get tax and business preferences. And none of that changes fact that you have not been able to produce one iota of data to support your ideology that was not bought and paid for by the Koch brothers…one of the “one percenters”.

    What you want to do, and what they want to do, is neuter the one entity the small guy has to stand up to and protect his health and wealth from the “one percenters”, our government. Through your ignorance, you are complicit. Without government, the wealthy, the “one percenters” will be able to do whatever they want whenever they want as they did during the era of the robber barons.

    What is needed is some rational and informed decision making – decisions that will benefit all of us and not just the few of us (i.e. the Koch brothers). And that starts in the ballot box with well-informed rational voters.

    Ok, more partisan demagoguery. That is par for the course.

    Bull shit Michael; this has been repeatedly proven to you over and over again. And you just keep ignoring reality in preference for hyperbole, fantasy, ignorance and illogical argument. For the umpteenth time I will prove the case again. Just saying stuff doesn’t make it so Michael. Just endlessly repeating mindless partisan mantra doesn’t make it so Michael. In the following graphs, perhaps you can show me where I have cherry picked, where I have skipped over The Great Depression or WW II, or the Korean War or the Vietnam War or the Iraq Wars? You can’t Michael because you just make shit up and mindlessly and endlessly repeat your ideological crap.

    Annualized GDP change

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    “The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.[5] This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[7] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid).” – Wikipedia

    As the graphs below demonstrate since the creation of The Federal Reserve and the use of Keynesian economic policies, recessions have been fewer, shorter and less severe and periods of economic prosperity have been longer. This is not new material Michael. This very same material has been shown to you umpteen times before. And you just act like it doesn’t exist; you ignore it just like all the other facts that run counter to your political ideology.

    LOL, I see you are back into the hyperbole and illogical argument. The Federal Reserve and central banking has nothing to do with North Korea. No one has said central banks are perfect, far from it. No man made organization is perfect, so why should we expect it if central banks? But central banks are better than anything yet devised and they are light years better than what they replaced. As repeatedly pointed out and proven, since the creation of the Federal Reserve our banking system and economy has been much more stable.

    Reality bites, huh?  Facts are facts Michael and they just don’t support your libertarian notions and revisionism. Ignoring reality is not going to make it go away Michael. Man up and face it.


    You have asked this many times and I have answered it many times. The answer is always the same Michael, are you suffering from senility? Perhaps you don’t understand what a recession is; it is a period of economic contraction. The economy is not contracting; it is expanding and has been for about years now. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized authority, The Great Recession ended in Q3 of 2009 after the infusion of stimulus and the bailouts.

    Additionally, what Bernanke does, is not central planning in any way shape or form. Fed monetary policy is very reactive. It is not proactive and its actions and powers are very limited, limited to monetary policy and has limited authority to regulate banks.

    And this notion you have that the Federal Reserve is some vehicle to keep the top 1% in power and on top is just bizarre and reflects a profound ignorance about the Federal Reserve and macroeconomics. Monetary policy is all about keeping a sound economy which benefits everyone. Fiscal policy is the vehicle that allocates or redistributes wealth. And fiscal policy is in its entirety the responsibility of the US congress.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No it doesn’t. All of those definitions say economic contraction or decline. The economy has been growing for almost 4 years now. So using any of the definitions you just listed, The Great Recession has ended. As repeatedly pointed out to you, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is on record noting The Great Recession ended in June of 2009 after the infusion of fiscal stimulus and the bailouts.

    This is your classical attempt to obfuscate with a fecal dump.

    I just did tell you for the umpteenth time.

    Setting up another straw man are you…? I am not implying anything. I am flat out saying the economy is better for the actions taken by The Federal Reserve during the crisis to restore liquidity to the financial markets and prevent a global economic depression. And I think you would be hard-pressed to find an educated well-informed person of moderate intelligence who would disagree.

    That is just yet another dump of mindless nonsense. It makes no sense.

    I suggest you read the definitions of a recession you listed in this post. Pay particular attention to the part about the NBER. According to the NBER, The Great Recession is over. It ended in June of 2009, as I have said many times before and for which you have ignored every time for several years now.

    The Federal Reserve is still buying debt not because we are in recession, because we are not, but because the unemployment rate is still high and inflation remains low – again as pointed out to you umpteen times. Unemployment remains high for a number of reasons, but chief among them is the fact that the US congress has not been able to create a rational fiscal policy…a budget that is simulative on the short term, that provides much needed investment. This shouldn’t be new news. It has been told to you time and time again. And the rest of the stuff about Ponzi scheme, doping, junkies, central planners, is all crap. It is all hyperbolic demagoguery. It is all nonsense.

    Before you start trying to redefine economic terms, I suggest you first learn what they mean.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    No, the Republican wing of the One Party / Federal Government LOVE their Government. There really is no different between the GOP and DEM in this, or any other, regard. Both love Big Government. It's where their power is derived from. They both only hope to grow government. AAMOF, Government grows MORE under the Republicans then under the Democrats.

    So, you may want to reevaluate your assumptions.

    This is, again, wrong. The top 1% use government to steal from the rest of society. When 'regulations' are written it's not to protect the people from the 'fire river', it's to protect the petrochemical company and allow it to 'regulate' it's pollution. It's why you'll find food additives in foods in the States known to cause cancer and banned in other countries. And visa versa. Even if you were to prove such and such food additive gave you cancer, the company can point to the USDA and some 'regulation' leaving you with damaged private property, your body, and no recourse through the courts.

    Ha! Firstly, it's impossible to know everything you'd need to, to make an 'informed' choice. Secondly, with the sorry state of public schooling, many people are functionally illiterate and have the historical perspective of a third grader. Thirdly, Americans don't want to be 'well-informed'. What they want is goodies, hence the evolution of "Democratic" governments into what they have become today. Government's evil is a reflection of the greed in the eye's of every voter.

    With Law, Sound Money and Private Property; society can function perfectly well. We really do not need nor want Government. This means ending Income Tax and returning to sound money. This also allows people to feel the personal effects of their choices. As of now, 30 Bonds allow them to spend now (example: free University for themselves) deferring the payment onto their children's future labor.

    OK Joe, let's make sure we're using the term "prosperity" in the same way. Prosperity is time + freedom. That is, free-time and your civil-liberties. Now, does the American family of today have more free-time? Given both parents are working around the clock to make ends meet, I'm guessing no. Now, if we rewound the clock way back to the middle ages, yes, then we do have much more free time. Why is it Joe, that our 'time' parameter is shrinking while during the same period we've seen a boom in productivity? We should be working less, but instead we're working more. Of course, we do have a lot of "Free" Government / top 1% to support. Secondly, 'Civil Liberties'. If you're a woman or black, OK, you probably are much more prosperous compared with 100 years ago - as you have gained civil liberties. However, we are losing Civil Liberties by the day (see: NSA). Thus, we're becoming a less prosperous nation.

    While GDP is a good indicator, it isn't required to have a discussion about prosperity. If anything, it may distort it.

    UC Berkeley: Top One Percent Captured 121 Percent Of All Income Gains During Recovery
     
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Keep telling yourself that Joe. The data suggests the Federal Reserve is totally incompetent. Even though the Fed has an Army of like-minded Economists, and access to TONS of the Government's economic data at it's finger tips (probably NSA works with them as well sending them summaries all our collective private activities as well - or will be soon) AND they also directly manipulate the economy by distorting the price of money AND YET STILL they're nearly always wrong in their published economic prognostications. While this graph is taking the piss out of the Fed and what a lousy job they're doing, that data is the real data.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    Like I said last year, I hope you like the New Economy, because it's here to stay.
    Also, given you seem to think debts and deficits do not matter to us as a 'Nation' (I recall you saying something about 'we make our own money and can't run out unlike Greece'). OK, again, we'll see. But, I'd take a really good look at Detroit if I were you. The Detroit Show, coming to a city near you.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Ok and where is the data that suggests the Federal Reserve is totally incompetent? Even though an army of economists support the Fed and have access to more data that you can ever hope for, and they all say you are clueless and your assertions are baseless – I mean why reflect on those facts? Where are the facts that the Fed is nearly always wrong? And mindlessly reposting irrelevant charts from guys that market crap to whacko birds doesn’t count as proof, please try to use credible sources. But then you wouldn’t have any sources.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well it depends on what you mean by “new economy”. Globalism is here to stay. Trade agreements are here to stay. Global competition is here to stay. But the economy is always changing, reacting to new technologies, new products, new needs and demands, and supply issues. The economy is never static. But I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion.

    No you are setting up yet another straw man. Debts and deficits do matter. But managing a national budget and national fiscal policy is not like managing your household budget and household finances. It is a totally different world and that too has been explained to you many times over the years. You and those like you don’t understand and don’t want to understand or are not capable of understanding that very important difference. The best way of solving our national deficit and debt problems is through economic growth. Economic growth increases tax revenues and decreases spending as fewer people are on the social safety net programs. And you don’t have to look far to see that in action. The federal deficit is now falling faster than at any time since demobilization after WWII. You get economic growth with good economic policies (i.e. adequate regulation, public and private investment, competent fiscal policies, competent monetary policies, etc.). We have seen good monetary policies. Unfortunately, since Republicans took control of the House, competent fiscal policy has been MIA in Washington.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't think the rich need a government to screw me over - they never did before.

    You mentioned at one time the relative prosperity of the 1960s and earlier - an assessment you might want to run past a few black people before you take it for granted - and I agree with you on the general point: since about 1980 actual prosperity in the US has declined, in my view. And first among the likely causes are the structural changes in the US taxation system, by which the wealthy have over the years been relieved of more and more tax burdens, discouraged less and less from employing their money for personal entertainment and status expenditures, encouraged more and more to divert the money under their control from productive investment in business to quick buck financial manipulations, accumulation of personal wealth, and immediate gratification. This has over a couple of decades now created a large, crippling, and growing inequality in the wealth distribution of the US.

    One response would be a drastic, serious, and long term coerced destruction (even a reversal?) of this dangerous and crippling wealth accumulation - a revolt and confiscation. A more reasonable way would be a return to a more reasonable taxation regime and a few decades of patience as it took effect. Or of course we could simply accept the future of the US under the current trends - the low class and anti-intellectual and mean and petty and ignorant and racist citizens of what was by none of their efforts the finest country to create itself on this planet, seeking and finding their natural state of governance as a free market servant class, available for their economic betters to employ (or not) - what was the term so beloved of libertarians - "at will".
     
  11. Economister Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Ethical purity is arbitrary, and hypothetical questions deserve similar answers.

    The tax is placed on the income the laborer garners, not on the work they produce. For example, you can build as many sand castles as you'd like (production), and you won't be liable for any tax.

    In my usual circle, that doesn't happen very often. But thank you for the heads up.

    Where did you get this idea that demand is a "mental construct"? Unless, of course, you're suggesting that everything is a mental construct (but that would derail your argument as well).

    No. Somethings are clearly subjective ("preferences") and other things are clearly objective ("observation").

    Morality is nuanced; there's a difference between a descriptive function and a prescriptive function (how am I versus how ought I be). There are gradients of morality for each theory of morality, for example, your opinion may be based upon Kant and NAP; and there are millions of people who, also, based their opinions on Kant and NAP and yet many will bicker and argue with each other over differences in morality.

    So who's better--you? Or the guy who can 1+ you (and therefore claim that you are immoral)?

    In any case, economics is not a morality play. The study of economics is largely done through the lens of observation (hence, "science").

    They can, and they have, actually. Whoever told you that economists could not conduct experiments was greatly misinformed.

    There are topics in economics that explore behavioral psychology, but economics, for the most part, is a very scientific discipline, which follows the scientific method in study.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2013
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    What do you mean 'purity'? Also, you didn't give me a hypothetical answer, your answer seemed to suggest that yes, the rape was moral because a vote took place on the island. Is that your position?

    When an apple farmer sells his apple, he doesn't pay the tax. The buyer pays. The laborer owns his labor. He sells his labor into the market in the same way the apple farmer sells his apples. Likewise, he doesn't pay the tax. While I agree the tax is indeed placed on the income the laborer gains, I maintain this is wrong.

    I have a question: Why is it, do you think, Federal Employees, whom are paid by our taxes - themselves pay an income tax? I mean, if they're a servant, and they are paid by tax, then why not have them perform their civil service at the agreed upon amount - tax free? Why tax, tax money? Could you imagine what people would think if they knew Federal Employees didn't pay an income tax! Ha! They'd soon not want to pay one themselves. Oh, couldn't have that now could we. This suggests there's more slight of hand than anything going on with taxing the laborer when he sells his labor.

    The State doesn't actually care about 'tax' per say - productive labor on the other hand, is essential. Particularly to those in the unproductive class.

    Demand describes an acting individual's desire (and perhaps willingness to pay a price for [value]) a specific good or service. Desire, similar to love, is subjective. The value placed on the specific good or service is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends. These, again, are subjective. Perhaps one day we'll be able to use a devise to objectively measure 'demand' but for now we can only indirectly measure it through other means.

    Do you think 'desire' is objective?

    Unless, of course, you're suggesting that everything is objective?

    Is the experience 'blue' a 'preference'? No, it's a subjective 'quale' - just like desire and value.

    I understand what you're saying, and all I can say is moral relativity is illogical. I'd argue that on a normality curve most animals, and certainly all human populations, protect themselves and their young. To do so is programmed into our DNA. While we can't, as of yet, read this out, one day (similar to demand) we will be able to objectively measure and mathematically describe our instincts. Thus NAP must have an objective basis in our biology. The logical implication of the non-aggression axiom/NAP shows that voting cannot turn rape into a moral action. I've certainly never head anyone seriously suggest otherwise.

    Observation alone isn't 'Science'. Science is a method and macroeconomics is not amenable to it. While economists can perform experiments on groups of subjects and repeat these. This isn't true of societies. No one can return to the Great Depression and rerun a few hundred experiments on it to see what would have happened if.... It's simply not possible. One day? Maybe, but not today.

    Many disciplines are not 'scientific'. Paleontology is largely inductive, as an example. It doesn't mean the field is in some way under valued. It's simply limited in the methodology it can employ to derive various conclusions. Can Paleontologists make use of the Scientific Method? Sometimes. And when they do, that's science. But, many times that just can't. Either it's impossible. The number of samples are too low to create a normality curve, and etc...
     
  13. Economister Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    I don't consider it to be moral, but I am not the one giving out moral judgments.

    Progress!

    Er...

    Uhh?

     
  14. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Actually, I think you're missing a fundamental concept here. Could you provide me with a few examples of some things you'd consider 'subjective'.

    Thank about this. Medical professionals rank can pain. Here's a publication (A Solid Methodological Step Forward for Quantitative Sensory Testing in Patients With Chronic Neck Pain). Being able to measure 'pain' doesn't change 'pain' from a subjective experience, qualia, to an objective phenomena. The experience is unique to consciousness.

    Classic 'Blue' has a wavelength of light - around 488nm is a nice color blue. However, the photoreceptor referred to as 'blue' has a maximal absorption around 420, a nice deep purple. Rods OTOH absorb a deep blue-green (498nm). A lot of cultures don't differentiate between blue and green incidentally. Our experience of blue, is just that - a subjective experience. "Blue" per say, doesn't actually exist outside of our experience of it. The wavelengths of light do exist, but the the color you create in your mind. Given the information regarding the 'blue' photoreceptors' absorption, blue is totally subjective. If I come up with a way to measure your experience of blue, say a list of colors and you pick one that you think is 'blue'. That doesn't change the fact that this is only a measurement of your subjective experience.

    Hence the word subjective.

    Thus, I don't doubt you can measure desire, love, hate, pain, etc... that doesn't change these into objective phenomena. They remain subjective experiences only known to the person who experiences them. Demand has built into it a subjective experience that can only exists in our mind - desire. As a matter of fact, unlike wavelengths of light, demand can change in an instant. As quickly as the whims of a human's desire.

    Notice the difference between desire and wavelength of light. Desire is a product of human consciousness. Light OTOH is objective and will exist even if humans leave the universe.

    Yes, and as it is, you are not able to observe 'desire' - other than your own. You may come up with ways to measure desire, but that's all your doing, measuring it. This measurement will, unlike the wavelength of light, change over time.

    Secondly, macro-economics is even worse as it can't actually follow the scientific method. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of post-hoc models to fit the data of a single event, but that's all these are, models. They may or may not be correct. You can not go back in time and repeat the experiment on society, you can not control for your experiment, pretty much everything that makes the Scientific Method, a methodology - can not be applied in macroeconomics.

    Lastly, deduction is different from induction. Induction similarly has an observation (say, a bone is found). That single observation may disprove a theory (all Swans are white is disproven by a single black swan), however, induction does not follow the scientific methodology which instead follows a method of deduction.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    My gut is wrenched out it is crunched up and broken
    My life that is lived is no more than a token
    Who'll strike the flint upon the stone and tell me why?

    If I yell out at night there's a reply of blue silence
    The screen is no comfort I can't speak my sentence
    They blew the lights at heaven's gate and I don't know why

    But if I work all day on the blue sky mine
    (There'll be food on the table tonight)
    Still I walk up and down on the blue sky mine
    (There'll be pay in your pocket tonight)

    The candy store paupers lie to the shareholders
    They're crossing their fingers they pay the truth makers
    The balance sheet is breaking up the sky

    So I'm caught at the junction still waiting for medicine
    The sweat of my brow keeps on feeding the engine
    Hope the crumbs in my pocket can keep me for another night

    And if you blue sky mining company won't come to my rescue
    If the sugar refining company won't save me

    Who's gonna save me?
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Excellent example of the failure of Government.

    Asbestos was minded by a company that had met every single Government "regulation" (and what a spectacular and tragic failure that turned out to be) and had no further incentive to do anything to protect it's workers. It was known as early as 1921 that asbestos was harmful to health. But, hey, as long as the "Government" boxes were ticked, the CEO's of the company were safe in the knowledge they would be protected. They could move to another country (as what actually happened) or at worse the 'Company' could go bust while they walk away scott-free (this wouldn't happen in a free-market). Either way, the "Government" wasn't going to, and didn't, do a damn thing to protect the workers. It didn't. They died because of government ineptitude.

    So, we can all thank the Great State of Australia for doing such an amazing and wondrous 'public service' - again. (for further examples see: Public Housing).

    Yes, this is another wonderful example of why government 'regulation' doesn't work. Again, the government was FULLY AWARE of the dangers of mining asbestos - yet did nothing. And why would it want to anyway, when not doing anything means more income tax recipients and more money for the government. So what if some people die. Those politicians will have long left office. And guess what, nearly NOTHING has been done. A couple pittance payments made to the few employees left alive.

    That happened in THIS current Government Top-Down social system we call a "Republic" Not some airy-fairy 'free-market', but in the here and now.

    That you suckers continue to get conned over and over into thinking you live in a free-market democracy is a joke. You don't. You're tax cattle. You live on a highly regulated State-run Tax Farm. When you're done producing milk for your Farmers, they're going to toss you in a glue-pitt. Because, at that point, you're a liability to them. You can go lay down in a ditch and die for all your Farmers care. Going down and ticking a box for The Kevinator or ticking a box Gil-tard or ticking a box for The Mad Abbott, isn't going to change a damn thing. You will walk out of that booth the Tax Cattle you walked in as.

    In a free market a health insurance company would have seriously raised premiums on the health insurance of those asbestos workers. It probably would have required yearly checkup - if not even sooner. Not out of 'love' but simply because it would be too costly to the health insurance company if all these workers go sick as they'd be contractually obliged to pay the health bills. Next, the company incharge of unemployment insurance would be damn sure these people were healthy and working. Not out of love. But because they'd be paying if these people go sick and couldn't work. See how the 'free-market' works? The asbestos mining company would have had to (a) dramatically alter the way it mined asbestos (ensuring high air purity) or (b) pay ridiculously high health insurance premiums or (c) stopped mining or (d) tried to get people to work without insurance - which no one would do in a free-market because there'd be high demand for good labor. See, that's how the free-market works. Instead we live in a State 'regulated' un-free market where people were left to believe their health was not in danger and they died because of it. As a matter of fact, thanks to public healthcare, you are right now eating and drinking various chemicals that will possibly lead to your death. Because healthcare is 'free' there's no financial incentive to do anything about it right now. It's why there's so much obesity. Best to just pass the buck onto the next generation - right along with all the other debts and obligations.

    See: Detroitification.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2013
  17. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    OR, we could *gasp* eliminate income tax and usher in competing currencies. Allow for ANY citizen to create and manage a currency and then leave it up to the market to decide if it has value or not.

    Of course, this would mean a drastic change in the way society is structured. Those top 1% who have come to game and control the system would probably find their talents (coercion) were unsuccessful in a society based on cooperation and trade. These very ugly people simply would not succeed in a society not based on coercion - which is why they spend so much money maintaining the statuesque (media propaganda, public schooling,the Federal Reserve, regulations, etc...). Of course we can see the very LAST thing our 'Civil Servants' and their paymasters would want is for us to do things on our own - without any need of them.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Ah, so in your view, only government has a role in protecting workers, and they failed in that job. The company has no incentive to do anything else. Fair enough.

    Really? The government forced them to work in those mines? Interesting reality you live in.

    So their failure was in not doing enough.

    Fortunately we have an EPA which is a bit more proactive. Which is the primary reason we haven't had a Blue Sky Mine incident here in the past 50 years or so.
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The company has some incentive, they obviously don't want to invest in training a worker and then that worker is harmed and can't work. However, the company is not going to run a medical research lab to determine the long term health effects of asbestos. Effects that will have a bearing long after that mine has closed.While they have an incentive to know, it's small.

    The institutions that would have incentives to keep the workers healthy (in the following order):
    1. Health insurance company - Very high incentive, as they have to pay the most money.
    2. Unemployment insurance company - high incentive, as they have to pay the second most.
    3. Government - low incentive, as they lose some tax cattle, although, not many relatively speaking. This must be balanced against the taxes garnished from the mining (they could be thought of as the silent partner with the company).
    4. The Company - very low incentive. They would like to continue to mine asbestos.

    Nice strawman, I did not say the government forced anyone to work in the mines. I said those workers died because under the current system, instead of using the free-market, we use State regulation - and the State failed them (and it did, unlike a hypothetical, these people did die). The workers died because of government ineptitude. The State did NOT regulate the mine's working conditions to ensure a healthy workplace.

    The free-market most certainly would have - starting with high insurance premiums. Lets not forget, asbestos was a known as a serious hazard from 1921. That the government allowed workers to work in such conditions is a great example of incompetence. Of course, as stated earlier, the government doesn't have that much incentive to keep these people healthy.

    Oh, we're living through a Blue Sky Mine incident multiplied by tens of millions. We're living in the midst of an epidemic (metabolic syndrome) and it's unfolding right before your eyes. From the very small children to the oldest in society. Society is unbelievably sick. And the EPA is not going to do a damn thing about it. ONLY the free market would have prevented this, and we don't live in a free market.
     

Share This Page