Let's assign a value of 1 to my current productivity level. Now let's say I spend a year developing tools that allow me to work more efficiently. By the end of that year these tools have improved my productivity by 30%, giving me a productivity level of 1.3.
Now let's say I spend the next year using those tools to develop better tools. At the end of that year I have again increased my productivity by 30%, giving me a productivity level of 1.69. (30% of 1.3 = .39; 1.3 + .39 = 1.69)
Repeat the process again and I have a productivity level of 2.197 by the end of the third year.
If I were able repeat this 30% a year growth in productivity every year for 60 years, then by the end of it my productivity level would be... almost 7 million (1.3^60=6,864,377). In other words I would be 7 million times more productive then I was when I started.
I think that when it comes to computers this kind of exponential increase in productivity may be within the realm of possibility. It's one of the reasons I have spent the last year or two working on tools to make myself more productive.
What do you think? Am I full of crap?
Hmm, I would say history would've gravitated to more or less the current state of things regardless of how a few historical events turned out.
We can see all the countries of the world gravitating toward a similar blend of democracy with regulated capitalism. I believe this is because this system is the one that works best given human nature. So no matter what course history took, people would always have drifted in this direction, because it would always have been the logical thing to do.
In other words, I don't know enough about world history to say anything interesting :)
I had always assumed that the point of Democracy was that having the entire population making decisions through votes resulted in better decisions being made. But certain things about our system seem to fly in the face of this notion. The independence of the Federal Reserve, for instance. Monetary policy is not something you want in the hands of the masses, because history has shown they will not use it wisely.
So if we want elites controlling our monetary policy, why don't we want elites controlling every aspect of society? I think it's because of the general principle that imbalances in power tend to lead to injustice. Democracy gives everybody a small lever they can use to promote their own interests, and that is usually enough to prevent the conflict endemic to mankind from spilling into violence.
Or, in the words of Leonard Cohen:
It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Judging from the speech, Obama is making adjustments to HR 3200. This is what I'm referring to as the "new plan." One of these adjustments is the addition of a fine on insurance companies who offer extremely expensive plans. This adjustment will help keep costs down.
The numbers you're quoting came from HR 3200, the House bill. Obama has made some concessions with this new plan (mainly keeping costs down by fining insurance companies who sell very expensive plans) and this new plan has not yet been reviewed by the CBO.
There is only a small chance of the public option leading to a government takeover, and that would only happen if the government plan works really well. What Obama, Frank, and all of them are saying in that YouTube video is that if we had a public option and it worked better than private insurance companies, then we would have proof that government involvement in healthcare is not a bad thing. The public option can be seen as a sort of pilot program for government run healthcare. If it's true that government is incompetent then the public option won't be able to compete with the private insurance industry and it will not lead to a takeover.
Obama has repeatedly said that the government plan would not be financed by taxes, but by premiums collected from those insured. He has repeatedly said that it would compete fairly with private insurance companies. You say that he wants to "Penalize private business 8% if they decide to keep their current plan" but you don't offer any evidence for this. I think you're just lying again.
Finally, I challenge you to name one lie in Obama's speech.
The entirety of the healthcare debate is too complicated for just one speech. If you want more information, then it's not hard to find:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I myself don't really care about the shouting. It was bad, but mostly just a distraction from the real issues.
Democrats aren't one unified block. Unlike Republicans they tend to have minds of their own. Some want to tax the wealthy to pay for full-scale government run health care. Some are conservatives who want to leave everything to the insurance companies. It shouldn't be surprising that there has been considerable disagreement over the bill.
Despite this, a reform package will be passed, in fact it's almost done. The only question is how much it will get watered down in the process.
As for not reading the bill, that's a load of crap. Senators have their staff read the bill. They know what's in it.
And the cyber security bill has nothing to do with Obama.
Are you kidding me? Haven't you ever heard of a Blue Dog Democrat? There aren't enough votes to get the public option through the Senate.
Singlepayer healthcare simply would not make it through Congress. Like it or not we live in a Democracy.
Many Republicans are suddenly all horrified at the idea of congressmen "not reading bills." As if that's not the way every major bill in recent history has been passed. Legislation is created by committees and reviewed by several people on a legislator's staff. I agree that we should make bills smaller and easier to understand, but that's an issue for another day. This debate is about health care.
No one is proposing a government take over of health care. If you actually listened to the speech, or looked at a summary of what's been proposed you would know that. All we want to do is mandate that everyone purchase their own health insurance, and provide some form of aid to those who can't afford it.
The "Government plan", or public option, that you mention would be a good idea for many reasons, but it doesn't matter because it won't make it into the final bill.
America needs healthcare reform. We can provide it without increasing the deficit.
Failing to act will allow costs to pile up due to inefficiencies in the system. Failing to act will allow Americans to continue going bankrupt due to an inability to pay for reform. As the President has said, "The time for bickering is over."
I hope this speech will give healthcare reform the push it needs to get through the door.
It's not capitalism which is using up our resources, it's individuals. People want stuff. They trade stuff they have for stuff they want more. People build machines to extract oil from the ground in order to trade that oil for other stuff they want. This is the natural state of things.
Saying you want to do away with all that is like saying you want to do away with human greed. Sure that might sound nice, but there's no practical way to make that happen. I know you've suggested some kind of educational program or something like that to try and teach people not to be greedy, but I really don't think that would work. If there's an advantage to be gained by behaving selfishly, some people will always take it, even if they know it's immoral. If you disagree, I suggest you spend some more time chatting with the likes of Pyg or JoeCavalry.
So, if we can't get rid of selfishness, we do the next best thing -- we regulate it. Pigovian taxes, antitrust laws, environmental regulations, these are all ways of dealing with the fundamental problem of people pursuing their own short term interests at the expense of society's collective long term interests.
On a side note, I'm far from conviced that elimination of human greed would be a good thing. Greed is a powerful motivator, which capitalism harnesses in order to benefit society. You see, while free trade does promote inequality, it still leaves everyone better off than they would have been without it -- even those at the bottom. In the words of John F. Kennedy, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
I believe that treating the problem more objectively with the use of the scientific method is the best way to find a proper way of organizing scarce resources at the moment
You've just described the field of study known as Economics.
Have you ever talked with a Canadian or a Brit asking them their honest truth about the health care? I have and they hate it.
I think you're lying. Even if you aren't, you're wrong. See this Gallup poll.
Percent "very satisfied" with healthcare:
US: 6%, Britain: 7%, Canada: 16%
Percent "very dissatisfied" with healthcare:
US: 44%, Britain: 25%, Canada: 17%
Have you even taken a look at what taxes would be if Obama got what he wanted? Last estimate I saw was $37,000 for each American. That would be a Marxist economy taking over 70% of every paycheck that is made.
I'm sorry, but you have clearly pulled those numbers from the depths of your rectum. There's no way in hell Obama wants to tax $37,000 from each American. I assume you got that from some dumb YouTube video that didn't account for progressive taxation or something like that.
Obviously we can pay for universal health care, we'd just need to raise taxes or cut other spending to do it. It's just a question of priorities. Are we willing to take a little bit from everybody in order to keep poor people from going bankrupt if they get hit by a bus?
We can and will pay down our national debt. It's getting high but is far from unpayable. Republican strategists know this, but are choosing just to yell and scream apocalyptic nonsense in order to score political points. It's pretty disgusting really. We need to be having a constructive debate about how best to improve the lives of the American people, but all we're seeing is bullshit like this ad which says little more than, "We're all gonna die!!!"
I believe the ad is below (YouTube search does suck, just use Google, then you can click on the video to jump to the YouTube link).
I agree with their refusal to air it. It's just one blatant deception after another designed for the sole purpose of scaring the American people. Shit like this should be illegal.
Well maybe he doesn't have a concrete plan right now, but he's the freakin' head of the Fed. If anyone knows how to put together a program to do what he's talking about it's him. I guarantee you that we'll be seeing concrete plans before long.
I think you may have misunderstood the term "mixed economies"... A mixed economy is an economy that mixes socialism and capitalism. All the first world countries have mixed economies. I wasn't referring to an intermingling of economies.
Also I don't think we can completely eliminate scarcity with our current technology. I was just wondering if we could organize what we do have in a way that made everyone better off.
That said, I think I agree with you that a global government could help things substantially. Although I disagree that socialism is a better way of organizing resources.
Politicians encouraging sub-prime loans was only one of several causes of the housing bubble. And, in turn, the housing bubble was only one of several problems that caused the recession. Even if politicians didn't encourage companies to behave benevolently, the larger systemic problems still would've bitten us eventually. Again, I suggest you watch that interview with Bernanke.
I think government saving companies from themselves is a bad idea. Government should set the rules of the game, but it shouldn't be one of the players.
Not sure what you're saying. You want government to more aggressively regulate large corporations?
I think a better answer is just to create a system that will allow big companies to fail without destroying the economy. This is the solution proposed by Ben Bernanke.
Below is a clip, you can watch the whole interview here.
I think the way things are organized in most first world countries is fairly close to optimal given the state of things. That is, a regulated free-market for most things, and government run programs for those situations where the market doesn't work. I hear intelligent people complain about our current system from time to time, but I've never heard of any reasonable alternative.
Because we were running out of space, I've decided to stick my response to your latest argument up here.
the government was given by others the right to imprison us, kill us
The government is given those rights by the majority of the people. If enough people decided to do away with government, then we could do that.
You have been defending the idea that no, we are totally free
No I haven't. The two positions you offered in this debate create a false dichotomy. I don't think people are human livestock, but that doesn't mean I think we're totally free.
governments will arrange their laws in order to have better productivity, the same way as farmers managing their cattle
Cattle don't have human rights. Cattle don't get to vote.
Governments don’t want to die
A government is not a sentient creature, it doesn't make sense to say it "wants" something.
Sometimes, however, they have to compromise their nation’s well being for the economy, and they have been doing so, if they think that the end justifies the means and that benefits will come on the long run.
Right, but if the end truly justifies the means, then this is a good thing.
to pollute the air they breathe
Government does not pollute. That's corporations. Government prevents excessive pollution.
We are all slaves to capitalism
Slaves don't get human rights. Slaves can't vote.
My point of view is that the market and the economy ruthlessly rule us all.
Maybe, but the market and the economy emerge from the inescapable tension between selfishness and cooperation.
yes, I believe it’s totally possible for us to see the advantages in not being selfish
Sure we can see the advantages. But we'll never be able to eliminate selfishness. Certainly not while scarcity remains a problem.
Capitalism’s assumption that, for example, people need incentive to do something productive, ignore the success of initiatives such as Wikipedia and Couch surfing
Yes, this is a good point. People can be altruistic. A few things though:
1) How are these organizations funded? By voluntary donations. People donate resources they have obtained while working within the capitalistic framework. These organizations don't address the fundamental problem of allocating scarce resources.
2) Not everything can be done voluntarily. Who would do the unpleasant jobs if they didn't have to? Yes someday technology will eliminate those jobs, but that day is not yet here.
3) These are both examples of public goods. Couch surfing pulled in $779,538 in donations last year. The Wikimedia Foundation pulled in $7 million in that same year. Compare that to the National Science Foundation which had an operating budget of over $6 billion for the same year. We have here an excellent example of the free rider problem in action. Our power to do good vastly increases when we take a small amount of money from everybody through taxes.
The whole idea that people face tradeoffs, and therefore they must have something to offer, also needs to catch up with technology.
Even with technology we still face tradeoffs. Wikipedia's servers consume a share of the world's resources. Also, time is a finite resource. If you read Wikipedia for an hour, you have given up the possibility of using that hour for something else.
Personally, I believe it’s a matter of time until capitalism collapses.
Maybe. As scarcity is reduced there is less of a need for capitalism.
It’s just not sustainable, simple as that.
Government regulations can make it sustainable.
I think we have to start looking towards sustainable ways of producing goods for everyone, without destroying the planet and, why not, without human intervention so we can be free to do other things.
I agree. And regulated capitalism provides us with a platform atop which we can achieve this.
You say people like me annoy you for just complaining without providing an alternative.
Let me be clear. You don't annoy me at all. I have nothing but love and admiration for you and people like you. Manipulative videos which do nothing but turn people cynical toward their most promising source of salvation are what annoy me.
I know it doesn’t work, you know it doesn’t work
It obviously works quite well. The fact that you and I are able to have this conversation is a testament to that.
We have to start making people aware that we are living in an unsustainable and unfair world
I don't think this will be a big revelation for most people.
---
Here are a few relevant links I would like you to take a look at:
I say economics is the study of how scarcity can be profitable, and of how to create artificial needs (artificial scarcity) on people
I think you do not understand Economics very well. Check out these ten basic principles, which have been established through many years of rigorous study. It's not about right and wrong, it's just about explaining the way things are.
It's true that in some cases corporations create artificial scarcity. In economics this is an example of market failure and the best way to fix it is through government intervention. Despite what the conspiracy-theorists like to claim, government is a friend of the people, not the enemy. It is through government that we can collectively work toward a better future. Take the U.S. National Science Foudation, for example, which carries out scientific research financed by taxpayers.
Can the market be sustainable in a global level?
With proper government regulation, yes.
one of the most evil ideas supported by the market is that of supply and demand
The laws of supply and demand follow logically given the fundamental assumption of economics: rational self-interested actors exchanging goods and services. Yes this is an over-simplification of humanity, but simplifying problems makes them easier to study. It's like solving physics problems without considering friction.
We can forget about regulating marriage, regulating what people consume, what they wear, where they can go
Ok, these all sound mostly reasonable to me. However, none of these are the critical functions of government that I listed in my initial argument.
Why can a bird go wherever it wants without answering to anyone, whereas me, just another animal born in this planet, have to play by rules made up by people who were here before me?
Well, technically you could. You could wander around, living like a hunter-gatherer if you chose to. I think we can agree though that the benefits of society provide us with a more attractive alternative.
I agree that we should try and make the world better. But regulated capitalism is the best way of organizing society. No, it's not perfect, but there's really no point in criticizing our current system without offering a viable alternative. Without exchanging resources in a free market, how are we going to divide them up?
Personally, I think that the idea of government we have today, centralized in other people's hands, does suck.
The modern idea of government does suck, but it sucks less than any of the historical social arrangements.
And I also think market sucks.
The market is good. It has historically proven itself to be the most effective way of organizing scare resources.
A system which requires competitiveness so people can have access to the basic necessities of life
There are no first world countries like this. Basic necessities are provided through various welfare programs.
I read your blog post about evolution and whatnot. I agree that we can and should restrain our primitive impulses. But we will never escape the fundamental truth that behaving selfishly can be very profitable.
I do think regulations could be much less than now,
Which ones would you get rid of?
Like it or not, people left to their own devices will very often make lowsy decisions. I favor the soft paternalistic approach to government advocated by these guys. Guidance without overreach.
Can food, for example, be a public good?
Food is far from a public good. In fact supplies are not keeping up with the growth in population.
Vertical farming looks cool and promising, but it's very pie-in-the-sky at the moment. From the Wikipedia article: "The detailed analytical work needed to establish the feasibility of vertical farming has not yet been done." "the energy needed for artificial lighting and other vertical farming operations might outweigh the benefit"
Economics is based on scarcity, on creating scarcity, on exclusion.
Economics is the study of how people deal with scarcity, not of creating it.
"Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."
- Keynes
Monetary policy is about keeping the economy growing at a stable rate. A growing economy is good for everyone. The intent is not to erode workers' earning power, that's just an unfortunate side effect. We can mitigate that effect by redistributing some of the wealth through progressive taxation.
This video is promoting the central assumption of libertarianism: "Government sucks". If government sucks, what does that imply? We should have as little as possible. How do we provide the benefits of government when we have a minimal government? The market magically takes care of that. This is the libertarian position. This guy doesn't like to state his position flat out, because it's less seductive to his audience, preferring to focus instead on demagogic government bashing. Here is another video where we explicitly argues for libertarianism.
it's very easy for you to sit on your high horse and look down on people who, on your view, are too naive to understand the complexities involving a government...
What? That's not what I said at all. I said libertarianism is naive because it assumes people are angels and that we'll all be better off without regulation. I make no claims about anyone's ability to understand government.
Coming to a debate with the preconception that your opponent is naive...
I didn't have that preconception. That was my conclusion after watching the video and considering his argument.
I think we should ask these kinds of questions more often
We ask these questions all the freakin' time, at least here in the United States. Small government is a core demand of the Republican party.
I think all these questions are worth asking, don't you?
Of course.
To me, your previous argument sounded pretty similar to those used by religious people
What's your point? That my argument is based on blind faith? Not at all. The benefits of government I listed follow clearly and logically. It would take too much time to argue each point, so I'll just do one: Government provides public goods. This is necessary due to the free rider problem. This truth is widely accepted in economics.
I'm not saying I have answers, or maybe not even better alternatives...
This is why I get so annoyed. I constantly deal with guys who rant about the evils of government. Not because they want what's best for mankind, but because they are selfish bastards who want to take all they can for themselves and to hell with everyone else. They never have an alternative solution, they just want to tear down the one thing that stands between us and the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish state of nature.
I'm not saying you or Molyneux are like them, I'm just explaining my motivation for deriding the libertarian argument.
I'm just honestly looking for a solution.
A more direct Democracy based on internet communication platforms like the one we're using now is the best idea I've got.
I've seen this guy's stuff before, and it always annoys the hell out of me. Classic naive libertarianism. "If we just had minimal government the market would make everything sunshine and roses."
Democratic governments protect human rights, provide public goods, prevent monopolies, maintain national security, enforce laws, regulate the economy, protect the environment, etc. These things are very important for the well being of society. Government is supposed to compel people to do stuff they don't want to do, for the good of society. Yes, government has problems, but the alternatives are all much worse.
Government is the one thing that prevents us from becoming human livestock to the most powerful 1% of society.
I won't even get started on the tons of ridiculous distortions and bad logic in the video, cuz that would take all day.
we're there to get the Taliban and specifically Osama, that's all, then we need to get the f--k out.
The problem is that killing Taliban members won't accomplish much. The unstable political situation combined with radical Islam is the problem. Unless we can stabilize the region, new jihadist groups will rise up.
And as far as Iraq, who knows, I don't even know what we're still doing there
Eh? You do know we're in the process of pulling out, right? We've withdrawn troops from major cities. The remaining troops are there to train Iraqis and ensure things don't go back to how they were.
Yeah, but both will require extensive nation building which will cost tons of dollars and lives. The current strategy is to empower the sane people so they can resist the radicals on their own. Iraq is almost there. Afghanistan is just getting started.
I know of no evidence that shows Cheney was corrupt. See FactCheck for a debunking of common misconceptions.
There are a number of regulations to prevent lobbyists from having excessive influence. Also, not all lobbyists work for corporations, some are working for the public. Lobbyists are a necessary part of the political process because there is simply not enough time for lawmakers to chat with everyone who wants to talk to them.
The FDA is a joke, huh? Seizing animal feed, discovering bacteria in teethers, examining Xolair for links to heart attacks... these are all things they've done in just the last few days. That doesn't sound to me like a corrupt agency. You've just offered a couple of cherry-picked, unsourced examples and damned the whole organization.
they are run by corrupt politicians who are in the pockets of the corporations
I don't buy this. America is a Democracy. If there's proof of corruption a politician is going to have a very hard time staying in office. Just look at Nixon. Look at Blagojevich.
the people have no rights/control of corporations
Yes we do. We've got the EPA and the FDA among many other regulatory agencies. We've got legal authority demonstrated by the antitrust laws that broke up Microsoft.
Well I do agree that an international agency with the power to enforce peace would be the best thing. I actually created a debate along those lines. But that is way easier said than done. It seems almost impossible that all of the world's great nations would relinquish that much power. And it's a lot of power to give up. Whether this international agency enforces peace through military force or extreme economic isolation, it must have the power to devastate any country. Further it must have a widespread ability to monitor the activities of each nation to ensure that no one is developing WMDs in secret. And it must wield all this power without becoming totalitarian. A daunting task to say the least.
I just don't see nukes going away any time soon.
States, because they make the laws and have control of the military which can enforce those laws.
Corporations exist because the public wants them to exist. The public wants them because they are the most efficient way of turning raw materials into consumer goods.
That's an interesting argument, but I think you're greatly overestimating the power of corporations. In a democratic country, power ultimately lies with the people. The people create the state, and the state commands the military, which it can use to enforce the people's will over corporations. Sure large companies hold more sway than the average person -- they can manipulate people through advertising and manipulate corrupt officials through bribery. But they don't have more power than a big group of pissed off voters. It's overly cynical to say they are pulling the strings of government. Did industry elect Obama to push for global warming regulations?
Why is it that once scientists predict something based on past data, the same must occur in the future no matter what?...We don't know.
What are you talking about? Scientists aren't claiming to have magic crystal balls that see the future, they're just drawing conclusions from the available evidence. Obviously when deciding future actions we have to look at past data in order to make an educated guess as to the best course of action.
I honestly don't think human beings have caused as much effect as before our time, what with volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, and the countless amount of animals with flatulence issues. :) lol
And you're basing this view on what exactly? Are you not aware that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere far exceeds that of any time in history? Do you not understand how the greenhouse effect works? Have you looked at any of the information andsoccer has provided here and in other debates?
Well, the executive position is the most important one at the company, and you only have one person filling that role. You get the most bang for your buck by making that spot ultra-competitive with really high pay. And like I said to andsoccer below, if you look at a company like McDonald's with a lot of minimum wage employees, the employees account for over 90% of labor costs while all of the executives combined take less than 10%. Paying executives less would not significantly impact their operating costs.
