|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 30th, 2003 03:43 PM | ||||||
| CaptainBubba |
Quote:
|
|||||
| Sep 30th, 2003 10:03 AM | ||||||
| mburbank | Thanks for the gumball, Mickey. | |||||
| Sep 30th, 2003 01:10 AM | ||||||
| VinceZeb |
So Bubba, If I provide a hypothetical situation or something that is guesstimated, you are going to defend my position? That's what I thought. |
|||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 09:36 PM | ||||||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Quote:
Would you really want to send your child to a school where they kicked students about because they couldn't achieve a B average? That is what I mean by hurting their reputation. Quote:
Quote:
I have yet to find any serious critique of his book, and is a classic economical read in its 5th edition. Quote:
BTW: Burbank - are you talking about private companies collecting taxes, or private companies receiving tax money? If the latter, can you provide some info? |
|||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 07:42 PM | ||||||
| CaptainBubba |
Ror, you are perhaps one the most idiotic people I have ever read. Your eagerness to attack the views of others causes you to REPEATEDLY embarass yourself. He is raising a hypothetical question and providing hypothetical answers and you demand he provide concrete evidence and laws even. His opinion is based mainly on principle and theory and its obvious to see. Let me clarify this further before you misinterpret it (because I know you will): He is coming up with a hypothetical solution, whereas you believe he is describing a system that he beleives is already instituted. You constantly heckle people for hard facts and data yet you never have the courtesy to provide the same quality of data for your attacks against them. Perhaps you do in arguments where your hubris is on hold and you don't imagine some magnanimous gap in intelect between you and the person in question, but I have yet to see it. Also your feinged ignnorance on economic theories that would suggest the depression occured after government involvment began is humorous at best. |
|||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 06:56 PM | ||||||
| punkgrrrlie10 | my left-winger comment was a slip of the fingers and if you think that I actually meant left wing, then obviously you weren't paying attn to the rest of what i was saying. | |||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 05:29 PM | ||||||
| mburbank | I'd just like to chime in that the privitization of tax collection has, historically, generally lead to the removal of the leaders head. | |||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 04:49 PM | ||||||
| The_Rorschach |
"I disagree. " Lah DE fucking dah. With compelling arguments like THAT, its amazing anyone has the audacity to stand up to you. "What's to stop them? For one, it would probably be against some law or other. For another, it would drastically harm that schools reputation." Do have any relevent facts, or do you use shallowly based opinion to justify all your arguments. Probably against some law or another? Christ, you can't be bothered to even check and see? And how, pray tell, would such legislation "drastically" harm the school's reputation? "The left-wingers most certainly do not think that privatizing everything is the answer. Also, I think you mean the 1930s. In any case, some theorize that it was government involvement in the economy that caused the Great Depression anyway." You're a complete and utter shitwit. . .No really. Left Wingers don't think privitizing is the answer eh? And we are to accept this on your authority alone? No statistics on tendancies and trends present within Leftist programs and propositions, or even a cut and paste sentence or two just. . .Your pronunciation, ex cathedra. Public Works and other various Gov't job programs came about in response to the Great Depression, Nimrod. 'Some theorize' . . .Some what? Some freebasing crack addicts perhaps? Since stock prices are based on estimates of future earnings, the stock market crash of 1929 was perhaps one of the largest contributions to the economic unheavel of the 30s. The inflation of commodity prices following World War I has had alot to do with it, since it prompted Mr. Strong of the US Federal Reserve Bank of New York to raise interest rates sharply to check that inflation which in turn caused recession and led to stock market failure. Mostly, however, it was the 1927 British Gold frenzy though. For someone with Murray as their avatar, one might expect a bit more economic saaviness. "I still think that competition is the best cure for inefficiency. I don't like government as rule, anyway." Well there you have it, I'm certainly convinced. |
|||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 04:08 PM | ||||||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Quote:
How would money be given to the schools that need it least? It's given on a basis of how many students are where. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 04:01 PM | ||||||
| The One and Only... | What I think is that it was rather dumb of your government to hand over the job to one corporation. It needs to be done by many, so that they can compete. | |||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 10:50 AM | ||||||
| AChimp |
Privatizing public industries isn't always a good idea. They've been doing a lot of that here in Canada, actually, over the last few years simply because it was becoming too expensive for the government to run everything. Once the government relinquishes it's control however, it's extremely difficult to get it back. For example, the telephone company here in Manitoba used to be a Crown corporation until a few years ago when they sold it. Almost immediately afterwards, the company that bought the phone system tried to raise the rates quite drastically. Because of the massive public outcry, the government had to step back in and force them to reduce the fees. Afterall, if the "big and bloated" government could offer basic phone service for $20/month, there's no reason a corporation couldn't do it for the same (especially since the phone company was already getting big subsidies). Incidentally, did the phone company want to raise it's rates so it could provide superior service? No, they wanted the cash to build themselves a fancy headquarter building and to pay the executives who were now making six-figure salaries as opposed to slightly above-average government salaries. The same thing happens in every other industry here that's been privatized. In fact, there's a lot of people now that want to get rid of public automobile insurance because "it costs way to much." What they don't realize is that private insurance companies grab you by the balls and don't let go. On average, car insurance costs about $1500/year here in Manitoba. Depending on the company you choose for insurance in Ontario (which is privatized), you'll be paying around $5000 for the same vehicle, and not much less. If your driving record is shitty, it'll be waaaay more. So, what do you think of that, Mr. Government-takes-too-much-money? 
|
|||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 09:13 AM | ||||||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
|
|||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 08:55 AM | ||||||
| VinceZeb |
"The left-wingers think privatizing everything is the solution." Pardon me, but when did THIS happen?!? |
|||||
| Sep 29th, 2003 12:06 AM | ||||||
| kahljorn | What if the corporations were taxed instead of the invidual? | |||||
| Sep 28th, 2003 10:20 PM | ||||||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
1. Privatization never reduces corruption. If anything it takes it out of public scrutiny and no one knows what the hell is up anymore. 2. competing schools - not a good idea. Then you are giving more money to the schools that need it least and what's to stop a "private" principal from just expelling students they thought would bring down their average. If you did the opposite, giving money to improve the lesser performing schools, well then you have a race to the bottom of who can be worst. Usually schools that perform badly are inner city public schools which crime and poverty are already rampant. Reinforcing it by not sending them as much tax subsidy would just make it worse than it already is. 3. The right-wingers think privatizing everything is the solution. Not so. If it would've worked in the past when everything was private, we wouldn't have the large scale programs that were introduced during the 20's which resulted in the president getting reelected 4 times, scaring the crap out of conservatives such that they put limits on how many terms a pres. could serve. 4. Yes I agree that there is a lot of waste in the way the beauracracy is run. Perhaps there should be revamping rather than scrapping of the systems. Everyone is so quick to just give up on it and say "screw it, just get rid of it and privatize it so i don't have to worry about the headache". Problem is, in doing it so people no longer want to worry about it, then they REALLY don't worry about it. |
|||||
| Sep 28th, 2003 08:55 PM | ||||||
| The One and Only... |
Just an idea: privatizing taxes A while ago, I posted a political theory of my making on Newsfilter. Needless to say, it was met with some criticism. Most of it was aimed at specifics rather than the philopsophy, however, and that is what I would like to get a review of here. A thought struck me one day when I though about gubbermint programs: why not just privatize it? I don't think anyone in this message board will argue with me over whether or not government is wasteful. I think that we all know it is. However, the common point made by left-wingers is that members of the lower income bracket would not be able to receive quality programs were the government to get its hand out of it. Now I ask why we do not simply have tax-paid corporations involved in these aspects. A bit skeptical? Let me use public education as an example: Schools could sign up under a federal program that would require them to accept all students, but grant them tax funding. Mulitple schools would sign up, thus competing with each other for better results. The funding given to each school would then be proportional to however many students each holds. The end result would be that schools that gave better results would receive more tax money, thus giving the owner of the business more money and adhering to the principles of capitalism. This could also work with police and national defence, thus increasing efficiency and reducing corruption (although this is a bigger issue with police forces). Opinions? |
|||||
