Support NeoGAF

[demon]

Don't have internet access. Move somewhere else.

What an idiotic thing to say. Especially in the context of talking about free market. The point still stands- when it comes to internet, there virtually is none here.

 

[BigPickZel]

What an idiotic thing to say. Especially in the context of talking about free market. The point still stands- when it comes to internet, there virtually is none here.

I don't think you understand what free-market means. For some reason, I'm hyphenating it now.

 

[SolKane]

Don't have internet access. Move somewhere else.

I have another solution, he could start his own ISP.

 

[TacticalFox88]

There is never a situation where a consumer has no choice in a free market.

I take it you've never heard of monopolies and oil.

 

[BigPickZel]

I have another solution, he could start his own ISP.

That's the spirit. The entrepreneurial spirit!

 

[BigPickZel]

I take it you've never heard of monopolies and oil.

No, I haven't. Please enlighten me.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

one of the problem's with Houston's thesis is that it lacks specificity. what, exactly will these children lead the way in? furthermore, it remains unclear what semblance of the past we are to be reminded of, nor how that even relates to the her amorphous premise.

lastly, why am i sipping a glass of Gouden Carolus Classic at 11:25am?

In all seriousness, my biggest problem with Houston's thesis is this: "show them all the beauty they possess inside"
Do the kids really need to be shown this??? Or is it actually the adults that need to be shown this?
Kids don't worry about the concept of beauty like adults, so why even narrow down the focus to the "inside" beauty? The kids don't need talk like this. They're free spirits who could give a shit about beauty. The minute you start talking shit like this, they become self conscious and are all looking around like... wtf.... Am I ugly?

Why are you sipping a glass of Gouden Classic?
uhhhh.......Cause you're awesome?
Why am I pounding rum and cokes this morning? Because I am.

 

[Evlar]

There is never a situation where a consumer has no choice in a free market.

The problem with this statement is that it's only true when you include the caveat that pure free markets do not exist: therefore, those consumers who have no choice but have choices also do not exist.

 

[speculawyer]

No, I haven't. Please enlighten me.

Oil is a finite substance on the planet. Most of the oil on privately-own land has already been tapped and there is not nearly enough of it to meet supply. Most oil now comes from the sea (controlled by government), government owned land, or "private" land in corrupt countries such that government just takes it. So the oil markets are not a free market of private companies and never will be again. Perhaps the were back in the 1930's or so.


But to some degree, it sort of still is a free market because many of those governments that have oil supplies just sell it as fast as they can. They are greedy, they skim money off it, they have social programs that need to be paid for, etc.

BTW, a lot of people think OPEC is some evil oil cartel that rips everyone off by forcing prices high. These days, they are pretty much an ineffective paper tiger. Virtually every OPEC nation is producing oil at full tilt according to the infrastructure they have. Most of them cheat and go over their quota if they can. Some could produce more but they under-funding oil industry investment through incompetence.

 

[ToxicAdam]

spec, you're just talking about the 'easy' oil. There are untold billions of barrels of the hard stuff that is still drillable as long as you have the significant capital outlays to do it.

 

[speculawyer]

spec, you're just talking about the 'easy' oil. There are untold billions of barrels of the hard stuff that is still drillable as long as you have the significant capital outlays to do it.

On private land? No. The 'hard oil' is ultra-deepwater that is in the Gulf and out on the ocean. The oil sands which is generally government land that is leased out. Heavy oil deposits . . . which is in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (and everything in Venezuela that has value is taken by the government).

There is still certainly a lot private oil, both easy and not, still out there . . . but it is the minority of the market. North Dakota is creating lots of new oil millionaires. That is great for them and for North Dakota. But on the global oil market scale, it is a drop in the bucket. Most oil comes from the National oil companies and the private IOCs get most of their oil from government leases.

There is a lot of natural gas on private land.


But again, I think the government oil sources really are not all that much different than private companies so it isn't a big difference. The governments all hire private contractors to do most of the work.

 

[TacticalFox88]

No, I haven't. Please enlighten me.

You say the Free Market always give consumers a choice. That's incorrect. Monopolies effectively force you to buy a single product from one source. Either from the government, private ownership, otherwise. Oil is the same way. You HAVE to buy oil, seeing as it's vital to nearly every aspect of the economy indirect or directly.

 

[leroidys]

Great post. Do you know what a free market actually is?

Yeah it's government regulation and crony capitalism rite?

I'm very impressed by your ability to discern the meaning of my guttural groan though.

 

[RustyNails]

You say the Free Market always give consumers a choice. That's incorrect. Monopolies effectively force you to buy a single product from one source. Either from the government, private ownership, otherwise. Oil is the same way. You HAVE to buy oil, seeing as it's vital to nearly every aspect of the economy indirect or directly.

This is how free market works in America: Here's an insurance plan that charges you up the ass from this provider. Here's another one from this other provider that you can't afford. Make your choice. Oh, and both of the plans don't cover some of the things you are looking for, like x-rays, cancer screenings and CT scans. You gotta co-pay a few of these others things. Choice indeed.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

This is how free market works in America: Here's an insurance plan that charges you up the ass from this provider. Here's another one from this other provider that you can't afford. Make your choice. Oh, and both of the plans don't cover some of the things you are looking for, like x-rays, cancer screenings and CT scans. You gotta co-pay a few of these others things. Choice indeed.

And your solution is to put it all in the hands of one entity- the wonderful US government. Choice indeed.

 

[TacticalFox88]

And your solution is to put it all in the hands of one entity- the wonderful US government. Choice indeed.

Hey it worked out for pretty much every wealthy nation on the planet pretty well.

Fuck privatized Healthcare.

 

[empty vessel]

And your solution is to put it all in the hands of one entity- the wonderful US government. Choice indeed.

Yes, that would be ideal.

 

[soul creator]

I've probably mentioned this book here before, but I think it does a good job showing why "choice" is sometimes an overrated concept anyway.

Sure, no one wants to live in a dictatorship where every single thing is forced on you, but at the same time, "unlimited choice!" isn't automatically a better thing to have, and in some ways stresses us out even more. We only have so much time/money/brainpower/etc. to spend on things. I'd much rather have a single-payer health care "forced" on me, one where I get 95% of things covered, and can get something optional for the remaining 5%, rather than the current "choices" we have in health insurance like RustyNails' scenario, where I have to have a goddamn math degree just to decide which health insurance option is the best. And then later on find out that I didn't read the small print on page 15, so I'm actually not covered for something when I need it most.

For the health care example in particular, "choice" is good when it comes to what doctor I want to see. But "choice" is annoying as hell when it comes to selecting from a myriad of insurance options. That type of choice I really don't even want to have. Especially if I'm sick. Just give me a good baseline/default, and then allow the "choice" only for those who wanted a little bit extra.

To translate it into GAF-terms (lol), you had more "choice" when it was HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, but pretty much every damn person is glad to have one good, agreed-upon format. The "choice" comes to the movies released for it, not "oh man, I wish we had 5 conflicting disc formats to choose from! So much choice!"

Spoiler

one console format future baby

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Yes, that would be ideal.

I was addressing it in the context of "choice".

But, I'm open to it.
Could you give me your best example of a country with a wonderfully managed public health care system? Who should we (U.S.) model ourselves after?

 

[RustyNails]

And your solution is to put it all in the hands of one entity- the wonderful US government. Choice indeed.

Why is that a bad thing, bulbo? You're forgetting that the big boogeymans "wonderful US Government" is YOU and ME. It's our money. We put people there. There is no motive for profiteering and shouldn't be in any self-respecting society when it comes to healthcare. Can't we do something nice with it? But I digress. Universal Healthcare works and yes I would very much prefer to put it in the hands of people I elected, not no-name board members in $800 suits who have no allegiance to anything but profits.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Why is that a bad thing, bulbo? You're forgetting that the big boogeymans "wonderful US Government" is YOU and ME. It's our money. We put people there. There is no motive for profiteering and shouldn't be in any self-respecting society when it comes to healthcare. Can't we do something nice with it? But I digress. Universal Healthcare works and yes I would very much prefer to put it in the hands of people I elected, not no-name board members in $800 suits who have no allegiance to anything but profits.

Hahah. I feel sad that you actually believe this.

Last time I checked, our federal government is also stuffed with people with 800 dollar suits that haven't had to work a real job in decades. Staffed with thousands of people that came from wealthy families that came straight from college and worked in the public sector. People that are concerned about THEIR personal welfare (and the welfare of their friends) first, then 'the littles' next.

We put SOME people there. The vast majority of the people working in government are people that are chosen by these elites. People that are not culpable for malfeasance, corruption or ineptitude. At least corporations are somewhat culpable from shareholders and regulators ... although that's a poor excuse of culpability itself. Even the people we get to choose has already been winnowed and predetermined by these same elites through the travesty of our two-party system.

How many times do we have to see the same patterns repeated in our lifetimes to learn the lesson? Once an organization becomes too big, it becomes more inefficient and effective. It becomes and obstacle instead of a positive agent of change. That's why state governments will always be superior to a federal government. They have the ability to be more nimble, more responsive and more culpable to the people they rule. And if they are shit? The people have the chance to move to a state that is 'doing it right.' Moving from Indiana to New York is much more feasible for the average person than moving from America to (wherever).

 

[Chichikov]

Interesting op-ed in the Times today about the history of the Glass-Steagall act.

The Banking Miracle
By JOE NOCERA

The president of the American Bankers Association was railing against excessive regulation in a speech at the Waldorf Astoria. The banking reform bill, he complained, “would destroy a substantial part of our bond-distributing machinery.” He added, “Can anyone expect that a step of this kind will improve the quality of our long-term investments?”
Modern echoes, for sure. But I read about the speech in a Jan. 27, 1933, article culled from the wonderful archives of The American Banker, the bankers’ bible now celebrating its 175th birthday. The speaker, one Francis H. Sisson, was complaining about an early version of the Glass-Steagall Act, the most famous of all Depression-era bank laws, and the one that, in retrospect, probably did the most good. Less than six months after Sisson’s speech, President Franklin Roosevelt signed it into law.​

More at the link.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I was addressing it in the context of "choice".

But, I'm open to it.
Could you give me your best example of a country with a wonderfully managed public health care system? Who should we (U.S.) model ourselves after?

I'd say the UK would be the best, but then again, all of Western Europe would be better than the bullshit we have now.

 

[Jackson50]

Greenwald on Obama, Libya and the War Powers Resolution - http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/18/libya/index.html

the whole article is a good read. Greenwald speculates that hubris compelled Obama to not seek Congressional authorization for the military action in spite of very public Republican support. in summary - anything falling under the umbrella of 'national security' is the domain of the Executive Branch.

Lynch has a different take on this - http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/18/benghazi_on_the_hill

haven't found any contemporaneous reporting to suggest that's anything other than pure speculation, though. on a final note, it's still a complete mind fuck to see Lynch and Bill Fucking Kristol in agreement on this mission.

Greenwald's proposition is more compelling. The institution of the presidency, regardless of the individual, invites abuse of executive authority. Presidents routinely seek to assert their authority. This is especially true on matters of national security. And that is probably true in this instance. From the letter he sent to Congress in March at the commencement of the endeavor:

“I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

Additionally, what is more worrisome, is the rabid prosecution of whistleblowers; this was an update to Greenwald's article. I posted a New Yorker article last month on this subject. Thankfully, Drake should avoid incarceration. But that he plead guilty is unfortunate; it was his best option, so I do not implicate him.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Hahah. I feel sad that you actually believe this.

Last time I checked, our federal government is also stuffed with people with 800 dollar suits that haven't had to work a real job in decades. Staffed with thousands of people that came from wealthy families that came straight from college and worked in the public sector. People that are concerned about THEIR personal welfare (and the welfare of their friends) first, then 'the littles' next.

We put SOME people there. The vast majority of the people working in government are people that are chosen by these elites. People that are not culpable for malfeasance, corruption or ineptitude. At least corporations are somewhat culpable from shareholders and regulators ... although that's a poor excuse of culpability itself. Even the people we get to choose has already been winnowed and predetermined by these same elites through the travesty of our two-party system.

How many times do we have to see the same patterns repeated in our lifetimes to learn the lesson? Once an organization becomes too big, it becomes more inefficient and effective. It becomes and obstacle instead of a positive agent of change. That's why state governments will always be superior to a federal government. They have the ability to be more nimble, more responsive and more culpable to the people they rule. And if they are shit? The people have the chance to move to a state that is 'doing it right.' Moving from Indiana to New York is much more feasible for the average person than moving from America to (wherever).

It's embarrassing that a grown ass man can believe something thIs. Keep on believing that the evil, ivy tower elites grandfathered into their jobs at the DMV and SSA.

 

[Chichikov]

The vast majority of the people working in government are people that are chosen by these elites. People that are not culpable for malfeasance, corruption or ineptitude.

You don't really believe that, right?

Edit: I'm actually serious, I think you either didn't pay attention when you posted or you and I have very different interpretation of what it means to be "working in government".

 

[besada]

Hahah. I feel sad that you actually believe this.

One of the most ironic lead-ins for a post ever.

 

[Parts]

Hahah. I feel sad that you actually believe this.

Are you sixteen? Wow.

 

[polyh3dron]

ToxicMeltdown

 

[Incognito]

apropos of the national security discussion, i believe this is one of the best pieces written on the 'national security state' to be found,

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/bradley-manning-barack-obama-and.html

In 2006, Sandy Levinson and I predicted that the next president, whether Democratic or Republican, would ratify and continue many of President George W. Bush's war on terrorism policies. The reason, we explained, had less to do with the specific events of September 11th, and more to do with the fact that the United States was in the process of expanding the National Security State created after World War II into something we called the National Surveillance State, featuring huge investments in electronic surveillance and various end runs around traditional Bill of Rights protections and expectations about procedure. These end runs included public private cooperation in surveillance and exchange of information, expansion of the state secrets doctrine, expansion of administrative warrants and national security letters, a system of preventive detention, expanded use of military prisons, extraordinary rendition to other countries, and aggressive interrogation techniques outside of those countenanced by the traditional laws of war.

The reasons for the creation of the national surveillance state were multiple; they concerned the rise of digital networks, changes in the technology of warfare, and the concomitant rise of networks of non-state actors as serious threats to national security. These problems would present themselves to any President, whether liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican.

Barack Obama has largely confirmed these expectations, much to the dismay of many liberals who supported him. After issuing a series of publicly lauded executive orders on assuming office (including a ban on torture), he has more or less systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the George W. Bush Administration, employing the new powers granted to the President by Congress in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force of 2001, the Patriot Act of 2001 (as amended), the Protect America Act of 2007, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009. These statutory authorizations have created a basic framework for the National Surveillance State, and have made Obama the most powerful president in history in these policy areas.

the rest is at the link. give it a read.

 

[ToxicAdam]

It's embarrassing that a grown ass man can believe something thIs. Keep on believing that the evil, ivy tower elites grandfathered into their jobs at the DMV and SSA.

The DMV is a federal job? Or did you see my name and automatically launch into hysterics without thinking about what to say?

You don't really believe that, right?

Edit: I'm actually serious, I think you either didn't pay attention when you posted or you and I have very different interpretation of what it means to be "working in government".

I pretty clearly laid out I was speaking about the elites at the federal level. DC beltway types.

 

[empty vessel]

That's why state governments will always be superior to a federal government.

My state government, at least, is the worst place known to man.

 

[ToxicAdam]

My state government, at least, is the worst place known to man.

You in Venezuela now? I feel for ya.

 

[empty vessel]

You in Venezuela now? I feel for ya.

I wish.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Romney won't sign anti-abortion pledge (and defunding Planned Parenthood).

 

[TacticalFox88]

Romney won't sign anti-abortion pledge (and defunding Planned Parenthood).

Hmm won't sign the pledge? Hmm...I wonder how this'll play out

 

[Suikoguy]

Hmm won't sign the pledge? Hmm...I wonder how this'll play out

I'm quite surprised he is coming across as so moderate already. Also sad this is considered moderate now.

 

[ToxicAdam]

California's largest utility promises its customers green salvation through its ClimateSmart program.

For every bit of energy a Pacific Gas & Electric ratepayer uses - from turning on a vacuum cleaner to powering up a computer or heating up an oven - a little part of a tree or forest is saved to erase the carbon sins of the customer. The voluntary program costs participants about $60 a year.

But the company isn't telling its customers one crucial fact: Those forests were purchased years ago by a Virginia conservation group that used nearly $50 million in loans and grants from California taxpayers. The Conservation Fund then sold PG&E carbon credits on land it had purchased for preservation and selective logging.

The group argues that it could harvest far more trees, but is choosing to preserve them. And the saved trees, which sequester carbon, are worth something it can sell: carbon credits to PG&E and others.

As a result, thousands of PG&E customers are effectively paying twice for the same Mendocino County forests.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/16/MNIJ1JTD6S.DTL#ixzz1PgfcbfNG

 

[Socreges]

Just popping in to say the new thread title is pretty amazing.

As you were.

I'm quite surprised he is coming across as so moderate already. Also sad this is considered moderate now.

No one's saying you have to use their language!

 

[teiresias]

I'll be sure and ask around next time at work. I'd be interested to know which elder family member all of the engineers and technicians I work with at a federal agency used to get themselves jobs there after earning advanced degrees.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Probably be wise to requote what you are referring to.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Romney won't sign anti-abortion pledge (and defunding Planned Parenthood).

Wow, I guess he's feeling quite confident.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Romney won't sign anti-abortion pledge (and defunding Planned Parenthood).

Good on him, not sure how this plays out in Primaries though.

Romney HAS to win NH, Iowa is a lost cause to him.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I think it's just more about being politically consistent. Which killed McCain with independents in 2008 (that and the Palin nom).

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I think it's just more about being politically consistent. Which killed McCain with independents in 2008 (that and the Palin nom).

He is just not taking positions unpopular in General Election.

Romney is far from being remotely consistent. But switching positions on things like HCR Reform or Mandate works because those things are unpopular to begin with.

 

[speculawyer]

Good on him, not sure how this plays out in Primaries though.

Romney HAS to win NH, Iowa is a lost cause to him.

I think the strategy is skip Iowa, win NH, and then tell SC "Vote for me, I'm the only one that is electable."

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I think the strategy is skip Iowa, win NH, and then tell SC "Vote for me, I'm the only one that is electable."

His problem will be that while in NH electorate even for primaries is pretty independent/moderate, in SC and Iowa the positions will allienate the core red meat seekers.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think the strategy is skip Iowa, win NH, and then tell SC "Vote for me, I'm the only one that is electable."

I hate to throw out anecdotes, but I don't think he can take SC. We're shifting righter faster than he can hope for.

 

[RustyNails]

NH is overrated anyway

 

[Diablos]

Romney won't sign anti-abortion pledge (and defunding Planned Parenthood).

Romney's a fucking genius. He's going after moderates in states that he knows will give him a chance (like PA).

I've gotta hand it to him, he's ambitious and putting forth a strategy that defies batshit insane GOP logic.