Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Redistribution of Wealth - Good idea or not?

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:03:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it a good idea to redistribute the wealth? Socialist say yes whereas the capitalists say no. Although socialism sounds great in theory, I don't think it can ever work (and if it could, I'd support it).

1. What is the redistribution of wealth?
2. What are the pros and cons?
3. Do you support it?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:21:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No economic growth of nations have been created through the distribution of wealth. This policy is just a smoke screen to making our economy better, when in reality, it does nothing of the kind. Redistribution does not increase GDP and in no way makes the economy better. Furthermore, there is no economic reason to advocate for the redistribution of wealth. Most arguments are derived from the notion that people are poor and need to be helped, which is fallacious because the supporters do not state why they need to be helped.

If you really want to lift the poor out of poverty, redistribution is not the answer. Effective and stable economic growth coupled with free market capitalism that gives everybody a chance to succeed is how the status of the poor has majorly increased in the past century.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:29:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:21:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
No economic growth of nations have been created through the distribution of wealth. This policy is just a smoke screen to making our economy better, when in reality, it does nothing of the kind. Redistribution does not increase GDP and in no way makes the economy better. Furthermore, there is no economic reason to advocate for the redistribution of wealth. Most arguments are derived from the notion that people are poor and need to be helped, which is fallacious because the supporters do not state why they need to be helped.

If you really want to lift the poor out of poverty, redistribution is not the answer. Effective and stable economic growth coupled with free market capitalism that gives everybody a chance to succeed is how the status of the poor has majorly increased in the past century.

Yeah, I'm beginning to become a bit more economically conservative. If we do take several million from the rich, we may end up with a revolution!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:31:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:21:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
No economic growth of nations have been created through the distribution of wealth. This policy is just a smoke screen to making our economy better, when in reality, it does nothing of the kind. Redistribution does not increase GDP and in no way makes the economy better. Furthermore, there is no economic reason to advocate for the redistribution of wealth. Most arguments are derived from the notion that people are poor and need to be helped, which is fallacious because the supporters do not state why they need to be helped.

Well most people on an abstract and philosophical level value human life and don't want to see the poor suffer and die.

In terms of economic growth theory of welfare redistribution, I do believe that total welfare redistribution will hinder economic growth as of course you see in communist nations. However, some welfare redistribution will not effect economic growth negatively and depending on a case by case basis could theoretically increase growth (at least in the short run). Take for example a person who has so much wealth that he/she does not need to work. if his/her wealth is redistributed, than he/she must look for a job, and since more workers exist, output is increased. No of course, you can state that means there are less resources will be invested in capital. But the effects could cancel each other out.

If we look at welfare nations like sweden, then there economic growth is increasing despite their wealth redistribution policies:

http://en.wikipedia.org...(latest_year)

Sweden is listed as 4.4% increase in growth, which is pretty high considering that they are already a developed nations (developing nations growth faster than developed nations).

If you really want to lift the poor out of poverty, redistribution is not the answer. Effective and stable economic growth coupled with free market capitalism that gives everybody a chance to succeed is how the status of the poor has majorly increased in the past century.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:35:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"There is very little correlation between economic performance and welfare expenditure." wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Citation:
Atkinson, A. B. (1995). Incomes and the Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55796-8.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:40:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll also add another thing. High incomes are not necessarily caused through more productivity, but through increasing "rent-seeking" behavior. What that means is that high incomes are created because labor supply is artificially lowered. With a greater welfare redistribution policy, the incentives for rent-seeking behavior decreases.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, redistribution of wealth may sound good in theory, but overall, it has not been found to be a good driver of economic growth.

Redistribution of income is different. All taxes redistribute wealth regardless of the rate, but the higher, the more redistributive the taxes are. Some redistribution of income, through programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and AmeriCorps, are beneficial for society.

To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

^ A Progressive twist put on there.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:42:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:31:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:21:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
No economic growth of nations have been created through the distribution of wealth. This policy is just a smoke screen to making our economy better, when in reality, it does nothing of the kind. Redistribution does not increase GDP and in no way makes the economy better. Furthermore, there is no economic reason to advocate for the redistribution of wealth. Most arguments are derived from the notion that people are poor and need to be helped, which is fallacious because the supporters do not state why they need to be helped.

Well most people on an abstract and philosophical level value human life and don't want to see the poor suffer and die.

False dichotomy. Not giving the poor governmental support is not equivalent to letting them die.

In terms of economic growth theory of welfare redistribution, I do believe that total welfare redistribution will hinder economic growth as of course you see in communist nations. However, some welfare redistribution will not effect economic growth negatively and depending on a case by case basis could theoretically increase growth (at least in the short run). Take for example a person who has so much wealth that he/she does not need to work. if his/her wealth is redistributed, than he/she must look for a job, and since more workers exist, output is increased. No of course, you can state that means there are less resources will be invested in capital. But the effects could cancel each other out.

The wealth by that person would be used to create more jobs (supply-side). It's useless for such speculation without concrete numbers but as long as the wealth taken away (which should be quite a bit because he has to find work) would create at least one job, then the effects would balance out. Of course, it would likely create more than one job.

Furthermore, what gives you the moral authority to steal somebody's income?

If we look at welfare nations like sweden, then there economic growth is increasing despite their wealth redistribution policies:

http://en.wikipedia.org...(latest_year)

Sweden is listed as 4.4% increase in growth, which is pretty high considering that they are already a developed nations (developing nations growth faster than developed nations).

Note that I never stated that residustribution decreases GDP; it merely has zero effects on it.

Also, much of this growth is short-term via government investments into the economy. It is not sustainable.

If you really want to lift the poor out of poverty, redistribution is not the answer. Effective and stable economic growth coupled with free market capitalism that gives everybody a chance to succeed is how the status of the poor has majorly increased in the past century.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:47:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well most people on an abstract and philosophical level value human life and don't want to see the poor suffer and die.

This, but I'm fine using incentive-based welfare systems to accomplish it like the one Friedman suggested (then again I certainly don't know its exact ins and outs.) Welfare by itself is not sufficient, there needs to be some kind of motivating monetary incentives coupled with job training and ideally cheap access to education or technical programs that can get people the skills they need to succeed in the job market.

No one is saying wealth redistribution is the optimal manner of dealing with the poor, but then again DK is perfectly correct in saying that the state of the homeless or the unfortunate is not just their problem. We should all be concerned, and a lack of concern indicates a certain indifference to human suffering which is never good for a civilization if we just want to look at it purely in that sense, never mind the moral component.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:48:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

So there is a medical quack and the government shouldn't punish the person for killing people? I believe protectionism is necessary in trade, though maybe not as much as we have now.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:50:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:48:24 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.


So there is a medical quack and the government shouldn't punish the person for killing people? I believe protectionism is necessary in trade, though maybe not as much as we have now.

Of course they should punish the company/person. I'm talking about whether the government should take "preventative" steps such as creating the FDA and the BCP.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:52:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:42:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:31:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:21:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
No economic growth of nations have been created through the distribution of wealth. This policy is just a smoke screen to making our economy better, when in reality, it does nothing of the kind. Redistribution does not increase GDP and in no way makes the economy better. Furthermore, there is no economic reason to advocate for the redistribution of wealth. Most arguments are derived from the notion that people are poor and need to be helped, which is fallacious because the supporters do not state why they need to be helped.

Well most people on an abstract and philosophical level value human life and don't want to see the poor suffer and die.

False dichotomy. Not giving the poor governmental support is not equivalent to letting them die.

True. However, If they do not have the psychological will-power anymore, no savings, no friends/family, no strangers will help them, and no way to find a job, they will die. Of course, a lot of these assumptions are false and it is very hard to die of starvation in the US. However, they can still suffer unnecessary quite a bit.


The wealth by that person would be used to create more jobs (supply-side). It's useless for such speculation without concrete numbers but as long as the wealth taken away (which should be quite a bit because he has to find work) would create at least one job, then the effects would balance out. Of course, it would likely create more than one job.

There's more of a natural rate of unemployment more than anything. You can say that investment in capital will create more jobs. But so would consumer spending. The new company can put other companies out of business.

Furthermore, what gives you the moral authority to steal somebody's income?

Property rights are just a social construct.

If we look at welfare nations like sweden, then there economic growth is increasing despite their wealth redistribution policies:

http://en.wikipedia.org...(latest_year)

Sweden is listed as 4.4% increase in growth, which is pretty high considering that they are already a developed nations (developing nations growth faster than developed nations).

Note that I never stated that residustribution decreases GDP; it merely has zero effects on it.

Then why not favor it. If there's no tradeoff between growth and equality, why go against equality?

Also, much of this growth is short-term via government investments into the economy. It is not sustainable.

Can you find data to support it? I've been trying to figure out whether Sweden's growth is sustainable or not. I haven't been able to find information that proves it isn't.

If you really want to lift the poor out of poverty, redistribution is not the answer. Effective and stable economic growth coupled with free market capitalism that gives everybody a chance to succeed is how the status of the poor has majorly increased in the past century.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:52:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

I don't know why right-wingers like you spout so much antigovernment rhetoric. Just why?

And gov't occupies several niches better than the private sector.

The private sector benefits from some stability. And lack of regulation leads to frequent market crashes and depressions.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:52:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:47:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Well most people on an abstract and philosophical level value human life and don't want to see the poor suffer and die.

This, but I'm fine using incentive-based welfare systems to accomplish it like the one Friedman suggested (then again I certainly don't know its exact ins and outs.) Welfare by itself is not sufficient, there needs to be some kind of motivating monetary incentives coupled with job training and ideally cheap access to education or technical programs that can get people the skills they need to succeed in the job market.

You mean the 50% NIT?

No one is saying wealth redistribution is the optimal manner of dealing with the poor, but then again DK is perfectly correct in saying that the state of the homeless or the unfortunate is not just their problem. We should all be concerned, and a lack of concern indicates a certain indifference to human suffering which is never good for a civilization if we just want to look at it purely in that sense, never mind the moral component.

Since you were talking about Friedman, I feel obliged to point out that he has a similar point as you when he refers to the poor as "negative externalities," in the sense that they are a by-product of the system and nobody wants them there. As a result, the government should take some action to prevent these externalities from occurring.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:53:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:50:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:48:24 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.


So there is a medical quack and the government shouldn't punish the person for killing people? I believe protectionism is necessary in trade, though maybe not as much as we have now.

Of course they should punish the company/person. I'm talking about whether the government should take "preventative" steps such as creating the FDA and the BCP.

Ah ok. Well, yes, I would support the FDA and BCP though the should loosen up a bit
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:53:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:50:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:48:24 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.


So there is a medical quack and the government shouldn't punish the person for killing people? I believe protectionism is necessary in trade, though maybe not as much as we have now.

Of course they should punish the company/person. I'm talking about whether the government should take "preventative" steps such as creating the FDA and the BCP.

Why shouldn't the gov't create "preventative steps" though? Having properly labeled products is a bad thing? Selling dangerous goods is a good thing?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:54:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:52:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

I don't know why right-wingers like you spout so much antigovernment rhetoric. Just why?

It's unique to libertarians/minarchists. Don't worry....it's not contagious.

And gov't occupies several niches better than the private sector.

Such as.....(please don't say healthcare)?

The private sector benefits from some stability. And lack of regulation leads to frequent market crashes and depressions.

Name me one single large recession/depression in the last century caused solely by the free market.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:56:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:54:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:52:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

I don't know why right-wingers like you spout so much antigovernment rhetoric. Just why?

It's unique to libertarians/minarchists. Don't worry....it's not contagious.

And gov't occupies several niches better than the private sector.

Such as.....(please don't say healthcare)?

National Defense.

The private sector benefits from some stability. And lack of regulation leads to frequent market crashes and depressions.

Name me one single large recession/depression in the last century caused solely by the free market.

Stock Market Crash of 1907
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:56:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:53:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:50:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:48:24 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.


So there is a medical quack and the government shouldn't punish the person for killing people? I believe protectionism is necessary in trade, though maybe not as much as we have now.

Of course they should punish the company/person. I'm talking about whether the government should take "preventative" steps such as creating the FDA and the BCP.

Why shouldn't the gov't create "preventative steps" though? Having properly labeled products is a bad thing? Selling dangerous goods is a good thing?

Exactly. Customers have the right to know exactly what they are buying.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:57:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:53:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:50:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:48:24 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.


So there is a medical quack and the government shouldn't punish the person for killing people? I believe protectionism is necessary in trade, though maybe not as much as we have now.

Of course they should punish the company/person. I'm talking about whether the government should take "preventative" steps such as creating the FDA and the BCP.

Why shouldn't the gov't create "preventative steps" though? Having properly labeled products is a bad thing? Selling dangerous goods is a good thing?

You are assuming that the free market will sell goods that are inherently dangerous or flawed, which is completely false. Companies don't have an incentive to make dangerous goods, and furthermore once the public finds out, legal action will be taken against them.

The government is flawed also. I can name you many examples of goods that got onto the market place despite government intervention.

The main reason why I am against agencies such as the FDA is that often times they take too long approving drugs, which could otherwise have been saving lives. The US has been experiencing some of the biggest drug innovation drains ever. Also, there is a whole bunch about the incentives of FDA bureaucrats but I won't go into that now.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:59:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You mean the 50% NIT?

Yeah, the NIT discussed in Capitalism and Freedom. Then again it's been years since I read it and my views have changed, but I don't think any rational person can deny that monetary incentives are key in welfare programs.

Since you were talking about Friedman, I feel obliged to point out that he has a similar point as you when he refers to the poor as "negative externalities," in the sense that they are a by-product of the system and nobody wants them there. As a result, the government should take some action to prevent these externalities from occurring.

Fair enough, if I'm understanding you correctly.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:59:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:56:07 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:54:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:52:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

I don't know why right-wingers like you spout so much antigovernment rhetoric. Just why?

It's unique to libertarians/minarchists. Don't worry....it's not contagious.

And gov't occupies several niches better than the private sector.

Such as.....(please don't say healthcare)?

National Defense.

Defense from what exactly? To look at the U.S. as an example the "defense" is a hell of alot closer to aggression than anything else.

The private sector benefits from some stability. And lack of regulation leads to frequent market crashes and depressions.

Name me one single large recession/depression in the last century caused solely by the free market.

Stock Market Crash of 1907
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:00:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:56:37 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:53:36 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:50:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:48:24 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.


So there is a medical quack and the government shouldn't punish the person for killing people? I believe protectionism is necessary in trade, though maybe not as much as we have now.

Of course they should punish the company/person. I'm talking about whether the government should take "preventative" steps such as creating the FDA and the BCP.

Why shouldn't the gov't create "preventative steps" though? Having properly labeled products is a bad thing? Selling dangerous goods is a good thing?

Exactly. Customers have the right to know exactly what they are buying.

Government regulations are rarely about protecting the consumer and more importantly about protecting large corporations from competition. They're only written up as "consumer protection" so people will vote for them.

I'm kind of in a bit of a pickle between libertarianism and liberalism. At the one hand I do support welfare redistribution policies and social policies and at the other hand I am against government intervention in the marketplace.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:00:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:56:07 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:54:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:52:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

I don't know why right-wingers like you spout so much antigovernment rhetoric. Just why?

It's unique to libertarians/minarchists. Don't worry....it's not contagious.

And gov't occupies several niches better than the private sector.

Such as.....(please don't say healthcare)?

National Defense.

Not necessarily, but that're not the types of things that I was talking about.

The private sector benefits from some stability. And lack of regulation leads to frequent market crashes and depressions.

Name me one single large recession/depression in the last century caused solely by the free market.

Stock Market Crash of 1907

Started with the ICC Hepburn Act.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:01:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 1:59:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:56:07 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:54:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:52:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

I don't know why right-wingers like you spout so much antigovernment rhetoric. Just why?

It's unique to libertarians/minarchists. Don't worry....it's not contagious.

And gov't occupies several niches better than the private sector.

Such as.....(please don't say healthcare)?

National Defense.

Defense from what exactly?

The unfriendly nations of this world.

To look at the U.S. as an example the "defense" is a hell of alot closer to aggression than anything else.

Unfortunately yes. We are too aggressive in many cases. We shouldn't be the world's policeman.

The private sector benefits from some stability. And lack of regulation leads to frequent market crashes and depressions.

Name me one single large recession/depression in the last century caused solely by the free market.

Stock Market Crash of 1907
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:02:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:01:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:59:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:56:07 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:54:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:52:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

I don't know why right-wingers like you spout so much antigovernment rhetoric. Just why?

It's unique to libertarians/minarchists. Don't worry....it's not contagious.

And gov't occupies several niches better than the private sector.

Such as.....(please don't say healthcare)?

National Defense.

Defense from what exactly?

The unfriendly nations of this world.

Name a single war outside of the revolutionary wars against great Britain that was completely started by a hostile nation.

To look at the U.S. as an example the "defense" is a hell of alot closer to aggression than anything else.

Unfortunately yes. We are too aggressive in many cases. We shouldn't be the world's policeman.

The private sector benefits from some stability. And lack of regulation leads to frequent market crashes and depressions.

Name me one single large recession/depression in the last century caused solely by the free market.

Stock Market Crash of 1907
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:02:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:00:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:56:07 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:54:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:52:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:45:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:44:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/28/2012 1:42:18 PM, Contra wrote:
To really help the economic status of citizens overall, redistribution is not the answer. Instead, a Capitalist economy coupled with a degree of government intervention to protect the consumer, create stability, and promote equal access to opportunity for all citizens to climb the economic ladder based on their hard work and effort is the best path for broad prosperity and success for America.

Part Three of our debate sequence: Governments ought to protect the consumer.

Wait, you don't think they should?

Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better with less inefficiency. Also, it's not as if government failure somehow trumpets market failure.

I don't know why right-wingers like you spout so much antigovernment rhetoric. Just why?

It's unique to libertarians/minarchists. Don't worry....it's not contagious.

And gov't occupies several niches better than the private sector.

Such as.....(please don't say healthcare)?

National Defense.

Not necessarily, but that're not the types of things that I was talking about.

The private sector benefits from some stability. And lack of regulation leads to frequent market crashes and depressions.

Name me one single large recession/depression in the last century caused solely by the free market.

Stock Market Crash of 1907

Started with the ICC Hepburn Act.

Bush 41 Recession?
Nixon Recession?
Carter Recession?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan