Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Four Categories of Presidents

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:22:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As far as presidents go, there are four categories: Good, Okay, Bad, and Really Bad.

Most fall in the Bad category with quite a few falling in the Okay category.

The last Good president was old Calvin Coolidge. Other presidents in this category would include but are not limited to Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Grover Cleveland.

The Okay and Bad categories covers the vast majority of presidents. We have Okay presidents like Reagan and Clinton as well as Bad presidents like Bush Sr and Bush Jr.

We then have Really Bad presidents that include Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Barack Obama.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:43:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hoover was really bad?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:57:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think that Bush Sr. was that bad. I don't support all of what he did (anti drug policy, raised taxes), but he wasn't too bad of a President.
"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
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:32:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 7:43:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Hoover was really bad?

He only caused the Great Depression.

And you listed Theodore Roosevelt as a terrible president? Really? Really? He was one of the best presidents we've ever had.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:43:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 8:32:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 7:43:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Hoover was really bad?

He only caused the Great Depression.

And you listed Theodore Roosevelt as a terrible president? Really? Really? He was one of the best presidents we've ever had.

He was one of the worst, everything about him was bad.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:52:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 8:43:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:32:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 7:43:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Hoover was really bad?

He only caused the Great Depression.

And you listed Theodore Roosevelt as a terrible president? Really? Really? He was one of the best presidents we've ever had.

He was one of the worst, everything about him was bad.

Really? It seems most scholarly rankings put him just below Jefferson:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:55:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 8:52:57 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:43:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:32:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 7:43:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Hoover was really bad?

He only caused the Great Depression.

And you listed Theodore Roosevelt as a terrible president? Really? Really? He was one of the best presidents we've ever had.

He was one of the worst, everything about him was bad.

Really? It seems most scholarly rankings put him just below Jefferson:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I mean he threatened to stack the courts if they didn't rubber stamp his new deal, he passed the new deal. He was a philanderer, he knowingly lied to the American people about joining WWII and he never got us out of the great depression.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 9:11:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 8:55:50 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:52:57 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:43:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:32:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 7:43:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Hoover was really bad?

He only caused the Great Depression.

And you listed Theodore Roosevelt as a terrible president? Really? Really? He was one of the best presidents we've ever had.

He was one of the worst, everything about him was bad.

Really? It seems most scholarly rankings put him just below Jefferson:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I mean he threatened to stack the courts if they didn't rubber stamp his new deal, he passed the new deal. He was a philanderer, he knowingly lied to the American people about joining WWII and he never got us out of the great depression.

Theodore Roosevelt died in 1919. You're talking about FDR.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 9:13:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 9:11:23 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:55:50 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:52:57 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:43:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:32:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/26/2013 7:43:38 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Hoover was really bad?

He only caused the Great Depression.

And you listed Theodore Roosevelt as a terrible president? Really? Really? He was one of the best presidents we've ever had.

He was one of the worst, everything about him was bad.

Really? It seems most scholarly rankings put him just below Jefferson:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I mean he threatened to stack the courts if they didn't rubber stamp his new deal, he passed the new deal. He was a philanderer, he knowingly lied to the American people about joining WWII and he never got us out of the great depression.

Theodore Roosevelt died in 1919. You're talking about FDR.

Ha my bad only saw the Roosevelt part apparently
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 2:23:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd still like to know what the OP has against Teddy Roosevelt.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 1:25:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/27/2013 2:23:40 AM, drhead wrote:
I'd still like to know what the OP has against Teddy Roosevelt.

Sorry it took me this long to respond.

Okay, Teddy Roosevelt was an ultra nationalistic, imperialistic statist that engaged in one of the largest assaults on freedom in USA history.

Prior to TR, the USA was far from a free economic system, but it was much closer than it is today. TR ushered in a new era of state activism, which has been a catastrophic failure.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 2:43:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 1:25:30 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 2:23:40 AM, drhead wrote:
I'd still like to know what the OP has against Teddy Roosevelt.

Sorry it took me this long to respond.

Okay, Teddy Roosevelt was an ultra nationalistic, imperialistic statist that engaged in one of the largest assaults on freedom in USA history.

Prior to TR, the USA was far from a free economic system, but it was much closer than it is today. TR ushered in a new era of state activism, which has been a catastrophic failure.

Could you please back up these assertions?

Are you trying to refer to The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and The Pure Food and Drug Act, or his "trust-busting" policies? If it's the former, then you're crazy, since there is absolutely no reason not to have safety regulations. If it's the latter, then you're naive for not recognizing the negative effects large trusts have on small startups.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 1:37:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 2:43:21 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/28/2013 1:25:30 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 2:23:40 AM, drhead wrote:
I'd still like to know what the OP has against Teddy Roosevelt.

Sorry it took me this long to respond.

Okay, Teddy Roosevelt was an ultra nationalistic, imperialistic statist that engaged in one of the largest assaults on freedom in USA history.

Prior to TR, the USA was far from a free economic system, but it was much closer than it is today. TR ushered in a new era of state activism, which has been a catastrophic failure.

Could you please back up these assertions?

Are you trying to refer to The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and The Pure Food and Drug Act, or his "trust-busting" policies? If it's the former, then you're crazy, since there is absolutely no reason not to have safety regulations. If it's the latter, then you're naive for not recognizing the negative effects large trusts have on small startups.

You got it dude (about what I was talking about).

Let us take these one by one. First, let us realize that the MIA was entirely based on Sinclair's book. And, Sinclair had never. He never visited a meat packing factory. Not once. His book was based on his imagination and hearsay.

Furthermore, the Meat Packing industry was very supportive of the act. Contrary to common myth, there were meat packing regulators before this act. But, the industry was supportive because it allowed them to utilize the government to stomp out small competitors and shield them from competition.

Of course, the funniest part of this is that Sinclair OPPOSED the act. He saw it for the corporate statism that it was.

Okay. Let's move on the PFDA. Okay, this one is easy. The FDA has killed millions of people by keeping life saving drugs off of the market. Like all regulatory agencies, big pharma has stacked the FDA with its cronies which stomps out competition. And, no, this is not a problem with big pharma. The problem is with big government. When you have all these regulations, it is inevitable that companies will find ways to bend these regulations to their advantage through regulatory capture.

The FDA has led to a less safe public because we have less life saving drugs because the FDA creates a huge barrier to entry for startups and drugs from firms that are not well connected. Instead, they approve drugs from well connected companies not based on "safety" but on who has the connections.

And then we have trust busting. Okay. First, as we look at the first two things that TR supposedly did we see a pattern. They involve regulations that incumbent firms use to stomp out smaller competitors. All these regulations actually help monopolies form by creating barriers to entry.

The fact of the matter is that all of the "trusts" that were "busted" were really just offering consumers better products for better prices and less competitive firms focused on getting the government to reduce their competition.

Monopolies don't last on a free market. They eventually become inefficient and are unable to remain competitive. It is only when the government makes all these regulations that keep out new startups that we see monopolies arise (real monopolies, not every large company is a monopoly).

TR was among the most anti competitive, pro big corporation presidents we have had (Wilson, FDR, and Obama also fit in this category).
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 7:04:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 1:37:09 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/28/2013 2:43:21 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/28/2013 1:25:30 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 4/27/2013 2:23:40 AM, drhead wrote:
I'd still like to know what the OP has against Teddy Roosevelt.

Sorry it took me this long to respond.

Okay, Teddy Roosevelt was an ultra nationalistic, imperialistic statist that engaged in one of the largest assaults on freedom in USA history.

Prior to TR, the USA was far from a free economic system, but it was much closer than it is today. TR ushered in a new era of state activism, which has been a catastrophic failure.

Could you please back up these assertions?

Are you trying to refer to The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and The Pure Food and Drug Act, or his "trust-busting" policies? If it's the former, then you're crazy, since there is absolutely no reason not to have safety regulations. If it's the latter, then you're naive for not recognizing the negative effects large trusts have on small startups.


You got it dude (about what I was talking about).

Let us take these one by one. First, let us realize that the MIA was entirely based on Sinclair's book. And, Sinclair had never. He never visited a meat packing factory. Not once. His book was based on his imagination and hearsay.

You have no evidence to back this up, I see. I have sources telling me that Roosevelt initially thought Sinclair was a crackpot, and was suspicious of his socialist attitude. I've also found sources telling me that Roosevelt sent in a labor commisioner and a social worker to inspect some meat facilities, and immediately supported meat inspection legislation after receiving their report. They found that the conditions were very similar to what Sinclair described. Coincidence?

Of course, the validity of your assertions (which are as good as mine) depends on mine being false. You're going to have to source these claims.

Furthermore, the Meat Packing industry was very supportive of the act. Contrary to common myth, there were meat packing regulators before this act. But, the industry was supportive because it allowed them to utilize the government to stomp out small competitors and shield them from competition.

They didn't seem so supportive of it with the Neill-Reynolds report.

Of course, the funniest part of this is that Sinclair OPPOSED the act. He saw it for the corporate statism that it was.

This is the first part of your post that I've actually found a source to back up. Nothing about the 'corporate statism' part, though.

Okay. Let's move on the PFDA. Okay, this one is easy. The FDA has killed millions of people by keeping life saving drugs off of the market. Like all regulatory agencies, big pharma has stacked the FDA with its cronies which stomps out competition. And, no, this is not a problem with big pharma. The problem is with big government. When you have all these regulations, it is inevitable that companies will find ways to bend these regulations to their advantage through regulatory capture.

If you're worried about these life saving drugs, then get rid of the FDA. Just don't complain when they make your balls fall off.

The FDA has led to a less safe public because we have less life saving drugs because the FDA creates a huge barrier to entry for startups and drugs from firms that are not well connected. Instead, they approve drugs from well connected companies not based on "safety" but on who has the connections.

Assertion. Back it up, please. Corporate money in politics can be solved separately.

And then we have trust busting. Okay. First, as we look at the first two things that TR supposedly did we see a pattern. They involve regulations that incumbent firms use to stomp out smaller competitors. All these regulations actually help monopolies form by creating barriers to entry.

Because making sure that the products you're selling aren't going to kill people is such a barrier to entry.

The fact of the matter is that all of the "trusts" that were "busted" were really just offering consumers better products for better prices and less competitive firms focused on getting the government to reduce their competition.

The monopolies I'm talking about are ones which are in a position to undersell, which would ensure that no other business would be able to match their price. Standard Oil is one example. The monopolies themselves aren't illegal, it becomes illegal once they abuse their position to stifle competition.

Monopolies don't last on a free market. They eventually become inefficient and are unable to remain competitive. It is only when the government makes all these regulations that keep out new startups that we see monopolies arise (real monopolies, not every large company is a monopoly).

So you're asking to reduce the problem of anti-competitive practices by allowing companies to engage in anti-competitive practices?

TR was among the most anti competitive, pro big corporation presidents we have had (Wilson, FDR, and Obama also fit in this category).
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 8:54:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 7:04:37 PM, drhead wrote:

You have no evidence to back this up, I see. I have sources telling me that Roosevelt initially thought Sinclair was a crackpot, and was suspicious of his socialist attitude. I've also found sources telling me that Roosevelt sent in a labor commisioner and a social worker to inspect some meat facilities, and immediately supported meat inspection legislation after receiving their report. They found that the conditions were very similar to what Sinclair described. Coincidence?

Of course, the validity of your assertions (which are as good as mine) depends on mine being false. You're going to have to source these claims.

Well. You offered all 0 of the sources you offered.

You're right. Roosevelt did think Sinclair was a crackpot, but the public didn't. And, politicians love to look like they are "doing something" to solve a problem, real or manufactured.

BTW. Your "sources" are just the wikipedia page, which says verbatim what you said about the motivation. Also, like you, it offers no sources to back up claims about the motivation.

It turns out that there were government inspectors that had inspected the meat packing plants before... and none of the awful things that Sinclair alleged were there. Either there wasn't actually the rampant problems Sinclair alleged or the government was being purposefully neglectful prior to 1906. I put my money on the latter. Another reason for this is that the meat packing plants actually had about 2 million visitors a year. Yet, we didn't see complaints of the supposedly awful conditions. Instead, the sources of these views is a muckraking author who had never visited a meat packing plant.

Also, while we're talking government reports, let us mention the 1906 report from the Department of Agriculture which actually had a point by point refutation of Sinclair calling his claims lies and exaggerations.

And, as for the Neill-Reynold's report, we are talking about two guys who had no experience in the industry and spent about 2 weeks investigating and preparing the report. Even Gabriel Kolko, a socialist historian, called the report a result of two careless men who admit to knowing nothing about what they are writing about.

Here's a source:

http://www.fee.org...

And I don't want to hear "THAT'S A BIASED SOURCE!!". The guy sources all his claims there. If you need confirmation, follow the sources he provides.


.

They didn't seem so supportive of it with the Neill-Reynolds report.

Again, your two minute spent googling and reading the wikipedia page appear to have been in vain. Indeed, the incumbents in the meat packing industry were all for the1906 act because it shielded them from competition.

Also note that Sinclair opposed the act because he saw it as benefiting corporations, which it did.




This is the first part of your post that I've actually found a source to back up. Nothing about the 'corporate statism' part, though.

He didn't use that word, but that was what it was.




If you're worried about these life saving drugs, then get rid of the FDA. Just don't complain when they make your balls fall off.

Well. Can I complain if I'm sick as hell and there is a risky drug that might be able to save my life but i can't use because the FDA hasn't deemed it "safe"?

Thankfully, I'm not in that situation, but many are. And, just imagine all the potential life saving drugs that could be on the market but arent because the FDA creates such high costs to entry. Sure, there are risks. But, to people on their Death bed, I'm sure they are willing to take the risk.

So. Yes, let us rid ourselves of the fascism of the FDA.



Assertion. Back it up, please. Corporate money in politics can be solved separately.

Um. No, it can't. I hear progressives scream all the time about how "corporations have too much power in government". They are right, but they are confusing a symptom of the disease for the disease. The disease is a government that is too big that leads to corporations doing all they can to get more power.

Big government means more power to big corporations. It can't be solved seperatley. The only solution is to shrink the state.

This is just part of the great myth that government helps the little guy.



Because making sure that the products you're selling aren't going to kill people is such a barrier to entry.

Do I have to explain the difference between what an organization says they are doing and what they are actually doing?

The FDA says they are saving lives. In reality, the number of people that have their lives saved because the FDA kept a drug on the market pails in comparison the number of people that are dying because the FDA keeps a drug that could save their life. Unfortunatley, this number cannot be quantified because you cannot count the amount of lives a drug that was never allowed on the market would save.



The monopolies I'm talking about are ones which are in a position to undersell, which would ensure that no other business would be able to match their price. Standard Oil is one example. The monopolies themselves aren't illegal, it becomes illegal once they abuse their position to stifle competition.

Standard Oil was busted for offering prices to consumers that were too low. I couldn't imagine the horror of being a consumer forced to pay really low prices...

And, guess what, competition is inherent when the government steps out. As I said, companies that are not competitive die over time in the absence of a state to keep them alive artificially.



So you're asking to reduce the problem of anti-competitive practices by allowing companies to engage in anti-competitive practices?

The only institution to have ever engaged in anti competitive practices is the same institution that is responsible for all monopolies: the state. By defintion, the state is anti competitive.

No state intervention increases competition (despite rhetoric to the contrary).
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 10:20:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 8:23:53 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
100 years from now, Obama will be one of the good presidents

^ This, peoples opinions of president almost always rise once they are no longer president because when someone isnt president, thats usually when his haters pull their heads out of their a**es
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2013 10:46:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/28/2013 10:20:43 PM, imabench wrote:
At 4/26/2013 8:23:53 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
100 years from now, Obama will be one of the good presidents

^ This, peoples opinions of president almost always rise once they are no longer president because when someone isnt president, thats usually when his haters pull their heads out of their a**es

I don't think so. Barack Obama is an ultra statist. Statism will be just as discredited an ideology 100 years from now as it is now. In fact, it will be worse because we'll have 100 more years to confirm how awful statism really is.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:34:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Due to the character limit, I can only respond to part of this post. I dropped the parts about Sinclair so I can respond better to your statements about the FDA and monopolies.

At 4/28/2013 8:54:36 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Well. Can I complain if I'm sick as hell and there is a risky drug that might be able to save my life but i can't use because the FDA hasn't deemed it "safe"?

Thankfully, I'm not in that situation, but many are. And, just imagine all the potential life saving drugs that could be on the market but arent because the FDA creates such high costs to entry. Sure, there are risks. But, to people on their Death bed, I'm sure they are willing to take the risk.

So. Yes, let us rid ourselves of the fascism of the FDA.

You can enter clinical trials if you really want to, and life-saving drugs tend to be more loosely regulated. A much more effective method of helping with this is weakening patents to allow for more competition so drug cots go down.

Um. No, it can't. I hear progressives scream all the time about how "corporations have too much power in government". They are right, but they are confusing a symptom of the disease for the disease. The disease is a government that is too big that leads to corporations doing all they can to get more power.

Big government means more power to big corporations. It can't be solved seperatley. The only solution is to shrink the state.

This is just part of the great myth that government helps the little guy.

Any system like this would require a strong consumer voice. Corporations have a voice, but consumers do, too. They just have to use it, and things will balance out.

Do I have to explain the difference between what an organization says they are doing and what they are actually doing?

The FDA says they are saving lives. In reality, the number of people that have their lives saved because the FDA kept a drug on the market pails in comparison the number of people that are dying because the FDA keeps a drug that could save their life. Unfortunatley, this number cannot be quantified because you cannot count the amount of lives a drug that was never allowed on the market would save.

You do know what a lot of drugs were like before the FDA, right? A lot of them contained alcohol just because it made people feel good. People also weren't required to include the ingredients on a label. As for those life-saving drugs, if you are deathly ill and need some, you can always sign up for a clinical trial:
http://www.fda.gov...

Of course, there are risks, but you're taking them so others don't have to.

And you are against this because of evidence that you can't really confirm?

Standard Oil was busted for offering prices to consumers that were too low. I couldn't imagine the horror of being a consumer forced to pay really low prices...

You must not understand what underselling is. Underselling is selling a product at a loss to crush competition when you have enough initial funds to sustain your business. After all competition is gone, the business can set the pries however they want. It effectively throws supply and demand out the window.

And, guess what, competition is inherent when the government steps out. As I said, companies that are not competitive die over time in the absence of a state to keep them alive artificially.

Over time, perhaps. But a monopoly can do tons of damage to an economy while they are still alive. I'll cite my favorite example: ISPs.

If you live in an urban area, odds are you have a few choices for your ISP. Quite possibly a nice fiber-optic connection. However, if you're like me and live in a rural area, we get:
A) AT&T DSL which has a forced 150GB data cap (even though there is no logic justifying the existence of one) and is either slow as hell or expensive as hell
B) Satellite Internet, which, even under perfect conditions, is guaranteed to have at least 200ms+ latency by my calculations (time it takes for light to make a round trip to/from a geosynchronous orbit satellite). Also tends to not work when there is rain, or, in some cases, even wind.
C) No Internet, which is hardly a viable option in this age, where many jobs depend on home Internet access
Now, if another company like Charter was in the area, I'd ditch AT&T in a heartbeat. However, that's not the case. The reason why they aren't moving here any time soon is because laying wires down is expensive, and they can't get a reliable return on investment. This isn't due to government intervention. This is due to the fact that the materials and labor to do so are expensive, and nothing else. This means that AT&T has a natural monopoly in my area due to the lack of viable alternatives. They don't have to compete with anyone as long as their service is operational half of the time and their latencies are less than 200ms for non-overseas networks (which is hard not to do with a wired network). Now, I've heard of people saying that mobile broadband and satellite Internet will fix these problems. However, neither will ever match up to a wired network because of my aforementioned reasons for satellite Internet, and mobile broadband is out of the question, too, since not only is the signal just as unreliable (ever been in a dead zone?), but there can be much higher packet loss (a 10Mbps connection in a zone with bad signal strength and 90% packet loss is ~1Mbps) and it is also harder to use the signal inside a large building (bits of metal in the walls would act as a Faraday cage, blocking radio signals in and out). Wired networks don't have these problems.

Now, one solution that could be considered at least a bit more "free-market" would be Google Fiber, which is intended to show people that our Internet speeds can be much faster, and to make current ISPs pick up the pace. But think about it - how long will the current state of ISPs last until Google Fiber has either expanded nationally or forced ISPs to improve their infrastructure? How much damage will be done in the meantime while we are left waiting for a solution, our innovation being crippled due to our private infrastructure being unwilling to change?

The only institution to have ever engaged in anti competitive practices is the same institution that is responsible for all monopolies: the state. By defintion, the state is anti competitive.

No state intervention increases competition (despite rhetoric to the contrary).

You can say that all you want, but it won't be true. I've just shown a great example of a natural monopoly. However, you seem to deny the existence of such monopolies, insisting that the state is the root of all evil, that businesses are incorruptible little angels until a state is introduced. What a sad state of ignorance.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 11:20:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:34:13 AM, drhead wrote:

You can enter clinical trials if you really want to, and life-saving drugs tend to be more loosely regulated. A much more effective method of helping with this is weakening patents to allow for more competition so drug cots go down.

A much more effective method is to get the state monopoly out of it and allow real competition to work.




Any system like this would require a strong consumer voice. Corporations have a voice, but consumers do, too. They just have to use it, and things will balance out.

This is empty rhetoric.

In reality, the system in which the consumer has the most voice is the same system which has the least state intervention. By definition, the state is contrary to the wishes of the consumer.




You do know what a lot of drugs were like before the FDA, right? A lot of them contained alcohol just because it made people feel good. People also weren't required to include the ingredients on a label. As for those life-saving drugs, if you are deathly ill and need some, you can always sign up for a clinical trial:
http://www.fda.gov...

Of course, there are risks, but you're taking them so others don't have to.

And you are against this because of evidence that you can't really confirm?

Speaking of evidence, do you have any for the claims made here?

Anyways, as society gets richer people care more about health because they can afford to. So, they demand that organizations reviee drugs... on a free market.

If we had not had the FDA monopolize drug review, we would have much better drug review with less regulatory capture.



You must not understand what underselling is. Underselling is selling a product at a loss to crush competition when you have enough initial funds to sustain your business. After all competition is gone, the business can set the pries however they want. It effectively throws supply and demand out the window.

Actually, it seems that you don't understand how people work

First, give me an actual example of this underselling phenomonen occuring over a sustained period in the ABSENCE of state controls (key word is over a sustained period). And, I mean actual proof that they were engaging in it, I don't want some statist talking point.

Anyways, in reality, consumers would not keep going back to a company that took advantage of them in that way. You ever heard the phrase that you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time. Ya, that applies here.




Over time, perhaps. But a monopoly can do tons of damage to an economy while they are still alive. I'll cite my favorite example: ISPs.

You are right. Look at how much damage the state monopoly on law, drug review, defense, roads, charity, etc has done. Yes, monopolies are bad.


If you live in an urban area, odds are you have a few choices for your ISP. Quite possibly a nice fiber-optic connection. However, if you're like me and live in a rural area, we get:
A) AT&T DSL which has a forced 150GB data cap (even though there is no logic justifying the existence of one) and is either slow as hell or expensive as hell
B) Satellite Internet, which, even under perfect conditions, is guaranteed to have at least 200ms+ latency by my calculations (time it takes for light to make a round trip to/from a geosynchronous orbit satellite). Also tends to not work when there is rain, or, in some cases, even wind.
C) No Internet, which is hardly a viable option in this age, where many jobs depend on home Internet access
Now, if another company like Charter was in the area, I'd ditch AT&T in a heartbeat. However, that's not the case. The reason why they aren't moving here any time soon is because laying wires down is expensive, and they can't get a reliable return on investment. This isn't due to government intervention. This is due to the fact that the materials and labor to do so are expensive, and nothing else. This means that AT&T has a natural monopoly in my area due to the lack of viable alternatives. They don't have to compete with anyone as long as their service is operational half of the time and their latencies are less than 200ms for non-overseas networks (which is hard not to do with a wired network). Now, I've heard of people saying that mobile broadband and satellite Internet will fix these problems. However, neither will ever match up to a wired network because of my aforementioned reasons for satellite Internet, and mobile broadband is out of the question, too, since not only is the signal just as unreliable (ever been in a dead zone?), but there can be much higher packet loss (a 10Mbps connection in a zone with bad signal strength and 90% packet loss is ~1Mbps) and it is also harder to use the signal inside a large building (bits of metal in the walls would act as a Faraday cage, blocking radio signals in and out). Wired networks don't have these problems.

Now, one solution that could be considered at least a bit more "free-market" would be Google Fiber, which is intended to show people that our Internet speeds can be much faster, and to make current ISPs pick up the pace. But think about it - how long will the current state of ISPs last until Google Fiber has either expanded nationally or forced ISPs to improve their infrastructure? How much damage will be done in the meantime while we are left waiting for a solution, our innovation being crippled due to our private infrastructure being unwilling to change?

Do you seriously not think the state doesn't intervene in this market?

I don't even know how you can seriously argue that.



You can say that all you want, but it won't be true. I've just shown a great example of a natural monopoly. However, you seem to deny the existence of such monopolies, insisting that the state is the root of all evil, that businesses are incorruptible little angels until a state is introduced. What a sad state of ignorance.

The sad part here is that you have to create an absurd strawman to create any coherent argument against me.

First, the state is not the root of all evil. However, in all instances, we would be better off without a state.

And, I have actually made the explicit point that businesses are not angels. They seek profits ruthlessly.

However, without a state, firms make profit by appealing to consumers. With a state, they make profit by garnering favor with politicians.

It is greed both ways, but one way channels greed in a positive way.

Anyways, there is a sad state of ignorance. You have been brainwashed by statist propaganda.. It really is unfortunate.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 2:54:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 11:20:19 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
A much more effective method is to get the state monopoly out of it and allow real competition to work.

And how can you be sure that this competition will not be done by cutting costs by skipping a few steps? With the FDA, there is at least some minimum standard.

This is empty rhetoric.

In reality, the system in which the consumer has the most voice is the same system which has the least state intervention. By definition, the state is contrary to the wishes of the consumer.

Tell me more about this "reality" where assertions are to be taken at face value.

Speaking of evidence, do you have any for the claims made here?

Anyways, as society gets richer people care more about health because they can afford to. So, they demand that organizations reviee drugs... on a free market.

If we had not had the FDA monopolize drug review, we would have much better drug review with less regulatory capture.

And who would be entrusted with this task? Other pharmaceutical companies? Who can we trust? Sure, you can argue that we shouldn't trust the government, but what's the benefit to replacing an untrusted organization with another untrusted organization (or a set of them that might have their own biases)?

Actually, it seems that you don't understand how people work

First, give me an actual example of this underselling phenomonen occuring over a sustained period in the ABSENCE of state controls (key word is over a sustained period). And, I mean actual proof that they were engaging in it, I don't want some statist talking point.

What's preventing them from doing it in the presence or absence of state controls? This is something you haven't said yet. "Sustained" isn't too relevant with this - the objective of underselling isn't to do it for a long time, it is to increase your market share by a ton and then return to normal pricing with less competition to deal with.

Anyways, in reality, consumers would not keep going back to a company that took advantage of them in that way. You ever heard the phrase that you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time. Ya, that applies here.

Clearly it doesn't apply with my example. I hate my ISP. Yet I have no choice but to use their service. This is what a monopoly is. Your customers can know damn well what's going on and be powerless about it.

You are right. Look at how much damage the state monopoly on law, drug review, defense, roads, charity, etc has done. Yes, monopolies are bad.

I'm fairly satisfied with the roads and our defense. I don't agree with every law, but I find it preferable to anarchy. With some things, it makes no sense to not have the state control something, since having competition wouldn't work. Do I want to drive on company A's road, or company B's road? Whose set of laws should I follow? Uh oh, we're at war, which private military corporation do we hire to win? Competition has its place, and it sure as hell isn't those places. In the case of military, our competition is the enemy army. Add in the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and it becomes that much more idiotic to suggest a monopoly on the military is a bad thing.

Do you seriously not think the state doesn't intervene in this market?

I don't even know how you can seriously argue that.

So are you trying to say that state intervention is the MAIN cause (and I stress: MAIN CAUSE) of the lack of competition in this market? Are you suggesting that the inherent high costs of setting up miles upon miles of cables to create a new network, compared to the relative ease of maintaining this infrastructure once deployed? If this is what you are arguing, I want specific evidence that state interference in this sector is either:
A) causing more difficulty for starting an ISP to compete with existing ISPs than the inherent difficulty of deploying a wired network, or
B) causes enough difficulty that removing the interference would cause new ISPs to be able to spring up all over the country (passing a sort of "threshold of viability" for said businesses)
If this is not what you are arguing, then please inform me of what you are arguing about this specific example. If you can't defend whatever argument you're trying to make here, though, it'll be pretty bad for you, since:
- The Internet backbone is privately owned. That's right, its core infrastructure is privately owned. Similar to what you'd want, correct? And there are only a few municipal ISPs spread few and far between (even though they seem to deliver much higher-quality service to the consumer for a lower price than private competitors, unfortunately, they are illegal in my state thanks to the whining of AT&T. Looks like AT&T didn't like that kind of state intervention!). This means that the part that goes to the end user is privately owned, too. Therefore, you'd be starting out by effectively arguing that the system you advocate has failed.
- Regulations on the Internet are fairly relaxed. The ones I can think of off the top of my head:
- Child porn is illegal, this one is fairly obvious
- Network neutrality, which basically means that if an ISP provides Internet service, they must not discriminate against certain types of traffic. Verizon had a little hissy fit over this what seems like a year or two ago, saying this violated their right to free speech. Exercising your right to free speech...by suppressing the speech of others? Not buying it. Here's the FCC's open Internet guide that shows what I mean: http://www.fcc.gov...
- What they ask for is not unreasonable at all. Saying that it harms companies would be outright absurd, unless you think that the ability to arbitrarily censor parts of the Internet for no reason or not telling customers what they are being billed for is an option that companies should have, and one that would benefit the consumer as a result. I'd imagine that you'd have a very hard time arguing this.
- You'd have to argue about how a regulatory agency telling companies not to censor legal content on the Internet is a bad thing.
Please do respond to this point. I would love to hear what arguments you have for this, even just for comedic value if nothing else.

You can say that all you want, but it won't be true. I've just shown a great example of a natural monopoly. However, you seem to deny the existence of such monopolies, insisting that the state is the root of all evil, that businesses are incorruptible little angels until a state is introduced. What a sad state of ignorance.

The sad part here is that you have to create an absurd strawman to create any coherent argument against me.

First, the state is not the root of all evil. However, in all instances, we would be better off without a state.

And, I have actually made the explicit point that businesses are not angels. They seek profits ruthlessly.

However, without a state, firms make profit by appealing to consumers. With a state, they make profit by garnering favor with politicians.

It is greed both ways, but one way channels greed in a positive way.

Anyways, there is a sad state of ignorance. You have been brainwashed by statist propaganda.. It really is unfortunate.

And sometimes, they make profit by being the only option available to consumers. Sometimes, they engineer themselves into this position. Now, if an organization engages in these anti-competitive practices to gain market share, who is going to stop them? Certainly not the lack of a state. A state allows a line to be drawn. The lack of a state leaves nobody to draw a line. Given what you've said about the lack of a state being preferable, I take it you are an anarchist? If not, please inform me.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 6:38:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love how Congress is responsible for most of the legislative feats in this country, yet we blame/praise the presidents.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 6:53:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 6:38:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how Congress is responsible for most of the legislative feats in this country, yet we blame/praise the presidents.

I know, that's why our system has checks and balances. It's not like supreme courts can be bullied into submission by presidents or something.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 6:56:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 6:53:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:38:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how Congress is responsible for most of the legislative feats in this country, yet we blame/praise the presidents.


I know, that's why our system has checks and balances. It's not like supreme courts can be bullied into submission by presidents or something.

Is there an example coming, or is that the extent of your assertion?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:06:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 6:56:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:53:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:38:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how Congress is responsible for most of the legislative feats in this country, yet we blame/praise the presidents.


I know, that's why our system has checks and balances. It's not like supreme courts can be bullied into submission by presidents or something.

Is there an example coming, or is that the extent of your assertion?

well that answers that, now doesn't it...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:08:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 6:56:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:53:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:38:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how Congress is responsible for most of the legislative feats in this country, yet we blame/praise the presidents.


I know, that's why our system has checks and balances. It's not like supreme courts can be bullied into submission by presidents or something.

Is there an example coming, or is that the extent of your assertion?

Your rancor knows no bounds :)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:12:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 7:08:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:56:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:53:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:38:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how Congress is responsible for most of the legislative feats in this country, yet we blame/praise the presidents.


I know, that's why our system has checks and balances. It's not like supreme courts can be bullied into submission by presidents or something.

Is there an example coming, or is that the extent of your assertion?

Your rancor knows no bounds :)

I meet a sarcastic attitude with a dismissive attitude and you ignore the former to castigate the latter: A mind configured toward bias injustice.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:17:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 7:12:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/30/2013 7:08:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:56:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:53:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 6:38:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
I love how Congress is responsible for most of the legislative feats in this country, yet we blame/praise the presidents.


I know, that's why our system has checks and balances. It's not like supreme courts can be bullied into submission by presidents or something.

Is there an example coming, or is that the extent of your assertion?

Your rancor knows no bounds :)

I meet a sarcastic attitude with a dismissive attitude and you ignore the former to castigate the latter: A mind configured toward bias injustice.

I apologize. I read his comment blanking out his mention of 'presidents,' and missed his insinuation. I'm quite sick at the moment :(