Federal Government Confirms Nearing Apocalypse -- it's very hard to dismiss this. - Page 34 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15048768
Julian658 wrote:

The changes are way too recent---time will tell. However, the real question is why Sweden,one of the greatests welfare states in the world had to go private.


Just looked it up, education attainment down significantly

Transport has been criticised for the privatised rail company running a monopoly and stifling competition

Not sure they've privatised welfare. Just a small part of their pension provision.

All introduced by a right wing coalition that lost power in 2014.

The reason for privatising services is nearly always the same, short term gain for long term pain.
#15048776
Julian658 wrote:
Dayne Walling (born March 3, 1974) is an American politician who was the mayor of Flint, Michigan from 2009 to 2015. Walling is a member of the Democratic Party. The mayor was a Democrat and I don't think he was racist.



"In Flint’s case, Snyder appointed two successive emergency managers, Ed Kurtz and Darnell Earley. Under emergency management, the city ended its agreement to obtain water from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and instead joined a new pipeline project..."

A Republican governor appointed "emergency" managers, and they made the decision to make that change.

So the manager title was accurate, they created the emergency.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... er-crisis/
#15048795
BeesKnee5 wrote:Just looked it up, education attainment down significantly

Transport has been criticised for the privatised rail company running a monopoly and stifling competition

Not sure they've privatised welfare. Just a small part of their pension provision.

All introduced by a right wing coalition that lost power in 2014.

The reason for privatising services is nearly always the same, short term gain for long term pain.


Education quality is usually related to the caliber of the parents of the students.
You make good arguments. IN any event, it is obvious the pendulum was swinging back to the center. At some point the welfare state needs cash to run the government--------and only capitalism can create wealth.
#15048814
Julian658 wrote:At some point the welfare state needs cash to run the government--------and only capitalism can create wealth.


I'm not sure the logic holds that the source of wealth has to come from the service provided.
By all means encourage capitalism on luxuries or optional and value added items.
I see no capitalist benefit to the people it's meant to enrich by monetising basic health, education, housing and utility needs.
Social housing is a real bugbear of mine. Basic housing with rents covering the cost of upkeep helped to get mine and many other families out of poverty and capable of having stable education and employment, leading to being able to buy a house and afford more than just the basics. Capitalising and selling it off led to private landlords buying it up and renting it out at far higher prices and short term leases. This is now being paid for by the state in the rocketing cost of housing benefit.

The Swedish education system is similar, each student attracts a level of funding, a well run state system looks to provide the same standard of education, whilst a privatised one with no basic standard to build on looks to see how little it can spend to achieve a minimum standard so the rest can be pocketed as profit. This encourages the use of cheaper, less experienced staff and removes any value added aspect that was present (If there is no profit in it then no longer provide it).

This is the inherent problem with capitalism at the most basic level, the state either has to spend a fortune regulating it to ensure you don't end up with Victorian slum landlords or it provides a basic service which forces capitalist to beat if they want to be profitable.
#15048862
BeesKnee5 wrote:I'm not sure the logic holds that the source of wealth has to come from the service provided.


As usual you make good points. The provided services cost a lot of money. Ideally the services should make enough revenue to pay for themselves and therefore the services can be provided in perpetuity. As a general rule the private sector is more efficient than the government when providing goods or services for the population. I don't think this is disputed by anyone.

By all means encourage capitalism on luxuries or optional and value added items.
I see no capitalist benefit to the people it's meant to enrich by monetising basic health, education, housing and utility needs.


Another great point. Since Medicare’s inception in 1966, private health care insurers have processed medical claims for Medicare beneficiaries. I have to assume the government sees some value in contracting out services. This does not mean that the services are totally private. I am no scholar on why Sweden decided to privatize the delivery of some benefits. I have to assume they were looking for efficiency.

Social housing is a real bugbear of mine. Basic housing with rents covering the cost of upkeep helped to get mine and many other families out of poverty and capable of having stable education and employment, leading to being able to buy a house and afford more than just the basics. Capitalising and selling it off led to private landlords buying it up and renting it out at far higher prices and short term leases. This is now being paid for by the state in the rocketing cost of housing benefit.


I agree! However, there is paradox in America. Homelessness is increasing in places like Seattle, LA, San Francisco, etc. Sadly, many of the homeless are addicted to drugs or have mental illness. Many are not necessarily minorities that were always poor. Many come from a middle class background and are white. Providing free housing will not change drug addiction and mental illness. However, providing housing for the fraction of homeless that are not addicted or mentally ill should be a PRIORITY. I would go ALL OUT for this! Otherwise, I really have no solutions for the homeless that are mentally ill or the ones that are addicted to drugs. This is clearly a dystopia and I suspect it will get worse. Providing help will not solve the issue of nihilism and despair. Today's society promotes nihilism and I have no solutions. It is no accident that so many depressed young men decide to commit suicide by cop while shooting others. The despair, anger, and depression must be monumental.

The Swedish education system is similar, each student attracts a level of funding, a well run state system looks to provide the same standard of education, whilst a privatised one with no basic standard to build on looks to see how little it can spend to achieve a minimum standard so the rest can be pocketed as profit. This encourages the use of cheaper, less experienced staff and removes any value added aspect that was present (If there is no profit in it then no longer provide it).


Here I disagree-- providing the same standard of education to ALL is a major mistake. Germany and Japan have much better education and they segregare students early on according to talent. Those that are college material are identified and those that are best suited for blue collar professions are also identified. In America we have this idea that ALL should go to college and we are sending people to college that would fare much better as plumbers or electricians. When politicians say FREE COLLEGE for all it sounds like pandering to the ignorant masses. The only candidate that gets this is Amy Klobuchar.

The USA public education system is failing and it is handicapped by regulations and unions. One of my daughters attended a small private Catholic school and the calculus teacher was a retired mathematician and engineer. This teacher was massively enthusiastic, highly intelligent, and dedicated. Sadly, he could never be hired in a public school system because the bureaucracy demands courses in pedagogy and other mindless certifications. This is very sad because good science and math teachers are rare in the public schools. Anyone that is good in those subjects heads to a STEM job. Her physics professor was also a retired gentleman that was 200% dedicated. These retired people are dying to find something useful to do and sadly the public school system has no use for them.

This is the inherent problem with capitalism at the most basic level, the state either has to spend a fortune regulating it to ensure you don't end up with Victorian slum landlords or it provides a basic service which forces capitalist to beat if they want to be profitable.


Capitalism is highly imperfect, but somehow people always compare capitalism to an ideal utopia. The essence of capitalism is freedom to exchange services or goods and a form of government that protects private property and contracts. A capitalist is always looking out for him or herself and in the process of doing this he has no choice but to provide a better mousetrap at the lowest cost to stay competitive. That is it! Anything else is crony capitalism.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith

Is the system perfect? No!!!! Capitalism does not change the natural hierarchy of competence among humans because there is no equality.
#15048880
Pants-of-dog wrote:Capitalism is failing to solve climate change.


Capitalism has not tried yet to solve the climate issue. If anything capitalism is just doing the same OLD.
It is obvious you are using climate change to bring socialism through the backdoor. But, I am beating a dead horse, you already admitted to that.

Increased carbon emissions have easy solutions:
100% nuclear power
100% electric cars
Only use airplanes to travel above water
This will not fix the natural variations in global temperature due to other causes. However, I do not have issues with the above solutions.
#15048883
Julian658 wrote:Capitalism has not tried yet to solve the climate issue. If anything capitalism is just doing the same OLD.


Exactly, capitalism is failing to solve climate change, and this is partly because capitalists are not trying to do so. Instead, they would prefer to make money the same old way even if it exacerbates (that means it make things worse) climate change.

Increased carbon emissions have easy solutions:
100% nuclear power
100% electric cars
Only use airplanes to travel above water
This will not fix the natural variations in global temperature due to other causes. However, I do not have issues with the above solutions.


Yes, you do have issues with some of these solutions. For example, you have issues with giving nuclear tech to developing countries like Iran.

Also, how would intercontinental shipping work if you only use planes?
#15048886
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Yes, you do have issues with some of these solutions. For example, you have issues with giving nuclear tech to developing countries like Iran.



Your views on Iran are very telling. Iranians come from a very old civilization and are perfectly capable of developing their own technology. This is always a problem with the left. They unknowingly practice condescending racism of low expectations with anyone that is not of European origin. They think these people are incapable and hence they need an elitist left wing liberal to hold their hands. That is an abomination POD.

Also, how would intercontinental shipping work if you only use planes?


Maybe you misunderstood me. I say use high speed electrical trains for all travel by land and only use airplanes to go over vast areas of water.
#15048891
Julian658 wrote:Your views on Iran are very telling. Iranians come from a very old civilization and are perfectly capable of developing their own technology.


Here you are agreeing with me (that you do not want Iranians to have nuclear power) and then explaining the rationalisations you use to support this contradiction of yours.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I say use high speed electrical trains for all travel by land and only use airplanes to go over vast areas of water.


I see.

You are only discussing travel by people.

I assumed you were also discussing transportation of goods; i.e. shipping.

Now, how would the free market impose a ban on all car travel on the continent?
#15048895
Pants-of-dog wrote:Here you are agreeing with me (that you do not want Iranians to have nuclear power) and then explaining the rationalisations you use to support this contradiction of yours.


Now, how would the free market impose a ban on all car travel on the continent?


I am not an authoritarian socialist POD. I would simply allow manufacturers to sell electric cars that are vastly superior to gasoline cars. Within a short time the free market would take care of this. Do you still watch videos using video tapes? Of course not! Capitalists build a better mousetrap with streaming.

Your authoritarian inclination is so obvious.
#15048896
Julian658 wrote:I would simply allow manufacturers to sell electric cars that are vastly superior to gasoline cars. Within a short time the free market would take care of this.


They are already allowed to do so. Yet it is not happening.

Also, this contradicts your idea to only use trains for land travel.
#15048942
Pants-of-dog wrote:They are already allowed to do so. Yet it is not happening.

It will happen when it happens. Stop your authoritarian fetish.

Also, this contradicts your idea to only use trains for land travel.


America was a rich nation in the 50s and unlike Europe they decided to go with a highway system and big gas guzzler cars for the people. europeans were poor and gas was expensive so they built trains. Nevertheless, the trains are coming back to America. And this nation will lead the world with the technology to produce energy with low carbon emission. Socialists will not play a role and as usual they will complain about capitalism. What else is new POD?
#15049002
Julian658 wrote:It will happen when it happens.


So we agree that even though car makers are allowed to make awesome electric cars, the free market has not made them popular enough to solve the pollution problem.

America was a rich nation in the 50s and unlike Europe they decided to go with a highway system and big gas guzzler cars for the people. europeans were poor and gas was expensive so they built trains. Nevertheless, the trains are coming back to America. And this nation will lead the world with the technology to produce energy with low carbon emission.


You have not explained how the free market will ban car travel on the continent.
#15049012
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that even though car makers are allowed to make awesome electric cars, the free market has not made them popular enough to solve the pollution problem.

Where is there a population problem?

Pants-of-dog wrote:You have not explained how the free market will ban car travel on the continent.

I don't want to ban car travel. That is a bad idea.
#15049063
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that even though car makers are allowed to make awesome electric cars, the free market has not made them popular enough to solve the pollution problem.

Everyday that goes by I see more and more electric cars. Within 20 years most cars will be electric because they SAVE money and are low maintenance. I have one and not having to spend $200.00 of gas every month is a blessing. I also got all kinds of tax benefits for buying the electric car. This car basically pays for itself and does not put out CO2. The market will make the best decision in the end.

You have not explained how the free market will ban car travel on the continent.


Your proclivity for authoritarian socialist views is massive. You are far worse than AOC! Are you able to see your views are oppressive. This is like enslaving people. Do you admit that socialism requires an authoritarian government?
#15049091
Julian658 wrote:Everyday that goes by I see more and more electric cars. Within 20 years most cars will be electric because they SAVE money and are low maintenance. I have one and not having to spend $200.00 of gas every month is a blessing. I also got all kinds of tax benefits for buying the electric car. This car basically pays for itself and does not put out CO2. The market will make the best decision in the end.


Capitalism isn't promoting electric vehicles, they are being pulled kicking and screaming into it. Some to the point where they have chosen to pay $3bn to rivals to cover carbon tax rules (Fiat Daimler Chrysler)

The reason is clear in your own comments. An electric vehicle is worth far less to the automobile industry, less need for service stations due to home charging, less maintenance and servicing, less parts that need regular replacing and motors that are good for up to 1m miles with the occasional battery swap.

The disruption of Tesla, tax credits for EVs and carbon caps cannot be underestimated, nor can the state demand for EV in China. It's not capitalism that is driving this, it is societies demands that are moving us away from urban pollution and fossil fuels.

They are not leading the change, they are resisting it, big companies know that each electric vehicle they sell cannibalises their lucrative fossil fuel business.

Another example is fracking, it has never, ever made any money. Oil industry capitalists have pushed the extraction of it to keep the industry rolling and resist the push of renewables in upsetting their cosy business. It's all built on borrowing.
#15049098
Julian658 wrote:Everyday that goes by I see more and more electric cars. Within 20 years most cars will be electric because they SAVE money and are low maintenance. I have one and not having to spend $200.00 of gas every month is a blessing. I also got all kinds of tax benefits for buying the electric car. This car basically pays for itself and does not put out CO2. The market will make the best decision in the end.


The tax benefits that you mention are not free market policies.

Instead, it is government manipulation of the market.

You have just disproved your argument.

...some strawman about authoritarian socialist views ....


You are the one who said they would ban car travel over land. I am now going to assume you never meant to say that.

Also, you know nothing about socialism or my politics.
#15049197
Pants-of-dog wrote:The tax benefits that you mention are not free market policies.

Instead, it is government manipulation of the market.

You have just disproved your argument.


POD, if the government offers me a chance to pay less taxes I will take advantage of that. Are you nuts?
This is the government enticing people to buy electric cars to lower carbon emissions. Are you OK with that?

You are the one who said they would ban car travel over land. I am now going to assume you never meant to say that.


Maybe I did not state that in a clear manner POD. I will never be for government coercion.

Also, you know nothing about socialism or my politics.


You have admitted you are a socialist POD.
As for socialism: You guys have hundreds of definitions to confuse the ignorant people. IN any event socialism requires massive coercion as it will severely penalized those citizens that want to be capitalists.

If you know how to have socialism without coercion I would love to here your version.
#15049280
Julian658 wrote:POD, if the government offers me a chance to pay less taxes I will take advantage of that. Are you nuts?
This is the government enticing people to buy electric cars to lower carbon emissions. Are you OK with that?


Sure, but that is not a free market solution. It is a government solution enforced through taxes.

Maybe I did not state that in a clear manner POD. I will never be for government coercion.


In that case, you still have the problem of pollution through car and ither forms of transporting people and goods.

....

If you know how to have socialism without coercion I would love to here your version.


Of course I do, because I know history.

Feel free to start another thread about it.
  • 1
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 38
The Irishman...

True story. I won an acting award i high school. […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/ScouseGirlMedia/status/1204043[…]

How to become an EU citizen

Don't worry, I know you're incapable of admitting[…]

:roll: I know. That's interesting, did you […]