• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Lasting Legacy of the Last Decade: A Shrinking Middle Class

WFFaithful said:
Why do politicians wind up acting in this manner?
Click to expand...

Because they cannot predict the future. They make laws they think will help a problem, but they cannot possibly know what people will do in response and they cannot possibly know what strange twists and turns the world will make in the meantime. The law, meanwhile, is etched in stone and very, very hard to undue when specialized interests abuse it.

Contrast this with the private economy where people constantly adjust their behavior in near instantaneous reaction to changes in the environment and the responses they get to their behaviour from others in order to maximize the utility of their actions. Freedom is now and always has been the best way forward for human society.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Because they cannot predict the future. They make laws they think will help a problem, but they cannot possibly know what people will do in response and they cannot possibly know what strange twists and turns the world will make in the meantime. The law, meanwhile, is etched in stone and very, very hard to undue when specialized interests abuse it.

Contrast this with the private economy where people constantly adjust their behavior in near instantaneous reaction to changes in the environment and the responses they get to their behaviour from others in order to maximize the utility of their actions. Freedom is now and always has been the best way forward for human society.
Click to expand...

This has to be a joke. You have outdone yourself.
 
our employees already get far less benefits than employees in any of our major industrial competitors (other than China). If we can't compete at this level of benefits, it's 100% management's fault.
 
ONW said:
This has to be a joke. You have outdone yourself.
Click to expand...

Perhaps as an eminent moral philosopher, you could point out the folly in what I said. If not, stop flapping your lips with your subjective value judgements.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Because they cannot predict the future. They make laws they think will help a problem, but they cannot possibly know what people will do in response and they cannot possibly know what strange twists and turns the world will make in the meantime. The law, meanwhile, is etched in stone and very, very hard to undue when specialized interests abuse it.

Contrast this with the private economy where people constantly adjust their behavior in near instantaneous reaction to changes in the environment and the responses they get to their behaviour from others in order to maximize the utility of their actions. Freedom is now and always has been the best way forward for human society.
Click to expand...

I have neither the time nor interest in doing so. Your first statement is spot on...people can't predict the future...who knew...
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Because they cannot predict the future. They make laws they think will help a problem, but they cannot possibly know what people will do in response and they cannot possibly know what strange twists and turns the world will make in the meantime. The law, meanwhile, is etched in stone and very, very hard to undue when specialized interests abuse it.

Contrast this with the private economy where people constantly adjust their behavior in near instantaneous reaction to changes in the environment and the responses they get to their behaviour from others in order to maximize the utility of their actions. Freedom is now and always has been the best way forward for human society.
Click to expand...

Then you have no problem with any legislation introduce because "they" can't know what people will do in response? Yet the world evolves/changes into something a bunch of white guys predicted 200 years ago...
 
ONW said:
I have neither the time nor interest in doing so. Your first statement is spot on...people can't predict the future...who knew...
Click to expand...

You only have the time and interest to make condescending value judgements about the opinions that differ from yours. You should spend some time examining why you take statist positions on many issues.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Because they cannot predict the future. They make laws they think will help a problem, but they cannot possibly know what people will do in response and they cannot possibly know what strange twists and turns the world will make in the meantime. The law, meanwhile, is etched in stone and very, very hard to undue when specialized interests abuse it.

Contrast this with the private economy where people constantly adjust their behavior in near instantaneous reaction to changes in the environment and the responses they get to their behaviour from others in order to maximize the utility of their actions. Freedom is now and always has been the best way forward for human society.
Click to expand...

So, you would prefer that checks and balances go out the window...that's constitutional...
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Perhaps as an eminent moral philosopher, you could point out the folly in what I said. If not, stop flapping your lips with your subjective value judgements.
Click to expand...

I'm the condescending one...
 
I have to run now in order to be ready for the big game. But let me ask this, ONW. Do you think politicians many years ago would have made health insurance costs deductible for employers but not for individuals if they had known that in a few years health insurance would be tied to employment so that when a citizen changed jobs they would be forced to look for new health insurance, now with pre-existing conditions? Maybe they knew that in 60 or 70 years the populace would clamor for a government solution to the health insurance "crisis". It's always good for a politician if he/she can control another segment of the economy. But it is worse for society.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
I have to run now in order to be ready for the big game. But let me ask this, ONW. Do you think politicians many years ago would have made health insurance costs deductible for employers but not for individuals if they had known that in a few years health insurance would be tied to employment so that when a citizen changed jobs they would be forced to look for new health insurance, now with pre-existing conditions? Maybe they knew that in 60 or 70 years the populace would clamor for a government solution to the health insurance "crisis". It's always good for a politician if he/she can control another segment of the economy. But it is worse for society.
Click to expand...

Nope, had they known that back then we would have had a national insurance system like every other industrialized nation. Costs would be lower and completely predictable.

The #1 reason for personal bankruptcy from the 60s to mid-00s (and happening again) would have never existed. Millions of American families would never have lost their life savings and/or homes because they got sick.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
I have to run now in order to be ready for the big game. But let me ask this, ONW. Do you think politicians many years ago would have made health insurance costs deductible for employers but not for individuals if they had known that in a few years health insurance would be tied to employment so that when a citizen changed jobs they would be forced to look for new health insurance, now with pre-existing conditions? Maybe they knew that in 60 or 70 years the populace would clamor for a government solution to the health insurance "crisis". It's always good for a politician if he/she can control another segment of the economy. But it is worse for society.
Click to expand...


Totally agree. Enjoy the game.
 
RJKarl said:
Nope, had they known that back then we would have had a national insurance system like every other industrialized nation. Costs would be lower and completely predictable.

The #1 reason for personal bankruptcy from the 60s to mid-00s (and happening again) would have never existed. Millions of American families would never have lost their life savings and/or homes because they got sick.
Click to expand...

Back then health insurance was so cheap that no one would have listened to such a hairbrained scheme. Only in your dream world.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Back then health insurance was so cheap that no one would have listened to such a hairbrained scheme. Only in your dream world.
Click to expand...

So "hairbrained" that EVERY other western industrialized nation DID do EXACTLY what I said?

Every time I don't think you can come up with a dumber statement than your last one you prove me wrong.
 
Otto von Bismark got the ball rolling on universal health insurance in the 1880's.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Otto von Bismark got the ball rolling on universal health insurance in the 1880's.
Click to expand...

Wasn't he also the one that arbitrarily set the retirement age at 65? Something about some general that he wanted to force out...
 
bobknightfan said:
Reagan started the US on the road to bankruptcy, too, while he was at it.....but if we don't have to deal with these threats now, why are Republicans constantly waving the flag and calling for ever-increasing defense spending? Where is the "peace dividend" that Reagan promised would be at the end of his "defense spending rainbow"?

That is an excellent question. Perhaps you could address it to President Obama as well.

The answer, of course, is that the Republicans will always come up with some new "boogeyman" to justify pouring endless amounts of money into the DOD.
Click to expand...

And the Dems won't, but it'll be taken out of hide, not accompanied by decreased tempo.
 
Bismark set the retirement age at 70. It was lowered to 65 around World War I. I haven't heard that story about retiring a general but I would guess that's just an urban legend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top