What Are You Doing Right Now? (561 Viewers)

[.zero]

Comforting news before bedtime. Now I shall sleep well.

Good night!

Sweet dreams Prince Valiant

- - - Updated - - -

Cruising S Paradise Road in Las Vegas and watching the whores strut on by.

Lookie lookie here comes cookie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ytLOWfyTqs

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

Lookie lookie here comes cookie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ytLOWfyTqs

You gotta love the double meanings of songs back then. A little sugar in my bowl, a little hot dog on my roll...

 

[Ocelot]

You gotta love the double meanings of songs back then. A little sugar in my bowl, a little hot dog on my roll...

Basically the 30es version of snakes & bread.

 

[swag]

Sounds like a traditional Danish breakfast.

Or maybe I'm confusing that with slangebrød...

 

[Wings]

Nope, I want to, though it would be Northern part Bosaso, where most relatives are in.

Even if I'm born in Mogadishu there's no one to visit there.

It's weird, but right now I have more direct relatives in Kenya /Nairobi then I do Mogadishu. Wanna go back to Mombasa, it was super nice.

I miss Mombasa too. Could use some of the Sun & white beaches.

 

[Firestarter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Anod

 

[Maddy]

Sounds like a traditional Danish breakfast.

Or maybe I'm confusing that with slangebrød...

???

??

?

 

[Fred]

There's no truth in economics and obviously there's regional and cultural differences that needs to be taken into account, which is exactly why I find the "big government is inefficient" wrong.

Denmark is the best place in the World to start a business according to Forbes and some of the reasons why is exactly big government such as Flexicurity.

Besides I wouldn't call Obama's policies neo-liberal. Neo-liberal is Angela's work. Obama have been a great lefty, which is why 'Merican economy is doing better than European (EU) in terms of growth.

I agree(with the bolded at least).

Friedmann was the opposite of a neoliberal.

Lets not argue semantics, the term has been used in different ways over time, but you know what I mean.

I'd say that while big government certainly doesn't guarantee broad welfare or efficiency, far from it, I've yet to see a convincing functioning system that works without big government, neither in theory nor in practice.

You may have your criticisms and I'm sure many of them are valid, but the US is an example of functioning system without big government.

 

[Seven]

You may have your criticisms and I'm sure many of them are valid, but the US is an example of functioning system without big government.

No. The US is an example of a functioning system with as little big government as possible.

Somalia is an example of a system without big government.

 

[Ocelot]

You may have your criticisms and I'm sure many of them are valid, but the US is an example of functioning system without big government.

USA has a smaller government than western Europe for sure, but compared internationally the government is rather large (41% of GDP government expenditure, western Europe has around 50-60%, developing countries usually around 15-25%). And I'd argue that fundamental problems of the US economy and society are the results of too little government intervention (inequality, education, especially college tuition and resulting loan problems, health care (partially fixed with Obamacare)).

And "functioning" was perhaps a poor choice of words. The US for example, after dramatically refoming its tax and welfare system in the 60-70es, have experienced ever growing inequality for which no end is in sight, without any resulting tangible improvements concerning economic growth. I didn't mean such a system when I said functioning. I mean it's a lot better than a lot of others, but it is not something I would want to rely on in the long term.

 

[Fred]

No. The US is an example of a functioning system with as little big government as possible.

Somalia is an example of a system without big government.

The keyword is relativity here.

If you had a continuum of countries from the left to the right, with the left being countries with "big government" and the right being countries that are considered more "neo liberal", where would you have the US? are there many countries which are as privatized and have as much deregulation as the US.

Again we're running the risk of making this an argument about semantics. I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, me and you are essentially saying the same thing here.

USA has a smaller government than western Europe for sure, but compared internationally the government is rather large (41% of GDP government expenditure, western Europe has around 50-60%, developing countries usually around 15-25%). And I'd argue that fundamental problems of the US economy and society are the results of too little government intervention (inequality, education, especially college tuition and resulting loan problems, health care (partially fixed with Obamacare)).

And "functioning" was perhaps a poor choice of words. The US for example, after dramatically refoming its tax and welfare system in the 60-70es, have experienced ever growing inequality for which no end is in sight, without any resulting tangible improvements concerning economic growth. I didn't mean such a system when I said functioning. I mean it's a lot better than a lot of others, but it is not something I would want to rely on in the long term.

Milton Friedman would argue the opposite, he'd probably say that the italic part is one of the main causes of their problems

 

[Ocelot]

Milton Friedman would argue the opposite, he'd probably say that the italic part is one of the main causes of their problems

But not very convincingly in my opinion

I've yet to see how more free-market and less government would help solve the problems in the education and health care sector, and while there are theoretical mechanisms in neo-liberal theory that would prevent inequality in terms of wage structures at least, they only work based on assumumptions that are simply not true in real life.

 

[Maddy]

Homo Economicus

 

[Seven]

The keyword is relativity here.

If you had a continuum of countries from the left to the right, with the left being countries with "big government" and the right being countries that are considered more "neo liberal", where would you have the US? are there many countries which are as privatized and have as much deregulation as the US.

Again we're running the risk of making this an argument about semantics. I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, me and you are essentially saying the same thing here.

Yeah, I agree. But the point I really meant to make is that, unfortunately, we do need big government to have a society one would actually want to live in. You want to avoid 1984, but you also want to avoid Somalia.

- - - Updated - - -

But not very convincingly in my opinion

I've yet to see how more free-market and less government would help solve the problems in the education and health care sector, and while there are theoretical mechanisms in neo-liberal theory that would prevent inequality in terms of wage structures at least, they only work based on assumumptions that are simply not true in real life.

More so than ideology I believe science will eventually solve most economic problems simply by making the cost of producing stuff insanely low. Abundance is what will save us, not scarcity.

 

[Maddy]

More so than ideology I believe science will eventually solve most economic problems simply by making the cost of producing stuff insanely low. Abundance is what will save us, not scarcity.

An Earth already scarce of resources will suddenly create abundance while the population keeps on growing?

Scarce as in not able to uphold the middle class luxury globally.

 

[Seven]

An Earth already scarce of resources will suddenly create abundance while the population keeps on growing?

Not the Earth. Us. We all know it's only a matter of time before we make the final switch to solar power. The advances we are making in that field are following each other rapidly. Of course we can't create abundance with the science we have now. But that's the point I'm making: the science will change.

As for an ever growing population: Malthus has never been right so far.

 

[Fred]

Yeah, I agree. But the point I really meant to make is that, unfortunately, we do need big government to have a society one would actually want to live in. You want to avoid 1984, but you also want to avoid Somalia.

- - - Updated - - -



More so than ideology I believe science will eventually solve most economic problems simply by making the cost of producing stuff insanely low. Abundance is what will save us, not scarcity.

You can't bring Somalia into this, I mean does it even qualify as a country, its anarchy over there. Same as Libya right now.

 

[Seven]

You can't bring Somalia into this, I mean does it even qualify as a country, its anarchy over there. Same as Libya right now.

Yes I can. If you don't have big government, you don't have a state. That's exactly why I brought in Somalia .

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Yes I can. If you don't have big government, you don't have a state. That's exactly why I brought in Somalia .

not true at all, many places with small government insure rule of law and property rights

 

[Seven]

not true at all, many places with small government insure rule of law and property rights

I suppose I meant you need a strong state to enforce a certain set of rules. Big government is kind of a difficult term as the term itself is pejorative and describes an excessively large government. The question obviously immediately becomes: what is excessive?