What Are You Doing Right Now? (467 Viewers)

[ALC]

Big government is the worst. I mean, as far as governments at concerned. no government can be worse but putting so much power in the hands of a few people who don't have to be held responsible for their actions? Not to mention they get away with fear-mongering. Fuck big government.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

Big government is the worst. I mean, as far as governments at concerned. no government can be worse but putting so much power in the hands of a few people who don't have to be held responsible for their actions? Not to mention they get away with fear-mongering. Fuck big government.

Yet there is far less fear mongering in Belgium than in the USA.

 

[Maddy]

Big government is the worst. I mean, as far as governments at concerned. no government can be worse but putting so much power in the hands of a few people who don't have to be held responsible for their actions? Not to mention they get away with fear-mongering. Fuck big government.

Not held responsible?

Welcome to democracy.

Where do you find the best democracies in the World?

Welcome to the countries of big governments.

 

[Ocelot]

putting so much power in the hands of a few people who don't have to be held responsible for their actions?

That's neoliberalism for you.

Governments are, in democratic societes, held accountable to the public via elections. Goldman Sachs CEOs aren't accountable to anyone but perhaps a few equally rich investors or their board of directors.

Democratic systems don't always work perfectly for sure, but again, I see no viable alternative.

 

[swag]

And yet in my retarded country they think "great CEO" = "great potential politician".

As if government was business. As if you can fire your unproductive or problematic citizens. As if you can sell your underperforming legislative branch to Mexico and outsource the job to a firm in the Philippines.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

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?

good question, and i think it relates directly to personal responsibility/accountability and freedom, i personally tend to believe in maximizing those 2 at the cost of state safety nets. Obviously, people will be people and through empathy can through the government or themselves enact measures to rectify any major skewing imo

 

[Ocelot]

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.

Perhaps, if something like singularity occurs. Should the need for human labor virtually cease to exist, a completely different economic system would have to be set up, probably based on a version of an unconditional basic income. But such a dramatic change of situation would still lie at least a few decades in the future imo, and does not negate the need for a suitable economic system up to that point.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

capitalist systems don't always work perfectly for sure, but again, I see no viable alternative.

fixed

 

[Ocelot]

And yet in my retarded country they think "great CEO" = "great potential politician".

As if government was business.

This. One of the greatest fallacies in recent economic thinking, which also played a hugely important part in how the Euro crisis was handled was the idea that states are virtually companies. Austerity measuers might make sense for companies, but not for nations or economies as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -

fixed

But there's a huge range within capitalism

My ideal model would be a capitalist based economy accompanied by a strong welfare state and a lot of government activity. It's arguably still capitalism, but hugely different from what Hayek would have envisioned.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

This. One of the greatest fallacies in recent economic thinking, which also played a hugely important part in how the Euro crisis was handled was the idea that states are virtually companies. Austerity measuers might make sense for companies, but not for nations or economies as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -



But there's a huge range within capitalism

My ideal model would be a capitalist based economy accompanied by a strong welfare state and a lot of government activity. It's arguably still capitalism, but hugely different from what Hayek would have envisioned.

my point is success of the state is not democracy dependent, but it is definitely capitalism dependent. Theres no other system that captures human psyche so well in an economic sense.

 

[Ocelot]

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?

Not really, you can sustain a functioning legal system and "enforce a certain set of rules" with a relatively small government. However, if you want to provide high quality merit goods (education, infrastructure, pensions, health care) or keep inequality within limits, you'd need high governmental activity.

- - - Updated - - -

my point is success of the state is not democracy dependent, but it is definitely capitalism dependent. Theres no other system that captures human psyche so well in an economic sense.

I don't think our views on this really differ that much, but my point was that there is not one "capitalism", it's a rather broad term that can encompass a lot of different economic systems, yet all work with a somewhat market-based approach.

And I'd argue that human psyche is not as stationary or fixed as sometimes assumed and depends a lot on social context and upbringing. The human psyche in an economic sense of someone living in 21st century USA is probably very different from someone living in ancient egypt or in a traditional polynisian tribe. Not that this matters that much practically, but it should be kept in mind.

 

[Seven]

Perhaps, if something like singularity occurs. Should the need for human labor virtually cease to exist, a completely different economic system would have to be set up, probably based on a version of an unconditional basic income. But such a dramatic change of situation would still lie at least a few decades in the future imo, and does not negate the need for a suitable economic system up to that point.

Hmm. Difficult to say. By the sheer amount of articles pointing out that a lot of jobs will disappear because of automation, I'm going to assume that they will in the near future. If human history has taught us anything it is that when ideas are widespread, they come to fruition. The fact we're starting to assume that robots will take our jobs, means they inevitably will.

Even so that was not my main point. I think that most problems are solved not through politics, but through science. Politics divide the cake. Science creates a bigger cake.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Not really, you can sustain a functioning legal system and "enforce a certain set of rules" with a relatively small government. However, if you want to provide high quality merit goods (education, infrastructure, pensions, health care) or keep inequality within limits, you'd need high governmental activity.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think our views on this really differ that much, but my point was that there is not one "capitalism", it's a rather broad term that can encompass a lot of different economic systems, yet all work with a somewhat market-based approach.

And I'd argue that human psyche is not as stationary or fixed as sometimes assumed and depends a lot on social context and upbringing. The human psyche in an economic sense of someone living in 21st century USA is probably very different from someone living in ancient egypt or in a traditional polynisian tribe. Not that this matters that much practically, but it should be kept in mind.

agreed, but the main themes of greed, selfishness and overall lack of faith in the other will always be the same; some sense of security might tilt it one way temporarily but deep down we are pretty rotten Countries with a strong protestant background and monolithic cultures seem to be more successful with bigger govts because of their strong work ethic, but that too will fade as the religious tradition does too and like you said with the change of the scenery through globalization.

 

[Hængebøffer]

I agree(with the bolded at least).



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



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.

It's not about semantics. Neoliberalism has nothing to do with liberalism.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I agree(with the bolded at least).



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



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.

 

[Fred]

It's not about semantics. Neoliberalism has nothing to do with liberalism.

Yes, and I purposefully meant to use the term neoliberalism.

 

[.zero]

Who can name all the animals on the Chinese calendar?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Who can name all the animals on the Chinese calendar?

they can all be found in a chinese retaurants menu

 

[swag]

Hmm. Difficult to say. By the sheer amount of articles pointing out that a lot of jobs will disappear because of automation, I'm going to assume that they will in the near future. If human history has taught us anything it is that when ideas are widespread, they come to fruition. The fact we're starting to assume that robots will take our jobs, means they inevitably will.

Jobs that are no longer needed, yes.

Even so that was not my main point. I think that most problems are solved not through politics, but through science. Politics divide the cake. Science creates a bigger cake.

You're purely defining politics as a cynical dirty word here. But at its root it's really just about how people get along with each other and find ways to cooperate. It's not just about factions but about finding common ground among a diverse people where nobody has 100% the same common interests and priorities as everyone else. Politics is about finding social leverage where a mass of individual opinions would produce only chaos.

Everybody at some level is a politician. A salesman. Etc. I don't think we learn anything by binding terms to labels and tropes here.

The Roman Empire's success had some to do with science but mostly everything to do with politics.

they can all be found in a chinese retaurants menu

But I'm not sure when I order "yang" if I get goat, sheep, or a cofounder of Yahoo.

 

[JuveJay]

they can all be found in a chinese retaurants menu

Apart from pig and rooster.