RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:- Veterans (the overwhelming majority of homeless ...)

Where did you get that stat from? I totally disagree.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104184,00.html

Quote:U.S. veterans face a greater chance of becoming homeless than the general population, say experts. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (search), a study released in 1999 found that while veterans count for 9 percent of the entire population, they are nearly 23 percent of the homeless population and 33 percent of the adult male homeless population.

Not pretty statistics, but also nowhere near the majority, not to mention vast majority.

Machiavelli Wrote:On a related note. No one here has stated why we are the best country in the world. I've read excuses on why we are not. I contend the illegal immigrant problem is a direct result of our need to exploit cheap labor. When people say illegals do work American's won't do. They are right, but they omit one key component. They do the work American's won't do at that wage. I could fix the illegal immigrant problem tommorrow. Anyone who is found employing an illegal will be fined 150,000 dollars. Prosecute it and our problem would be fixed by Christmas.

But we don't want that do we. We want to talk out both sides of our mouths. We want the cheap benefits of illegal immigration, but we don't want the problems that cheap labor brings. (Undereducated, Underinsured, Overdiseased, etc. etc.)

So back to the beginning, under what metric, is America "The Greatest Country in the World".

i never said i had a problem with it. I'm just saying that's the biggest factor in our low ranking. I'm not complaining.

blah Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

blah Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

blah Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

blah Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:An education system that does not reward being exceptional, but rather tells everyone that they are good and teaches to the dumbest student instead of forcing those students to improve or fail.

You really hit that one on the head. I spend 90% of my time teaching basic fundamentals to underachievers. It's all about the OGT test because we are judged on those scores. It's a flawed system. Here's a link to the released OGT's. I think you will be surprised. We should have all the politicians that support the graduation test take it and post their scores in public. I gaurandamntee you they wouldn't pass the math or science portion the first time.

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/...tent=46111

I don't disagree with you. Every state has its standardized test that grades how that school is "doing" vs. other schools. I don't understand why the burden of proof is on the school. Let the weak students either sink or swim. Quit holding back the rest of the class.

If the state feels the need to give a test, they should test things that actually matter in the real world. Basic math skills, reading comprehension, writing composition. Memorizing facts and formulas for a test does not help you in the real world. Those things can be looked up in minutes if needed.

If citizens could educate their children in the manner "they" feel is effective and the State would get out of education...we would be fine. Teachers know how to relay knowledge. Leave it to them. Stop stiffling them with silly ass mandates that are a 1 size fits all solution(Government solutions).

I don't buy this approach. Most of the people who I have met that have been "home schooled" end up being social outcasts that can't communicate with other peers. The education they receive from a pure educational stance is usually much better, but how do you simulate real world interactions? You can't get that at home with mom and dad, as much as those that homeschool would like you to believe.

Im not an advocate of home school or any particlular type of school...I advocate free market solutions to education..be it homeschool,private,vocational..or whatever. My problem is with the government being involved.

I see where you are going, but you are making the inference that every parent will have the best interests of their kids in mind. If the government does not provide education, then obviously all schools will be either private (pay) or homeschools. Do you really believe that this will serve the best interests of kids in general and overall for a country in preparing kids for the future?

Let's take a poor family, who happens to have two hard-working parents who did not go to college (best case scenario). Do the parents homeschool their children (with their limited knowledge) or send them to pay schools (at the expense of maybe paying for rent or food)?

This is another example of where a market economy breaks down.

The free market would find a way to educate everyone that wanted and education. Scholarships, internships and of course private charity,religion based and volunteerism. With the competition,choice and inovation of the free market the possibilites are endless. Also in a totally free market society...without government theft of wages...there will be less poor and those that still lag behind would have more income to dispense.

In a free market these will all be under provided....

The equilibrium point is at too low a level based on people making rational decisions.

P.S. If you are planning on throwing out rational decisions, economics as a whole won't work...

I would contend that under the current statist paradigm that educational resources are under provided now...based on class sizes and narrowed options of study...all caused by government control.

Im not sure that I really care about those that would make that type of irrational decison. I think the threat of ostracism from peers would play a huge part of decision making in that situation. I oppose the use of force in making anyone do anything...but I would encourage people to be a vital part of society and seek to show them through example..of its benefits...beyond that...Self government would be an axiom in a totally free market society.
Without a welfare state...I would not take long to understand the importance of at least basic education.

Quote:Those that refused to abide by the regulations that they agree to by contract would be ostracised. Those that refused to agree to regulation would find it near impossible to live a productive life. They would have to live in a grey market situation that would be a very hard and grim life.
Your example of the fishery situation could be handled in the free market through voluntary regulation. Those that chose to work outside the agreed to regulation would then have to figure out how to get workers,suppliers,customers,gas,ect.ect.ect...

If anything it would make it a hell of alot easier on them. Let's say the regulation was 20,000 pounds of perch for 30 licenses. One yahoo catches 100,000 pounds when he goes out. He takes in 5 times the amount of fish but his costs are 1/5th. He could pay his people more. Undercut the competition. Even if the going rate was 6 dollars a pound. He could unload to area restaurants at 5 bucks a pound. Pretty soon the system collapses because Harry and George are sick of being undercut. They get an under the table deal with Red Lobster at 4 bucks a pound but now they need to bring in 120,000 pounds to make up the difference. It's common greed pal. This is why you need a government. I want a better one than we have now.

Back to the original statement. I know some ways in which we are superior. I have my responses ready. I want to take you guys down a path with this. It's going to get to Barack and Pastorgate if someone would just go along with me. Come on! I need someone to answer my first question.

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:Those that refused to abide by the regulations that they agree to by contract would be ostracised. Those that refused to agree to regulation would find it near impossible to live a productive life. They would have to live in a grey market situation that would be a very hard and grim life.
Your example of the fishery situation could be handled in the free market through voluntary regulation. Those that chose to work outside the agreed to regulation would then have to figure out how to get workers,suppliers,customers,gas,ect.ect.ect...

If anything it would make it a hell of alot easier on them. Let's say the regulation was 20,000 pounds of perch for 30 licenses. One yahoo catches 100,000 pounds when he goes out. He takes in 5 times the amount of fish but his costs are 1/5th. He could pay his people more. Undercut the competition. Even if the going rate was 6 dollars a pound. He could unload to area restaurants at 5 bucks a pound. Pretty soon the system collapses because Harry and George are sick of being undercut. They get an under the table deal with Red Lobster at 4 bucks a pound but now they need to bring in 120,000 pounds to make up the difference. It's common greed pal. This is why you need a government. I want a better one than we have now.

Back to the original statement. I know some ways in which we are superior. I have my responses ready. I want to take you guys down a path with this. It's going to get to Barack and Pastorgate if someone would just go along with me. Come on! I need someone to answer my first question.

You are still stuck in a statist paradigm....I understand...I was govt. schooled....Remember...In a total free market(which has NEVER existed)..Every transaction..both economic and personal would be made on virtue and volunteerism...thus...those that chose to be of questionable virtue would be denied markets for their goods and services from those that chose to live virtuous...Keep in mind that once you choose to live outside the free market...that your neg. reputation would go on record for ALL to see...You would be denied food,shelter,clothing,ect.ect.ect....from the rest of society...Hardly worth the risk of unsavory business dealings.

Well the unvirtous would be eating all you can eat perch at 7.50 a plate. The virtous 2 planks at 11.50.

Machiavelli Wrote:Well the unvirtous would be eating all you can eat perch at 7.50 a plate. The virtous 2 planks at 11.50.

Nah...Everyone will have all you can eat @ $6.00 since your dollar will be worth more traded in a hard asset backed currency that wont inflate. The unvirtous would be denied service.

It's an interesting question. The actual rankings on the chart would change based on the relative weighting of the factors. I don't see what is magical about the formula they chose. But I have wondered how policies and circumstances result in certain measurements. European countries seem to have a better social safety net - more government benefits. More vacation time too in their jobs. Things like the safety net can lead to lower crime I think. Since that costs money, maybe it leads to consistently higher unemployment on average, like in Germany, France, and Belgium. But it is part of the standard of living IMO.

As mentioned already, I think the heterogeneity of our country, with blacks struggling for equality and fighting the inertia of cycles of poor environments to grow up in, and illiterate (at least in English) Mexicans pouring across the border would drive our numbers down significantly.

What are we better at? We speak English, which the Brits had already made well-known around the globe. We have enough universities to educate those looking to further themselves, and a market that, in comparison to most, maybe all, uses our resources (labor and otherwise) efficiently. Compare to India, which has too many people to educate, leading to extreme competition for the ability to go to college and leading them to come to the US instead. And we have a lot of resources, including a lot of land. Our markets are open enough that companies have been forced to be more competitive. Countries like ours and developing countries like India, will drag European countries kicking and screaming into a more dog-eat-dog world, for better or worse.

Well, that's enough speculation for now. I would be interested to see what similarities there are among countries that get high ratings for certain things. Like why are the Nordic countries so high on the list?

Cheers.

NIU007 Wrote:It's an interesting question. The actual rankings on the chart would change based on the relative weighting of the factors. I don't see what is magical about the formula they chose. But I have wondered how policies and circumstances result in certain measurements. European countries seem to have a better social safety net - more government benefits. More vacation time too in their jobs. Things like the safety net can lead to lower crime I think. Since that costs money, maybe it leads to consistently higher unemployment on average, like in Germany, France, and Belgium. But it is part of the standard of living IMO.

As mentioned already, I think the heterogeneity of our country, with blacks struggling for equality and fighting the inertia of cycles of poor environments to grow up in, and illiterate (at least in English) Mexicans pouring across the border would drive our numbers down significantly.

What are we better at? We speak English, which the Brits had already made well-known around the globe. We have enough universities to educate those looking to further themselves, and a market that, in comparison to most, maybe all, uses our resources (labor and otherwise) efficiently. Compare to India, which has too many people to educate, leading to extreme competition for the ability to go to college and leading them to come to the US instead. And we have a lot of resources, including a lot of land. Our markets are open enough that companies have been forced to be more competitive. Countries like ours and developing countries like India, will drag European countries kicking and screaming into a more dog-eat-dog world, for better or worse.

Well, that's enough speculation for now. I would be interested to see what similarities there are among countries that get high ratings for certain things. Like

Quote:why are the Nordic countries so high on the list?

I think its the lack of mixing cultures in their countries that is the main factor.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:This is no suprise to me...All these problems are solved by allowing the free market to solve problems though market signals...not governmental interference. Every time the State attempts to solve one of these problems...it fails... and usually makes the problem worse.

The Free Market has its own examples of failure. It's no savior.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:This is no suprise to me...All these problems are solved by allowing the free market to solve problems though market signals...not governmental interference. Every time the State attempts to solve one of these problems...it fails... and usually makes the problem worse.

The Free Market has its own examples of failure. It's no savior.

Yes, when the free market fails to regulate itself sufficiently, that's when the government steps in. Which is partly why the government has grown so much - greed can't always be reined in. Getting a little off-topic here I guess.

NIU007 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:This is no suprise to me...All these problems are solved by allowing the free market to solve problems though market signals...not governmental interference. Every time the State attempts to solve one of these problems...it fails... and usually makes the problem worse.

The Free Market has its own examples of failure. It's no savior.

Yes, when the free market fails to regulate itself sufficiently, that's when the government steps in. Which is partly why the government has grown so much - greed can't always be reined in. Getting a little off-topic here I guess.

Not to be annoying...But there can be NO total free market with the existance of government....All you have to do is ask yourself this question....Do I approve of force in the distribution of goods and services?..If you answer Yes...then you are a statist... If the answer is No...then you are a freemarketeer and must oppose the government...because government uses its force by the means of regulations and subsidies in the distribution of goods and services.

Without government...The free market would solve ALL problems in society...both economic and social...Market signals would drive society. Those in seek of profit will find a way to satisfy market demand and those seeking social and personal virture would use the same system of market signals to eliminate people in their lives that are unvirtuous though ostracism.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:This is no suprise to me...All these problems are solved by allowing the free market to solve problems though market signals...not governmental interference. Every time the State attempts to solve one of these problems...it fails... and usually makes the problem worse.

The Free Market has its own examples of failure. It's no savior.

Yes, when the free market fails to regulate itself sufficiently, that's when the government steps in. Which is partly why the government has grown so much - greed can't always be reined in. Getting a little off-topic here I guess.

Not to be annoying...But there can be NO total free market with the existance of government....All you have to do is ask yourself this question....Do I approve of force in the distribution of goods and services?..If you answer Yes...then you are a statist... If the answer is No...then you are a freemarketeer and must oppose the government...because government uses its force by the means of regulations and subsidies in the distribution of goods and services.

Without government...The free market would solve ALL problems in society...both economic and social...Market signals would drive society. Those in seek of profit will find a way to satisfy market demand and those seeking social and personal virture would use the same system of market signals to eliminate people in their lives that are unvirtuous though ostracism.

The government exists, in part, to regulate interstate commerce. In the past, the colonies could theoretically print their own money. The government gives us a common currency. They also regulate how companies do business across state lines.

Without government, there is anarchy. Anarchy is doomed to failure.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:This is no suprise to me...All these problems are solved by allowing the free market to solve problems though market signals...not governmental interference. Every time the State attempts to solve one of these problems...it fails... and usually makes the problem worse.

The Free Market has its own examples of failure. It's no savior.

Yes, when the free market fails to regulate itself sufficiently, that's when the government steps in. Which is partly why the government has grown so much - greed can't always be reined in. Getting a little off-topic here I guess.

Not to be annoying...But there can be NO total free market with the existance of government....All you have to do is ask yourself this question....Do I approve of force in the distribution of goods and services?..If you answer Yes...then you are a statist... If the answer is No...then you are a freemarketeer and must oppose the government...because government uses its force by the means of regulations and subsidies in the distribution of goods and services.

Without government...The free market would solve ALL problems in society...both economic and social...Market signals would drive society. Those in seek of profit will find a way to satisfy market demand and those seeking social and personal virture would use the same system of market signals to eliminate people in their lives that are unvirtuous though ostracism.

The government exists, in part, to regulate interstate commerce. In the past, the colonies could theoretically print their own money. The government gives us a common currency. They also regulate how companies do business across state lines.

Without government, there is anarchy. Anarchy is doomed to failure.

The government exists because it has the most guns...The only government society needs is "self government"...commerce,methods of value exchange...all easily accomplished without the use of force.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The government exists because it has the most guns...The only government society needs is "self government"...commerce,methods of value exchange...all easily accomplished without the use of force.

Actually, nutjob is right. Those powers are specifically delineated in the US Constitution. This country wasn't founded on anarchism.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The government exists because it has the most guns...The only government society needs is "self government"...commerce,methods of value exchange...all easily accomplished without the use of force.

Actually, nutjob is right. Those powers are specifically delineated in the US Constitution. This country wasn't founded on anarchism.

Fo Shizzle advocates anarchy. That's nuttier than anything you or I have ever said.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The government exists because it has the most guns...The only government society needs is "self government"...commerce,methods of value exchange...all easily accomplished without the use of force.

Actually, nutjob is right. Those powers are specifically delineated in the US Constitution. This country wasn't founded on anarchism.

Fo Shizzle advocates anarchy. That's nuttier than anything you or I have ever said.

I agree about both Anarchy and you two being very nutty. There is joke in there, but I will not take it!

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The government exists because it has the most guns...The only government society needs is "self government"...commerce,methods of value exchange...all easily accomplished without the use of force.

Actually, nutjob is right. Those powers are specifically delineated in the US Constitution. This country wasn't founded on anarchism.

Fo Shizzle advocates anarchy. That's nuttier than anything you or I have ever said.

Sorry...There would be no anarchy in a truely free market society. You disregard mans ability to govern himself...which we do 99.9% of every day we live. I dont advocate anarchy...I advocate the voluntary interaction among people without the use of force in a free market society.

NIU007 Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:This is no suprise to me...All these problems are solved by allowing the free market to solve problems though market signals...not governmental interference. Every time the State attempts to solve one of these problems...it fails... and usually makes the problem worse.

The Free Market has its own examples of failure. It's no savior.

Yes, when the free market fails to regulate itself sufficiently, that's when the government steps in. Which is partly why the government has grown so much - greed can't always be reined in. Getting a little off-topic here I guess.

In a totally free market situation(which is impossible with goverment around)...the market would alway find equilibrium. It cant do that today because of governmental regulation and meddling...Greed could be reined in(not that I would)simply by those upset with that situation refusing to engage in commerce with them and also refusing goods and services. Ostracism is a vaild way to change behavior and punish those that operate without virtue.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Sorry...There would be no anarchy in a truely free market society. You disregard mans ability to govern himself...which we do 99.9% of every day we live. I dont advocate anarchy...I advocate the voluntary interaction among people without the use of force in a free market society.

So, you don't agree with the Constitution? You don't agree there must be regulations in place? I believe what you're advocating will work just as well as true Socialism. I.e. NOT AT ALL. Why? Neither takes into account the human factor. In Socialism as in what you're advocating, people will be concerned with one thing, power, pissing all over anyone that gets in their way to achieve their goals. Nothing wrong with having as much wealth and power as you wish to achieve, so long as it doesn't start affecting someone else. We don't live in a vacuum. In both scenarios I see what can essentially be seen in Venezuela, Guatemala, and some other hellholes I deployed to after Hurricane Mitch. The Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves had friggin' mansions, ate whatever they wanted, drove better cars than I've seen in Augusta, Ga., and lined the tops of their walled compounds with broken glass cemented into the brick. The Have Nots did everything they could just to scrape by. It's why I am a staunch capitalist who knows full well the government needs to regulate certain aspects of trade. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere and should probably just off yourself. That's my philosophy.