Worst American president in history?

[Kelinfort]

I only agree with corporate welfare that benefits businesses at are the most productive or create the most jobs (I.E. Above minimum wage) for the nation. A form of a tax incentive, if you will.

Depends on the location of the jobs. The US government should not be give welfare to companies that will use the welfare to create more jobs in other countries.

Sorry, I did mean within the United States.

[Calimera II]

There are a lot.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I've explained before that regulations benefit corporations.

1. The issue here is regulation is meant to be streamlined and older regulation should be phased out. The corporations can form into monopolies without regulation as was common in the late 19th century. The issue here is that the regulation in the US is meant to benefit large businesses. If you look at the Nordic model, their regulation is much more streamlined and balanced for both employees and employers. Employees have a high minimum wage and Employers have more ease of firing employees. In fact, the ease of doing business is easier in the Nordic model nations than in the United States.

2. GM, even until the 2008, struggled against foreign imports, a main reason many Neo-cons support protectionism when it benefits our industries. It's not regulation in this case the is he problem, but protectionist trade.

1. The 'robber barons' of the 19th Century were largely a myth, but those that were monopolists had built their empires using the support of the government. Sourcey.

2. Protectionism largely is a form of regulation, but regulation of foreign interests rather than domestic ones.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

There are a lot.

Such as?

[Kelinfort]

1. The issue here is regulation is meant to be streamlined and older regulation should be phased out. The corporations can form into monopolies without regulation as was common in the late 19th century. The issue here is that the regulation in the US is meant to benefit large businesses. If you look at the Nordic model, their regulation is much more streamlined and balanced for both employees and employers. Employees have a high minimum wage and Employers have more ease of firing employees. In fact, the ease of doing business is easier in the Nordic model nations than in the United States.

2. GM, even until the 2008, struggled against foreign imports, a main reason many Neo-cons support protectionism when it benefits our industries. It's not regulation in this case the is he problem, but protectionist trade.

1. The 'robber barons' of the 19th Century were largely a myth, but those that were monopolists had built their empires using the support of the government. Sourcey.

2. Protectionism largely is a form of regulation, but regulation of foreign interests rather than domestic ones.

1. It wasn't true Laissez Faire, but it was meant to benefit large businesses such as tariffs for Northern manufacturing.

2. Yes, precisely

[Death Metal]

Your plan of stopping monopolies entails removing anti-monopoly legislation?

Anti-monopoly legislation simply spawns more monopolies. So yes, that's my plan.

Right. Like how prosecuting serial killers spawns more serial killers.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Anti-monopoly legislation simply spawns more monopolies. So yes, that's my plan.

Right. Like how prosecuting serial killers spawns more serial killers.

Or like how the War on Drugs is creating more drug addicts.

[Death Metal]

Equal protection under the law is incompatible with protection of private property.

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

Property rights only exist because of so-called "tyrannical" governments.

[The Black Forrest]

Equal protection under the law is incompatible with protection of private property.

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

Private property should never be absolute.

Example:

The tyrannical nature of government under the guise of the fire marshal invalidated a neighbor's private property rights when he order him to stop making fuel on his property(his garage).

The fire marshal reported it was a matter of time before the "jerry rigged" setup would have exploded and burned down the neighbors houses.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

Property rights only exist because of so-called "tyrannical" governments.

Property rights evolved due to market forces. But government has, to its credit, mostly protected them.

[Death Metal]

Right. Like how prosecuting serial killers spawns more serial killers.

Or like how the War on Drugs is creating more drug addicts.

Also false. All Reagan's War on Drugs did was make more violent crime.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Private property rights is the last line of defense from the tyrannical nature of governments.

Private property should never be absolute.

Example:

The tyrannical nature of government under the guise of the fire marshal invalidated a neighbor's private property rights when he order him to stop making fuel on his property(his garage).

The fire marshal reported it was a matter of time before the "jerry rigged" setup would have exploded and burned down the neighbors houses.

But the neighbour was violating the non-aggression principle by crafting the fuel, in which case the use of force is justified.

[The Black Forrest]

Property rights only exist because of so-called "tyrannical" governments.

Property rights evolved due to market forces. But government has, to its credit, mostly protected them.

Market forces guided by the government. Example the GI bills of world war II......

[The Black Forrest]

Private property should never be absolute.

Example:

The tyrannical nature of government under the guise of the fire marshal invalidated a neighbor's private property rights when he order him to stop making fuel on his property(his garage).

The fire marshal reported it was a matter of time before the "jerry rigged" setup would have exploded and burned down the neighbors houses.

But the neighbour was violating the non-aggression principle by crafting the fuel, in which case the use of force is justified.

Yet, if government was reduced to where libertarians would like it. Chances are it would have taken a long time to get that closed down.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Or like how the War on Drugs is creating more drug addicts.

Also false. All Reagan's War on Drugs did was make more violent crime.

That's just confirming my point even more so.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

But the neighbour was violating the non-aggression principle by crafting the fuel, in which case the use of force is justified.

Yet, if government was reduced to where libertarians would like it. Chances are it would have taken a long time to get that closed down.

Fact: a smaller government doesn't mean a less efficient government.

[Kelinfort]

1. The issue here is regulation is meant to be streamlined and older regulation should be phased out. The corporations can form into monopolies without regulation as was common in the late 19th century. The issue here is that the regulation in the US is meant to benefit large businesses. If you look at the Nordic model, their regulation is much more streamlined and balanced for both employees and employers. Employees have a high minimum wage and Employers have more ease of firing employees. In fact, the ease of doing business is easier in the Nordic model nations than in the United States.

2. GM, even until the 2008, struggled against foreign imports, a main reason many Neo-cons support protectionism when it benefits our industries. It's not regulation in this case the is he problem, but protectionist trade.

1. The 'robber barons' of the 19th Century were largely a myth, but those that were monopolists had built their empires using the support of the government. Sourcey.

2. Protectionism largely is a form of regulation, but regulation of foreign interests rather than domestic ones.

I would like a response as to why you feel the Nordic Model does not work.

[Death Metal]

Compared to the alternatives? Yes.

Except for the fact that the system produces a massive amount of debt if not regulated properly, debt which can create interest and force people to never be able to completely pay off their debt, strictly because they have to continue to pay off the growing interest created. Not to mention that the usual method to pay off debt, is to pay it off by making more money which drives the currency down and increases inflation, slowly degrading the worth of it over a period of time.

Anything can be fucked up if not regulated properly.

You know it would be ridiculously easy for a government to artificially alter the value of non-fiat systems right? For example, if the US sold all of it's gold reserves now, the price of gold would plummet.

Any system can be made into fiat system if worked at it enough.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

1. The 'robber barons' of the 19th Century were largely a myth, but those that were monopolists had built their empires using the support of the government. Sourcey.

2. Protectionism largely is a form of regulation, but regulation of foreign interests rather than domestic ones.

I would like a response as to why you feel the Nordic Model does not work.

To be honest with you I don't know much about the Nordic Model. But I approve of its relatively free private sector, and the fact that Scandinavia basically did nothing in response to the Great Recession.

[Death Metal]

Also false. All Reagan's War on Drugs did was make more violent crime.

That's just confirming my point even more so.

Not necessarily. You've yet to actually prove a causation. You've just provided empty rhetoric.

EDIT- Oh, and make sure you understand the difference between natural monopolies and trust-driven monopolies.

[Kelinfort]

I would like a response as to why you feel the Nordic Model does not work.

To be honest with you I don't know much about the Nordic Model. But I approve of its relatively free private sector, and the fact that Scandinavia basically did nothing in response to the Great Recession.

If you look at Norway, their model has worked quite well. The unemployment rate as of 2012 is around 3% due to their oil resources in the North Sea and their taxation, while high, is actually quite fair. Their ease of doing business is in fact higher than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

[Death Metal]

Property rights only exist because of so-called "tyrannical" governments.

Property rights evolved due to market forces.

Under government protection.

[Diabulus]

Barack Obama, Andrew Jackson, or Ulysses S. Grant.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

That's just confirming my point even more so.

Not necessarily. You've yet to actually prove a causation. You've just provided empty rhetoric.

EDIT- Oh, and make sure you understand the difference between natural monopolies and trust-driven monopolies.

To be honest with you, it's hard to find sources on drug use in America. But I think the fact that the US has the highest illegal drug use rate in the world, coupled with the increasing incarceration rate since the beginning of the war, kinda proves my point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-leads-th ... l-drug-use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_i ... meline.gif

I don't understand why you're arguing with me about such a mundane detail, when we both agree that the War on Drugs has been a failure.

[The Black Forrest]

Yet, if government was reduced to where libertarians would like it. Chances are it would have taken a long time to get that closed down.

Fact: a smaller government doesn't mean a less efficient government.

Fact: a smaller government doesn't guarantee an efficient government.