Page 5 of 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:35 pm
by Len Hyet
Salandriagado wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:Yeah none of the Oklahoma legislature are Libertarian party members.


And the relevance of that is what, exactly? Apart from the Liberatarian Party by no means having a monopoly on libertarians, the people who wrote the law have no impact on the text of it beyond the writing.


The people who wrote the law have no impact on it besides writing it

So, besides literally choosing word for word what the document is, they have no influence on the document?

Salandriagado wrote:
The government didn't move out of the way, by which I assume you mean removing legislative barriers to entry, it just fucked up its budget. That's it.


No, by "move out of the way", I mean "move out of the way", as in "stop providing free services that the free market can't compete with, so that the free market can take over". Which, you will note, failed miserably.

Except that, as you will note, the Government is indeed still providing all those services, just poorly. You know, like Governments tend to do when they fuck up royally, seeing as how there's no possible alternative for people to turn to.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:46 pm
by Neu Leonstein
Krasny-Volny wrote:Diversification would also help the state in the long run. I'd like to see OK become less dependent on the oil and gas industry in the future so this kind of radical fluctuation in the state's fortunes won't happen every time that industry changes.

Well, the problem is that in order to diversify, you'd need the government to take in a large enough share of the extra revenue (via taxes and/or public ownership of oil & gas assets) that it can invest in the creation and strengthening of other kinds of economic activity. Activity, that is, that wasn't there before the energy boom because Oklahoma by itself didn't offer the advantages or reasons to do that stuff there. In other words, you'd need an activist government with a clearly-defined industrial policy.

You'd probably also want to skim as much revenue as possible to put into a sovereign wealth fund, because like so many third world countries, what Oklahoma is finding is that private primary industries do nothing to help smooth out these cycles. You need someone who doesn't face the sort of constraints that businesses face, which allow it to save when the times are good and spend when they are not. It's possible, but you need governance of Norwegian quality.

What they had instead was a Laffer Curve and, as is kind of obvious there and in Kansas, the extra after-tax income that people take home does not make its way back to business investment that eventually improves the tax base at anything like the rate necessary.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:39 pm
by Salandriagado
Len Hyet wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
And the relevance of that is what, exactly? Apart from the Liberatarian Party by no means having a monopoly on libertarians, the people who wrote the law have no impact on the text of it beyond the writing.


The people who wrote the law have no impact on it besides writing it

So, besides literally choosing word for word what the document is, they have no influence on the document?


You know precisely what I meant. In particular, their party affiliations have no impact on the text of the law: the law is identical whether or not we know who wrote it.



No, by "move out of the way", I mean "move out of the way", as in "stop providing free services that the free market can't compete with, so that the free market can take over". Which, you will note, failed miserably.

Except that, as you will note, the Government is indeed still providing all those services, just poorly.


Except that in many cases, it isn't providing them.

You know, like Governments tend to do when they fuck up royally, seeing as how there's no possible alternative for people to turn to.


Because the market failed to provide, despite having a perfect opportunity to do so.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:38 pm
by Liriena
I'm not even angry at the fanatical economic orthodoxy of the state government. I'm more sad about the fact that the inhabitants of Oklahoma have to pay the social and economic price for their government's egotism. Teachers and their students in particular deserve better.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:52 pm
by Northern Davincia
This is why we ought to cut spending, folks.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:07 pm
by Liriena
Northern Davincia wrote:This is why we ought to cut spending, folks.

Their education system is already running on fumes, their justice system is collapsing... what more could you possibly cut?

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:09 pm
by Baalkistann
I live in Oklahoma. It is very bad.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:45 pm
by Northern Davincia
Liriena wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:This is why we ought to cut spending, folks.

Their education system is already running on fumes, their justice system is collapsing... what more could you possibly cut?

Everything.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:46 pm
by Dahon
Northern Davincia wrote:
Liriena wrote:Their education system is already running on fumes, their justice system is collapsing... what more could you possibly cut?

Everything.


So dystopia it is then, because of course they'll buy bootstraps for themselves then, because having a functional government is so evil blah blah blah...

Liriena wrote:I'm not even angry at the fanatical economic orthodoxy of the state government. I'm more sad about the fact that the inhabitants of Oklahoma have to pay the social and economic price for their government's egotism. Teachers and their students in particular deserve better.


At least they now have the freedom to move out of Oklahoma instead of enjoying the dollars they can't spend because businesses are moving out.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:03 pm
by Northern Davincia
Dahon wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Everything.


So dystopia it is then, because of course they'll buy bootstraps for themselves then, because having a functional government is so evil blah blah blah...

Liriena wrote:I'm not even angry at the fanatical economic orthodoxy of the state government. I'm more sad about the fact that the inhabitants of Oklahoma have to pay the social and economic price for their government's egotism. Teachers and their students in particular deserve better.


At least they now have the freedom to move out of Oklahoma instead of enjoying the dollars they can't spend because businesses are moving out.

It doesn't really strike me as dystopia. As was the case in Kansas, Oklahoma never took steps to prepare for major tax cuts and the limitations it would create. It is like weaning a vampire off blood.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:16 pm
by Pope Joan
When we lived in Tulsa the state police were notorious for soliciting bribes to overlook traffic offenses.

They pretty much had to do this since they were the lowest paid troopers in any state at that time.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:19 pm
by Sovaal
Pope Joan wrote:When we lived in Tulsa the state police were notorious for soliciting bribes to overlook traffic offenses.

They pretty much had to do this since they were the lowest paid troopers in any state at that time.

Remember hearing how they would pull people over, write them a ticket, and ask for a Hindidred bucks or so to just rip it up. A shame that it would come to that. Need to get their troubles sorted out.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:20 pm
by Liriena
Northern Davincia wrote:
Liriena wrote:Their education system is already running on fumes, their justice system is collapsing... what more could you possibly cut?

Everything.

For what purpose? How would that help the Oklahomans who need real life improvements right now?

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:28 pm
by Northern Davincia
Liriena wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Everything.

For what purpose? How would that help the Oklahomans who need real life improvements right now?

For the purpose of privatization. If public schools are underfunded, stop them from being public, so on and so forth.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:31 pm
by Liriena
Northern Davincia wrote:
Liriena wrote:For what purpose? How would that help the Oklahomans who need real life improvements right now?

For the purpose of privatization. If public schools are underfunded, stop them from being public, so on and so forth.

For the purpose of making all of those services for-profit... rather than, you know, making universal access to them the main goal, rather than a bunch of shareholders with no personal stake in the quality and availability of the service richer?

This is pure ideology.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:33 pm
by Northern Davincia
Liriena wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:For the purpose of privatization. If public schools are underfunded, stop them from being public, so on and so forth.

For the purpose of making all of those services for-profit... rather than, you know, making universal access to them the main goal, rather than a bunch of shareholders with no personal stake in the quality and availability of the service richer?

This is pure ideology.

Yes, I do not deny that. Quality is as good as the consumer wishes it to be.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:42 pm
by Liriena
Northern Davincia wrote:
Liriena wrote:For the purpose of making all of those services for-profit... rather than, you know, making universal access to them the main goal, rather than a bunch of shareholders with no personal stake in the quality and availability of the service richer?

This is pure ideology.

Yes, I do not deny that. Quality is as good as the consumer wishes it to be.

You mean in the ideal, perfectly transparent and atomized free market that doesn't actually exist and would most likely not be born from this privatization?

A consumer's ability to dictate the quality and availability of services in a privatized system will largely depend on how much genuine competition there is (i.e. the system better not be a monopoly, an oligopoly, or a monopolistic competition model like cable companies), and how committed to accurately informing consumers the system is... which history teaches us it generally isn't. There's often a vast, vast difference between what's advertised to consumers and told to the media and what's said to shareholders (see: how private prisons advertise themselves to their clients as skilled rehabilitators while telling their investors that business is great because of all the recidivism and demanding that law enforcement find any excuse possible to arrest people so they can keep a large and profitable prison population).

If you ask me, it's a lot smarter and better for everyone but the greedy bastards in the private sector to cut the middle man and keep these services entirely public and dedicated entirely to providing them to as many people as possible at the highest quality possible, profitability be damned.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:47 pm
by Northern Davincia
Liriena wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Yes, I do not deny that. Quality is as good as the consumer wishes it to be.

You mean in the ideal, perfectly transparent and atomized free market that doesn't actually exist and would most likely not be born from this privatization?

A consumer's ability to dictate the quality and availability of services in a privatized system will largely depend on how much genuine competition there is (i.e. the system better not be a monopoly, an oligopoly, or a monopolistic competition model like cable companies), and how committed to accurately informing consumers the system is... which history teaches us it generally isn't. There's often a vast, vast difference between what's advertised to consumers and told to the media and what's said to shareholders (see: how private prisons advertise themselves to their clients as skilled rehabilitators while telling their investors that business is great because of all the recidivism and demanding that law enforcement find any excuse possible to arrest people so they can keep a large and profitable prison population).

If you ask me, it's a lot smarter and better for everyone but the greedy bastards in the private sector to cut the middle man and keep these services entirely public and dedicated entirely to providing them to as many people as possible at the highest quality possible, profitability be damned.

You complain about monopolies harming service quality, yet ignore the monopolistic nature of government itself. Why should education be entirely public if people see better alternatives in the private sector?

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:01 pm
by VoVoDoCo
I'm a Libertarian.

Our policies failed Oklahoma.

All of our policies can be summed up under these key ideas:
  • Cutting funding
  • Cutting regulations
  • Cutting taxes
  • Legalization
  • Privatization
Of our policies, those involving legalization/privatization are probably the most fool proof. Those aren't the ones that caused this.

Our 2nd most fool proof is the cutting of regulations. There are some issues (such as environmental) but with some slight tweaks, pretty decent. And those types of policies didn't cause this.

Then comes funding/taxes. In a lot of areas, we do really well. But there are some things we have to come to grips with: public schools & roads existing, for example.

The libertarian party needs to moderate themselves on our cutting funding/cutting taxes policies or face similar results. And no Libertarian should support the high bar of 75% to raise taxes. Libertarians shouldn't fanatically believe in small government, they should believe in first and foremost in a efficient peaceful nondiscriminatory government, and THEN fight for one that doesn't unnecessarily intervene in the lives of its citizens, interpretations of that last one varying.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:03 pm
by Cekoviu
Wait, Oklahoma's society was still standing? I thought it was destroyed in the Great Tumbleweed War of 1928.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:03 pm
by Cekoviu
Vovodoco wrote:I'm a Libertarian.

Our policies failed Oklahoma.

All of our policies can be summed up under these key ideas:
  • Cutting funding
  • Cutting regulations
  • Cutting taxes
  • Legalization
  • Privatization
Of our policies, those involving legalization/privatization are probably the most fool proof. Those aren't the ones that caused this.

Our 2nd most fool proof is the cutting of regulations. There are some issues (such as environmental) but with some slight tweaks, pretty decent. And those types of policies didn't cause this.

Then comes funding/taxes. In a lot of areas, we do really well. But there are some things we have to come to grips with: public schools & roads existing, for example.

The libertarian party needs to moderate themselves on our cutting funding/cutting taxes policies or face similar results. And no Libertarian should support the high bar of 75% to raise taxes. Libertarians shouldn't fanatically believe in small government, they should believe in first and foremost in a efficient peaceful nondiscriminatory government, and THEN fight for one that doesn't unnecessarily intervene in the lives of its citizens, interpretations of that last one varying.

Congrats, you now qualify as a commie.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:07 pm
by VoVoDoCo
I brought that up because of some posts calling Libertarians out to respond. Now for a redeeming characteristic of our policies:

"In Oklahoma, slightly more than half of the men we incarcerate are incarcerated for a non-violent offense.
In Oklahoma, 72% of the women we incarcerate are incarcerated for a non-violent offense.
"


Under a Libertarian party, this wouldn't happen, which would allow for more money being spent on housing innocent people irredeemable criminals to go towards police/teacher salaries.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:09 pm
by VoVoDoCo
Cekoviu wrote:Congrats, you now qualify as a commie.

You heathen.
lol

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:12 pm
by Grenartia
Saiwania wrote:https://boingboing.net/2018/02/07/this-is-not-ok.html
https://www.economist.com/news/united-s ... ats-matter

One score and six years ago, Oklahoma passed this stupid law requiring a 75%+ majority in their state assembly to raise taxes, effectively making any tax cut that passes- permanent. The legislature of that state had an addiction for cutting taxes to give out corporate welfare to fossil fuel interests and to dabble in some "trickle down" supply side nonsense just as Kansas has done, and predictably- Oklahoma's government is now all out of money.

Oklahoma's K-12 teachers haven't received a pay raise in over a decade and is now 3rd worst in compensation for the entire US. That state can now only afford to pay said teachers by switching to a 4 day school week in 90+ districts, so teachers can work at Walmart to be able to pay rent.

Most teachers understandably, aren't finding these conditions to be acceptable- and are now fleeing the state in droves for better opportunities in neighboring or "better off" states such as Texas or Arkansas. The health insurance situation for Oklahoma teachers leaves much to be desired as well, because many of the plans under their "private" system are more expensive than what teachers are getting paid in salary.

It gets worse, Oklahoma's highway patrol isn't filling their gas tanks to full capacity to "help their state's cash flow." Drunk drivers are being ignored or let go because there isn't anyone to process their tickets anymore, and the state's prison system is nearing collapse. Many inmates will have to be released prematurely, there just aren't any funds left to keep most of them imprisoned.

With essential government services declining to such a steep extent, private businesses are leaving Oklahoma as well. The poorer Oklahoma becomes and the smaller that state's economy gets, the less appeal there is to "set up shop" there or to stick around. It is quite a pitiful state of affairs that is currently unfolding. It looks as if the state is dying just as Kansas was under Sam Brownback's stewardship.

What are your thoughts on this tragic situation? What in your opinion, is the best solution to fixing Oklahoma's problems to effectively turn that state around? Are the results of the policies followed in Oklahoma, further evidence of a massive, catastrophic, colossal failure of the Republican party's economic platform?


And this, children, is why you don't vote for trickle down economics.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:15 pm
by Kiwination
Northern Davincia wrote:You complain about monopolies harming service quality, yet ignore the monopolistic nature of government itself. Why should education be entirely public if people see better alternatives in the private sector?


Um...
It's not, and people do. Private schools do exist, people aren't forced to send their kids to a public school, it's just that many cannot afford an alternative. The reason private schooling isn't as widespread as it could be iss because of that somewhat restrictive cost of attending those schools.