Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[AuSable River]

sorry,

I dont feed trolls

And my final piece of advice to you:
Just because someone brings up an argument that you don't like or disagree with yet you can't refute for some reason, don't call them a troll or make other insults. Take what they say into consideration and admit you were wrong or that their argument has a point. You'll be a better person if you try to see different ways of looking at things and realize the flaws in your own ideology.

go back and read mavoren's posts, I exposed him early on when he tried to peddle some intellectually dishonest nonsense.

amusingly, he even posted some data without even taking the time to read it that wholly supported my arguments

in addition, like many of the leftists on this thread, he contributes little but petty and inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

but go back and peruse his posts before passing judgment. INdeed, he has wasted my time, others time, and considerable bandwidth.

[Socialdemokraterne]

OK. I'll violate my statement of "expect no further replies" this one time. And the only reason I'm doing that is to convey this last point to you as clearly as humanly possible:

I don't think you get it. When I say that we're done, that means that I'm walking away from the conversation. If I say "I don't want to talk to you anymore", that means I wish to cease in speaking to you. It will do you no good to ask me further questions, it will do no good to present further arguments. It will do no good to telegram me, it will do no good to post-quote me, I'm done talking to you. You are of course free to continue trying to talk to me, there's nothing I can do to stop that. But it will do no good, because I'm sick of talking to you.

Get it? Got it? Good. That's it then. If you don't get it by now, figure it out on your own.

[Russograd]

See, we discredit you partly due to your arrogant, egotistical pig attitude. No matter how many true facts we feed you, you will ignore them and denounce them all under the, "Oh you're liberal, you're just a statist zombie" excuse.


Okay, cool. However, We didn't give you solid facts and testimonies just to "impress you".

Face it. You came here with a set opinion of far right conservatism with no intentions of being persuaded otherwise.

again, if you have a substantive, factual, logical or empirically supported question or comment --- please submit it.

However, I dont see one in your post.

Says the guy ignoring actual arguments. You have not earned the right to be taken seriously.

[Vareiln]

And my final piece of advice to you:
Just because someone brings up an argument that you don't like or disagree with yet you can't refute for some reason, don't call them a troll or make other insults. Take what they say into consideration and admit you were wrong or that their argument has a point. You'll be a better person if you try to see different ways of looking at things and realize the flaws in your own ideology.

go back and read mavoren's posts, I exposed him early on when he tried to peddle some intellectually dishonest nonsense.

amusingly, he even posted some data without even taking the time to read it that wholly supported my arguments

in addition, like many of the leftists on this thread, he contributes little but petty and inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

but go back and peruse his posts before passing judgment. INdeed, he has wasted my time, others time, and considerable bandwidth.

I looked back a couple of pages and looked at the posts he's made.
I see nothing that really is wrong with what he's saying. It's logical and supported by mostly unbiased(I think I did see one or two he sourced that had some bias in them).
I think the problem here is your seemingly dismissive and condescending attitude.

[AuSable River]

cato -- http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... ight-north

they presented data from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Statistics Canada; Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Income and Product Accounts; Public Accounts of Canada; Social Security Trustees Annual Report, 2009; U.S. OMB/CBO; authors' calculations

feel free to cite your own data or refute mine.

Another piece of advice:
Don't cite a source that is biased, and don't cite a source that claims to be supported by statistics, but doesn't link to, nor present, said statistics.

]


again --- it is fine to rebut CATO, but the data stands alone.

if you have your own source debunking the data that CATO acquired from:

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Statistics Canada; Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Income and Product Accounts; Public Accounts of Canada; Social Security Trustees Annual Report, 2009; U.S. OMB/CBO; authors' calculations

then present it.

CATO also believes that 2+2=4 -- do you refute this as being bias too?

[AuSable River]

go back and read mavoren's posts, I exposed him early on when he tried to peddle some intellectually dishonest nonsense.

amusingly, he even posted some data without even taking the time to read it that wholly supported my arguments

in addition, like many of the leftists on this thread, he contributes little but petty and inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

but go back and peruse his posts before passing judgment. INdeed, he has wasted my time, others time, and considerable bandwidth.

I looked back a couple of pages and looked at the posts he's made.
I see nothing that really is wrong with what he's saying. It's logical and supported by mostly unbiased(I think I did see one or two he sourced that had some bias in them).
I think the problem here is your seemingly dismissive and condescending attitude.

okay, your sad for mavoren, I get it.

amusingly i have presented myriad arguments debunking government and you have a singular interest in mavoren.

do you have an argument counter to any I have offered other than this sideshow ?

[AuSable River]

again, if you have a substantive, factual, logical or empirically supported question or comment --- please submit it.

However, I dont see one in your post.

Says the guy ignoring actual arguments. You have not earned the right to be taken seriously.

do you have a substantive, logical and factual argument in your post somewhere ?!

[Vareiln]

Another piece of advice:
Don't cite a source that is biased, and don't cite a source that claims to be supported by statistics, but doesn't link to, nor present, said statistics.

]


again --- it is fine to rebut CATO, but the data stands alone.

if you have your own source debunking the data that CATO acquired from:

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Statistics Canada; Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Income and Product Accounts; Public Accounts of Canada; Social Security Trustees Annual Report, 2009; U.S. OMB/CBO; authors' calculations(1)

then present it.

CATO also believes that 2+2=4 -- do you refute this as being bias too?(2)

1. How am I supposed to know that the data from those actually supports their fancy graphs if they never linked to it or if the data isn't publicly available?
2. A completely irrelevant strawman. Yep, definitely your attitude that's the problem here.

[Liriena]

go back and read mavoren's posts, I exposed him early on when he tried to peddle some intellectually dishonest nonsense.

amusingly, he even posted some data without even taking the time to read it that wholly supported my arguments

in addition, like many of the leftists on this thread, he contributes little but petty and inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

but go back and peruse his posts before passing judgment. INdeed, he has wasted my time, others time, and considerable bandwidth.

I looked back a couple of pages and looked at the posts he's made.
I see nothing that really is wrong with what he's saying. It's logical and supported by mostly unbiased(I think I did see one or two he sourced that had some bias in them).
I think the problem here is your seemingly dismissive and condescending attitude.

Well, that's an understatement. The OP is basically taking a shit on our faces every time we indulge in this useless debate. It's obvious he/she is impervious to his/her own hypocricy and dishonesty. He doesn't deserve a civilized debate. He doesn't deserve sound, logical arguments.

[Vareiln]

I looked back a couple of pages and looked at the posts he's made.
I see nothing that really is wrong with what he's saying. It's logical and supported by mostly unbiased(I think I did see one or two he sourced that had some bias in them).
I think the problem here is your seemingly dismissive and condescending attitude.

okay, your sad for mavoren, I get it.

amusingly i have presented myriad arguments debunking government and you have a singular interest in mavoren.

do you have an argument counter to any I have offered other than this sideshow ?

From what I checked, his names Mavorpen, nor mavoren.
Your arguments mostly seem to be made up of strawmen, ad hominems, and biased sources.
No. Because I'm not the one who's trying to bring up an argument here because I've been on the internet long enough to know where these types of arguments head(And based on your own history in this thread, I'm correct in my assessment). I'm merely pointing out the answer to your questions of "why do these leftists keep believing in that stuff if I already said it was wrong".

[Liriena]

Says the guy ignoring actual arguments. You have not earned the right to be taken seriously.

do you have a substantive, logical and factual argument in your post somewhere ?!

Maybe if...you know...you actually read what people write in here, you'd see that that's ALL people have been giving you for weeks.

There's no worse blind than he that is unwilling to see.

[AuSable River]

OK. I'll violate my statement of "expect no further replies" this one time. And the only reason I'm doing that is to convey this last point to you as clearly as humanly possible:

I don't think you get it. When I say that we're done, that means that I'm walking away from the conversation. If I say "I don't want to talk to you anymore", that means I wish to cease in speaking to you. It will do you no good to ask me further questions, it will do no good to present further arguments. It will do no good to telegram me, it will do no good to post-quote me, I'm done talking to you. You are of course free to continue trying to talk to me, there's nothing I can do to stop that. But it will do no good, because I'm sick of talking to you.

Get it? Got it? Good. That's it then. If you don't get it by now, figure it out on your own.

He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

but seriously, when leftists or big government types are presented with myriad facts and logic they run and hide.

for example, I challenged you numerous times to answer some pretty straight forward questions and you ducked them every time.

so for the benefit of anyone willing to try since socialdemokrat wont, here it is again:

does anyone think that political actors in society will allocate scarce resources that they gained from others by coercive means more effectively than the free market actors that actually earned the money and suffer the benefits or consequences of their decision making ?

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

(Image)

I dont see why it is so difficult for leftists to understand this graphic.

1) sweden had one of the strongest economies in the world in 1970

2) they got complaisant and expanded the welfare state from 1970 until the economic crisis in the 1990s

3) plainly shown on the graph, they began to downsize the percentage of economy used to fund government in response.

4) they have averted disaster by doing so.

5) this is no guarantee that statists wont regain control of the economy -- indeed that is what they do -- but the oft repeated fantasy that big government is responsible for sweden's 'success' is absurd. Indeed, the heritage supports the notion that sweden's strong free market principles in other areas of the economy, government spending notwithstanding, helps to grow the economy.

in sum, leftists can rarely find the forest through the trees -- hence they fixate on anecdotal and circumstantial in a vain attempt to refute the obvious fact that a government managed economy is nowhere near as strong as a private sector economy.

Why?

again, this is obvious --- politicians react based on political expediency, as a result they are far less governed by economic fundamentals then free market participants.

lastly, the moral implication of a government run economy is anathema to freedom

I see nothing wrong with this post.

Sweden had a very free economy up until about the mid 1900's, vast resources relative to their population and a century of peacetime. When the social democrats came in charge and caused the 1990 bubble, Sweden took austerity measures; slashing the budget, taxes and raising interests rate. Despite what many leftist would insist it actually did not ruin the economy, instead it strengthened it.

[Vareiln]

I looked back a couple of pages and looked at the posts he's made.
I see nothing that really is wrong with what he's saying. It's logical and supported by mostly unbiased(I think I did see one or two he sourced that had some bias in them).
I think the problem here is your seemingly dismissive and condescending attitude.

Well, that's an understatement. The OP is basically taking a shit on our faces every time we indulge in this useless debate. It's obvious he/she is impervious to his/her own hypocricy and dishonesty. He doesn't deserve a civilized debate. He doesn't deserve sound, logical arguments.

I can see that. I just hope he or she decides to actually take a moment to consider that he or she might be wrong on something.
After all, isn't that the point of an argument? To improve your own ideals and how to discuss them by seeing how they stand up against other's and to see the flaws in your own? Then to use this experience to further improve them and realize and perhaps try to eliminate the ideals that cause the flaws?

[Liriena]

OK. I'll violate my statement of "expect no further replies" this one time. And the only reason I'm doing that is to convey this last point to you as clearly as humanly possible:

I don't think you get it. When I say that we're done, that means that I'm walking away from the conversation. If I say "I don't want to talk to you anymore", that means I wish to cease in speaking to you. It will do you no good to ask me further questions, it will do no good to present further arguments. It will do no good to telegram me, it will do no good to post-quote me, I'm done talking to you. You are of course free to continue trying to talk to me, there's nothing I can do to stop that. But it will do no good, because I'm sick of talking to you.

Get it? Got it? Good. That's it then. If you don't get it by now, figure it out on your own.

He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

but seriously, when leftists or big government types are presented with myriad facts and logic they run and hide.

for example, I challenged you numerous times to answer some pretty straight forward questions and you ducked them every time.

so for the benefit of anyone willing to try since socialdemokrat wont, here it is again:

does anyone think that political actors in society will allocate scarce resources that they gained from others by coercive means more effectively than the free market actors that actually earned the money and suffer the benefits or consequences of their decision making ?

Oh, I can answer that!

In principle, the state (government =/= state) is not in it for the profit like free market actors.

There you go! Problem solved.

[Mavorpen]

I see nothing wrong with this post.

Sweden had a very free economy up until about the mid 1900's, vast resources relative to their population and a century of peacetime. When the social democrats came in charge and caused the 1990 bubble, Sweden took austerity measures; slashing the budget, taxes and raising interests rate. Despite what many leftist would insist it actually did not ruin the economy, instead it strengthened it.

Or, you know, it was exports.

[AuSable River]

okay, your sad for mavoren, I get it.

amusingly i have presented myriad arguments debunking government and you have a singular interest in mavoren.

do you have an argument counter to any I have offered other than this sideshow ?

From what I checked, his names Mavorpen, nor mavoren.
Your arguments mostly seem to be made up of strawmen, ad hominems, and biased sources.
No. Because I'm not the one who's trying to bring up an argument here because I've been on the internet long enough to know where these types of arguments head(And based on your own history in this thread, I'm correct in my assessment). I'm merely pointing out the answer to your questions of "why do these leftists keep believing in that stuff if I already said it was wrong".

if they are strawman arguments that be specific.

for example, I say that government is corrupt because it can be bought by special interest votes and campaign contributions from lobbyists.

Hence, scarce resources are not allocated based on economic realities -- they are malinvested by politicians for political motives in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policies for special interest votes and campaign contributions.

empirical evidence = more lobbyist money spent in washington this year than ever before, banks made more profits in the first two years under pelois, obama and reid than the previous 8 under bush, et al.

duh.

in sum, your post is devoid of fact, logic, or empirical evidence ---- mine is not.

[Vareiln]

I see nothing wrong with this post.

Sweden had a very free economy up until about the mid 1900's, vast resources relative to their population and a century of peacetime. When the social democrats came in charge and caused the 1990 bubble, Sweden took austerity measures; slashing the budget, taxes and raising interests rate. Despite what many leftist would insist it actually did not ruin the economy, instead it strengthened it.

Or, you know, it was exports.

You know, you really should cite the sources of graphs.

[AuSable River]

I see nothing wrong with this post.

Sweden had a very free economy up until about the mid 1900's, vast resources relative to their population and a century of peacetime. When the social democrats came in charge and caused the 1990 bubble, Sweden took austerity measures; slashing the budget, taxes and raising interests rate. Despite what many leftist would insist it actually did not ruin the economy, instead it strengthened it.

Or, you know, it was exports.

for laughs please explain in your own words what you think caused the increase in exports ?

[Liriena]

From what I checked, his names Mavorpen, nor mavoren.
Your arguments mostly seem to be made up of strawmen, ad hominems, and biased sources.
No. Because I'm not the one who's trying to bring up an argument here because I've been on the internet long enough to know where these types of arguments head(And based on your own history in this thread, I'm correct in my assessment). I'm merely pointing out the answer to your questions of "why do these leftists keep believing in that stuff if I already said it was wrong".

if they are strawman arguments that be specific.

for example, I say that government is corrupt because it can be bought by special interest votes and campaign contributions from lobbyists.

And I say most corporations are corrupt because, like all sensible businessmen, they'll do anything for profit and high stock prices, and when you put no limits on what corporations can do...well...you get some nice things like...say...Repsol-YPF forcing a country to rely on imported oil and destroying countless of towns that depended on the company, for starters.

[Liriena]

Or, you know, it was exports.

for laughs please explain in your own words what you think caused the increase in exports ?

Without any actual knowledge? My hypothesis would be:
-Rising demand and prices of exports.
-Subsidies and/or tax breaks that promote higher production and, thus, export.

[AuSable River]

if they are strawman arguments that be specific.

for example, I say that government is corrupt because it can be bought by special interest votes and campaign contributions from lobbyists.

And I say most corporations are corrupt because, like all sensible businessmen, they'll do anything for profit and high stock prices, and when you put no limits on what corporations can do...well...you get some nice things like...say...Repsol-YPF forcing a country to rely on imported oil and destroying countless of towns that depended on the company, for starters.

for argument sake lets say politicians, CEOs, et al are corrupt.

within a free society, if a firm or individual is corrupt -- I dont have to buy!!!!

within a statist society, if government is corrupt --- I dont have a choice !!!!!

and please clarify that undecipherable blurt regarding repsol ??!

And I will debunk that as well.

[Vareiln]

From what I checked, his names Mavorpen, nor mavoren.
Your arguments mostly seem to be made up of strawmen, ad hominems, and biased sources.
No. Because I'm not the one who's trying to bring up an argument here because I've been on the internet long enough to know where these types of arguments head(And based on your own history in this thread, I'm correct in my assessment). I'm merely pointing out the answer to your questions of "why do these leftists keep believing in that stuff if I already said it was wrong".

if they are strawman arguments that be specific.(1)

for example, I say that government is corrupt because it can be bought by special interest votes and campaign contributions from lobbyists.(2)

Hence, scarce resources are not allocated based on economic realities -- they are malinvested by politicians for political motives in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policies for special interest votes and campaign contributions(3).

empirical evidence = more lobbyist money spent in washington this year than ever before, banks made more profits in the first two years under pelois, obama and reid than the previous 8 under bush, et al.(4)

duh.(5)

in sum, your post is devoid of fact, logic, or empirical evidence ---- mine is not(6).

1. I've already pointed out one in a post you addressed to me. If you want me to, I can go back through this thread and find as much as I can.
2. Nothing wrong with that. It's how you support it and discuss it with others that makes the difference.
3. Okay. And? Sources are usually required to support arguments.
4. Perhaps because none of them are liberals or leftists? But once again, 3.
5. That was unnecessary.
6. More or less, your post is just you saying this and going off on a half-relevant rant without sources, combined with a nasty tone. How do you expect to convince others or at least gain the respect of others like that?

[Vareiln]

And I say most corporations are corrupt because, like all sensible businessmen, they'll do anything for profit and high stock prices, and when you put no limits on what corporations can do...well...you get some nice things like...say...Repsol-YPF forcing a country to rely on imported oil and destroying countless of towns that depended on the company, for starters.

for argument sake lets say politicians, CEOs, et al are corrupt.

within a free society, if a firm or individual is corrupt -- I dont have to buy!!!!(1)

within a statist society, if government is corrupt --- I dont have a choice !!!!!(2)

and please clarify that undecipherable blurt regarding repsol ??!

And I will debunk that as well.

1. No, but if they form a monopoly, well, have fun getting anything you want without buying from them.
2. You know, there is something called a vote. And it's a way to ensure that a government never becomes corrupt. If the government becomes too corrupt to fix, there's something called a gun.
3. Seriously, your attitude and tone don't help your cause at all.

[AuSable River]

for laughs please explain in your own words what you think caused the increase in exports ?

Without any actual knowledge? My hypothesis would be:
-Rising demand and prices of exports.
-Subsidies and/or tax breaks that promote higher production and, thus, export.

there is always demand --- I always want a bigger screen tv -- I always want to go on vacation --- I always want to eat out more --- I always want to .......

demand is not important -- what is important is if I have the means to satisfy my demand.

Hence, the reason why nations become more productive is because government becomes less repressive.

and subsidies and tax breaks are simply corrupt measures that lobbyists buy from corrupt politicians in a quid pro quo scheme of tax breaks and subsidies for VOTES AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

essentially what you are advocating with these ridiculous subsidies is polticians picking winners and losers based on who is most effective lobbying or which special interest brings the most bribe money to the table.

the way to increase societal efficiency and hence exports is to reduce ridiculous regulations like minimum wage laws, onerous environmental regulations and costs, high energy, high regulatory burdens, burdensome health care requirements, et al.

indeed, it is no coincidence that has govt. downsized in both canada and sweden -- in the early 1990s --- the dependent variable of increased growth and exports followed.