~Revenger

__________________
Your 2008 and 2010 Motl Siskel & Ebert award winner!

This sig is prepping you all for the 2011 Motl Awards! Getting your votes now!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
In not voting you are ensuring that religious nuts win. Because each and every one of them votes. Shame.

---

Sadly, this is the truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by revenger:
Unfortunately, I don't vote. :P
and I am not a big fan of politics, sparks to much debate and friction.

~Revenger

---

Am I correct in concluding from this that you are a moderate? While I respect your opinion, and your right to have one, I would stress (as has volcanon) that when the moderates don't vote, the extremists win - and then everybody loses. And while I agree that on the internet political debates tend to be profanity-laden, hate-filled screeds, if discussing politics with someone informally in person produces the same result, I humbly submit that you're doin it wrong. We all have a lot in common, far more so than we have in contrast. One of my closer friends, with whom I regularly talk politics, is a stone-cold libertarian (in fact, he's a DuPont). And he's one of the more intelligent people I know, even though I completely disagree with his economic theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
This is text book intro to economics. The only problem is that we aren't in a text book situation. There is no shortage in cash available to business. In fact, businesses are awash in cash, at levels never seen before. This includes both retained earnings and access to credit.

---

Sure we are. The businesses do have cash, but many are afraid to spend it because there is too much uncertainty from the government. If the possibility of more taxes or a further slip in the economy is on the horizon, you aren't going to risk putting money into a new building or new machinery if it's going to sit unused in 18 months.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
Unfortunately, there is no one spending except for the government. Businesses are able to push their workers harder, as seen by the tremendous increases in productivity. Because of the current unemployment situation, they don't have to hire more workers or pay their existing workers more. And since there aren't more workers, and since the existing workers aren't making any more, there isn't any more money to spend. Add to this mix a higher overall savings rate (because workers are fearful of losing their jobs and are reducing their debt as much as possible) and it means there is no incremental demand. Since capacity utilization is not saturated, there is no need for new capital expenditures.

---

This is the effect of high unemployment. You can get the best people and work them harder without risk of losing them. And I agree with your next point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
And so government spending has been trying to prime the economy through additional hiring of police, firemen, teachers, construction workers, etc. The economy has stabilized over the last 8 to 10 months, but business still isn't investing in the US. And now government spending will decrease substantially. According to your logic this should be wonderful, freeing up all sorts of resources for the private sector. More likely, the private sector will become more fearful and invest less, since demand will not increase.

---

I think you misunderstood a bit here (or, quite likely, I wasn't clear enough). In this economy, government spending should be higher to create work. Government spending should be lower when things are good, as there should be less need for it.

Overall, I believe we're on the same page. My frustration with the current administration wasn't so much the concept of the stimulus package but rather its poor implementation and distribution. Hiring police, firefighters and teachers, while all necessary, doesn't help the economy because those groups don't physically produce anything. Yes, they're now removed from the unemployment lines, but you haven't encouraged businesses to produce more. Construction projects are good because that means buying equipment and materials. Also, the money went to so many different little projects and areas that it was spread too thin, so it was too little too late. Fewer, larger projects would have been more effective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tha Gunslinga:
Doesn't sound like he's moderate as much as apathetic.

---

More like just purely pathetic. If you don't at least put in a protest vote, then yeah, people like Bush win when they shouldn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
More like just purely pathetic. If you don't at least put in a protest vote, then yeah, people like Bush win when they shouldn't.

---

Protest votes (here, at least) aren't even counted--they're binned immediately.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
I almost agree with you. But there aren't limitless amounts of money the Federal Government can spend. And Obama knew / knows that despite the right-wing screeds to the contrary. He was unfortunately saddled in needing to pump $1 trillion into financial entities to keep the world economy from falling into a world-wide Depression (the consensus of virtually all major economists).

---

No, of course not. In fact, I typically advocate less government spending. I was suggesting spending money in the spirit of "if it's available and the need is there, spend it." Right now though, you're right, there's nothing to spend.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
I'm curious about everyone's thoughts on this link. Aside from the obvious trying to sell us stuff thing.

---

Dozens of paragraphs in and he hasn't listed a single statistic, and instead dumped generalization after generalization onto the page. Guy is clearly full of **** and a narcissist on the level of Sarah Palin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
I'm curious about everyone's thoughts on this link. Aside from the obvious trying to sell us stuff thing.

---

Uh, very shady site, I don't like having buttons pop up on my screen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
More like just purely pathetic. If you don't at least put in a protest vote, then yeah, people like Bush win when they shouldn't.

Since in the US it's a binary choice, choose the one you would hate the least.

---

I don't vote because it is my choice not to. I have voted before. I just don't feel 1 vote(my vote) makes that much of a difference in the end. It's like if one person refuses to buy Nike shoes or drink Pepsi or drive a certain type of car or purchase their gas from a BP fueling station. Those companies still make money.

My intro was just put there to get the ball rolling on this thread.

I do not understand what a moderate is. or apethtic thing. I do know what pathetic means. I felt that was kinda rude, did not need to be said.

~Revenger

__________________
Your 2008 and 2010 Motl Siskel & Ebert award winner!

This sig is prepping you all for the 2011 Motl Awards! Getting your votes now!

Oh, and the 1 vote fallacy (goas will probably call me out if this isn't an actual fallacy, but I made it up so there :P ) is what gets idiots like bush and Palin elected, and challenging it is what kept me from having to admit I come from a state which has Christine O'Donnell as a senator. Your vote absolutely does count, dammit. When everyone abstains under the reasoning of "its just one vote", then the will of the people is no longer being represented because they aren't beige elected by anyone but a minority of citizens.

ALSO **** IPOD AUTOCORRECT

quote:

---

Originally posted by revenger:
I don't vote because it is my choice not to. I have voted before. I just don't feel 1 vote(my vote) makes that much of a difference in the end. It's like if one person refuses to buy Nike shoes or drink Pepsi or drive a certain type of car or purchase their gas from a BP fueling station. Those companies still make money.

My intro was just put there to get the ball rolling on this thread.

I do not understand what a moderate is. or apethtic thing. I do know what pathetic means. I felt that was kinda rude, did not need to be said.

~Revenger

---

So if there's 100,000 people like you and 40,000 religious nuts and the local teabagger wins by 40,000 votes (because, as I said, each and every one of those religious nuts will vote, guaranteed), whose fault is it that you end up with a hard-right government acting against the interests of everybody except the rich or religious?

Choosing not to vote is the same as choosing to shoot yourself in the face or choosing to inject yourself with AIDS. Sure, you can do it, and it's not even illegal, but it's something patently illogical/destructive to do.

Want to know why the government cares so much about wealthy old people instead of young people? Because the wealthy old people ALL vote too. And they support policies that only help them and politicians willing to implement them. I hope you enjoy paying taxes secure with the knowledge that most of them are going towards programs that don't help you one bit.

We need $200 fines against people who don't vote, which scales up to $5000 if they don't vote again. It's your public duty. Get to it.

As for BP: Guess whose decision not to vote meant that a "deregulate everything! No reduction in oil dependency! Allow drilling in the sea!" government came into power, such that BP created the incident in the first place? The US *could have* invested in solar farms, geothermal, wind and other green power before Carter came to power. But because, again, the people voting don't give a crap about the earth (probably because they will be dead before everything goes bad), nothing changed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
No, of course not. In fact, I typically advocate less government spending. I was suggesting spending money in the spirit of "if it's available and the need is there, spend it." Right now though, you're right, there's nothing to spend.

And I was in favor of saving the financial industry. There are times when government bailouts become necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Why, in your opinion,is government spending bad?

---

First, before you charactarize me as some anarchist lunatic, let me emphasize I said less, not none. Government spending is necessary to our infrastructure on many levels.

But to answer your question, because they don't spend it well. And I'm not talking about where they spend it (that is an entire debate on its own), but rather governments are incapable of doing it efficiently compared to corporate spending. Too many hands in the pot, too much red tape. By the time you cut through it all, you've lost a quarter of your budget. Also, there is little to no motivation to do things as cheaply as possible. Having worked with them a few times, I'm fairly certain they don't bother even getting competing quotes on things. I know some of you think running the government like a business is a bad thing, but there are aspects of business they could learn a few lessons from.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
but rather governments are incapable of doing it efficiently compared to corporate spending.

---

This is a bold statement considering the inner-working of bureaucracy in both are almost the same. What is your proof on the matter. I know that at least in medicare/medicaid the overhead is massively different from the private sector counter parts. Also if you're making a case for "inefficiency" you have to define what outcomes not outputs you are judging by, and would you rather have a job done inefficiently but effectively or would you have it done efficiently but not effectively? And that is VERY important because it involves what services you are supporting. You also have to factor in that the majority of government functions are, especially social services are for segments of the population that the private sector has deemed "unprofitable". Another thing you have to factor in is the overall good of society, a prime example of this is public universities vs. private universities, we all know that a more educated public makes a higher skilled work force that in turn makes a better economy. Now consider the price of subsidized public universities to that of private.

Also, have you considered that the problem isn't government but government contractors IE Halliburton, Lockheed Martin? Like the failed F-22 which was built in 48 states and pretty much DESIGNED to be as expensive as possible. Or Halliberton over charging the government billions in Iraq. And these are just the two off the top of my head.

When you say governments are incapable of spending money as efficiently as corporations you're generalizing and just regurgitating conservative talking points.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:

But to answer your question, because they don't spend it well. And I'm not talking about where they spend it (that is an entire debate on its own), but rather governments are incapable of doing it efficiently compared to corporate spending. Too many hands in the pot, too much red tape. By the time you cut through it all, you've lost a quarter of your budget. Also, there is little to no motivation to do things as cheaply as possible. Having worked with them a few times, I'm fairly certain they don't bother even getting competing quotes on things. I know some of you think running the government like a business is a bad thing, but there are aspects of business they could learn a few lessons from.

If something can be done/had/obtained through the private sector, I'd rather pay for it that way than via taxes and have the government provide it. Considering how much you guys hate lobbyists, that one should have been self-evident. Lobbyists are after a lot more than just tax cuts, you know.

---

Medicare / Medicaid delivers 95% of its dollars directly to health care services. Only 5% is consumed in administrative and other costs. Compare that to your typical Health Insurer, who kicks 20% or more directly to profit, and typically spends another 5% to 10% on "administration". Many large health insurers are spending tons to kill Obama-care, since it would require all of them to deliver at least 80% of their premiums back into actual health care, and that would adversely impact the $100 million bonuses for their executives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
This is a bold statement considering the inner-working of bureaucracy in both are almost the same. What is your proof on the matter. I know that at least in medicare/medicaid the overhead is massively different from the private sector counter parts. Also if you're making a case for "inefficiency" you have to define what outcomes not outputs you are judging by, and would you rather have a job done inefficiently but effectively or would you have it done efficiently but not effectively? And that is VERY important because it involves what services you are supporting. You also have to factor in that the majority of government functions are, especially social services are for segments of the population that the private sector has deemed "unprofitable". Another thing you have to factor in is the overall good of society, a prime example of this is public universities vs. private universities, we all know that a more educated public makes a higher skilled work force that in turn makes a better economy. Now consider the price of subsidized public universities to that of private.

Also, have you considered that the problem isn't government but government contractors IE Halliburton, Lockheed Martin? Like the failed F-22 which was built in 48 states and pretty much DESIGNED to be as expensive as possible. Or Halliberton over charging the government billions in Iraq. And these are just the two off the top of my head.

---

If I actually take the time to answer you thoroughly with proof and examples, would you actually listen, or simply resign them as exceptions and waste my time?

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
When you say governments are incapable of spending money as efficiently as corporations you're generalizing and just regurgitating conservative talking points.

---

I'm guessing the latter.

But seeing as I'm on lunch, I'll play along for a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
This is a bold statement considering the inner-working of bureaucracy in both are almost the same.

---

So? What does that have to do with how they spend money? The inner workings of a diesel boat and a train are almost the same, but they get around in very different ways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Also if you're making a case for "inefficiency" you have to define what outcomes not outputs you are judging by, and would you rather have a job done inefficiently but effectively or would you have it done efficiently but not effectively?

---

How about both effectively and efficiently? Same job, same quality, twice the cost. And you're really going to suggest the government will do a more quality job than a private company?

We saw some fine examples of government (mis)management in the aftermath of Katrina. Here was a cute little example that often goes unnoticed:

There were 2 bridges in New Orleans next to each other. One was a roadway, the other railway. Both were utterly destroyed in the hurricane. The road was, of course, the government's responsibility to repair. The railway bridge, however, belonged to Southern-Pacific. Reconstruction started on both bridges about the same time. $6 million and 4 months later, the railway bridge was rebuilt and operating. $12 million and over 2 years later, the roadway bridge was rebuilt. Why the disparity? Railroad bridges are significantly heavier and more expensive than roadway bridges, so flipping those numbers would have made much more sense.

Pop quiz time!
Which is cheaper, shipping a 10lb box from Chicago to Idaho with UPS or USPS (disregarding the Flat Rate boxes)? If you want cheapest way, UPS wins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
You also have to factor in that the majority of government functions are, especially social services are for segments of the population that the private sector has deemed "unprofitable".

---

That is why I said less, not none. If money could be made feeding and housing the homeless, there wouldn't be people on the streets, that's for damn sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Now consider the price of subsidized public universities to that of private.

---

After scholarships, it was $700 a year cheaper for me to go to Bradley than U of I. And Bradley is quality stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Also, have you considered that the problem isn't government but government contractors IE Halliburton, Lockheed Martin? Like the failed F-22 which was built in 48 states and pretty much DESIGNED to be as expensive as possible. Or Halliberton over charging the government billions in Iraq. And these are just the two off the top of my head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
[B]

So? What does that have to do with how they spend money? The inner workings of a diesel boat and a train are almost the same, but they get around in very different ways.

---

That horrible analogy. You're equating money with getting around, which would be an out come...but shouldn't money be the fuel...wtf.

quote:

---

How about both effectively and efficiently? Same job, same quality, twice the cost. And you're really going to suggest the government will do a more quality job than a private company?

---

I would bet money on it. Private sector is more incline to cut corners in order to increase profit margin. Government, not so much.

quote:

---

We saw some fine examples of government (mis)management in the aftermath of Katrina. Here was a cute little example that often goes unnoticed:

There were 2 bridges in New Orleans next to each other. One was a roadway, the other railway. Both were utterly destroyed in the hurricane. The road was, of course, the government's responsibility to repair. The railway bridge, however, belonged to Southern-Pacific. Reconstruction started on both bridges about the same time. $6 million and 4 months later, the railway bridge was rebuilt and operating. $12 million and over 2 years later, the roadway bridge was rebuilt. Why the disparity? Railroad bridges are significantly heavier and more expensive than roadway bridges, so flipping those numbers would have made much more sense.

---

You said Government responsibility, which government since you know....we have more then one? State, local, or federal? Were government workers working on the project or were they private sector contractors. If its the latter, then you really have no case since they are paying the private sector to do their work which should have been more efficient as you put it.

If you're going to compare public vs private, you have to do it where actually local, state, and federal employees do the actual work vs. private sector employees that do the same job. You can't blame the government for trying to contract out to the more "efficient" private sector to get the best price, as the majority of Americans believe, and then those private sector people that messing it up.

quote:

---

Pop quiz time!
Which is cheaper, shipping a 10lb box from Chicago to Idaho with UPS or USPS (disregarding the Flat Rate boxes)? If you want cheapest way, UPS wins.

---

Why would you disregard flat rate shipping boxes since you use them for 70 pounds or less? Your quiz makes no sense.

Its like...well if you chose the cheapest option of one item and the most expensive of another...then the former will win. However, it will get there in less time.

If you do chose the flat rate it comes out to 14.20 for USPS and 15ish for UPS and the USPS gets there about 4 days earlier. And for this test I used Chicago to Boise, ID.

quote:

---

After scholarships, it was $700 a year cheaper for me to go to Bradley than U of I. And Bradley is quality stuff.

---

What was it before scholarships? And how were those scholarships funded?

quote:

---

Have you considered the problem is the government allowing its contractors to screw them? Why keep doing business with them if they're going to treat you like that? Lockheed's not the only one making airplanes, so why...oh that's right, they have good lobbyists. In the business world, you are responsible for your vendors, so if these contractors are screwing the government, I still hold the government responsible for them.

---

You don't think this happens in the private sector too? When a company has to buy a dell over another superior product? Lockheed is not the only one making airplanes, but do you want to trust some start up with a multibillion dollar aircraft contract vital to national defense? and Lockheed was actually the cheapest in this case because all the other companies were doing the same, it probably would have been cheaper to do it in house.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
That horrible analogy. You're equating money with getting around, which would be an out come...but shouldn't money be the fuel...wtf.

---

I don't know what your problem here is, if money's the fuel, so be it. It's a Volkwagon Golf vs. a Hummer H1. Which one's getting the better mileage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
I would bet money on it. Private sector is more incline to cut corners in order to increase profit margin. Government, not so much.

---

I disagree wholeheartedly. If you cut corners in the private sector, you get fired, sued, etc. If you want to be competitive, you need to still do a quality job. I find if I cut corners, it come back to bites me in the end. And having worked on a couple of government projects, they cut corners just the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
You said Government responsibility, which government since you know....we have more then one? State, local, or federal? Were government workers working on the project or were they private sector contractors. If its the latter, then you really have no case since they are paying the private sector to do their work which should have been more efficient as you put it.

---

You really want to try to distinguish who does the work vs. who pays for it? Both the railroad and the government (believe it was the feds, but does it really matter?) hired similar private contractors to do the work. So let's suppose you're right, and the contractor the government picked quoted them way too high? What does that matter? Is it not the government's job to get competing quotes for such a project? They shouldn't get to a point where the contractor has them over a barrel. Both the railroad and the feds were in the same boat and needed to get equal length bridges built. What did Southern-Pacific do differently? Again, you are responsible for your vendors. By the way, trains were actual running on the new bridge before actual construction on the other even began, so I'd be hesitant to blame just the contractor anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
If you're going to compare public vs private, you have to do it where actually local, state, and federal employees do the actual work vs. private sector employees that do the same job. You can't blame the government for trying to contract out to the more "efficient" private sector to get the best price, as the majority of Americans believe, and then those private sector people that messing it up.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Why would you disregard flat rate shipping boxes since you use them for 70 pounds or less? Your quiz makes no sense.

---

Picture shipping a 5000 card box. That doesn't fit into any of their flat rate boxes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Its like...well if you chose the cheapest option of one item and the most expensive of another...then the former will win. However, it will get there in less time.

If you do chose the flat rate it comes out to 14.20 for USPS and 15ish for UPS and the USPS gets there about 4 days earlier. And for this test I used Chicago to Boise, ID.

---

For my example, I was shipping to Nampa, ID, and the 4 day ground for UPS was $17 and change vs. $23 and change for regular Priority Shipping. Either way, most businesses ship with one of the private shipping companies, and I can only assume it isn't for lack of patriotism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
What was it before scholarships? And how were those scholarships funded?

---

Wow, picky are we? Before scholarships, yes, it would have been more expensive. However, the scholarships had private funding. The school funded a number of them, plus Caterpillar dumps a ton of money into the school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
You don't think this happens in the private sector too? When a company has to buy a dell over another superior product? Lockheed is not the only one making airplanes, but do you want to trust some start up with a multibillion dollar aircraft contract vital to national defense? and Lockheed was actually the cheapest in this case because all the other companies were doing the same, it probably would have been cheaper to do it in house.

---

Sure this happens in the private sector. All the time even. However, being out $2k on a crappy Dell is a little different than a multi-billion dollar defense contract. And you can be sure even on the Dell, someone will be raising hell over it.

Even so, I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the contractors. It also would have helped if the military didn't get jittery about the new GE engines and purchase duplicate Rolls-Royce ones for each plane, even though the GE ones worked just fine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hlawsome:
Politics is very interesting. It can have both goodness and evilness. It depends on how you view it.

I'm a jerkoff that likes to spam

---

Spam ******* get the **** off my lawn.