POLL: Does the federal government care about the economy?

[Yelnoc]

When your little life is saved with inventions made by big pharma here in the private sector dominated US health care system, maybe then you will see my point.

You do realize most preliminary research into drugs happens in those public universities Republicans seem to hate so much? Pharma companies just take those inventions/research and create a practical (or whatever sells) product.

Republicans hate public universities?  When did that happen?

[Sbane]

When your little life is saved with inventions made by big pharma here in the private sector dominated US health care system, maybe then you will see my point.

You do realize most preliminary research into drugs happens in those public universities Republicans seem to hate so much? Pharma companies just take those inventions/research and create a practical (or whatever sells) product.

Republicans hate public universities?  When did that happen?

I know here in California, raising tuition rates for universities is the first thing Republicans do. And some have said, including reasonable ones I could see myself voting for, that public universities should charge as much as private universities. All these policies would do is create a privileged class that gets to go to college.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When your little life is saved with inventions made by big pharma here in the private sector dominated US health care system, maybe then you will see my point.

You do realize most preliminary research into drugs happens in those public universities Republicans seem to hate so much? Pharma companies just take those inventions/research and create a practical (or whatever sells) product.

Where did I say I opposed Public Universities? I want to actually improve the process and make it easier for technological developments in Universities to make to the market. Do Public Universities not receive large amounts of private sector money through a variety of channells also?

I sure wish the federal government didn't care about the economy.

Well what the hell kinda game would that be?

"Quick, let's get elected!"

"Ok, we're elected, now let's just sit here for 4 months and pretend the rest of the game is for the non existant private sector!"

how do you have an economy without a private sector? or is Atlasia completely socialist now?

Plenty of economies have operated with no private sector

And did not most of these so-called "economies" also include the mass murder and famine reaching into the tens of millions? Of course with 100% state planning, deciding whether to supply grain to the Ukraine or to export it, becomes a political decision. When you already have so little value for human life, the result is an ocean of blood.

The private sector is naturally occurring and impossible to suppress without the chains of the state. A country that isn't engaged in state planning has a private sector by definition. Countries where the private sector is primitive or inferior is due to problems in that country such as political instability, violence, disease, famine, hyperinflation etc.

We bitch about companies and corporations all the time, yet they still exist because we want what they sell. Now you can use nonprofits and coops and such but then without the profit motive there is no drive towards innovation and you are driving model T for 100 years. That's if your are lucky to get the car invented in the first place.

1. The 'Holodomor' didn't just happen in the Ukraine, it affected Kazakhstan as well, and some areas of Russia, but most anti-Soviets ignore that because it doesn't suit their theory of communism being evil - the whole 'genocide' thing was circulated by William Randolph Hearst, a pro-Nazi (at the time) and anti-Soviet US newspaper mogul. What's more, plenty of central economies have ran without famines.

2. The private sector is unnecessary and will probably be made completely obsolescent at some point in the future. We've been born into a culture which regards capitalism as 'the End of History' and that's the key problem. Most people aren't willing to think beyond that and look at alternatives to what we have now - for millenia prior to now, capitalism would be regarded as an oddity and it will probably be regarded the same way in the future. Or maybe the way we see feudalism now - as a brutal, unfair and flawed system. Whichever way, you have to view politics from across all history, not just the recent past.

3. People wanting to be able to eat, drink and live isn't an argument for capitalism, it's an argument for allowing people to live that way. If the government provided those resources, or if they were simply shared equally in a stateless society, that eliminates your point entirely. As for no innovation because of lack of profit, I cite the creation of the internet and large parts of NASA as proof that governments can innovate with little or no help from the private sector. Sorry to put a dampener on your little theory and all.

1. So, it was widespread thoughout the USSR. I never said that it was only located in the Ukraine. Was Stalin not as iron fistedly in power in Kazakhstan?  And I also never said famine hadn't occured before in Russia. The question, if Communism is so wonderfull, why did the worst one occur under their watch, while the farming was being collectivised? Shouldn't conditions have been improving? Why did Russia struggle to maintain production levels in agriculture into the 1980's? 

2. Notice I didn't say "Capitalism". I said "private market". The private market has existed in some form going back to ancient Sumer (SP?). I think if we were to move beyond it, it would have happened by now. Who knows in 5,000 years you might be right.   Why don't you go hold your breath till it happens. When your little life is saved with inventions made by big pharma here in the private sector dominated US health care system, maybe then you will see my point. The british gov't can bankrupt itself into eternity with gov't run health care system but were it not for the private sector innovations by evil big pharma, they might as well be paying for the use of bleeding and leeches.

3. Oh Winston, you insult me. I never said the gov't didn't innovate, it innovates when the politics wants it to. The internet was invented by gov't but it was basically nothing when it was invented by the gov't. However its use, and development has exploded in the 1980's 1990's and 2000's precisely because the private sector made good use of it. Where would the internet be without the home computer developed by Apple and Microsoft. I don't recall the original 1940's computer being developed without materials and input from private sector companies. And there was significant private sector involvement in the inventions that went into NASA from materials invented by chemical giant DuPont, to developements in electronics by GE And others.

You see you are trying to set me up as anti-gov't strawman. I am not your former friends Libertas and company. I think gov't has a role to play at times. You are the one who thinks the gov't can and must do everything.

Don't put words in my mouth. Don't insult my intelligence. AND DON'T PATRONIZE ME!!!!!

1. Several reasons. For a start, Russia was a poor country when the Bolsheviks took over due to the semi-feudal Tsarist system being such a disaster and WWI followed by a bloody civil war didn't exactly help production. The famines happened when Stalin had to collectivize the farms, because the kulaks threatened to starve out the cities due to them hating communism basically. As for why Russian agriculture failed in the long term, there was far too much bureaucracy allowed to grow in the system after Stalin died, which led to stagnant growth under Brezhnev - the USSR after 1953 was basically the worst aspects of both capitalism and socialism.

2. I don't owe U.S. health companies anything - I live in the UK where we have universal health care. And seeing as you decided to launch a ridiculous argument against the NHS, why does the US spend more money on healthcare than any other country when it's supposedly meant to be a private concern? The NHS was a very efficient organization until the Tories started to put the boot into it, and even now, it's still nothing to scoff at.

3. If the government was responsible for computer development, I'm sure they could succeed at it in the same way. As for NASA using private chemicals etc., the chemicals industry in the US is private so I don't really think they could have used government resources in that respect anyway.

I'm not patronizing you or insulting your intelligence. I'm just pointing out a few things I see that I think are skewed with your analysis.

1. From 1907 to 1914, Russian agricultural production made considerable strides. The tsarist regime was unsustainable without changes, but the Revolution, particulary, the October Revolution was in my opinion a set back for Russia.

2. Maybe its because we do most of the world's medical research for one instead of letting you guys sink or swim on your own.

3. It wouldn't take the same path. The Gov't would have no motivation to put a computer in everyone's home. That would have focused on developing it for industrial applications and for the military.

When your little life is saved with inventions made by big pharma here in the private sector dominated US health care system, maybe then you will see my point.

You do realize most preliminary research into drugs happens in those public universities Republicans seem to hate so much? Pharma companies just take those inventions/research and create a practical (or whatever sells) product.

Republicans hate public universities?  When did that happen?

I know here in California, raising tuition rates for universities is the first thing Republicans do. And some have said, including reasonable ones I could see myself voting for, that public universities should charge as much as private universities. All these policies would do is create a privileged class that gets to go to college.

Whats the alternative, raise taxes?

Why not control the ridiculous growth in administrative budgets for one. A lot of Universities are top heavy and very wasteful.

You guys better do something in CA because Boehner won't bail you guys out. And if he does, the strings attached would make bankruptcy look attractive.

[Yelnoc]

When your little life is saved with inventions made by big pharma here in the private sector dominated US health care system, maybe then you will see my point.

You do realize most preliminary research into drugs happens in those public universities Republicans seem to hate so much? Pharma companies just take those inventions/research and create a practical (or whatever sells) product.

Republicans hate public universities?  When did that happen?

I know here in California, raising tuition rates for universities is the first thing Republicans do. And some have said, including reasonable ones I could see myself voting for, that public universities should charge as much as private universities. All these policies would do is create a privileged class that gets to go to college.

That sounds more like "Breaking News: Politicians Like Money"

Most of the Republicans I know who don't hold office, and by looking at my avatar I'm sure you can guess that is a lot, are huge fans of public universities because, for most of them, they present the only opportunity available to give themselves or their children a higher education.

[k-onmmunist]

@NCYank

1. There is no way Tsarism could have survived. And the October Revolution was a step forward considering economic growth, womens equality etc.
2. Just sayin, your healthcare system isn't that efficient
3. How do you know?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

@NCYank

1. There is no way Tsarism could have survived. And the October Revolution was a step forward considering economic growth, womens equality etc.
2. Just sayin, your healthcare system isn't that efficient
3. How do you know?

1. I didn't say Tsarism would have survived.
2. Maybe so, but we also have doctors and nurses that actually care about their patients too.
3. I have ways of knowing these things.


And for the record, I did save Tsarism till 1936 in Vicky Revolution.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Option 3, obviously.

[k-onmmunist]

@NCYank

1. There is no way Tsarism could have survived. And the October Revolution was a step forward considering economic growth, womens equality etc.
2. Just sayin, your healthcare system isn't that efficient
3. How do you know?

1. I didn't say Tsarism would have survived.
2. Maybe so, but we also have doctors and nurses that actually care about their patients too.
3. I have ways of knowing these things.


And for the record, I did save Tsarism till 1936 in Vicky Revolution.

Umm, so do our doctors and nurses. Just because we have UHC, doesn't mean people don't care.

And gratz

[Purple State]

Bringing this thread back on topic...

Seriously, the markets have been in freakout mode for over two weeks and there has been no substantive actions taken by the federal government? It may not seem like much, but from a former GM watching the current one, it looks like Badger is entering the "Why won't they listen to me!!1!" mode.

The time for letting the Senate get its act together on a crisis response package has passed. PPT Yank, SoIA Dr. Cynic and President Fritz should just sit down, hammer out a package and push it through in an expedited process. The governors and senators have given their input and there is more than enough information available to put together a robust package right now that takes all the necessary interests into account.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bringing this thread back on topic...

Seriously, the markets have been in freakout mode for over two weeks and there has been no substantive actions taken by the federal government? It may not seem like much, but from a former GM watching the current one, it looks like Badger is entering the "Why won't they listen to me!!1!" mode.

The time for letting the Senate get its act together on a crisis response package has passed. PPT Yank, SoIA Dr. Cynic and President Fritz should just sit down, hammer out a package and push it through in an expedited process. The governors and senators have given their input and there is more than enough information available to put together a robust package right now that takes all the necessary interests into account.

I took too long thinking about what to do with those requests (about four days), though admittedly I didn't expect it to take a week for the Regional Senators and Regional Governors to come up more detailed requests. I PMed every Regional Senator and heard nothing after three days. I then PMed the Governors and asked them to do some pushing since the Senators didn't do any pull. Finally the ME, MW and IDS did okay but the Pacific took too damn long because bgwah is too busy crying about polar bears and Oakvale is pinned down in his compound. AND WHERE THE  IS THE NE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And for the record I would have had no problem sitting down and writing up a bill with just three people in the room, however, someone wanted the clock started now and thus necessitated piece meal effort. The bill will be on the Presidents desk before Christmas.

[Badger]

Bringing this thread back on topic...

It may not seem like much, but from a former GM watching the current one, it looks like Badger is entering the "Why won't they listen to me!!1!" mode.

Not quite. Delay is the enemy of progress, but stupid blind jumping into the abyss is the enemy of...well, people who don't like jumping into a bottomless abyss, I suppose.

This is not an easy time to be heading the government, domestically or internationally. But that doesn't mean the government can't shoot itself in the foot and make things worse.

/Spade-like mysticism.