New Mars Forums

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

Same thing happens in Canada: Conservatives talk about reducing the size of government, balancing the budget, reducing the debt, reducing taxes. But once they're elected, they do the opposite.

You mean pseudo-conservatives like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? I believe what you are referring to is career politicians.

Excuses, excuses. I mean all Republicans. Especially those who call themselves "Conservatives".

Parliamentarian systems seem to encourage career politicians as you have to be a member of parliament to be elected Prime Minister. If you don't already draw a salary as a Parliamentarian, then you can't run for Prime Minister!

Wrong. The leader of which ever party has the greatest number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons is Prime Minister. Usually. That is someone the party chose as their leader, so it could be an individual who is not an elected MP. There are rules to deal with a Prime Minister who is not an elected MP. He (or she) is not allowed to sit in the House of Commons, but is allowed to stand. He (she) is not allowed to vote on anything, but can answer questions or make speeches. Normally the Prime Minister gets an MP salary plus an additional salary for Prime Minister. The salary as Prime Minister is equal to the salary of an MP, since the Prime Minister normally gets both he (she) is normally paid twice what a "back bench" Member of Parliament gets. But if the Prime Minister is not an elected MP, he (she) only gets the Prime Minister's salary. There is an official residence for the Prime Minister; not as large or lavish as the official residence of the Governor General. The Prime Minister's residence was originally built by a rich businessman, the government acquired it during the 1800s. Its name is the one the original owner gave it; he was an immigrant from Whales so he gave it a Welsh name. No one can pronounce it, so its normally referred to by its address: 24 Sussex Drive. The Prime Minister does not have to pay for this house, it's a perk that comes with the office, just like your White House.

One of the differences between the United States, and the parliamentarian system of Canada is that here in the United States, we do not elect parties but individual people. Parties are a means to get individuals elected to office, but they are not always used. Our Constitution does not refer to political parties. When our nation was founded partisan politics was looked down upon, political parties operated in the shadows, parties in George Washington's time were informal groupings of like-mined people who were organized to get their people elected. George Washington was a member of a such a grouping called the Federalist Party, the opposing party was called the Democratic Republicans, this informal group is the ancestor of the modern day Democratic Party, it was the party of Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, the President that ordered the invasion of Canada in the War of 1812, by the way! (It wasn't James Monroe - that was my mistake to get those two confused!) You see the United States doesn't have partisan politics built in to its system, it leaves open a path for a non-partisan independent to be elected. Donald Trump could have run as an independent, it would take a lot of money to do so, but Donald Trump chose to make use of the Republican party and campaign donations, as it would save him from having to sell one of his hotels to finance his campaign. I don't know if someone like Donald Trump could ever be Prime Minister of Canada, a person could be a financial genius, and a self-made billionaire, but if he is not a career politician, they Canadian System would not let him in, he would have to show experiences as a politician, other politicians who were elected would have to elect him, and thus they Establishment is built into this Parliamentary System.

There is another rule. Normally if Parliament votes non-confidence in government, that causes an election. But if a non-confidence vote is soon after an election, then the Governor General is required to ask the leader of the official opposition if he/she can form a coalition that will hold confidence of majority of Parliament. If so then that leader is appointed Prime Minister without an election. This rule was established when members of Caucus elected their leader. Since the 1920s it has been general party members in a national convention. One reason is to ensure an election isn't forced the first day Parliament sits after an election. Another reason is so the Prime Minister doesn't try to coerce Parliament into passing bills by threatening an election if they don't.

It might also mean that it I harder for a politician to do unpopular but necessary things such as fight inflation for instance by slashing government spending, usually when such is done, the pain comes first and the benefits come later, this is easier to do when th elections come on a fixed schedule, rather than whenever there is a vote to call them. Sitting Presidents can be removed through a process called Impeachment. I have to say, that if Barack Obama was Prime Minister of Canada, and he held the same attitudes towards Canada as he does toward the United States, he would likely not be serving as Prime Minister for the full 8 years he served as President. Obama really only had to be popular twice, once before the election of 2008 and once again before the election of 2012, and with the help of Hurricane Sandy which wracked the New Jersey coast! There Obama got to show his "True Concern" for the people of New Jersey, without actually doing anything about it other than going on a tour of devastated areas with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and having cameras film every step of the way! We also have a biased media that wants to get Democrats elected no matter what, instead of accurately and fairly report the news! If you want to know the truth, the Media isn't the place to go. One has to go to multiple places to figure out what actually is happening rather than get the Media's point of view and bias!

This rule was tested in 2008. The Prime Minister wanted to take money away from all parties but his own. He declared the bill is a confidence measure, meaning if it doesn't pass it forces an election. He said that before the parliament sat the first day. That year voters elected a minority government, meaning no single party had more than 50% of the Members of Parliament. All parties other than his said they would vote against this bill. Since this would be a confidence vote, and since you can't get more "soon" than the first day Parliament sits after an election, this means the Governor General would be required to go to the leader of the Official Opposition. That means the leader of the party that has the second most Members of Parliament. Furthermore, leaders of all parties other than the Prime Minister's held a press conference in which they signed a document pledging confidence in the leader of the Official Opposition. The Official Opposition would form a coalition with the third party. The 4th party would not be part of the coalition, but the document stated the 4th party would not vote non-confidence for at least 6 months after change of government. Oops! The Prime Minister got himself fired. All this was before Parliament sat the first day after the election. So the Prime Minister begged the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. That means it would it in recess for a few months, and all bills that were in process are cancelled. If anyone really wanted a bill that was in process, it would have to be re-introduced, start over from the beginning. So that meant the bill to take away other party's money, the one that was about to get the Prime Minister fired, would be simply cancelled. The Governor General agreed. So the Prime Minister save his job through a technicality. He never again tried to force through a bill by declaring it to be a confidence measure.

Everybody in Parliament is...all about keeping their jobs!

How is this different than Congress?

Not much these days, it used to be that someone ran for Congress because he wanted to get something done, as opposed to just wanting a job to earn a living.

Trump by contrast is an Amateur Politician, he never got elected to anything!

Every politician can say that, until they are elected. Make no mistake, Trump is out for his own interests.

The question is, what are his interests and do they coincide with ours? I'm pretty sure Donald Trump doesn't just want a government job, he has all the money he needs, he could retire if he wants, he needn't do a single thing ever again but go on vacation for the rest of his life! I'll tell you what he does want. Donald Trump wants fame, he wants notoriety, he wants he place in the history books as some thing more than just another billionaire, to him, getting elected President would be his crowning achievement, and to get his place in the history books, he needs to be a great President, like FDR, his immediate predecessor from New York!

You know George H. W.  Bush said he'd vote for Hillary Clinton, so that shows you what kind of conservative he is, that is, he isn't one! No big surprise there, he did after all call Reagan's tax cut plan, "Voodoo Economics".

Here is an info-graphic posted on Facebook by an American friend.
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ … e=586D6855

That just goes to show you how far outside the Establishment Donald Trump is, if these men would band together in spite of their political differences to oppose him. This shows that Donald Trump isn't one of them, he is a true outsider, not one who is part of the Establishment, who earns his bread and butter through politics as these men did.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-09-23 08:54:05)

Antius

Member

From: Cumbria, UK

Registered: 2007-05-22

Posts: 1,003

Re: Politics

Political discussions like this are always pointless, because they never reach a conclusion.  We may as well be arguing about religion.

IanM

Member

From: Chicago

Registered: 2015-12-14

Posts: 276

Re: Politics

Political discussions like this are always pointless, because they never reach a conclusion.  We may as well be arguing about religion.

I'm inclined to agree with this, which is why I usually ignore them. Religion, Politics, and Sex are traditionally considered the three taboo topics for conversation with anyone not a close friend in the States.

---

The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever. -Paraphrased from Tsiolkovsky

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

Its because people let their emotions get in the way of their reaching a logical and rational conclusion about what works and what doesn't. For instance, people so much want to believe that socialism works, that they ignore all the evidence that it does not! Socialism has failed every time it was tried, yet people so much want it to work, they have kept trying it for almost a century now. What is that famous quote by Albert Einstein: "The Definition of Insanity is when one keeps on trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." And Einstein was a socialist. Now I believe in a social safety net, but socialisms believe in socialism as a replacement for capitalism, not just in the social safety net aspects, they refuse to acknowledge that welfare programs have a cost, and that the more welfare programs you have, the less growth in the economy there will be! They tend to go for too much social welfare, more that a society can typically afford! What they should be doing is figuring out a budget for what can be afforded for social welfare, and prioritize the most important things that government needs to solve and spend the money on that without breaking the bank an bankrupting the country trying to solve every imaginable social problem with government spending! Socialists aren't very disciplined in their spending habits, they tend to max out society's "credit card", and they ruin countries while doing so. I try to talk to them, telling them that they shouldn't do this, but they do not listen. They do not understand that it is capitalism which provides the funds for their social programs, they ten to tax too much to fund their programs and they ruin the economy in the process, they do it time and time again and keep on making this same mistake, if you show them evidence for what they are doing wrong, they say you are lying, they then finesse the data to show that their programs are working, and refer to some economic statistics to show the economy in the best positive light, they talk about jobs rather than economic growth, because they can't achieve greater economic growth with their high taxes, so they focus more on redistribution instead, bringing everybody down rather than raising up the poor!

The funny thing about socialists, is they tend to be frugal with their own money and spend thrifty with other people's money, they want to raise society's taxes, yet hire an accountant to minimize their own taxes! There is a certain part of them that is willing to face reality when it comes to their own finances, so they don't bankrupt themselves, but when suggesting social policy, there are no financial limits that they are willing to consider!

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,931

Website

Re: Politics

Tom, you are wrong about everything.

It's not socialism vs capitalism. On their own, neither works. What works is both in balance. Capitalism without controls results in corporations growing to become monopolies, then they gouge their customers. Capitalism without competition destroys all creativity. Larger corporations try their best to destroy competition. So regulation is absolutely necessary. Socialism is about cooperation. People accomplish a lot more when they cooperate. Most companies work toward the common good of the company. When employees get snarky and competitive within a company, it greatly damages the company.

When I worked for a bus manufacturer called New Flyer, I was first hired to optimize the operating system of their computer. I hoped it would grow to a permanent job, and did. I didn't realize the computer person with the title of "supervisor" had wanted the job of manager of the computer department, but corporate executives chose to hire someone from outside the company. The supervisor and manager were in a power struggle over who was really in control. The supervisor had to take maternity leave, I was asked to run the computer in her absence. She would return to her job after maternity leave. Fine, I was excited at the responsibility. But she had ensured the manager didn't know how to run weekend and month-end processing, and removed automation. She manually updated command scripts with dates before running. I was asked to run it her watching the last month-end before she left, but when I came to work that Saturday, I found she was absent. I phoned her home number, turns out she intended to run it from her home. I pointed out we were ordered to do it together. It failed. Because my first job was computer operating system performance tuning, I turned on detailed data logging. That log was used to monitor computer usage during the day: CPU usage, memory, hard drive, etc. However, one side effect is it logged every command everyone entered, with a time stamp down to the fraction of a second. I had documented evidence she deleted the script that failed, and copied into its place an old obsolete version. She sabotaged it. The manager didn't want to hear it, I was blamed anyway. That weekend the computer failure set back the factory assembly line. The company had slow sales earlier in the year, the president had managed to increase sales and tried to increase production to a higher rate than the company ever had in the past. All so the annual financial report would look good for investors. The president was pissed that this happened. The manager refused to look at the evidence I provided, instead tried to make me the scape goat. I ensured everything ran smoothly, came in 7 days a week. Other managers saw me come in on weekends while the manager didn't. The manager tried to treat that as a problem. I ensured the next month-end went smoothly. So the following weekend he ordered me not to come in to work. The weekend I wasn't there, it failed. The manager ordered another programmer to set up weekend processing, but she did it wrong. I failed so badly that Thursday night backup had to be restored. All work in all company departments that Friday and weekend had to be done over. When I came in to work, before I could sit at my desk I was taken to Human Resources and fired. Even though I didn't come in to work that weekend, I was blamed anyway. The human resources manager gave me a notice that said I was laid-off due to lack of work, but whenever a potential employer called for a reference, a Vice President claimed I was fired with cause. I only worked for that company 3 months, but they black-balled me from the computer industry within my city. I had a relative pretend to be an employer seeking a reference, their corporate executive Vice President claimed I was fired with cause. The employment agent told me they manager was fired a month after he fired me. Then all computer personnel was either fired or quit, replacements hired, they were either fired or quit. That's a 200% personnel turnover in 14 months after they let me go. The last computer person accepted a job elsewhere, but it was one of their suppliers. New Flyer told them to wait until they found someone to replace him. It was only after I was able to tell employers this that employers were willing to consider me. I only worked there 3 months, but was unemployed and unable to gain employment for 17 months after.

You want a more American example? I saw a TV documentary. Back before there were railroads, when America built canals so ships could deliver cargo, one company got a government contract to build a canal. To ensure the canal was build correctly, the government did not pay the company until the canal was finished. The employer chose to not pay his employees until he got paid. After 3 months of work without pay, the employees went on strike. This was the first major strike in the United States. The employer tried to hire thugs to beat up strikers, force them back to work, and still without paying them. American labour unions were created after this, to ensure workers are actually paid. By the way, workers were required to work from sun-up to sun-down 7 days per week.

Pure socialism doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. America is a hybrid; that does.

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

Tom, you are wrong about everything.

It's not socialism vs capitalism. On their own, neither works. What works is both in balance. Capitalism without controls results in corporations growing to become monopolies, then they gouge their customers.

well then its not Capitalism if they do, part of the definition of capitalism is there is competition. What socialism argues is that because this happens, Government might as well get into the act and establish its own monopolies. Government gouges customers all the time with its high taxes. Government doesn't give you a choice about whether to pay for something or not.

Capitalism without competition destroys all creativity.

Such a thing is an oxymoron, by definition Capitalism involves competition. Big corporations don't always like competition, they want to maintain their positions against competition, because they have more to lose from it than to gain from it, the small companies take on the "top dog" in the market through competition. Large companies are more amenable to higher taxes because it keeps down capital formation and thus their competitors.

Larger corporations try their best to destroy competition. So regulation is absolutely necessary.

Regulation is expensive and thus destroys competition. Large companies have greater efficiencies, so it is easier for them to comply with regulation, since they can afford entire departments to do so, not so with "mom and pop" businesses.

Socialism is about cooperation. People accomplish a lot more when they cooperate. Most companies work toward the common good of the company. When employees get snarky and competitive within a company, it greatly damages the company.

You ever work on a team when some of the team members aren't pulling their weight? In a competitive situation, if too many members aren't pulling their weight, the team loses, but when the team is the government, it just ends up wasting your tax money. one of the reason NASA has accomplished so little since the Moon missions is that it knows how to waste your tax money. How much money did it waste on Space Station Freedom during the Bush years? How many billions of dollars were spend on paper studies?

When I worked for a bus manufacturer called New Flyer, I was first hired to optimize the operating system of their computer. I hoped it would grow to a permanent job, and did. I didn't realize the computer person with the title of "supervisor" had wanted the job of manager of the computer department, but corporate executives chose to hire someone from outside the company. The supervisor and manager were in a power struggle over who was really in control. The supervisor had to take maternity leave, I was asked to run the computer in her absence. She would return to her job after maternity leave. Fine, I was excited at the responsibility. But she had ensured the manager didn't know how to run weekend and month-end processing, and removed automation. She manually updated command scripts with dates before running. I was asked to run it her watching the last month-end before she left, but when I came to work that Saturday, I found she was absent. I phoned her home number, turns out she intended to run it from her home. I pointed out we were ordered to do it together. It failed. Because my first job was computer operating system performance tuning, I turned on detailed data logging. That log was used to monitor computer usage during the day: CPU usage, memory, hard drive, etc. However, one side effect is it logged every command everyone entered, with a time stamp down to the fraction of a second. I had documented evidence she deleted the script that failed, and copied into its place an old obsolete version. She sabotaged it. The manager didn't want to hear it, I was blamed anyway. That weekend the computer failure set back the factory assembly line. The company had slow sales earlier in the year, the president had managed to increase sales and tried to increase production to a higher rate than the company ever had in the past. All so the annual financial report would look good for investors. The president was pissed that this happened. The manager refused to look at the evidence I provided, instead tried to make me the scape goat. I ensured everything ran smoothly, came in 7 days a week. Other managers saw me come in on weekends while the manager didn't. The manager tried to treat that as a problem. I ensured the next month-end went smoothly. So the following weekend he ordered me not to come in to work. The weekend I wasn't there, it failed. The manager ordered another programmer to set up weekend processing, but she did it wrong. I failed so badly that Thursday night backup had to be restored. All work in all company departments that Friday and weekend had to be done over. When I came in to work, before I could sit at my desk I was taken to Human Resources and fired. Even though I didn't come in to work that weekend, I was blamed anyway. The human resources manager gave me a notice that said I was laid-off due to lack of work, but whenever a potential employer called for a reference, a Vice President claimed I was fired with cause. I only worked for that company 3 months, but they black-balled me from the computer industry within my city. I had a relative pretend to be an employer seeking a reference, their corporate executive Vice President claimed I was fired with cause. The employment agent told me they manager was fired a month after he fired me. Then all computer personnel was either fired or quit, replacements hired, they were either fired or quit. That's a 200% personnel turnover in 14 months after they let me go. The last computer person accepted a job elsewhere, but it was one of their suppliers. New Flyer told them to wait until they found someone to replace him. It was only after I was able to tell employers this that employers were willing to consider me. I only worked there 3 months, but was unemployed and unable to gain employment for 17 months after.

With large organizations such as this, office politics often trumps business and efficiency, a lot of these middle managers are protecting their turf, instead of dealing with what the customer wants, this is also and example of poor management practices! People in large companies often get complacent, what happens in one small office or another often has no measurable immediate effect, big companies can use their "bigness" to hem in competition, they can influence politicians to regulate the market to big company's advantages, and they can also get those government contracts to compensate them for those higher taxes they might have to pay.

You want a more American example? I saw a TV documentary. Back before there were railroads, when America built canals so ships could deliver cargo, one company got a government contract to build a canal. To ensure the canal was build correctly, the government did not pay the company until the canal was finished. The employer chose to not pay his employees until he got paid. After 3 months of work without pay, the employees went on strike. This was the first major strike in the United States. The employer tried to hire thugs to beat up strikers, force them back to work, and still without paying them. American labour unions were created after this, to ensure workers are actually paid. By the way, workers were required to work from sun-up to sun-down 7 days per week.

Pure socialism doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work. America is a hybrid; that does.

Pure capitalism is when two or more people in the wilderness trade their goods and services in the absence of any regulating authority. American Indians practiced pure capitalism, fur traders in the wilderness practiced pure capitalism. Capitalism was around before Karl Marx gave it a name, the difference is Capitalism was always there whenever there were two or more people wanting to make a trade, however Socialism is an invented or made thing.

Much like Frankenstein's Monster, Socialism is a made thing, it is not natural!

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,931

Website

Re: Politics

Your idealism about capitalism is wrong. Pure capitalism always results in unfair competitive practices to squash competition. I could give more real examples, but you are not willing to learn.

Furthermore, leaving people hard on their luck is evil. Socialism is based on good Christian values. Help someone when they're down. The goal is not to make then addicted to handouts, the goal is to get people back on their feet so they can be productive. American Conservatives who complain about socialism tend to come from the bible belt. Why don't you go talk to your local pastor.

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

Capitalism is competition, anything without competition is not Capitalism, its a matter of definition! Those people who corner the market, those people who establish monopolies are not obeying the rules of Capitalism, in other words they are cheating. Having governments establish monopolies is not a cure for corporations establishing monopolies. There are two sorts of people in the world, there are those who will attempt to sell you something to earn a buck, and there are those who will stick a gun to your forehead and demand you hand over your money, in a manner of speaking, socialism is the latter, it is the state trying to take your money, ostensibly for a good cause, but it is trying to take your money by force. Socialism starts with the State taking your money, and then perhaps providing your with a service in return. Capitalism is someone offering your a service in return for money, if you say no, you don't get that service, its as simple as that.

Furthermore, leaving people hard on their luck is evil. Socialism is based on good Christian values.

Christian values is about charitable giving, its not about the government taking your money and giving it to the poor - that is not charity. Jesus never advocated stealing from the rich to give to the poor, that is a Robin Hood thing, not a Jesus thing!

Help someone when they're down.

There is nothing about pure capitalism which stops you from giving to charity, but the thing is, that's your decision to give to charity, not the state's.

The goal is not to make then addicted to handouts, the goal is to get people back on their feet so they can be productive.

Hard to be productive when he economy is not growing and you can't find a job. If the government raises taxes on people who might hire you, they won't hire you. You get people back on their feet by providing them with employment, not by taking away their employment through taxes and regulation.

American Conservatives who complain about socialism tend to come from the bible belt. Why don't you go talk to your local pastor.

Did I ever give you the impression that I was a "Bible Thumper?" Have I quoted scripture to you on this website? I was raised as a Presbyterian, my wife is Catholic, but I don't really know whether there is a God or not. I am not someone who lives in the past, I find it hard to imagine a God that really cares about the things people in the Middle East care about, you know Holy land, whether you should eat pork, grow a beard, or wear a funny hat. I can't imagine the creator of a Universe that is 60 billion light years in radius really cares about such trivial little things by the sentients of an insignificant planet in this vast Universe! The Universe I see when I look in the sky does not seem to be the same Universe that is described in the Bible. I understand perfectly well what is right and what is wrong, I am much in agreement wit most Christian morals, I don't particularly care for the Doomsday Cult aspects of the Christian Religion. I look at the Universe, and I find a Universe that is not that old compared to how old it could get. 13.7 billion years is still pretty young for this Universe, and I'm supposed to believe that God would start all this just so he can have Judgment Day in a short little time relative to the lifespan of the Universe.

louis

Member

From: UK

Registered: 2008-03-24

Posts: 7,208

Re: Politics

People some times confuse capitalism with markets.  The two are quite distinct. We've had markets for millennia. But capitalism is a form of ownership (joint stock companies) that is quite new - only really around in numbers since c 1800. We could have markets plus co-operatives for instance or markets and state owned enterprises.  I tend to avoid the phrase "free market" because no market is really free - there is always some sort of legal or social framework that modifies free exchange e.g. licensing of pitches at a market, licences to operate a bank, legal standards, trade associations, and market power (e.g. where a big firm can use predatory pricing to kill off competition from a smaller new entrant to the market).

---

Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Terraformer

Member

From: The Fortunate Isles

Registered: 2007-08-27

Posts: 3,906

Website

Re: Politics

I'm a sort-of-anarchist municipal libertarian. I favour strictly geographically limited city-states which are not allowed to hold people hostage against their will - so if you break a city law, they have to allow you to choose exile as punishment - with a court system for serious (read: actual) crimes against people. If a city wants to ban cannabis, guns, brothels, fireworks - they can, but they can't force other cities to do the same.

---

Use what is abundant and build to last

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

People some times confuse capitalism with markets.  The two are quite distinct. We've had markets for millennia. But capitalism is a form of ownership (joint stock companies) that is quite new - only really around in numbers since c 1800. We could have markets plus co-operatives for instance or markets and state owned enterprises.  I tend to avoid the phrase "free market" because no market is really free - there is always some sort of legal or social framework that modifies free exchange e.g. licensing of pitches at a market, licences to operate a bank, legal standards, trade associations, and market power (e.g. where a big firm can use predatory pricing to kill off competition from a smaller new entrant to the market).

Do you watch soccer? You are from the UK right? Do you like to see the referee playing in the game in his striped shirt, kicking the ball into the goal and yelling "Score!"? That is how I liken states competing in the free market, the government is the referee, it can't be allowed to be the participant, that is called a conflict of interest. The referee cannot be expected to be unbiased if he I a participant. The government is funded by taxpayers, you can't really want government workers selling hamburgers and hot dogs in the park driving out all the free market participants, that is called unfair competition! A government supported by taxpayers and writing the laws, should not be selling things in the market and competing with people that have to live off the revenue of their sales, unlike the government!

The term "Capitalism" was coined by Karl Marx as he needed an enemy to sell his Communism against. Communism is an invented thing, it needs to be actively managed by government and enforced to prevent market economics from taking over. What Karl Marx calls Capitalism is when government minimally interferes in the market instead of maximally interfering as he would like. There have been market economies since before the dawn of civilization, people have traded since before there was writing. The American Indians had a market system from before the first arrival of European settlers, tribes traded with each other, and so there was a market. Karl Marx didn't like this, he thought that the government should control all trading relationships, that is what Communism is all about!

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,931

Website

Re: Politics

I'm a sort-of-anarchist municipal libertarian. I favour strictly geographically limited city-states which are not allowed to hold people hostage against their will - so if you break a city law, they have to allow you to choose exile as punishment - with a court system for serious (read: actual) crimes against people. If a city wants to ban cannabis, guns, brothels, fireworks - they can, but they can't force other cities to do the same.

I posted an entire discussion thread about this. I wrote a lot of detail. Rather than repeat, let's move the discussion to...
Corporate Government

louis

Member

From: UK

Registered: 2008-03-24

Posts: 7,208

Re: Politics

That was my point: markets have been around since the dawn of time - but so has leader-driven allocation of resources. 

Marx didn't invent socialism - there were many thinkers and practictioners e.g. Robert Owen in the UK who preceded him. 

I don't particularly want the state selling hamburgers... but "natural" monopolies - roads, rail, gas (as in British meaning), electricity, water...there are some good arguments for state ownership and in many places these are all or primarily state owned.  In the UK, because it is so easy for big players to operate cartels, we have to have special state appointed referees to oversee these markets...which means as I said they aren't really free markets.

People some times confuse capitalism with markets.  The two are quite distinct. We've had markets for millennia. But capitalism is a form of ownership (joint stock companies) that is quite new - only really around in numbers since c 1800. We could have markets plus co-operatives for instance or markets and state owned enterprises.  I tend to avoid the phrase "free market" because no market is really free - there is always some sort of legal or social framework that modifies free exchange e.g. licensing of pitches at a market, licences to operate a bank, legal standards, trade associations, and market power (e.g. where a big firm can use predatory pricing to kill off competition from a smaller new entrant to the market).

Do you watch soccer? You are from the UK right? Do you like to see the referee playing in the game in his striped shirt, kicking the ball into the goal and yelling "Score!"? That is how I liken states competing in the free market, the government is the referee, it can't be allowed to be the participant, that is called a conflict of interest. The referee cannot be expected to be unbiased if he I a participant. The government is funded by taxpayers, you can't really want government workers selling hamburgers and hot dogs in the park driving out all the free market participants, that is called unfair competition! A government supported by taxpayers and writing the laws, should not be selling things in the market and competing with people that have to live off the revenue of their sales, unlike the government!

The term "Capitalism" was coined by Karl Marx as he needed an enemy to sell his Communism against. Communism is an invented thing, it needs to be actively managed by government and enforced to prevent market economics from taking over. What Karl Marx calls Capitalism is when government minimally interferes in the market instead of maximally interfering as he would like. There have been market economies since before the dawn of civilization, people have traded since before there was writing. The American Indians had a market system from before the first arrival of European settlers, tribes traded with each other, and so there was a market. Karl Marx didn't like this, he thought that the government should control all trading relationships, that is what Communism is all about!

---

Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Antius

Member

From: Cumbria, UK

Registered: 2007-05-22

Posts: 1,003

Re: Politics

I'm a sort-of-anarchist municipal libertarian. I favour strictly geographically limited city-states which are not allowed to hold people hostage against their will - so if you break a city law, they have to allow you to choose exile as punishment - with a court system for serious (read: actual) crimes against people. If a city wants to ban cannabis, guns, brothels, fireworks - they can, but they can't force other cities to do the same.

I like the idea of city state democracy.  That is how it was in Athens and it worked so well precisely because it was practiced on a small scale.  Citizens really did govern themselves.  It encouraged personal responsibility and citizens were directly connected to the people they governed.  It was all up close and personal.

In spite of its merits, the downfall of this arrangement was the fact that it hindered the path to a united Greece, making it impossible to effectively resist larger states like Persia and Macedon.  Two millennia later, Italian city states fell before Napoleon for the same reason.  One could argue that the same problem faces Europe today - small divided nation states facing the looming menace of Russia and China.  I am no fan of the EU, but it is clear to me that allowing the European alliance to crumble completely is dangerous given the threats we face, especially now that we can no longer count on America for military support.

Last edited by Antius (2016-11-10 17:55:05)

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

That was my point: markets have been around since the dawn of time - but so has leader-driven allocation of resources. 

Marx didn't invent socialism - there were many thinkers and practictioners e.g. Robert Owen in the UK who preceded him. 

I don't particularly want the state selling hamburgers... but "natural" monopolies - roads, rail, gas (as in British meaning), electricity, water...there are some good arguments for state ownership and in many places these are all or primarily state owned.  In the UK, because it is so easy for big players to operate cartels, we have to have special state appointed referees to oversee these markets...which means as I said they aren't really free markets.

...

Roads count as infrastructure, when they are toll roads or bridges, they could be operated by a private company, in the case of the New York Bridge and Toll authority, the tolls we pay range from $8.00 each way to $20.00 one way, the revenue raised often goes to subsidize other things such as train service, the building of the World trade center, I think they might be cheaper if operated by a private company or companies. As for rails, they compete with roads and planes, it used to be the only mechanical mode of transportation in the 19th century, but no longer. Trains compete with trucks, buses, cars, and planes for various destinations, so it not really a natural monopoly anymore, and doesn't need to be run by the government. Gas can be obtained in many places, it is only the pipe which carries it which may be considered a natural monopoly, but what keeps the price of gas down is competition between gas producers, and of course other forms of energy such as coal, wood, and oil, gas doesn't need to be produced by the government. With electricity it is much the same as gas, you have the electricity distribution system, and you have the actual producers of electricity. Wires can carry electricity from multiple producers, people have a choice in power companies, you just need to account for the electricity going onto the wire and the electricity coming off of it for each customer, by doing that, you can determine who is paying from what electricity produced where. The wires are a part of public infrastructure much as roads and gas pipelines. It used to be that the power supplier also built and maintained the wires, but no longer. There are also many trucking firms using the same public highways, the trucks compete. Having a "Natural Monopoly" isn't an excuse for the government to take over, it just means that someone hasn' found a way to make the market competitive yet, if government takes it over, then you lose the opportunity to make it competitive, because government won't allow it.

Governments also don't keep costs down, lets say you have government operated trains, the government sells train tickets for $20 lets say, and suddenly the train workers go on strike, the government sends a negotiator to the Union representatives to find out what's wrong. The Union representative says, we want a raise from $25 to $35 an hour, the government says, "no problem", and then it raises taxes, and continues to sell tickets for $20. Taxpayers complain about higher taxes, but they don't associated it with the government giving in to union demands too easily. After all the government is spending your money, not its own.

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

Remember Ivanka Trump? What is her religion? Look it up! You know how the KKK feels about Jews. So what are the chances of Trump being a member of the KKK and having a Jewish daughter? This is just propaganda put out by the Democratic Party, and it doesn't matter, the Constitution says Trump is President. The smear tactic didn't work and Trump will be President, that is just a fact.

louis

Member

From: UK

Registered: 2008-03-24

Posts: 7,208

Re: Politics

Only just found this out today myself - the guy appointed Trump's chief strategist is Steve Bannon who was behind the Biosphere projects.

I think that augurs well for Mars investment. I suspect a Trump government will be applying pressure on NASA to back Musk's plans.

---

Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Void

Member

Registered: 2011-12-29

Posts: 7,815

Re: Politics

I'm sorry, this is from my point of view only, but we have not been left behind by globalization, we have set globalization aside, and with good reason.

And by the way, costal missionaries are very tasty.  Uga Buga.

---

End

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,931

Website

Re: Politics

Could we convince Trump to "drain the swamp" at NASA? My complaint is Orion is way to big and heavy, designed for a single purpose (the Moon), and with a service module not capable of Lunar Orbit Insertion, it's not very good at that. And we don't have a lunar module. Please cancel Orion. Keep CST-100 Starliner and Dragon and Dream Chaser. Either CST-100 or Dragon could get a service module upgrade for the Moon. I would prefer Dragon, because it's the lightest. And design a mission for Mars, then adapt for the Moon. As we've seen with Orion, if you design for the Moon and try to use equipment for Mars, it just doesn't work. Keep SLS, but light a fire under contractors' but. SLS is taking more time and more money than Saturn V. And to make matters worse, whenever anyone asks to accelerate SLS, the contractor demands even more money! They spent too much already. And please replace Mars 2020 with a Scout class mission, entirely self-contained. A tiny rover the size of Sojourner could collect samples from the immediate area, ISPP, return the sample directly to Earth like Stardust or Genesis.

More complaints about Orion: they got the contract with the promise of several key features. One was liquid methane / LOX for the service module. That propellant mix would be used for both the main engine(s) and service RCS thrusters. But they spent all their money on the capsule, no enough left for the service module. They did pay for two subcontractors to develop RCS thrusters using LCH4/LOX, and both subcontractors said they could easily scale up to the main engine, but Lock-Mart ran out of money. They tried to change the design to MMH/N2O4, same propellant mix as RCS thrusters on Apollo, but not the service module main engine. And same as Shuttle RCS thrusters and OMS. Then they completely ran out of money, so made a barter deal with ESA for their service module.

That isn't the only problem. Orion was also supposed to have an air bag to land on land. A flat bed truck with truck crane would pick it up. Add a minivan for astronauts, and maybe a HMMWV (military Hummer) to carry a squad of soldiers for protection. A lot less expensive than a full aircraft carrier battle group that Apollo required. I saw video of Orion testing the air bag, but last I heard they're still planning to splash-down. So all advantages over CST-100 have been cancelled.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,431

Re: Politics

From the lists that are being publicized the swamp appears be being filled with more alligators.....

The sls is a horible waste of cash per launch but what do we use it for seems to be lofting big blocks of hardware to LEO as being the most practical use for it.

I agree  "Keep CST-100 Starliner and Dragon and Dream Chaser." for LEO taxis as these will be cheap.

Also I think Nasa needs to look at the design of the dragon as a means to bring man to the moon and eventually to mars by funding space x to do the work..... have Beoing and Lockheed and others join in to make it happen..

I also agree that the mars sample return can be done on a smaller scale from the basic concept parts in those that you mentioned.

I think the base level engine design work was done for the use of methane by the others not Nasa for use so maybe they can implement it into the new version of what we use to go to mars and the moon.

The question of the MMH/N2O4 propellant is only viable on follow up missions once we have the capability to manufacture this fuel on the moon or mars which would take a larger scale of investment and equipment that Nasa and the government are not ready to do yet.

The loss of landing on ground was a mass cutting measure for Orion once the oscillation problem would not go away.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,931

Website

Re: Politics

In another thread I posted an idea. SLS block 1 could launch an Apollo style mission to he Moon. Yes, block 1, not 1B or 2B or block 2. Start with Dragon, but instead of the trunk of Dragon v2, use the trunk of Dragon v1. Install carbon fibre composite propellant tanks with LCH4/LOX, main engine and RCS thrusters. This would convert the trunk into a true service module. The trunk of Dragon v2 has fins for stabilization during launch abort. Once you convert the trunk into a service module, you can't do that. Launch abort will have to be the capsule only, no trunk. So the reason for the Dragon v1 trunk is the flat, folding solar arrays are cheaper than curved, conformant solar cells around the trunk, and with solar array wings that track the sun, they can be smaller than cells around the the circumferance of the trunk. Cells on the shade side don't produce power. So this reduces mass as well as cost. Base the LM on the Soviet LK, but everything updated. The idea is minimum mass. And use LCH4/LOX for the one single propulsion stage of the LM. The LM would carry 4 astronauts to the lunar surface, but no rover, and no science instruments. It would be a taxi only. And sticking to the architecture of the Soviet LK, the stack would require a separate stage for LOI and to de-orbit the LM. This stage would also use LCH4/LOX, and use all composite propellant tanks.

A Mars Direct habitat would be landed on the Moon. The Mars Direct hab would carry the rover, science instruments, and recycling life support for multiple months on the lunar surface. So this is a permanent lunar base landed in one piece. The hab would require SLS block 2B to launch it.

RobertDyck

Moderator

From: Winnipeg, Canada

Registered: 2002-08-20

Posts: 7,931

Website

Re: Politics

Tom: Trump claimed all Muslims are terrorists. He claimed all Mexicans are rapists. That's the definition of racist. And accusations of him being a Nazi started after Trump incited riots at his rallies, and encouraged his supporters to attack anyone who disagreed. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

Rachel Maddow breaks down the violence at Trump rallies

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-11-20 21:44:28)

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,431

Re: Politics

White nationalists are energized by Donald Trump’s win

White nationalists converged on Washington this past weekend, jubilant over Donald Trump's victory, but are we hearing enough from the President-elect or Republicans to renounce this group?

So where is it if he is not a racist?

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

I don't think the Russians want nuclear war any more than we do... the Russians wouldn't put their lives at stake over Syria, they would back down!

Don't underestimate Putin. He was elected to "make Russia great again". Sound familiar? Many Russian voters long for the Soviet Union, when they were one of two superpowers of the world. They want to be "great again". The Clintons have been nibbling away at former Soviet sphere of influence. All former Warsaw Pact countries other than the Soviet Union itself are now full members of NATO. And some former republics of the Soviet Union itself: the Balkan states. But the Clintons went after Georgia and Ukraine, and now there's Syria, an Arab oil country. Russia has to draw a line somewhere. Putin said he's concerned about the Russian economy. I take him at his word, he's concerned countries allied with Russia and part of the Russian economy will stop doing business with Russia. He has to stop this. And if American fighter jets owned by the American military (navy or air force) and piloted by American pilots, shoot down Russian fighter jets owned by the Russian air force and piloted by Russian pilots? There's no way he could stand for that. That would result in at minimum the entire air base being bombed flat, or aircraft carrier being sunk. Wherever the jets came from. If Russia sunk an American aircraft carrier, what do you think would happen? So Hillary's no-fly-zone would quickly escalate.

Russia isn't great if it is dead! How much is keeping a stupid Arab dictator in power worth to Russia anyway? Is he worth the deaths of a hundred million Russians in a nuclear war? The people of Syria don't like Assad anyway, is Russia going to expend its resources to keep this unpopular leader in charge? How many Syrians is it prepared to kill in order to achieve this? Do they want to kill all of them/ Russia has the means to kill them all if that is what they want. What price would Russia pay if it decided to kill off the entire population of Syria? is there enough oil in Syria to justify that kind of mass slaughter? Doesn't Russia have enough oil on its own territory?

What if Russia decided to kill off only half the population of Syria to keep Assad in Power, would it be worth it then? Or how about a quarter of the population? I wonder what the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church would say about this? Would he say that murdering people is a good thing to do?

elderflower

Member

Registered: 2016-06-19

Posts: 1,262

Re: Politics

How do you find out if an animal is dangerous? Poke it with a stick!
If you think there's a chance it might be dangerous don't poke it.