i dont think the federal government is dysfunctional, do you?

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 82
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
You know, the sad fact is that you're never going to destroy the monopolies of the rich without taking out their copartner...the monopoly of the government.

Right now the Marxists are the only ones in a position to actually threaten the power and the size of the entrenched massive government, since the Libertarians failed in their 1990 coup attempt.

I could almost support them on that alone. Even knowing Marxism can't be sustained in the long term without a large oligarchal government. At least we would have a smaller government for a short while.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The government now plays the role of corporate armed security.

Just look at all the exemptions large monopolies continue to accrue recently. This shit is out of control.

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You know, the sad fact is that you're never going to destroy the monopolies of the rich without taking out their copartner...the monopoly of the government.
this doesn't even make sense. Corporations and government don't have to be so intertwined. The way to fix the issues is to cut those ties, not to destroy government. Put in rules restricting lobbying. Ban donations to political campaigns. things like that. If companies have no way to bribe politicians, then it stops being profitable to ignore their constituents and just do what the rich people want. 

Right now the Marxists are the only ones in a position to actually threaten the power and the size of the entrenched massive government, since the Libertarians failed in their 1990 coup attempt.
there are no marxists (barring a few extremists). No one is advocating for the government to take over all businesses. So why do you keep repeating this obvious lie?

Just look at all the exemptions large monopolies continue to accrue recently. This shit is out of control.
I agree. the establishment of both the republican and democratic party rely on money from the 1% to run their campaigns. They use them to make tons of money in shady ways. So both parties pander to the rich constantly. That is why we need a populist left to advocate for the working class, because no one else is going to do it. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Corporations and government don't have to be so intertwined. 

In a smaller government, they wouldn't be.

There are 16 nations with smaller relative governments accounting for the population than ours according to this list.

Let's hope the AOC wave of Justice Democrats doesn't falter like the Libertarians did challenging the status quo.

Singapore’s economic freedom score is 89.4, making it the world’s freest economy in the 2020 Index. Its overall score is unchanged from 2019, with a small improvement in the business freedom score offset by a small decline in the government integrity score. Singapore is ranked 1st among 42 countries in the Asia–Pacific region, and its overall score is well above the regional and world averages.
Singapore has ranked among the freest economies in the world over the life of the Index but gains the top spot this year for the first time. Its sustained extraordinary performance has resulted in one of the world’s highest per capita incomes and solid rates of GDP growth.
Singapore is the only country in the world that is considered economically free in every Index category. Ongoing restrictions on civil liberties, while not directly affecting the country’s score, may have an indirect impact on economic freedom and remain a concern.

Singapore is one of the world’s most prosperous nations, with a business-friendly regulatory environment and a very low unemployment rate. Despite an active parliamentary opposition, it has been ruled by one party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), for many decades. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has led the government since 2004 and will oversee a PAP leadership transition before the next parliamentary election, which is slated for 2021. Although certain civil liberties remain restricted, the PAP has championed economic liberalization and international trade. Services dominate the economy, but Singapore is also a major manufacturer of electronics and chemicals and operates one of the world’s largest ports. Principal exports include integrated circuits, refined petroleum, and computers.

Property rights are recognized and enforced effectively. Judicial processes are procedurally competent, fair, and reliable, and the judiciary is regarded as independent, although the government does have an overwhelmingly successful record in court cases. The government actively enforces its strong anticorruption laws and maintains well-institutionalized anticorruption processes. Singapore is considered one of the world’s least corrupt countries.

The top individual income tax rate is 22 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 17 percent. The overall tax burden equals 14.1 percent of total domestic income. Government spending has amounted to 17.2 percent of the country’s output (GDP) over the past three years, and budget surpluses have averaged 4.7 percent of GDP. Public debt is equivalent to 108.3 percent of GDP.

Singapore is consistently ranked as one of the world’s most business-friendly countries. In 2019, the government introduced measures to decrease the ratio of foreign workers to local employees, threatening labor supply in the services sector. The government funds generous housing, transport, and health care subsidy programs and influences other prices through regulation and state-linked enterprises.

The total value of exports and imports of goods and services equals 326.2 percent of GDP. The average applied tariff rate is 0.1 percent, and 182 nontariff measures are in force. Foreign and domestic businesses are treated equally under the law, and nearly all sectors of the economy are open to 100 percent foreign ownership. The sophisticated financial sector is robust, and the number of foreign banks in the market has steadily increased.



ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Shhh, don’t give them their next target smh
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol, I will take any ally that wants to destroy the establisment government, be it Trumpy bear or crazy-eyes Cortez.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Corporations and government don't have to be so intertwined. 
In a smaller government, they wouldn't be.
why? just because you made the government smaller does not mean it wouldn't be run by oligarchs. It would just mean that more power would be in the hands of the oligarchs directly and less power would be in the elected officials they bribe. You are just handing that power to them directly. 


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
why? just because you made the government smaller does not mean it wouldn't be run by oligarchs. It would just mean that more power would be in the hands of the oligarchs directly and less power would be in the elected officials they bribe. You are just handing that power to them directly. 


Read this chart. Countries with small proportional governments also have less corruption. The ones with large proportional governments have more corruption. It's axiomatic. Singapore has a small, non intrusive government with the least corrupt government in the known world.

North Korea is at the bottom of the list, where the Government has the ultimate power and also has the most corruption.

That is why.



HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Read this chart. Countries with small proportional governments also have less corruption. 
why do you you assume that "economic freedom" is inherently a good thing? Freedom on it's own is not inherently good. If people were free to murder you, that would be a bad thing. 

It looks like this is a right wing think tank ranking countries based on how much power the rich have to run everything. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
why do you you assume that "economic freedom" is inherently a good thing?

I suppose there are a good number of North Koreans that feel this way too.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
why do you you assume that "economic freedom" is inherently a good thing?
I suppose there are a good number of North Koreans that feel this way too.
And there you go with your all or nothing answers again. Either we need to let oligarchs run everything, or we need to let a single monarch run everything. The real answer is we need a combination of the private market (which drives innovation and profit but doesn't give a shit about people or the public good) and government regulation and assistance (which does care about people and the public good, but isn't great at driving innovation). 

Either extreme is super flawed and causes lots of problems. You need to combine them to get the strengths of both. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
, or we need to let a single monarch run everything. 

Singapore isn't run by Monarchs. It just has a small government and is also the least corrupt government on the planet.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Government regulation and assistance (which does care about people and the public good, 
North Korea's regulations don't care, as is the case with every bloated and corrupt government that is TOO BIG.

Again, I suppose there are a few people that live in North Korea that do believe regulations and government assistance as a general principle are good for the people, even when wielded by a large and corrupt government.

Every one of the governments on that list wants to assist the people and regulate evil. It's the smaller and less corrupt governments like Singapore that just do it way better.

If you care about government corruption, you should be concerned about the size of that government. There really is no "upside" to having a large, corrupt government.

USA being ranked 17th on that list actually is not a good thing.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
, or we need to let a single monarch run everything. 
Singapore isn't run by Monarchs. It just has a small government and is also the least corrupt government on the planet.
no, you used north korea as an example. They do have monarch running the government.

Also, singapore is fucking tiny. You are comparing the running of basically a city to the running of a massive country. Those 2 things are very, very different. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
North Korea's regulations don't care, as is the case with every bloated and corrupt government that is TOO BIG.
the size of the government is not the issue. it is the tyranny and lack of representation. 

If you care about government corruption, you should be concerned about the size of that government. There really is no "upside" to having a large, corrupt government.
there are tons of benefits of having a large government. That is why we need a big government, but also be vigilant about fighting corruption. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Also, singapore is fucking tiny. You are comparing the running of basically a city to the running of a massive country. 

I used the term proportional government size multiple times. I don't think you understand the correlation between government size and corruption.


There's even a Harvard study backing up what most people understand using basic common sense.

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I used the term proportional government size multiple times. I don't think you understand the correlation between government size and corruption.
you're comparing apples to oranges. It is alot easier to manage a single city than it is a massive nation. Of course you can keep your government small when you only have 5 million people in your entire country in an area under 300 square miles. 
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
you're comparing apples to oranges. It is alot easier to manage a single city than it is a massive nation. Of course you can keep your government small when you only have 5 million people in your entire country in an area under 300 square miles. 
Using this same logic you can’t compare the US with other countries cause the US is bigger 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
you're comparing apples to oranges. It is alot easier to manage a single city than it is a massive nation. Of course you can keep your government small when you only have 5 million people in your entire country in an area under 300 square miles. 

You don't even understand concepts like "rates" and "proportions."

There's no possible way you can follow a Harvard study on the correlation between government size and corruption.

Proportion takes the actual size and population of a nation out of the analysis.

You don't understand the word proportion. It's not fucking apples and oranges.



Whatever pretzel logic you wanna make up out of your ass to disprove a Harvard study would be great fun to hear.

Larger governments simply do not have less corruption. They have MORE. In the same nations, increases in the size of governments over time corresponded to an increase in corruption. And decreases in the size of the governments in the same nation corresponded to a decrease in corruption.

READ THE FUCKING STUDY.

It's not "apples and oranges" unless that's the hallucinatory safe phrase your brain uses to give up on rational thought.


North Korea is 1/80'th the geographical size of the United States and has far more corruption. COUNTRY SIZE DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. THE GOVERNMENT SIZE DOES.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Did you read the Harvard study?
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you read the Harvard study?
Yup

319 days later

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Not dysfunctional 'enough, to call dysfunctional, no.
Not from my view anyhow.