weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Morals should absolutely play a part in economics.
Meme & Quote Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Morals should absolutely play a part in economics.
sturg33
I
Paying people based on merit is immoral?
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
No, but there are moral arguments when it comes to other economic issues. Taxation for example is a moral issue.
sturg33
I
Agreed... legalized theft is immoral
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Are there sectors of life/society where morality should not be employed?
sturg33
I
I'm first trying to decipher where the position that I'm advocating is immoral...
To answer your question... there should never be an institution that behaves immorally... I'd first look at the publicly funded government before pointing fingers elsewhere.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
No, but there are clearly areas where morality is chosen not to be employed, at least not honestly.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
sturg, to your graph. I think the thing that is being ignored is that where prices are rising, there is no substitution effect. It's all delivered in real time. I can rely on cheap Chinese labor for clothing and electronics, but I can't import my medical care (or my housing or my childcare or my university education) from China. That has to be delivered on a face-to-face basis. I agree that there may be some effect that emanates from subsidies (I don't believe that housing prices would be where they are without the home mortgage interest deduction), but I think the larger effect--at least for the products listed on the graph--comes from the nature of what is being delivered (services over goods).
sturg33
I
Totally fair point... and I'm glad you addressed the graph as nobody else seems to want to.
But let's look at education: The government subsidizes it. They allow every student to take out subsidized loans. Meaning - access to money to pay for college is essentially limitless. When this happens, prices will go up. If the government didn't do this, less students will be able to get loans, meaning less demand for education, meaning a reduction in prices.
Health care? The government has mandated that ever single person must buy insurance. This gives hospitals/doctors blank checks to continue to rise prices. As prices rise, insurance goes up... etc.
Then you look at things like TVs... you let the market go to work. You let technology go to work. Innovation, competitions, etc. Prices plummet.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I guess my point is that the difference between a television and a hospital visit are radically different. Anyone with the capital can build a manufacturing plant for whatever product, but a lot of the services you cite require credentialing. I'm not saying all the credentialing is valid, but I won't be running off to Crazy Bob's Surgery and Tanning Salon anytime soon.
I will grant you that the medical profession performs a lot of procedures that they wouldn't perform in the absence of insurance (publicly-subsidized or private), but there seems to be a consumer demand for those tests as well (don't want any death panels).
sturg33
I
57, it seems you don't understand libertarian philosophy at all.
I know it's fun and easy to just say we hate poor people. But more rational and intelligent posters (see 50 pound head) understand we simply believe there are better ways of helping.
But hey, if you want to use Hurricane Katrina as your example on why government is the best solution for disaster help, please be my guest
I know it's fun and easy to just say we hate poor people. But more rational and intelligent posters (see 50 pound head) understand we simply believe there are better ways of helping.
But hey, if you want to use Hurricane Katrina as your example on why government is the best solution for disaster help, please be my guest
57Brave
Well-known member
When the caption says "don't" stead of didn't it is present tense
I understand (L) philosophy but think it very elitist that frankly belongs to another age
because
that first class public education of the 1960's taught to understand issues and then decide when to agree. And when not
having said that, I am curious to see how the party handles post election, whether they work to expand or go on vacation until 2020.
Or if Johnson and Weld are courted back to (R)
Or if Johnson and Weld are brought into a Clinton Administration
I understand (L) philosophy but think it very elitist that frankly belongs to another age
because
that first class public education of the 1960's taught to understand issues and then decide when to agree. And when not
having said that, I am curious to see how the party handles post election, whether they work to expand or go on vacation until 2020.
Or if Johnson and Weld are courted back to (R)
Or if Johnson and Weld are brought into a Clinton Administration
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Laurenn McCubbin @laurennmcc 32m32 minutes ago
OH MY GOD - NYC Parks removes Trump statue, then says this:
Now that's just mean!!!
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The funny thing about not supporting GJ because he isn't a Republicrat is that GJ isn't even a strong Libertarian. He is actually a moderate Republican running on the Libertarian ticket. Look at Johnson as a candidate and not what you think the sterotypical Libertarian position is. You act like he wants he government to do nothing but when you look at his record you see that he increased education spending 33% while governor.
