ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
One thing all hard-core libertarians miss is that they don't live their lives in a vacuum. One person in your area loses their house to foreclosure, they've got a problem. Half the people in your area lose their houses to foreclosure, you (and everyone) have a problem. One would think that someone living in a country where towns are literally begging people to buy houses for $1 would understand that.
That's what anarchist (both on the right and the left) miss, but classic liberal mini-archist (the vast majority of rightwing libertarian leaning types) don't miss that.
Towns begging people to buy houses for $1 happen because of depopulation, and unless you want to force people to live in specific places, it should be normal that towns die sometimes, unless you want to claim towns exist forever in the "best possible place" every time.
Why do you fear creative destruction as one of the main engine of prosperity? that would include towns dying sometimes, if towns never die out you have something very wrong in your country, not enough risk taking, not enough change happening.
I wonder why we stuck a bunch of military bases in Germany and Italy--it's a true mystery 😀
In Italy, because we wanted them as part of the empire after we won the war togheter. Keep in mind you guys came when our national government had already destituted Mussolini and we were back on the good side of history, not sure if you studied that part.
You helped us free italy from the nazi occupiers and the fascists which had kept a little piece in the north.
Germany is a lot different.
In fact we had no limitations to build strong armed forces after WW2, and we wrote our constitution without allied interference, while Germany had to submit it to allies and couldn't develop proper armed forces for decades (like japan).
So, i wonder why you even thought Germany and Italy were similar for the aspect of american military bases
Agree.
The problem to me isn’t private or public , it is to find the right ratio to optimize competition while keeping some « ethics » in the market .
Fair legal competition .
IMO Monopoles and absolute power always ends up in some kind of corruption.
The public is inherently monopolistic and has 0 pulsion to compete because when there are no rewards in competition, why would you compete?
if a public school manager and it's employee have permanent job security and there is no one who is going to benefit materially in a significant way if they do a better job, why would they? people are invariably lazy, and they only do something more than the absolute necessary minimum if they are strongly motivated.
There can be the rare zealot motivated by "passions" or "ideals" but they get swamped out very fast very soon by everyone else around them, or by age.
While financial interests keep motivations ongoing, especially if you have both splendid rewards for success, and heavy "punishment" (job or financial loss) for failure.
You cannot expect things to get better among human beings if participants aren't structurally motivated constantly to do a lot more than the bare minimum.
I am still lost. How do military bases in Italy give you standing to opine about our k-12 education system?
Montrealcorp if you did approximate a market in the public sector i could accept trying it.
Say the bottom 2% of teachers get fired every year, and the bottom 0.5% of schools get closed down for good.
But unless you have those elements, how the hell can you defend the idea that the public isn't going to structurally, necessarily, deliver a worse service becaues there is no filtering mechanism to kick out the worst performers, while there is one in the private sector?
I am still lost. How do military bases in Italy give you standing to opine about our k-12 education system?
It answers the question "why do you care so much about american politics".
There is no "standing" to gain because it's not a judicial thing.
Everyone everywhere has "standing" to have opinions about anything, among rational people.
Viceversa according to your "logic" americans not living in CA wouldn't have "standing" to have an opinion about CA state laws, but that doesn't seem to bother you having an opinion on state or local laws of states and localities you aren't a resident of, correct?
So it's just about you disliking me, and not wishing to read my opinions in general, so why don't you just block me instead of making up some nativist claim about who has a right to have an opinion about american politics?
That's what anarchist (both on the right and the left) miss, but classic liberal mini-archist (the vast majority of rightwing libertarian leaning types) don't miss that.
Towns begging people to buy houses for $1 happen because of depopulation, and unless you want to force people to live in specific places, it should be normal that towns die sometimes, unless you want to claim towns exist forever in the "best possible place" every time.
Why do you fear creative destruction as one of the main engine
Nice job missing the point.
I don't believe for a second you think food production and distribution would be better if government owned fields and supermarkets nor that the current amount of regulations about food productions are proper (or we need even more??), and food is more important than what you listed , objectively.
Utilities stand out of the list, as transportation does in part, because of actual natural monopolies that can exist. That is what justifies a modicum more regulation than normal sectors, on top of the "
it is though, farming in america is done in full partnership with the government
in wwi and wwii, with much of the farm labor out fighting in europe, we were forced to have backyard vegetable farms called victory farms in order to make up the difference - we have not forgotten that experience and the government works extremely closely in partnership with agriculture to ensure that regardless of market conditions, we'll always be producing enough food to be agriculturally independent
government heavily subsidizes farmers to both steer production towards needed things as well as make it economically viable - ie there's a lot of stuff which would be cheaper to just import (and then let the farms fail) but we want to make sure we produce our own
there's very little "free market" happening in agriculture, almost none outside of the end point where you buy at the grocery store
it is though, farming in america is done in full partnership with the government
in wwi and wwii, with much of the farm labor out fighting in europe, we were forced to have backyard vegetable farms called victory farms in order to make up the difference - we have not forgotten that experience and the government works extremely closely in partnership with agriculture to ensure that regardless of market conditions, we'll always be producing enough food to be agriculturally independent
government hea
subsidies are neither public ownership, nor heavy regulation.
subsidies for agriculture happen because of electoral laws, which give disproportionate power to rural agricultural areas and states compared to the population living in them.
there is also the security aspect which you mention that justify the state making sure the sector produces enough.
still nothing to do with "if a government agency was the actual owner and operator of all farms, more and better food would be produced" which is what you claim is true for schools healthcare and so on.
the state can pay but as long as all decisions are made by private entities in competition things will always be a lot better than if they were made by bureaucrats who can't be fired
Thanks dude. I've just put in my order.
Celebrate the Win with VICTORY 47 - FOR MEN
Limited Edition, Numbered Collectible Cologne celebrates President Trump’s historic victory and upcoming inauguration as the 47th President. Featuring his iconic golden statue, *Victory 47* blends rich, masculine notes with a refined, lasting finish.
For men who lead with strength, confidence, and purpose—this is more than a cologne; it’s a celebration of resilience and success.
luciom, i was very clear that direct ownership/management wasn't a required but heavy regulation is
no farmer in america makes a single decision that isn't guided by government restrictions and incentives
Montrealcorp if you did approximate a market in the public sector i could accept trying it.
Say the bottom 2% of teachers get fired every year, and the bottom 0.5% of schools get closed down for good.
But unless you have those elements, how the hell can you defend the idea that the public isn't going to structurally, necessarily, deliver a worse service becaues there is no filtering mechanism to kick out the worst performers, while there is one in the private sector?
Because even in private sectors with firing capabilities, you still don’t have 100% pure perfect employees anyway .
And again the public services isn’t about to make money but to actually provides a minimal services to those who can’t or barely can afford it .
You just can’t uses the same arbitrary factors of success when the private sector mission and public sector mission are vastly different with different targeted participants as well .
Just look at data shrug .
American Healthcare and education are a joke in the U.S. in cost benefit compare to many other countries where the public sector participation has a much higher role in it .
If you are a millionaire you don’t see it but the majority aren’t millionaires and government shouldn’t be at the disposition of millionaires too anyway .
Government is about helping people and from their pov , most of them think the American system in those area is a failure .
The public is inherently monopolistic and has 0 pulsion to compete because when there are no rewards in competition, why would you compete?
if a public school manager and it's employee have permanent job security and there is no one who is going to benefit materially in a significant way if they do a better job, why would they? people are invariably lazy, and they only do something more than the absolute necessary minimum if they are strongly motivated.
There can be the rare zealot motivated by "p
Do you really believe what motivates only the workers in the private sectors to perform is to not get fired ?
I wish bobo could answer here how he perceived that line of thinking about teacher in the public sector ?
As if many teachers don’t love to teach kids and see progress in them for example to be motivation enough to perform , despite being in an underpaid job in some cases ….
Again you keep saying threats and violence shouldn’t be done by government and yet you believe the only way to motivate people is to fire them ….
You’re questioning if BrianJames is one of Trump’s marks? Really? Of COURSE he is. After all, Trump LOVES the uneducated.
MrJames undoubtedly has already ordered one of these…… https://gettrumpwatches.com/
Do you really believe what motivates only the workers in the private sectors to perform is to not get fired ?
I wish bobo could answer here how he perceived that line of thinking about teacher in the public sector ?
As if many teachers don’t love to teach kids and see progress in them for example to be motivation enough to perform , despite being in an underpaid job in some cases ….
Again you keep saying threats and violence shouldn’t be done by government and yet you believe t
I guess I couldn't say for certain, since that situation doesn't exist for them here, but I'm pretty certain his assertion is stupid. But I find it's a waste of time to engage with Luciom on education, since he's got some pretty wild ideas that he'll never move away from, and like with so many other topics, speaks as if he has great expertise on it when he clearly doesn't.
Do you really believe what motivates only the workers in the private sectors to perform is to not get fired ?
I wish bobo could answer here how he perceived that line of thinking about teacher in the public sector ?
As if many teachers don’t love to teach kids and see progress in them for example to be motivation enough to perform , despite being in an underpaid job in some cases ….
Again you keep saying threats and violence shouldn’t be done by government and yet you believe the only way to mot
i don't think you're saying it, so i want to be clear that i'm not trying to put these words into your mouth
but don't you think that it's a major negative that it's nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher?
luciom, i was very clear that direct ownership/management wasn't a required but heavy regulation is
no farmer in america makes a single decision that isn't guided by government restrictions and incentives
And you think food production would be lower/worse with lower government intervention?
There are ways to subsidize without big distortions in allocations and decision making (cheaper loans, tax exemptions, cheaper/free insurance and so on), do you think the dirigist approach has positive outcomes?
Because even in private sectors with firing capabilities, you still don’t have 100% pure perfect employees anyway .
And again the public services isn’t about to make money but to actually provides a minimal services to those who can’t or barely can afford it .
You just can’t uses the same arbitrary factors of success when the private sector mission and public sector mission are vastly different with different targeted participants as well .
Just look at data shrug .
American Healthcare and education
USA taxpayers spend more public money per pupil in school, and more public money per patient, than any other country in the world, so they are literally the country where the public does the most in those sectors.
In Italy, because we wanted them as part of the empire after we won the war togheter. Keep in mind you guys came when our national government had already destituted Mussolini and we were back on the good side of history, not sure if you studied that part.
You helped us free italy from the nazi occupiers and the fascists which had kept a little piece in the north.
Germany is a lot different.
In fact we had no limitations to build strong armed forces after WW2, and we wrote our constitution without a
I know the history dude. And you're free to believe whatever you want cupcake. It's no accident we have a bunch of military bases in all of the former axis countries. But it doesn't really matter what you think because we have plenty of insurance in case you want to start acting dumb again--there are some reminders right in your backyard to give you pause 😀
I know the history dude. And you're free to believe whatever you want cupcake. It's no accident we have a bunch of military bases in all of the former axis countries. But it doesn't really matter what you think because we have plenty of insurance in case you want to start acting dumb again--there are some reminders right in your backyard to give you pause 😀
One USAG in Italy like in Poland and Belgium and Romania. Lol "axis countries".
5 in Germany , many in Japan.
We were treated like allies to be defended, not like vanquished enemies to keep under control
