what is your typical view on AMERICANS?
0
Honestly, most of us are extremely rude, which is the exact opposite of some countries. This turns a lot of visitors off after their third sexual harrasment and second middle finger. We also eat entirely too much [if you don't believe me sit on an American street corner and count the fat guys you see. You won't have to wait long lol].
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Where the bloody hell are you when I'm trying to defend these points? I feel like a pilot without a wing man
This echoes my thoughts to the letter (not the picture..well, maybe.). I couldn't have put it better myself. The market will ultimately decide how things work and which products will be the standard. The government can try as much as it wants but, trying to "handle" the markets is like trying to do the same to a stubborn person.
I was trying to present something of both sides. As you know, I'm not as libertarian as you, or a full on lassez-faire supporter, but neither do I think the U.S. should be France. It's best to let markets work as unimpeded as possible, for both economic liberty and accuracy, but there do have to be some restrictions.
Just as important, if not moreso, than how much we give the poor is the form in which the aid they receive comes. Education and skills training is preferable, as per the famous "Teach a man to fish" quote, but at the same time, people can't go to school if they have to spend all their time and money simply trying to get by on min wage jobs.
Some economists suggest we should consider paying the poor to attend community colleges or trade schools for some limited amount, assuming they keep up their grades/reviews. It certainly puts the incentives in the right place.
0
WhiteLion wrote...
I was trying to present something of both sides. As you know, I'm not as libertarian as you, or a full on lassez-faire supporter, but neither do I think the U.S. should be France. It's best to let markets work as unimpeded as possible, for both economic liberty and accuracy, but there do have to be some restrictions.Just as important, if not moreso, than how much we give the poor is the form in which the aid they receive comes. Education and skills training is preferable, as per the famous "Teach a man to fish" quote, but at the same time, people can't go to school if they have to spend all their time and money simply trying to get by on min wage jobs.
Some economists suggest we should consider paying the poor to attend community colleges or trade schools for some limited amount, assuming they keep up their grades/reviews. It certainly puts the incentives in the right place.
I'm not a Lazzez-faire Libertarian like the purists. I do tend to use the word in the wrong context though but, I feel it's the closest term to where I stand (minimum restriction while not infringing rights,etc). I guess I'm more of a "sandbox" libertarian. Give the markets (and people) wide boarders with the rules. Such as "Do what you want unless you infringe on someones constitutional rights" which although vague gives a good idea of what I'm aiming at.
I also agree with you on the rest of your statement. I have always used the "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." as the center of my argument against handouts. Though the suggestion of the economists you mentioned is definitely intriguing. Instead of giving a kid a cookie and expecting him to behave you reward the kid for behaving by giving them a cookie. The current method of "aid" gives no incentives for people to do more for success. People have this mentality that the "system" is designed to keep everyone down while allowing a "special" few to succeed. There is nothing in this world that holds anyone down other than themselves.