Hey, I know this is lazy, but I'm getting up early, driving to Charlottesville and then driving home tomorrow. I don't think I'm going to get back to the computer until Sunday morning.
Go ahead and use this thread to bring up more subjects you want opened up for discussion, and GO HOOS!!!!
1. It's no secret that Capitalism pools wealth. What would be your remedy for this effect? If no remedy exists what in your opinion will be the result? No need to discuss known failed economic systems in absence of a rememdy.
ReplyDelete2. Some economists have shown a correlation between rising abortion rates and declining crime rates (economics really is the dismal science). A possible reason, the economists postulated, was that the family demographic most likely to get an abortion was also the family demographic that led to the most criminals in the absence of an abortion (supported by their data set), and that the crime rate declined since those aborted did not have the opportunity to become criminals. The question is, assuming the correlation did exist, which is worse, abortion or the taxes and loss involved in raising, educating and/or incarcerating the resulting children?
3. Does the problem of the military industrial complex exist? If so, what is the remedy?
4. Would it ever be appropriate to consider that a new mod could be attained once old mod inventories were depleted when determining how much ordinance to use in a non-retaliatory strike? If so, provide a justification.
5. If faced with the task of determining the amount to spend on national security, is it appropriate to use cost/benefit analysis to determine the value of a human life? If so, provide justification.
b bauer
ReplyDelete1. Capitalism pools wealth voluntarily. Works well. No remedy needed.
2. I agree with your abortion argument. In the secenario you spell out, abortion should not be a choice, it should be a requirement.
3. No problem to me.
4. What?
5. Yes. In the civilian world we place a value on human life and call it "life insurance".
CW
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats aren't even in control yet and hard working people like you are already slacking off.
Yes, the military industrial complex does exist. Thanks to it, so does Missile Defense. Not saying that a few defense contractors haven't taken the opportunity to line their pockets, they were just first in line ahead of banks and potentially, auto manufacturers.
ReplyDeleteIt's no secret that slackers consume far too many resources in a Nanny State, while at the same time contributing very little to the overall well-being of that society. What would be your remedy for this phenomenon?
ReplyDeleteNo need to discuss additional Social Welfare programs designed to take wealth from the achievers, to create feel-good programs that have demonstrated over the course of 70+ years to have no effect on motivating the congenitally lazy.
Bonus points will be awarded for those that use "personal responsibility", "accountability", "self-reliance" and/or "tough love" in their response.
1. It should encourage everybody to do what it takes to get in the pool.
ReplyDelete2. Roughly 1 of every 3 births in the U.S. is out-of-wedlock. Nearly 1 of 4 (25%) white births, nearly 7 of 10(70%)black births, and more than 4 of 10(40%)Hispanic births are to unwed mothers.
U.S. Blacks and Latinos,are 60% of the U.S. prison population, but only 27% of the total population.
You do the math.
3 Not a problem for me, I have made an adequate living from it.
4. there are no problems that cannot be solved by the proper application of HE.
5. Yes, cost analysis is a technique for assessing the desirability of government projects and policies. The basic idea is simple: Consider alternative policies and identify the one that yields the greatest net gain or prevents the greatest net loss to society.
b bauer – Great questions. My comments focus on one in particular, your assertion that a correlation exists between rising abortion rates and declining crime rates.
ReplyDeleteI read and enjoyed Steven Levitt’s book as well, but am not sold that he demonstrated a strong enough correlation. For one, Levitt concluded that legalized abortion somehow increased the “wantedness” of babies actually born, yet a cursory examination of illegitimate births in the years following Roe v. Wade indicate this was simply not the case. Additionally, teen homicide rates in the first cohort born after Roe tripled. Where I think Levitt may have fallen short is his underestimation of other factors that may have had a stronger correlation to the crime rate’s waxing and waning, most notably the crack epidemic's rise and fall in the 1980's and 90's.
Utilitarian arguments on the consequential benefits of abortion on GDP, crime and the like aside, my feeling on abortion is that if it is to remain a legal choice, the government need not be compelled to finance it.
I find it interesting (and somewhat horrifying) that the abortion issue is viewed almost exclusively from the utilitarian point of view. If you believe that the worth of an individual is determined by his usefulness or contribution to society then you are not a conservative but a communist. Does anyone really need to ask what is better - the murder of an unborn child or the cost that society may incur if the child lives? Isn't that the wrong question entirely, especially from a conservative?
ReplyDeleteThe decline of our country seems, to me at least, to correlate rather closely with the increase in elective abortions. 40 million + abortions in 40 + years and we may very well be witnessing the end of a great nation. What happens to the psyche and will of a people when such slaughter is tolerated or, worse yet, justified and encouraged? We don't have to look too far back to see.
BTW, you guys need to read some Chesterton!
Anon
ReplyDeleteThe question was framed within a utilitarian context, and my comments reflect as much.
And from what I've read of b bauer's postings to date, I don't think he/she holds himself/herself out to be a conservative.
If abortion is wrong, it is surely wrong utilitarian arguments notwithstanding.
I'll throw this out there. In the Nov 1 issue of The Economist, it endorsed BHO for president. It's kind of a lukewarm endorsement, but they are behind him.
ReplyDeleteIn the article this was said:
"Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan's party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism."
Your comments #4.
Goldwater, if you define conservative as someone who lives in an over simplified economics 101 version of reality in which all people have the same chance to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” and join the pool of the wealthy and that if you don’t subscribe to that you are a socialist or you define it as someone who must be against subsidizing education for American people when education is probably the most important force in ensuring we are trained or re-trained to take higher level jobs (which is often the forgotten tenet of free trade theory), or you define it as someone who demands that we meet islamo-fascism with patrio-fascism, then I’m something else. However, if you define conservative as marked by moderation, then I most certainly consider myself conservative. I think the definition has been hijacked.
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that in my question on abortion, I didn't assert anything. I specifically mention that some economists assert this and I go on to say "assuming the correlation did exist," which poses a purely hypothetical scenario. There should be no reading between the lines as I am morally opposed to abortion but I don’t expect my morals to be legislated for everyone.
The reality is that if indeed the correlation between increased abortion and the reduction of crime did exist, today’s pro-life "conservative" would be in a conundrum. They are pro-life but if that life doesn't live up to their standard they'll be damned if they are going to pay any taxes to support it. That just isn't realistic. If the correlation did exist you would, in reality, be faced with a decision: nurture and educate, incarcerate, or incinerate. Any choice you make will require a tax. Like you, I abhor the fact that I pay it, but the alternative is not as simple as not paying it.
Though I write post this on Sunday morning, the event happened last night so I will consider it fodder for the FAS forum.
ReplyDeleteMe, my Honeysnugglemuffin, and two other couples were enjoying food and drinks at the Bonefish grill last night. The six of us were seated at one of the communal tables in the bar area that seats 8 and after some time another couple occupied the two remaining seats.
The conversation up until that point had been on the dangers that we face under an Obama-Reid-Pelosi regime. It changed abruptly because the couple that joined us was African-American.
Now this couple was in their late 50s, early 60s so it wasn't like we feared them for any reason the way that Jesse Jackson has told us how he fears young black men. It just struck us all as being somehow "polite" to drop the political talk.
Were we being racist? We judged these people and their political viewpoint not based on conversation with them, but instead on the color of their skin. Maybe they were part of the 1% of the African-American community who is not judging the candidates based on the color of their skin. Or would the other couple had thought us racist because we fear the income confiscation and loss of freedoms that will occur under Obamunism?
Does this foreshadow what it will be like under Obamunism? Will any criticism of The One continue to be seen as racist? What happens when many of His young middle class white followers experience the first tax increase of their working lives? Will they suffer in silence? It'll be interesting.
b bauer
ReplyDelete"...or you define it as someone who must be against subsidizing education for American people when education is probably the most important force in ensuring we are trained or re-trained to take higher level jobs..."
Though an educated workforce yields obvious benefits to society, the most direct benefits are enjoyed by the educated individual himself and he needs to have some skin in the game. As I've noted before, if my neighbor can afford a 5000 square foot home with 2 tricked out SUVs in the driveway and a Harley in the garage; I don't want to be taxed to underwrite his kid's college education.
I love it when colleges announce their annual tuition increases and the students hold their obligatory protest. Watching the kids get into their $20,000 SUVs when they are done is like watching them at the annual Earth Day rallies
And as far as the educations that I might actually tolerate being taxed in order to pay; nursing, math and science education, and Middle Eastern language studies fall into that category.
Degrees in Victorian English studies, African-American studies, Womyn's studies, and law school are luxuries that can be borne by the individual.
Since the free for all is going into extra hours:
ReplyDeleteWould McCain have run away with this election if he had chosen Colin Powell?
Assuming Colin Powell was even interested? No.
ReplyDeleteI think initially, the MSM may have actually praised the choice. However, exuberance would have quickly given way to cynicism as the MSM fell into line with the Obama campaign. The press would have taken Powell down piece by piece, beginning with his case for war before the UN (in a sensitive and reverential manner, no doubt).
You sure are getting lazy. Here it is 9:15 on Sunday morning and you haven't written a word.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk
No doubt many have seen the above Youtube clip with the Obama supporter expressing her hopes.
I just think it sounds better in it's original form as it was expressed in Berlin back in 1932, "Ich muss nicht um das Einsetzen des Benzins in mein Auto mich sorgen. Ich muss nicht um das Zahlen meiner Hypothek mich sorgen. Wenn ich ihm helfe, hilft er mir."
Translation courtesy of babelfish.yahoo.com
Perhaps he's still smarting from a heartbreaking overtime loss of his beloved Hoos yesterday.
ReplyDeleteI finally googled the term Wahoo as it applied to your school and was amazed to find out its origin. As a Floridian I always likened it, and knowing your personality, to the pelagic sportfish found off shore. Known for its fierce fight, razor teeth and incredible speed, the Florida WAHOO is a proud name. BUT now to find out it is in reference to a carp that can retain liquid and therefore increase its size to fend of attack I am deeply disappointed. Since it is your school can you please set the record straight as to why the Cav's nicknamed themselves after a carp that can retain fluids. OR am I really off base and it is a Seussian reference to Hoton finds a Hoo.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he should do as the medical industry has in outsourcing after hours x-ray and MRI reading, have it done by some one in India while he is sleeping (or on vacation). I'm thinking....the Conservative Hindoo.
ReplyDeleteb bauer,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think "the reality is that if indeed the correlation between increased abortion and the reduction of crime did exist, today’s pro-life "conservative" would be in a conundrum"? I consider myself a pro-life conservative and have no conundrum. I believe that since abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, it is always wrong. I want abortion to end (and I welcome legislative means by which to do that). My issues with taxation (as a conservative in favor of limited government, etc) are completely separate, unless those taxes are paying for abortions. Frankly, I would rather pay high taxes than live in a society that tolerates abortion. Unfortunately, I live in a society that tolerates both. So, in answer to question 2, I say abortion is worse.
As far as reading into your question, my bad. I think I found the question appalling, but I'm a girl and we are easily appalled.
Throughout history business has used government for its own ends. Government's role is that of a referee, nothing more. To the extent government protects certain players wealth will accumulate.
ReplyDeleteBy way of example, 8 out of 10 of the Forbes 100 richest Americans from 1970 to 1980 were unchanged in that ten year period. As we know the seventies were a time of Democratic control with a lot of regulation, and a lot of economic pain for most Americans. From 1980 to 1990 8 out of 10 were gone from the list. What happened? In a word, deregulation. People were investing money, making moves in the marketplace and trying to create wealth, rather than just trying to protect their capital. So, there were big winners and big losers. Some stayed on top, most didn't. Did the "losers" go bust. Probably not, although some may have. It's just that fortunes were being created (along with tons of jobs) and most at the top were just pushed out by better businessmen and women.
Remember, business does what business does. We can harness that (you know Adam Smith's invisible hand) or we can regulate and share the pain.