[grassroots1]

A sound economy and an infrastructure are in no way mutually exclusive.

[Kapanda]

But a better economy and infrastructure are. Well, of course I am assuming a more productive and faster growing economy is better than a less productive and slower growing one.

[grassroots1]

But a better economy and infrastructure are.

No, this is not true.

Infrastructure could lead to increased growth in the future, even surpassing where the economy would have been without the spending on infrastructure. I'm not denying that spending reduces growth in the short term, but what if those resources are used to educate the next generation of artists, engineers, athletes, and thinkers? That could certainly create a more productive society than there would have been if the market was left to itself. Conceivable, no?

[Kapanda]

On that part, as far as I'm aware, yes. I agree and you are correct.

But we were talking of a welfare system that reduces poverty right? I may have wrongly assumed that you meant welfare in the form of social benefits, like unemployment benefits and what not.

[DanDaMan]

Infrastructure could lead to increased growth in the future, even surpassing where the economy would have been without the spending on infrastructure. I'm not denying that spending reduces growth in the short term, but what if those resources are used to educate the next generation of artists, engineers, athletes, and thinkers? That could certainly create a more productive society than there would have been if the market was left to itself. Conceivable, no?

Yes.
Keyword COULD.
It's immoral to gamble with your childrens future though.
As adults we should bear the burden so our children do not have too.

But it's a moot point anyway.

Obama wants Cap & Trade and a unionized nation and higher taxes.
That WILL drive business over to India and China. Both who have said they will NEVER adopt cap and trade taxation.

So we my recover.... but unemployment will forever be 10 to 20 percent.

Unless America becomes protectionist... we can never compete with 1.5 BILLION new capitalists in China & India.

[Kapanda]

Economic theory (backed by evidence) shows you that protectionism is the worst thing you can do. Read up on Heckscher-Ohlin models and its variants.

[DanDaMan]

Economic theory (backed by evidence) shows you that protectionism is the worst thing you can do. Read up on Heckscher-Ohlin models and its variants.

I agree.

But that does not change the fact Obama is driving business out of the country with cap & trade and higher taxes.
We WILL have unemployment above 10% for a long long time.

[grassroots1]

But we were talking of a welfare system that reduces poverty right? I may have wrongly assumed that you meant welfare in the form of social benefits, like unemployment benefits and what not.

Yeah, I'm talking about solid, self-sustainable infrastructure. Functioning sustainable agriculture, spending on alternative energy sources, which is also a source of job creation, hospitals, schools, things we like!

Obama has hardly made an effort to help working people, he has been on the side of business since the day of the election (probably before too, which makes him a goddamn liar).

[Kapanda]

Were pople really expecting Obama not to be a politician?!

Spending on alternative energy sources is not necessarily sustainable. The job creation you speak of is akin to the "broken windows" fallacy. Resources are being taken away from other more efficient production channels.

A functioning, sustainable agriculture is not necessary.

[grassroots1]

The job creation you speak of is akin to the "broken windows" fallacy. Resources are being taken away from other more efficient production channels.

But why are the other channels necessarily more productive? We spend 800 billion dollars a year on our military. We spend resources to destroy things. This is not akin to the broken windows fallacy because these infrastructural changes would change peoples lives in a qualitative way.

A functioning, sustainable agriculture is not necessary.

It is necessary if we hope to live on Earth sustainably.

[Kapanda]

But why are the other channels necessarily more productive? We spend 800 billion dollars a year on our military. We spend resources to destroy things. This is not akin to the broken windows fallacy because these infrastructural changes would change peoples lives in a qualitative way.

Okay, point conceeded. This is a topic for another thread.

It is very dubious why so much is spent on defense. There is a book called "The Pornography of Power", bit of a bore, but it talks about the lobbying power of defense contractors.

Though of course, one can always say, even if we are to take resources away from such ends, why thrust them into welfare, and not just into private hands (i.e. decrease government spending)?

It is necessary if we hope to live on Earth sustainably.

But for what concerns any one particular nation, it is not necessary to have a sustainable agrarian sector.

[grassroots1]

It is very dubious why so much is spent on defense. There is a book called "The Pornography of Power", bit of a bore, but it talks about the lobbying power of defense contractors.

Word, I've never heard of it. But that's the other thing, in a sense we're not even getting our money's worth (whether or not you CAN get your money's worth when we're talking about weapons is a different argument) because these contractors are overpaid.

Though of course, one can always say, even if we are to take resources away from such ends, why thrust them into welfare, and not just into private hands (i.e. decrease government spending)?

Refer to my argument about future productivity & the state of the environment.

But for what concerns any one particular nation, it is not necessary to have a sustainable agrarian sector.

In my opinion, we need to stop concerning ourselves with our nation at the expense of everyone elses. We will have to accept, at some point, that at least in regard to the environment, we are all in the same boat.

[Zerogouki]

Take another look at what you said and google "strawman."

I know what a strawman is, and I wasn't using one. You, however, were making the classic "correlation implies causation" fallacy.

I provided decades worth of studies of human deviancy,

No, you didn't.

Here's a study showing that when welfare is gone, crime sky-rockets.

Yeah, from 96 to 101. "Skyrockets" indeed.

?? Source please!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 93609.html

neither Britain nor Texas remotely have the kind of 'welfare' (if you can even call it that) that I would support.

Certainly not Texas, which was part of my whole point.

I mean, you're right in the sense that I don't have statistics that can concretely back me up

I'm not denying that spending reduces growth in the short term, but what if those resources are used to educate the next generation of artists, engineers, athletes, and thinkers?

1) People who are going to be artists, athletes, and thinkers will become those things regardless of how much of my money you spend on educating them.
2) Artists and athletes contribute nothing to society that I consider useful. We need less of them and more people who actually work for a living.
3) w00t for engineers. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that the economic harm of taking my money away from me is more than offset by the economic benefits of subsidizing the education of engineers (as opposed to letting them work their way through college).

Economic theory (backed by evidence) shows you that protectionism is the worst thing you can do.

Reality begs to differ; House can explain in much greater detail than I can.

Yeah, I'm talking about solid, self-sustainable infrastructure.

Funny how the government sucks at creating that.

But why are the other channels necessarily more productive?

Because the laws of supply and demand dictate so.

This is not akin to the broken windows fallacy because these infrastructural changes would change peoples lives in a qualitative way.

That's exactly what the glazier said.

[Kapanda]

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mafamilledabord/MeaganGood010.jpg

West =/= world...

Reality begs to differ; House can explain in much greater detail than I can.

Yea he tried. But it seems he looks at the figures himself and makes his own conclusion, whereas those who study and specialise on the subject disagree strongly.

Funny how the government sucks at creating that.

I'm not so sure this is true about education.

[DanDaMan]

We spend 800 billion dollars a year on our military. We spend resources to destroy things.

That's very shallow thinking.

We protect our own soil so you can speak freely and not be censored by the Chinese, Putin, Castro or Chavez.

[grassroots1]

1) People who are going to be artists, athletes, and thinkers will become those things regardless of how much of my money you spend on educating them.

That's absurd. You think a person who's grew up with the kind of infrastructure I described and became an engineer would have done the same if he was malnourished and uneducated? Give me a break.

2) Artists and athletes contribute nothing to society that I consider useful. We need less of them and more people who actually work for a living.

I highly disagree, but that's an argument for a new thread.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that the economic harm of taking my money away from me is more than offset by the economic benefits of subsidizing the education of engineers (as opposed to letting them work their way through college).

Well the only way I could demonstrate it to you is by creating it.

But why are the other channels necessarily more productive?

Because the laws of supply and demand dictate so.

It depends how you define productive. Like I said, it's true that any spending will reduce growth in the short-term, but, depending on where the resources go, it could accelerate growth in the future.

That's exactly what the glazier said.

What?

[grassroots1]

That's very shallow thinking.

We protect our own soil so you can speak freely and not be censored by the Chinese, Putin, Castro or Chavez.

Of course I understand why these weapons are used, but I'm saying that if we look at it from the perspective of the world as a whole (as we will have to, given this environmental crisis), then the production of things which are used to destroy and halt productivity are incredibly... counter-productive, surprised?

[DanDaMan]

That's very shallow thinking.

We protect our own soil so you can speak freely and not be censored by the Chinese, Putin, Castro or Chavez.

Of course I understand why these weapons are used, but I'm saying that if we look at it from the perspective of the world as a whole (as we will have to, given this environmental crisis), then the production of things which are used to destroy and halt productivity are incredibly... counter-productive, surprised?

Surprised? No.
You have good ideals.
Problems is your ideals ignore mans self interest for power.
More so in places like China and North Korea.
Not to mention Russia's nuclear weapons still pointed at us.

Then there's the fact that China and India have stated that they will NEVER sign Cap & Trade or probably any other environmental bill.

So unfortunately... your ideals do not match the whole world... woops.. I mean the real world.

[Infidelis]

I know what a strawman is, and I wasn't using one. You, however, were making the classic "correlation implies causation" fallacy.

Setting up poverty and crime as being equally ridiculous as pirates and global warming isn't a strawman...?

I'll let it go, but again, the theories I've supplied and the data they've collected should adequately explain the cause/effect of poverty/crime. Do your own wiki searches, those pages explain the findings fairly well.

Yeah, from 96 to 101. "Skyrockets" indeed.

Perhaps "sky-rocket" is the wrong term, but a 5% increase in such as narrow of a field as financially-driven crime, and just for 20 days, is quite the strong correlation and quite the impact for a city, especially for police response time to personal/violent crimes, business' ability to stay afloat throughout that period and insurance claims.

No you haven't

Let me list them, even though you responded to them before and had to have seen them.

Direct:
-Albert Cohen's Status Frustratiom
-Broken Windows
-Merton's Strain Theory

Dependant on authority figures (missing in poor neigborhoods):
-Rational Choice
-Social Control
-Situational Control


Basically, if I had to sum up why welfare should be funded in one sentence, I would say that the impact on the individuals paying the taxes are impacted less than those that would not collect the welfare benefit. This, of course is countered as a liberal moral, irrelevant to those outside the ideology. However this moral is, in my opinion, valid to everyone because as research and natural instinct to provide for oneself and family, has shown that illegal means will subsitute legal means when money is short, so as a nation we have to prioritize which negative impact will be worse.

[grassroots1]

Surprised? No.
You have good ideals.
Problems is your ideals ignore mans self interest for power.
More so in places like China and North Korea.
Not to mention Russia's nuclear weapons still pointed at us.

So you are expecting extinction? Or at least mass conflict? That perspective will only lead us down that very road. People may want to be powerful, everyone likes the feeling of power, but the question is what we do with that power, what values we hold dear to us, and, ultimately, it depends on how far ahead we're looking.