Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • only on Tr could it be even slightly controversial for the admins to make such an unambiguously correct call ngod bless the republic, islam is the light

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 209224 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33200
Let me ask you Dave, how do you feel about people who pass the cost of their not paying their bills on to others?
People who either:
  • run up unreasonable bills and then declare bankruptcy,
  • Say "sue me", because the cost of a suit will be as much or more than the bill that should be collected,
  • or figure out all they have to do is duck bill collectors for 7 years, and in all of the above cases, pass these costs to the rest of us?
Because these people rob from the poor, by driving up costs, putting small businesses out of business, and limiting investment capital, don't they?
So giving a person who is trying to get a job, or who is incapacitated by illness, a modest amount of help, is just like indulging a spoilt 2-year old? Even though through receiving that help that person may well go on to become a productive member of society?

Jesus weeps, Dave. He looks down on you and weeps.
I am probably doing more to help poor people and disabled people than you are. So I am all for it. As long as it is done by private citizens. Commissioning government to do it only leads to tyranny.  Maybe if I keep saying this every day for the next year or so it will sink in.
Tell us at length about how you "probably doing more to help poor people and disabled people than you are", Dave

  • Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 02:19:36 PM by Seven Popes
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sun Jan 14 2018 19:59:03 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
you suck at truth detection. (And spelling)

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33201
Let me ask you Dave, how do you feel about people who pass the cost of their not paying their bills on to others?
People who either:
  • run up unreasonable bills and then declare bankruptcy,
  • Say "sue me", because the cost of a suit will be as much or more than the bill that should be collected,
  • or figure out all they have to do is duck bill collectors for 7 years, and in all of the above cases, pass these costs to the rest of us?
Because these people rob from the poor, by driving up costs, putting small businesses out of business, and limiting investment capital, don't they?
So giving a person who is trying to get a job, or who is incapacitated by illness, a modest amount of help, is just like indulging a spoilt 2-year old? Even though through receiving that help that person may well go on to become a productive member of society?

Jesus weeps, Dave. He looks down on you and weeps.
I am probably doing more to help poor people and disabled people than you are. So I am all for it. As long as it is done by private citizens. Commissioning government to do it only leads to tyranny.  Maybe if I keep saying this every day for the next year or so it will sink in.
Tell us at length about how you "probably doing more to help poor people and disabled people than you are", Dave

While he's at it, he can tell us at length how "Commissioning government to do it only leads to tyranny".
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33202
So giving a person who is trying to get a job, or who is incapacitated by illness, a modest amount of help, is just like indulging a spoilt 2-year old? Even though through receiving that help that person may well go on to become a productive member of society?

Jesus weeps, Dave. He looks down on you and weeps.
I am probably doing more to help poor people and disabled people than you are. So I am all for it. As long as it is done by private citizens. Commissioning government to do it only leads to tyranny.  Maybe if I keep saying this every day for the next year or so it will sink in.

The problem isn't that it hasn't sunk in.

The problem is that it's bullshit.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33203
So giving a person who is trying to get a job, or who is incapacitated by illness, a modest amount of help, is just like indulging a spoilt 2-year old? Even though through receiving that help that person may well go on to become a productive member of society?

Jesus weeps, Dave. He looks down on you and weeps.
I am probably doing more to help poor people and disabled people than you are. So I am all for it. As long as it is done by private citizens. Commissioning government to do it only leads to tyranny.  Maybe if I keep saying this every day for the next year or so it will sink in.

The problem isn't that it hasn't sunk in.

The problem is that it's bullshit.

As usual, Bluffy believes his bullshit is so sweet, the only possible way others don't just lap it up and praise his BRILLIANT high speed mind running circles around them is because they don't understand or it hasn't sunk in and all he has to do is to keep repeating it. Apparently it never occurs to him the only remarkable aspect of his bullshit is just how amusing it is to see how seriously he takes himself.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33204
So giving a person who is trying to get a job, or who is incapacitated by illness, a modest amount of help, is just like indulging a spoilt 2-year old? Even though through receiving that help that person may well go on to become a productive member of society?

Jesus weeps, Dave. He looks down on you and weeps.
I am probably doing more to help poor people and disabled people than you are. So I am all for it. As long as it is done by private citizens. Commissioning government to do it only leads to tyranny.  Maybe if I keep saying this every day for the next year or so it will sink in.

The problem isn't that it hasn't sunk in.

The problem is that it's bullshit.
Is it?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33205
It is.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33206
Aaaaand link to some right-wing blogger's delirium about how welfare leads to communism and tyranny and mass exterminations. Go!
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33207
He's never bothered to pony up any before when he makes these sorts of idiotic pronouncements, why would he start now?
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • nesb
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33208
Give a man a pig, and you know what happens. Teach a man to pig...

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33209
And he stands on his hind legs and demands people call him something new?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • nesb
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33210
Something.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33211
So you guys think government welfare is a good thing?

  • nesb
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33212
I mean, I do. I think I'd like some basic income scheme over the weird patchwork system that currently exists in America, but you can't always have everything you want, I guess.

  • nesb
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33213
When it comes down to it, I think the shining goal should be providing equality of opportunity. I think you have to deal with wealth disparity (reign it in) before you can even really start to get there.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33214
So you guys think government welfare is a good thing?
It's called compassion and empathy, Dave. You wouldn't understand. It's a human thing.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33215
So you guys think government welfare is a good thing?
In the case of my wife, her ex-husband refused to pay his child support. Government assistance was the only way that she could hold on to the house and car while she got skills training and went back out in the workforce.
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33216
So you guys think government welfare is a good thing?
Much, much too general a question to answer simply. Welfare is good to the extent that it leads to people, well, faring well.

In general, yes, I think that the government offering welfare is a good thing. Not just good, but necessary.

Government is, to some extent, an agreement among people to give up some means they have of enforcing their will in return for certain guarantees. In order for that agreement to be effective, those guarantees must generally be worth giving up those means.

Welfare is one of the ways to make those guarantees effective. With welfare - or with a UBI - people should have little need to enforce their wills on others.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33217
Efficiently managed, universally accessible, means-based, single payer health care and basic income should be a goal for every modern economy.

Agree that income disparity would need a bit of work before it's achievable. Which is why Scandinavian countries seem to do a better job of it than most. 

Why Dave thinks that a patchwork of private charities and rural straw-bale hovel based housing schemes is a logical alternative to  sensibly organized compassion remains to be explained.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33218
When it comes down to it, I think the shining goal should be providing equality of opportunity. I think you have to deal with wealth disparity (reign it in) before you can even really start to get there.
Bingo. Equality of opportunity. Also we need to work toward self-sufficiency at the county level. When you really think about it, why in the hell does my local County need assistance from the state and from the federal government to help feed and educate its population? That's completely ridiculous. We have a population of something like 35000 people on something like 600 square miles of land area working from memory here. And it's excellent land to with adequate rainfall. Or it used to be excellent land before the farmers cleared it and started tilling.


  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33219
I suspect it's because private charity is a way of stamping a hierarchy on society, whereas government welfare, when done well, doesn't.

Eg, under private charity, if the beneficiary does something the giver doesn't like, perhaps they are gay, or they decide they want to go to college to improve their education, they can just be cut off. Under many government welfare systems (maybe not so much the US), that is not a concern.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33220
When it comes down to it, I think the shining goal should be providing equality of opportunity. I think you have to deal with wealth disparity (reign it in) before you can even really start to get there.
Bingo. Equality of opportunity. Also we need to work toward self-sufficiency at the county level.

Which of course is in no way related to your original question. It's called a "non sequitur".

Quote
non sequitur:

1 : an inference (see inference 2) that does not follow from the premises (see 1premise 1); specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see 1affirmative 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see 1consequent 1)
2 : a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33221
I would gladly pay more in taxes so that no one has to poop in a bucket.  In fact, I consider it my christian duty.  As an atheist.
Speaking of which, how many homeless have you fed?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33222
So giving a person who is trying to get a job, or who is incapacitated by illness, a modest amount of help, is just like indulging a spoilt 2-year old? Even though through receiving that help that person may well go on to become a productive member of society?

Jesus weeps, Dave. He looks down on you and weeps.
I am probably doing more to help poor people and disabled people than you are. So I am all for it. As long as it is done by private citizens. Commissioning government to do it only leads to tyranny.  Maybe if I keep saying this every day for the next year or so it will sink in.

The problem isn't that it hasn't sunk in.

The problem is that it's bullshit.
Is it?
Yes. Indubitably. Unquestionably. Absolutely.
Are we there yet?

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33223
When it comes down to it, I think the shining goal should be providing equality of opportunity. I think you have to deal with wealth disparity (reign it in) before you can even really start to get there.
Bingo. Equality of opportunity. Also we need to work toward self-sufficiency at the county level. When you really think about it, why in the hell does my local County need assistance from the state and from the federal government to help feed and educate its population? That's completely ridiculous. We have a population of something like 35000 people on something like 600 square miles of land area working from memory here. And it's excellent land to with adequate rainfall. Or it used to be excellent land before the farmers cleared it and started tilling.


Dave, you're not Nick Naylor. Stop trying to be him.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #33224
So you guys think government welfare is a good thing?

You know, there isn't such a thing as 'government welfare' here. That's because poverty, homelessness, hunger, addictions, lack of opportunity, educational failures, disabilities, and the many other ills that cause the poor and those who become poor to remain poor, cannot be addressed by a one size fits all system. So government assistance from three levels of government tailor programs and initiatives to help people as individuals and families in an often successful effort to lift them out of poverty, homelessness, etc.

I have known countless people who interacted with social services at one point or another on their journey to becoming stable, employed taxpayers. Without that boost, that little bit of respite, they may have utterly failed and been lost to society, their families, their futures. But they were given time and place and sustenance long enough to right themselves and continue on without that help.

There's nothing wrong with charity also lending a hand, but charity is not dependable. Food banks get low before Christmas, for example, because the givers have needs of their own and can't contribute as much. Charities often dissolve, and often enough charities are robbed by those who lead them. And many so-called Christian charities attach a price to assistance. Charities are no help with mundane things like helping people navigate the bureaucracies that handle identification, educational opportunities, finances, etc., all of which can be a nightmare to many people who end up in need.

A dedicated, continuing, always there, centrally available, multi-faceted government program can be depended on, and will not disappear overnight, or refuse to help you for some stupid 'moral' reason.

In common parlance, that's the thing you scornfully refer to as 'government welfare'. It's not perfect, but it has saved a lot of people in Canada.

Better still would be a UBI system, coupled with programs to help people with problems other than simply not being able to pay rent or buy food.