Poll

Was it a good idea to pass the 'rescue bill?'

Yes
7 (26.9%)
No
19 (73.1%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Author Topic: Economics  (Read 35656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brandonazz

  • Baseball SuperStar
  • *****
  • Posts: 8876
  • Hoc etiam transibit
    • View Profile
    • My Internet Treasure Trove
Economics
« on: September 13, 2008, 04:03:56 pm »
I created this thread as a separate entity from the political and social theory thread so that it may receive greater focus. I find, when reflecting on my political views, I have specific opinions about social issues and various ways of backing them up. I then look at my economic views and see that they are very possibly a consequence of the prior; groups that endorse social liberalism tend to endorse left-wing economic views as part of the package. I want to see discussion of economic factors, that I may be informed enough to make a decision that isn't just part of the party platform.

1) Universal Health Care. Is it practical? If instituted, should private health care remain as well?

2) Should corporations be allowed to retain wealth due to the possible increases in jobs and GDP? Tariffs = Good Idea?

3) Inheritance tax. Is it fair to give what a parent earns to the government when they die, as opposed to the children? Is it fair for children who have not worked to become wealthy, due to the labor of their parents? Should there be a medium, or a system by which children caught in economic trouble after the death of a parent are kept afloat?

Just some things to kick-start discussion.



Offline Szaifedias

  • Atari Combat Vet
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2008, 05:39:24 pm »
To 3)
Damn, the parents love their children! That's the point why the children mostly inherit the work and maybe the wisdom of their parents. Often some rich inheritors are too arrogant and stupid, but give them a chance and tell them what's wrong with them, by underlining your arguments xD

2)
Yes! - They do as you can do ^^! - If they are have bounded liability, they doesn't have to pay their own wealth! -_-

1)
Some health care products in the super market might be bad quality or something like that, but I think people always only have to look at the price, if it's a good price (not cheap) they can trust the list of ingredients! (The same principle as at every consumer good ^^!)
AND another point is the pharmacy industry:
The pharmacy industry IS needed to buy any kind of medicament and drugs. I know that the stuff for the hospitals isn't from the pharmacy industry, but after you were at the doctor you mostly go to the apothecary and buy the prescription medicine. If you can't buy it anymore in the apothecary you always have to either deal with your doctor or go to a overcrowded hospital! - So they are wrong, but your doctor isn't!!!!!

Offline Andrew Ryan

  • Simon Belmont
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • A man has a choice, I chose the impossible!
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2008, 09:47:12 pm »
1): Yes, but keep private health care as an option.

2): Maybe, but only as punishment for breaking the law.

3): Only in special cases.
"Don't worry 'bout me. I wouldn't worry about me. Don't you worry about me. Don't you worry 'bout me!" - Talking Heads, Don't Worry About the Government

Offline Josasa

  • Commando Soldier
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2008, 10:57:35 pm »
1) I really don't want more of my tax dollars being pulled away from me (because this will have to happen in order to supply the needed wealth in order to fund such a system). Entrusting large sums of money with a government is bad, especially when there is so much bureaucracy within the government and anything it touches.

2) Free trade is the way to go.

3) Any object, be it money, material goods, or property, should be passed on as stated by the owner of that object. There should be no tax on this. If you give something to someone they deserve to have that thing in its entirety. I don't think the government should get involved anywhere in this.

Offline Allch Chcar

  • Asteroids Aficionado
  • **
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
    • City of Refuge
Re: Economics
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2008, 11:29:26 pm »
1) Yes, if people are willing to accept lower health care quality for the "lower" price. Private health care would become less common with the lower demand but the price should drop and quality should get better. Note: Whether the cost is the same or less than private health care depends, but there is a drop in quality inherent in universal health care. I know personally a good portion of our personal debt is medical related though. If it reduces the cost of basic checkups and operations enough, it could be worth the drop in quality.

2) Taking a business' profits reduces their power both for growth and development and reduces the incentive to make more profit. Basically the companies have no other purpose than to sell more goods and keep people employed. More than likely, if you took 90% of a companies profits they'd just increase the executive's salary to reduce their profit. Tariffs increase the cost to consumers to protect the national market from foreign competition. Tariffs can inflate the price of a product with less competition. Note: I think it should be embargo or open trade. Tariffs are like a nice way of saying "we'll trade with you but everyone of this product you send to use will be taxed so high that we'll only buy it when we're dangerously low or in dire need of it."

3) Inheritance tax is taking money from the rich simply because they have it or someone thinks they don't need it all. Most parents leave their children with money so they are taken care of. If the child cannot be successful on their own then that is exactly why they're given an inheritance. If they won't earn enough money to live on, they'll piddle what they were given away, possibly end up broke, and that would be fair. If they're successful then they'll contribute their part to society. If they hoard it, then at least they're not inflating the price of things or contributing to expensive toys. The government shouldn't provide money for people who leave debt to their children because that would be counterproductive. The inheritance tax is stealing and is solely in existence because of greed. The only reason to take someone's money and property upon their death is if they don't have a living spouse or any children and didn't leave their money to anyone else. The government already gets enough from the death of those without heirs to cover any costs they might have from people dying.
No Ph34r.
~ |CoR| Sgt-Allch Chcar*XP*

Offline /lurk

  • Dragon Warrior Slime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5251
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2008, 12:03:37 pm »
Public healthcare gives better quality at better value. That's all there is to it.

"Moral" issues aside, inheritance tax is there because it's necessary. People suddenly doubling their personal wealth would send inflation sky-high, and I know how much you all hate inflation. Also income tax would probably go up if inheritance tax was scrapped, and I know you hate that even more.
Not a winner anymore.

Offline Daxx

  • Golden Axe Battler
  • *****
  • Posts: 8613
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2008, 05:33:05 am »
there is a drop in quality inherent in universal health care.

Substantiate this, please.

Most measures of quality suggest that systems of socialised healthcare in Scandinavia, for example, are far in front of US private healthcare. Clearly you're wrong to suggest that universalising healthcare is inherently bad since we have counter examples, but I'd like to know why you thought it in the first place.

Offline SmileyMan

  • Star Wars Padawan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2008, 07:47:52 am »
Daxx, this has nothing to do with the 3 main points that are in the first post, but what do you think will happen now that Lehman Brothers has declared itself bankrupt? Is it as dire as the news makes it sound?

Offline Daxx

  • Golden Axe Battler
  • *****
  • Posts: 8613
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2008, 07:50:45 am »
Daxx, this has nothing to do with the 3 main points that are in the first post, but what do you think will happen now that Lehman Brothers has declared itself bankrupt? Is it as dire as the news makes it sound?

I've honestly not been following the news over the last couple of days; too little internet and too much RL stuff. I'll read a few articles and hopefully I can get back to you on it.

Bankruptcy for a major organisation like that is always going to be a Bad Thing. The news will of course sensationalise it somewhat, so perhaps a realistic view is to read between the lines of the news reports.

Offline SmileyMan

  • Star Wars Padawan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2008, 10:46:52 am »
Daxx, this has nothing to do with the 3 main points that are in the first post, but what do you think will happen now that Lehman Brothers has declared itself bankrupt? Is it as dire as the news makes it sound?

I've honestly not been following the news over the last couple of days; too little internet and too much RL stuff. I'll read a few articles and hopefully I can get back to you on it.

Cool.

Quote
Bankruptcy for a major organisation like that is always going to be a Bad Thing. The news will of course sensationalise it somewhat, so perhaps a realistic view is to read between the lines of the news reports.

Do you think there's something to what the "Ahhh! Doomsday!"-people are saying regarding the supposed coming of a US economic collapse?

Offline Arachoid

  • Tempest Top Dog
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • A new musical revelation...
    • View Profile
Lehman Brothers Goes Down
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2008, 03:09:35 pm »
Well, another giant falls to the rock and sling of the US economy. Really it's pretty sad; I'm in high school but I've predicted another depression for quite awhile now. What are we supposed to do? Fannie and Freddie have been eaten by the government, Lehman Bros. is down and out, DOW dropped 300 today alone (and has been dropping for quite awhile), NASDAQ isn't doing too well because we don't invest in tech anymore, and with the elections coming up it seems the president has gone ahead and went lame duck already.

Ain't Dubya a rascal?
I say NO! to all limits.
Unfortunately, I don't think we're far enough into the Civ stage to have deveoped into the 'Infinite-ghz processing' research tree yet...

Offline PatMan33

  • Fable Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 28788
  • M I RITE? STICKERS?
    • View Profile
    • DuckDuckGo
Re: Lehman Brothers Goes Down
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2008, 03:38:30 pm »
Ain't Dubya a rascal?

That is an amazingly ignorant comment. Do you even know what Lehman Brothers does?

Offline Andrew Ryan

  • Simon Belmont
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • A man has a choice, I chose the impossible!
    • View Profile
Re: Lehman Brothers Goes Down
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2008, 03:40:05 pm »
Their a bank or lending company aren't they?
"Don't worry 'bout me. I wouldn't worry about me. Don't you worry about me. Don't you worry 'bout me!" - Talking Heads, Don't Worry About the Government

Offline Arachoid

  • Tempest Top Dog
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • A new musical revelation...
    • View Profile
Re: Lehman Brothers Goes Down
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2008, 03:55:21 pm »
Ain't Dubya a rascal?

That is an amazingly ignorant comment. Do you even know what Lehman Brothers does?

I don't mean to say the he is directly responsible for their failing, but I do believe that this war he refuses to pull us out of has had a definite impact on our economy. Poor economy equals poor performance for financial services firms such as LB. Simple as that. I do realize that the comment was a tad misleading. Please excuse my momentary lapse in elaboration. It seems I misunderestimated your skill of inference.
I say NO! to all limits.
Unfortunately, I don't think we're far enough into the Civ stage to have deveoped into the 'Infinite-ghz processing' research tree yet...

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24481
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: Economics
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2008, 05:55:06 pm »
but I'd like to know why you thought it in the first place.

NHS, probably :P
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.