The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Andrews Labor victory means challenges and opportunities for change > Comments

Andrews Labor victory means challenges and opportunities for change : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 1/12/2014

Arguably no state government in the country has secured the revenue necessary to sustain government provision of public infrastructure over the long term.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Tristan
Stop trying to snivel your way out of it.

Aidan
You have gone in circles so much you've disappeared up you own fundament. Your argument is nothing but "Government knows better because government knows better". That's it. Kindergarten level stuff. Complete failure to deal with the issues. Slogans as substitution for actual thought.

Since you guys obviously don't know or care what an intellectually honest discussion would look like, it would look like this:
JKJ: "By what rational criterion do you distinguish governmental action that creates a net benefit for society as a whole, from that which does not, and wastes scarce resources?"
A; T "We don't."
JKJ: "So you don't have one?"
A; T "No."

There! That didn't hurt, did it?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 3:58:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's just saying you've got no substantial response to the point I made, JKJ.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 4:07:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine,
The only circle I've gone in is repeating myself in more detail because I could see from your response that you failed to understand it before.

Your accusation that I'm claiming "Government knows better because government knows better" is utterly ridiculous because I did not claim that government knows better!

I claimed that government has the ability to do economic modelling to compare available options (including the Do Nothing option) and that it uses that ability. Are you claiming it doesn't?

Now if you want to know by what rational criterion I distinguish governmental action that creates a net benefit for society as a whole, from that which does not, and wastes scarce resources, you should've just asked. I really thought things like that were too trivial to have to explain, but since it isn't, it involves calculating user and non user benefits (including non financial benefits) and comparing them with the ongoing costs. If they are less than those costs, there's no point continuing. But if the benefits exceed the costs then calculations are done to determine whether the net benefits justify the upfront (construction) cost. And I'm not going to describe that process a third time!

You may want to read what Wikipedia has to say about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost–benefit_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return

Since you obviously don't know or care what an intellectually honest discussion would look like, it would look like this:
A or T: "By what rational criterion do you define absolute statist?"
JKJ: "I don't, I just use slogans as a substitute for actual thought..."
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 6:59:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you can't see the circularity of your argument, then you're too stupid to continue, and it's as simple as that. At no point have you explained how government does it, all you've done, at every single stage, is just keep assuming that they can, and end by an appeal to absent authority. Even if you could make out your argument, which you can't because value is subjective, all you would have done is establish that government could equal market decision-making, not better it.

I define absolutist statist as one who supports unlimited government power and is unable when asked to identify any rational criterion or consistent (i.e. non-contradictory) principle for limiting it. Neither of you have got one. All you've got is an assumption that government is superior at economising, without any rational criterion for when the premises would not apply.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 2 December 2014 7:18:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you can't tell the difference between an argument that's actually circular and one that becomes circular when you make incorrect assumptions, then YOU'RE too stupid to continue.

And now you're complaining I haven't explained how government "does it". And of course you don't say what you actually mean by "it", because you want me to guess wrongly so that after I've explained you can tell me that I haven't and therefore that I'm telling you that "the sky is free because the sky is green" even though I've never actually claimed the sky to be green.

I appealed not to absent authority but to absent thought: specifically yours. I believe you to be capable of considering these things yourself instead of proudly proclaiming my argument to be circular because I haven't spoonfed you every last detail!

"Even if you could make out your argument, which you can't because value is subjective, all you would have done is establish that government could equal market decision-making, not better it."
While there's some subjectivity in determining the value of non financial considerations, that doesn't make them arbitrary. As long as there's a common basis for determining the value of time, safety and environmental considerations, it doesn't invalidate or even weaken the argument.

And your assumption that "government could equal market decision-making, not better it" is illogical. Market decision making is, as I've said, skewed towards the interests of those who are already rich. How could it possibly be the limit?

"I define absolutist statist as one who supports unlimited government power and is unable when asked to identify any rational criterion or consistent (i.e. non-contradictory) principle for limiting it. Neither of you have got one."
Human rights is one.
If you find that too vague, the constitution's another.

I doubt you'll find any absolute statists on this thread.

"All you've got is an assumption that government is superior at economising,"
That assumption's existence seems to be an assumption of yours!

However I do assume that people with the ability to economise don't magically lose that ability when they're working for the government.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 3 December 2014 2:01:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously if government is presumptively superior at economising, then there's no such thing as human rights, which presupposes inalienable values of liberty and property that are completely absent from your political ideology. But if they're not, then you're self-contradicting.

Got that rational criterion there yet fellah? Just answer the question.

The very fact that you refer to cost-benefit analysis only proves that government cannot hope to make out a justification of the rationality of its actions without trying to mimic the actions of the market. But value is subjective. You can't claim the validity of cost-benefit analysis by government IMPUTING to people what government says their values should be.

For example:
"As long as there's a common basis for determining the value of time, safety and environmental considerations, it doesn't invalidate or even weaken the argument."

So what's this alleged "common basis" for determining the value of time? My aged father-in-law's days are numbered. A child evaluates time differently. Everyone does. Same with "environmental considerations". A hungry person evaluates them differently from a well-fed person.

So go ahead. Prove what you're merely assuming. Prove the rational criterion by which you determine this alleged "common basis" for determining the value of time, the environment, or anything for that matter.

Just answer the question. If government can access finance more cheaply, and profit is presumptively an immoral waste, then
a) why should not all production be vested in government, and
b) if not, by what rational criterion do you decide what should and should not be?

Do you think it's not obvious that you're floundering around in self-contradictory circular incoherence
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 4 December 2014 5:43:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy