Slashdot Mirror
Prediction Markets and the 2008 Electoral Map
Electionwatch submitted a predicted electoral map of the 2008 US Presidential election, based on the bets made by the intrade prediction markets. I'm always interested in these markets and how accurate they end up being. This one calls it for Obama, but then again you probably could guess that by just watching 10 minutes of any TV "News" channel.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
"A tax rebate check is only printed money if you are running deficits like we are under Republican rule, not if you have a surplusses like we had by the time Bill Clinton left office."
What does this discussion have to do with being Republican/Democrat? Both parties are bad for the system. Given that we currently have a deficit, does it make sense to say we should put out more "rebate" checks, as Obama is doing (and probably McCain too)?
Not only that, but consider the difference between a one time stimulous check, and an occupation of a foreign country that costs us $341 Million per day and has left us less safe. That is $341 Million of printed money per day. Convenient you would forget about that
I did not forget it - it simply does not have anything to do with the current subject. Spending money on a bogus war is still putting money into the system. And if we lose that money (as apparently billions have been lost), the value of the dollars that are left in the system will go up. What does devalue the dollar, though, is printing more money out of thin air (read: the deficit), so if you truly are against devaluing the dollar then you should be against Obama on that issue.
"It is immoral to bankrupt people for getting sick and any society that has the ability to prevent this has a moral duty to."
Who is "bankrupting" who? If people opt for expensive treatments, then they should pay for that treatment. Or, if they can't afford it, they should choose a less expensive treatment. If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public (which is at the root of your concern), then such laws should be overturned, allowing less expensive treatments to exist.
As for morality: it is immoral to take by force from another individual any of their property. Agreed? It is likewise immoral for a government backed by force to do the same, with the threatened alternatives of jail or emigration. People have a right to everything that they have freely acquired through trade with other freely-acting individuals.
"All other industrialized nations provide a health care system to their citizens that actually treats their conditions rather than just extracting as much money while providing as little healthcare as possible."
And likewise those nations, industrialized or not, are violating the rights of their citizens. The government does not grant natural rights - rather, it is charged with upholding them.
"Unfortunately, they usually trust the lender or real estate agent to act in their best interest. And, in many cases, the agent will just lie or say that its just there for the lawyers."
If their lender/agent lies to them, and they have proof of the lies, they can take those individuals to court and get restitution.
"The lending companies are the ones that should be targeted. They can either be forced to remove all predatory practices (like increasing your interest rate by several hundred percent due to one late payment), or simply forced to erase the mortgage completely and give total ownership to the individuals."
There is no difference between a rights violation through taxation and the rights violation you have just described. Both involve the government telling a private party what to do with property they freely acquired from other freely-acting individuals.
And, if you don't think taxation would be involved, from where is the funding coming for the federal investigations and implementations of the regulations being applied to these companies.
"Unless you have a degree in economics (obviously you don't) please STFU."
Sorry I should have clarified. All of my friends in college were econ majors and I just base my statements on what they've told me. I personally did not go down that road.
"a plague would come..."
That is a national emergency situation and has no bearing on how normal, non-emergency situations should function. It's like arguing that the slight possibility of an alien invasion means we should always live as we would during such an emergency.
"Utilities are either government owned or heavily regulated because there is only room for one sewer, one power grid and one road network; these are called natural monopolies."
Begging the question. You haven't shown that "there is only room for one" of any of those items you've claimed are "natural monopolies". That the government has deemed some property public, and decided that only one sewer/road/power line should be run on that property, doesn't make your statement true. It is simply what the government has decided to do with property it has taken by force. Ideally no property would be government-owned.
"If you try to let people starve, they will steal instead.... [snip]..."
More question begging. You've assumed their only choices are to starve or steal. They could also work.
"If more politicians thought like you do, our society would collapse."
A pithy, frightening statement backed up by no evidence whatsoever should be disregarded no matter how pithy or frightening.
"confused armchair economists"
You've characterized me and my statements, but have not shown why your characterizations are valid. Care to actually rebut my statements, or is that beyond your interest or capacity?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
"Smallpox was never a national emergency, but thanks to government-sponsored immunization programs, I don't have to worry about catching it."
You've traded your rights for protection against an emergency that may not have ever come about. Nice, convenient, but not justifiable.
"And you've assumed that everyone is capable of working."
No, I haven't. I am not trying to show that everyone will be safe and secure under a rights-upholding system, only that their rights will be upheld. You are the one trying to save everyone in every situation (at the expense of everyone's rights).
"No city in the entire history of humanity has ever had two sewer systems, two independent power grids or two independent road networks."
According to what sources? And how does the lack of a past example show that such a situation is wrong?
" It's not that the government has decided that there should be only one of these things"
It is exactly that. Public services like the ones you've mentioned run along property deemed public, and the government has decided what should and should not exist on that property. Otherwise, what is stopping a company from moving in and providing better internet access in a given Comcast-monopoly region? The demand is high, but nothing is filling that demand, because the government says where lines can and cannot be run, and they don't want additional cable lines running around the city. Government-backed monopoly.
"I stand by my original statement."
So you won't explain how your characterization is valid? Or do you just want me to assume it is?
"By the way, the phrase 'begging the question' means rephrasing a question without adding anything."
No, it doesn't. Read Begging the question. Essentially you're assuming something that you are meant to be showing. It's similar to a circular argument. In your one example above, you assumed that there can only be one choice for roads/electricity in order to show that government-backed services are justified, when those same services are the reason there is only one choice. Question begging.
"I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you, because your mind is obviously closed."
If you feel you cannot rebut my arguments, just say so. That's fine. But there's no reason to go ad hominem. If I am ignoring something, please point it out. Tell me what to respond to.
Or walk away. Your choice.