Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-18-2012, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,384,723 times
Reputation: 4190

Advertisements

In both cases the "free stuff" was stolen from somebody else....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-18-2012, 08:25 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,360,119 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
It's rather ironic that 150 years ago the largest government give away spurred the rapid expansion of land ownership to American citizens, the Homestead Act of 1862, distributing some 270 million acres to some 1.6 million individuals and families. Under the subsequent legislation the federal government help to establish the Land Grant Colleges and Universities, many of which went on to become some of the premiere institutions of higher learning the country. Schools like Cornell University, Auburn, University of Florida, Purdue, Kansas State, Louisiana State, University of Georgia and others.
UGA was established long before any of that stuff. In fact, I think University of Georgia predates the Federal Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 08:58 PM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,891,601 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Uh huh. Plots of land that were miles wide, in sparsely populated areas, and typically held one family is the perfect scenario to build cohesion w/ your neighbors.
Are you stating that civilians took up residence in native dominated areas in small numbers? They weren't. If, by your claims, the white mans fear of natives is real....it's obvious that they would have never done such a thing.



Quote:
Lol... surrendered land claims to something they had no right to, to ask the gov't to do something they weren't able to do on their own.
Is that or is that not coercion? Look at what happened to the Cherokee Indians and the trail of tears...

You are trying to say "coercion" doesn't count because the settlers and government had an agreement which was not fulfilled? The government duped the settlers by assuring them they would do what they said.



Quote:
"By sheer capital" in the sense that the only thing stopping people from building & launching a satellite on their own vs building a ham radio on their is "sheer capital." No one ever went bankrupt building a road. You want to put compare things that are actually comparable, why didn't "private enterprise" build highways?
Ah, this is awesome...Arguing against more of the staunch right wing bastions of pride with one of CD's more unapologetic liberals LOL...the irony is getting even better in here.

The Lincoln Highway

Quote:
The Lincoln Highway was built with private and local funds because the Federal Government was not yet convinced of the value of such roads. Railroads were still the way to move people and freight over long distances. But those who had something to gain from such a route, such as Frank Sieberling, founder of Goodyear Tire, and Henry B. Joy of Packard Motor Car Company donated large sums of money. It is interesting to note that Henry Ford was not interested in the highway despite the urging of friends Sieberling, Joy, and Thomas Edison.
More proof that the federal government doesn't stick their nose around unless it benefits them.

If you are talking about why private enterprise didn't solely build interstate highways?

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There, that's why

BUREAUCRACY


Quote:
And when you've lost the discussion, throw out absurd claims of criminality. Fact is Americans had a blueprint for building railroads that existed for DECADES and no private enterprise bit, even when they knew that railroads had made dozens of Europeans rich.
Sherman Antitrust Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yea, it never happened.


Quote:
A. And yet they didn't, despite decades of awareness of European railways.
They were....private enterprise was building the railroads. lol...just with public money.

Quote:
B. I'm not a capitalist slave. I can see gov't doing something that helps its own cause, WHILE helping the average joe. How is the gov't doing what it did different that private enterprise doing it? Are you suggesting that private enterprise is more benevolent that gov't...
Who the hell is the average joe?? You mean helping one average joe but squashing the other one? What the government doing is MUCH different than what private enterprise would be doing without it..

Let's say I have cookies for sale for $1 each and my neighbor has cookies for sale for $2 each. You will buy from me...or... you will buy from my neighbor because his cookies are $2 each but they are much better. Whether the cheaper cookie or the better tasting cookie maximizes your utility is left to nobodies discretion except your own.

But, let's say there is a third party that gives out cookies for free...but they go around with a gun and rob everybody for the materials to make these cookies (price is irrelevant)...Many people, even the people who have been robbed, will take the cookies from the third party no matter how bad they are....And even if all people served want a better tasting cookie or simply something different...they may or may not be able to afford to purchase the other options.

This is a rudimentary example of how government subsidized goods are a much different dynamic than in a true free market.. And it gets even more involved and distorted because you also have to deal with these types of collusion, or self granted monopolies (i.e. USPS), with services.

Quote:
C. Except that um... railroads didn't exist before gov't started subsidizing them, so that means that it's nothing like your Walmart example.
This means nothing...



Quote:
Lol... A guy that got into a business 60 years after the gov't started funding it, is an example of why the gov't shouldn't have started funding it to begin with.
Federal government intervention was fairly benign in it's infancy...but it's has grown unwieldy and is the reason why we are screwed now. And, the running theme still remains....All growth would have been realized sans a federal government. Maybe not at the same pace...but that is not inherently a bad thing...

More times than not...forcing people to do things expedites what you want done.

You will take your clothes off much faster with a gun pointed at you. Nobody would argue that.



Quote:
So you don't know what "coercion" means. Got it.
Of course, I do.



Quote:
So what was the "constitutional" way to disperse land that the Fed gov't claimed?
How about granting ALL OF IT through the Homestead Act?

I don't know who it was that pointed out "who wanted the land anyway" so no harm, no foul? But if nobody wanted it anyway....why pass the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and, subsequently, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act??



Quote:
You want to win this argument, show why private enterprise didn't build railroads on their own? They had time, access to the land, and no competition. What happened?
Because it wasn't profitable (enough) to do so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,085,322 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz View Post
Are you stating that civilians took up residence in native dominated areas in small numbers? They weren't. If, by your claims, the white mans fear of natives is real....it's obvious that they would have never done such a thing.
What do you think would happen if you gave away houses on Chicago's southside?





Quote:
Is that or is that not coercion? Look at what happened to the Cherokee Indians and the trail of tears...

You are trying to say "coercion" doesn't count because the settlers and government had an agreement which was not fulfilled? The government duped the settlers by assuring them they would do what they said.
So in your mind, coercion = not doing what you said you'd do? Nevermind what you're saying happened, didn't happen.

Quote:
Ah, this is awesome...Arguing against more of the staunch right wing bastions of pride with one of CD's more unapologetic liberals LOL...the irony is getting even better in here.

The Lincoln Highway
Perfect example. A project that stalled in the private sector and had to get federal subsidies through sponsorship programs. Thank you for proving my point.


Quote:
More proof that the federal government doesn't stick their nose around unless it benefits them.

If you are talking about why private enterprise didn't solely build interstate highways?

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There, that's why


BUREAUCRACY
So your argument for why private sector didn't build interstate highways rests on the gov't coming in YEARS later? 1860 - 1956, there was no FAHA. What happened?

I don't even understand what you're trying to say.

Quote:
They were....private enterprise was building the railroads. lol...just with public money.
... so you just figured out what "subsidy" means, eh?


Quote:
Who the hell is the average joe?? You mean helping one average joe but squashing the other one? What the government doing is MUCH different than what private enterprise would be doing without it..

Let's say I have cookies for sale for $1 each and my neighbor has cookies for sale for $2 each. You will buy from me...or... you will buy from my neighbor because his cookies are $2 each but they are much better. Whether the cheaper cookie or the better tasting cookie maximizes your utility is left to nobodies discretion except your own.

But, let's say there is a third party that gives out cookies for free...but they go around with a gun and rob everybody for the materials to make these cookies (price is irrelevant)...Many people, even the people who have been robbed, will take the cookies from the third party no matter how bad they are....And even if all people served want a better tasting cookie or simply something different...they may or may not be able to afford to purchase the other options.

This is a rudimentary example of how government subsidized goods are a much different dynamic than in a true free market.. And it gets even more involved and distorted because you also have to deal with these types of collusion, or self granted monopolies (i.e. USPS), with services.
Lol... maybe in many aspects of what the gov't does. Not in terms of granting homesteads. The accurate example is:

The gov't has a truckload of cookies. The fair market price of a cookie is $400, so that's what the gov't sells it at, which means a select few can afford to buy cookies from the gov't. Years later, the gov't says cookies are now $25, which means the pool of people who can afford to buy a gov't cookie has expanded greatly.


Quote:
This means nothing...
Aka... I don't care that my analogy is not an accurate analogy.


Quote:
Federal government intervention was fairly benign in it's infancy...but it's has grown unwieldy and is the reason why we are screwed now. And, the running theme still remains....All growth would have been realized sans a federal government. Maybe not at the same pace...but that is not inherently a bad thing...

More times than not...forcing people to do things expedites what you want done.

You will take your clothes off much faster with a gun pointed at you. Nobody would argue that.
Except the gov't didn't force anyone to do anything. You admitted earlier that private enterprise used the gov't money on their own. Again, that's not the definition of "coercion"





Quote:
Of course, I do.
See above. And above. You don't.




Quote:
How about granting ALL OF IT through the Homestead Act?

I don't know who it was that pointed out "who wanted the land anyway" so no harm, no foul? But if nobody wanted it anyway....why pass the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and, subsequently, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act??
Uh huh, so it wasn't unconstitutional to hold on to the land and sell it. Tell me, do you still find it "unconstitutional" that the gov't still holds several million acres of land?


Quote:
Because it wasn't profitable (enough) to do so?
And there we have it. I'd love to hear your explanation for how private enterprise would have handled expanding the railroad the way the gov't did, when you just admitted there was no profit in doing so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 10:42 PM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,891,601 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
What do you think would happen if you gave away houses on Chicago's southside?
People would move into them. I don't get your point??

Are you saying white people don't move into primarily black neighborhoods because they are violent?

Or white people would move into those neighborhoods because they are only perceived as violent?

Or, more black people would move in because blacks only live amicably with other blacks....which would be untrue. For the simple reason black on black crimes are high in primarily black neighborhoods.... or, simply because peaceful Indians like the Choctaws, Cherokees and Chickasaws were co-existing amicably with the white man before they were hung out to dry.



Quote:
So in your mind, coercion = not doing what you said you'd do? Nevermind what you're saying happened, didn't happen.
Coercion is leveraging somebody because it is perceived to be the best way (or only) way to do things....


Quote:
Perfect example. A project that stalled in the private sector and had to get federal subsidies through sponsorship programs. Thank you for proving my point.
I was giving you a modern example....you have no proof that externalities had to "take over"...they just did. If we must, go back to the 19th century there are tons of examples of private road building.




Quote:
So your argument for why private sector didn't build interstate highways rests on the gov't coming in YEARS later? 1860 - 1956, there was no FAHA. What happened?
Again....they DID "build" them, lol....We aren't arguing innovation, conception and construction. We are talking funding. And by then, collusion was in full swing.

If you were a private business and you had 2 options..

1 - build roadways strictly off capital and hope supply drives demand

or

2 - have your investment secured by government coercion

The ability to organize large tasks and concentrate specialized talent was the assumed benefit....again, this proved to be costly today.

???????.... hellloooooooooooo

You are now arguing (or have been) for the housing bubble..this is bailout logic you are using


Quote:
I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
You said I fabricated the railroad cartel...if it was such a fabrication. Why did they have to regulate the industry. It was cartelized! And please don't take this as a pro-regulation stance.



Quote:
... so you just figured out what "subsidy" means, eh?
I know what subsidy means....but unlike you, I also know what is [i]bad[/b] about them.



Quote:
Lol... maybe in many aspects of what the gov't does. Not in terms of granting homesteads. The accurate example is:

The gov't has a truckload of cookies. The fair market price of a cookie is $400, so that's what the gov't sells it at, which means a select few can afford to buy cookies from the gov't. Years later, the gov't says cookies are now $25, which means the pool of people who can afford to buy a gov't cookie has expanded greatly.
Until the Cookie Nazi says "No more cookies for you!"




Quote:
Aka... I don't care that my analogy is not an accurate analogy.
No, your premise just had no bearing.




Quote:
Except the gov't didn't force anyone to do anything. You admitted earlier that private enterprise used the gov't money on their own. Again, that's not the definition of "coercion"
The examples in the 19th century may have been few and far in between.....But the principle being argued here is that the government is inherently bad.

Lobbying is bribery. Businesses do it to enforce legislative regulations and protections which in turn deters competition.

Which is coercion

This WAS happening in the 19th century..just read about the spoils system. Even the spoils system, as I implied in my last post, was much more benign than what we have now...







Quote:
See above. And above. You don't.
Keep telling yourself that.




Quote:
Uh huh, so it wasn't unconstitutional to hold on to the land and sell it. Tell me, do you still find it "unconstitutional" that the gov't still holds several million acres of land?
#1 - I want to burn the Constitution. And lastly, we can argue back and forth about what is constitutional until whoever dies first. The fact is, they found a way to interpret it so that it is now Constitutional..But congratulations, you are an overt statist. I don't know what else to tell you on this point??




Quote:
And there we have it. I'd love to hear your explanation for how private enterprise would have handled expanding the railroad the way the gov't did, when you just admitted there was no profit in doing so.
It wasn't profitable enough....You know, maybe you are right. Private entity may not be the way to go. There is something called cost to benefit ratio that private businesses weigh out. And that invokes them to move or sit.

If you have a system of extortion... it is much more efficient...then you can just rake in whatever revenue you deem appropriate (by the loosely worded charter, of course)..Then turn around and pay the business men who just want that dollar anyway... and build stuff for the sake of having "infrastructure"...

Tell me how that worked out for the housing market.

Last edited by Hot_Handz; 12-18-2012 at 11:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top