Capitalism: a Love Story

[Cadsuane]

Basically. Malthus' point was that the human ability to reproduce would necessarily outstrip his ability to sow new fields, resulting in famine. I actually meant to bring up Daniel Quinn since his point is more apt; if you have a cage with 6 hamsters and the dispenser provides enough food for 100 hamsters each day, it's inevitable that you'll end up with 100 hamsters barring disease or catastrophe. So Darus mentioned how the earth has enough arable land to feed I 30+ billion people, which is meant to reassure the current 8 billion but not their 22 billion offspring which will naturally be the result of this food being made (cheaply) available.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I must have missed that post. It's amazing how the founding fathers knew lobbying would be an issue and provided a way to render it ineffective. If congress hadn't limited itself to 435(?) members there would be over 7500+ members in the house. Would be hard to spread enough money around for politicians to give a shit in that case.

7500+ members in the house? That's one BIG ASS GUMMENT!

[Solefald]

On the topic of lobbying, there is a US Supreme Court case being heard tomorrow which has the potential to literally rape every American citizen in every orifice if the justices vote the wrong way. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If the court decides in favor of the plaintiff, corporations would likely be able to contribute to federal elections in unlimited amounts.

Guess the party affiliation of every justice voting in favor if Citizens United wins the case.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

7500+ members in the house? That's one BIG ASS GUMMENT!

Not in the sense that conservatives rail against. And considering both Repubs and Dem's hate corruption I would have figured you'd appreciate the idea.

[Cadsuane]

The gumment isn't a singular entity, it's a group of elected officials, you're posing a question against democracy now, not governments. Government is merely a vehicle. When you hear of a car accident do you blame the car?

Of course this leads to more questions yes? Was it the engineers who designed the cars fault? The mechanics that built it? Quality controls for not being thorough enough? Was the driver inable to properly drive the car?

No one ever blames the car for a bad accident, we need to look deeply at the many reasons this car crashed and fix it, making the car smaller than before and taking parts out isn't going to make the car safer and more reliable.

This analogy applies directly to government.

Here's another analogy. If a car has a broken cup holder do you say cars are poorly constructed and that we should all ride horses?

You know there's a crazy country called Canada which has an organization called Elections Canada that funds the campaigns of political parties which largely mitigates lobbying and partisanship?

[Rhinox]

uhhh the Conservatives throw a fit every time Obama appoints a "czar" you think adding THOUSANDS of congressmen wouldn't raise a red flag especially with Obama in office?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Here's another analogy. If a car has a broken cup holder do you say cars are poorly constructed and that we should all ride horses?

You know there's a crazy country called Canada which has an organization called Elections Canada that funds the campaigns of political parties which largely mitigates lobbying and partisanship?

Is it a gumment organization or a non-profit?

[Cadsuane]

Is it a gumment organization or a non-profit?

Federal organization.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Here's another analogy. If a car has a broken cup holder do you say cars are poorly constructed and that we should all ride horses?

You know there's a crazy country called Canada which has an organization called Elections Canada that funds the campaigns of political parties which largely mitigates lobbying and partisanship?

Also, I'm not sure if I understand where you're coming from. You're either misunderstanding me completely or redirecting the conversation.

To be fair I'm not making an accusation I'm just trying to figure out what level to engage you on.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Federal organization.

That's good then, I hate the two party system and I wish America had something along the same lines if I caught what you're throwing.

[Rhinox]

But hey if we do add 7500+ congressman I know the perfect place we can fit them

Spoilered for size

Spoiler: show

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/st...cticsenate.jpg

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

uhhh the Conservatives throw a fit every time Obama appoints a "czar" you think adding THOUSANDS of congressmen wouldn't raise a red flag especially with Obama in office?

Good god. Czar's are not held accountable to anyone but the President, congressmen on the other hand have to be elected. Congress would also have to repeal the law, I think. And the congressmen would have to be elected. I don't know why your even making this argument. The only argument that would make sense for liberals to make is that it would make growing the government harder.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

But hey if we do add 7500+ congressman I know the perfect place we can fit them

Spoilered for size

Spoiler: show

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/st...cticsenate.jpg

fkya Galactic Federation!!! Swampy why didn't you say so in the first place? Fuck man we could have saved 45 pages of carpal tunnel and got to work on this shit.

[Solefald]

I must have missed that post. It's amazing how the founding fathers knew lobbying would be an issue and provided a way to render it ineffective. If congress hadn't limited itself to 435(?) members there would be over 7500+ members in the house. Would be hard to spread enough money around for politicians to give a shit in that case.

The other lefties are making fun of this, but it's actually a very sensible compromise between our current system and a Canadian-style one. The US has one of the lowest federal representative-to-citizen ratios of any major democracy. Expanding the number of seats in Congress would allow for greater diversity of parties and ideas, and might even have an effect on campaign contributions like you point out.

[Kuya]

Quoting from the top of the page:



I've never read Malthus, but didn't he prove that population growth was always kept in check by the resultant population pressure? I.E. a new farming method increases crop output, therefore more food is available, therefore more babies are born. When those babies grow up, there is no longer a surplus of food, so the population no longer grows, until something else occurs to reduce population pressure (new farming tool, emigration, war, etc)

No, i don't think that's him, unless i'm ignorant to this, but Cadsuane already answered.

Basically. Malthus' point was that the human ability to reproduce would necessarily outstrip his ability to sow new fields, resulting in famine. I actually meant to bring up Daniel Quinn since his point is more apt; if you have a cage with 6 hamsters and the dispenser provides enough food for 100 hamsters each day, it's inevitable that you'll end up with 100 hamsters barring disease or catastrophe. So Darus mentioned how the earth has enough arable land to feed I 30+ billion people, which is meant to reassure the current 8 billion but not their 22 billion offspring which will naturally be the result of this food being made (cheaply) available.

What you say sounds about right, but i don't know how well that would apply to humans.

On the topic of lobbying, there is a US Supreme Court case being heard tomorrow which has the potential to literally rape every American citizen in every orifice if the justices vote the wrong way. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If the court decides in favor of the plaintiff, corporations would likely be able to contribute to federal elections in unlimited amounts.

Guess the party affiliation of every justice voting in favor if Citizens United wins the case.

This is something i think we can all agree we don't need.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The other lefties are making fun of this, but it's actually a very sensible compromise between our current system and a Canadian-style one. The US has one of the lowest federal representative-to-citizen ratios of any major democracy. Expanding the number of seats in Congress would allow for greater diversity of parties and ideas, and might even have an effect on campaign contributions like you point out.

We're not making fun of it, we're making fun of the hypocrisy of someone who screams small government is asking for 15x more representatives.

I'd be enamored if the system was so oversaturated and representative of the people that lobbyists couldn't hold sway.

You have some catch up homework to do before jumping in midfight.

[Rhinox]

How would adding more government employees thus adding more salaries federal employees in their aides and the Benefits for each and every one and their travel and lodging expenses actually shrink government again? You think that would stop lobbyist? you do realize that heads of committees set the agenda right? Which is why Progressives are up in arms about Max Bacus pretty much having the Democrats by the balls. All a corporation would have to do is buy the heads of the respective committees they want to influence and exactly what gets solved?

[Sirrus_Asura]

The gumment isn't a singular entity, it's a group of elected officials, you're posing a question against democracy now, not governments. Government is merely a vehicle. When you hear of a car accident do you blame the car?

Of course this leads to more questions yes? Was it the engineers who designed the cars fault? The mechanics that built it? Quality controls for not being thorough enough? Was the driver inable to properly drive the car?

No one ever blames the car for a bad accident, we need to look deeply at the many reasons this car crashed and fix it, making the car smaller than before and taking parts out isn't going to make the car safer and more reliable.

This analogy applies directly to government.

I like your analogy. But I feel you have the rolls mixed a bit. The system is the car if anything, the drivers are the politicians and the people.

It seems like you're shifting the blame away from the person who took the contributions and acted as a result of such, which seems silly in my opinion.

If politicians didn't sway to lobbying, it would serve no purpose to begin with and disappear.

[Skjie]

You know there's a crazy country called Canada which has an organization called Elections Canada that funds the campaigns of political parties which largely mitigates lobbying and partisanship?

It only partially funds the campaigns, actually. Parties also take donations toward their campaigns which can make up a majority of their total funding.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I like your analogy. But I feel you have the rolls mixed a bit. The system is the car if anything, the drivers are the politicians and the people.

It seems like you're shifting the blame away from the person who took the contributions and acted as a result of such, which seems silly in my opinion.

If politicians didn't sway to lobbying, it would serve no purpose to begin with and disappear.

What I mean is the car is inanimate, it has no control over what happens, just like government. It is the people involved in government and the policies that shape the government that decide how it operates, whether they built it, try to fix it, sell it, drive it, or any other role that takes place in that government you can't blame an inanimate object for problems. A bebe gun can kill you just as well as a .50 cal can miss you entirely - it all depends on those criteria I defined.

I'm pretty sure I've got it spot on brother, just another example of perspective I think. I see it from a different angle from you so it's hard to paint a clear picture.