Government Intervention

[rkwright]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1453224' date='Jan 30 2008, 11:36 PM']Well, your original question did not specify that the government mandates were for cost savings, it just simply stated "government mandated the people use":
So I will stand by what I said.

But you made a point regarding "public good", and many people think that an effort to switch away from an oil based energy system is also a public good, for environmental reasons (which you yourself said was a public good), as well as for not being dependent on foreign oil that some day will probably run out or be more difficult to get.[/quote]

I think you need to read my posts a bit closer. In all of posts I've talked only about the economic reasons and have actually explicitly mentioned I'm excluding any public good issues.

I don't think its fair or accurate that you edited out the line right before the one you bolded which said
"The government's role is not to come in and create an infrastructure for a consumer (unless again its a public good, but we're avoiding that)."

I think Dairy's original post and following ones, and my responses, especially #10 make it quite clear that the things products you listed do not fit the question.

Edited January 31, 2008 by rkwright

[dairygirl4u2c]

just cause i think this phorum needs a healthy dose of reality from time to time...

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whither_Socialism%3F"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whither_Socialism%3F[/url]

[Mercy me]

I am not big on government getting involved in anything other than what the Constitution gives them authority to do. However, I see a national security issue with energy resources. If we can find an efficient form of energy that could be widely used then we could greatly reduce our dependancy on foreign oil. Maintaining the oil supply is essential right now as the world's market is dependent on oil. I could see tax credits and other incentives to help solve this problem.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1453233' date='Jan 31 2008, 12:02 AM']I think you need to read my posts a bit closer. In all of posts I've talked only about the economic reasons and have actually explicitly mentioned I'm excluding any public good issues.[/quote]

If you want economic reasons, the high price of oil is hurting us economically by increasing the costs of manufacturing and transporting goods. And it is spilling over into the price of food, since the increased use of ethanol is is creating a bigger demand for grain. So, switching over to more renewable sources of energy (like solar and wind) and manufacturing more plug-in cars, although presenting a more upfront cost, stands to give us a payback in the future.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Norseman82

[dairygirl4u2c]

i affirm what norse said, and add to that all my hypothetical scenarios and such.

i don't think i'm in favor of a grand scale intervention, even if we could afford it. i'd be more in favor of smaller scale, more planned intervention in major cities etc, but even still at limited stations.
i'm sure there's people who know the best alterantives to use.

this is because i want to ensure we protect the underdog. if there's an underdog out there that offers a better solution, with our small scale conversion, we won't have created jsut another system that can't be beaten. the gov can then help that underdog. plus, the people who bought the biodeisal or whatever, by the facts as i see them, would be helping themselves and the economy anyway in the mean time. perhaps itw on't be to the level that the hypothetical underdog who comes later in the game could get them, but it's still help.

i'm pretty sure there's bio systems in cars that run on most sources, whether it be algae oil, cellulostic fuel, sugar cane, etc. so it's prob not that big of a concern that we shoulnd't be intervening. ie if algae oil is the underdog only to come later, it's gonna run on the same systems that cellulostic fuel does. this is to my uderstanding.

i see non-intervention as purely an ideologue answer... no gov intervention, just because they don't like hte idea of government doing anything... not really an economic argument.
i admit i need more info, but i think i've provided the most realistic answer so far.

Edited February 3, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Catholic Teaching on Social Justice: a brief compendium

The imperative to pursue social justice is not an optional extra for Christians. For
Vincentians, calledto bear witness to the presence of Christ in the flesh of the
marginalised,it is at the core of who we are and what we do. Here follows a brief selection of Catholic teachings on social justice. These teachings form the basis not onlyof our work with Australia‘s poor; they also inform our advocacy on their behalf.


Old Testament
—Follow justice andjustice alone,so that you maylive andpossess the landof the
LORD your Godis givingyou.“ Deuteronomy16:20
Speakup for those who cannot speakfor themselves. Protect the rights of those who are
helpless. Speakout andpronounce a sentence of justice,defendthe cause of the wretched
andthe poor. Proverbs 31:8-9
—The righteous care about justice for the poor,but the wickedhave no such concern.“
Proverbs 29:7
Woe betide those who enact unjust laws anddraft oppressive legislation,deprivingthe
poor of justice,robbingthe weakest of mypeople of their rights,plunderingthe widow and
despoilingthe fatherless!
Isaiah 10:1-3
—Iwill search for the lost andbringbackthe strays. Iwill bindup the injuredand
strengthen the weak,but the sleekandthe strongIwill destroy. Iwill shepherdthe
flockwith justice.“ Ezekiel 34:16

New Testament
Matthew 12:20
Fathers of the Church
"You are not makinga gift of what is yours to the poor man,but you are givinghim back
what is his. You have been appropriatingthings that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone,not to the rich.“ St Ambrose

Frederic Ozanam
The question agitatingthe worldtodayis…a social question. Itis the struggle between
those who have nothingandthose who have too much,it is a clash between wealth and
poverty,which is shakingthe groundat our feet. 1836

Iask... that we shouldtake responsibilityfor the people who have too manyneeds andnot
enough rights… 1848

You must not be content with tidingthe poor over the povertycrisis. You must studythe
injustices which brought about such poverty,with the aim of a longterm improvement.
Itis time to seekthe abolition of poverty.
Justice demands a consecration of each one for the welfare of all andespeciallyfor the
protection of the weak.
Itis time to pleadthe cause of workers,to lift up the sufferingpoor andto pursue the
abolition of poverty.
Let us turn to democracy,to the mass of people to whom we are unknown andappeal to
them not bysermons,but bybenefits. Help them not with alms which humiliate,but by
creatingsocial conditions which will free them andlife them up out of their repressive
situations.
Itis time to demonstrate that the proletarian cause can be pleaded,the upliftingof the
sufferingpoor be engagedin,andthe abolition of pauperism pursued,without identifying
oneself with the wildappeals which provokedthe June upheaval,andwhich still cast a
gloom over the future.

Popes
Justice is the last moral refuge,the last sanctuaryof modern society.
Pius XI

Rerum Novarum assertedthe State‘s responsibilityto intervene in favour of the needy,
preventingthe bigfish from continuing to eat the little ones.
Vatican II

Godintendedthe earth andeverythingin it for the use of all human beings andpeoples.
Thus,under the leadership of justice andin the companyof charity,createdgoods should
flow fairlyto all. Gaudium et Spes,1965

Pope Paul VI
All other rights,whatever theymaybe,includingthe rights of propertyandfree trade,are
to be subordinatedto this principle…. Redirectingthese rights backto their original
purpose must be regardedas an important andurgent social duty.‘Populorum Progressio,
1967

**********Populorum Progressio fundamentallyrejected—material gain as the keymotive for economic progress,or competition as the supreme law of economics.“
Pope John Paul II

But with special attention,in a true "preferential option",she [the Church]turns to those
who are insituationsofgreaterweakness,andtherefo
e in greater need. "The poor",in
variedstates of affliction,are the oppressed,those on the margin of society,the elderly,the sick,the young,anyandall who are consideredandtreatedas "the least".Vitaconsecrate 1996

… the human inadequacies of capitalism andthe resultingdomination of things over
people are far from disappearing. In fact,for the poor,to the lackof material goods has
been addeda lackof knowledge andtrainingwhich prevents them from escapingtheir state
of humiliatingsubjection. Centesimusannus1991

… there are collective andqualitative needs which cannot be satisfiedbymarket
mechanisms. There are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods
which bytheir verynature cannot andmust not be bought or sold. Centesimusannus1991

The needs of the poor take priorityover the desires of the rich,the rights of workers over the maximization of profits… Toronto 1984

…we must first of all recall a principle that has always been taught bythe Church:the
principleofthepriorityof labour over capital. This principle directly concerns the process
of production:in this process labour is always a primary efficient cause,while capital,the
whole collection of means of production,remains a mere instrumentor instrumental cause.

…it has always understoodthis right within the broader context of the right common to all
to use the goods of the whole of creation:the right to private property is subordinated to
the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone. Laborum excercens

property is acquired first of all through workin order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate propertyin order to set it up in the form of "capital"in opposition to "labour"-andeven to practise exploitation of labour-is contraryto the verynature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labour,and thus, by serving labour,that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order,namely,the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view,therefore,in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man,one cannot exclude the socialization,in suitable conditions,of certain means of production. Laborum excercens[/quote]

[rkwright]

What you guys are advocating is communism. The government telling the producer what to produce and the consumer what to make, purely for economical reasons.

Where are all those big name conservatives on this thread? I'm surprised socrates and winchester haven't called out against government intervention of this sort.

[rkwright]

dairy from your article on Joseph Stiglitz, I think this sums up the argument quiet nicely...
[quote]Stiglitz's main insight is generally correct -- that the state cannot be ruled out or that it should be ruled in --, but leaves open the grand constitutional questions: How will the coercive institutions of the state be constrained? What is the relation between the state and civil society? His book fails on these political aspects because it has not addressed the broader constitutional concerns that James McGill Buchanan Jr. [21] (1975) and other economists have raised."[/quote]

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1455086' date='Feb 3 2008, 08:26 PM']What you guys are advocating is communism. The government telling the producer what to produce and the consumer what to make, purely for economical reasons.[/quote]

No, because per a previous post it has moved to a national security debate as well.

So, even though it may have started out as a economic reasons, it has moved to common good and national security issues as well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you're saying what we're advocating is communism, as a figure of speech, then sure.

if you're saying it's the definition of communism being enacted, then i disagree. as stiglitz puts it... "people's capitalism"... as i've always called it "subdued capitalism". now... usually i push for intervention for hte poor etc, which i see as justice and nothing to do with communism but doing the just thing... and this is indeed different. but, somethings... when they're too big for the private sector to do, and has a situation like the catch 22 here.. should have government get involved.

now... could a private group get together with other investors and do what the gov would do, in return for a profit? probably. it's be hard to convince and coalate that group. i suppose you might argue that if they don't do it, why should the gov? its a good question. i'd suppose that this is actually a good investment if a person could get the info and convince the people. very big task easier said than done, and very full of contingent economic theories. which is why it's best prob done by the gov, IMHO.

i note that quoted section you gave regarding stiglitz. I too like that criticism a lot. that book, and that criticism, show where study is needed. notice that criticism didn't say he was wrong for thinking the gov could get involved... just htat he didn't define how. that i agree is a funamdental question. it's always aout the right policy- not no policy always, just because just because.

Edited February 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

so yeah, hte quoted stuff about the poor is a little misplaced.... but i think you could frame it in a helping hte poor arguement, to a degree. i mostly posted it to give notice against teh fundamentalist free marketers, much like why i quote this materail here, that free market isn't always the right solution, even as a catho perspective:


[quote]there's a reason why people equate catholic social teaching with the modern day "liberal" economic mindset. it's not just because people confuse "be nice" with "government intervention" as conservatives would have you believe (though that's part of it)



From the pope, in populorum progression, amoung others:
QUOTE
QUOTE
Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace

notice he equates "liberalism" with "free market" (or more specifically free market fundamentalism)
QUOTE
In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce unfair results. One must recognize that it is the fundamental principle of liberalism, as the rule for commercial exchange, which is questioned here.

QUOTE
What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.


here is some by sollicitudo rei socialis
QUOTE
QUOTE
Once again it is evident that development, the planning which governs it, and the way in which resources are used must include respect for moral demands. One of the latter undoubtedly imposes limits on the use of the natural world. The dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to "use and misuse," or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to "eat of the fruit of the tree" (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.

QUOTE
In the West there exists a system which is historically inspired by the principles of the liberal capitalism which developed with industrialization during the last century. In the East there exists a system inspired by the Marxist collectivism which sprang from an interpretation of the condition of the proletarian classes made in the light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two ideologies, on the basis of two very different visions of man and of his freedom and social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic level, antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures of ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production.[/quote]

[quote]cath social teaching also has the principle of solidarity. that there can be no one who lacks a basic cut of the earth's bounty if they're willing to work beyond mere beans and staggering to get by, and that everyone has an an actual opportuinty beyond mere theoretical opportuinties.

this is not debatable:

QUOTE
We are one human family. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers, wherever they may be. Pope John Paul II insists, "We are all really responsible for all". Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that "if you want peace, work for justice." The Gospel calls us to be "peacemakers." Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we be "sentinels of peace" in a world wounded by violence and conflict.

[url="http://www.ccctx.org/fc_cst_solidarity.php"]http://www.ccctx.org/fc_cst_solidarity.php[/url]

QUOTE
Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of all peoples and with respect for the differences. (#39)

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Catholic_Theology)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Catholic_Theology)[/url]

QUOTE
III. HUMAN SOLIDARITY
1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of "friendship" or "social charity," is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood.45
An error, "today abundantly widespread, is disregard for the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to. This law is sealed by the sacrifice of redemption offered by Jesus Christ on the altar of the Cross to his heavenly Father, on behalf of sinful humanity."46
1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.
1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.
1942 The virtue of solidarity goes beyond material goods. In spreading the spiritual goods of the faith, the Church has promoted, and often opened new paths for, the development of temporal goods as well. And so throughout the centuries has the Lord's saying been verified: "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well":47
For two thousand years this sentiment has lived and endured in the soul of the Church, impelling souls then and now to the heroic charity of monastic farmers, liberators of slaves, healers of the sick, and messengers of faith, civilization, and science to all generations and all peoples for the sake of creating the social conditions capable of offering to everyone possible a life worthy of man and of a Christian.48

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a3.htm"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a3.htm[/url]

subsidiarity is known for its vagueness..... you only go up the governmental notch when the lower one isn't "incompetent", which really can mean lots of things. if hte lowr government isn't doing it even if it could, there's a good chance you should move up. Al talks about how we'd not like the UN to do something gloablly... but in fact it should do something for somethings being the highest level there is.
of course, the further you get away from the local the worse you are so you sholdn't if you can help it move up.

solidarity is vague too... teaches the government can help, though admittedly that doesn't say much.
if you read about all this stuff about solidarity, you can't help but realize that all the world's ills isn't properly placed in the hands of charity alone, which from my experience and opinion seems like a cop out from money hard core conservatives. charity can do somethings and should, and gov should't get involved. charity shouldn't do something, as a matter of justice, but oftne as a matter of practicality.
it's okay to be libertarian and generally a capitalist, but there comes a point where that has to stop- depending on the real situation happening on the ground.

there's a tension between the two doctrines, and to make it seem like there's not and to disregard solidarity is not sound by catholic teachings.

subsidiarity means somethings are good in the centralized government.
solidarity means somethings are good in the localized government, most things even i'd agree.

the cynic in me says these teachings are too vague to mean anything, but i do always come away thinking about how the localized government should be the focus... mostly cause for most things the localized government "CAN" do it, so "SHOULD".[/quote]

Edited February 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

so yeah i just realized something.... laissez faire economics and free market economic theory are not really the same thing.

really.. i know i'd tend to call it socialistic components subduing capitalism. but, if you take basic econ theory of friedman etc, which assumes rational people and perfect information.... the government can actually increase efficiency if it's able to fix what people irratinoally do, or determine the perfect information.

so if you equate capitalism with free market econ theory, the socialistic components are merely facilitating the market and capitalism along.

if you look to lasizzez faire as the proper approach, then this argument doesn't work as well.
it does beg some interesting questions, like why the gov can intervene with the fed rates and other things to prevent market crashes etc. most conservative econs would say these free market econ exceptions are known but are rare and shouldn't extend us to things like intervening with alt fuel. but, if you do intervene iwth the markets there, why not here? it is more proactive, but why is that so inherently wrong, if the market is struggling so much?
i'd rather look at it as facilitating capitalism along.

so laiss faire would mean a crumbling economy, whereas interventionism does not mean that. and if interventionism happens to facilitate free market theory to help the system be rational and the knowledge be closer to perfect, then it's not the same as lass faire as intervention's occuring, yet capitalism is being facilitated, arguably... well are least the free market theory is being facilitated.

i suppose if you interject gov then it's more socilistic. but the irony then is that interventionism facilitates free market theory more than lassiz faire does.... at least some times.

Edited February 4, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

isn't it ironic, that popes denounce extremely free markets as "liberal".
and classically... free market econ this is called liberal econ theory...
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism[/url]

yet conservatives of modern day cling to it.
now, i think they have some valid arguments as to why they can, and are not violating the church teaching.
the irony is that the CC teaches about too much capitialism as potentially bad (well, this is a complicated statement), and too little as definition bad. so both sides could validly say the other is teetering on the edge of sound econ.

so why isn't socialism considered liberal econ theory, classically? and if not, then is both as per the CC considered liberal, as they're both the extremes and contra its teaching? (ie anything not CC is liberal.... instead of saying that the CC has liberal and conservative qualities using modern parlance)

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1454920' date='Feb 3 2008, 02:12 PM']just cause i think this phorum needs a healthy dose of reality from time to time...

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whither_Socialism%3F"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whither_Socialism%3F[/url][/quote]

really, much of what i have been saying can be summed up with the following......

"You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor, but you are giving them back what is theirs… the earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." St Ambrose

except he says "gift" which might be construed as charity, i suppose. the substance is still there though that what teh rich have is not necessarily their's.

Edited February 15, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

but, to balance out that liberal rhetoric from the saint...

here is an inspiring quote from, not a saint but an actor, arnold schwarzenegger:
(i'm not joking about it being inspiring)

[quote]I finally arrived here in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left.

But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting the government off your back, lowering the taxes and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air. I said to my friend, I said, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican." And I have been a Republican ever since.[/quote]

(inspiring in some of the truths it states... not in the perceivable way it divvies up the world in terms of socialism v. capitalism, as if it must be either/or)