Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Print Page - [BLOG] My Turn

I Read This

I Drew This => Today's Editorial => Topic started by: Manufacturing Dissent on January 21, 2009, 14:51:55 EST



Title: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Manufacturing Dissent on January 21, 2009, 14:51:55 EST
http://www.idrewthis.org/2009/01/my-turn.html

I guess the blog will be without content for the foreseeable future...


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rogue-kun on January 21, 2009, 16:35:45 EST
http://www.idrewthis.org/2009/01/my-turn.html

I guess the blog will be without content for the foreseeable future...

Seagul is right Blogs feed of of journalism, but is wrong that that journalism must come from news paers and wire, the death of those mediums does not not mean the death of journalism that needs to be/can be distilled.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on January 22, 2009, 08:41:00 EST
Seagul is right Blogs feed of of journalism, but is wrong that that journalism must come from news paers and wire, the death of those mediums does not not mean the death of journalism that needs to be/can be distilled.
Exactly.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Hephaestus 16 on January 24, 2009, 09:34:46 EST
As for how Internet based journalism (and other cultural activities) is to be funded I propose that A modified version of the licence fee that funds the BBC could work.

1. A fee is paid by everybody who has a interent connection
2. This is then pooled
3. Creators of original content (comics/journalism/music/games etc.) who are part of scheme will be funded in proportion to the how much their content is viewed
4. The funding is no way to be effected by the tastes of the people that adminster this system, indeed much of it may be done with no human involvement at all.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on January 26, 2009, 06:25:49 EST
As for how Internet based journalism (and other cultural activities) is to be funded I propose that A modified version of the licence fee that funds the BBC could work.

1. A fee is paid by everybody who has a interent connection
2. This is then pooled
3. Creators of original content (comics/journalism/music/games etc.) who are part of scheme will be funded in proportion to the how much their content is viewed
4. The funding is no way to be effected by the tastes of the people that adminster this system, indeed much of it may be done with no human involvement at all.
But many people don't use the internet to read blogs.  Why should they be forced to fund the activities of others, this is nothing but taxation.

Also, once the money is pooled who says who gets what proportion of it?  Obviously that has to be a political decision.

The License fee is a bad idea, and this is a bad idea too.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rogue-kun on January 26, 2009, 16:30:28 EST
The License fee is a bad idea, and this is a bad idea too.

the Liance Fee is a Great idea. but it a bad case here simple due to the international nature of the internet


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on January 27, 2009, 07:57:52 EST
The License fee is a bad idea, and this is a bad idea too.

the Liance Fee is a Great idea. but it a bad case here simple due to the international nature of the internet
This is how the license fee works.  If a person owns a machine capable of receiving TV signals then they have to pay an annual fee to the state on pain of breaking criminal law.  Do you seriously think this is a great idea?

Personally I think it's disgraceful that an individual is charged by force for a service they may not even desire.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Heq on January 27, 2009, 12:30:22 EST
I'm less concerned with the force and more concerned with the tendancy for such things to quickly become propaganda machines.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Ihlosi on January 27, 2009, 13:34:54 EST
I'm less concerned with the force and more concerned with the tendancy for such things to quickly become propaganda machines.

Well, the reasoning behind the "public radio/tv" fee is to prevent exactly that by making it independent of short-term whims of the government (as it would be if it were tax-funded - the current ruling party could just threaten to cut the funding if the media in question broadcast content that the party disagreed with).


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on January 27, 2009, 15:34:53 EST
I'm less concerned with the force and more concerned with the tendancy for such things to quickly become propaganda machines.

Well, the reasoning behind the "public radio/tv" fee is to prevent exactly that by making it independent of short-term whims of the government (as it would be if it were tax-funded - the current ruling party could just threaten to cut the funding if the media in question broadcast content that the party disagreed with).
But, in countries with license fees the government determine the law surrounding them, and they depend upon that law.  So, even if they are notionally independent they cannot be independent in fact.

For example, in the UK several Labour Lords have being caught offering to take fees in exchange for altering inconvenient laws.  On the BBC website there is only a small text link to the story on the UK news page.  When members of the Conservative government in the late 90s offered to take fees in exchange for asking questions in parliament the BBC made a big thing about it.  It was "Sleaze" and often a prominent news item.  News broadcasts regularly mentioned investigations as they proceeded.  The BBC political correspondent in this current story though described the situation as a "grey area".

The reasons for this are quite simple.  The Labour party are solid supporters of the BBC, they support maintaining and increasing the license fee and possibly increasing it's remit to other sorts of electronic device.  The Conservative party though have from time-to-time talked about preventing the license fee from rising too much, and about "value for money".  Some in the Conservative party have talked about privatizing the BBC.

Because of dynamics like this the political parties exercise a great deal of influence over the BBC.  There are also other sorts of "back door" influences.  For example, the government can prefer to give interviews and leaks to other media sources. There is also the constant regulatory questions hanging over satellite TV, digital TV and commercial channels.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on February 19, 2009, 10:18:14 EST
A little necroposting for those who still like the idea of license fees.

The UK's national debt has increased by a large amount, reportedly £1.5 trillion, due to bank nationalizations and bailouts.

Obnoxio points to the media reaction on his blog (http://obotheclown.blogspot.com/2009/02/spot-odd-one-out-again.html).  The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian all lead with this story on their websites.  That is all the serious national newspapers -left and right- put the story prominently on their website.  Try finding the story on the BBC website.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on February 20, 2009, 01:11:20 EST
A little necroposting for those who still like the idea of license fees.

The UK's national debt has increased by a large amount, reportedly £1.5 trillion, due to bank nationalizations and bailouts.

Obnoxio points to the media reaction on his blog (http://obotheclown.blogspot.com/2009/02/spot-odd-one-out-again.html).  The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian all lead with this story on their websites.  That is all the serious national newspapers -left and right- put the story prominently on their website.  Try finding the story on the BBC website.

Took me less than 2 minutes to find it not knowing anything about the bbc.com layout.

Given that it is part of the lead story in UK politics and is also listed under business, had I known the layout of the site I would have found it in both of the first two places I would have looked.

As for top story billing:  A little bit of looking implies that the BBC, like the CBC and CNN, changes their front page lead several times per day, (and thus it would not surprise me if the financial story _had_ been given the lead).


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on February 20, 2009, 06:48:00 EST
I looked at the BBC news website several times yesterday.  If it was the lead story it wasn't for very long.

I still can't find it in the UK politics or business sections this morning.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on February 21, 2009, 00:38:56 EST
I looked at the BBC news website several times yesterday.  If it was the lead story it wasn't for very long.

I still can't find it in the UK politics or business sections this morning.

Like the Independent, the BBC didn't use the BIG NUMBER in the headline, instead headlining the loss in tax revenue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7898871.stm).  If you still want to discount that, you also have to discount the Independent, because they headlined government borrowing.

I do have to wonder if you are looking very hard because, although it has been pushed to "More from politics", it's still right on the UK Politics main page as I type this.



Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on February 23, 2009, 09:28:15 EST
The decrease in tax revenue is a completely separate issue.  The huge increase in the national debt has been caused by nationalizing banks not by the fall in tax revenue which only accounts for a few tens of billion of the increase.  I see that they have mentioned it in that article.  So, I suppose they have talked about it, but it's hidden in another article about a different issue.

I see your point about the Independent story.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on February 23, 2009, 21:39:48 EST
The decrease in tax revenue is a completely separate issue.  The huge increase in the national debt has been caused by nationalizing banks not by the fall in tax revenue which only accounts for a few tens of billion of the increase.  I see that they have mentioned it in that article.  So, I suppose they have talked about it, but it's hidden in another article about a different issue.

The banking debt issue got about a third of the article, and they had to pick something for the headline.  The BBC chose to go with what is actually a more important issue, the loss in income.  They made this choice rather than going for a sensational number that is actually a bit misleading, as those particular debts are linked to assets which have value and which should become income generating as the economy recovers.


One of the advantages of public media is that they are less prone to go for the overblown headline, as they don't have as much need to sell papers with things like "Costs balloon from $3.8 to $12.6 Billion."[1]


[1] Based on real situation, the $3.8 did not include two items that were about a billion each, and most of the increase from the real cost of $6bn was not due to overruns but from interest accrued during construction, (which had shot up from ~5% to almost 20%).


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on February 24, 2009, 09:07:17 EST
The decrease in tax revenue is a completely separate issue.  The huge increase in the national debt has been caused by nationalizing banks not by the fall in tax revenue which only accounts for a few tens of billion of the increase.  I see that they have mentioned it in that article.  So, I suppose they have talked about it, but it's hidden in another article about a different issue.

The banking debt issue got about a third of the article, and they had to pick something for the headline.  The BBC chose to go with what is actually a more important issue, the loss in income.  They made this choice rather than going for a sensational number that is actually a bit misleading, as those particular debts are linked to assets which have value and which should become income generating as the economy recovers.
This is all dubious.  Certainly the loss of tax revenue is a major issue.

The increase in national debt is a much larger issue though.  The banks have assets in their loans and these will generate an income stream.  It is very doubtful though that that income will cover the cost of their debts.  There is likely to be a large shortfall.

RBS may continue to make a profit.  It is very unlikely though that Northern Rock or Bradford & Bingley will.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on February 25, 2009, 01:41:04 EST
The decrease in tax revenue is a completely separate issue.  The huge increase in the national debt has been caused by nationalizing banks not by the fall in tax revenue which only accounts for a few tens of billion of the increase.  I see that they have mentioned it in that article.  So, I suppose they have talked about it, but it's hidden in another article about a different issue.

The banking debt issue got about a third of the article, and they had to pick something for the headline.  The BBC chose to go with what is actually a more important issue, the loss in income.  They made this choice rather than going for a sensational number that is actually a bit misleading, as those particular debts are linked to assets which have value and which should become income generating as the economy recovers.
This is all dubious.  Certainly the loss of tax revenue is a major issue.

The increase in national debt is a much larger issue though.  The banks have assets in their loans and these will generate an income stream.  It is very doubtful though that that income will cover the cost of their debts.  There is likely to be a large shortfall.

You missed my point:

It's not that there is certain to be no government debt from this at the end, (although there is a reasonably good chance of this[1]), but that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons.  Furthermore, this isn't "UK Government borrowing money to bail out banks", but "Banks ending up under partial government ownership and already existing debts within the banks appearing on the government books."  With the latter, when the government stake is eventually sold off any remaining such debts go with the banks off of the government books.


[1] Look at the Chrysler bailout from the 1970s:  The US government ended up making money hand over fist because they ended up with a large equity stake that could be sold after the recovery.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on February 25, 2009, 09:55:52 EST
The decrease in tax revenue is a completely separate issue.  The huge increase in the national debt has been caused by nationalizing banks not by the fall in tax revenue which only accounts for a few tens of billion of the increase.  I see that they have mentioned it in that article.  So, I suppose they have talked about it, but it's hidden in another article about a different issue.

The banking debt issue got about a third of the article, and they had to pick something for the headline.  The BBC chose to go with what is actually a more important issue, the loss in income.  They made this choice rather than going for a sensational number that is actually a bit misleading, as those particular debts are linked to assets which have value and which should become income generating as the economy recovers.
This is all dubious.  Certainly the loss of tax revenue is a major issue.

The increase in national debt is a much larger issue though.  The banks have assets in their loans and these will generate an income stream.  It is very doubtful though that that income will cover the cost of their debts.  There is likely to be a large shortfall.

You missed my point:

It's not that there is certain to be no government debt from this at the end, (although there is a reasonably good chance of this[1]),
[1] Look at the Chrysler bailout from the 1970s:  The US government ended up making money hand over fist because they ended up with a large equity stake that could be sold after the recovery.
The Chrysler bailout was a very special situation.  It was much more like a company going into Chapter 11 bankruptcy than anything else.  The government did not lend it money, rather it guaranteed some of its existing debts.  It didn't guarantee all, some of the debtors only received fractions of their original stakes.

The story about "making money" is dubious.  The Federal government were paid a fee for guaranteeing the debt.  This fee was very low though compared to the risk the government took.

but that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons.  Furthermore, this isn't "UK Government borrowing money to bail out banks", but "Banks ending up under partial government ownership and already existing debts within the banks appearing on the government books."  With the latter, when the government stake is eventually sold off any remaining such debts go with the banks off of the government books.
It is not inaccurate to say though that the bank bailout has led to this increase in debt, which is what the newspapers say.  The debt has increased because of the bank nationalizations, as you say.  Each of the newspapers I mention explain this, none say that the figure is in loans to the banks or imply that.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on February 26, 2009, 01:07:37 EST
The banking debt issue got about a third of the article, and they had to pick something for the headline.  The BBC chose to go with what is actually a more important issue, the loss in income.  They made this choice rather than going for a sensational number that is actually a bit misleading, as those particular debts are linked to assets which have value and which should become income generating as the economy recovers.
This is all dubious.  Certainly the loss of tax revenue is a major issue.

The increase in national debt is a much larger issue though.  The banks have assets in their loans and these will generate an income stream.  It is very doubtful though that that income will cover the cost of their debts.  There is likely to be a large shortfall.

...

Quote from: Current
Quote from: rwpikul
but that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons.  Furthermore, this isn't "UK Government borrowing money to bail out banks", but "Banks ending up under partial government ownership and already existing debts within the banks appearing on the government books."  With the latter, when the government stake is eventually sold off any remaining such debts go with the banks off of the government books.
It is not inaccurate to say though that the bank bailout has led to this increase in debt, which is what the newspapers say.  The debt has increased because of the bank nationalizations, as you say.  Each of the newspapers I mention explain this, none say that the figure is in loans to the banks or imply that.

As I have said to Psy on numerous occasions:  Respond to my position or don't respond at all.

This isn't about what the _articles_ say but what the _headlines_ say, and what is the lead story when a particular blogger happens to look.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on February 26, 2009, 13:50:17 EST
The banking debt issue got about a third of the article, and they had to pick something for the headline.  The BBC chose to go with what is actually a more important issue, the loss in income.  They made this choice rather than going for a sensational number that is actually a bit misleading, as those particular debts are linked to assets which have value and which should become income generating as the economy recovers.
This is all dubious.  Certainly the loss of tax revenue is a major issue.

The increase in national debt is a much larger issue though.  The banks have assets in their loans and these will generate an income stream.  It is very doubtful though that that income will cover the cost of their debts.  There is likely to be a large shortfall.

...
Ah now, are those dots an argument?

Quote from: Current
Quote from: rwpikul
but that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons.  Furthermore, this isn't "UK Government borrowing money to bail out banks", but "Banks ending up under partial government ownership and already existing debts within the banks appearing on the government books."  With the latter, when the government stake is eventually sold off any remaining such debts go with the banks off of the government books.
It is not inaccurate to say though that the bank bailout has led to this increase in debt, which is what the newspapers say.  The debt has increased because of the bank nationalizations, as you say.  Each of the newspapers I mention explain this, none say that the figure is in loans to the banks or imply that.

As I have said to Psy on numerous occasions:  Respond to my position or don't respond at all.

This isn't about what the _articles_ say but what the _headlines_ say, and what is the lead story when a particular blogger happens to look.
This is what the headlines say:

* The Telegraph "RBS and Lloyds could add £1.5 trillion to UK debt"
This is accurate it does not imply that the £1.5 trillion is coming from government borrowing.

* The Times "Bailed out banks add £1.5 trillion to UK public debt"
Again this is quite accurate.  Notice it says the the "Bailed out banks" have done this, not the "bank bailouts".

* The Indo "Public borrowing soars to record levels"
Accurate.

* The Guardian "Bank bailout could raise national debt by £1.5 trillion"
Now, in this case I'll admit it could be read to mean that the loans cost this much.

So, the newspapers can hardly be attacked as a group for being misleading.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on February 27, 2009, 00:40:30 EST
As I have said to Psy on numerous occasions:  Respond to my position or don't respond at all.

This isn't about what the _articles_ say but what the _headlines_ say, and what is the lead story when a particular blogger happens to look.
This is what the headlines say:

* The Telegraph "RBS and Lloyds could add £1.5 trillion to UK debt"
This is accurate it does not imply that the £1.5 trillion is coming from government borrowing.

* The Times "Bailed out banks add £1.5 trillion to UK public debt"
Again this is quite accurate.  Notice it says the the "Bailed out banks" have done this, not the "bank bailouts".

* The Indo "Public borrowing soars to record levels"
Accurate.

* The Guardian "Bank bailout could raise national debt by £1.5 trillion"
Now, in this case I'll admit it could be read to mean that the loans cost this much.

So, the newspapers can hardly be attacked as a group for being misleading.

Asked and answered:  The £1.5 trillion number is in and of itself misleading for several reasons I have already pointed out.

It is possible for a statement to be both true and misleading, thus pointing out that a statement is true is not a defence against a claim that the statement is misleading.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on February 27, 2009, 04:44:01 EST
Asked and answered:  The £1.5 trillion number is in and of itself misleading for several reasons I have already pointed out.

It is possible for a statement to be both true and misleading, thus pointing out that a statement is true is not a defence against a claim that the statement is misleading.
I don't think that the statement is misleading at all.  Why do you think it is misleading?  You have said that the "that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons." What are the reasons?


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Heq on February 27, 2009, 23:46:32 EST
rwik is arguing from intent rather then immediacy.

Because the government will not be keeping the debt it doesn't have to be recorded or called "real debt".  I'm not sure I buy it because I don't think that the future is that laid out, but if it was certain to be secured in that way, it would be un-neccessary for the government to step in as private money loves certainty.

I understand where he's coming from, and ideally it wouldn't be recorded as debt because the government would have balancing common stock in the companies (but they don't, because that would require a stockholder buyout package).



Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on February 28, 2009, 03:12:45 EST
Asked and answered:  The £1.5 trillion number is in and of itself misleading for several reasons I have already pointed out.

It is possible for a statement to be both true and misleading, thus pointing out that a statement is true is not a defence against a claim that the statement is misleading.
I don't think that the statement is misleading at all.  Why do you think it is misleading?  You have said that the "that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons." What are the reasons?

The core reason it is misleading is that it is presented as the focus of the statement while lacking key pieces of context.


The debts aren't 'real' public debts, they only appear on the overall public books due to accounting technicalities, (and rather iffy ones at that, GAAP here would have those debts kept at arms length).

The debts come with assets that are not mentioned.

The debts are not lasting, and will almost certainly be severed in the future.

The headlines speak to the increase in public debt, when no debt is actually being created.


Heq:

The British government currently owns almost 70% of the Royal Bank of Scotland and 43% of Lloyds Banking Group, (the banks who's debts are at issue WRT this big number).  They _did_ get stock in exchange for the bailout.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on March 02, 2009, 06:31:58 EST
Asked and answered:  The £1.5 trillion number is in and of itself misleading for several reasons I have already pointed out.

It is possible for a statement to be both true and misleading, thus pointing out that a statement is true is not a defence against a claim that the statement is misleading.
I don't think that the statement is misleading at all.  Why do you think it is misleading?  You have said that the "that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons." What are the reasons?

The core reason it is misleading is that it is presented as the focus of the statement while lacking key pieces of context.
The context though is mentioned in the articles.

The debts aren't 'real' public debts, they only appear on the overall public books due to accounting technicalities, (and rather iffy ones at that, GAAP here would have those debts kept at arms length).

The debts come with assets that are not mentioned.
Not in the headline though, but they are mentioned in the articles.

The debts are not lasting, and will almost certainly be severed in the future.

The headlines speak to the increase in public debt, when no debt is actually being created.
No debt is being created.  But debt was transferred from the private sector to the government books.

No debt is lasting, it can be paid off.  The problem is though is the coverage the assets provide for the debt.  How much of the debt will they provide for and how much will be borne by the taxpayer?


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Medivh on March 02, 2009, 18:32:23 EST
Unless you're talking about Northern Rock being an asset, there are other options.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on March 03, 2009, 06:25:19 EST
Unless you're talking about Northern Rock being an asset, there are other options.
The UK government fully own two banks, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.  They own ~70% of Royal Bank of Scotland and ~43% of Lloyds as rwpikul mentioned.  Each of these banks have assets and liabilities.  The assets are mostly the mortages they have on their books.  The liabilities the loans they have taken from other banks and savings accounts.

The information so far indicates that these banks will make losses in the next few years because their assets are not particularly good.  These will be losses to the taxpayer.

There are some other option than the taxpayer covering these losses.  The banks may make a profit from their operations that will cover some of the losses.  They may also put the banks into administration in which case those who have lent to them will take the losses, it's very unlikely they'll do that after nationalizing them though.

The situation varies from bank to bank.  Northern Rock has already made a large loss and will probably do the same next year, B&B will almost certainly do the same.  RBS and Lloyds may not do so badly.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on March 03, 2009, 09:25:51 EST
Asked and answered:  The £1.5 trillion number is in and of itself misleading for several reasons I have already pointed out.

It is possible for a statement to be both true and misleading, thus pointing out that a statement is true is not a defence against a claim that the statement is misleading.
I don't think that the statement is misleading at all.  Why do you think it is misleading?  You have said that the "that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons." What are the reasons?

The core reason it is misleading is that it is presented as the focus of the statement while lacking key pieces of context.
The context though is mentioned in the articles.

IRRELEVANT

We are talking about the headlines

That the article _corrects_ the misleading headline does not change the fact that the headline is misleading.

Quote from: Current
Quote from: rwpikul
The debts are not lasting, and will almost certainly be severed in the future.

The headlines speak to the increase in public debt, when no debt is actually being created.
No debt is being created.  But debt was transferred from the private sector to the government books.

The word public is there for a reason.

Quote from: Current
No debt is lasting, it can be paid off.  The problem is though is the coverage the assets provide for the debt.  How much of the debt will they provide for and how much will be borne by the taxpayer?

Not lasting as in they go off the public books when the banks are placed back in private hands _even if the debts still exist_.


Now, I'm done with this smokescreen digression.

Libertarians and Marxists, the exact same argument style, only differing in their utopia.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on March 03, 2009, 12:21:29 EST
Asked and answered:  The £1.5 trillion number is in and of itself misleading for several reasons I have already pointed out.

It is possible for a statement to be both true and misleading, thus pointing out that a statement is true is not a defence against a claim that the statement is misleading.
I don't think that the statement is misleading at all.  Why do you think it is misleading?  You have said that the "that the $Big Number$ is misleading for several reasons." What are the reasons?

The core reason it is misleading is that it is presented as the focus of the statement while lacking key pieces of context.
The context though is mentioned in the articles.

IRRELEVANT

We are talking about the headlines

That the article _corrects_ the misleading headline does not change the fact that the headline is misleading.
By the same token the BBC headline is similarly misleading though because it doesn't mention what the others do.

How would you suggest the media present this without a "misleading" headline?

Quote from: Current
Quote from: rwpikul
The debts are not lasting, and will almost certainly be severed in the future.

The headlines speak to the increase in public debt, when no debt is actually being created.
No debt is being created.  But debt was transferred from the private sector to the government books.

The word public is there for a reason.
I see your point, it is inaccurate to call the national government's debt the public debt.  Unfortunately it has become quite conventional.  Only the Times though use the word "public".

Quote from: Current
No debt is lasting, it can be paid off.  The problem is though is the coverage the assets provide for the debt.  How much of the debt will they provide for and how much will be borne by the taxpayer?

Not lasting as in they go off the public books when the banks are placed back in private hands _even if the debts still exist_.
The government can only sell these banks if they are viable businesses.  They can only them if their assets outweigh their liabilities.  Currently they don't for many reasons.  The government must cover this shortfall.

For example.  The debts involved are £1.5trillion, if the assets are £1.2trillion then the taxpayer will have to cover the £300billion shortfall.  If the assets are £1trillion then the taxpayer will have to cover a £500billion shortfall.  The latter is probably about the size of the problem.

Libertarians and Marxists, the exact same argument style, only differing in their utopia.
What exactly is wrong with my arguing style?

What you seem to be arguing here is that the taxpayer is being screwed, but that it is perfectly fine for the BBC to not mention it.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: wodan46 on March 03, 2009, 17:26:51 EST
Libertarians and Marxists, the exact same argument style, only differing in their utopia.
Differ?  They offer the same utopia, cloaked in different language.  Either one has people arbitrarily deciding to work together in a friendly manner for ill-defined reasons.  The problem with all utopias is that they are all built around already being a utopia, essentially a pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on March 03, 2009, 22:29:07 EST
Libertarians and Marxists, the exact same argument style, only differing in their utopia.
Differ?  They offer the same utopia, cloaked in different language.  Either one has people arbitrarily deciding to work together in a friendly manner for ill-defined reasons.  The problem with all utopias is that they are all built around already being a utopia, essentially a pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps.

The main difference is in the economic model, one being hyper-command, the other laissez-faire.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Medivh on March 04, 2009, 00:06:38 EST
The results are roughly the same though. Although you'd have to admit that the communists at least have a method to bring about their utopia, even if it wouldn't work. Libertarians seem to think that if you just let everyone do exactly what they want, the utopia will just kind of... happen.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on March 04, 2009, 08:02:03 EST
I think that Libertarian claims to be able to create a "Utopia" are unrealistic.

That said few Libertarians actually claim that if you read what they say.  I don't, Jersey doesn't and neither did Mycroft.

Either one has people arbitrarily deciding to work together in a friendly manner for ill-defined reasons.
Ill defined?  I hardly think they are ill defined, they are clear.  We see them at work every day.  We argue about them nearly every day.

You may criticize my philosophy, but you can hardly say that it is ill-defined.

Libertarians seem to think that if you just let everyone do exactly what they want, the utopia will just kind of... happen.
When have we ever advocated "just let everyone do exactly what they want"?

These are all strawmen.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Medivh on March 04, 2009, 08:10:30 EST
Libertarians seem to think that if you just let everyone do exactly what they want, the utopia will just kind of... happen.
When have we ever advocated "just let everyone do exactly what they want"?

These are all strawmen.

Sorry, sorry... just as long as it's not murder or theft, everyone should do what they want... :P


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on March 04, 2009, 09:37:42 EST
Libertarians seem to think that if you just let everyone do exactly what they want, the utopia will just kind of... happen.
When have we ever advocated "just let everyone do exactly what they want"?

These are all strawmen.

Sorry, sorry... just as long as it's not murder or theft, everyone should do what they want... :P
I haven't even said that.

Still, we're arguing about the details of this in other threads, so there's no need to do it again here.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: wodan46 on March 04, 2009, 17:13:00 EST
The main difference is in the economic model, one being hyper-command, the other laissez-faire.
Except that both economic models are built on the presumption that people will arbitrarily be nice to each other once they are presented with the system, despite the fact that both systems will instead present ample opportunities and motivations for people to be bastards.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on March 05, 2009, 01:25:24 EST
I think that Libertarian claims to be able to create a "Utopia" are unrealistic.

I do not use utopia as a synonym for paradise.

The main difference is in the economic model, one being hyper-command, the other laissez-faire.
Except that both economic models are built on the presumption that people will arbitrarily be nice to each other once they are presented with the system, despite the fact that both systems will instead present ample opportunities and motivations for people to be bastards.

Yes, the two types of anarchists do resemble each other in more ways than just their arguments.  However, I have found that a lot of Libertarians don't assume "nice" but rather that the net effect of "selfish" will work out to a good result.[1]


[1] There are also a fair number who accept that a stable laissez-faire economy with a weak/non-existent government trends toward plutocracy, they just assume that they are either going to be one of the plutocrats or at least up high enough to not be one of the 'serfs'.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Medivh on March 05, 2009, 01:37:45 EST
Ahh, the good ole argument from sociopathy. "I'm this low on the pole because the MAN is holding me down! But when the revolution comes, I'LL be the MAN, and I'll be holding THEM down! *evil cackle*"

I've run into them before. Annoying doesn't even begin to cover it.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on March 05, 2009, 08:28:28 EST
I think that Libertarian claims to be able to create a "Utopia" are unrealistic.

I do not use utopia as a synonym for paradise.
What do you use it as a synonym for then?  Merriam Webster defines it as "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions"

Yes, the two types of anarchists do resemble each other in more ways than just their arguments.  However, I have found that a lot of Libertarians don't assume "nice" but rather that the net effect of "selfish" will work out to a good result.[1]
I find all this observing about what Libertarians think quite amusing.  There are several of us here, haven't you observed from us too?
Do we say these things?

[1] There are also a fair number who accept that a stable laissez-faire economy with a weak/non-existent government trends toward plutocracy, they just assume that they are either going to be one of the plutocrats or at least up high enough to not be one of the 'serfs'.
I have a similar sceptical view of many mainstream political advocates.  I think that a reason many support the traditionalist and soft-socialist parties is not because they really believe in their politics.  Rather they see them as a vehicle for their own ambition.

Look at what you have written in this thread.  The UK government have got their taxpayers into a huge amount of debt.  The state broadcaster, the BBC, have played down this issue.  You have argued here that the BBC's treatment of the news is defensible.

I'm a charitable minded sort of person.  If I wasn't a charitable minded sort of person this is what I would be thinking.  Firstly, the British taxpayers is getting screwed.  Secondly, the BBC are complicit in trying to prevent the electorate from realizing this.  Thirdly, rwpikul is defending the BBC in this.  Why is he doing this?  He may have something against the British perhaps, but he's arguing the point generally.  Perhaps then what he wants is to make sure that in future government actions that are detrimental to the taxpayer are kept out of the public eye.  Why should he want that?  Perhaps because he intends to become a politician himself at some point and act in a similar manner?

I don't really think that that is your motivation, I think you have genuinely different political opinions to mine.  I'm not so charitable to everyone though.  Those who work closely with government have no excuse.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on March 06, 2009, 02:33:51 EST
I think that Libertarian claims to be able to create a "Utopia" are unrealistic.
I do not use utopia as a synonym for paradise.
What do you use it as a synonym for then?  Merriam Webster defines it as "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions"

Replace "ideal" with "impossibly ideal" and you have it.

The key idea behind utopia is that you cannot actually have it.

Quote from: Current
Yes, the two types of anarchists do resemble each other in more ways than just their arguments.  However, I have found that a lot of Libertarians don't assume "nice" but rather that the net effect of "selfish" will work out to a good result.[1]
I find all this observing about what Libertarians think quite amusing.  There are several of us here, haven't you observed from us too?
Do we say these things?

It may come as a shock, but I've run into a lot more that just you two.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on March 06, 2009, 06:57:32 EST
I think that Libertarian claims to be able to create a "Utopia" are unrealistic.
I do not use utopia as a synonym for paradise.
What do you use it as a synonym for then?  Merriam Webster defines it as "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions"

Replace "ideal" with "impossibly ideal" and you have it.

The key idea behind utopia is that you cannot actually have it.
The word comes from a book by Thomas More.  What More intended to describe was a sort of perfect society.  The word has come to mean an ideal of perfection.  That was what I was describing as unrealistic.  I don't really understand what you mean.

Quote from: Current
Yes, the two types of anarchists do resemble each other in more ways than just their arguments.  However, I have found that a lot of Libertarians don't assume "nice" but rather that the net effect of "selfish" will work out to a good result.[1]
I find all this observing about what Libertarians think quite amusing.  There are several of us here, haven't you observed from us too?
Do we say these things?

It may come as a shock, but I've run into a lot more that just you two.
Well, it does come as a bit of a surprise.  I've met only a couple of other people who would describe themselves as classical liberals or neoliberals.  I've never met anyone who would describe their views as Libertarian, but that word isn't really used in Britain.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Ihlosi on March 06, 2009, 08:59:12 EST
The word comes from a book by Thomas More.  What More intended to describe was a sort of perfect society.  The word has come to mean an ideal of perfection.  That was what I was describing as unrealistic.  I don't really understand what you mean.

It's a Greek word, and literally means "non-place", or a place that does not/cannot exist.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: Current on March 06, 2009, 09:03:28 EST
The word comes from a book by Thomas More.  What More intended to describe was a sort of perfect society.  The word has come to mean an ideal of perfection.  That was what I was describing as unrealistic.  I don't really understand what you mean.

It's a Greek word, and literally means "non-place", or a place that does not/cannot exist.
Didn't More create the word though?  From parts?

Anyway, what I'm asking is what does rwpikul mean.


Title: Re: [BLOG] My Turn
Post by: rwpikul on March 06, 2009, 18:06:01 EST
The word comes from a book by Thomas More.  What More intended to describe was a sort of perfect society.  The word has come to mean an ideal of perfection.  That was what I was describing as unrealistic.  I don't really understand what you mean.

It's a Greek word, and literally means "non-place", or a place that does not/cannot exist.
Didn't More create the word though?  From parts?

More did construct it for his use, but it is a valid Greek word.

I use it to describe the societies desired by people of some political stripes because those societies are generally unreachable, inherently unstable, or would result in outcomes wildly different from that desired.


Also:  There is a unusually high population of libertarians in both computer science and role-players, both areas I have had quite a bit of contact with.  Over the years I've bumped into the full range from "ideological but practical" libertarians like SF writer Ryk E. Spoor, to literally card carrying "lets legalize everything, up to and including child prostitution"[1] capital-L members of the US Libertarian party, and even a few full-bore Objectivists, (although there you start running into Poe's Law)[2].


[1] While none would ever actually say this, the party platform has had major planks that, if implemented, would have that result.

[2] Poe's Law is where you cannot tell the difference between a satire and someone seriously espousing a set of views.