T Nation

New to TN and PWI


#1

Hi all,

I've been lurking for the past month or so and want to start contributing so I created an account and wanted to introduce myself. I'm fairly new to the political debate, but attempting to have civil discussions with family or anyone on facebook doesn't lead to any additional understanding so here I am.

A bit about me, I'm soon to turn 28 mechanical engineer working in Texas for an oil company. I lived in Malaysia for two years and did quite a bit of travelling before relocating to Texas.

I like to think of myself as center-right or social-liberal/fiscal-conservative. I'm excited for the political season, thought the debate was entertaining and think there are many storylines that will continue to play out as we get closer to Nov 2016.

I'm sure there will be a few things to get used to with this forum but look forward to debating and getting a better understanding of the hot topics.


#2

Welcome.

I’m on a “de-plug” right now, but one of the most useful self reflections I’ve done in awhile was a question posed by Thunderbolt:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?

Not that I can give a concise answer now even, I did give it a try, and it sort of changed a couple things for me honestly.


#3

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?
[/quote]

Quite the loaded question… If its federal government I usually fall into the stay-out-of-my-life camp on most issues outside of national defense. At a local level I think the government can have more involvment, but I believe having it local gives more power to citizens. For example, I have no issues with gay marriage and have a homosexual relative, but don’t agree with how the supreme court forced their opinion on everybody. I felt it would have been better to let the states allow gay marriage as each state’s citizens voted for it.

I suppose thats why I lean libertarian but also believe that the USA is too much of a world power to not have a strong national defense. One of the reasons why I’m here is to have my political beliefs get challenged so I can either defend them, meaning they are well grounded… or if I can’t defend them they don’t have enough substance and I am potentially off base.


#4

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?

[/quote]

Leave the people alone to figure it out for themselves and protect for the national security. It’s not really all that complicated.


#5

[/quote]

Leave the people alone to figure it out for themselves and protect for the national security. It’s not really all that complicated.
[/quote]

Re5peXt


#6

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?

[/quote]

Leave the people alone to figure it out for themselves and protect for the national security. It’s not really all that complicated.
[/quote]

I would agree if that were true, but the two are interdependent. For example, a strong, dynamic economy is the foundation of military power. Ergo, it’s in the interest of the statesman to be actively involved in the national economy. The line that separates domestic and international affairs is blurry at best.


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?

[/quote]

Leave the people alone to figure it out for themselves and protect for the national security. It’s not really all that complicated.
[/quote]

I would agree if that were true, but the two are interdependent. For example, a strong, dynamic economy is the foundation of military power. Ergo, it’s in the interest of the statesman to be actively involved in the national economy. The line that separates domestic and international affairs is blurry at best.
[/quote]

I agree, and with that being the case, can you imagine how much stronger our military power would be if we indeed had a strong, dynamic economy? As it is, we have a weak economy hampered by stifling govt regulations and meddling, and band-aided by massive borrowing.[/quote]

Perfection being unattainable, the American economy could always be stronger and more dynamic. Being at the top of GDP rankings and accounting for nearly a quarter of global GDP isn’t what I would call a “weak” economy. I don’t think defense spending would be significantly impacted by even a 5% bump in GDP. As far as advanced industrial societies go, I wouldn’t say the US is overly regulated. If anything, a lack of regulation precipitated the 2008 Great Recession. Thanks in part to increased regulation in the relevant economic sectors, the US economy emerged from the recession retooled and in a better position to grow than had a more laissez faire approach been adopted. A paucity of government involvement would also hamper strategic planning in key economic sectors. To be clear, I’m not arguing for state capitalism a la China. Pure market capitalism is an abstraction, and one that macroeconomics makes clear that we shouldn’t strive toward.


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#10

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?

[/quote]

Leave the people alone to figure it out for themselves and protect for the national security. It’s not really all that complicated.
[/quote]

I would agree if that were true, but the two are interdependent. For example, a strong, dynamic economy is the foundation of military power. Ergo, it’s in the interest of the statesman to be actively involved in the national economy. The line that separates domestic and international affairs is blurry at best.
[/quote]

I agree, and with that being the case, can you imagine how much stronger our military power would be if we indeed had a strong, dynamic economy? As it is, we have a weak economy hampered by stifling govt regulations and meddling, and band-aided by massive borrowing.[/quote]

Perfection being unattainable, the American economy could always be stronger and more dynamic. Being at the top of GDP rankings and accounting for nearly a quarter of global GDP isn’t what I would call a “weak” economy. I don’t think defense spending would be significantly impacted by even a 5% bump in GDP. As far as advanced industrial societies go, I wouldn’t say the US is overly regulated. If anything, a lack of regulation precipitated the 2008 Great Recession. Thanks in part to increased regulation in the relevant economic sectors, the US economy emerged from the recession retooled and in a better position to grow than had a more laissez faire approach been adopted. A paucity of government involvement would also hamper strategic planning in key economic sectors. To be clear, I’m not arguing for state capitalism a la China. Pure market capitalism is an abstraction, and one that macroeconomics makes clear that we shouldn’t strive toward.[/quote]

There are several things wrong with this post but seeing how I am behind the wheel of a big truck and on my smartphone I will have to respond later. I have a feeling you already know what I think is wrong with it, however.
[/quote]

That’s fine. I look forward to your response.


#11

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?
[/quote]

“Get the hell out of my way.”

Welcome drew, have fun. It gets interesting around here.


#12

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?

[/quote]

Leave the people alone to figure it out for themselves and protect for the national security. It’s not really all that complicated.
[/quote]

Forgot about this thread:

Okay. I agree in large part, but should the government regulate disclosure rules for publicly traded companies?

Should government monitor and inspect goods shipped in from places like, say China, where slave conditions and government tyranny could taint products?

Should their be and FDA?

Should their be a medical professional licensing board sponsored by the state?

I mean all this shit is getting in someone’s way, and all ofit has good intentions…


#13

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?

[/quote]

Leave the people alone to figure it out for themselves and protect for the national security. It’s not really all that complicated.
[/quote]

Forgot about this thread:

Okay. I agree in large part, but should the government regulate disclosure rules for publicly traded companies?

Should government monitor and inspect goods shipped in from places like, say China, where slave conditions and government tyranny could taint products?

Should their be and FDA?

Should their be a medical professional licensing board sponsored by the state?

I mean all this shit is getting in someone’s way, and all ofit has good intentions… [/quote]

Good intentions can have dramatic unintended consequences. I like to believe all government initiatives have good intentions but its very challenging to know all of the consequences when the government is able to impact and reach so many people.

As far as programs like FDA, great concept and great intentions, but can overreach. I think the supplement industry is a good example of a case study that isn’t regulated by the FDA. There are a ton of false claims by supplements that haven’t been proven with studies, but people are able to filter and learn about what is best for them. The government isn’t claiming that a specific supplement is the most important like they did with grain based foods. We now know the food pyramid was supported by studies conducted by the grain industry, which echoes my opinion that anytime the government gets in control and is too big they delegate the power to whoever can lobby the most. I prefer to let the people dictate the market because the government doesn’t know everything, because if you did know enough about a specific market you wouldn’t be in the government you would be in that market making a ton of money based on your knowledge.


#14

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What do you think government SHOULD be doing? (Or something to that effect) In a modern, global society, and country of 330m people who are very different from each other?

[/quote]

Leave the people alone to figure it out for themselves and protect for the national security. It’s not really all that complicated.
[/quote]

Forgot about this thread:

Okay. I agree in large part, but should the government regulate disclosure rules for publicly traded companies?

Should government monitor and inspect goods shipped in from places like, say China, where slave conditions and government tyranny could taint products?

Should their be and FDA?

Should their be a medical professional licensing board sponsored by the state?

I mean all this shit is getting in someone’s way, and all ofit has good intentions… [/quote]

Good intentions can have dramatic unintended consequences. I like to believe all government initiatives have good intentions but its very challenging to know all of the consequences when the government is able to impact and reach so many people.

As far as programs like FDA, great concept and great intentions, but can overreach. I think the supplement industry is a good example of a case study that isn’t regulated by the FDA. There are a ton of false claims by supplements that haven’t been proven with studies, but people are able to filter and learn about what is best for them. The government isn’t claiming that a specific supplement is the most important like they did with grain based foods. We now know the food pyramid was supported by studies conducted by the grain industry, which echoes my opinion that anytime the government gets in control and is too big they delegate the power to whoever can lobby the most. I prefer to let the people dictate the market because the government doesn’t know everything, because if you did know enough about a specific market you wouldn’t be in the government you would be in that market making a ton of money based on your knowledge.[/quote]

pretty good description of cronyism my man … also, as far as gov initiatives having good intentions, for the most I think you’re right, but a lot of what the incumbent POTUS has done has me thinking otherwise (that’s just my tin hat talking).


#15

I fully understand the disaster of unintended consequences.

But where is the line in “get out of my way”?

Again, what should the government be doing. In a modern world, global economy, and particualry in a country of 330m people whom don’t all agree on the “get out of my way” business?

Talking in generality is all well and good, but the devil is in the details.


#16

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

As far as programs like FDA, great concept and great intentions, but can overreach. I think the supplement industry is a good example of a case study that isn’t regulated by the FDA. There are a ton of false claims by supplements that haven’t been proven with studies, but people are able to filter and learn about what is best for them.[/quote]

Are you sure about that?


#17

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

As far as programs like FDA, great concept and great intentions, but can overreach. I think the supplement industry is a good example of a case study that isn’t regulated by the FDA. There are a ton of false claims by supplements that haven’t been proven with studies, but people are able to filter and learn about what is best for them.[/quote]

Are you sure about that?[/quote]

Yes, at least that is my understanding. I’m not sure what point you are disagreeing with, the fact that supplement companies can make exaggerated claims or that people can learn what is best for them.

In regards to claims by the supplement companies…maybe I should have said peer-reviewed studies? The studies are performed by a supplement company selling and are more propaganda than fact. They find a correlation and can claim their product delivers it. That’s why supplements along the lines of homeopathic medicine can exist even though they are essentially nothing. Placebo can be a very odd mechanism.

It’s similar to a 6-minute ab device. Can the device help you get abs? Sure. Is that what actually got the person in the video/ad to look like that? No. It’s not hard to fudge before and after pictures and the supplement you used could have helped, or might have been insignificant.

In regards to people being able to filter the noise from the supplement companies…The lack of regulation in market has created companies like Examine.com to get good third party research or use experts they trust to help get good advice and know what is propaganda vs. what works.


#18

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

As far as programs like FDA, great concept and great intentions, but can overreach. I think the supplement industry is a good example of a case study that isn’t regulated by the FDA. There are a ton of false claims by supplements that haven’t been proven with studies, but people are able to filter and learn about what is best for them.[/quote]

Are you sure about that?[/quote]

Yes, at least that is my understanding. I’m not sure what point you are disagreeing with, the fact that supplement companies can make exaggerated claims or that people can learn what is best for them.

In regards to claims by the supplement companies…maybe I should have said peer-reviewed studies? The studies are performed by a supplement company selling and are more propaganda than fact. They find a correlation and can claim their product delivers it. That’s why supplements along the lines of homeopathic medicine can exist even though they are essentially nothing. Placebo can be a very odd mechanism.

It’s similar to a 6-minute ab device. Can the device help you get abs? Sure. Is that what actually got the person in the video/ad to look like that? No. It’s not hard to fudge before and after pictures and the supplement you used could have helped, or might have been insignificant.

In regards to people being able to filter the noise from the supplement companies…The lack of regulation in market has created companies like Examine.com to get good third party research or use experts they trust to help get good advice and know what is propaganda vs. what works.[/quote]

So, a company selling synthetic heroin for pain treatments. Should they be required, by the government, to prove through extensive testing that the product is safe, and list all potential sides, and that it is in fact an opiate?

Or should the company be free to list it with “fantastic” claims and let people figure it out for themselves how they ended up a junkie?


#19

Drew, welcome and I hope you have fun, amd hopefully we can learn from one another.

Beans, good stuff in this thread. It’s well and good ro speak in bumper-sticker abstractions about government being too big, but that accomplishes little. What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?


#20

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

As far as programs like FDA, great concept and great intentions, but can overreach. I think the supplement industry is a good example of a case study that isn’t regulated by the FDA. There are a ton of false claims by supplements that haven’t been proven with studies, but people are able to filter and learn about what is best for them.[/quote]

Are you sure about that?[/quote]

Yes, at least that is my understanding. I’m not sure what point you are disagreeing with, the fact that supplement companies can make exaggerated claims or that people can learn what is best for them.

In regards to claims by the supplement companies…maybe I should have said peer-reviewed studies? The studies are performed by a supplement company selling and are more propaganda than fact. They find a correlation and can claim their product delivers it. That’s why supplements along the lines of homeopathic medicine can exist even though they are essentially nothing. Placebo can be a very odd mechanism.

It’s similar to a 6-minute ab device. Can the device help you get abs? Sure. Is that what actually got the person in the video/ad to look like that? No. It’s not hard to fudge before and after pictures and the supplement you used could have helped, or might have been insignificant.

In regards to people being able to filter the noise from the supplement companies…The lack of regulation in market has created companies like Examine.com to get good third party research or use experts they trust to help get good advice and know what is propaganda vs. what works.[/quote]

So, a company selling synthetic heroin for pain treatments. Should they be required, by the government, to prove through extensive testing that the product is safe, and list all potential sides, and that it is in fact an opiate?

Or should the company be free to list it with “fantastic” claims and let people figure it out for themselves how they ended up a junkie?

[/quote]

Fair rebuttal, but is that far off from what they are currently doing even in a regulated industry? I know its not heroin but pain meds were previously handed out like candy and people became addicted to pain meds after receiving them legally through a doctor. Fortunately doctors are now more reluctant to hand out meds due to the liability. To directly answer your question, I think the end results would be the same if it was not regulated because a company has in their best interest to prove that their product is proven through extensive testing and safe for use, otherwise its a terrible product and people will not use it. The hospital/doctor doesn’t want to give out shady drugs or they will have a reputation as a shady hospital/doctor.

In the case of an illegal/legal substances used as medical practice, I think a better example is THC. I’m no expert on the issue but am from Colorado where it has used commonly as a “medicine” to now being similar to smoking a cigarette. There are numerous cases of parents showing how THC has reduced severe cases of childhood seizures but there are also cases showing that THC used at a young age is detrimental to brain development. The government is allowing it to be used, but it could be damaging. I guess I am cautious to trust the governement to know what is best for me. They could say its good or bad and I would still be cautious.

Another case would be the “worlds best burger”. How many food chains claim they are the best? Does the government need to determine what great burger is? The market, through restaurant ratings, yelp, word of mouth and popularity can actually prove that a restaurant has a good burger compared to a false claim.

That was a roundabout way of saying I understand your point. No regulation sounds awful because people can do stupid things and I am potentially naive in thinking that a market can regulate itself.