Divine Hero Nguyen
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Divine Hero Nguyen
-
-
If you studied some form of economics, then this video will help you understand F.A. Hayek and Austrian Economics:
For those that do not understand the video, some of the basic tenants are deregulation, smaller government, and emphasis on savings, production, and investment as the main engine that drives the economy rather than consumption. In particular, their most prominent theory of the school (Austrian business cycle theory) explains that most of the booms and busts are caused by the government monopoly on money (i.e. the Federal Reserve) setting interest rates set too artificially low, causing widespread malinvestment (Bank: Hey, money is so plentiful so let's ease on the requirements and background checks on the average Joe when obtaining a loan (Subprime mortgage, anyone?) We make more money off of interest and do not have much to lose~) and thus, call for the abolition of all central banks. Considering the fact F.A. Hayek himself predicted the Great Depression, I am shocked to see Austrian economics so marginalized. The school even predicted our current recession (Go youtube "Peter Schiff.")
As for Hayek, well...whatever. I regard the man as highly hypocritical in the Road to Serfdom (he sees any central planning of socialist governments as inherently requiring more power grabs, but doesn't seem to care that much about centralization that's already occurred in capitalist societies, or rather doesn't see it as contradictory. I do believe later libertarians, by focusing on government as a kind of necessary evil - where citizens surrender certain individual rights but then put a halt to things - ).The book calls for a general DECREASE in the size of governments, not an outright ELIMINATION of government like what other libertarians preach.
As for the curriculum in general, this is pretty much a good reason for the government to get out of managing (note that I said "managing," not paying for students though) schools. Let the schools compete for the best history class; With freedom of speech and the internet, anyone who knows how to use their brain can discern the truths from the lies.
-
Philosophically left-libertarian. Practically classical liberal. Economic views is a mixture of Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, and Friedrich von Hayek (put it simply, "unfettered" capitalism in the long-run, "stimulating" socialism in the short run.) Socially, I believe in social safety nets as well as welfare for all children and to an extent, elderly. Basically, I believe in second chances in life, maximum personal freedom, equal opportunity to succeed (Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, anyone?) Huge advocate of the Constitutional policy because it is the only document that almost every citizen can agree on almost every statue as well as Federalism when it comes to designing programs as in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis:
In a democratic society, those two things are what make sure that 50% of the nation's population does not bother the other 50%. If the Republicans want to drill more oil, great; just do it in their own state.It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.It's really hard for me to describe my positions because on top of having opinions ranging from traditional issues such as immigration to obscure ones like monetary reform, I do not view any issues black or white. For example, on the case of education, I believe that education should be compulsory but the money is attached to ALL (both rich and poor) children and they could be taught at the school of their choice, whether it is public, private, home-schooled, alternative, etc., and that amount of money based on the merit of the student through an annual standardized test. The test though has to be designed to determine how much the student had improved rather than how does the student compare to other students in their grade/age group, which is the problem with all standardized tests nowadays. The only kind of test that can fit that is something like an IQ test. If the kids shows remarkable improvement, then they get increased funding, but those that did not show improvement or performed worse, then funding gets reduced or the kid must change schools. Kids who have parents that could pay for their education could opt out of the program but get a tax credit instead. It has a mix of free market competition as well as welfare and accountability.
-
The senate has been a roadblock on almost every important issue, from decreasing agricultural subsidies to gun law and healthcare reform, things which a majority of Americans support. But because a majority of Americans live in concentrated areas in certain states, it makes sense that their desires deserve to be relegated below those of rural populations? The bicameral system doesn't solve this, because the senate still has full veto power over the house (and is far more often the one to exercise it).
So it makes sense half the people get 18% representation, the other half get 82%, of which 18% of this total is claimed by 2.5% of the population, just because of where they live? I get it, state sovereignty and all that, but the senate made much more sense in an era when the United States was much more federal (it still is, but it's unlikely that we'll see states go to war nowadays), and today has become a decrepit dinosaur that has been distorted by population disparities between the states that the founding fathers could not have anticipated. It was mostly made to appease the South, which at the time also had sparse rural populations but a lot of money (aha).
Excuse my generalization here but here's an analogy: Wyomingite is to Californian as miners is to urban dwellers. Both the miner and the urban dweller are regular people just like you and me but with widely different beliefs on issues. But because there are more urban dwellers, that should be the reason that they can consistently trample over miners' interests? No matter how lopsided the ratio is between those two groups, those two groups exist and to be fair to both groups, tyranny of the majority must be eliminated, which is the reason the Senate exists. And it is not like the Senate overpowers the House since they too can also veto the Senate's actions so tyranny of the minority is non-existent as well.
Also, last time I checked, the House still supports agricultural subsidies with the passage of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, gun control laws are unconstitutional, and the only real controversial action that the Senate did in the health care reform was getting rid of the fairly useless public option. However, it is true that the Senate is generally more conservative (and it is their job to be more conservative) than the House but there must be a check on popular power.
In the same vein, should we get rid of the veto? And judicial review?
-
That depends. If the issue is going to affect everybody, and it's in favor of the small states, the smaller states should be given a power in proportion to their population. If the issue is in favor of the smaller states, and won't affect anyone but them, then they should be given equal representation. However, that brings up the case in which the issue affects everybody, but is just downright unfair to the smaller states. In that situation, I think there should be a sort of panel of judges to decide if that is the case, and if it is, give the smaller states equal representation. Those are just my thoughts though, and this will never happen as it would require a major reconstruction of the government. And hey, if I can't even run an internet forum, what do I know about government?
Uhhh, that is why we have a bicameral Congress. For legislation to go though, the bill need the approval of BOTH houses so that it is fair to both large and small states. You guys make it sound like one house controls the other.
If there is one change I would like for congress, I would get rid of the 17th amendment. Direct election of senators have done nothing but to allow special interests to control the Senate which greatly increased the size of the federal government at the expense of state governments. The original intent of the Senate is to represent state sovereignty (in other words, making sure the federal government is following the Constitution and not trampling on state powers), not popular interests. We already have the House of Representatives for that.
Here's a food for thought: Let the states decide on controversial, "more-than-one-right-answer" issues like abortion, not the federal, "one-size-fits-all" government.
-
On top of the civil liberty aspect, I support the legalization of marijuana also because of its numerous, possible applications such as biofuel and medicine.Current drug laws prevent full utilization of cannabis.
-
che. This entire topic reminds me of 21...
Good movie. :)
Maybe because 21 was based off of the MIT Blackjack team?
Anyone can win it though. Some just use their god given gift (their brain) to improve their odds of winning AND they stay within the rules too.Casinos are not tournaments; they are a business. Their desire is to make profits off of gambling, not to see who is the most skilled at card counting. Keep in mind, if anyone is on a winning streak for any game not limited to blackjack, the casino will kick that person out.
-
Since when was Ray considered one of the worst characters? He is the best shaman you can get statistically (Good con and speed allows for doubling with Flux) and he does not require too much babysitting.
The characters I use that people do not look favorably usually is Wade because I enjoy using warriors and he will end up the best one usually. Lott has lopsided growths and Bartre ends up with worse stats overall. I also tried experimenting with Ellen and Garret who ended up quite nice.
-
Not your twin! >
You cannot deny the truth. ;)
-
-
Well, it has been a long time. Hey there, twin!
-
I remember you. Your name stuck out, but your presence did not.
Hah, like I said, I was the most obscure vet from FESS. I was surprised I never won a Biggest Lurker award on FESS...
Hello everyone! For those who never met me before, nice to meet you! :)
-
Where does life exactly begin? Does it begin right at conception? Or does it begin when the fetus becomes self-aware? The problem with the abortion debate is that there is a gray area where everyone agrees life starts at. This goes beyond women's or fetus's rights. It is nearly impossible to define murder if no one can accept when life begins.
I am pro-choice myself but I can tolerate pro-life legislation as long as it does not ban abortion for rape and when the women's life is at stake. While the fetus has the potential to become a human, it requires the mother to nourish it, and therefore, dependent on the mother's body. Because the baby is a "parasite" (bluntly putting it this way, no offense), the mother has the right to do whatever she wishes to do with her body. Though, one has to understand that because they do have potential to become humans, abortion should the last option if possible...
However, I think everyone can agree that abortion should be looked down upon (much like smoking and alcohol but we still legalize those.) Maybe, more sex ed would be more effective than abortion?
-
No Buddhists around? :(
Even though I have a religion I follow, I still view it as well as other religions as objectively as possible. While I cannot deny nor prove that Jesus was the actual son of God for example, it is undeniable he was an influential figure that immensely inspired people during the time he had lived. Likewise, I do not explicitly agree or deny that God exists because no evidence means there will be no evidence in the future. The open mind is certainly a lot more useful in religious debates and not so offensive to other hardcore followers.
-
I'm not trying to slam you, but I don't hear Caucasian (or however you spell it) as much as African American. If black isn't the right word, neither should white be the right term for "Caucasians". Personally, white and black are so much quicker and easier to say/write than Caucasian and African American then again everthing formal is harder than informal.
Caucasian IS the right term. But the minority's perspective is more sensitive (and therefore, more important) than the majority. :/
The fact that is sounds "nicer" is a bad reason to use an inaccurate term. Maybe I'm alone on this, but when I hear the term used incorrectly I interpret the speaker to be intentionally ignorant just so nobody might happen to be "offended."How is it inaccurate when they both mean the same thing? Black = African American. The connotation is different and that is why it depends on the formality of the situation (i.e. Would is better to say "African American" in a speech to the audience or "Black"?)
It is WHEN it is the right time to use certain words that people have a problem with.
-
So accuracy is sacrificed for formality. That is ass backwards.
What is the difference aside from inflection? ._.
-
2) Why do people think that having items on reduces the amount of skill needed in this game? Having items on actually increases the amount of skill needed. If not, why can't we use Smash Balls only?
Lol, no. The problem is that items spawn in random places, faster characters can get to them quicker, and some release random results (like a Pokeball releasing Latios & Latias). Final Smashes detract from skill for most of the same reasons. Certain characters can break the ball quicker and easier, some Final Smashes are crap compared to the others, and it also somewhat depends on where it spawns.
Even though I am a "competitive" player, I disagree here. While some items are undeniably broken becuase there is no or little risk and strategy that comes with them like Pokeballs, other items have a risky and require some intelligence to use, such as bumpers and hammers. It does not matter about the random spawning for those kind of items. And I do not understand the argument that some final smashes are stronger than others. Some characters have stronger projectiles than others for example and are projectiles banned? Final Smashes themselves and the ability to obtain one are just factors in the overall strength of a character.
-
Saying a black man is black isn't impolite, but it isn't polically incorrect either. Calling him an "african american" is politically correct, but may be even interpreted as an insult by the listener (and therefore impolite).
Interpretation is in the ear of the beholder. Maybe it is just me but "African American" has more formality than "black."
-
The only thing that bothers me about this game is there is no replay value at all. Even with Hidden Mansion, there is not much incentives to play the game over again.
Otherwise, it is a solid starter for the GC.
-
To be honest, political correctness equates to politeness. One would normally not call an old women an old hag for example so therefore you would not call an African American with any racial slur out of respect.
The only problem with this though is that people nowadays are too sensitive when it comes to political incorrectness. People need to understand the difference between jokes and respect... :/
-
Omg hry chopstick! :)
-
Well, looks like I missed posting on the Farewell thread on FESS... long story short, it was my first forum I seriously stayed on, been on there for 5 years, and I'm going to miss all the good times there... :/ Kudos from the most obscure FESS member since FESS1 anyways, haha...
But moving on, hello everyone! =)
Texas School Board Changes History--at least in the textbooks
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Divine Hero Nguyen
I am not confronting you on this; I am just talking generally about the relative importance of Austrian economics since it is relatively unknown to many people here. I know it is rather difficult to summarize the entire Austrian economics to the average person so I laid out the basic points the school supports (especially the ever-so-important Austrian business cycle theory which is one thing that separates it from other schools)
I was pointing out that there is nothing contradictory about Hayek's book; the purpose of the book is to inform people about the inherit dangers of central planning (which is pretty much any aspect of government) but since you cannot completely eliminate all government (except those that believe in the anarcho-capitalism), it is best to control or reduce the present state as much as possible enough to counteract inevitable government growth.
Just because someone is a member of the Democratic party does not necessarily mean they call for eliminating aspects of the Republic. The Libertarian Party is not truly libertarian in the actual sense of the word but a coalition of people who are sympathetic to libertarian positions but does not necessarily adhere to libertarian reasoning - fiscal conservatives, social liberals, constitutionalists, etc. The Libertarian Party is a political party that moderates the actual philosophy to some likable form and rightly so if it wants to win votes. For example, the libertarian supports education tax credits; True libertarians oppose even that, but they still vote for the Libertarian party because it is a step in the right direction.
I do concede that "outright" was a horrible choice of word but my point still stands: True libertarians are all unified on the view that taxation is theft and government forcing people to behave in some way at the point of the barrel is immoral and thus, government functions should be eliminated rather than reformed whenever possible. To put it simply (and this is one of my biggest problem with the philosophy), libertarians tend to view government in overly black-and-white terms.
I was not attacking you at all nor was I accusing you of dismissing the entire school.
Did Murray Rothbard, among other anarcho-capitalists, suddenly disappear from the libertarian scene?
Did I say that the elimination of government control would lead to perfect fact-finding? No, nothing is perfect. But competition and freedom of information is a lot better than a central authority indoctrinating students with the curriculum of their choice. Granted, there IS choice (You can move out or go to a private choice) but if imagine the Department of Education working under a conservative administration decides to implement this nationwide.