EPT
Financial Argumentation
| Blogs > intruding |
|
intruding
157 Posts
| ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
Or can I be more confronational? IM UP IN YO GRILL, WHERE YOU AT, WHERE YOU AT. | ||
|
Athos
United States2484 Posts
| ||
|
Exia
United States33 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
As we have seen in hindsight with the New Deal the idea of Keynesian Economics has proven to be an infallible arguement against government infusion of funds into markets. However, even with these facts layed out infront of all to see, there are still those who cling to the idea that deficit spending in harsh economic climate will stimulate job creation and in the long-term produce beneficial results. If this is to be understood, then there should not have been the lost decade of the 1990's in Japan, nor the resulting 12 year Great Depression in the US from 1929 to 1941. In fact, there has not be a beneficial result to come about with Governments exercising Keynesian Economics. On the other hand you have Hayek, Mizes, and the Austrian School of Economics. Recently the greatest arguement for this success was the early to late 1980's in which the US experienced what was coined, the "Misery Index". High inflation (18%+), 10% unemployment, and a horrid economic outlook. This was facilitated by the idea of Government planning and intervention into markets and by Government favoring certain markets over others. Ronald Reagan running a strong free-market approach in 7 short years dropped the unemployment to 5%, cut inflation to 2% and created 20+ million jobs over a period of 12 years. Clearly the evidence points to Keynesian Economics creating greater debt burdens, negative economic results and patterns, and a largesse of suffering among the populace. Perhaps the greatest arguement against what has been an ever increasing World trend in Economics and Politics was penned in the 1920s. Ludwig von Mizes Socialism, highlights the glaring ineptitudes of the school of thought. Hayek being so influenced by Mizes eventually wrote arguably his lifes greatest masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom, once again highlighting the basic fundamental flaws and tenants of Socialism. My question and point to you, with all the evidence of past history being so indicative of the long-term destructiveness of Socialism and the erosion of personal liberty and freedom, why do so many embrace its teachings. If one strives to better themselves, why must they sacrifice part or most of their work so others may take what they have earned? Discuss the economic and philosophical ramifications of such a system. | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
| ||
|
arbiter_md
Moldova1219 Posts
Ok, now about real economics: There has been some growth in average productivity at work and this has made some increased salaries. Now the working week has remained at 40 hours/week. Will there come times when people will work like 4 hours a day and live decently? | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
| ||
|
BisuBoi
United States350 Posts
On August 07 2009 16:18 Aegraen wrote: Contrasting difference between Friedrich A. Hayek and John Maynard Keynes. As we have seen in hindsight with the New Deal the idea of Keynesian Economics has proven to be an infallible arguement against government infusion of funds into markets. However, even with these facts layed out infront of all to see, there are still those who cling to the idea that deficit spending in harsh economic climate will stimulate job creation and in the long-term produce beneficial results. If this is to be understood, then there should not have been the lost decade of the 1990's in Japan, nor the resulting 12 year Great Depression in the US from 1929 to 1941. In fact, there has not be a beneficial result to come about with Governments exercising Keynesian Economics. On the other hand you have Hayek, Mizes, and the Austrian School of Economics. Recently the greatest arguement for this success was the early to late 1980's in which the US experienced what was coined, the "Misery Index". High inflation (18%+), 10% unemployment, and a horrid economic outlook. This was facilitated by the idea of Government planning and intervention into markets and by Government favoring certain markets over others. Ronald Reagan running a strong free-market approach in 7 short years dropped the unemployment to 5%, cut inflation to 2% and created 20+ million jobs over a period of 12 years. Clearly the evidence points to Keynesian Economics creating greater debt burdens, negative economic results and patterns, and a largesse of suffering among the populace. Perhaps the greatest arguement against what has been an ever increasing World trend in Economics and Politics was penned in the 1920s. Ludwig von Mizes Socialism, highlights the glaring ineptitudes of the school of thought. Hayek being so influenced by Mizes eventually wrote arguably his lifes greatest masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom, once again highlighting the basic fundamental flaws and tenants of Socialism. My question and point to you, with all the evidence of past history being so indicative of the long-term destructiveness of Socialism and the erosion of personal liberty and freedom, why do so many embrace its teachings. If one strives to better themselves, why must they sacrifice part or most of their work so others may take what they have earned? Discuss the economic and philosophical ramifications of such a system. Aegraen, if you actually want to comment on things, then don't use strawman arguments. What you're doing now isn't debating economics, you're just pushing a political agenda while using very very dumbed down talking points that are facetious at best. Furthermore, much of the West does NOT operate based on capitalist principles. The capitalist system does not exist because it has never been enforced to the actual specifications laid out in capitalist theory. They are all mixed economies and much of the rationale behind capitalism is therefore flawed due to always operating within imperfect conditions. Look at the kind of nonsense that has been allowed in the world financial systems. The petrodollar is perhaps the most offensive example of the blatant manipulation of world markets there is. The forex trading done every millisecond by banks leveraging immense amounts of wealth, and turning profits literally on the sole basis of holding more dollars than their competitors, is yet more proof of how skewed and unfair the system is. Don't even get me started on flash trading or sneak peeks done by the large trading and investment houses like Goldman Sachs. There are numerous numerous abuses of power on a systemic level done by all the major players in the finance world which make any kind of philosophizing about the merits of one system over another completely and utterly meaningless. Also your analysis on Reaganomics is not only shallow, but also bullshit. It doesn't even mention the many growth factors that were involved that had nothing to do with administrative policies. As if "free market" policies were what led to job growth. In fact, I'd love to see you elaborate on exactly which of Reagan's policies were responsible for 20+ million new jobs for Americans. Would be nice to see you break down the major policies and how many jobs they generated. (When I say nice I mean comedic). But perhaps the greatest flaw in your analysis is that it does not in any way, shape, or form address the military-industrial complex of the USA. This is the greatest tool in any administration's arsenal for changing demand in markets, government inflows of capital, and investment into key research sectors. No economic discussion can be had without the inclusion of the military-industrial complex, especially in America. Discussing Keynesian policies without this factor is ridiculous. Your example of Japan in the 90's is total shat for the same reasons. Nor does it examine the destructive investment behaviors of Japan's financial sector, the condition of the world economy at the time, nor the rise of China as a major manufacturing power. In short, you're attempting to use very complicated situations to make very stupid and simplistic points. Square peg in a round hole does not work. | ||
| ||
