|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 11 2013 08:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:11 farvacola wrote:On July 11 2013 08:09 cLutZ wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is capitalism" and then assign the ills to capitalism. The reality is we are quite far from capitalism, and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where the government involvement is heaviest. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is big government" and then assign the ills to "big government". The reality is we are quite far from a socialism style "big government", and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where private interest and the public good are most commonly at odds. Your argument relies on your own definitions of public good, etc; whereas mine relies on your definitions to come to my conclusions. Unless you think that there are terrible travesties in the relatively unregulated markets like widescreen televisions or number 2 pencils, my argument doesn't really break down. Yours, however, needs quite a bit of proof you have not provided, particularly you need to demonstrate what the public interest actually is, then what the private interest is, then why they are not compatible, then that the proposed regulations alleviate the problem instead of creating rent seeking. By the way, excuse my sentence structure, because I have no idea how that 1st sentence should be written.
Both statements rely on unfounded assumptions, which is precisely my point. In order for yours to make any sense, one has to necessarily equate widescreen televisions or number 2 pencils with healthcare, housing, or energy. This assertion requires more legwork than merely pointing at problematic areas of government involvement and saying, "well it'd obviously be better without the government.".
|
On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here.
Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash).
I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck?
|
On July 11 2013 08:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:19 cLutZ wrote:On July 11 2013 08:11 farvacola wrote:On July 11 2013 08:09 cLutZ wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is capitalism" and then assign the ills to capitalism. The reality is we are quite far from capitalism, and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where the government involvement is heaviest. The problem is people with your POV look at the current system and think "well this is big government" and then assign the ills to "big government". The reality is we are quite far from a socialism style "big government", and the segments of the economy with the most trouble: Banking, healthcare, housing, energy, and others are the ones where private interest and the public good are most commonly at odds. Your argument relies on your own definitions of public good, etc; whereas mine relies on your definitions to come to my conclusions. Unless you think that there are terrible travesties in the relatively unregulated markets like widescreen televisions or number 2 pencils, my argument doesn't really break down. Yours, however, needs quite a bit of proof you have not provided, particularly you need to demonstrate what the public interest actually is, then what the private interest is, then why they are not compatible, then that the proposed regulations alleviate the problem instead of creating rent seeking. By the way, excuse my sentence structure, because I have no idea how that 1st sentence should be written. Huh? Obviously if the market is doing fine and everyone is happy then regulation wouldn't be proposed. Regulation comes from somewhere. It's not like politicians just randomly regulate things.
That is what it looks like to me.
|
On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington Show nested quote +"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck?
Slavery was pretty nice for a capitalist economy. I'm glad you want to go back to that.
|
On July 11 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Slavery was pretty nice for a capitalist economy. I'm glad you want to go back to that.
If anything the South's reliance on slavery weakened its economy, I mean unlike paid workers, slaves cant buy any of the goods you are producing since they have no money, or freedom.
+ Show Spoiler +
Many of the wealthiest men of the Gilded Age also opposed slavery.
|
On July 11 2013 08:51 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Slavery was pretty nice for a capitalist economy. I'm glad you want to go back to that. If anything the South's reliance on slavery weakened its economy, I mean unlike paid workers, slaves cant buy any of the goods you are producing since they have no money, or freedom. + Show Spoiler +Many of the wealthiest men of the Gilded Age also opposed slavery.
Are you serious? The flaw with the southern economy was that they didn't give the slaves any money to buy stuff? That's at best dumb, and at worst criminally insane. The South didn't stand a chance against the north because the south was an agrarian economy while the north was an industrial one.
You then link a graphic that, while pretty, doesn't give you any useful information to compare them economically if you take 4.532 seconds to do some statistical thinking on how those bars scale based on population, and based on paid population. The only information this gives us about economy in 1861 is who did what where, not how profitable it was or who profited.
Many poor men in the gilded age also supported slavery. Unfortunately that has no relevance until I explain how it's relevant.
|
On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington Show nested quote +"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck?
Britain was at the top of the world when they were pursing imperialism, they should go back to it now since it worked so well back then. This is literally equivalent to what you're saying right now. Correlation =/ Causation. I was gonna list some of the differences but they're so obvious I felt silly typing them...
|
On July 11 2013 09:06 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:51 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On July 11 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Slavery was pretty nice for a capitalist economy. I'm glad you want to go back to that. If anything the South's reliance on slavery weakened its economy, I mean unlike paid workers, slaves cant buy any of the goods you are producing since they have no money, or freedom. + Show Spoiler +Many of the wealthiest men of the Gilded Age also opposed slavery. Are you serious? The flaw with the southern economy was that they didn't give the slaves any money to buy stuff? That's at best dumb, and at worst criminally insane. The South didn't stand a chance against the north because the south was an agrarian economy while the north was an industrial one. You then link a graphic that, while pretty, doesn't give you any useful information to compare them economically if you take 4.532 seconds to do some statistical thinking on how those bars scale based on population, and based on paid population. The only information this gives us about economy in 1861 is who did what where, not how profitable it was or who profited. Many poor men in the gilded age also supported slavery. Unfortunately that has no relevance until I explain how it's relevant.
Plus, like, half its population didn't support slavery...being slaves. Plus Malaria, Yellow Fever, and the various other diseases more prevalent there...
|
On July 11 2013 08:51 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Slavery was pretty nice for a capitalist economy. I'm glad you want to go back to that. If anything the South's reliance on slavery weakened its economy, I mean unlike paid workers, slaves cant buy any of the goods you are producing since they have no money, or freedom. + Show Spoiler +Many of the wealthiest men of the Gilded Age also opposed slavery.
Well, the North was a consumption economy while the South was an export. It's like comparing Germany and Japan to economies like Canada and USA. They both work.
Also, remember the North had more than double the population of the South.
|
On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower.
Are you arguing that 1900's-era standards of living were as good as they are today? Weirdly, GDP per capita (even adjusted for inflation/deflation) increases as you move from 1900 to the present. Although I'm sure that our data on the entire economic history of the US isn't entirely accurate, wouldn't you think that, if minimum wage is a hindrance to economic superiority and "excellence," the growth of GDP per capita wouldn't have increased as nicely as it did?
But even setting aside per capita measurements (as they're not always the clearest metrics) who cares if the nation "got by" without minimum wage? It got by without lots of other things, too, but I think we can all agree that, for example, desegregated education is a net gain for the nation even if the country wouldn't spontaneously explode without it.
I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. Why does that make you optimistic? In fact, how is that a good reason at all? The nation in 1776 was a hell of a lot different than it is today in every single aspect. Unless you mean to assert that the founding of America was some sort of transcendent event that defied the fallibility of human beings and resulted in a near-utopia, I'm not sure how you can seriously claim that every single one of the (many) qualms people have with a free market system (setting aside the wanton immorality of it) will probably be well-handled by that system for no other reason than that the nation was founded on that system. The nation was founded on slavery and muskets, too, but I don't see anyone clamoring for those to make a return, despite their effectiveness (well, okay, maybe not the muskets).
I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations.
Proof? Times would be "tough" in radically different ways if there were a free market versus a regulated one. It makes no sense to categorically say that free markets (lmao free people? yes, because people are totally in chains right now) are better at solving societal malaise, because societal malaise differs depending on the characteristics of the society i.e. the societal malaise of a free market society is going to have different features than in a regulated market.
There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash).
This may be news to you, but there is abundant dishonesty in politics no matter what the policy or subject is. In fact, I'll go a step further and let you know that there is abundant dishonesty in every interpersonal relationship. As for voting themselves more money, what does that even mean? Do you assert that a large number of people are living luxurious lives on account of their laziness? How much money do you think you get from welfare, exactly?
I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck?
"super progressive" lol. I guess every single country in the Western world is "super-progressive" by that metric.
I'm pretty sure America has survived from the early 20th century to now without any signs of spontaneously splintering. What was so successful about 1776-~1900 compared to ~1900-2013?
|
People are really skewing this by trying to make it a moral issue. The substantive question is whether the quality of life was much lower for the poor in the era before a social welfare regime.
It's curious that people are so slippery because the answer is clearly yes, quality of life was much lower in the past. Anyone who says there is "plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s" clearly missed the world wars, the Great Depression, and the disgrace that the most powerful country in the world still had citizens living in grinding poverty in the 60s. No, we don't blithely believe in growth as an inevitable outcome any more or that growth is always and necessarily good.
|
On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington Show nested quote +"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck?
Uhh... no. The Gilded Age kind of sucked for us. We weren't a world power at that point, and it was really terrible economically.
We didn't ascend to the world stage until after World War II. We were in the Great Depression right before that...
The most prosperous time in American History was post-WWII (1945-1980), where we had strong unions, we just constructed a huge social safety net, and we were horribly in debt from the amount of government spending during WWII. Wealth Disparity was literally at an all-time low until 1980. The top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 70%-90%. We had Republicans like Eisenhower who was an absolute badass who encouraged government innovation like the Interstate Highway System, and DARPA.
You want to talk about prosperity? We didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of goverment money and rejected libertarian rhetoric in favor of public responsibility.
|
On July 11 2013 09:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Uhh... no. The Gilded Age kind of sucked for us. We weren't a world power at that point, and it was really terrible economically. We didn't ascend to the world stage until after World War II. We were in the Great Depression right before that... The most prosperous time in American History was post-WWII (1945-1980), where we had strong unions, we just constructed a huge social safety net, and we were horribly in debt from the amount of government spending during WWII. Wealth Disparity was literally at an all-time low until 1980. The top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 70%-90%. You want to talk about prosperity? We didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of goverment money and rejected libertarian rhetoric in favor of public responsibility.
This is having your cake and eating it too. You can't say "the Gilded Age kind of sucked" and then say "we didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of government money". You're saying correlation isn't causation, then drawing a cause from a correlation, totally glossing over that the US economy didn't do well in the postwar era because the government spent lots of money, it did well because the US won the war without substantial destruction.
|
On July 11 2013 09:14 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 09:06 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 08:51 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On July 11 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Slavery was pretty nice for a capitalist economy. I'm glad you want to go back to that. If anything the South's reliance on slavery weakened its economy, I mean unlike paid workers, slaves cant buy any of the goods you are producing since they have no money, or freedom. + Show Spoiler +Many of the wealthiest men of the Gilded Age also opposed slavery. Are you serious? The flaw with the southern economy was that they didn't give the slaves any money to buy stuff? That's at best dumb, and at worst criminally insane. The South didn't stand a chance against the north because the south was an agrarian economy while the north was an industrial one. You then link a graphic that, while pretty, doesn't give you any useful information to compare them economically if you take 4.532 seconds to do some statistical thinking on how those bars scale based on population, and based on paid population. The only information this gives us about economy in 1861 is who did what where, not how profitable it was or who profited. Many poor men in the gilded age also supported slavery. Unfortunately that has no relevance until I explain how it's relevant. Plus, like, half its population didn't support slavery...being slaves. Plus Malaria, Yellow Fever, and the various other diseases more prevalent there...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_advantages_did_the_South_and_North_have_in_the_US_Civil_War#page2
http://www.civilwar.org/resources/confederate-states-had-many.html
Regardless, from before 1776 to well beyond the end of the civil war there were plenty of people who were barely paid a living wage (food, housing), and this was considered morally abhorrent. Now we're advocating that employers don't even need to pay their full-time employees enough to live as well as the slaves did and calling it freedom.
Granted it's fucking genius from an oratory standpoint, but should still seem slightly wrong to anyone with a little bit of human decency.
|
I'm sorry if this doesn't go here but it is a big Political Issue right now here in the states. What are your thoughts on the Government being the power behind your medical care. Should there be health insurance that is provided by the government? Most research I have done would lead me to believe that it would be harder to get good care and that it could take longer to get the care you need? This is based on the paper pushing that would be involved with all medical care. But on the other hand, I have an aunt who once lived in a country with National Health Care. To this day, she swears it was the best health care she has received and for her family as well.
|
On July 11 2013 09:23 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 09:20 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Uhh... no. The Gilded Age kind of sucked for us. We weren't a world power at that point, and it was really terrible economically. We didn't ascend to the world stage until after World War II. We were in the Great Depression right before that... The most prosperous time in American History was post-WWII (1945-1980), where we had strong unions, we just constructed a huge social safety net, and we were horribly in debt from the amount of government spending during WWII. Wealth Disparity was literally at an all-time low until 1980. The top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 70%-90%. You want to talk about prosperity? We didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of goverment money and rejected libertarian rhetoric in favor of public responsibility. This is having your cake and eating it too. You can't say "the Gilded Age kind of sucked" and then say "we didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of government money". You're saying correlation isn't causation, then drawing a cause from a correlation, totally glossing over that the US economy didn't do well in the postwar era because the government spent lots of money, it did well because the US won the war without substantial destruction.
Winning wars does not magically give you money. Wars are government spending. Our allies were in shambles and couldn't properly trade with us. We even spent our money rebuilding Europe to get our trading partners back on track.
I'm not saying correlation isn't causation. What? The Gilded Age was filled with libertarian rhetoric and corporatism, but it totally sucked. Hell, it was when Social Darwinism was actually prominent. It wasn't good for America at all. Talk about class warfare, Jesus. On the contrary, the post-WWII America was filled with responsible, less corrupt government with extremely liberal policies and did amazingly. It wasn't until Reagan when a lot of the "small government" rhetoric came back that we had more wealth disparity and a more fragile economy. I'm saying causation all the way, baby.
What, you think it's a coincidence that our top marginal tax rate went from 70% -> 30% and suddenly wealth inequality started going up?
|
On July 11 2013 09:26 kmpisces wrote:
I'm sorry if this doesn't go here but it is a big Political Issue right now here in the states. What are your thoughts on the Government being the power behind your medical care. Should there be health insurance that is provided by the government? Most research I have done would lead me to believe that it would be harder to get good care and that it could take longer to get the care you need? This is based on the paper pushing that would be involved with all medical care. But on the other hand, I have an aunt who once lived in a country with National Health Care. To this day, she swears it was the best health care she has received and for her family as well.
Our health care bill is to a nationalized healthcare system what O'Douls is to Everclear.
|
On July 11 2013 09:26 kmpisces wrote:
I'm sorry if this doesn't go here but it is a big Political Issue right now here in the states. What are your thoughts on the Government being the power behind your medical care. Should there be health insurance that is provided by the government? Most research I have done would lead me to believe that it would be harder to get good care and that it could take longer to get the care you need? This is based on the paper pushing that would be involved with all medical care. But on the other hand, I have an aunt who once lived in a country with National Health Care. To this day, she swears it was the best health care she has received and for her family as well.
It will be a total shit show for the next few years and I'm not certain a better regime will emerge.
In principle, this isn't health insurance provided by the government, this is the government forcing you to buy health insurance. It doesn't treat the uninsured as victims but as freeloaders.
The idea is that most of the uninsured are young, poor people who don't really need health care, and there's too much medical waste because the uninsured are going to the wrong place, such as going to the ER to be treated for flu symptoms. Making people buy insurance will force them to be more mindful of their health and their medical needs. In a more nice way, it will allow them to get more preventive treatments that cost far less than waiting until it's a disaster. For instance, the biggest issue is obesity.
If you're looking at how other countries play the Rubik's cube, I would point out that other countries have better everyday care but far worse trauma and long-term care than the US. Of course, the US is a system based on what you can buy and Americans spend 4x the money on medicine for the same or even worse results, so that's why the balance is tipping over.
|
On July 11 2013 09:26 kmpisces wrote:
I'm sorry if this doesn't go here but it is a big Political Issue right now here in the states. What are your thoughts on the Government being the power behind your medical care. Should there be health insurance that is provided by the government? Most research I have done would lead me to believe that it would be harder to get good care and that it could take longer to get the care you need? This is based on the paper pushing that would be involved with all medical care. But on the other hand, I have an aunt who once lived in a country with National Health Care. To this day, she swears it was the best health care she has received and for her family as well.
There are a few different issues here: how will subsidizing healthcare affect wait times, how will it affect quality of care, and then something about government having power which I truthfully don't entirely understand.
With respect to wait times, it's definitely possible that wait times will increase for certain things. You will not be left to bleed out in the ER or be told to sit in a chair while you're having a heart attack, though. I live in Canada, which has publicly funded health care, and while there are sometimes annoyingly long wait times, that seems to mostly be a result of poorly allocated funding or funding cuts rather than a necessary consequence of the system itself.
As for quality of care, there's no reason to think it will have any large impact either way. It's possible that ultra-expensive cutting-edge experimental procedures won't be covered/widely available, but then against they're not widely available even in a private system. That said, virtually nobody requires these kinds of treatments and, if they do, they're perfectly free to pay whatever exorbitant cost said experimental procedure requires.
Edit: I'm talking about national healthcare in general. I have no clue how Obamacare will actually pan out because it's really complicated and has been changed and blah blah blah.
|
On July 11 2013 09:29 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 09:23 coverpunch wrote:On July 11 2013 09:20 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Uhh... no. The Gilded Age kind of sucked for us. We weren't a world power at that point, and it was really terrible economically. We didn't ascend to the world stage until after World War II. We were in the Great Depression right before that... The most prosperous time in American History was post-WWII (1945-1980), where we had strong unions, we just constructed a huge social safety net, and we were horribly in debt from the amount of government spending during WWII. Wealth Disparity was literally at an all-time low until 1980. The top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 70%-90%. You want to talk about prosperity? We didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of goverment money and rejected libertarian rhetoric in favor of public responsibility. This is having your cake and eating it too. You can't say "the Gilded Age kind of sucked" and then say "we didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of government money". You're saying correlation isn't causation, then drawing a cause from a correlation, totally glossing over that the US economy didn't do well in the postwar era because the government spent lots of money, it did well because the US won the war without substantial destruction. Winning wars does not magically give you money. Wars are government spending. Our allies were in shambles and couldn't properly trade with us. We even spent our money rebuilding Europe to get our trading partners back on track. I'm not saying correlation isn't causation. What? The Gilded Age was filled with libertarian rhetoric and corporatism, but it totally sucked. It wasn't good for America at all. The post-WWII America was filled with responsible, less corrupt government with extremely liberal policies and did amazingly. It wasn't until Reagan when a lot of the "small government" rhetoric came back that we had more wealth disparity and a more fragile economy. I'm saying causation all the way, baby. What, you think it's a coincidence that our top marginal tax rate went from 70% -> 30% and suddenly wealth inequality started going up?
There's nothing magic about it. But losing a world war is certainly worse for the national economy than winning. Consider that Japan didn't have a standing structure taller than two stories by the end of the war. Combined with 3 million citizens killed, including an entire generation of young men, that is very very bad for the economy.
I think it was coincidental that the tax marginal tax rate went down and wealth inequality went down. It certainly played a role in exacerbating the problem, but I don't think it was the root cause. Given more time, inequality will always increase. That's the nature of giving more time for advantaged people to utilize their skills/talent/hard work and disadvantaged people to sit around doing nothing.
IMO the problem was and has been increasing global competition. In the period between 1945-1975, Americans could basically take it for granted that they were better educated, better fed, harder working, and more creative than the rest of the world. That is increasingly not true. I don't think the answer is protectionism, but I think there are many things Americans cannot take for granted and it raises questions of how we can improve the lot of people of more mediocre skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.kalmus.dk/civilwar/wzpic/Illll.JPG)
