|
On July 07 2010 07:11 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:08 Sputty wrote:On July 07 2010 07:02 deadbutmoving wrote:On July 07 2010 06:47 Sputty wrote:
Vote for Ron Paul!!! Hell Yea, I supported Ron Paul as well. I donated over $1000 to his campaign and I plan to donate another $1000 if he runs in 2012. Yeah, I know that you did. I was making fun of you for it. You're a joke and always will be. Hopefully you're just trolling people, though. aw thats mean... I donated to RP too, $50, before I turned anarcho-cap 
I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in.
That's why I'm mean to libertarians
They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
|
On July 07 2010 06:45 deadbutmoving wrote:
The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy.
No, no they did not. There were certainly some individuals who were quite liberal for their time among the framers, but the Constitution was a document devised by politicians for pragmatic reasons.
The most libertarian parts of the Constitution are amendments, and until 1868 they didn't even legally protect individuals from the entities that had been the most likely violators of rights in the early years of the republic.
|
On July 07 2010 07:11 deadbutmoving wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 06:57 Sadist wrote:
Conservatives are a million times more biased than the liberal stations. MSNBC is liberally slanted, but its not close to fox news.
How can you call Fox news Conservative? You obviously do not understand what Conservatism is. But then again........... most people don't. True American Conservatives follow the Principles of the Constitution. Fox News does not. In fact: THERE IS NO NEWS NETWORK THAT IS TRULY CONSERVATIVE. Example: Ron Paul was without question, the most Conservative candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008. Fox News hated him so much they banned him from debating even though he won most of the polls.
blah blah, you can say what you want about "true" conservatism but we are just arguing over definitions.
I agree with Ron Paul on quite a few things, one being cutting military spending, but he and his son are kooks for thinking free market solves everything. Fox News pushes the conservative Christian agenda =).
|
I don't know about other countries, but in the USA we make far too much of this conservatism vs. liberalism bs. These terms are just tools used by political interests to wrangle people into their policy tents. Liberalism entices the masses in by promising free stuff, and conservatism does the same by promising freedom. But when they eventually get to work, the bulk of these politicians are mostly just fighting for power.
I understand that there are competing philosophies when it comes to how to solve problems, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous to expect, and even vote for, politicians who promise to spend their time exasperating these differences, (as seems to me to be the custom in USA politics). Why not vote for people who promise to use their qualified understanding of the intellectual conundrums behind policy debates to reach an answer that practically solves the problem with everyone's concerns in mind?
Unfortunately, here in the States, one could almost live an entire life without even realizing this is possible. Instead we have throngs of people flocking after populist and counter-productive mouthpieces like Sarah Palin, while the federal government is filing completely redundant lawsuits against the governments of its own states over legislations that are already tied up in privately filed-suits, seemingly for no other reason than to promote idealogical division.
And the game continues, and whoever gets in power mostly focuses on pulling policy in their direction as quickly as possible while they still have the authority and clout to do so, without stopping to the consider quality of the "solutions" they are churning out. The system isn't broken, the system works just fine. We the people just haven't figured out how to work it. We fall for tricks and we vote for whoever makes us feel either the most angry or the most hopeful. Unfortunately, problems aren't solved by either anger or hope, but rather by thoughtful understanding and mature compromise.
I have an Uncle who ended a sort-of related discussion by saying: "unfortunately as a philosopher I have arrived at the completely unsatisfactory position that in the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives, both sides are right... especially when they criticize the other side." The more I have thought about it, the more I realize just how profound that statement was.
|
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:11 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 07:08 Sputty wrote:On July 07 2010 07:02 deadbutmoving wrote:On July 07 2010 06:47 Sputty wrote:
Vote for Ron Paul!!! Hell Yea, I supported Ron Paul as well. I donated over $1000 to his campaign and I plan to donate another $1000 if he runs in 2012. Yeah, I know that you did. I was making fun of you for it. You're a joke and always will be. Hopefully you're just trolling people, though. aw thats mean... I donated to RP too, $50, before I turned anarcho-cap I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them. Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Well you yourself is stating history as you know it for a fact that free market brought about something you consider undesirable.
Aren't you being a bit of a know-it-all without first studying the austrian side of the story?
I avoid such question by not arguing empirically at all my friend. Or else it's just as you said, no conclusions are ever made, because no proof can be produced in such way (see critical rationalism)
|
On July 07 2010 07:11 deadbutmoving wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 06:57 Sadist wrote:
Conservatives are a million times more biased than the liberal stations. MSNBC is liberally slanted, but its not close to fox news.
How can you call Fox news Conservative? You obviously do not understand what Conservatism is. But then again........... most people don't. True American Conservatives follow the Principles of the Constitution. Fox News does not. In fact: THERE IS NO NEWS NETWORK THAT IS TRULY CONSERVATIVE. Example: Ron Paul was without question, the most Conservative candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008. Fox News hated him so much they banned him from debating even though he won most of the polls.
Definitions, definitions. When posting something like this please stick to common definitions or define your own. We all understand what you mean mostly, but it can be confusing.
Common definition of conservatism: A person who generally believes in principles of politics in conserving society and with a classical liberal view of economics.
Regan version of conservatism: A person who believes in the limit of government intervention into people's lives. (Ron Paul is this kind of conservative)
Neo-conservatisim: A new type of conservatism that elicits a standard expected behavior from both domestic and foreign entities. (This is bushism)
christian-conservatism: A type of conservatism emphasizing explicit moral behaviour and economic freedom, however, generally does not expect that behaviour of others. (Sarah palinish)
Note these definitions aren't 100% accurate and can never be, but please be explicit when using confusing terms.
|
On July 07 2010 07:05 darmousseh wrote:
University I went to was like this.
All liberal studies majors and social science majors filled with tons of liberals. (My history teacher was so liberal and she let us know it). Confirmed by lots of friends (both liberals and conservatives)
Economics professors and most math professors were conservative. Why? Because they realized a centrally plan economy doesn't work (at least thats how they explained it)
Science/sports/arts were mixed and most don't even express their opinion or even show any hints.
Stephen colbert is a political comedian by the way.
The name of the school i went to? CSU Stanislaus.
I agree, My economics professor was more Conservative than the others. But most of my other professors were very Liberal.
In my state of Minnesota, The Universities get a lot of subsidies from the Government. Because of this, they are financially obligated to be Anti-Conservative. Sadly, this is how much of the Universities in America are being founded. Beware...... the corruption of Government.
|
On July 07 2010 07:26 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I don't know about other countries, but in the USA we make far too much of this conservatism vs. liberalism bs. These terms are just tools used by political interests to wrangle people into their policy tents. Liberalism entices the masses in by promising free stuff, and conservatism does the same by promising freedom. But when they eventually get to work, the bulk of these politicians are mostly just fighting for power.
I understand that there are competing philosophies when it comes to how to solve problems, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous to expect, and even vote for, politicians who promise to spend their time exasperating these differences, (as seems to me to be the custom in USA politics). Why not vote for people who promise to use their qualified understanding of the intellectual conundrums behind policy debates to reach an answer that practically solves the problem with everyone's concerns in mind?
Unfortunately, here in the States, one could almost live an entire life without even realizing this is possible. Instead we have throngs of people flocking after populist and counter-productive mouthpieces like Sarah Palin, while the federal government is filing completely redundant lawsuits against the governments of its own states over legislations that are already tied up in privately filed-suits, seemingly for no other reason than to promote idealogical division.
And the game continues, and whoever gets in power mostly focuses on pulling policy in their direction as quickly as possible while they still have the authority and clout to do so, without stopping to the consider quality of the "solutions" they are churning out. The system isn't broken, the system works just fine. We the people just haven't figured out how to work it. We fall for tricks and we vote for whoever makes us feel either the most angry or the most hopeful. Unfortunately, problems aren't solved by either anger or hope, but rather by thoughtful understanding and mature compromise.
I have an Uncle who ended a sort-of related discussion by saying: "unfortunately as a philosopher I have arrived at the completely unsatisfactory position that in the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives, both sides are right... especially when they criticize the other side." The more I have thought about it, the more I realize just how profound that statement was.
Agree completely, you can blame Ronald Reagan for this though by turning "Liberal" into a bad word ;|
|
On July 07 2010 07:16 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:00 deadbutmoving wrote:
I don't even know who Stephen Colbert is...... and I've never read any conservative books.
It's just a well known fact that Universities are run by Left-wingers. I went to a university before I opened up my own business, and from my experiences it was a very liberal culture, with very liberal professors. You act like all universities are perfectly Unbiased. Either you have never been to one, or you are so brainwashed you can't even understand the differences.
I choose to think independently, I never let other people think for me. Whether they are teachers, family, or even politicians.
You might want to look in a mirror before you call anyone else a troll. Oh it is YOU who are brain-washed friend. It's a "well-known fact" eh!?!?! Well-known by who? The LIBERAL Media? The LIBERAL country? The LIBERAL reality? God, the LIBERALS even steal our conservative universities. If it weren't for the LIBERAL media, people would know anyone smart enough to be a professor HAS to be a real conservative. They have stolen the conservative thunder again. I asked my common sense and it told me that since I once went to school and I knew conservatives there, universities are truly conservative, but the liberal world tries to discourage wise conservatives from going there. All of this truth and much more is detailed in my new book, Glenn Beck and the Prisoner of Guantanamo Bay.
eh... What are you talking about. It IS a well known fact that university faculties and professors are very left leaning. Unlike media bias where there is constant bickering between liberals and conservatives, there is no debate that our nation's teachers lean to the left. That IS common knowledge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-07-13-voa25-66670507.html
|
On July 07 2010 07:26 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 06:45 deadbutmoving wrote:
The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy. No, no they did not. There were certainly some individuals who were quite liberal for their time among the framers, but the Constitution was a document devised by politicians for pragmatic reasons. The most libertarian parts of the Constitution are amendments, and until 1868 they didn't even legally protect individuals from the entities that had been the most likely violators of rights in the early years of the republic.
Maybe you should go back and read it along with The Federalist Papers. The Constitution was created to puts Specific restraints on the Federal government.
How can you say the amendments were libertarian but the constitution was not? The Constitution is the amendments, if you didn't know.
However, you are right, some of the founding fathers were not perfect. But it was the first step, and I'm glad it happened. I'm glad to support it's intent and it's philosophy.
|
On July 07 2010 07:28 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:26 ZerglingSoup wrote:
I don't know about other countries, but in the USA we make far too much of this conservatism vs. liberalism bs. These terms are just tools used by political interests to wrangle people into their policy tents. Liberalism entices the masses in by promising free stuff, and conservatism does the same by promising freedom. But when they eventually get to work, the bulk of these politicians are mostly just fighting for power.
I understand that there are competing philosophies when it comes to how to solve problems, but I think it is absolutely ridiculous to expect, and even vote for, politicians who promise to spend their time exasperating these differences, (as seems to me to be the custom in USA politics). Why not vote for people who promise to use their qualified understanding of the intellectual conundrums behind policy debates to reach an answer that practically solves the problem with everyone's concerns in mind?
Unfortunately, here in the States, one could almost live an entire life without even realizing this is possible. Instead we have throngs of people flocking after populist and counter-productive mouthpieces like Sarah Palin, while the federal government is filing completely redundant lawsuits against the governments of its own states over legislations that are already tied up in privately filed-suits, seemingly for no other reason than to promote idealogical division.
And the game continues, and whoever gets in power mostly focuses on pulling policy in their direction as quickly as possible while they still have the authority and clout to do so, without stopping to the consider quality of the "solutions" they are churning out. The system isn't broken, the system works just fine. We the people just haven't figured out how to work it. We fall for tricks and we vote for whoever makes us feel either the most angry or the most hopeful. Unfortunately, problems aren't solved by either anger or hope, but rather by thoughtful understanding and mature compromise.
I have an Uncle who ended a sort-of related discussion by saying: "unfortunately as a philosopher I have arrived at the completely unsatisfactory position that in the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives, both sides are right... especially when they criticize the other side." The more I have thought about it, the more I realize just how profound that statement was. Agree completely, you can blame Ronald Reagan for this though by turning "Liberal" into a bad word ;|
I could. I don't remember much of Reagan's election campaign. I know it took place before the Berlin wall fell down and that everyone saw things a little differently back then. I'd be more inclined to blame western society's insistence always having a bad guy for the good guys to fight against. But what I'd really like to do is simply stop pointing fingers, shrug my shoulders and ask, "so where do we go from here?"
|
On July 07 2010 07:26 Sadist wrote:
I agree with Ron Paul on quite a few things, one being cutting military spending, but he and his son are kooks for thinking free market solves everything. Fox News pushes the conservative Christian agenda =).
I wouldn't say they think the free market fixes everything, but rather that over time, a free market finds the cheapest and most efficient way to do something. Waste in any fashion, creates expenses, and if you are wasteful, someone will eventually come along who can do it better than you, and put you out of business. Now what do you do about real people while the market is in the waiting period is something for debate, but I think you could agree that given some time, a free market will find better solutions to problems than government. Having the government do things takes care of minimum requirements while creating long-term problems, free market is more of a long-term investment that the overall quality of human life will be better in the long term, while there are less guarantees for a minimum standard for all people. Which you prefer kinda depends on your outlook.
note: gross simplifications and over-generalizations are above. but I think the basic points are solid.
|
from that article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
"The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent)."
i didn't even think it was that bad.
|
On July 07 2010 07:37 deadbutmoving wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:26 Mindcrime wrote:On July 07 2010 06:45 deadbutmoving wrote:
The founding fathers of this country based our constitution on a Libertarian Philosophy. No, no they did not. There were certainly some individuals who were quite liberal for their time among the framers, but the Constitution was a document devised by politicians for pragmatic reasons. The most libertarian parts of the Constitution are amendments, and until 1868 they didn't even legally protect individuals from the entities that had been the most likely violators of rights in the early years of the republic. Maybe you should go back and read it along with The Federalist Papers. The Constitution was created to puts Specific restraints on the Federal government. How can you say the amendments were libertarian but the constitution was not? The Constitution is the amendments, if you didn't know. However, you are right, some of the founding fathers were not perfect. But it was the first step, and I'm glad it happened. I'm glad to support it's intent and it's philosophy.
The only reason that the Constitution was even written was the belief that there needed to be a stronger federal government than the one that had existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise armies and actually support them through taxation!
Amendments are a part of the Constitution, but not a part of the original document. Many anti-federalists needed the assurance that a bill of rights would be included in order to vote to ratify, but the federalists among the framers obviously did not think it necessary. See Federalist 84. Honestly I find it amusing that you speak of the libertarianism of the framers and then tell me to read the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton does not scream "libertarianism" to me.
But there is nothing extraordinarily libertarian about amendments which protect the individual from the federal government in a time when the state government is the most likely entity to be violating those rights. And I don't see what is so libertarian about slavery. This was not a idealistic document. It was a pragmatic federalist document.
|
Also like i said earlier
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?_r=1
Nursing is what sociologists call “gender typed.” Mr. Gross said that “professors and a number of other fields are politically typed.” Journalism, art, fashion, social work and therapy are dominated by liberals; while law enforcement, farming, dentistry, medicine and the military attract more conservatives.
people who do work "law enforcement, farming, dentistry, medicine and the military" conservative
people who don't do work " Journalism, art, fashion, social work and therapy" liberal
I love it.
|
You're less likely to bite the hand that feeds you 
Academia is heavily subsidized these days.
Which is to say, inflated as well.
|
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote:
I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in.
That's why I'm mean to libertarians
They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
|
On July 07 2010 06:09 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On July 07 2010 05:01 happyness wrote:On July 07 2010 04:07 Fwmeh wrote:On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts. A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does. [...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations. like? Cite an example of a free market that worked properly. Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things. But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
I don't believe in no government, and the free market system isn't perfect, but it's done a helluva lot better than communism. People aren't perfect, so any system will not be perfect. But it's an historical fact that governments that try to control their economies cause WAY more harm than good and the more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
|
On July 07 2010 07:53 deadbutmoving wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote:
I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in.
That's why I'm mean to libertarians
They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that. The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them. The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more. I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected. Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
|
On July 07 2010 08:03 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 06:09 Djzapz wrote:On July 07 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 05:22 Djzapz wrote:On July 07 2010 05:01 happyness wrote:On July 07 2010 04:07 Fwmeh wrote:On July 07 2010 03:20 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:
It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view. Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts. A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does. [...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations. like? Cite an example of a free market that worked properly. Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things. But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions. I don't believe in no government, and the free market system isn't perfect, but it's done a helluva lot better than communism. People aren't perfect, so any system will not be perfect. But it's an historical fact that governments that try to control their economies cause WAY more harm than good and the more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
No it's not, all modern governments control their economies in numerous ways, most developed countries do it for the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
