|
Deregulation isn't powerful enough to cause a financial meltdown. In fact, there are no natural ways for a meltdown to occur. The only things that can cause a financial crises is financial policies. Things like interest rates, money supply, and government spending.
1. Interest rates are fixed. This means that the free market either over-invests (if interest rates are too low) or under-invests (if they are too high). In either case, it is worse than an unfixed rate.
2. Money Supply and debt. The way the government fights inflation is by borrowing the money instead of just printing it. They make a promise to pay off this debt and inflation is staved off. However, there is a short term problem that occurs when the debt to gdp ratio is really high which is over-consumption because of short term inflation. When new money hits the market, prices go up momentarily until the market deflates again. Right now we are in the middle of that inflationary period.
3. Ties into point #2.
One last thing to note is that it was previously thought that inflation=high employment and deflation=low employment which was a theory incorrectly asserted by Keynesian economists. Unemployment has to do with supply and demand as it is just a commodity like everything else. The problem is that right now, companies are not willing to invest any resources into development because of the fear of inflation. Also since demand dropped for goods and services, normally a wage drop would occur in order to balance out employment, however, another price fix called minimum wage exists to ensure that those least valued in the economy don't have a job. (I also wrote about how minimum wage is discriminatory as well in a blog post).
|
Can you prove that socialism works?
Hi
(it's not really dragons up here you see)
|
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.
Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means.
|
There hasn't been a free market system as much as there hasn't been a communist system to the standards that each philosophy's supporters want it to be...
so the whole empirical thing... I'd rather have it dropped
|
On July 07 2010 07:51 Mindcrime wrote:
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.
Wrong! (I'm starting to believe that you're a troll.)
The 16th Amendment (the power to collect taxes) was not ratified until 1913.
The bill of rights was specifically written to protect individual rights like: the Freedom of speech, The press, Bear arms, trial by jury, Unjust seizures, Warrant searches. Are you saying these are not individual rights given by the constitution?
The anti-federalists got what they wanted: the 9th and 10th Amendment
The federal government has Enumerated powers and all other rights are reserved to the states or to the people. Again weakening the federal government even more.
Slavery was not mentioned in the constitution because it was a divisive issue. But bear in mind that upon winning the revolutionary war, many of the northern states lead by founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, immediately worked to make slavery illegal in their home states.
To you the constitution has no meaning because its founders weren't perfect. To me The constitution is taken literally and I remember men like Benjamin Franklin who also took the constitution literally.
|
On July 07 2010 08:11 deadbutmoving wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:51 Mindcrime wrote:
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. Wrong! (I'm starting to believe that you're a troll.) The 16th Amendment (the power to collect taxes) was not ratified until 1913. The bill of rights was specifically written to protect individual rights like: the Freedom of speech, The press, Bear arms, trial by jury, Unjust seizures, Warrant searches. Are you saying these are not individual rights given by the constitution? The anti-federalists got what they wanted: the 9th and 10th Amendment The federal government has Enumerated powers and all other rights are reserved to the states or to the people. Again weakening the federal government even more. Slavery was not mentioned in the constitution because it was a divisive issue. But bear in mind that upon winning the revolutionary war, many of the northern states lead by founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, immediately worked to make slavery illegal in their home states. To you the constitution has no meaning because its founders weren't perfect. To me The constitution is taken literally and I remember men like Benjamin Franklin who also took the constitution literally.
Uhh... none of those disprove that the constitution convention was held to create a stronger federal government.
|
On July 07 2010 08:07 Mindcrime wrote:
Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means.
In theory Communism is supposed to have no government. In practice Communism has the worst and most tyrannical governments because tyranny is required to promote equality and fairness.
In reality Communism creates 2 classes: The Government and everyone else. This is no different than monarchy: The Lords and the Serfs.
|
On July 07 2010 08:16 Romantic wrote:
Uhh... none of those disprove that the constitution convention was held to create a stronger federal government.
I'm gonna try one last time to educate people:
Libertarianism = extremely limited government
as opposed to anarchy which = No government
I am not an anarchist and most of the founding father weren't either. The convention was held to discuss the role of the federal government not it's destruction.
I actually believe in the federal governments role of Extremely Limited powers: Maintain armed forces and respond to disasters.
Remember Libertarianism does not equal Anarchy......
|
On July 07 2010 08:11 deadbutmoving wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:51 Mindcrime wrote:
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. Wrong! (I'm starting to believe that you're a troll.) The 16th Amendment (the power to collect taxes) was not ratified until 1913.
Have you even fucking read the constitution?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Your understanding of what the Sixteenth Amendment did is nonexistent. It did not even grant the federal government the power to collect income tax. The federal government always had that power. What the Sixteenth Amendment did was lift the apportionment requirement in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 which made collecting an income tax practically, not theoretically, impossible.
The bill of rights was specifically written to protect individual rights like: the Freedom of speech, The press, Bear arms, trial by jury, Unjust seizures, Warrant searches. Are you saying these are not individual rights given by the constitution?
I am saying that until 1868, those amendments only protected you from the federal government.
The anti-federalists got what they wanted: the 9th and 10th Amendment
The federal government has Enumerated powers and all other rights are reserved to the states or to the people. Again weakening the federal government even more.
Weakening? not in Hamilton's view, and it certainly did not make for a weaker government than the one that had existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Slavery was not mentioned in the constitution because it was a divisive issue. But bear in mind that upon winning the revolutionary war, many of the northern states lead by founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin, immediately worked to make slavery illegal in their home states.
Slavery was not called as such in the Constitution but it most certainly was mentioned. Read Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.
To you the constitution has no meaning because its founders weren't perfect. To me The constitution is taken literally and I remember men like Benjamin Franklin who also took the constitution literally.
Oh, it has meaning. It is the law. It is not, however, a divine text.
|
On July 07 2010 08:18 deadbutmoving wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:07 Mindcrime wrote:
Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means. In theory Communism is supposed to have no government. In practice Communism has the worst and most tyrannical governments because tyranny is required to promote equality and fairness. In reality Communism creates 2 classes: The Government and everyone else. This is no different than monarchy: The Lords and the Serfs.
Communism in practice? Go read the constitutions of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba etc. and tell me where any of them claimed to be putting communism into practice.
|
On July 07 2010 08:05 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 07:53 deadbutmoving wrote: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.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that since investing during a recession is not a good deal for the investor himself and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
|
On July 07 2010 08:30 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:05 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 07:53 deadbutmoving wrote: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. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time?
I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
|
On July 07 2010 08:30 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:05 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 07:53 deadbutmoving wrote: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. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that since investing during a recession is not a good deal for the investor himself and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
This is an economic fallacy. Saving money only to spend it later does no more or less for an economy then spending first, then saving during troubled times. The end result is the same.
The boom-bust cycle also only exists because of monetary policy. How many depressions were there in the united states before the creation of the federal reserve in 1913?
Answer: 0
Seriously though I don't think anyone here has enough time to write an essay about this. Fortunately there is a nobel prize winner who does. Heres the article.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=994
|
1019 Posts
communism doesn't work..holy shit if someone actually believes in it. And everything about american politics suck.
|
On July 07 2010 08:34 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:30 Klockan3 wrote:On July 07 2010 08:05 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 07:53 deadbutmoving wrote: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. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable. So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen as fast as people would want since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
Edit: The modern day crashes we are experiencing are hardly crashes, the net production is hardly phased in the countries effected.
On July 07 2010 08:29 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:18 deadbutmoving wrote:On July 07 2010 08:07 Mindcrime wrote:
Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means. In theory Communism is supposed to have no government. In practice Communism has the worst and most tyrannical governments because tyranny is required to promote equality and fairness. In reality Communism creates 2 classes: The Government and everyone else. This is no different than monarchy: The Lords and the Serfs. Communism in practice? Go read the constitutions of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba etc. and tell me where any of them claimed to be putting communism into practice.
Those were communism in practice, according to Marx in order to get to communism you have to go through dictatorship, too bad that none made it through so far...
|
On July 07 2010 08:43 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:34 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 08:30 Klockan3 wrote:On July 07 2010 08:05 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 07:53 deadbutmoving wrote: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. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable. So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands. The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one. It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around. Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:29 Mindcrime wrote:On July 07 2010 08:18 deadbutmoving wrote:On July 07 2010 08:07 Mindcrime wrote:
Unless you are aware of some classless, stateless society that I am not, that word does not mean what you think it means. In theory Communism is supposed to have no government. In practice Communism has the worst and most tyrannical governments because tyranny is required to promote equality and fairness. In reality Communism creates 2 classes: The Government and everyone else. This is no different than monarchy: The Lords and the Serfs. Communism in practice? Go read the constitutions of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba etc. and tell me where any of them claimed to be putting communism into practice. Those were communism in practice, according to Marx in order to get to communism you have to go through dictatorship, too bad that none made it through so far...
Hmm, a guy once wrote about the coming great depression and got a nobel prize for it. Even Bernake recognized this guys viewpoint. Von Mises. Here is an article about it
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443600711779692.html
The answer is the government does not create anything, it simply redistributes or wastes. The only regulation should be to regulate how much the government can interfere with the economy.
|
On July 07 2010 08:43 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:34 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 08:30 Klockan3 wrote:On July 07 2010 08:05 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 07:53 deadbutmoving wrote: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. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable. So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands. The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one. It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it?
The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
|
On July 07 2010 08:06 darmousseh wrote:
Deregulation isn't powerful enough to cause a financial meltdown. In fact, there are no natural ways for a meltdown to occur. The only things that can cause a financial crises is financial policies. Things like interest rates, money supply, and government spending.
1. Interest rates are fixed. This means that the free market either over-invests (if interest rates are too low) or under-invests (if they are too high). In either case, it is worse than an unfixed rate.
2. Money Supply and debt. The way the government fights inflation is by borrowing the money instead of just printing it. They make a promise to pay off this debt and inflation is staved off. However, there is a short term problem that occurs when the debt to gdp ratio is really high which is over-consumption because of short term inflation. When new money hits the market, prices go up momentarily until the market deflates again. Right now we are in the middle of that inflationary period.
3. Ties into point #2.
One last thing to note is that it was previously thought that inflation=high employment and deflation=low employment which was a theory incorrectly asserted by Keynesian economists. Unemployment has to do with supply and demand as it is just a commodity like everything else. The problem is that right now, companies are not willing to invest any resources into development because of the fear of inflation. Also since demand dropped for goods and services, normally a wage drop would occur in order to balance out employment, however, another price fix called minimum wage exists to ensure that those least valued in the economy don't have a job. (I also wrote about how minimum wage is discriminatory as well in a blog post).
Do you want people to make $3 an hour and have no place to live? Wages have been cut, tremendously already. Nothing is cheaper and it has nothing to do with minimum wage. People who work at autocompanies and made $20 an hour 20 years ago now make $12 to 13. Cars arent any cheaper! You could argue its companies paying for healthcare and attrition but even toyota isnt significantly cheaper.
|
Car manufacturers got a ton of regulations and inspections to go through, and some are subsidized too
Hardly a pure market phenomenon that cars are still expensive
|
On July 07 2010 08:49 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 08:43 Klockan3 wrote:On July 07 2010 08:34 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 08:30 Klockan3 wrote:On July 07 2010 08:05 Yurebis wrote:On July 07 2010 07:53 deadbutmoving wrote: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. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable. So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands. The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one. It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around. It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not? I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place. Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
You don't understand at all... Do you know why recessions exists? Because someone gets afraid, he withdraws his investments, shares drops in value due to supply-demand, others see a trend that the shares are dropping so they too withdraws. This leads to a downward spiral where people withdraws more and more and causes a crash.
How do you stop that downwards spiral? By investing! Why aren't people investing? Since they are afraid of losing their money! But someone got to invest at some point or the whole economy dies, after a while people will naturally start to invest again when the prices gets low enough, but then it is too late. However by intervening the government can make the whole process a lot swifter and thus make the depression a lot less severe.
It is impossible to get this effect without involving the government, and everyone benefits on this overall. Yes the government isn't as efficient in general as the private sector, but the private sector can't handle a national economic crisis. You can't expect anyone in the private sector to bank during good times and invest during bad times it would be suicide, which is why the public sector needs to force everyone to give a share during the good times and then invest it during the bad times since everyone benefits from it in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
