|
On January 14 2012 07:02 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:I hate Krugman with a passion. Can't believe the nobel prize in economics is given to hacks nowadays. Absolutely necessary reading: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
Whatever I think of some of Krugman's opinions linking most of Mises' or Rothbard's works in economics debate is like linking a sermon in discussion about evolution. After forcing myself to read some of their writing I can say it is absolutely unnecessary reading 
|
On January 14 2012 07:15 NtroP wrote:The thing that really pushed me into the Ron Paul camp was the data that all things that the FEDERAL government subsidize inflate at a ridiculous rate. Healthcare, way outpaces inflation. Subsidized food? Food costs are rising faster than inflation. Education? College costs are rising way way way faster than inflation. (in fact, to get maximum federal money, they have to raise their tuition a certain amount each year, artificially inflating education costs) Defense spending? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_StatesYup, looks like that is beating the shit out of inflation as well. FDA? They've been beating the rate of inflation as well, and jumped 15% from 2009 to 2010. Welfare? *facepalm* Now, the question of course is if we knock the size of the federal government down to where it doesn't run these functions for the country will that inflation just crop up in some other form? Possibly. However, what we can be confident of is that if all of these aspects of our country continue to be run federally we will again have spending that in each of these parts of our society that far outpaces inflation. That is why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. There are certainly other benefits to a Ron Paul presidency, but the main one would be an effort to limit the size of our government as a large empire simply becomes unduly influenced by all that it is supposed to be controlling.
Did you stop to look outside your country and see why there much more state-controlled healthcare and education are doing much better ? Maybe it is not about the amount of federal control, but quality of that control and implementation. Of course your hybrid public-private system is bloated as it is extremely poorly created system. It says nothing about public healthcare systems, same goes for education.
EDIT: Not to say that there are no places where cutting would not be prudent.
|
On January 14 2012 07:25 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 07:15 NtroP wrote:The thing that really pushed me into the Ron Paul camp was the data that all things that the FEDERAL government subsidize inflate at a ridiculous rate. Healthcare, way outpaces inflation. Subsidized food? Food costs are rising faster than inflation. Education? College costs are rising way way way faster than inflation. (in fact, to get maximum federal money, they have to raise their tuition a certain amount each year, artificially inflating education costs) Defense spending? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_StatesYup, looks like that is beating the shit out of inflation as well. FDA? They've been beating the rate of inflation as well, and jumped 15% from 2009 to 2010. Welfare? *facepalm* Now, the question of course is if we knock the size of the federal government down to where it doesn't run these functions for the country will that inflation just crop up in some other form? Possibly. However, what we can be confident of is that if all of these aspects of our country continue to be run federally we will again have spending that in each of these parts of our society that far outpaces inflation. That is why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. There are certainly other benefits to a Ron Paul presidency, but the main one would be an effort to limit the size of our government as a large empire simply becomes unduly influenced by all that it is supposed to be controlling. Did you stop to look outside your country and see why there much more state-controlled healthcare and education are doing much better ? Maybe it is not about the amount of federal control, but quality of that control and implementation. Of course your hybrid public-private system is bloated as it is extremely poorly created system. It says nothing about public healthcare systems, same goes for education. EDIT: Not to say that there are no places where cutting would not be prudent.
Ya europe wealfare systems works perfectly, right?. People need to stop saying that because in scandinavian countries welfare works, and in the rest of the world doesn't, it's just about "getting it right"; it's not. What happens everywhere is that either welfare sucks or the government is broken, or will be broken; sometimes both. I'll also bet my ass scandinavian countries would be as good as they are without welfare system.
|
On January 14 2012 07:19 mcc wrote:Whatever I think of some of Krugman's opinions linking most of Mises' or Rothbard's works in economics debate is like linking a sermon in discussion about evolution. After forcing myself to read some of their writing I can say it is absolutely unnecessary reading
It's a real economics book... It's just Normative economics, not Positive economics, which is probably better in the first place, because Positive economic writings tend to be way too political.
|
mcc , maybe he was in that kind of situation where if you do anything your life will be destroyed, well his career and status ;/ , as I said weird thing, he should elaborate on what happened there to get a better read on stuff.
2. Before this hypercontrol of government in eduction, the average american was way smarter, or so the information suggests.... about healthcare... there really doesn't seem that in the last 30 years general health has improved either...then again, more shit put in food and water since you can't really support this kind of population without adding chemicals to stuff to last longer...
|
On January 14 2012 07:25 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 07:15 NtroP wrote:The thing that really pushed me into the Ron Paul camp was the data that all things that the FEDERAL government subsidize inflate at a ridiculous rate. Healthcare, way outpaces inflation. Subsidized food? Food costs are rising faster than inflation. Education? College costs are rising way way way faster than inflation. (in fact, to get maximum federal money, they have to raise their tuition a certain amount each year, artificially inflating education costs) Defense spending? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_StatesYup, looks like that is beating the shit out of inflation as well. FDA? They've been beating the rate of inflation as well, and jumped 15% from 2009 to 2010. Welfare? *facepalm* Now, the question of course is if we knock the size of the federal government down to where it doesn't run these functions for the country will that inflation just crop up in some other form? Possibly. However, what we can be confident of is that if all of these aspects of our country continue to be run federally we will again have spending that in each of these parts of our society that far outpaces inflation. That is why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. There are certainly other benefits to a Ron Paul presidency, but the main one would be an effort to limit the size of our government as a large empire simply becomes unduly influenced by all that it is supposed to be controlling. Did you stop to look outside your country and see why there much more state-controlled healthcare and education are doing much better ? Maybe it is not about the amount of federal control, but quality of that control and implementation. Of course your hybrid public-private system is bloated as it is extremely poorly created system. It says nothing about public healthcare systems, same goes for education. EDIT: Not to say that there are no places where cutting would not be prudent.
There are a number of reasons why social programs seem to be working in the scandanavian countries that you're referencing.
First and foremost, these countries experienced their greatest improvement in prosperity during the 1960's when the production of hydrocarbons from the nearby North Sea took off. This coincided with several social measures being enacted which unjustly took all the credit, when in actuality, it was the capitalistic sale of oil.
Second, the USA is not one of these scandinavian countries nor will it ever be. Our population/demographic is WAY more diverse and our means of generating wealth much more vast. Thus, our interests and general outlooks on life are more diverse. These social programs have a firm foundation in places like Norway because the vast majority of its population lives the same kind of lifestyle and shares the same sorts of interests/needs.
I suggest you watch this series of Milton Friedman discussion/debates that were held against socialists in Iceland. Essentially every point you've attempted in this thread is utterly smashed by him. Milton Friedman Iceland Debate Playlist
And yes, Man, Economy, and State is one of the best treatises on economics ever written. It is necessary reading.
|
This thread is being trolled hardcore.. Comparing Austrian economic policy to religious ideology, what a joke that is.. Ron Paul is the only nominee who is serious about the issues. $15 Trillion debt, endless wars that continue to chip away at not only our sovereignty but our national security.
Romney is ideologically no different than Obama.. Both are big government, pro war and in favor of supporting investment banks as they suckle this country dry.
|
On January 14 2012 07:32 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 07:25 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 07:15 NtroP wrote:The thing that really pushed me into the Ron Paul camp was the data that all things that the FEDERAL government subsidize inflate at a ridiculous rate. Healthcare, way outpaces inflation. Subsidized food? Food costs are rising faster than inflation. Education? College costs are rising way way way faster than inflation. (in fact, to get maximum federal money, they have to raise their tuition a certain amount each year, artificially inflating education costs) Defense spending? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_StatesYup, looks like that is beating the shit out of inflation as well. FDA? They've been beating the rate of inflation as well, and jumped 15% from 2009 to 2010. Welfare? *facepalm* Now, the question of course is if we knock the size of the federal government down to where it doesn't run these functions for the country will that inflation just crop up in some other form? Possibly. However, what we can be confident of is that if all of these aspects of our country continue to be run federally we will again have spending that in each of these parts of our society that far outpaces inflation. That is why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. There are certainly other benefits to a Ron Paul presidency, but the main one would be an effort to limit the size of our government as a large empire simply becomes unduly influenced by all that it is supposed to be controlling. Did you stop to look outside your country and see why there much more state-controlled healthcare and education are doing much better ? Maybe it is not about the amount of federal control, but quality of that control and implementation. Of course your hybrid public-private system is bloated as it is extremely poorly created system. It says nothing about public healthcare systems, same goes for education. EDIT: Not to say that there are no places where cutting would not be prudent. Ya europe wealfare systems works perfectly, right?. People need to stop saying that because in scandinavian countries welfare works, and in the rest of the world doesn't, it's just about "getting it right"; it's not. What happens everywhere is that either welfare sucks or the government is broken, or will be broken; sometimes both. I'll also bet my ass scandinavian countries would be as good as they are without welfare system.
Did I say a word about welfare systems ?
|
On January 14 2012 07:46 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 07:25 mcc wrote:On January 14 2012 07:15 NtroP wrote:The thing that really pushed me into the Ron Paul camp was the data that all things that the FEDERAL government subsidize inflate at a ridiculous rate. Healthcare, way outpaces inflation. Subsidized food? Food costs are rising faster than inflation. Education? College costs are rising way way way faster than inflation. (in fact, to get maximum federal money, they have to raise their tuition a certain amount each year, artificially inflating education costs) Defense spending? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_StatesYup, looks like that is beating the shit out of inflation as well. FDA? They've been beating the rate of inflation as well, and jumped 15% from 2009 to 2010. Welfare? *facepalm* Now, the question of course is if we knock the size of the federal government down to where it doesn't run these functions for the country will that inflation just crop up in some other form? Possibly. However, what we can be confident of is that if all of these aspects of our country continue to be run federally we will again have spending that in each of these parts of our society that far outpaces inflation. That is why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. There are certainly other benefits to a Ron Paul presidency, but the main one would be an effort to limit the size of our government as a large empire simply becomes unduly influenced by all that it is supposed to be controlling. Did you stop to look outside your country and see why there much more state-controlled healthcare and education are doing much better ? Maybe it is not about the amount of federal control, but quality of that control and implementation. Of course your hybrid public-private system is bloated as it is extremely poorly created system. It says nothing about public healthcare systems, same goes for education. EDIT: Not to say that there are no places where cutting would not be prudent. There are a number of reasons why social programs seem to be working in the scandanavian countries that you're referencing. First and foremost, these countries experienced their greatest improvement in prosperity during the 1960's when the production of hydrocarbons from the nearby North Sea took off. This coincided with several social measures being enacted which unjustly took all the credit, when in actuality, it was the capitalistic sale of oil. Second, the USA is not one of these scandinavian countries nor will it ever be. Our population/demographic is WAY more diverse and our means of generating wealth much more vast. Thus, our interests and general outlooks on life are more diverse. These social programs have a firm foundation in places like Norway because the vast majority of its population lives the same kind of lifestyle and shares the same sorts of interests/needs. I suggest you watch this series of Milton Friedman discussion/debates that were held against socialists in Iceland. Essentially every point you've attempted in this thread is utterly smashed by him. Milton Friedman Iceland Debate PlaylistAnd yes, Man, Economy, and State is one of the best treatises on economics ever written. It is necessary reading.
No I am not limiting my statement to Scandinavian countries, I limit it to all non-US first world countries. On the other hand I specifically mentioned healthcare and education and not welfare system, just so it is clear. I would also like to know how Finland(or even Sweden) profited from North Sea oil
I am not watching Friedman videos as it is a waste of time. If you have some arguments that he uses I would be happy to discuss it with you after you write the relevant part yourself. Just a note on debating, it is ok to link to the evidence it is not ok to link to the argument instead of formulating that argument yourself. That is just one of the reasons why a lot of people in this thread find constant posting of videos by Ron Paul supporters (and misesian's in general) very annoying.
As for the book we have apparently very differing views on the quality reading materials.
EDIT: I limited myself to education and healthcare as other areas are more influenced by a lot of factors, one of them being what you mention. Their cohesive society in my opinion helps with things like corruption and similar, I agree with that.
|
Friedman isn't an Austrian. The only economist Austrian's probably hate more then Friedman is Keynes.
|
The only econmists that take austrians seriously are austrians.
|
On January 14 2012 08:15 Velr wrote:
The only econmists that take austrians seriously are austrians.
That must be why the worlds finances are in the craper.
|
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy?
Oh.. and if you wnat to ask whats wrong in general with this economy:
I just right now.. at 0:20 a:m local time cooked myself a BANANA soup.
BANANAS don't grow here and they cost me like 1$ (actually less)
All other ingredients combined cost me like 1-2$ (probably less if you would search smart).
You wonder why stuff is goign shitty? Think how shit like that will ever fly in the long run...
|
On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy?
You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
|
Btw: my country is making profit atm  .
And compared to US i live in socialist paradise... But you know what? That has nothing to do with the problem at all...The reason everything is going to shit isn't to much regulation...
Even after the last foreign (and swiss) asshole has paid taxes on the money he hided here.. Switzerland wil still be ok.
WHY?
Because we got a fuckin good high tech industry... Yes, you read that right.. We got people that produce stuff ohter people want to buy.
The problem with this hole crisis and the whole system is people trying to make money with money whiteut doing anything productive (or at least constructive.. or smart).
|
On January 14 2012 08:22 Velr wrote:Btw: my country is making profit atm . And compared to US i live in socialist paradise... But you know what? That has nothing to do with the problem at all...The reason everything is going to shit isn't to much regulation...
It's a combination if your country believing in a free market as well as
![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/Global_Spending_Graph.jpg)
*CHART IS GLOBAL MILITARY SPENDING*
your country not being on this ridiculous chart.
|
Ahm.. thats a nice cake... I also can post colored "circles with names" but whats it about? I guess military spending?
and btw. PER CAPITA my country would be pretty high on such a chart.. But well.. I don't expect you to think that far... I mean.. You posted a circle with colors and names whiteout saying whats it about...
|
On January 14 2012 08:22 Velr wrote:Btw: my country is making profit atm .
Please stop coming into this thread to make dumb blanket statements about Paul, his supporters, and austrian economics.
If you want to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, please inform us why Keynesians have essentially no explanation for stagflation.
Thought so. Here's some reading: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
|
And you mr. Solar could tell me where i ever said Keynesians got it right..
Here is a general hint:
Economics are a soft science.. like A R T.
Do you see people advocating to have a solution for ART?
no you don't... Because that would be fucking stupid. Like praising some economic theory.
|
On January 14 2012 08:21 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 08:18 Velr wrote:
that has nothing to do with any theories at all but with assholes being greedy? You're right, every country is better off with $15T in debt and a worthless fiat dollar.. duh. The fact that the middle class is fading, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor is at all times highs is strictly coincidental.
Wait, what ? You are defending Austrian economics and criticizing growing gap between rich and poor at the same time ? Did you ever saw the list of countries sorted by GINI, look at the countries at the top, there does not seem to be correlation you are implying
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
