Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
The concept that the US government ended the Great Depression has been debunked time and again. Actually, if you look into it, you will find that the Depression was extended by the government intercession.
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
The concept that the US government ended the Great Depression has been debunked time and again. Actually, if you look into it, you will find that the Depression was extended by the government intercession.
Source please. The most reputable "government bad" critique of the Great Depression was not that it was prolonged by the government, but by counterproductive fiscal policy. Second, what exactly happened in World War Two then, when taxes on the rich hiked up to 94% and the US government assumed command of the entire economy? Private spending fell big in the Second World War, even when compared to Great Depression while government expenditures soared through the roof. Why would the Soviet Union fare the best in the Great Depression, if government intervention was the problem? You do know that the relative Soviet success compared to the rest of the world was precisely why FDR intervened in the government; to try and save capitalism from the Red scare. You do know that in 1937, right as unemployment started dropping, FDR and Congress decided to cut back on the government programs and balance the budget. And woosh unemployment spiked back to 25 percent. How are any of these consistent with your assertions?
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
Dont think you read my example. Go back a few pages.
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
The concept that the US government ended the Great Depression has been debunked time and again. Actually, if you look into it, you will find that the Depression was extended by the government intercession.
Don't think it really has been debunked that Roosevelt didn't end the Great Depression (according to main stream logic). What most people probably agree on (monetarist view) is that the central bank created the crisis and prolonged it by bad politics. What obv. has been debunked is that the Great Depression was the fail of the free market (as governemnt intererfered a shitton by Hoover, Roosevelt, Central Bank).
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
The concept that the US government ended the Great Depression has been debunked time and again. Actually, if you look into it, you will find that the Depression was extended by the government intercession.
Don't think it really has been debunked that Roosevelt didn't end the Great Depression (according to main stream logic). What most people probably agree on (monetarist view) is that the central bank created the crisis and prolonged it by bad politics. What obv. has been debunked is that the Great Depression was the fail of the free market (as governemnt intererfered a shitton by Hoover, Roosevelt, Central Bank).
What? Extended by the central bank, perhaps. Caused by it? Not the say, massive bank failures and reckless speculation that imploded the entire financial sector? The Great Depression may not have been a textbook example of private markets failing to bring recovery. But the implosion and stockmarket crash of 1929, and the market's role in it, is not a matter of dispute among any historian or monetarist.
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
The concept that the US government ended the Great Depression has been debunked time and again. Actually, if you look into it, you will find that the Depression was extended by the government intercession.
Don't think it really has been debunked that Roosevelt didn't end the Great Depression (according to main stream logic). What most people probably agree on (monetarist view) is that the central bank created the crisis and prolonged it by bad politics. What obv. has been debunked is that the Great Depression was the fail of the free market (as governemnt intererfered a shitton by Hoover, Roosevelt, Central Bank).
What? Extended by the central bank, perhaps. Caused by it? Not the say, massive bank failures and reckless speculation that imploded the entire financial sector? The Great Depression may not have been a textbook example of private markets failing to bring recovery. But the implosion and stockmarket crash of 1929, and the market's role in it, is not a matter of dispute among any historian or monetarist.
Well Ben Bernanke is of that opinion, and he is mainstream enough for me, to make me conclude that it has been debunked (though of course there will always be some people who disagree with that).
Anyway. If you understand the Austrian business cycle theory (whether you agree with it or not), you will realize why never can blaim the free market that investors makes bad speculations, when an insituation (central bank) has the ability to inflate the currencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory
On January 30 2012 06:43 Hider wrote: Well I can't help my self. But, fairly = If everything goes by the law? So if Hitler made a law saying jews had no private property rights = Fair?
The thing is, after Hitler lost the war, the international community that won the war, decided that it was indeed theft that had taken place when jews lost their private property, and Germany acknowledged this and it was decided that where possible, the property would need to be returned to the original owners.
If he won, I doubt it would have happened It's only theft because it was later agreed that the laws at that time wasn't actually legal. This happens a lot when the courts decide that some laws for whatever reason aren't valid.
I repeat, theft is taking something that you have no rights to legally. This changes when law changes all the time.
For example: downloading music is now illegal. It's considered theft.
Go back 5 years, it was not theft nor illegal in Norway. It was at that time legal to download for personal use - it was considered much like copying from a tape to another from a friend - which is legal. Law changed. Now it's theft.
Dictionary.com: Theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another Wikipedia: Theft: In common usage, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.
Your argument is that theft (and murder) needs to have a definition outside of the legal system. And or that theft is taxes.
Taxes aren't 'wrongful' or 'illegal' they are therefore not theft. At least not most of them. Some have been found in various courts over the years to be that - and then the state stole property from others (persecution of the jews is one example, one far less extreme, was rather recently when the supreme court in Norway decided that the state had no right to make taxes active for shipping companies ex post facto, because the constitution prohibits retroactive laws).
However, in most cases, taxes are perfectly legal and perfectly rightful. Especially in democracies where people together vote and decide how things should be run - including how the tax system should work.
Now, if Liberal wants to argue that his view is that taxes should be voluntary - and that he does not consent to the government taking money he earns - and so he considers taxes to be theft from him, that's certainly his right.
But it's not actually correct to say taxes are theft - because theft have to be wrongful and illegal to be recognized as theft. Just like a murder have certain conditions that needs to be applied in order for a killing to be a murder.
You can't claim that words mean something different than what they do, and then have a meaningful discussion. Taxes aren't theft. That is simply not what the word theft means.
On January 30 2012 08:17 Risen wrote: Fuck it. Was a hardline Ron Paul guy, Gingrich wants a base on the moon. Sorry buddy, Gingrich has my vote.
True Ron Paul supporters would understand that this would not be possible with the amount of debt that we have right now. So, your either lying or your really blinded by bullshit coming from politicians that have a history of being a liar.
Here's a video of him saying we need another 9/11:
Also, he wanted the death penalty for pot heads even though he has smoked it before....
On January 30 2012 06:43 Hider wrote: Well I can't help my self. But, fairly = If everything goes by the law? So if Hitler made a law saying jews had no private property rights = Fair?
The thing is, after Hitler lost the war, the international community that won the war, decided that it was indeed theft that had taken place when jews lost their private property, and Germany acknowledged this and it was decided that where possible, the property would need to be returned to the original owners.
If he won, I doubt it would have happened It's only theft because it was later agreed that the laws at that time wasn't actually legal. This happens a lot when the courts decide that some laws for whatever reason aren't valid.
I repeat, theft is taking something that you have no rights to legally. This changes when law changes all the time.
For example: downloading music is now illegal. It's considered theft.
Go back 5 years, it was not theft nor illegal in Norway. It was at that time legal to download for personal use - it was considered much like copying from a tape to another from a friend - which is legal. Law changed. Now it's theft.
Dictionary.com: Theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another Wikipedia: Theft: In common usage, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.
Your argument is that theft (and murder) needs to have a definition outside of the legal system. And or that theft is taxes.
Taxes aren't 'wrongful' or 'illegal' they are therefore not theft. At least not most of them. Some have been found in various courts over the years to be that - and then the state stole property from others (persecution of the jews is one example, one far less extreme, was rather recently when the supreme court in Norway decided that the state had no right to make taxes active for shipping companies ex post facto, because the constitution prohibits retroactive laws).
However, in most cases, taxes are perfectly legal and perfectly rightful. Especially in democracies where people together vote and decide how things should be run - including how the tax system should work.
Now, if Liberal wants to argue that his view is that taxes should be voluntary - and that he does not consent to the government taking money he earns - and so he considers taxes to be theft from him, that's certainly his right.
But it's not actually correct to say taxes are theft - because theft have to be wrongful and illegal to be recognized as theft. Just like a murder have certain conditions that needs to be applied in order for a killing to be a murder.
You can't claim that words mean something different than what they do, and then have a meaningful discussion. Taxes aren't theft. That is simply not what the word theft means.
Im sure you can imagine a scenrio where an obiviously injustice is being make through the law. Lets actually assume that Hitler had won the war, and jews had no property righs (through the law). Hence according to your logic if the jew actually wanted to receive money from his work, he had no right to do that, and would in fact be stealing money, since it would be against the law? Im not saying your definition is wrong or anything, because your definitely allowed to have this definition. All I am saying is that if we are taking your definition to the extreme, this definition change over time. And hence it we want to discuss what is good or bad, and you think that we should always follow the law, then your opinion changes as laws get changed.
I mean its easier to discuss in the following way: 1 guy has the opinion that "theft" = always wrong. Another guy has the opinion that theft = Fine if done for the greater good.
Its on the other hand hard to have a discussion about whether theft is good or bad if Hitler or whomever decides what theft is. Because then your opinion doesn't become timeless. If people in 20 years were to read your opinion, it wouldn't be relevant to them.
On January 30 2012 08:17 Risen wrote: Fuck it. Was a hardline Ron Paul guy, Gingrich wants a base on the moon. Sorry buddy, Gingrich has my vote.
True Ron Paul supporters would understand that this would not be possible with the amount of debt that we have right now. So, your either lying or your really blinded by bullshit coming from politicians that have a history of being a liar.
Here's a video of him saying we need another 9/11:
According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this. Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts. The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
The concept that the US government ended the Great Depression has been debunked time and again. Actually, if you look into it, you will find that the Depression was extended by the government intercession.
Source please. The most reputable "government bad" critique of the Great Depression was not that it was prolonged by the government, but by counterproductive fiscal policy. Second, what exactly happened in World War Two then, when taxes on the rich hiked up to 94% and the US government assumed command of the entire economy? Private spending fell big in the Second World War, even when compared to Great Depression while government expenditures soared through the roof. Why would the Soviet Union fare the best in the Great Depression, if government intervention was the problem? You do know that the relative Soviet success compared to the rest of the world was precisely why FDR intervened in the government; to try and save capitalism from the Red scare. You do know that in 1937, right as unemployment started dropping, FDR and Congress decided to cut back on the government programs and balance the budget. And woosh unemployment spiked back to 25 percent. How are any of these consistent with your assertions?
Here is but one analysis. I am using this one because it's very thorough and has a wide variety of sources therein from all angles, but it is not the only source, and by no means is it a source in the context of a scientific paper citation. The whole thing is a discussion and can't be simply boiled down into a single academic journal article.
I will include the following extraction as well, as it is readable on the internet and discusses some of the major lapses in the "conventional" theory, and segments of the Great Depression era that are ignored.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
I honestly think Santorum is worse than Gingrich. I just do not have words to express how horrible I think this man is as a politician. It seriously terrifies me that he could gain enough votes to stay in this race.
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
I think the funniest thing about this particular topic in America is the fact that no one seems to really know or remember that secularism largely has its roots.... in the Protestant Reformation. The whole division between the Church and the State is something that Martin Luther has talked about quite a bit. I've always seen the religious-secular divide in the West as a deeply Protestant thing. It might sound strange, but "secularism" is a very Western idea, and insofar as it rose from the Protestant Reformation, it's a rather... Christian idea.
I dunno, American dialogue on the question of the Church/State is rather silly.
On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
I honestly think Santorum is worse than Gingrich. I just do not have words to express how horrible I think this man is as a politician. It seriously terrifies me that he could gain enough votes to stay in this race.
Dude he belives in God. What more justificans do you need? ^^
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
You are definitely confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Fiscal policy is counterproductive on the microeconomic scale. Nobody disputes this.
Now when society has too many haircutters not because people don't want haircuts, but because they're too poor to buy haircuts because they don't have jobs that they otherwise would have outside a slump, it makes perfect sense to fiscally stimulate both the haircut industry and the jobs of people who would buy haircuts.
No it doesn't. Supply and demand determines the price of haircuts, if people can't afford the haircuts the prices need to go down, if the prices can't go down, that means that people need to stop trying to supply haircuts at the prices at which no one can afford them.
Not being able to afford something is directly related to the supply and demand for this good/service. Unemployment of people resulting in them not having money to spend is already rolled into the standard supply demand relationship of an economy.
The people to go into the industry come out of hte unemployed. There will be fewer people for the machine sector to hire. So? Suppose the machine sector hires 1 person per month and 500 are unemployed. Then if the haircut sector hires 3 per month, you have a net job increase even if the machine sector stops hiring at all. The more likely secnario is that the machine sector still has a pool of 497 to draw from and will still hire if there's an opportunity.
Your reasoning is operating under the false principle that people want jobs, when what they actually want is stuff.
If there's NO stimulus, there's a reason why all the 500 unemployed people don't just start cutting everyone's hair at home for a very low price, although some do, because they can't lower the price enough to both make a living, and still attract customers, because if the only good that they create is a hair-cut, they can't just all start giving hair-cuts because you don't need so many hair-cuts for 500 people.
You have to look at the net productivity increase with relation to what people want, and what people want is decided by the supply/demand curve. If there's tons of people that want hair-cuts but at lower price, and the price isn't getting lowered, then unless you've invented a much more efficient way to give hair-cuts (which by the way will result in even more people losing jobs,) then the actual demand for hair-cuts isn't high.
As for whether government can help get out of a slump, the answer is a resounding yes. The US government pumped so much aggregate demand that it turned into a near-command economy in the Second World War, and the Great Depression ended. It is not a matter of debate that government demand can end depressions. The better question is how (and how much).
You do realize that the Second world war is basically THE prime example of why austerity is THE way to solve recessions? Everything became rationed, consumption by individuals of all resources fell drastically, people starting growing their own vegetables in the gardens. People basically SAVED. Now of course, the resources didn't get saved because they all went to the war effort, but it's really hard to say that the economy went out of depression for your average individual, because people were not living prosperous lives during World War 2. It was actually after the war ended that the economy grew the fastest, and this was economic growth that was also felt by the individuals living in the country and not just by the GDP numbers.
On January 30 2012 08:46 Roe wrote: According to Santorum, colleges are indoctrination camps for the liberal agenda:
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is suspicious about President Barack Obama’s goal for more Americans to go to college, The Hill reports. What Obama really seeks is to turn youngsters into liberals, the former Pennsylvania senator says.
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to go college," Santorum said Wednesday in Florida, according to CBS News. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America.”
The proof that it’s liberal indoctrination? “If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, the president said college and universities must find ways to cut the prices they charge or risk government funding cuts. "Higher education can't be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford," Obama said.
Santorum said that if colleges and universities taught Judeo-Christian principles, "they would be stripped of every dollar."
"If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. You know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Always funny how republicans try to make Secularism into something radical and indoctrinating, yet Judeo-Christian dogma isn't. Not really surprising that he wants to keep people in the dark without any chance of a real education.
I honestly think Santorum is worse than Gingrich. I just do not have words to express how horrible I think this man is as a politician. It seriously terrifies me that he could gain enough votes to stay in this race.
Dude he belives in God. What more justificans do you need? ^^
There are plenty of people that believe in God that aren't irrational.
EPT
It's only theft because it was later agreed that the laws at that time wasn't actually legal. This happens a lot when the courts decide that some laws for whatever reason aren't valid. 
