|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On March 01 2009 09:59 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Had the Okies been migrating through Europe with their automobile in the 30s, they would not have been taken for economic refugees, but for well-to-do elite.
ur pushing it man.. owning a truck did not save some of them from starving and it definitively did not qualify them as European well-to-do elite
|
So Aristotle's categories which have been applied in political thought for over two millenia are more oblivious than dichotomies conjured on the basis of the political landscape of the year 2009?
This obviously seems so, and would confirm my earlier suspicions that the intellectual evolution of man has outpaced his need for learning. Whether the common facility of this modern man is as great at those philosphers of that surprising sect who are honourably mentioned by Dr. Swift four centuries ago as having, by mere force of genius alone, without the least assistance of any kind of learning, or even reading, discovered that profound and invaluable secret, that there is no G__, I do not presume to guess.
I can only presume that the forces of reaction, overeducated, overcivilized and underimaginative, remains ignorant of the perpectually expoential increase of human potential unlocked by our evolutionary progress, and therefore block these avenues in lethargic cynicism, distrusting the roads to greater happiness as they are effectively established and proven by the machine of the human intellect. The poor Hellenes, our cultural forefathers only conceived of a notion of time as a struggle against decay; they did not (how could they, being two millenia more primitive than we on the social evolutionary scale) conceive of turning their reason, which they otherwise exercised with such genius, to the miracles of progress. Perhaps they were less self-confident than modern man, perhaps they were more prone to self-deception, perhaps they secretly suspected their Gods of being false idols and lacked the courage to sprint for that ultimate truth.
|
ur pushing it man.. owning a truck did not save some of them from starving and it definitively does not qualify you as European well-to-do elite
In 1933, during which 25% of Americans were unemployed, there was one automobile for every five inhabitants of the USA. In Britain there was one for every twenty-three. In Italy one for every 108, in the USSR, one for every 5 000. The partition is even greater than it seems due to the pyramidal structure of European societies compared to American societies. In America the automobile was a middle-class possession. In Europe it was by and large until the 1960s, not.
|
Moltke, I only posted information from other sources, they are not my 'prophecies', nor did I claim that an economic recovery is under way.
The implicit message is that, as far as we know, the expectations for this recession are nowhere near as bad as the great depression. This was in response to some posters claiming that this seemed like it was going to be comparable to the great depression. I'm only comparing their expectations to the expectations of economists who understand the subject better.
Of course you can disregard these forecasts on the basis that economists have been wrong before. We'll, economists have always admitted a great deal of uncertainty in their forecasts. They are aware of the unpredictability of recessions. However difficult it may be to predict future economic events, it may still be useful. A great deal of economists are employed for this purpose across numerous industries and institutions you know.
|
On March 02 2009 07:36 Physician wrote:
Sup middle class.
|
That America had/has poor conditions is undisputed. You have to look at relatively, and in that light America was a great place to live, which is why it received so many immigrants
As far as the future of the Economy, based on my knowledge of economics, it's only going to get worse. Obama is trashing it -- he even admits it when he says that the government has to become bigger to make up for the weak private sector. Well, the private sector IS the economy. If the government is going to get bigger, it has to take resources from the private sector. The government can only take wealth, not create it. And by taking more, it only makes us poorer.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 02 2009 06:29 oneofthem wrote:
well now, the so called democratic spirit in america takes both active and passive/negative forms. the active current calls for positive, democratic actions social and political, and is exemplified by the democratic pragmatism of dewey and community organizations on the left. it is a vision of an active political society that has the people as the agent, even though a great portion of its energy is dispersed through government institutions. on the other hand, we have the rights based, negative reaction to government exemplified by libertarians and jeffersonians of old. their view of society is that of a well ordered space of personal development, and the governmental authority is only found in the law, not in bureaucrats sitting behind desks. i will say that this current is reactionary, and it is an attitude found not exclusively among libertarians etc. at the very least, the rhetoric of lower taxation, less bureaucratic waste, spending our money for ourselves etc holds great purchase with the public at large.
most people will take either of the two attitudes toward government depending on whether the policy in question is agreeable to them. on an issue like social programs for immigrants, the real point of departure is over people's attitudes toward immigrants, not their attitude toward welfare. since government actions affect different groups differently, many of the debates over government are in fact mirroring social attitudes toward different groups of people.
in any case, quantifying government control is not as simple as looking at the size of the government sector, nor is it merely dependent on how many regulations are on the books. spending a trillion on f-22s is not the same kind of government presence as spending it on social programs, given the same method of taxation.
as for the future of the administrative state in america, im tempted to understate the changes. the reason obama won is not due to a large groundswell for the scandinavian model (and it is far from that really), and the general perception of government has not changed too much. if anything, libertarians are increasing, on the internets. public perception of how well the government does still depends on the handling of individual issues, and for most it is a judgment of competence, not ideological victory. nevertheless, the chorus of "omg socialism!" is more fun to listen to than the assorted liberal chatter.
It's more than this. The US is structurally a weak state with strong interest group liberalism. This isn't surprising because collective action is the best way to get things done if you're a citizen, but it presents problems on the whole even if you take out K street corruption. This isn't simply a divide between Big letter Liberals and Conservatives, but liberalism and conservatism themselves. Bureaucratization has several nasty, anti-democratic consequences such as specialization and eventually secretization which take place for rational, pragmatic reasons, but put the bureaucratic machine in charge, not the politicians and certainly not the citizens.
I can basically guarantee you none of the people writing the stimulus bill were elected and that presents a legitimate concern. I don't think bureaucrats actually work with malintent or simply to boost corporate earnings - that's just a shitty framing that politicians and the media use to make themselves exempt from blame, but as they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Who do you hold responsible when something goes wrong? The elected official is a slave to the specialist's work, yet no one really gets held accountable when something goes wrong because the specialist is shielded and the politician just claims the execution, not the proposal, was botched.
|
On March 02 2009 08:53 shmay wrote:
The government can only take wealth, not create it. And by taking more, it only makes us poorer.
Not really 
Things are a bit more complex.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 02 2009 08:36 warding wrote:
We'll, economists have always admitted a great deal of uncertainty in their forecasts.
This is what causes the most anger in the social sciences - they haven't. Social quantification is still alive and well, and constantly being misused.
|
On March 02 2009 09:08 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2009 08:53 shmay wrote:
The government can only take wealth, not create it. And by taking more, it only makes us poorer. Not really Things are a bit more complex.
Of course things are more complex, but as a heuristic it actually fares quite well (there are more detailed reasons for my belief, but that would take too long).
Checkout the economic freedom index (level of capitalism) -- wealth is very strongly inversely correlated to size of government.
|
On March 02 2009 09:09 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2009 08:36 warding wrote:
We'll, economists have always admitted a great deal of uncertainty in their forecasts. This is what causes the most anger in the social sciences - they haven't. Social quantification is still alive and well, and constantly being misused.
OK I made a sweeping statements there. I'll put it like this: economic forecasts are always coupled with a great deal of uncertainty, which must always be taken into account when analysing them. I would say most academic economists usually admit this uncertainy and act with caution upon it. It is probably less so as they go on TV, write editorial articles or work in wallstreet.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 02 2009 09:25 shmay wrote:Checkout the economic freedom index (level of capitalism) -- wealth is very strongly inversely correlated to size of government.
Highly subjective and oversimplified measuring and ranking system by a group of people who are looking for any reason possible to place France between Uganda and Romania. Oh, and Saudi Arabia is ahead of France as well. Yeah, Heritage is always a trustworthy source of information.
http://www.askheritage.org/
And what does a measure of 'wealth' entail anyways? Massive income polarization and little social mobility? Would you really rather live in Jamaica, where IMF's free trade regulations and shitty loans have raped local businesses and where gang violence is rampant, or "economically oppressed" Cuba which has much higher living standards and quality of life for most of its population?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2009 09:05 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2009 06:29 oneofthem wrote:
well now, the so called democratic spirit in america takes both active and passive/negative forms. the active current calls for positive, democratic actions social and political, and is exemplified by the democratic pragmatism of dewey and community organizations on the left. it is a vision of an active political society that has the people as the agent, even though a great portion of its energy is dispersed through government institutions. on the other hand, we have the rights based, negative reaction to government exemplified by libertarians and jeffersonians of old. their view of society is that of a well ordered space of personal development, and the governmental authority is only found in the law, not in bureaucrats sitting behind desks. i will say that this current is reactionary, and it is an attitude found not exclusively among libertarians etc. at the very least, the rhetoric of lower taxation, less bureaucratic waste, spending our money for ourselves etc holds great purchase with the public at large.
most people will take either of the two attitudes toward government depending on whether the policy in question is agreeable to them. on an issue like social programs for immigrants, the real point of departure is over people's attitudes toward immigrants, not their attitude toward welfare. since government actions affect different groups differently, many of the debates over government are in fact mirroring social attitudes toward different groups of people.
in any case, quantifying government control is not as simple as looking at the size of the government sector, nor is it merely dependent on how many regulations are on the books. spending a trillion on f-22s is not the same kind of government presence as spending it on social programs, given the same method of taxation.
as for the future of the administrative state in america, im tempted to understate the changes. the reason obama won is not due to a large groundswell for the scandinavian model (and it is far from that really), and the general perception of government has not changed too much. if anything, libertarians are increasing, on the internets. public perception of how well the government does still depends on the handling of individual issues, and for most it is a judgment of competence, not ideological victory. nevertheless, the chorus of "omg socialism!" is more fun to listen to than the assorted liberal chatter. It's more than this. The US is structurally a weak state with strong interest group liberalism. This isn't surprising because collective action is the best way to get things done if you're a citizen, but it presents problems on the whole even if you take out K street corruption. This isn't simply a divide between Big letter Liberals and Conservatives, but liberalism and conservatism themselves. Bureaucratization has several nasty, anti-democratic consequences such as specialization and eventually secretization which take place for rational, pragmatic reasons, but put the bureaucratic machine in charge, not the politicians and certainly not the citizens. I can basically guarantee you none of the people writing the stimulus bill were elected and that presents a legitimate concern. I don't think bureaucrats actually work with malintent or simply to boost corporate earnings - that's just a shitty framing that politicians and the media use to make themselves exempt from blame, but as they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Who do you hold responsible when something goes wrong? The elected official is a slave to the specialist's work, yet no one really gets held accountable when something goes wrong because the specialist is shielded and the politician just claims the execution, not the proposal, was botched. oh i didn't mean to say that bureaucraticisation is all good because it is liberal or whatnot. just making a comment on the political culture. but the way this issue is raised in this thread makes it out to be a new phenomenon, or being brought to qualitatively new heights by obama's doing. admittedly, the level of reliance on expert and academic methods of decisionmaking is something to watch out for in obama. the problem with relying on academic experts, besides the lack of a decent review system for policy advise, is the strength of consensus in some areas, and also overt ideological stubbornness, that may lead to great mistakes before they are recognized.
this lack of pluralism makes accountability for experts difficult. if there are various camps of experts, and each are evaluated on their track record, then we may have some parallel to democratic accountability.
|
Of course it's subjective, it's made by humans. What incentive does it have to place France low? Or to rank any country high? If it measures France low, and France is seen as a Good Country, then it hurts their argument that economic freedom is good. I too have my doubts about their graph, but I think it captures a general trend.
Take a look at Cato's if you like: http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2008/efw2008-1.pdf -- the same countries rise to the top. Freer countries tend to do better economically ( http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/exh-5.gif ).
I'd have to visit Jamaica and Cuba before I decided where to live.
Look, I'm not saying the index is the end-all-be-all of greatness of countries, just look at the trends.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2009 07:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
So Aristotle's categories which have been applied in political thought for over two millenia are more oblivious than dichotomies conjured on the basis of the political landscape of the year 2009?
my examples were historical and not at all aimed at being critical of one side. it is just a description, even the reactionary comment. of course, the movement that seeks the protection of traditional ideas ranging from liberty to political community (classical liberalism, classical legalism, classical rights theory, classical economics, classical etc were not termed by my personal authority) is reactionary. it does not mean that they are necessarily the cranky and unreasonable type, but it is exceedingly fair to observe the traditional structure of that movement.
|
What incentive does it have to place France low? Or to rank any country high? France largely espouses a radically opposed set of economic values from those proposed by the neo-cons. Is this feigned ignorance?
|
Yes, but like I said, if it places France low, and it does well in people's eyes, that hurts their argument that economic freedom is good.
Canada is commonly associated with Big Government, and it's high up there.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 02 2009 11:23 shmay wrote:Of course it's subjective, it's made by humans. What incentive does it have to place France low? Or to rank any country high? If it measures France low, and France is seen as a Good Country, then it hurts their argument that economic freedom is good. I too have my doubts about their graph, but I think it captures a general trend. Take a look at Cato's if you like: http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2008/efw2008-1.pdf -- the same countries rise to the top. Freer countries tend to do better economically ( http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/exh-5.gif ). I'd have to visit Jamaica and Cuba before I decided where to live. Look, I'm not saying the index is the end-all-be-all of greatness of countries, just look at the trends.
Both Cato and Heritage have very specific agendas and they're going to use the numbers and define economic freedom as they please, in order to represent those interests. The Cato one is much, much, more sound, but what do the numbers really tell you about the country? Do most people in Sierra Leone (119) live better lives than people in Ukraine (121)? Does market capitalism precede or follow wealth? Iceland is (was) rated very highly as open to foreign trade and economic freedom, but they got smashed by the banking problems more than anyone else in the world.
Is there even a correlation between size of government and economic freedom? Here's the top 10 rated countries for size of government: Hong Kong, Albania, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Honduras, Kyrgyz Republic, Jamaica, Panama, Peru, Zambia. How many of those have any relevance in the international political economy? The US is 42, Sweden is 134, South Korea is 65, Israel (133), Japan (77), Mexico (31), Canada (53), China (111), France (128), Germany (90).
So the US is expanding our government (significantly), but does that necessarily mean the economy will be significantly tightened or such actions will be detrimental to our economy?
The White House graph doesn't really project government intervention, just spending (two hugely different concepts), and China has blown that indicator out of the water since 8% growth is a bad year for them.
The point is you can't draw any meaningful inferences from the numbers. We know what Hayek thinks should happen, but we're stuck in a social-democracy hybrid no matter what and our shift towards a freer market in the 1980s didn't turn out so well.
|
i think its true the the government (in the last few years especially) but ever since the creation of the central bank in 1913, has more or less been a funnel of money from poor to rich.
isnt it true that the econmic problems we are having is the result of an entirely debt based dollar, and the fact that our trade deficit just keeps on swelling? i mean, we dont hardly produce anything except our own food. outsourcing of jobs has weakened our economy, and this "free trade" ideology america forces on the rest of the world has done nothing but weaken the global economy.
its good to listen to ron paul talk about these issues, i am by no means a republican, but i think he has a 100% realistic assesment of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/images/evans1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/images/camp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/images/dustbowl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/images/migrantmother.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/images/migmoth.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/images/refugees.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/images/bedroom.jpg)
