On May 27 2012 07:51 Vegetarian wrote: 1. The goal of an economy is not to save jobs, it is to increase standard of living.
True, it's not to save jobs, false, it's not to increase standard of living. Define Economy: The wealth and resources of a country or region, esp. in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services. <--- does not ascribe "purpose" as you have.
Props to what you've said, it's consistent what with what I've read in the past. Only it would be good if you could direct us to some sources. (not that the rest are, but you're right so in this case it matters)
On May 27 2012 09:00 Vegetarian wrote: I am not quite sure what your saying here. It is basic economic history that the highest period of economic growth in America occurred in the 1800's. This was a period that had no income tax and very few regulations on business which allowed for rapid growth in the economy. Are you actually trying to argue that 1950-1970 was a period of greater economic growth than the industrial revolution? Also I am not sure how you can call any growth of this era sustained unless you ignore the rest of the 1900s entirely.
I've listened to a lot of lectures and debates that confirm what you're saying. It would be fantastic if you could provide a concise source for that history too.
P.S. Your history is up to par, now it's time to get your diet there too. Read Gary Taubes: Good Calories, Bad Calories. It's long, and grueling at times(not my style of writing) but it tracks the introduction of the diseases of civilization, and analyzes their cause. Here's a short lecture after he published his book: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149
Uh, okay lol i'm don't know why you'd want to move to the US anyways.
If you're talking about after 1920 that, after Europe was ravaged by the first World War and every country fell into a great depression in the following 2 decades, that's hardly something to brag about.
Both France and the UK also had healthy economies during the 1920s, nothing like the economic growth of the US though.
It's quite wrong to claim that the "highest levels of growth" occurred during a time of low taxes and low government involvement.
It's quite correct though whether you say it is or isn't. The two generations after the civil war had the highest levels of growth not facilitated by factors that most people don't consider economic.
In fact, the highest sustained growth period in the U.S. occurred right after WW2, after the U.S. had pumped the 2012 equivalent of $10 trillion into the economy.
The US had the only undamaged, developed industrial base in the world, consumerism exploded as the savings rate plummeted after 5 years of being unnaturally high, and the government war bonds started coming due, in other words consumer spending was artificially depressed for five years, the money was still there, once it started being spent huge economic growth was unavoidable.
If everyone depressed their spending for five years and we could magically remove the ability of the rest of the world's economies to function, once the saved money started being spent and people stopped saving as much, we could have an artificial economic boom every generation.
Until the distortions caught up to us, just as they did during the 70s. And the rest of the world would probably not be happy about the whole thing either.
Everyone who talks about the high taxes of the postwar period and the economic boom somehow forgets that as soon as the rest of the world regained its footing in the late 50s there was a recession that ended after Kennedy's tax cuts (yes, a Democrat cut taxes, amazing right?). It cost Nixon the 1960 election. And another economic rough time started when the effects of Johnson-Nixon tax-spend-regulate really started hamstringing the economy. Carter gets somewhat of a bad rap, he deregulated a lot of stuff but he was pretty out of his depth as his price controls on gasoline and monetary policy showed.
Why anyone would want to go back to the policies that brought us the 1970s is a mystery to me. You can have no jobs and rising prices if you want, but I'd rather not.
Most of the ills of the 1970s came from the price/wage controls we had and a central bank that didn't know how to take the necessary actions to control inflation. Not some "unwinding" of distortions.
Also, I use that period as an example that growth can and does happen with government involvement. I don't think taxes that high are beneficial to the economy.
On May 26 2012 13:17 kwizach wrote: I said bailouts and regulations. The sector's doing much better now - the bailout of the auto companies was a success. While currently it may seem that American auto-companies are successful I question the ability to compete in the emerging hybrid market. The way I see it american motor companies are still stuck in an area of the market (the SUV) that will continue to be unsuccessful on international and domestic markets.
Well, so far, they've been successful.
Why not simply remove tariffs and let the Japanese produce cars way better, and far cheaper than we can. That way we can allocate the funds put into American auto industry somewhere better.
Define successful so far... as in they haven't bankrupted yet? What are their profits like?
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill
I'm not sure what tariffs and taxes have to do with what we were discussing, but 1. those tariffs are helping save jobs and 2. Churchill's quote is not an argument, so there's really nothing to say here except that government intervention in the economy is a vital part of the history of most modern societies and that intervention is only possible because of the money raised by taxes.
Now, regarding your question, a link was provided to you by someone else to show how well the auto industry has been doing since the bailout. Given your response to that poster, I don't really see how you can be convinced. If the auto industry was doing bad, you'd be saying "see? it's proof the bailouts were a bad idea", but since it's doing well you're saying "it won't last". No amount of evidence will do against this line of reasoning :-)
1. The goal of an economy is not to save jobs, it is to increase standard of living. Tariffs do the opposite of this as they force the entire society to pay more for a given product than they would have to absent the tariff. Obviously this is detrimental to the economy as money that could be used to purchase other products and create jobs in other industries is instead wasted subsidizing noncompetitive companies that would not exist in a free market. This is not beneficial to an economy and ignores the most basic concept of comparative advantage which is the whole reason trade exists in the first place. Further, a basic understanding of economics tells us that tariffs most certainly are not saving jobs. When you subsidize a company or a specific industry you divert money from other profitable sectors of the economy. The money has to come from somewhere and therefore there is always an unseen cost that you have to account for. When capital is diverted in order to subsidize one company the cost of capital increases and the supply of it decreases for other companies.
First of all, the economy itself does not have a "goal", as someone else pointed out. Second, tariffs can have both positive effects (for example, protecting an industry and the jobs attached to it) and negative effects (for example, other countries start imposing tariffs on the goods we export) - in addition to consumers having to pay more for a foreign product. The positive effects can certainly sometimes outweigh the negative effects, meaning tariffs have a net beneficial impact on a country's economy and on the well-being of its citizens. A "basic understanding of economy" will tell you that tariffs have saved jobs in the past and have helped countless countries develop their own industries which would initially not have been able to compete with other countries' if it wasn't for them. Of course, the negative effects can very well outweigh the positive effects as well. Saying tariffs are necessarily and automatically bad in every situation is, however, contrary to what can be directly observed in the economic history of both the US and the rest of the world.
On May 27 2012 07:51 Vegetarian wrote: 2. Government intervention in the economy has never been shown to be beneficial. If you actually look at the history of modern societies you will see that the countries that intervened most in their economies had the lowest standards of living. Where, the countries that had the lowest taxes and freest markets experienced the highest levels of growth and the highest standards of living. After all, the United States became the most powerful economy in the world during the period that it had no income tax and the fewest regulations on the market.
Sorry, that's just not true. There are plenty of examples (including long periods of history, as others have pointed out) of government intervention in the economy being very beneficial. I know that fans of the Austrian school have a tendency to disregard reality, but to argue that government intervention has never been beneficial is taking it to another level.
On May 27 2012 11:48 aksfjh wrote: Also, I use that period as an example that growth can and does happen with government involvement. I don't think taxes that high are beneficial to the economy.
The growth came from the extent they had freedom, the gov't stifled it. Just as a person can continue to grow when he has cancer, but it's not the cancer causing the growth.
On May 27 2012 12:34 kwizach wrote: tariffs can have both positive effects (for example, protecting an industry and the jobs attached to it) and negative effects (for example, other countries start imposing tariffs on the goods we export) - in addition to consumers having to pay more for a foreign product. The positive effects can certainly sometimes outweigh the negative effects, meaning tariffs have a net beneficial impact on a country's economy and on the well-being of its citizens. A "basic understanding of economy" will tell you that tariffs have saved jobs in the past and have helped countless countries develop their own industries which would initially not have been able to compete with other countries' if it wasn't for them. Of course, the negative effects can very well outweigh the positive effects as well. Saying tariffs are necessarily and automatically bad in every situation is, however, contrary to what can be directly observed in the economic history of both the US and the rest of the world.
Tariffs "saving" a countries jobs is not a positive... it would be better to import the same product at a cheaper rate... paying more money is paying more money... the extra money could have gone to cancer treatment for example. Other countries imposing tariffs on us doesn't matter, it just means the industry won't grow big enough to support the world, but ultimately the biggest loser is the country that imposes the tariff pricing their consumers out of the market.
It's not necessary for every country to have the same industry, it's the same as saying everyone should learn how to fix cars... i'd rather pay someone else instead of wasting my time and resources... so that I can focus on something else.
There are plenty of examples (including long periods of history, as others have pointed out) of government intervention in the economy being very beneficial. I know that fans of the Austrian school have a tendency to disregard reality, but to argue that government intervention has never been beneficial is taking it to another level.
The end does not justify the means. To violate rights is to commit a crime and is never beneficial. If you have respect for the Rational Faculty of man, then you will allow him to use it to make his own decisions between mutually consenting adults. There is no reason to curb it. Just as government and religion should be separate, so should government and economy... anytime a government enters into it... it is bound to bring in it's religion(any belief not based on reason) and so it does... that's why they flooded JP Morgan. http://nyti.ms/Khrsm2 for only losing 2 billion dollars in a risky investment they took. While California is losing 16 billion dollars and the government does nothing(not that it should) Why should the gov't be interfering with JP doing business as usual?
On May 26 2012 20:31 Vega62a wrote: Why not try to compete with Japanese production? They are an industrialized nation, same as we are. They're not paying workers pennies on our dollar.
We literally can't. Look up the average salary +benefits of a union autoworker in the US and you'll be horrified: it's in excess of $75,000/year for what is essentially unskilled labor. Our decaying industrial infrastructure and lack of technical innovation aren't helpful either.
Because of this, the only way American companies can even begin to compete with Japanese cars are the tariffs we slap on imported vehicles.
That's exactly right, because we have to artificially raise the price of the import, thereby devalue it to the American citizen. Imagine the gov't did the same to the iPhone, raised the price by 300 dollars. Their sales would drop significantly. It's an artificial market phenomenon and it is a waste of resources. If we saved the 3,000-10,000 spent on cars, we could then dedicate the saved money to something else... use your imagination to fill the blank. We would have a cheaper Japanese car + something else instead of just an American car. Walmart does the same, makes everything cheaper so that you can have more of everything. Hostile takeover have a similar function in the market and that's the beauty of hostile takeovers. They, very simply put, assess the value of a given company on the market, determine if the resources could be use better elsewhere, and then they do everything to make it so. This increases productivity and increases the amount of wealth made. If you don't understand this, it is beautifully portrayed in the movie "Other People's Money"
I think it's awesome that you completely ignored the other guy's post above you, pointing out that German workers probably get paid quite substantially, and possibly more, than American auto workers. I imagine Japanese auto workers probably do reasonably well for themselves as well. Productivity (e.g. automation?), engineering, and a whole host of other factors probably have an impact on the profitability of these companies. Does anyone have a comparative breakdown of salaries and benefits, or is this a case of people pulling random numbers out of their ass to justify armchair economic views?
http://www.bls.gov/ (this is the main source from which you can compare German vs American salaries in any sector)
Thought I'd cite all three continious sources in case anyone is that curious.
Thank you for that. I appreciate that you've made an effort to back up your claims. The fact that you've cited sources makes it even funnier that your post has been completely ignored. That's exactly what I'm referring to. Good ol' armchair economists.
On May 26 2012 20:31 Vega62a wrote: Why not try to compete with Japanese production? They are an industrialized nation, same as we are. They're not paying workers pennies on our dollar.
We literally can't. Look up the average salary +benefits of a union autoworker in the US and you'll be horrified: it's in excess of $75,000/year for what is essentially unskilled labor. Our decaying industrial infrastructure and lack of technical innovation aren't helpful either.
Because of this, the only way American companies can even begin to compete with Japanese cars are the tariffs we slap on imported vehicles.
That's exactly right, because we have to artificially raise the price of the import, thereby devalue it to the American citizen. Imagine the gov't did the same to the iPhone, raised the price by 300 dollars. Their sales would drop significantly. It's an artificial market phenomenon and it is a waste of resources. If we saved the 3,000-10,000 spent on cars, we could then dedicate the saved money to something else... use your imagination to fill the blank. We would have a cheaper Japanese car + something else instead of just an American car. Walmart does the same, makes everything cheaper so that you can have more of everything. Hostile takeover have a similar function in the market and that's the beauty of hostile takeovers. They, very simply put, assess the value of a given company on the market, determine if the resources could be use better elsewhere, and then they do everything to make it so. This increases productivity and increases the amount of wealth made. If you don't understand this, it is beautifully portrayed in the movie "Other People's Money"
I think it's awesome that you completely ignored the other guy's post above you, pointing out that German workers probably get paid quite substantially, and possibly more, than American auto workers. I imagine Japanese auto workers probably do reasonably well for themselves as well. Productivity (e.g. automation?), engineering, and a whole host of other factors probably have an impact on the profitability of these companies. Does anyone have a comparative breakdown of salaries and benefits, or is this a case of people pulling random numbers out of their ass to justify armchair economic views?
http://www.bls.gov/ (this is the main source from which you can compare German vs American salaries in any sector)
Thought I'd cite all three continious sources in case anyone is that curious.
Thank you for that. I appreciate that you've made an effort to back up your claims. The fact that you've cited sources makes it even funnier that your post has been completely ignored. That's exactly what I'm referring to. Good ol' armchair economists.
Cognitive Dissonance is a beautiful thing.
The only reason I ignored it is because I agree with it. =P
I remember listening to a news story awhile ago (maybe more than 1 year ago) that discussed the worker relationships within auto plants. They brought in some people from a Japanese car manufacturer to increase productivity. Basically, workers at a plant were rotated around to different positions throughout the year, which allowed them to better understand their place and see where things could be improved. The workers got wary of the idea, though, because it required them to point to workers that obviously weren't being as productive, that it was against the "brotherhood" they had in the union.
On May 27 2012 22:51 BallinWitStalin wrote: Thank you for that. I appreciate that you've made an effort to back up your claims. The fact that you've cited sources makes it even funnier that your post has been completely ignored. That's exactly what I'm referring to. Good ol' armchair economists. Cognitive Dissonance is a beautiful thing.
Video about economic history as told by a Capitalist (not a right or left winger) Credentials: + Show Spoiler +
Dr. Brook was born and raised in Israel. He served as a first sergeant in Israeli military intelligence and earned a BSc in civil engineering from Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. In 1987 he moved to the United States, where he received his MBA and Ph.D. in finance from the University of Texas at Austin; he became an American citizen in 2003. For seven years he was an award-winning finance professor at Santa Clara University, and in 1998 he cofounded a financial advisory firm, BH Equity Research, of which he is presently managing director and chairman.
In regard to the discussion of American bank history, prosperity, and economic growth... Here is a brief article that highlights where Krugman is wrong on the facts that took place in history... Obama shares these beliefs(probably Romney too if he doesn't already, he will if it helps him to get votes).
And a long & boring study on The relationship of Government spending and job creation over history in the US: http://bit.ly/hOwpnm
I believe that both candidates are horrible, and unfortunately there is no other good candidate on the scene right now. This is simply a reflection of the current state of the public and wouldn't expect any different. If either Romney or Obama ran against FDR, both would be considered huge commies. If Obama ran against Clinton, Obama would be labeled a commie too and cast off as a joke, no one would take him seriously. If Romney ran against Clinton, Romney would be labeled a buffoon, no one would take such a stupid guy seriously either. Someone might then claim..."but those were different times" the only difference is that we've incrementally conceded ground to communism, to bad ideas. It's a slippery slope and we're leaning towards communism now.
We all know that actions have consequences, and the thing that drives actions and choices is philosophy. Philosophy determines what choices one will make. And I think that Romney & Obama are the same side of the coin. Only Romney is not as determined but holds all the same bad ideas that will lead to the eventual same thing. Obama on the other hand is more determined, more explicit in what he aims for, and this is the reason why people are even willing to vote for a buffoon like Romney, this is the reason why the tea party exists; they are refusing to take it bending over. Obama explicitly embraces communism. Just to name one example in a recent speech he said "I'm not trying to redistribute wealth" while promoting a wealth redistribution program... I mean it doesn't get clearer than that.
Here's a link to a website that has compiled a list Obama's socialist activities. I will warn you to take the website with a grain of salt... It may or may not be a site created by people who hate Obama, but that's besides the point... The point is whether or not these activities lead you to believe that Obama has socialist tendencies. I know without referring to this website that he does just based on what he says and his recent actions reported in the news. However, if you don't know how to read people by their actions and understand the kind of speak they use then this website may be of help to re-enforce. Basically that Obama has surrounded himself with socialists all his life so why would he act any different? http://bit.ly/Lu932c
Back to the same "side of the coin"... Obama and Romney are on the same side of the coin because both endorse socialist policies therefore both of these twats actions will lead to the same thing in the end... Fascism; obviously not in their presidency but they are both laying ground work for it. I believe Obama may know this(but does not realize that the Fascist will be a Republican Theocrat), while Romney is too stupid to realize it anything(but his actions will still lead to the same thing). The other side of the coin is Capitalism, but there is no candidate that current defends it. Ron Paul does not defend Capitalism despite what he claims... If you don't understand what makes Capitalism right you aren't its defender.
The classic phrase that represents Fascist is "Might makes Right" while the founding fathers understood that "Right makes Might". The first expresses prerogative to might over right... the second expresses a retaliatory force to protect the right.
For anyone that thinks my claims are bogus... don't take my word for it. I know this from my study of philosophy however I don't expect you to understand it without the same understanding of philosophy. Today I have purchased a book that apparently proves it by linking events that happened in Weimar Germany, analyzing what political environment made Hitler possible, and shows parallels in today's America. It's supposed to be definitive, so if you can disprove his claims, you have disproved that US is leading in the same direction. The book is: The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff
So to summarize: I believe Obama and Romney are the same side of the coin, socialists; the opposite being Capitalism but no candidate currently defends it, not even Ron Paul because he doesn't understand what makes Capitalism right. The difference is that Obama is explicit about it and is working toward that end actively while Romney is implicit about it(by endorsing socialist programs) and on a slower path to it. The question to ask is who will get us to socialism faster? I say Obama will because he is explicit. That's why I endorse a vote for Romney, not because I like him or agree with him on anything but because he is not Obama. Essentially my vote would be against Obama and not for Romney. I would vote for Romney to reduce the speed toward socialism to buy more time for us to turn around back to Capitalism.
On May 27 2012 12:34 kwizach wrote: tariffs can have both positive effects (for example, protecting an industry and the jobs attached to it) and negative effects (for example, other countries start imposing tariffs on the goods we export) - in addition to consumers having to pay more for a foreign product. The positive effects can certainly sometimes outweigh the negative effects, meaning tariffs have a net beneficial impact on a country's economy and on the well-being of its citizens. A "basic understanding of economy" will tell you that tariffs have saved jobs in the past and have helped countless countries develop their own industries which would initially not have been able to compete with other countries' if it wasn't for them. Of course, the negative effects can very well outweigh the positive effects as well. Saying tariffs are necessarily and automatically bad in every situation is, however, contrary to what can be directly observed in the economic history of both the US and the rest of the world.
Tariffs "saving" a countries jobs is not a positive...
It is positive (in most cases, at least). All other things being equal, people having jobs is better than people being unemployed.
On May 27 2012 20:33 Epocalypse wrote: it would be better to import the same product at a cheaper rate... paying more money is paying more money... the extra money could have gone to cancer treatment for example.
I don't see how it would necessarily be better overall (you'd have to measure to net impact over both the consumers and the people who lost their jobs). (and tbh your "cancer treatment" comment is nonsensical)
On May 27 2012 20:33 Epocalypse wrote: Other countries imposing tariffs on us doesn't matter, it just means the industry won't grow big enough to support the world, but ultimately the biggest loser is the country that imposes the tariff pricing their consumers out of the market.
It does matter, because it means our industries which export goods will be less competitive in the countries imposing tariffs on us, or even fail to export their goods altogether. If those industries close or scale down, it's synonymous with job losses here.
On May 27 2012 20:33 Epocalypse wrote: It's not necessary for every country to have the same industry, it's the same as saying everyone should learn how to fix cars... i'd rather pay someone else instead of wasting my time and resources... so that I can focus on something else.
I don't see how that's relevant. I never said every country should always have every possible kind of industry. I never said tariffs were intrinsically good. I pointed out that they can sometimes have a net positive impact (i.e. when they contribute to sustaining employment while having "lower" negative effects).
There are plenty of examples (including long periods of history, as others have pointed out) of government intervention in the economy being very beneficial. I know that fans of the Austrian school have a tendency to disregard reality, but to argue that government intervention has never been beneficial is taking it to another level.
The end does not justify the means. To violate rights is to commit a crime and is never beneficial. If you have respect for the Rational Faculty of man, then you will allow him to use it to make his own decisions between mutually consenting adults. There is no reason to curb it. Just as government and religion should be separate, so should government and economy... anytime a government enters into it... it is bound to bring in it's religion(any belief not based on reason) and so it does... that's why they flooded JP Morgan. http://nyti.ms/Khrsm2 for only losing 2 billion dollars in a risky investment they took. While California is losing 16 billion dollars and the government does nothing(not that it should) Why should the gov't be interfering with JP doing business as usual?
Government intervention in the economy is not a violation of rights, unless you believe taxes are a violation of rights, and in that case you're in the (very small) minority - and your opinion that they violate rights does not make it a fact. If you seriously consider that government intervention in the economy is intrinsically bad, you are ignoring the economic history of modern societies and the positive results government interventions have had both in specific cases, during particular crises, and over longer periods of time. No mainstream economist (from keynesians to neoliberals) believes government intervention in the economy is never beneficial. None.
On May 28 2012 09:13 kwizach wrote: It is positive (in most cases, at least). All other things being equal, people having jobs is better than people being unemployed.
that's a false alternative, they would have different jobs instead.
On May 27 2012 20:33 Epocalypse wrote: it would be better to import the same product at a cheaper rate... paying more money is paying more money... the extra money could have gone to cancer treatment for example.
I don't see how it would necessarily be better overall (you'd have to measure to net impact over both the consumers and the people who lost their jobs). (and tbh your "cancer treatment" comment is nonsensical)
It was just an example, health care, motor boat... fill in the blank, the point is that you would have more freed up money if you spent less on your tariffed product. There's no way to measure "the net impact" and there's no necessity. Freeing up funds to do something more productive is always better, that doesn't mean something more productive will be figured out... but the point remains that funds you do not waste are funds you can spend on something else.
On May 27 2012 20:33 Epocalypse wrote: Other countries imposing tariffs on us doesn't matter, it just means the industry won't grow big enough to support the world, but ultimately the biggest loser is the country that imposes the tariff pricing their consumers out of the market.
It does matter, because it means our industries which export goods will be less competitive in the countries imposing tariffs on us, or even fail to export their goods altogether. If those industries close or scale down, it's synonymous with job losses here.
yes like I said, but this is the broken window fallacy... http://bit.ly/LtgQ3z I can go around breaking windows everywhere, now jobs for window makers, installers will go up... But it's unproductive work and therefore a waste of money.
There are plenty of examples (including long periods of history, as others have pointed out) of government intervention in the economy being very beneficial. I know that fans of the Austrian school have a tendency to disregard reality, but to argue that government intervention has never been beneficial is taking it to another level.
The end does not justify the means. To violate rights is to commit a crime and is never beneficial. If you have respect for the Rational Faculty of man, then you will allow him to use it to make his own decisions between mutually consenting adults. There is no reason to curb it. Just as government and religion should be separate, so should government and economy... anytime a government enters into it... it is bound to bring in it's religion(any belief not based on reason) and so it does... that's why they flooded JP Morgan. http://nyti.ms/Khrsm2 for only losing 2 billion dollars in a risky investment they took. While California is losing 16 billion dollars and the government does nothing(not that it should) Why should the gov't be interfering with JP doing business as usual?
Government intervention in the economy is not a violation of rights, unless you believe taxes are a violation of rights, and in that case you're in the (very small) minority - and your opinion that they violate rights does not make it a fact. If you seriously consider that government intervention in the economy is intrinsically bad, you are ignoring the economic history of modern societies and the positive results government interventions have had both in specific cases, during particular crises, and over longer periods of time. No mainstream economist (from keynesians to neoliberals) believes government intervention in the economy is never beneficial. None.
Yes, all involuntary taxes are a violation of rights and therefore bad... And that I am in a minority doesn't defeat the argument. If you want just one of my sources read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - Ayn Rand... it's non fiction with plenty of examples from history contra your claims. And it's cheap.
Atlas Shrugged - If you want to be taken thoroughly through a world in which Capitalism is dying(much like today but with clear cut examples)
Economics in One Lesson: Henry Hazlitt (as linked to the Broken Window Fallacy) - I have it in paperback http://amzn.to/KvU21o - Mises
The ideas presented in these books have not been defeated, only ignored. Rights are inalienable no matter what majority wants to take them away. If you want a proof of what gives rise to "Rights" then ask.
Just a quick 2 cents: I can't help but feel that in this (and most) discussions, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism and communism actually is. Leninist and Marxist communism relies upon the utter dismantlement of the free market altogether, replaced by the state. For anyone to claim that Obama or any mainstream liberal in the US believes this is pure delusion. Objectively and factually, Obama is not a socialist.
The problem may lie in the fact that both liberal/social democratic ideologies and socialist ones often use similar language to describe things which are really rather different. Case in point: "redistribution of wealth". To the socialist, this means that all wealth should be distributed equally amongst all persons so that all are on a level footing. For liberals, however, this is more likely to mean that there should be systems in place to ensure that the super-wealthy cannot establish an aristocracy of sorts, whereby wealth is concentrated in a self-perpetuating elite class which denies the poor any reasonably opportunity to succeed. The phrase goes hand-in-hand with "equality of opportunity", which liberals often interpret as the true spirit of the philosophy of the founding fathers, though obviously Conservatives disagree.
Someone posted a link to a website which listed a load of rather kooky claims to somehow prove that Obama is a socialist, but could only do so with bucketfuls of dubious evidence, assumptions based upon his associations and history (for instance, that his parents met in a college class on the USSR is evidence that they were communist-sympathisers), and a definition of 'socialist' which would if applied to Europe would make it look like the soviets had actually won the cold war. When one changes the goalposts and changes the meaning of words to anything whatsoever, ignoring such inconvenient things such as fact or meaning, actual discussion or discourse becomes nigh-impossible.
Though, admittedly, this same thing happened to an extent during the bush era, a large deal of the opposition to Obama has become like a conspiracy theory on how he is some sort of terrifying authoritarian socialist (I would certainly recommend reading this piece on the ideology of conspiracy, the crux of which is that for the conspiracy theorist, no evidence can stand against your theory, since you have already decided that it's true, and any evidence against it is just the machinations of the conspiracy) which is becoming more and more disengaged from reality.
It seems pretty obvious that the biggest problem in the US is the partisan polarisation which has infected nearly all parts of politics over the past 2 decades, and one side libelling the other McCarthy-style as socialists is hardly helping on that score.
On May 28 2012 09:55 Iskusstvo wrote: ...... It seems pretty obvious that the biggest problem in the US is the partisan polarisation which has infected nearly all parts of politics over the past 2 decades, and one side libelling the other McCarthy-style as socialists is hardly helping on that score.
Yes this is one of the major problems in american politics today. The problem is, when so many people profit off of the idea of such polarization and its increase, how do you counter it?
CNN is on the decline when they were the closest thing to a center oriented media outlet that there was on television, while fox news is the biggest news outlet in the us, achieving this by having a business strategy that involves catering to one political ideology, with hosts and guests calling anyone who disagrees with them traitors, communists, and threats to our country/the world?
People expect to be entertained constantly in today's world, and the news is no exception.
Good news is boring, controversy is sexy, and shouting and fighting is gold.
Unfortunately getting anything done or having any discourse becomes less and less likely as a result of this. There is a whole movement in our political parties devoted to removing already sitting politicians if they dare to commit the grievious offense of appearing to meet the other side on the middle ground on any issue ever. There are politicians who swear oaths to never close loopholes or raise taxes unless it results in even less tax income being brought in, and on the other side you have people unwilling to make necessary cuts to programs that are bloated.
On May 28 2012 09:55 Iskusstvo wrote: It seems pretty obvious that the biggest problem in the US is the partisan polarisation which has infected nearly all parts of politics over the past 2 decades, and one side libelling the other McCarthy-style as socialists is hardly helping on that score.
On May 28 2012 09:55 Iskusstvo wrote: It seems pretty obvious that the biggest problem in the US is the partisan polarisation which has infected nearly all parts of politics over the past 2 decades, and one side libelling the other McCarthy-style as socialists is hardly helping on that score.
That's the percentage of moderates in the House of Representatives. They lay out the method to determine this in the blog.
A few weeks ago Jon Stewart's show showed a clip of the republican nominee who is replacing the incumbent Dick Lugar on the ballot this fall. The nominee defined 'bipartisanship' as making the democrats do exactly what the republicans tell them to do.
Also Olympia Snowe is retiring from the Senate, from a seat she would assuredly win again in November, saying:
“Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term,” Snowe said in a statement.
On May 28 2012 09:13 kwizach wrote: It is positive (in most cases, at least). All other things being equal, people having jobs is better than people being unemployed.
that's a false alternative, they would have different jobs instead.
Not necessarily, no. Look at every modern society, both today and historically, and you will see that what you just claimed is wrong.
On May 27 2012 20:33 Epocalypse wrote: it would be better to import the same product at a cheaper rate... paying more money is paying more money... the extra money could have gone to cancer treatment for example.
I don't see how it would necessarily be better overall (you'd have to measure to net impact over both the consumers and the people who lost their jobs). (and tbh your "cancer treatment" comment is nonsensical)
It was just an example, health care, motor boat... fill in the blank, the point is that you would have more freed up money if you spent less on your tariffed product. There's no way to measure "the net impact" and there's no necessity. Freeing up funds to do something more productive is always better, that doesn't mean something more productive will be figured out... but the point remains that funds you do not waste are funds you can spend on something else.
No, it's not necessarily "always better" to have 3% less to spend on a given product - I just explained why: if it means unemployment for thousands or tens of thousands of people and the destruction/non-existence of certain industries, the net impact of the absence of tariffs can be negative (again, I'm certainly not saying it's always the case, or even that it is the case most of the time).
On May 27 2012 20:33 Epocalypse wrote: Other countries imposing tariffs on us doesn't matter, it just means the industry won't grow big enough to support the world, but ultimately the biggest loser is the country that imposes the tariff pricing their consumers out of the market.
It does matter, because it means our industries which export goods will be less competitive in the countries imposing tariffs on us, or even fail to export their goods altogether. If those industries close or scale down, it's synonymous with job losses here.
yes like I said, but this is the broken window fallacy... http://bit.ly/LtgQ3z I can go around breaking windows everywhere, now jobs for window makers, installers will go up... But it's unproductive work and therefore a waste of money.
Erm, no, that has absolutely nothing to do with the broken window fallacy. It's not unproductive work either. It's protected productive work.
There are plenty of examples (including long periods of history, as others have pointed out) of government intervention in the economy being very beneficial. I know that fans of the Austrian school have a tendency to disregard reality, but to argue that government intervention has never been beneficial is taking it to another level.
The end does not justify the means. To violate rights is to commit a crime and is never beneficial. If you have respect for the Rational Faculty of man, then you will allow him to use it to make his own decisions between mutually consenting adults. There is no reason to curb it. Just as government and religion should be separate, so should government and economy... anytime a government enters into it... it is bound to bring in it's religion(any belief not based on reason) and so it does... that's why they flooded JP Morgan. http://nyti.ms/Khrsm2 for only losing 2 billion dollars in a risky investment they took. While California is losing 16 billion dollars and the government does nothing(not that it should) Why should the gov't be interfering with JP doing business as usual?
Government intervention in the economy is not a violation of rights, unless you believe taxes are a violation of rights, and in that case you're in the (very small) minority - and your opinion that they violate rights does not make it a fact. If you seriously consider that government intervention in the economy is intrinsically bad, you are ignoring the economic history of modern societies and the positive results government interventions have had both in specific cases, during particular crises, and over longer periods of time. No mainstream economist (from keynesians to neoliberals) believes government intervention in the economy is never beneficial. None.
Yes, all involuntary taxes are a violation of rights and therefore bad... And that I am in a minority doesn't defeat the argument.
It does, because rights are a social construct. What constitutes a right and what constitutes a violation of a right is defined by individuals and groups/societies. You calling taxes a violation of rights is perfectly fine, it's your opinion, but it is most certainly not an objective fact. In this case, the rest of society considers that taxes are not a violation of rights, notably because society does not share your view of rights. What's more, since it can be argued that rights and violation of rights are defined by and for certain societies, you being in the clear minority makes your statement that taxes are a violation of rights wrong for the society you live in.
On May 27 2012 20:33 Epocalypse wrote: If you want just one of my sources read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - Ayn Rand... it's non fiction with plenty of examples from history contra your claims. And it's cheap.
Atlas Shrugged - If you want to be taken thoroughly through a world in which Capitalism is dying(much like today but with clear cut examples)
Economics in One Lesson: Henry Hazlitt (as linked to the Broken Window Fallacy) - I have it in paperback http://amzn.to/KvU21o - Mises
The ideas presented in these books have not been defeated, only ignored. Rights are inalienable no matter what majority wants to take them away. If you want a proof of what gives rise to "Rights" then ask.
Please, Ayn Rand is a joke to anyone who actually understands political philosophy and/or economics. And to be honest, I find it quite laughable that someone who adheres to the Austrian school of economics would tell me that "examples from history" support his position. The Austrian school has a tendency to disregard (or rather completely change) economic history (and no need to tell me of Mises and Rothbard's interest for history, I know) and to reject empirical observation for logical analysis. The ideas of Austrian economists can and have been defeated - in fact, their analyses about our contemporary world are still being defeated today.
edit: short parenthesis: when you reply to people, please use the normal "quote" function instead of separating your replies from the replies of the person you're responding to without putting his name. Your way of doing it makes it a nightmare to quote and reply to you.
I read an interesting article discussing how Obama and Romney are both victims of the polarization in Washington.
Obama came in with plans to form a bipartisan coalition, work across the aisle and all that stuff, but the Washington he thought would be there for him wasn't there. Instead, he found a bunch of intractable Republicans and had to drive through the best he could. So now he can be accused of not working with Republicans, not accomplishing much, etc.
On the other hand, Romney used to be pretty moderate guy. However, the movement of the Republican party to the far right hurt him as hell. He had a decent record to run on... if he weren't one of them. He's been forced to run away from a good portion of his record instead of on it. He's kind of okay now because he's the presumptive nominee, but being pushed so far to the right has definitely hurt him as well.
On May 28 2012 11:01 ticklishmusic wrote: I read an interesting article discussing how Obama and Romney are both victims of the polarization in Washington.
Obama came in with plans to form a bipartisan coalition, work across the aisle and all that stuff, but the Washington he thought would be there for him wasn't there. Instead, he found a bunch of intractable Republicans and had to drive through the best he could. So now he can be accused of not working with Republicans, not accomplishing much, etc.
On the other hand, Romney used to be pretty moderate guy. However, the movement of the Republican party to the far right hurt him as hell. He had a decent record to run on... if he weren't one of them. He's been forced to run away from a good portion of his record instead of on it. He's kind of okay now because he's the presumptive nominee, but being pushed so far to the right has definitely hurt him as well.
In a way, I hope he leads his party by opposing some of more ridiculous positions House Republicans take. Right now, that bastion of right wing nutjobs is leading the Republican party policy, and it's very frightening.
On May 26 2012 13:17 kwizach wrote: I said bailouts and regulations. The sector's doing much better now - the bailout of the auto companies was a success. While currently it may seem that American auto-companies are successful I question the ability to compete in the emerging hybrid market. The way I see it american motor companies are still stuck in an area of the market (the SUV) that will continue to be unsuccessful on international and domestic markets.
Well, so far, they've been successful.
Why not simply remove tariffs and let the Japanese produce cars way better, and far cheaper than we can. That way we can allocate the funds put into American auto industry somewhere better.
Define successful so far... as in they haven't bankrupted yet? What are their profits like?
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill
I'm not sure what tariffs and taxes have to do with what we were discussing, but 1. those tariffs are helping save jobs and 2. Churchill's quote is not an argument, so there's really nothing to say here except that government intervention in the economy is a vital part of the history of most modern societies and that intervention is only possible because of the money raised by taxes.
Now, regarding your question, a link was provided to you by someone else to show how well the auto industry has been doing since the bailout. Given your response to that poster, I don't really see how you can be convinced. If the auto industry was doing bad, you'd be saying "see? it's proof the bailouts were a bad idea", but since it's doing well you're saying "it won't last". No amount of evidence will do against this line of reasoning :-)
1. The goal of an economy is not to save jobs, it is to increase standard of living. Tariffs do the opposite of this as they force the entire society to pay more for a given product than they would have to absent the tariff. Obviously this is detrimental to the economy as money that could be used to purchase other products and create jobs in other industries is instead wasted subsidizing noncompetitive companies that would not exist in a free market. This is not beneficial to an economy and ignores the most basic concept of comparative advantage which is the whole reason trade exists in the first place. Further, a basic understanding of economics tells us that tariffs most certainly are not saving jobs. When you subsidize a company or a specific industry you divert money from other profitable sectors of the economy. The money has to come from somewhere and therefore there is always an unseen cost that you have to account for. When capital is diverted in order to subsidize one company the cost of capital increases and the supply of it decreases for other companies.
First of all, the economy itself does not have a "goal", as someone else pointed out. Second, tariffs can have both positive effects (for example, protecting an industry and the jobs attached to it) and negative effects (for example, other countries start imposing tariffs on the goods we export) - in addition to consumers having to pay more for a foreign product. The positive effects can certainly sometimes outweigh the negative effects, meaning tariffs have a net beneficial impact on a country's economy and on the well-being of its citizens. A "basic understanding of economy" will tell you that tariffs have saved jobs in the past and have helped countless countries develop their own industries which would initially not have been able to compete with other countries' if it wasn't for them. Of course, the negative effects can very well outweigh the positive effects as well. Saying tariffs are necessarily and automatically bad in every situation is, however, contrary to what can be directly observed in the economic history of both the US and the rest of the world.
On May 27 2012 07:51 Vegetarian wrote: 2. Government intervention in the economy has never been shown to be beneficial. If you actually look at the history of modern societies you will see that the countries that intervened most in their economies had the lowest standards of living. Where, the countries that had the lowest taxes and freest markets experienced the highest levels of growth and the highest standards of living. After all, the United States became the most powerful economy in the world during the period that it had no income tax and the fewest regulations on the market.
Sorry, that's just not true. There are plenty of examples (including long periods of history, as others have pointed out) of government intervention in the economy being very beneficial. I know that fans of the Austrian school have a tendency to disregard reality, but to argue that government intervention has never been beneficial is taking it to another level.
1. The idea that tariffs can be beneficial is a common fallacy espoused by those who lack a basic understanding of markets and how they function. In capitalism markets attempt to make the most efficient allocation of resources so as not to waste resources, for that would lead to a lower standard of living. Trade occurs in the market because people have different skill sets which allow them to produce a product or offer a service better than someone else. Instead of everyone farming their own food, making their own clothing, building their own homes, ect, people tend to have one specialty while trading for everything else. Obviously trade is beneficial and allows for a better allocation of resources as people are only spending time doing what they do more efficiently than others.
Internationally trade often occurs because a company or companies in one country, for whatever reason, can produce a product a service more efficiently than companies a different country. A tariff is sometimes imposed when foreign companies become much more efficient at producing a product or service. If it isn't clear to you yet, a tariff defeats the entire purpose of trade. By imposing an added cost on an import from a country that is able to produce a product more efficiently that country is no longer reaping the benefits of trade. They are instead stubbornly subsidizing a company that has shown it can not compete with foreign companies. This means that as these companies continue to operate they are wasting the economies resources doing something that another company can do better. When this same phenomenon occurs between companies located within the same geographical boundaries the government does not step in to "save" the jobs of a company that is losing market share to a more efficient company. The less efficient companies fail and their employees are hired by more efficient competitors. That is how capitalism works. Do you think an economy would succeed if all it did was subsidize any company that began to fail?
2. My second point actually is true and if you disagree I would encourage you to search for an example of a government intervention in any economy that you believe was beneficial. And, I am certain I will be able to explain to you why it was not.
On May 28 2012 10:38 kwizach wrote: The ideas of Austrian economists can and have been defeated - in fact, their analyses about our contemporary world are still being defeated today..
I am curious how you came to this conclusion. How do you explain the following video of Ben Bernanke's analysis of the economy prior to the recession:
In contrast here is a video of a prominent Austrian economist analyzing the economy during the same period:
I was under the impression that the Austrian school predicted and explains the current economic crises while the other economic schools of thought did not see any problem in the economy prior to the recession that their models failed to predict or explain.
EPT
