What Do Dem's need to do...

CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Oh, FYI, Lincoln was about to make slavery a constitutinal right before the war started. That was all political. The republicans and democrats kinda switched positions in the early 20's, too. The liberals think we foght a war to free the slaves, but we really just fought to keep the south from seceding from the union.
Oh I'm no fan of Lincoln. In my opinion he was one of our worst presidents. He presided over the biggest single centralization of power in American history, loved inflationary spending practices, and didn't give two shits about freeing slaves until he thought it would get Englandon his side in the Civil War. My point was that even in the context of their own myth of history they're clueless.
 
EEmain

EEmain

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
The reasons Kerry lost were:

1) Same sex marriage
2) Gun control
3)Abortion
4)Stem cell research

1-3-4 lost Kerry, a Catholic, nearly 60% of the Catholic vote.
Do you even need to explain #2(NRA). Had Kerry been against
1 or 2 he is president elect today.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
The reasons Kerry lost were:

1) Same sex marriage
2) Gun control
3)Abortion
4)Stem cell research

1-3-4 lost Kerry, a Catholic, nearly 60% of the Catholic vote.
Do you even need to explain #2(NRA). Had Kerry been against
1 or 2 he is president elect today.
Kerry's opinion on same sex marriage is essentially the same as Bush's. There's some truth to what you say, but there's more to it than that. The dems are getting more and more hysterical with every election.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Oh I'm no fan of Lincoln. In my opinion he was one of our worst presidents. He presided over the biggest single centralization of power in American history, loved inflationary spending practices, and didn't give two shits about freeing slaves until he thought it would get Englandon his side in the Civil War. My point was that even in the context of their own myth of history they're clueless.
Gotcha ;) You're 100% right on!
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
The reasons Kerry lost were:

1) Same sex marriage
2) Gun control
3)Abortion
4)Stem cell research

1-3-4 lost Kerry, a Catholic, nearly 60% of the Catholic vote.
Do you even need to explain #2(NRA). Had Kerry been against
1 or 2 he is president elect today.
If Kerry were either for or against the issues and not both for and against, he may have won. But in all honestly, I just don't think that people were willing to give up GWB when it comes to the War on Terror.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
There are times when certain liberal, and dare I say, socialist policies, are for the greater good. Take oh, I dunno, THE DEPRESSION. Government construction projects and tons of government programs, including social security, were all instituted during the depression. Without them, we arguably would never have recovered well enough to have been able to handle WWII. But you of course say that ANY liberal policies are evil and anyone who disagrees with you is a blind leftwing nutcase and too stupid to "see the light" of you wonderful vision of this superworld where everyone is capable of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and there is no such thing as a position of poverty that is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to get out of without government intervention. A position of poverty that people are born into every day. In greater and greater numbers too with all the lost jobs.


Welfare is overboard, I agree with that. Foodstamps are arguably not necessary either. But saying a working mother below the povertyline isn't entitled to some meager help with childcare will just force her to stay below the povertyline her whole life. It outright prevents anyone born into that kind of poverty to EVER advance without resorting to criminal behavior. Oh sure, but don't believe me. CLose your eyes to what happens every friggin day in the inner cities.


How's this for an idea. How about no government at all. How about complete Anarchy. That way everybody can REALLY fend for themselves and truly try to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Getting shot at by a bunch of hoodlums. Quit whining! Go out a grab a fucking gun and shoot back you little crybaby! Who needs a police force, people should learn to protect themselves! It worked for the Mongol hoard didn't it? Public schools? Screw you, people should learn to read right and do math on their own! It isn't the government's job to teach people.
 
EEmain

EEmain

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
It is that simple no need to make it complex.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
There are times when certain liberal, and dare I say, socialist policies, are for the greater good. Take oh, I dunno, THE DEPRESSION. Government construction projects and tons of government programs, including social security, were all instituted during the depression. Without them, we arguably would never have recovered well enough to have been able to handle WWII. But you of course say that ANY liberal policies are evil and anyone who disagrees with you is a blind leftwing nutcase and too stupid to "see the light" of you wonderful vision of this superworld where everyone is capable of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and there is no such thing as a position of poverty that is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to get out of without government intervention. A position of poverty that people are born into every day. In greater and greater numbers too with all the lost jobs.
What exactly did the gov't do during the depression? They put people to work!!!!! They created projects that expanded infrastructure, that benifited businesses, therefore creating new jobs. They didn't just sit back and tax the people who still had money to pay for the poor during the depression. They gave the poor jobs that made the rich richer, therefore creating private jobs in the process. Free medical, free welfare, free childcare, etc. did not bring us out of the recession. People working and creating more private businesses did. If the government gave those people who are born into that position of poverty money for work--which makes perfect sense; you give a person money, why not work for it????--such as expanding freeways, etc. taxpayers money would be well spent. They're paying the government to make their lives easier by expanding infrastructure, etc. Now, put that next to the fact that when people recieve money now, they don't have to do anything....they just need to sit back, have babies and get MORE MONEY FOR NOTHING!!! Those weren't "liberal" policies you speak of in the great depression; at least not liberal in the way liberals define themselves in this day and age. Those were policies that were set which gave out jobs, not free money. Free money == liberal. Work for money != (not equal to) liberal.
Welfare is overboard, I agree with that. Foodstamps are arguably not necessary either. But saying a working mother below the povertyline isn't entitled to some meager help with childcare will just force her to stay below the povertyline her whole life. It outright prevents anyone born into that kind of poverty to EVER advance without resorting to criminal behavior. Oh sure, but don't believe me. CLose your eyes to what happens every friggin day in the inner cities.
Funny, my cousing (a complete wierdo) just took a trip to Massachusets. He decided to live in homeless shelters while he was there. He was entitled to food stamps and so were the rest of the people there. Now, every so often they would be offered jobs, etc. NOBODY WANTED TO WORK. When my cousin asked around WHY he was repeatedly told that the reason is because they would lose their foodstamps and would have to work instead to make money. Again, these inner city people can just sit back and have kids without taking responsibility for anything in their lives because their subsidized for being lazy morons who breed gang bangin' trash! Why in the flaming **** do we subsidize this ****???? Here's $1000 / month, have a few fucking gansters for us ghetto mom!! -- Government Then, we'll pay for their prison time and meals too! We'll spend additional money trying to stop them from smuggling and selling drugs, we'll hire more cops because your kids burglarize liquor stores, and then when they finally knock another ghetto slut up, we'll just pay them for the same **** and the cycle repeats. Right, exactly what I want. I want to pay ghetto trash to have little fucking gangsters. And then I'll sit back and get racially discriminated against in the education system in the process, all while I work, go to school, and plan for my future. What a fucking deall! Man, why would I ever want a self reliant world where people are responsible for their own decisions and are forced to make the right ones because if they don't there are actually consequences for their actions? Boy, those people who think we don't need government are idiots, right? :rolleyes: (please note the sarcasm)
How's this for an idea. How about no government at all. How about complete Anarchy. That way everybody can REALLY fend for themselves and truly try to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
You know, we had that at one time. There's this saying, "only the strong survive". Well, look around the world right now. Considering we all started in the same little spot in African, how did we all end up in such different places as such different people? Civilization was bred of anarchy. We want order and safety in our lives, we just don't want to pay for the lazy. I'll never understand why people like you think it's your job to decide how much money you can take from me to give to someone who worked less...Why the **** should I work if my money is being stolen and given to somebody who won't make the same sacrifices in life that I will?

Now, if a lady has a kid with cerebral palsy and he can't walk and she needs to be there to whipe his ass and bathe him, etc. I'll gladly give a truly needy person a big fat chunk of my change. There are truly needy people who are being robbed of money they could really use by lazy fucks. Don't you see what's wrong with this picture?

If a person who has enough money to have a family has a disabled child that ends up being a financial burden, that's an accident, that's not an irresponsibiity on their part and any humane person would volunteer their share of pennies to help them.

Now, if a poor ghetto whore decides to have 4 kids INSTEAD OF USING THE FREE BIRTH CONTROL AFFORDED TO HER, that was irresponsible and her actions should not be subsidized and her actions should not be validated; she should take responsibility forher actions. Go out, get a job, get an education, just don't have any more damn kids!!! Dont' have kids in teh first place if you can't handle it. This is part of the reason abortion is necessary, people can't afford to have kids sometimes. Have an abortion and get on the pill until you've got a financial foundation to build a family on. I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLE'S STUPIDITY NOR AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, SO WHY SHOULD I BE FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE THEIR BAD DECISIONS WITH MY HARD EARNED MONEY?!?!?
Getting shot at by a bunch of hoodlums. Quit whining! Go out a grab a fucking gun and shoot back you little crybaby! Who needs a police force, people should learn to protect themselves! It worked for the Mongol hoard didn't it? Public schools? Screw you, people should learn to read right and do math on their own! It isn't the government's job to teach people.
It's the government' job to do what the people tell them to do.

Plus, don't you understand? Private school would be much cheaper if they were a person's only option. If a person didnt' get taxed and had to pay funds to send their children to a school of their choosing, schools would be more competitive, more productive, better, etc. That would create jobs that you only paid for if you're recieving a service. After all, why should a person who doesn't have kids pay for my kid to go to school?

If everybody carried loaded guns, like they do in certain wester states ;), there would probably be a much lower crime rate. If you were in a convenient store with 10 other people, each of which have a gun, how are you going to rob the place? Look at washington DC with the most strict gun policies in teh country, they're the most liberal in the country, and they have the highest crime rate in the country!! There are western conservative states that offere relaxed gun laws and have very low crime rates. Your point is completely lame.

You don't seem to understand though. The whole reason we have a central government is to protect us and serve us. We do not need them to tell us what to do with our money. We are supposed to tell them what they can do with our money.

I also dont' think that people who are recieving hand outs should have the right to vote to recieve more handouts. Talk about a positive feedback system with negative effects!! That's what we have here!

I just saw a great bumper sticker today...lololol..."Vote Democrat, it's easier than working." This sickening part is it's true!! That's only part of the reason why I hate that party along with the left wing lunatics who run and follow it.

It's late and I'm tired...I know I was jumping around a lot, but you can still get the point.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Jesus you didn't read a damn thing I said.

You talked on an on about welfare and people not working when I explicitly said welfare is a piece of **** and has to go. What I advocate is childcare but ONLY for people who work and don't make enough money to pay for childcare on their own. READ: ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK. You've never been anywhere near that kind of situation so you could never ever in your life ever possibly understand what it is like. You have no validity because you've never been there yourself. You've never been without a safety net. You've always had a job, family, or connections to fall back onto in your times of need. You've never been flat broke with literally NOWHERE to go and no way to get enough money to get back on your feet. All the while trying to raise a child. You haven't done that and you don't know anybody who has.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Jesus you didn't read a damn thing I said.

You talked on an on about welfare and people not working when I explicitly said welfare is a piece of **** and has to go. What I advocate is childcare but ONLY for people who work and don't make enough money to pay for childcare on their own. READ: ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK. You've never been anywhere near that kind of situation so you could never ever in your life ever possibly understand what it is like. You have no validity because you've never been there yourself. You've never been without a safety net. You've always had a job, family, or connections to fall back onto in your times of need. You've never been flat broke with literally NOWHERE to go and no way to get enough money to get back on your feet. All the while trying to raise a child. You haven't done that and you don't know anybody who has.
I read exactly what you said...I meant to respond to your welfare statement, but being that it's late and I was tired, I forgot and went off on some tanget...food stamps triggered the thought.

But the part about a working mother being entitled to something is about the only thing I agree with in that whole entire post.

I'm also not suprised you act like you know my lifelong situation. For gods sake I've lived in a trailer, and I've had my whole family renting out a single bedroom, I though I was coming up in life when we had 8 people in a 2 bedroom apartment, then 5 in a 900 sq ft. house! Nope, not I or my immediate family have the slightest clue about poverty or being broke. :rolleyes: Hell, I coulnd't even count on my dad b/c he was out of state recovering from a cocaine addiction for quite a while. Talk about shitty conditions. Now, I wasn't the bread winner, my mom was. But I saw her do it. Yeah, she had family, but they can't pay for her life; they don't have enough money. The statement about having NOBODY to fall back on to is extremely far fetched. You're implying that the person has no friends, no family, has no social skills, and is probably hideously ugly....liek the elephant man. Hell, even the elephant man had someone to turn to, the Dr. Turning to somebody may help a little bit, but then again you look past the point that only you can make the decision about where to go and how to advance from your current situation. You don't need somebody to fall back onto to make it. It helps, but you don't need them. All you need is to take responsibility for yourself. Oh and FYI, mom single working mom had 4 kids and 2 step kids....we had money, go screwed over, wen't broke, dad got hurt and coulnd't work, got addicted, divorce, etc, etc. I remember rough times. I was old enough to be sad, embarassed, angry...etc. Did my mom turn into some POS ghetto slime, live off of the gov't? No. Did her kids turn out to be little POS hooligans? No. All of that by herself for a long ass time. Eventually things came together, but she had to work for it.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
I said over and over that I am totally and completely against welfare. Yes people need contribute to society if they are to receive anything in return. The idea of giving anything away for free is horse####.

How about this idea. Businesses that offer childcare to employees, especially low wage employees, get a big fat tax break based on the cost of the childcare. That's an idea I like when I think about it, and it would work way better than the government giving it directly to the people. It would cut costs and most likely actually improve the quality of the childcare as well. To top it off, it guarantees that the person has to be working in the first place in order to get childcare.


Just so you know, when I talk about childcare, I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about daycare for their kids being provided.
 

serengo

Member
Awards
0
Welfare is overboard, I agree with that. Foodstamps are arguably not necessary either.
Heh, Bob Dole gave us food stamps. Not all shitty ideas come from Democrats. Republicans have NEVER "shrunk the Government". They talk about it, but in the last 50 years they do not have a record of doing it. I'm basically Libertarian also, but that party attracts such fringe elements that I find I can't identify with the people who represent it, mainly I agree with the ideology. The beauracracy of the federal government is such that any "program" designed to help anyone is ultimately bogged down and prohibitively expensive. Help is better afforded people who genuinely need it by local charity and church. If the federal government would get it's hands out of my pockets, I could do more to support such organizations. Instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor (not that I agree with that way of thinking), federal level programs take from everyone and give more than half back to feed an ever growing government machine. Conservatives do not lack empathy for those who genuinely need help, they just disagree with the source of that help coming from the government. Health care is a perfect example. Nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does it say, "All americans have a right to health care." (free, affordable or otherwise) Politicians get into office and pass legislation and spending bills, because they feel the government should do more to help a given group of people. As soon as you go down that road, you are doomed to fail. Whether the program works initially or not. It may truly help people, however depending on the government ultimately hurts everyone by increasing taxes. That is the bottom line. All this government "help" increases taxes, which hurts
everyone.
 
Last edited:

PC1

Guest
I think this thread has gotten off on a tangent, albeit an interesting one.

Here in liberalsville USA (Massachusetts) I recently heard a lib talk show host discussing gay marraige. She's a Catholic, and questions her church's position on gay marraige, and was also questioning the country's general position against gay marraige by a nearly 2-1 majority. She ended up saying "We're right, eventually the rest of the country will catch up with us". Her co-host, was exhorting liberals not to despair because if Kerry had only won Ohio, that would have been enough for him to win the electoral college and would be the next president (he seemed to forget that for the past 4 years, at every opportunity he could, he reminded us that Gore had some 500,000 odd more votes than Bush in the popular vote....... but I digress). And afterwards, they talked about this US map that's kicking around this week that divides the US between the two schools of thought....... the blue states being the "United States of Canada" and the red states being "Jesusland".

I think it's easy for we conservatives to sit back and tell the liberals to suck it up, to rethink their positions because they're out of step with mainstream America, etc. But when the elections have been dominated by the Dems, when have we been willing to do the same?

Just think about gay marraige........... if it had a 2-1 margin of public approval in FAVOR of it, how flexible would we be in adopting that? Religious conservatives in particular, have several biblical passages that speak to God's abhorrence of homosexual acts. If we believe the Bible is God's word, how can we make such a compromise in our views when it speaks so clearly against it? The female talk show host I cited earlier simply believes that either the bible is out of date, inaccurate, or that she and others like her simply know better. It's this attitude of "knowing better" that I find particularly disturbing. The Bible has stood the test of time for 2,000 years now as being the foundation our faith is based upon, yet she and liberals like her simply dismiss it because she knows better.

But that's what we're dealing with here.

The blue state liberals view themselves as being better educated, more enlightened, culturally more diverse, and overall, intellectually superior than their conservative, religious red state counterparts. In light of that, they are no more willing to reassess their convictions and principles than we are.

I believe that both conservative and liberal principles are not going to change any time soon. Instead, what we're going to get each election cycle from both sides, is a new wave of lipstick, makeup, and slick marketing designed to woo the electorate into thinking that each side is more moderate, tolerant and in step with mainstream America. The effort then, is for the Dems to get the pendulum of public opinion to swing to the left, and for the Republicans to push it to the right. And then once each election is over, it's right back to business as usual.

So the fight is not about either side changing it's principles to accommodate popular opinion, it's about changing perceptions of popular opinion to view which side is "right" during the current election.

The battleground post election cycle then becomes the Judicial branch, and for we conservatives, the name of the game is to pull that to our side. If we're going to have 1 or more vacancies there during the next 4 years, that's the holy grail. Expect the Dems to pull out every last trick and tactic they can muster to fight each and every Bush appointment.

Bottom line: We can forget any sense of reconciliation or "healing" anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
There are times when certain liberal, and dare I say, socialist policies, are for the greater good. Take oh, I dunno, THE DEPRESSION. Government construction projects and tons of government programs, including social security, were all instituted during the depression. Without them, we arguably would never have recovered well enough to have been able to handle WWII.
Actually without them we would have recovered from the depression sooner than we did. Government intervention in the economy prolongs depressions, it doesn't shorten them. By pulling productive capital out of the private market and adding to the aggregate spending stream of the economy the government puts off the necessary economic corrections that need to take place. The whole keynseyian idea that recessions are caused by a fall in consumer spening is wrong, and doesn't fit the evidence. If it were that way retail markets would be the first and fastest to fall, when instead they are last and the least to fall. Depressions hit capital goods markets first and hardest, indicating a severe economic distortion which caused investors to favor long term production and future goods when people weren't in fact spending that way. The source of this faulty signal is monetary mismanagement by the Federal Reserve. By making bank credit and raw cash more available they send an erroneous signal to investors to invest in capital goods and production rather than consumer goods. When this error is exposed you end up with a depression, tons of businesses take losses and prices both of materials and labor in capital goods markets fall like a rock. The government can't solve this problem, it can only make it worse by increasing taxes, further inflation and subsidizing failing businesses, all of which delay the necessary liquidations and market corrections.

But you of course say that ANY liberal policies are evil and anyone who disagrees with you is a blind leftwing nutcase and too stupid to "see the light" of you wonderful vision of this superworld where everyone is capable of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and there is no such thing as a position of poverty that is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to get out of without government intervention. A position of poverty that people are born into every day. In greater and greater numbers too with all the lost jobs.
To be blunt, yes. Anyone who still thinks leftist, socialist economic policies have any chance of success is severely lacking in brains. I don't doubt there are some people who are in dire poverty, who find it almost impossible to get out. That's why I donate to charity, which is my choice. No one has any business forcing me to give money to someone else via taxation and wealth transfer. As for the actual condition of poverty, you'll find with a very little study that when it's not due to the person's own poor choices and their failure to learn from them, it's almost always the government that perpetuates poverty, usually by engaging in extremely stupid economic policies that don't ever allow the cost of living to fall.

For example inflation, which is essentially wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the rich. By making more credit and cash available to certain select businesses and investors the government is giving them extra money to spend that has today's buying power. By the time it filters through the system and normal people like me see it, it's already devalued as are my savings. Thus people demand more of it in return for the same products and services. That is the familiar price rise which most people erroneously think is inflation. Inflation is the actual expansion of the money and credit supplies, the price rise is just an after effect.

The end result of such policies is a constant bidding of the prices of land higher, but by the time the the same effect bids up the prices of labor the currency is already devalued so buying all the bare necessities of life, like a place to live, takes an even higher percentage of a person's income.

Welfare is overboard, I agree with that. Foodstamps are arguably not necessary either. But saying a working mother below the povertyline isn't entitled to some meager help with childcare will just force her to stay below the povertyline her whole life. It outright prevents anyone born into that kind of poverty to EVER advance without resorting to criminal behavior. Oh sure, but don't believe me. CLose your eyes to what happens every friggin day in the inner cities.
That is welfare. Why did she have the kid without being able to afford it? You're honestly telling me she couldn't balance the cost of raising a child compared to that of a rubber, a birth control pill, a morning after pill, or an abortion? She may in fact live in poverty her whole life if she doesn't begin to learn to make smarter choices. The surest way to ensure she never learns to make smarter choices is to constantly support her after she makes them. Exactly what is stopping her from asking someone for help, a charity a church? Asking someone to voluntarily help her? Usually such help will come with qualifications, such as we'll help you with the kid but you need to start showing us you can behave responsibly. Go to school, go to church, try to better yourself, not just lean on someone else for your entire life.

How's this for an idea. How about no government at all. How about complete Anarchy. That way everybody can REALLY fend for themselves and truly try to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Getting shot at by a bunch of hoodlums. Quit whining! Go out a grab a fucking gun and shoot back you little crybaby! Who needs a police force, people should learn to protect themselves! It worked for the Mongol hoard didn't it? Public schools? Screw you, people should learn to read right and do math on their own! It isn't the government's job to teach people.
The ideal world would be anarcho capitalist, where all exchanges are voluntary and no one used force or fraud against another. However this is not an ideal world and you'll find most people accept the need for some amount of government.

Let me give you an analogy since you still seem to be in liberal economic lala land. Let's say there's a coat factory, and this is their rule: you can buy whatever you want, but you have to buy at least this one store coat that they sell. It's the only coat factory in town, so everyone has to shop there and pay for the initial store coat before they go and try to find what they want. Since they have a captive customer base there's no incentive to keep the cost of that one "must buy" coat down, so its cost skyrockets, it goes down in quality and everyone still has to buy at least that one coat. The end result? Only the rich can afford to go in and buy the store coat and also get the one they actually want. The middle class and the poor are screwed, and deal with the crappy store coat because they don't have any extra money to spend on another. Eventually the cost of that coat gets so high, without a concurrent rise in its quality, that the poor can't afford it anymore, so the factory starts demanding the rich and the middle class 'help' the poor pay for their one "must buy" coat. The rich say **** it, decide it's not worth the cost and go to the next town over and shop there without such restrictions. So the cost ends up being born by the middle class alone, and it keeps growing and growing and growing and growing because no one in the factory has an incentive to change things.

Substitute the government for the coat factory, and education, welfare or whatever product or service the government provides for the coat, and you'll start to get a clue why welfare of any kind is doomed to fail. NO ONE IS QUESTIONING YOUR MOTIVATION FOR WANTING TO HELP THE POOR AND THE DISADVANTAGED. IT'S YOUR FUCKING METHODS THAT ARE WAY OFF AND THAT ARE GOING TO END UP FUCKING EVERYONE OVER. Everyone but the rich, who can afford to divorce themselves from the system. Get it?

Now what you say is put a qualification on it, make her work for the benefits. But there's no way to keep that qualification on there. She and people like her will merely band together and vote to have it removed. Have you never noticed that no government program's budget ever shrinks, that no problem they set out to solve actually lessens but increases in urgency? Let me ask you, supposed we enact the perfect government program, and not only do we help support these women with the qualification that they work for it, but we also manage to teach people like her to make more responsible decisions and in ten years all of the sudden the problem is solved to a point where private charity more than covers the remaining needy. Wonderful result, right? Now what do all those government social workers do for a job, now that their pet problem has been solved and they're no longer needed? They're out of a job, which isn't so good as far as they're concerned.

What you need to understand is that the ability of people to simply vote the qualifications you prescribe away and the perverse incentive structure that government imposes on a problem ensures that the problem won't go away and such reasonable restrictions will not stay in place. The recipients of welfare will vote themselves more. The workers within the program will see wonderful new problems they need to help with so their budgets and their job security can be increased. By enacting a government program you are by nature making it in the best interests of everyone involved in it, both the administrators and the recipients, to grow the program and remove restrictions. That's what happens when you allow the consumer of a good or service (recipients of welfare) to decide it's availability and cost, and when you allow the producer of that good or service (the government) to bill someone else (the taxpayer) for the eventual real cost.

If you're so desperate to help such people why don't you do what I do and donate to a charity that you believe will best help them, such as United Negro College Fund? I think the best way to help inner city kids, mostly blacks, is to help them get an education, so I give what and when I can. Here's the best part about giving to charity! Not only do market conditions force the charity to be a lot more efficient in how is uses the money, but if you find they're doing a poor job of it you can decide not to give to them and find another one that will do better. You can even start your own charity to do a better job of it. That's not an option when dealing with charity by government fiat, otherwise known as welfare. Remember the Chicago fire back a century or so ago? Private charities basically rebuilt the whole fucking city, the government merely dispatched troops to keep order. You're essentially saying that private charity, a force that can rebuild entire cities in less than a decade, is less desirable than the government, a force that can barely pave its own roads adequately and has never ever solved a singal social problem it's set it's eyes on.
 
Last edited:

Biggs

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
And afterwards, they talked about this US map that's kicking around this week that divides the US between the two schools of thought....... the blue states being the "United States of Canada" and the red states being "Jesusland".

believe you're referring to this

 

PC1

Guest
Actually without them we would have recovered from the depression sooner than we did. Government intervention in the economy prolongs depressions, it doesn't shorten them. By pulling productive capital out of the private market and adding to the aggregate spending stream of the economy the government puts off the necessary economic corrections that need to take place............ .

I'm not an economist but I don't understand this. If the government spends the $ versus taxpayers spending the $, what difference does it make?

I can understand that as a conservative, we feel it's better that we all have discretion over where our money goes and is spent. But it's not as if the government by raising taxes, takes $ out of the economy? They still spend it afterall?
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not an economist but I don't understand this. If the government spends the $ versus taxpayers spending the $, what difference does it make?
The money should not be spent, period. These are the basics:

Interest is the price of money. As with other prices it is a reflection of the resource's general availability. Increased savings on the part of consumers means an increase in the cash available for investment because they aren't spending money on consumer goods at the present time. Decreased savings means a much more present oriented society, one that prefers to spend its money on goods and services now rather than save it and spend it on a future good. Interest rates of all kinds are merely a reflection of this difference in preferences for present to future consumption. Money, like other resources is available at sooner time only at a premium.

As for market place signals, when people are doing a lot of buying and little saving this is reflected in a higher interest rate on loans of all types. This sends a signal to investors that the proper allocation of their investments is towards consumer goods rather than investing in capital goods for the production of consumer goods in the future, because people are spending their money now not saving it for later. If an investor does want to get a loan for investment in capital goods for production of something he thinks people will want to buy later, the premium is higher and the profits he expects the investment to return must be sooner and more likely in the eyes of the lender.

That's how a market functions minus government intervention. Enter the Government. Through the Federal Reserve the government allows for inflation of the money supply by all banks through three methods. One, the buying of goverment securities from select firms with newly minted cash. The cash is put into the system, the supply of money is increased. Two, controlling the reserve requirement. Banks are required to keep a portion of reserves to cover all demand deposits. If you have a ten percent reserve requirement, then for every hundred thousand dollars that a bank has in demand deposits they must have ten thousand dollars in cash, or gold if that's the standard, in reserve. This creates a pyramid effect, for each layer in the banking system allows a massive increase in the avialable cash and credit. The amount of demand deposits out there are only covered by a fraction of that amount in real cash or gold reserves. By lowering the reserve requirment the government can essentially create money out of thin air. Three, the government controls the interest rate at the discount window, or the overnight rate. This is the rate at which banks borrow from each other. A lowering of the rate allows an increase in the availability of bank credit because banks are more likely to lend to each other. A raising of the rate decreases such availability.

Now in the first two paragraphs you see how the market deal with money supplies. From the third this follows: any increase in the amount of available cash for investing that results from government inflation of the money supply through any three of those methods will send a faulty signal to the market that people are saving, not spending. This means investors will reallocate their investment capital to favor capital goods, set on producing goods for future consumption as opposed to current consumption. What they don't realize is that people haven't changed their spending habits. As the new inflated money works its way through the systemit starts a boom, and a few things happen that sew the seeds for an inevitable recession.

First the prices of land and labor get bid up. People see increased incomes though they will soon be devalued. Concurrently the prices of all other goods and services get bid up because of the greater availability of cash, though for the moment no one realizes its decreasing value. The investment in capital goods creates new jobs in those industries at high wages. This boom makes it look as if these investments were the right decision, and since no one has actually adjusted their ratio of spending to saving all that new money gets thrown right back into the system, so people go ahead full boar. It looks like the best of both worlds, there's money being spent and people must be saving too because interest rates are low.

Eventually the effects of rising prices and the devaluation of the currency start to converge. The rise in prices in light of the devalued currency causes a preference for cheaper imports over domestic goods. Money starts to flow out of the country and it becomes more and more clear that there will be no actual consumers capable of buying these goods that everyone invested in producing. Foreigners, not wanting to hold onto the devalued demand deposits will call on banks for cash or gold redemtpion, which causes them to raid their reserves, putting even more pressure on the economy to stop inflating. Evetnually word leaks that the banks are insolvent, they stop lending and even call in loans which can't be repaid. The boom collapses as the misinvestments are revealed and capital goods are liquidated, including the labor in those industries, until investors see their investments reallocated to be in line with the actual availability of money as determined by people's actual spending verses savings habits.

Now Keynsian theory says that recessions are caused by a decrease is consumer spending, and inflation by overspending. This is nonsense. If inflation were caused by overspending it would happen concurrently with rising interest rates, which it is not. Also if recessions were caused by a drop in consumer spending then they would hit retail markets, the market for consumer goods, first and hardest. That's not the case, in all recessions retail markets fall last and least, and this is because people's spending habits really haven't changed. In America's Great Depression capital goods markets fell by up to 90% while retail markets only took hits of 15-20%. Keynsian theory can't explain this, the economic theory I outlined above does. It also explains why all of a sudden the investors which the market has shown to be the top performers when it comes to forecasting demand all of sudden start making the same exact mistakes at the same exact time.

If you believe Keysian theory as most liberals do, then what you need to do is add to the aggregate spending stream of the country to get out of a recession. The problem is Keynsian theory is blatantly wrong and doesn't agree with reality. By the government increasing taxes to pay for public works projects it is putting more and more money into capital goods investment, and that's the underlying problem that caused the recession to begin with. What's needed to offset a recession is more savings on the part of the consumers so the actual availability of money starts to somewhat match the artifically inflated money supply. That is, if the government artificially lowers the interests rates below what the market would set them at and you get the familiar and predictable boom and bust, people should be saving to offset the bust so what the actual market interest rates would be more closely resemble the artificially low ones set by the government.

At worst by putting people to work with tax money the government is leaving people with less to save and preferences for present rather than future goods which have not yet adjusted, and paying others with the same preferences to do work for which there is no way to gauge the demand of, and they are spending the money at the same rate as anyone else and delaying the necessary readjustment of investments and savings vs spending ratios to match each other.

I can understand that as a conservative, we feel it's better that we all have discretion over where our money goes and is spent. But it's not as if the government by raising taxes, takes $ out of the economy? They still spend it afterall?
Yes, but it's devalued currency which if you want to conbat a bust, as outlined above, needs to be saved and invested. There's also a further distortion introduced into the economy as no one actually knows if there's a demand for what the government does. Since no one has an actual choice when it comes to government spending as opposed to spending on the free market, there's no way to determine whether or not how they're spending the money is indeed productive and in line with consumer demand. It is this very process which is needed to expose the over investment in capital goods to bring about the necessary reallocation of investments to be in line with consumer's spending vs saving habits. The problem, the recession, was caused by the government artificially making money and credit more easily available. Forcing people to throw more money into the economy by taxing and spending as opposed to allowing them to save the money, which is what they're more likely to do given the fact that it's devalued and they now need a lot more of it to maintain their standard of living, prolongs the problem.

A free market and a strict gold standard is the answer, allowing interest rates to be determined by the actual availability of money. The free market also provides a deterent to inflation so no cumulative booms or busts can occur. This is because any one bank that inflates the money supply to reap the short term profits will inevitably see some of their liabilities (demand deposits) end up in the hands of their competitors, who then only have to call on the inflating bank for redemption to put a competitor out of business, because the bank won't have the reserves to cover all the liabilities. The gold standard means a market determined standard for money, which means one more easily and smoothly adjusted as the market determines its needs and preferences.

What you end up with in that situation is a steady adjustment of time preference towards future consumption over present consumption, and an interest rate that lowers itself naturally and not by government fiat. This leads to more capital investment per worker in the economy, increased productivity and thus an increase in the demand for labor, which leads to increased wages and a steady rise in the standard of living over time in terms of comfort and the real buying power of wages.

That's why government spending isn't a good idea in light of a recession. It's genuine savings and investment of hard money that leads to a stable, continually growing economy with a rising standard of living for all people.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I said over and over that I am totally and completely against welfare. Yes people need contribute to society if they are to receive anything in return. The idea of giving anything away for free is horse####.

How about this idea. Businesses that offer childcare to employees, especially low wage employees, get a big fat tax break based on the cost of the childcare. That's an idea I like when I think about it, and it would work way better than the government giving it directly to the people. It would cut costs and most likely actually improve the quality of the childcare as well. To top it off, it guarantees that the person has to be working in the first place in order to get childcare.


Just so you know, when I talk about childcare, I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about daycare for their kids being provided.
Again, you seem like a very nice guy and I'm not particularly arguing against "YOU". It's the school of thought that pisses me off. I understand that you sympathize and want to help out the less fortunate, we all do. It's just that the methods that the left goes about reaching their goals are insane.

You're right. Welfare is BS. But helping, for example that imaginary lady and her kids you talked about, out IS welfare.

But, I can imagine that you listen to us on the other side of the isle and think we're morons...So, I know this argument will go on forever and I don't know why I keep arguing against it, but I do :think:

Oh, and if private businesses want to offer childcare, that's great! You work for the company and the company takes care of your kids while you work. Hell, you could probably even visit them on your lunch break. It's a great idea because it's a private idea and it's not a dictated decision enforced by the government. It would work, too. A compnay that offered childcare could definately get a few mothers working for them. The best part is only those who voluntarily take part in the program pay for it! Everyone is happy. (well...I don't think everyone will ever be happy.)

When I read your posts, it seems to me that you do really have some conservative ideas. It just seems that the liberal "emotion" is still strong within you. You'll grow out of it! There's hope for you ;) :D

"If you're not a liberal when you're young you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain." --Winston Churchill (I didn't copy and paste, so the words may be off a bit)

You're on your way my friend :D That private business offering childcare idea shows that the conservative inside of you is just screaming to get out!! :drunk:
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Actually without them we would have recovered from the depression sooner than we did. Government intervention in the economy prolongs depressions, it doesn't shorten them. By pulling productive capital out of the private market and adding to the aggregate spending stream of the economy the government puts off the necessary economic corrections that need to take place............
Even as a conservative I wonder to myself if they could have afforded not to put people to work as they did. Not for economic purposes, but so people didn't starve out. I don't know a whole ton about the depression, but if I remember right, unemployment was super high (like 50%+) and starvation was high as well. I could definately be wrong though.

Man, look at that...two minutes of research and I already run across then governor FDRetard making mistakes trying to liberalize the great depression:

" No one knew how best to respond to the crisis. President Hoover believed the dole would do more harm than good and that local governments and private charities should provide relief to the unemployed and homeless. By 1931, some states began to offer aid to local communities. FDR, then governor of New York, worked with Harry Hopkins and Frances Perkins to begin a direct work relief program. This helped only a very few. By 1932, only 1/4 of unemployed families received any relief. In 1932, only 1.5 percent of all government funds were spent on relief and averaged about $1.67 per citizen. Cities, which had to bear the brunt of the relief efforts, teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. By 1932, Cook County (Chicago) was firing firemen, police, and teachers (who had not been paid in 8 months). Breadlines and Hoovervilles (homeless encampments) appeared across the nation."

He shoulda stuck with Hoover's position.
 

DieTrying

Board Supporter
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm actually probably less sympathetic than you guys are.

This train of thought goes with how I feel about abortion as well. People need to take full responsibility for their lives in this country. The term "PRO CHOICE" fucking pisses me off because when a woman gets pregnant, she already made the choice to get knocked up. I have sex several times a week and I don't have any kids. Not getting pregnant isn't that difficult.

While I do sympathize with the poor single mom, I feel that she can make it out. I really feel that this country is a wonderful place and if you don't want to be poor, you don't have to be. Getting a college scholarship now a days is SO FUCKING easy that I feel no pity for 18 year old kids that choose to go into the workforce after highschool.

Our course its not easy. If you work 6 days a week, guess what? Go to school that day off. Sorry. My parents were both poor and went through the same ****.

If you want to succeed, you will.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Even as a conservative I wonder to myself if they could have afforded not to put people to work as they did.
A good example is to look at post WWI US. There was a war boom caused by the inevitable inflation that happens during all wars, and then the predictable bust post war. It took approximately 9 months to reach a full economic recovery. You can bet that if the Fed had the control then that it does now we probably never would have recovered. Many people don't realize is that since that time we've essentially been living in a non stop inflationary economy, with a continually devaluing dollar. The inflation is only curtailed once the money creditors are getting paid back is so obviously not worth what it was when they lent it out, and then only temporarily.

The Fed is a cartel for banks that allows them to inflate the money supply in concert and get the quick profits they want while not having to deal with the inherent risks of inflating in a free market banking system.
 

PC1

Guest
The money should not be spent, period. These are the basics:
.........................

:box:

Very well written and explained. Great job. You must either be a banker, an economist, an economist who works for a bank, or an economics teacher.

In any event, you must have spent some time typing that out and I appreciate the lesson! I'll have to save it and read it a few more times : )

One quick question though: I've been away from college too long, but I thought we went off the gold/silver standard when we did because it was creating more problems than it was solving?
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
:box:

Very well written and explained. Great job. You must either be a banker, an economist, an economist who works for a bank, or an economics teacher.

In any event, you must have spent some time typing that out and I appreciate the lesson! I'll have to save it and read it a few more times : )

One quick question though: I've been away from college too long, but I thought we went off the gold/silver standard when we did because it was creating more problems than it was solving?
We've actually been off the gold standard for quite a lot longer than most peopl think. For a while we were in a mixed economy. The 'problems' the gold standard were creating were actually one problem: bankers couldn't inflate the money supply and get quick profits without major risk. What you'll find is that almost all such legislation is protectionist in nature. J.P. Morgan was the big pusher behind the creation of the Fed so our money supply could have more "elasticity." The translation was that there wasn't enough for him to invest in everything he wanted to, so he had the government come in and through legislative fiat increase the money supply by creating the Fed and giving it the power to regulate that supply. At Mises.org you can find an audio file of Murray Rothbard's called The Gold Standard Before the Civil War, in which he details the various attempts of the government to introduce central banking and paper money not backed by gold. In all cases it was the government and large businesses that wanted more money to spend that disagreed with the gold standard and pushed for it's removal, not that it ever truly was a solid standard.

Some of the 'problems' that were legitimate but once again can be laid at the government's feet were the first actual instances of fractional reserve banking and monetary inflation. It went like this: if you put stuff in a warehouse you expect it to be there on call when you want to take it out, whenver that may be. The first 'banks' to issue paper money were in fact goldsmiths. People used gold for money, but carting it around was pretty annoying when dealing with large sums. So businessmen started warehousing with goldsmiths and trading the receipts, which of course was as good as gold. The goldsmiths of course charged a fee for the storing of the gold. They realized something though. People were trading the receipts but not everyone came and claimed the gold all at once. So if a goldsmith had 1000 ounces of gold on hand he could issue say 1500 ounces worth of receipts and not be risking much. He would collect premiums on all the gold receipts but he didn't have enough to cover them all on hand. This however was not a problem with banking, it was a failure ofthe government to enforce standard laws regarding warehousing. If you store wheat in a guy's warehouse and he decides to lend it out to someone and doesn't have it on hand when you come to get it, that's fraud plain and simple.

To a certain extent banks still are essentially warehouses for money, but they are immune from this rule which covers all other warehousing operations around any other commodity. It's a handy way to look at the problem from an interesting angle. It's notable that to a somewhat lesser extent this type of inflation had the exact same effect on the economy in England that our current inflationary policies have on ours.

EDIT: One quick thing. I'm not an economics professor. I was actually an English major in college and right now work for a consulting firm. I did take economics courses of course, but like everyone else I was taught the Keynsian extreme liberal approach. I'm completely self taught in the Austrian school of economics, and the only reason I looked into it and taught myself on it was because none of the Keynsian theories held up in reality or made any kind of rational sense theoretically.
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
A good example is to look at post WWI US. There was a war boom caused by the inevitable inflation that happens during all wars, and then the predictable bust post war. It took approximately 9 months to reach a full economic recovery. You can bet that if the Fed had the control then that it does now we probably never would have recovered. Many people don't realize is that since that time we've essentially been living in a non stop inflationary economy, with a continually devaluing dollar. The inflation is only curtailed once the money creditors are getting paid back is so obviously not worth what it was when they lent it out, and then only temporarily.

The Fed is a cartel for banks that allows them to inflate the money supply in concert and get the quick profits they want while not having to deal with the inherent risks of inflating in a free market banking system.
So basically everytime the fed takes one of your dollars, when you get it back, it's worth less. Make sense. That would explain a lot of things.

But what I was wondering about was if the level of starvation was so high that some liberal methods had to be instituted.

I understand that economically we'd be better off without the gov't ever interfering with what we do, but in teh case of the great depression, i was just wondering if creating these jobs for people so that they can make a few $$ to live off of was necessary to keep people from croaking over. Again, I stress I'm unedcuated on the subject of great depression.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
So basically everytime the fed takes one of your dollars, when you get it back, it's worth less. Make sense. That would explain a lot of things.

But what I was wondering about was if the level of starvation was so high that some liberal methods had to be instituted.

I understand that economically we'd be better off without the gov't ever interfering with what we do, but in teh case of the great depression, i was just wondering if creating these jobs for people so that they can make a few $$ to live off of was necessary to keep people from croaking over. Again, I stress I'm unedcuated on the subject of great depression.
Not necessarily. By prolonging the depression it makes things harder on people and perpetuates a cycle of interventionism. Without the Fed there to inflate the money supply there's a period of deflation that occurs, where the money supply actually contracts. The dollar is worth more, the liquidations within the capital goods industry drive the cost of production down as well. For a great many people who were fiscally conservative during the booms, they never lived so well during the busts when deflation was allowed to happen because their dollars were worth more to people as the money supply contracted. The important thing is to slough off the excesses of the boom and let the economy readjust itself as quickly as possible, which it will do if the government keeps its hands off.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
No offense CDB, but you're spouting armchair economic theories that don't work in the real world.

You're kind of like those a true communist in that sense. You see communism works wonderfully on paper. It can even be argued to death and defended quite eaily with lot's of flowery disertations on the nature of economics and the glorious tapestry of the interworkings of human society. But once you get to the real world, it falls apart. Just like your theories.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
No offense CDB, but you're spouting armchair economic theories that don't work in the real world.
No offense taken, because they do work in the real world. You just don't like the end result. There's a reason why every poor person in America can afford a TV but far fewer can afford health care. People like you excel at pointing to failures of government intervention and blaming them on the free market. I see you have not offerred one argument in refute of what I've posted, merely an insult preceded by an appeal to not be insulted by the insult. Care to expound on your wonderful theories and why they're superior? Care to offer an explanation of the business cycle that actually agrees with reality and doesn't contradict your other theories (a problem for keynsians)?

You're kind of like those a true communist in that sense. You see communism works wonderfully on paper. It can even be argued to death and defended quite eaily with lot's of flowery disertations on the nature of economics and the glorious tapestry of the interworkings of human society. But once you get to the real world, it falls apart. Just like your theories.
Communism doesn't work on paper. Ludwig Von Mises disputed it and showed why it wouldn't work, on paper, and he was right. There's one problem with your assertions: they're wrong. After the founding of the Federal Reserve Austrian economists predicted the great depression, and they were right. They've also predicted most if not all of the various recessions that followed. During the financial boom of the nineties Austrian economists predicted how it would end while everyone else was singing the praises of the New Economy, and the Austrians were right. During the War of 1812 what were then known as "hard money types" predicted the outcome of the mass inflation that was taking place everywhere else in the country, and they were right.

Care to offer an explanation as to why these theories aren't up to spec? I'm all ears, or eyes as it were. Want to back up your assertion with an actual argument?
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Just so you know, when I talk about childcare, I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about daycare for their kids being provided.
Who is paying for the daycare nul?
 
kwyckemynd00

kwyckemynd00

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Not necessarily. By prolonging the depression it makes things harder on people and perpetuates a cycle of interventionism. Without the Fed there to inflate the money supply there's a period of deflation that occurs, where the money supply actually contracts. The dollar is worth more, the liquidations within the capital goods industry drive the cost of production down as well. For a great many people who were fiscally conservative during the booms, they never lived so well during the busts when deflation was allowed to happen because their dollars were worth more to people as the money supply contracted. The important thing is to slough off the excesses of the boom and let the economy readjust itself as quickly as possible, which it will do if the government keeps its hands off.
Makes sense. Your making me become interested in economics ;)

In another post you referred to the economic boom of the nineties. Now, I am disgusted by the fact that clinton takes credit for it and even moreso by the fact that people believe it. I would love to hear what the austrian economists said was responsible for the fall of the 90s economy. (I have my theories)
 

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
EDIT: One quick thing. I'm not an economics professor. I was actually an English major in college and right now work for a consulting firm. I did take economics courses of course, but like everyone else I was taught the Keynsian extreme liberal approach. I'm completely self taught in the Austrian school of economics, and the only reason I looked into it and taught myself on it was because none of the Keynsian theories held up in reality or made any kind of rational sense theoretically.
Good for you. :)

Keynes is flawed in many ways and it generally no longer accepted. It is still taught b/c it was an important economic movement that influenced modern economics. Now, some Keynesian economists do still exist(they are crazy). You may want to research neoclassical economics as Austrian economics has some serious differences with it.
 

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Makes sense. Your making me become interested in economics ;)
if you are interested, you should read about monetarism and neoclassical economics. Also, look into game theory, it is exciting (at least to me) in its application to economics.
 

PC1

Guest
I know we're off topic here, maybe the "economics" part of this thread can be shifted to a new thread?

CDB...............

A lot of what you're saying makes sense to me, albeit I'm a complete layman to macro/micro economics. But some things you say raise other questions ?

1. If our government is deflating the value of the $, is that necessarily a bad thing? For example, we end up paying back foreign corp's and government obligations with deflated $? Also, while the value of our $ goes down, the value of our real estate and hard assets correspondingly goes up? And certainly, we have the option of investing in commodities like gold and silver as a hedge against a deflating currency?

2. I'm not convinced that zero government intervention is the way to go. I can see value to having a Federal Reserve to smooth out the extremes of downturns in the economy, even if it may stiffle the peak of the upturn? I'm approaching (gulp) 45 years of age, and during my lifetime, I think most Americans have enjoyed a pretty good standard of life. The economy has been good far more often than it has not, and for people willing to work and save, they've had the opportunity to do so. You seem to be against the Federal Reserve, but it appears to me anyway, that by and large they've done more good than harm just by taking a look at what's going on around us?

3. I can see value during an extreme recession or depression, of having our government spending money to rebuild infrastructure (roads, gov't buildings, dams, etc.). These segments aren't what I'd describe as being "consumer" oriented. These programs employ people who might otherwise not be working, and gives means for them to support their families, spend $ on at least the basic consumer needs like food, shelter, transportation, clothing, etc., AND they might be able to save as well, which you are advocating?

4. And while I am a conservative generally, I also know firsthand that $ unchecked tends to make people very greedy. Just for example, having a government create and enforce standards of safety and cleanliness in the workplace creates a better workplace for employees than they would otherwise receive. If there were no standards, NO employer would spend the $ in this area, and so it's not as if employees would, through competition in the workplace, find a better job or work environment because they would ALL suck.

Additionally, a current trend here in the Northeast for example, is for employers to want to hire illegal Brazillian employees. Not all of course, but many are illegal and provide false social security #'s. Employers don't care about that. They have an employee file that contains a SSN, and unless the IRS gives notice there's a problem, employers couldn't care less if it's legit. The Brazillian economy is weak by comparison so they come here looking to make and save $. They work hard, they're willing to work 14-18 hours a day, 2 or 3 jobs a day, for $10.00/hr. and are willing to live in very spartan, small living quarters, perhaps even subletting 1 room of an apartment. They're willing to work in what most Americans would call sweatshop conditions at poverty level wages that most Americans cannot support a family on.

If unregulated, most employers would love to have their entire workforce at illegal, substandard wage levels, purely to put more money in their own pockets.

So while I see the benefits of competition and market driven forces, I also think there needs to be at least some minimum standards set and enforced by our government.

Although I do agree that our government has grown well beyond that point in the various social and entitlement programs it engages in.
 
Last edited:

serengo

Member
Awards
0
I know we're off topic here, maybe the "economics" part of this thread can be shifted to a new thread?
I agree, this has been one of the best forums on politics I have read in a long time. Mainely because it's been civil, without name-calling and crap like that. Thanks to all who contribute, it makes for some interesting reading.

Maybe stickies in this forum for classic dabate dialogs such as economics, gay rights, abortion, education, etc?
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Makes sense. Your making me become interested in economics ;)

In another post you referred to the economic boom of the nineties. Now, I am disgusted by the fact that clinton takes credit for it and even moreso by the fact that people believe it. I would love to hear what the austrian economists said was responsible for the fall of the 90s economy. (I have my theories)
Misinvestment. The interest rate as set by the Fed is always lower than what the natural rate or the market determined rate. This is because neither the government nor big businesses who see the money first have anything to gain from deflation. Greenspan basically just tries to keep the boom ahead of the inflation curve. Some indicators that tipped off Austrians that this was starting to unravel are that even though stock prices were high, the market was going full boar and incomes were supposedly increasing as well as home ownership, standards of living were stagnating or even going down as the cost of living went up, as was government spending. This indicates you're in the part of the process where the devaluation of the currency is starting to catch up with the prices of land and goods that have been bid up by the boom. A further indicator is this: the market weeds out bad seeds. The people at the top are there because over time they're proven their judgements are sound. This would indicate that at any given time in a truly healthy economy if you take a snapshot of how things are going, very few businesses should be reporting losses, and this is often the case. This wasn't the case in the nineties. Also household savings were very, very low.

If you look at the discount rates during the nineties, any interest rates in fact such as the federal bond rate which was at 3%, and you see how low they were you can see the process at work. There was a ton of investing much of it in Internet companies that promised to deliver future goods, not present goods. That's not to say all those investments were bad, some comanies survived and if you look at them they're mostly the ones that concentrated on delivering current goods or had a short time horizon before expected profits started coming in. Inflation finally caught up with the boom, investors realized the investments they put out there weren't producing returns and weren't likely to, and even when they were getting returns the money was devalued. Then you also have to factor in 9/11 and the uncertainty that it generated which makes people tend to favor much more secure investments.

Then Bush gets in office and sees the economic slowdown and in true Keynsian fashion tells people to spend, spend, spend! That accelerates the process and makes the recession harder. Had people saved they would have driven up the actual amounts of hard investment capital and brought the natural interest rate closer to the artificial rate set by the Fed. Bush's tax cuts were a good idea and probably helped a soften the blow a bit, but if people did as he suggested and spent the money the ratio of spending to savings was still hurting.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Good for you. :)

Keynes is flawed in many ways and it generally no longer accepted. It is still taught b/c it was an important economic movement that influenced modern economics. Now, some Keynesian economists do still exist(they are crazy). You may want to research neoclassical economics as Austrian economics has some serious differences with it.
All true. Problem is even though Keynsianism is out of fashion what remains in its place regarding macroeconomics is just as insane and heavily informed by Keynsianism.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
1. If our government is deflating the value of the $, is that necessarily a bad thing? For example, we end up paying back foreign corp's and government obligations with deflated $? Also, while the value of our $ goes down, the value of our real estate and hard assets correspondingly goes up? And certainly, we have the option of investing in commodities like gold and silver as a hedge against a deflating currency?
It's bad thing because the only long and short term way to truly raise people standard of living is through capital investment of real money, not inflated money. What terminal inflation does is start off a cycle that never ends of booms and busts, decreasing standards of living and more and more government intervention. It's a never ending cycle that eventually leads to a collapse similar to other socialist collapses. We have the option in invest in gold, but it's effectiveness as an inflation hedge is limited by many things, for example legal tender laws which essentially force people to accept devalued money instead of good money. In the end those investments still have to be converted to cash at some point if you ever expect to use the money.

2. I'm not convinced that zero government intervention is the way to go. I can see value to having a Federal Reserve to smooth out the extremes of downturns in the economy, even if it may stiffle the peak of the upturn? I'm approaching (gulp) 45 years of age, and during my lifetime, I think most Americans have enjoyed a pretty good standard of life. The economy has been good far more often than it has not, and for people willing to work and save, they've had the opportunity to do so. You seem to be against the Federal Reserve, but it appears to me anyway, that by and large they've done more good than harm just by taking a look at what's going on around us?
The problem is, and maybe I haven't explained it well enough, is that the Federal Reserve and any central bank that allows banks to inflate the money supply in concert cause the booms and busts. In the free market there are still imperfections but they tend to be smoothed out and not cumulative. Banks can't inflate too much because their debts pile up in their competitors hands and if those competitos call the debts, the bank goes out of business. When you look at every economic recession in American history all the way back to the colonies it was always preceded by a government supported time of inflation and the enactment of legal tender laws, laws that set bad paper money on par with gold, etc. This often happens in war time because it's easier to print money and spend it than it is to raise taxes.

3. I can see value during an extreme recession or depression, of having our government spending money to rebuild infrastructure (roads, gov't buildings, dams, etc.). These segments aren't what I'd describe as being "consumer" oriented. These programs employ people who might otherwise not be working, and gives means for them to support their families, spend $ on at least the basic consumer needs like food, shelter, transportation, clothing, etc., AND they might be able to save as well, which you are advocating?
They don't save. The problem is their preference for present good over future ones hasn't changed, and this is reflected in the government set interest rate as opposed to the natural rate. By taxing people, taking their money, the government leaves them less to save. The government then spends this money further upsetting the ratio of spending to savings, and because there's no way to actually judge whether or not the projects the government set people to work on are actuall in line with what comsumer demand dictates there's no way to judge whether it's good or bad. Some of it may be good, most of it probably isn't. The money that's put into the system is largely paid out in wages, some to landlords, and all of it goes to people who cumulatively still haven't adjusted their time preferences, so the money goes back into the system and doesn't get saved and further aggrevates the problem.

4. And while I am a conservative generally, I also know firsthand that $ unchecked tends to make people very greedy. Just for example, having a government create and enforce standards of safety and cleanliness in the workplace creates a better workplace for employees than they would otherwise receive. If there were no standards, NO employer would spend the $ in this area, and so it's not as if employees would, through competition in the workplace, find a better job or work environment because they would ALL suck.
That's not really true. Employers would want to attract employees and the best way to do that is to offer a better job. The labor market is still a market. Not everyone will have the skills or smarts to get the best jobs and so won't enjoy the highest possible standards but that's just a reflection of reality. What won't happen is instant gratification. Rises in employee benefits such as leisure time and higher standards within the work place only come with increased productivity which lead to more capital investment per worker. By artificially setting standards higher especially in areas where the marginal productivity can't justify that on a per head basis this actually causes problems. It raises the cost of entry into industries, reduces competition, disemploys labor, etc. A good article on the subject: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1590

Additionally, a current trend here in the Northeast for example, is for employers to want to hire illegal Brazillian employees. Not all of course, but many are illegal and provide false social security #'s. Employers don't care about that. They have an employee file that contains a SSN, and unless the IRS gives notice there's a problem, employers couldn't care less if it's legit. The Brazillian economy is weak by comparison so they come here looking to make and save $. They work hard, they're willing to work 14-18 hours a day, 2 or 3 jobs a day, for $10.00/hr. and are willing to live in very spartan, small living quarters, perhaps even subletting 1 room of an apartment. They're willing to work in what most Americans would call sweatshop conditions at poverty level wages that most Americans cannot support a family on.

If unregulated, most employers would love to have their entire workforce at illegal, substandard wage levels, purely to put more money in their own pockets.

So while I see the benefits of competition and market driven forces, I also think there needs to be at least some minimum standards set and enforced by our government.
The problem is those standards cause the problems in most cases. Those jobs you speak of aren't the best ones, they exist at the margins and employ people who work at marginal rates. I think you're ingoring the fact that most Americans don't want those jobs. If the government weren't intervening in the ways it does the cost of living could fall. If the government didn't artificially set wage rates up there wouldn't be persistent labor surpluses in the labor market. If they didn't pass laws giving special protections to unions you wouldn't see the pools of unemployment surrounding those unionized job forces.

The free market isn't perfect, not everyone will be living high on the hog, but the overall effects and end results as reflected in a variety of choices and honest, transparent pricing benefit more people most of the time.
 

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Those individuals interested in economics should recognize that the Austiran School of economics is often considered a fringe group on the outside of modern economics. Some economist are staunch supporters/believers others are completely against it. In particular, the Austrian thought does not acitively use mathematics or econometrics. Please note, I am not arguing for or against it, but rather I am just pointing out that there are contrasts.

Milton Friedman: "There is no Austrian economics - only good economics, and bad economics"
 
Last edited:
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Those individuals interested in economics should recognize that the Austiran School of economics is often considered a fringe group on the outside of modern economics. Some economist are staunch supporters/believers others are completely against it. In particular, the Austrian thought does not acitively use mathematics or econometrics.

Milton Friedman: "There is no Austrian economics - only good economics, and bad economics"
True enough. The problem with critiques of Austrian theory is that they are often aesthetic in nature. In the end a lot of times it just comes down to the fact that the critics don't like the conclusions. Austrians don't use econometrics because evidence shows that those who do have no better luck predicting the economy or even accurately describing it than if you were to throw darts at a board with a bunch of possible outcomes. All econometrics can do is say "If all current trends continue, these are likely futures." Thing with trends are that there's no way to accurately predict when they will change, nor is there a mathematical model that can truly represent how people behave. The factors that influence their behavior remain consistent a lot of the time which makes it seem like their behavior follows a pattern which can be mathematically expressed, however the problem is the state of one day in the economy aren't caused by the previous days. It's a process of continual reassessment over time.

The radicalism of the Austrian school procedes directly from their recognizing that the economy is a bottom up order. You can't quantitate a lot of the data because at base it all depends on what people value, and that can't be expressed in numbers, only as an ordinal list of what an individual values at any given moment based on imperfect knowledge. Most if not all other schools assume man as some economic construct with perfect knowledge about all choices. In that sense the Austrian school is more grounded in reality because it deals with how people act in reality and procedes from there, rather than trying to impose theory on reality.

Econometrics are essentially all based on prices, and the information communicated by prices while they generally reflect a measure of value, are severely imperfect even if they are untampered with. Today's prices aren't caused by yesterdays. Plus, you can't simply say people prefer product X twice as much as Y simply because it costs twice as much. Who's buying which, will it always be so, and what in the end is the objective measure of value? The answer is there isn't any, despite the many attempts to develop one. Prices are formed every day, value structures change every day. There are rarely radical changes in information is all, which imparts a consistency to the economy that tempts many to try and model it. There's no way possible for econometrics to account for the entrepreneaur, the guy who comes in and develops a process to be more efficient, or who develops a new product that consumers decide they want. There's no way for it to account for changing value structures that buck the trends of previous days. Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1001

One major problem with the Austrian school is the rejection of extremists in the school of emprical evidence. While I understand where they're coming from, technically everything should be deductive from the nature of man, you still need to check your theories against reality because of your own imperfect knowledge.
 

PC1

Guest
CDB..............

I think you make a lot of sense and I appreciate your input on these matters. I feel I've learned a few things today. Thank you.

Having said that however, we have (at least here in the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts) a State building code for a reason: It's to establish minimum standards of safety to protect homeowners and business owners from unscrupulous or unlearned builders and developers because most people don't know anything about construction standards. While it's true that I as a homeowner can hire a home inspector to evaluate a home I'd like to buy, the truth is their reports contain disclaimers because they cannot inspect what they cannot "see". By having a State building code, and by requiring a contractor to (1) possess a current, valid license, and (2) subject his building plans and construction to progress inspections by a local building inspector, assurance is given that the house being built at least meets the current building codes definition of being "safe and inhabitable". God knows that's not a guarantee, our courts are filled with cases of homeowners suing contractors.

Yet it is a step in the right direction: Statistics show that here in MA, deaths from fire in the home and the workplace are down sharply since the State Building Code have dictated minimum standards for construction, demised space fire protection, fire and smoke alarms, etc.

Market forces may cause higher end contractors to build above building standard for those able and willing to pay a premium price. And our judicial system may allow for recovery of damages against a contractor and his liability policy. But that's little consolation for the grieving widow who learns after the fact that the contractor cut coners on smoke alarms, on the fire rating of the drywall separating the garage and the house that didn't allow enough time for her family to escape a garage fire that had the house been built to code, would have allowed for an escape.

Not all, but too many people who own and or run businesses are unscrupulous. Only just recently for example, I was working for a real estate management company who based on State mandated quarterly fire alarm testing, was fully aware that within a large commercial office facility of over 1 million square feet, several tenant's fire alarms were not working because they were not being maintained. For over a YEAR, the quarterly reports done by the firm conducting the tests indicated the problem was growing throughout the complex. It was only when the State finally followed through that we spent the time and money to correct the problem. The bill was under $5K, on a complex that took in over $1 million a month in rent. Absolutely unscrupulous, and no I don't work there any longer. Thank God we didn't have any fires in the interim.

These 2 examples undescore an important point: Market forces alone are not enough to insure minimum standards of safety across all aspects of life in our society. There is no questioning that because of government intervention, homes and most places of work are safer than they would be without. I also am inclined to believe that at the very least, we are better off with government imposed minimum standards for transportation, food, and conditions of emloyment.

Although I still agree that entitlements are out of control.
 
Last edited:

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
CDB...I am not attacking or defending the Austrians but rather presenting some problems. Your description above is one of the problems as it relies more on a philisophical approach. Rejecting observations is a huge flaw with Austrian economics as they claim it only applies to "natural sciences". If I were to tell you that everyday for the past five years it has rained on friday, would you expect it to rain on friday? Or if I told you that gold decreased in the 3rd quarter every other year, would you ignore this?

Econometrics does work however the problem with econometrics is constructing the correct model. Admittedly, many models fail but that is the nature of the beast in the construction. To insinuate that it does not, is simply incorrect and an insult to econometricians.


I find it exciting that we are discussing economics. :)
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot
full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum
water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first
swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal
fought to insure their safety and work as advertised. All but $10.00 of
his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some
liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now
Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day.
Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate
the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is
properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents
because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his
body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep
breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal
fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the
subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him
considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal
fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the
opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union
members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays
these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call
the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a
worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think
he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. It's noon time,
Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is
federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's
money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the
depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market
federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the
government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over
his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his
farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car
is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety
standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to
live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers
didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some
big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded
rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in
the dark)

He is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. His dad lives on Social
Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take
care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets
back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are
bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved
Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys
throughout his day) Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government
liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes
everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."



There ARE some things that liberals have done that have greatly improved our lives. CDB you are taking them for granted and dismissing them. No, virtually none of these benefits would have occurred without liberal intervention like this.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
I saw the last episode of Real Time with Bill Maher last night and it was ridiculous how fucking clueless liberals are. Two conservatives tried to explain that one reason, one major reason why the Democrats lost is that many many people disagree with them and these people are sick of being dennigrated, called names, etc. Maher blindly says, "I'm not making fun of anyone," and then goes on to spew some of the most ridiculous stereotypical bs about Christians and conservatives in general. I personally don't give two shita about religion, but I know many rational reasonable people who do, and don't deserve to deal with the **** liberals throw at them on a daily basis. Susan Sarandon comes on and, you're gonna love this, thinks were it not for voter fraud the election would have been much closer and/or Kerry would have won. As if even with their army of lawyers and poll watchers somehow those sneaky Republicans got away with murder, and of course even were this true I'm sure absolutely no concurrent fraud was being carried out by poor, innocent, victimized Democrats...
I forgot to watch that. I was looking forward to see Michael Moore's, Al Frankin's, and Bill Maher's reaction to Bush winning. Maher has a big problem with religion for some reason. You can see that some liberals might be getting it and some are. Some of them are falling back on the typical Bush won because people are ignorant stance, some are blaming the homosexual movement which has some kernel of truth but it's not the only reason they lost, and some understand. This is the first time I have ever seen a journalist on TV with a surprised look on their face saying who would of thought Americans care about values. This of course showing us how out of touch they really are. Bernard Goldberg was on TV the other night and said the press covered the Bush victory like a funeral. I think Katy Curic was wearing Black the next day.
It funny that Susan Sarandon didn't mention the dozen or so stories of voter fraud by the democrats.
 

PC1

Guest
......I find it exciting that we are discussing economics. :)
And to think that when I was in school, I thought it was BORRRRR-RING.

Must have been the teacher! CDB would say it was that Keynesian nonsense, ha!
 

size

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Must have been the teacher! CDB would say it was that Keynesian nonsense, ha!
Keynesian economics is interesting, but I am not a fan of its application. However, it was applied throughly during the 20th century especially post WWII.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
Nul modern day liberalism has failed. They said welfare would get minorities out of poverty. It didn't and the reality is it enslaved them to depend on the government. Affirmative action was going to make sure that minorities receive a good education. It hasn't worked. Instead of providing an education it lowered the bar on merit or in other words minorities don't have to get as good grades or score well on tests than white kids. This in and of it's self is racist. Do they think that minorities aren't capable of getting as good grades? Modern-day liberals believe diversity is the most important thing in education. Is my sitting next to a people of different colors going to help me learn trigonometry better? Hell no!! Modern day liberals want very much to implement socialized medicine. Yet, when you look at countries that have them the quality of health care goes down by large margins. This is the current platform of the democratic party. They are socialists. They think government is the solution to everything. They want to take away from me and you and redistribute it. They take away excellence and marginalize everything. If my children go to a great school that's not fair. The solution could be to bus in kids who aren't from that district or dumbing down the curriculum. All great ideas and inventions through out history has come from individuals out side of government. Liberalism has failed and it doesn't work.
Nul most everything you mentioned was the old school democrats and some of it isn't really true. Social security for example has failed. It's not giving some people enough to survive on. Unions did help Blue collar workers get into the middleclass but that was a long time ago.
 

VanillaGorilla

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
And to think that when I was in school, I thought it was BORRRRR-RING.

Must have been the teacher! CDB would say it was that Keynesian nonsense, ha!
Those were some very interesting and informative posts CDB. The subject of economics has been like a tranquilizer for me in the past but you made it very interesting.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Yet it is a step in the right direction: Statistics show that here in MA, deaths from fire in the home and the workplace are down sharply since the State Building Code have dictated minimum standards for construction, demised space fire protection, fire and smoke alarms, etc.
Oh I understand that and you're right. You'll notice that in my previous posts I didn't say all government action by nature bad. It's just because of the necessarily distorted price structure it causes there's just no way to really tell if people value the products or services in question, they have to pay for them regardless and this payment reduces the money they have available to buy what they truly do want.

Plus the establishment of such standards can have a limiting effect. If the government says "This is the standard," for say allowable pollution, building codes in an earthquake zone, etc., whether or not the standard makes sense builders and polluters will actually aim to meet that standard for the most part. The laws the government makes in this particular manner actually impose a sort of virtual cap on standards. In other words why should anyone develop a better standard when they're already legally covered by complying with the government's set standards, whether they're good enough or not, whether there's a better alternative or not? Plus people take the attitude that if the government mandates it, it must be good enough. If the government passed laws that said it's okay for trucks to drive over your lawn to make their deliveries on time if necessary, they would. Doesn't make it right, and you can be sure most people wouldn't like it. In the free market standards rise as people and employers can afford to raise them. Imposing a standard, good or bad, on an industry before it develops to the point where it can afford it actually imposes higher costs on that industry and to varying extents stifles development.

This is one reason why many economists don't like the Austrian school of thought. Many of them are of the opinion, as are many people, that everyone has some set minimum standard of living, of safety in the work place, etc., that must be adhered to. This ignores that there are certain people who may be willing to take more risk as long as the job pays them a premium for it. This ignores the fact that people steadily work towards better conditions. The working conditions in a sneaker factory in Indonesia might seem horrible to an American, but that's because we can afford to demand more, not because pappa government came in and made it so. To the Indonesians the factory looks great, especially compared to the alternatives. As they build up invesment capital they too can then demand more, better conditions. The end result of the Austrian school taken to its logical extreme is you only have a right to what you can afford. Some people disagree with that. To a certain extent on certain issues I disagree with that in practice, not however in principle.

Market forces may cause higher end contractors to build above building standard for those able and willing to pay a premium price.
That's not true. If the government sets a standard most people just aim for that. Plus the government in a lazy enforcer of standards anyway. A politician doesn't have any incentive in making sure no buildings collapse or people get burned alive in general, it's only linked to the time horizon of his job. By nature the laws that will pass will be the vacuous and ineffective because those are the least likely to piss people off and won't affect his chances at reelection.

Not all, but too many people who own and or run businesses are unscrupulous. Only just recently for example, I was working for a real estate management company who based on State mandated quarterly fire alarm testing, was fully aware that within a large commercial office facility of over 1 million square feet, several tenant's fire alarms were not working because they were not being maintained. For over a YEAR, the quarterly reports done by the firm conducting the tests indicated the problem was growing throughout the complex. It was only when the State finally followed through that we spent the time and money to correct the problem. The bill was under $5K, on a complex that took in over $1 million a month in rent. Absolutely unscrupulous, and no I don't work there any longer. Thank God we didn't have any fires in the interim.
No doubt. Like I've said not all regulations or government interventions are by nature bad. But just because they do accomplish some good doesn't mean they work all the time, or even most of the time. Plus the power granted to the government to enforce them is almost always abused. The power they took to finally enforce the standard for your building is also used to fine businesses that can't install handicapped ramps too, or who have railings installed in their places of business that aren't at OSHA standards. For every 1 reasonable and justified standard that is on the books, chances are you'll find a lot more than 1 stupid and nonsensical standard to offset it.

These 2 examples undescore an important point: Market forces alone are not enough to insure minimum standards of safety across all aspects of life in our society.
That's the mistake. You can't tell what one person considers reasonable as opposed to another. While I agree that there's a minimum standard I'd accept, and it probably matches up with what yours is pretty closely, that doesn't mean it applies across the boards to everyone. Some may not mind more risk for a premium. Just ask the government to tell you some of the safety standards for workers that were allowed to exist during the construction of the Hoove Damn.

There is no questioning that because of government intervention, homes and most places of work are safer than they would be without. I also am inclined to believe that at the very least, we are better off with government imposed minimum standards for transportation, food, and conditions of emloyment.
However you can question it. Take the risk of say a building burning down. If you plot the risk over time, that is the actual percentage of buildings that do burn down along with the risk evaluations of insurance companies, plot them over time, you'd be hard pressed to be able to spot the point at which the government set or tightened standards, and this essentially holds true for all such cases. I had a book a long time ago that did just that on some specific issues, I'll see if I can find it and get you some quotes. If the government's actions did make a difference, why doesn't it show up as an easily identifiable acceleration in the historic trend towards generally safer conditions? The answer is because the government was always a day late and a dollar short with their watered down standards, and that the true driver in increasing safety is the increase in productivity that led to greater investment over time that allowed people to afford the greater security and higher standards.
 

Nullifidian

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
Nul modern day liberalism has failed. They said welfare would get minorities out of poverty. It didn't and the reality is it enslaved them to depend on the government. Affirmative action was going to make sure that minorities receive a good education. It hasn't worked. Instead of providing an education it lowered the bar on merit or in other words minorities don't have to get as good grades or score well on tests than white kids. This in and of it's self is racist. Do they think that minorities aren't capable of getting as good grades? Modern-day liberals believe diversity is the most important thing in education. Is my sitting next to a people of different colors going to help me learn trigonometry better? Hell no!! Modern day liberals want very much to implement socialized medicine. Yet, when you look at countries that have them the quality of health care goes down by large margins. This is the current platform of the democratic party. They are socialists. They think government is the solution to everything. They want to take away from me and you and redistribute it. They take away excellence and marginalize everything. If my children go to a great school that's not fair. The solution could be to bus in kids who aren't from that district or dumbing down the curriculum. All great ideas and inventions through out history has come from individuals out side of government. Liberalism has failed and it doesn't work.
Nul most everything you mentioned was the old school democrats and some of it isn't really true. Social security for example has failed. It's not giving some people enough to survive on. Unions did help Blue collar workers get into the middleclass but that was a long time ago.
You missed the entire point of that story.


The point was to show that not all liberal plans are bad, and that some government involvement is not only good but necessary. In no way was it saying all liberal plans are good. Nor did it say all conservative plans are bad. What it says is you can't say stupidly that everyone should rely purely on themselves and there shouldn't be any government involvement. There are MANY things that are in the best interests of the people and the worst interests of corporations and that is where the government needs to step in. Regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is a good example. The existance of anti-trust laws is another. Law enforcement is another.


In reality, it isn't "left is good and right is bad" or "left is bad and right is good". Some things are best right, and some are best left, and some are best somewhere in between. YOU need to open your mind to some centrist views.



You all seem to think that I'm a liberal. The only reason I seem that way is because everyone here is so far to the right it isn't even funny. You're all seeing things as black and white, and not stopping to actually evaluate things on their real world merit rather than labelling them and categorizing them as liberal or conservative.


EDIT: Note - you said those concepts were "old school" democrat. I have news for you, if you go 100% neo-conservative, then their plan is to actually remove a great many of those "old school" liberal things that you take for granted.
 

Similar threads


Top