I was trying to stay out of this because we’re several pages in, but…
What the hell are you talking about? Alternative medicine and supplements are huge businesses. These businesses generally won’t submit to scientific testing, so they don’t have FDA authorization to make some kinds of claims in marketing their products, but that is not the same as being regulated out of business.
Not enough has been done to stave off future problems (at least not yet), but last I checked, things are a lot better than they were a year or 18 months ago. So how is this being prolonged?
HUH??? No one is threatening Iran now. Over the previous six years, on the other hand…
As far as the OP goes:[ul]
[li]I agree the federal government has expanded beyond what was envisioned or perhaps intended for it, but in most cases I don’t have a problem with that.[/li][li]I am mostly in agreement with you on corporate subsidies but it’s pretty clear to me that without some form of intervention, the crisis of 2008-09 would have been much worse.[/li][li]I don’t have a problem with the central bank’s existence.[/li][li]I agree that military spending should be reduced by a great deal - if I had to make up a number I’d say cut it in half.[/li][li]I think there are too many standardized and mandated tests and other requirements on schools, but I don’t think the government should stay out of education entirely. Your comments about unthinking drones are kind of silly.[/li][li]I mostly agree with you about point 6.[/li][li]‘Eliminate all red tape on small business?’ What does that mean? Most of these points are vague but this one in particular comes close to meaning nothing.[/li][li]There is absolutely no way charitable donations could replace Medicare. This is ludicrous.[/li][li]I’m no fan of the IMF, but leaving the UN is pointless. The UN isn’t a threat to your freedom.[/li][*]I don’t know how you plan to make this clear, but yes, people usually lose sight of it when they have a majority view.[/ul]
Ignoring that for the most part Holistic Medicine is colored sugar water, the alternative medicine industry made an estimated $34 billion last year. Not bad for people going out of business.
The Federal Reserve did indeed push for deregulation under Greenspan. This was a mistake, one that Greenspan has openly admitted. You may have noticed that he is no longer the chairman.
I agree with you on the Patriot Act. Not fond of that move either. Nobody is threatening Iran, and considering Obama campaigned on a platform that included increasing the focus on the war in Afghanistan it’s no suprise that he increased troop levels there. You are neglecting to mention that the increased troops were part of an exit strategy he outlined on national television.
I’m guessing the government can handle providing adequate medical treatment based on all the not dead people on Medicare.
So we’re tossing out the life part now?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Because it has failed to do so thus far. Over 45,000,000 Americans lack health insurance. That’s one out of every six adults. The United States spends 16% of it’s GDP on health care, and we have one of the worst health care systems in the Western World to show for it.
What would be wrong with basing a health care plan off of the Dutch system? It’s far better than ours and they only spend 10% of their GDP on it. They even do it through a group of competing private health insurance companies.
Except for the fact that we can vote them out of office. They’re beholden to their constituates in a way no corporation can ever be.
Give me one example of this happening on any sort of large scale. Something city-state or bigger preferably, anything non-tribal if you have to. One example, please.
Yet a corporation that exists soley to turn a profit for it’s stockholders is somehow more likely to pass up making a dollar to help out. Nobody is saying that government regulation is perfect. Or even ideal. To mangle Churchill, “It’s the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.”
Then why do all these intelligent informed people continue to self identify with a bunch of ignorant racists?
The first is about returning to the gold standard. That’s not a solution to anything.
The second is from 1969, forgive me for not considering it up to date on the current economy.
The third has a lot of doom and gloom and no suggestions on what to do.
This contains exactly zero examples of where the US Constitution has been ignored. The debate on whether we are a loose collection of nations or one country divided into states was settled in 1865 and cost the lives of 1,030,000 people. Let’s not try it again.
Yes, but what is the constitutional size in your opinion? Is it strictly involved with maintaining the armed forces and conducting international relations? Do you honestly think that the government should never have passed laws such as Fair Labor Standards Act? Or that the FBI is somehow forbidden under the Constitution?
It’s fine to say that everything should be left to the states, but do you honestly not care at all what happens in the state next to you? Do you feel that they are as disconnected from each other as the countries of Europe? Have you ever lived in another state or gone to school there or do you have family in a different state? Would you have considered it as traveling to a new country?
I’m disappointed in this thread. jrodefeld, you started your OP with this:
…and yet I see no appeal to first principles, beyond a few appeals to “freedom”, none of which specify what that means exactly and why some limits on freedom are necessary but others cannot possibly be justified. I suspect the problem comes from your philosophy being economic, rather than political. So. Care to talk power?
You are right. I shouldn’t have stated it this way. What I was really getting at is that a future goal of health “reform” from Washington is to control the sale of vitamins and alternative healthcare. But they haven’t done it yet. I’m saying we should prevent the FDA from regulating vitamins. The reason is that the FDA by and large has become a very corrupt and dishonest organization that feels pressure from the pharmaceutical lobby to approve certain medication and reject others. Why would the FDA claim that marijuana has no medicinal value whatsoever, yet approve Marinol, which is synthetic THC that the drug companies can make money off of? Some links to consider:
There are many such proposals as this. In my opinion alternative medicine is one of the only areas where we have true medical freedom left.
This is why I wrote that, but I agree I should have been much more precise in how I worded that sentence.
The crisis is not over, believe me. Things will get much worse before they get better. I mean, fundamentally what has changed? The government has propped up bad debt, saved incompetent banks that should have gone bankrupt, and spent trillions of dollars into the economy which hasn’t really helped the average american.
Believe me, we are experiences a very short reprieve from a worse crisis that is still coming. What economic sense does it make to buy up all the bad assets and dump it on the taxpayer? How about rewarding failure and punishing success? By not allowing the toxic assets to be liquidated, we have prolonged the crisis. The point of a Recession is to allow the economy to re balance itself. The correction must come eventually. By preventing the correction, you extend the pain and make it worse in the long run. This is why the Great Depression lasted for more than fifteen years. Because Hoover and Roosevelt wouldn’t let the economy re balance itself early on. We are repeating the same mistakes today, except the consequences could be much more severe this time around.
Consider that the Depression of 1920 was very similar to the effects of the stock market crash of 1929, yet we didn’t do any “stimulus”, allowed the recession to run its course, and we had a full recovery within a year and a half. Look at this video:
So, if you want any proof that my ideas are superior to the Keynesian fantasies that we accept today, that is your proof.
Sanctions against a country are an act of war. Remember, during the 90s our sanctions killed over a million Iraqi women and children. So, we are most certainly threatening Iran:
I think you’re talking nonsense here. For all the failings of the health care reform effort I don’t see how you can make the jump from new health insurance regulations to controlling the sale of vitamins and minerals and acupuncture. Maybe if there were new rules barring health insurers from paying for those things, you’d have a point.
What the hell for? Think you’re not getting enough vitamin lead?
Your comments are making it clear to me that you don’t understand what the FDA does. It’s very flawed, but my concern is that it doesn’t demand enough proof a drug works before approving it, and it (and the rest of the government) can’t do enough when a drug company hides test results or puts something dangerous on the market.
I think at this point you’ve revealed that you don’t know what the FDA does. In terms of drugs, essentially, it handles some safety and manufacturing issues and requires companies to go through some scientific scrutiny before they can make claims about what their drugs will do if you use them. Pharmaceutical companies use that process because they want to be able say their drugs will help your skin rash or your baldness or impotence and so on when they advertise their drugs on TV. The FDA also inspects foods and drinks for safety reasons. About the harshest thing the FDA can do is prevent people or companies from making particular claims that do not stand up to scrutiny or have not been proved.
Not enough.
Based on your apocalyptic predictions so far, let’s say I’m skeptical.
To prevent the world’s financial system from completely collapsing. As screwed up as that system is, a failure like that would have been even more devastating than what we’ve seen to this point. That’s not to say they could not have done more for people who were stuck with unpayable mortgages and done more to require financial institutions to make credit available to consumers, and I think they should have done that. And in hindsight it’s pretty clear they should have instituted large reforms back then hot instead of waiting for the system to stabilize, because now they’re not going to be able to get anything done due to intense lobbying and political crap.
The economy fully recovered from the Great Depression in a year and a half? Where are you getting this stuff? What do you think happened during the rest of the 1930s?
I trust I don’t need to recap the history between the U.S. and Iran here. But the U.S. has had sanctions on Iran since the hostage crisis 30 years ago.
You misread that comment. He’s saying that we recovered from the “Depression of 1920-21” without government intervention. Which is true enough.
Of course, true to form, absolutely everything else he says or implies about it is worthless ideological onanism. The recession that started in 1920 was a post-war event, very different from what happened later. The European powers dropped their gold convertibility for the war, while the US was still engaged in its neutrality policy, which caused the gold imports in the US to shoot up as people took their shiny metal across the sea from Europe, raising the stock of gold in America by about 10 percent. With the gold standard in place, not to mention wartime spending as America eventually joined in, that was a surefire recipe for a strong bout of inflation if the Fed didn’t take proper action. Unfortunately, instead of raising interest rates mildly in early 1919 after the war, the Fed waited until later to jack up the discount rate to extremely high levels. This finally put a halt on the inflationary pressure, but also caused a severe downturn. It took about a year and a half for the broader money supply, and the economy in general, to level out.
Nowhere along the lines was there anything like the crisis in the financial system that characterized the Depression. There was no shortage of liquidity, no general fear of bank runs, no rush to cash out deposits. It was much more like what happened with Volcker in the 80s: a recession induced, or at least exacerbated, by extremely high interest rates to stop inflationary pressure after the adverse inflationary shock, and with the gold standard in place in the 1920s, the result was not just disinflation as in the 80s but rather severe deflation. It eventually bottomed out on its own, with a fairly swift recovery in line with a relaxation of interest rates–which is also broadly similar to the experience in the 80s. This is an inherently different situation from what happened in the 1930s, which most closely matches our latest crisis: An enormous shock to aggregate demand due to a financial system on the verge of collapse.
How exactly do you think Roosevelt’s policies got us out of the Great Depression? There is no possible way the Great Depression should have lasted more than fifteen years, until after World War 2. If you really want to know what caused the Great Depression, I suggest you read three books. The first is called “Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle” by F.A. Hayek. It is rather hard to find in print form but you can easily find it online in its entirety. The second book you should read is called, “The Causes of the Economic Crisis” by Ludwig von Mises. It is a collection of articles about money, exchange rates and the business cycle that he wrote between 1919 and 1946.
The third, and most important book you should read is titled simply, “The Great Depression”, written by Lionel Robbins. Read this passage from his book,
*"It has been the object … to show that if recovery is to be maintained and future progress assured, there must be a more or less complete reversal of contemporary tendencies of governmental regulation of enterprise. The aim of governmental policy in regard to industry must be to create a field in which the forces of enterprise and the disposal of resources are once more allowed to be governed by the market.
But what is this but the restoration of capitalism? And is not the restoration of capitalism the restoration of the causes of depression?
If the analysis of this essay is correct, the answer is unequivocal. The conditions of recovery which have been stated do indeed involve the restoration of what has been called capitalism. But the slump was not due to these conditions. On the contrary, it was due to their negation. It was due to monetary mismanagement and State intervention operating in a milieu in which the essential strength of capitalism had already been sapped by war and by policy. Ever since the outbreak of war in 1914, the whole tendency of policy has been away from that system, which in spite of the persistence of feudal obstacles and the unprecedented multiplication of the people, produced that enormous increase of wealth per head…. Whether that increase will be resumed, or whether, after perhaps some recovery, we shall be plunged anew into depression and the chaos of planning and restrictionism — that is the issue which depends on our willingness to reverse this tendency."*
I will now post a few passages from a review written in 1959:
*"Lionel Robbins’s The Great Depression (Macmillan, 1934) is one of the great economic works of our time. Its greatness lies not so much in originality of economic thought, as in the application of the best economic thought to the explanation of the cataclysmic phenomena of the Great Depression. This is unquestionably the best work published on the Great Depression.
At the time that Robbins wrote this work, he was perhaps the second most eminent follower of Ludwig von Mises (Hayek being the first). To his work, Robbins brought a clarity and polish of style that I believe to be unequalled among any economists, past or present. Robbins is the premier economic stylist.
In this brief, clear, but extremely meaty book, Robbins sets forth first the Misesian theory of business cycles, and then applies it to the events of the 1920s and 1930s. We see how bank credit expansion in the United States, Great Britain, and other countries (in Britain generated because of the rigid wage structure caused by unions and the unemployment insurance system, as well as a return to the gold standard at too high a par; and in the United States generated by a desire to inflate in order to help Britain as well as an absurd devotion to the ideal of a stable price level) drove the civilized world into a great depression.
Then Robbins shows how the various nations took measures to counteract and cushion the depression that could only make it worse: propping up unsound, shaky business positions; inflating credit; expanding public works; keeping up wage rates (e.g., Hoover and his White House conferences) — all things that prolonged the necessary depression adjustments, and profoundly aggravated the catastrophe. Robbins is particularly bitter about the wave of tariffs, exchange controls, quotas, etc. that prolonged crises, set nation against nation, and fragmented the international division of labor.
And this is not all. Robbins also sets the European scene in the context of the disruptions of the largely free market brought about by World War I; the statization, unionization, and cartelization of the economy that the war brought about; the dislocation of industrial investment and agricultural overproduction brought about by war demand, etc. And above all, the gold standard of pre–World War I, that truly international money, was disrupted and never really brought back again. Robbins shows the tragedy of this, and defends the gold standard vigorously against charges that it “broke down” in 1929. He shows that the US inflation in 1927 and 1928 when it was losing gold, and Britain’s cavalierly going off gold when its bank discount rate was as low 4.5%, was in flagrant violation of the “rules” of the gold standard (as was Britain’s persistent inflationism in the 1920s).
Robbins also has excellent sections demonstrating the Misesian point that one intervention leads inexorably to another intervention or else repeal of the original policy. He also has a critique of the idea of central planning and a fine summation of the Misesian demonstration that socialist economies cannot calculate. Almost every important relevant point is touched upon and handled in unexceptionable fashion. Thus, Robbins, touching on the monopoly question, shows that the only really important monopolies are those created and fostered by governments. He has not the time for a rigorous demonstration of this, but his apercus are important, stimulating, and sound.
The Great Depression, in short, is a brilliant work that should be read by every economist. It is not at all outdated. It deserves the widest possible distribution, and would be indeed a fitting companion to Hazlitt’s The Fallacies of the New Economics — that refutation of the other great explanation of the Depression — the Keynesian."*
As much as you would like to deny it, objective evaluation of history shows that Austrian economic theory is vastly superior to the fallacies pushed by Keynes. The Austrians were right back then, and they are right now. If you agree that the current economic crisis is similar to that of The Great Depression, you should understand that it would be foolhardy to pursue the same policies that failed back then to address our current situation. Don’t we learn anything from history?
I don’t mind if liberals defend FDR’s policies in relation to pushing The New Deal or other interventions that you may think are a benefit to society as a whole. But you CANNOT claim that his policies got us out of the depression. A more likely scenario was that an ambitious politician and political party used the crisis as an excuse to push “Progressive” legislation without regard for whether the depression deepened as a result. Or they may have really sincerely believed Keynes. Either way, he was still wrong. If you honestly dispute what I am saying, just answer this one simple question:
Why did the economy only recover after world war 2 was over when we cut spending two thirds and cut taxes one third? The New Deal failed, WW2 failed to get us out of the depression (though unemployment went down temporarily), only fiscal discipline and freeing up of the markets finally allowed us to have a robust recovery.
Please actually read some of this material before you write off what I am saying. Consider that basically all our economic theories and ideas that we hold today come from the misunderstanding of the cause of the Great Depression. Since the fifties, and especially since 1971 with the breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement and the last link to gold was removed, we have been living on every expanding credit bubbles created and sustained by various shenanigans undertaken by the Federal Reserve. Economic law says that we must re balance our economy and allow the liquidation of the toxic assets and make a genuine attempt to pay down the debt and balance the budget. What we have been doing is building up massive speculative bubbles because no politician has been willing to take the blame and suffer the consequences of the short term harm felt by making the hard choices and pay the piper for decades of over consumption and debt generated by a fraudulent system of money.
Hellestal, you don’t have to agree with me. But my opinions are based on very serious work by great economists and historians alike. The Austrian perspective should be presented to people as the other choice, the other direction we could take as a nation. Yet all we hear about is Keynes and more Keynes continuously. His theories have been refuted by history. I have no doubt that most people would be able to clearly see the superiority of the Austrian economic theories if they were presented side by side with the Keynesian ideas.
The suggestion that the Great Depression lasted until after World War II is singularly bizarre. The period 1942-1945 was a period of extremely high deficit spending, sharply rising employment and perhaps the fastest rising GDP in all of America’s history, the way such things are measured. Now no one’s advocating starting another world war as a path to prosperity, but WWII does serve as clear evidence in favor of Keynes’ theories. One is curious what definition prompted you to lump it with the Great Depression.
I do realize your bizarre definition, whatever it might be, of Depression is not central to your point. But your lack of clear thinking is central to others’ beliefs you would benefit from being more open-minded. I’ve already asked you to come up with a citation, even from one of your quack economists, that would suggest purely private monetary policy is remotely plausible in today’s world. Still no answer?
You’re right that mandatory vaccination is a minor issue. I picked it because it was an issue on which you were clearly wrong, and where if you were open-minded you’d be able to grasp that you were clearly wrong. (Some of your other points, e.g. opposing “unnecessary airport screening” or supporting government regulations only when they’re “appropriate” leave little or no room for theoretic argument. )
You are saying that to be open minded I have to agree with you? I am open minded. But I have read a lot of economic literature and a lot of history. And I am convinced at the moment that Keynes was wrong. Look, did you actually read any of the links or books I suggested? I know a lot about Keynesian economics. But I bet you know next to nothing about Austrian economics. If you did, you wouldn’t call some of the best economists of the last century “quacks”. I will provide some more links shortly, but first lets examine your own economic beliefs to see if they make any sense:
Regardless of your calls for regulations or disputes over republican and democratic policies, the basic economic system and monetary policy has been firmly rooted in Keynesian economic policy and central economic planning by the Federal Reserve. This has been the way since establishing the Bretton Woods II system in 1971, after the collapse of the original Bretton Woods. Bretton Woods II is now over as well:
How could one come to any conclusion other than the economic theories we have been working with for decades have failed us? Why do we have over a twelve trillion dollar national debt? What allowed us to accumulate an over one hundred trillion dollar unfunded liability for our entitlements and an overextended military empire? It is the funny money system at the Federal Reserve. Our banking system is designed so that we can never repay our debt. Its very existence relies on ever expanding deficits, debt, and subsequent interest on that debt that inevitably leads to total collapse of the system and complete bankruptcy. The only dilemma now is whether or not we will voluntarily choose to reform our banking system or wait until there is a total collapse. Please watch this video, called “The Money Masters” to truly understand the nature of our banking system:
The predictions of the Austrian economists have come true over and over again. The predictions of the Keynesian economists have been wrong over and over again.
Do you really buy the notion that “deregulation” alone is responsible for this meltdown? Don’t you think our economic troubles are at least somewhat attributable to a more serious fundamental problem with our economic system? You may not agree with the Austrians, but what do you think are the real underlying reasons we are in a crisis right now?
Look at this video, called “Peter Schiff was Right”, which shows a modern day Austrian economist seeing our current crisis coming a mile away:
Tell me why Keynesian economic theories make sense in some detail. If and when we have recessions and depressions, what is the harm in allowing liquidation of debt and allowing the market to re balance itself? As I stated in a previous post, The Depression of 1920-21 was over within a year and half with no government intervention. The Great Depression lasted 15 years. If, for example, we had a gold standard preventing excessive stimulus, all recessions and depressions (though there would be fewer of them) would be over much quicker and their harm reduced greatly. You are actually trying to convince me that propping up failed businesses, dumping the toxic assets on the taxpayers, preventing bankruptcies to occur (which amounts to rejecting Capitalism in favor of Corporatism), and getting people to borrow money when they are broke, amounts to good economic policy? You can’t honestly believe that.
As far as your ideas that World War II was good for the economy and got us out of the Great Depression, that is a commonly held misconception. Keynesianism teaches that a goal is to have “full employment” and its true that unemployment went way down during the war given how many people were drafted and how much industry was diverted into producing tanks and bombs to facilitate more killing. But it was bad for the economy on the whole. The government can employ people, but if they are not doing anything of value or producing anything that adds to peoples lives, then unemployment numbers are irrelevant. Its not just “jobs” that are important, its the value of what is produced by those jobs. For example the government could hire fifty people to dig a large hole in the ground, then it could hire fifty people to fill that hole up again. There, you just employed one hundred people and that little exercise in futility amounts to good economic policy in Keynesian circles. We need to encourage entrepreneurship and small business to thrive with low taxes, low regulation, and market allocation of scarce resources. It is the dynamic free market and basic principles of supply and demand with the rules and restrictions of bankruptcy (Economic Darwinism) that provide the most efficient allocation of scarce resources which result in the highest level of return on investment. The most wealth is created. A need is always met through the voluntary associations and mutual exchange of goods and services. With Keynesian central economic planning, the resources flow into the most worthless projects that nobody wants and there is no demand for. Here are some links dispelling the notion that World War 2 got us out of the depression:
You want me to provide links explaining how “private” monetary policy is possible in the real world? Sure. I didn’t mean to not respond to your request earlier, but there were so many responses to cover I just didn’t get to it.
There are many more. Suffice to say, private money is not only feasible, it would result in a much better and more efficient economy, with the strongest currencies winning out to become the most commonly used and universally accepted means of exchange. The most superior currency would win out. In fact, completely private money would likely be superior to a Gold standard for Federal money. This would put the power of money back in the hands of the people rather than the whims of a secret banking cartel. You liberals talk about opposing monopolies by corporations to increase their own profits? Then you should support breaking up this monopoly and allowing competition in money and banking.
As far as Vaccinations go, I’ll try and explain this one more time. I don’t oppose vaccines themselves. I think most people get too many. I oppose the government making certain vaccinations mandatory. If vaccines are effective and necessary, we shouldn’t have to force it on people. If you are right most people will voluntarily get vaccinated because they will see the value in it. I don’t want to necessarily entertain conspiracy theories but just consider this: What if certain people in the establishment wanted to administer some other drug or toxic substance to certain segments of the population without their knowledge? I want to stress that I don’t necessarily believe any of these conclusions, but it is important for us to consider all possibilities. Imagine if a certain segment of undesirables were to be targeted to be “elimintated” or subject to known additives such as infertility drugs or other drugs designed to elicit some desired health effect among certain people. Before you think that this is some paranoid fantasy, there is precedent in American history for this type of thing happening. For example, known and documented covert CIA research program code named Project MKULTRA practiced many experiments involving drugs like LSD and others, as well as “mind control” techniques on many americans without their knowledge and consent.
I don’t trust the government to give them the power to mandate that I receive an injection of an unknown substance into my body. I think this is very reasonable. We should leave these decisions up to doctors and patients on which treatment options and preventative measures should be undertaken. If your doctor suggests a vaccine, fine. Just leave the government out of the equation. What don’t you get about this?
I think a major problem with much of the modern day Left, is this idea that certain establishment institutions and liberal sources hold the Gospel Truth in matters of science and economics. You may not agree with Austrian economics. But you should say, “Austrian economics is a very reputable and viable alternative and competing theory to Keynesian economics that deserves serious consideration and debate during these times. I just happen to disagree with it.” That would be reasonable. What is NOT reasonable is to say, “All serious economists reject your silly ideas”, which is basically what you and others are saying. I mean, Hayek spent much of his later years publishing extensive articles supporting the feasibility and value of having competing currencies, and he won the Nobel Prize! You wouldn’t say he isn’t a serious economist, right? The same with vaccines. Many here make the claim that ALL scientists are unanimous in their support for them. This isn’t true at all. It just displays an arrogance and close mindedness that is really unappealing. It is as if many liberals have so tied their identity to backing the establishment “consensus” that they stop thinking and aren’t open to accepting new ideas. Science and economics don’t always travel in a straight line towards better and more accurate ideas and concepts. Sometimes they go the wrong way and accept faulty ideas and reject superior ideas that experts a few generation back took for granted. This is what has happened with economics. Keynesian economics has taken over and obscured the superior ideas of the earlier “classical” economists. Our history is rife with examples of failed policies being institutionalized due to failure or incomplete understanding of the circumstances used to justify their existence.
Lastly, as a bit of comedy relief, you may enjoy this video that has gone viral a few months ago that relates to economic theories. It is called the Fear the Boom and Bust, the Hayek vs Keynes rap:
This is how it should be. Keynesian economics vs Austrian economics. Both should get equal time and consideration in our media and public discourse. I don’t doubt that if this were to happen, Keynesian theories would be rejected and relegated to the trash bin of history rather quickly.
I don’t want to engage you in interminable debate, but you’re failing to acknowledge what others say.
You assert that WWII was bad and therefore part of the Great Depression. Hurricane Katrina was bad; was it therefore also part of the Great Depression? (I’m afraid this will sound sarcastic, but what’s the point of using words without following their definitions?)
I did click one of your links claiming to show “WW II did not end the Depression.” It made the same irrelevant point you did and then asked why the U.S. economy didn’t collapse at the end of the war. Uh … because fiscal pump-priming is just that – priming – and such stimulus isn’t to be applied in perpetuity.
I spent two earlier messages explaining why governments force people to be vaccinated even though it doesn’t serve their (individual) interest, yet your latest response (“I’ll try and explain this one more time … If you are right most people will voluntarily get vaccinated because they will see the value in it”) makes it appear you spend a lot more time repeating your own arguments than trying to even understand others’. Was my point completely lost on you? It sure seems so. If you reject the Golden Rule just say so explicitly. Reject the argument for mandatory vaccinations if you wish, but do us the courtesy of grasping it first.
For heavens’ sakes! WW II was certainly very “bad,” but what possible justification can there be for lumping it with the Depression?
And BTW, I doubt I’m the only one who finds links to videos as citations of economics theory to be … unusual.
Quantity isn’t quality. The first link reads like a crankish screed. The second concludes with “National monetary authorities are already discovering that to attract and retain financial capital, they must provide a stable economic and financial environment”, so may support my position.
Go get’em. I am not an economist ( have not visited any of your links) but I do sense that the Austrian school, whatever its virtues and faults, is in good hands here.
I don’t do flu shots.
But I can see that there are two basic problems that economic theory in general cannot address, greed and corruption. Greed and corruption have been with us since we left hunting/gathering and developed agriculture. Once a population reaches some magic number, I like 1000, from a practical standpoint, some kind of central govt is necessary to manage it, to organize and direct labor and resources.
Historically, the organizers have been the ones to most benefit, the guys with the most spears, horses, ruthlessness and inculcated greed along with their religious counterparts, the priests. Labor was left to the poor and slaves. It was noted early that great power can be wielded by combining capital with religion, hence our recent spate of divine rulers.
I like the lesson English history affords us in regard to how capital works and, as you will see, why modern day economic theory is useless.
In 1066, the Normans installed primogeniture and The Church in Britain. Primogeniture insured that private family wealth would accumulate. It was just this private accumulation of wealth in a few hands that made possible the invasion itself, and one could argue, put the Saxon wealthy, who divided the fruits of their thievery among their heirs, at a disadvantage. Too many chiefs.
It had been recognized early on that some system of refereeing acquisitive squabbles between the lords of wealth and arms was generally beneficial for maintaining their estate borders, hence the Monarchy. Over time, OF COURSE, centralized capital became abusive and the last real regulation of capital was imposed by the Magna Carter, which formalized the plutocracy which was the foundation of the British Empire.
We are heirs to that tradition as well as that of Rome. Our Constitution simply makes legal a plutocracy with a few democratic embellishments to maintain in the public mind the illusion of a “popular” govt. Seen any evidence of a popular govt on these boards? Ever really had anything to say about our foreign and domestic policies? Please don’t start talking about the '60s anti-war demonstrations and civil rights marches, they were special cases. Two large and overlapping groups of citizens with real grievances AND, here’s the kicker, the carnage ran in full color in the mainstream media, body bags and violence against blacks and students in every living room, every night.
But not today. Media is centralized and produces a corporate govt approved sludge of homogenized bullshit in several flavors. Journalists are “embedded” in blinders in war zones and Physicians for a Single Payer health care system are not invited to any public discussion of health care. According to a recent Reuters poll, 50% percent of US physicians are for a single payer system, 30% opposed.
The thing that made the '60s anti-movement so successful was CONSCRIPTION and the fact that those affected were conveniently gathered in large groups on the nation’s campuses. Lot’s of concentrated self-interest there. The Pentagon Papers were also of some help bringing the rest of the country along. Even so, Nixon’s and Kissinger’s backdoor dealing with the S Viet “govt” prolonged the war for another 5-6 years. Plenty of time to bomb the shit out of much of SE Asia and destroy any hope the indigenous folk arriving at peaceful self-determination while we cornered the Golden Triangle drug trade.
Nothing like that today. War has been privatized. Blackwater, Haliburton, et.al, on unbid contracts do our dirty work and outright steal. Whatever did happen to that lost pallet with $10B in newly printed Franklins?
So what does this all have to do with economic theory? Well, doesn’t much of it get down to how much or little to regulate? What does it matter if the fox is regulating the hen house?
We are a free market country in a free market world. Do you like it? Corporations are free to buy and sell human livelihood and misery as they like and we get to bitch at each other.
jrodefeld, I’d like to thank you for providing me the platform for 2 plausibly non-hijacking rants about Capitalism: what we got and how we got it and how we each might respond personally to the dark hole into which it is casting us. Below is a quote from a recent New Yorker article, Lithium Dreams, which examines Bolivia’s Evo Morales’ views on things in relation to Bolivia’s huge lithium resources and how they might be developed. You remember lithium, good drugs and batteries. Evo finds solace with Fidel, Chavez and who is that crazy Islamic theocrat in Iran, again? What they all recognize is the the real war is the class war capital has waged on the uncapitalized thru the ages.
Need I repeat: Obama = Bush in Blackface.
Thanks, also, for my new signature, Can’t see the trees for the forest. Most of you guys are arguing about which trees should be cut and which should be saved. Me, I’m just pissing on the forest fire.
[ul]
[li]Complete deregulation will magically lead us into a capitalistic paradise (ignores 200 years of industialized history)[/li][li]Charities and general goodwill will provide for the poor (ignores all of history)[/li][li]Semi-contradictory view that health and medical treatment are not rights but something that must be earned[/li][li]Calls for measures moving us to isolationism, such as leaving the UN[/li][li]Calls to return to following the US Constitution (but unable to provide examples of actions that are in direct violation)[/li][li]Calls to return the US government to it’s “Constitional size and scope” (but unable or unwilling to define just what this means, besides repeating that the power is with the States)[/li][li]Dislike and avoidance of vaccines, with the claim that they should be only administered if doctors feel they are important. (Which they do. The AMA has been calling for mandatory vaccination since 1899 in the fight against smallpox)[/li][li]Concern for being victim of a MK-ULTRA type conspiracy[/li][/ul]This is as close to a Tea Party platform as I’m going to get, isn’t it? You dressed it up prettier, I guess, with the economic policy at the forefront, but I could’ve gotten the same crap from listening to Beck, Hannity, or Palin.
So call yourself an independant, or Libertarian, or whatever. I’m sure you even believe it. But the next time you vote it’ll be along straight party lines.
Here it is. All of your ridiculous beliefs summed up in one comprehensively false statement.
Keynesians don’t argue that FDR’s New Deal policies got us out of the Depression.
You’re attacking something you don’t understand. If you were capable of deciphering the words I’ve actually written, instead of deciding to drown your credibility in the countless delusional arguments you’ve picked up from your Austrian circle-jerk websites, you might have noticed that I’ve never claimed that the New Deal stopped the Depression. I am not defending that point, and never have, because it isn’t true. Nor do more famous Keynesian economists say otherwise. FDR did many good things to help alleviate the Depression. He also made some significant fuck-ups that lengthened the Depression. On net, his policies were more beneficial than not, but that does not mean that FDR was a perfect president utilizing perfect policy tools. He wasn’t. He was a human, and he made mistakes. And the same is true, incidentally, of Keynes himself. The General Theory is a work of genius. It is also outdated. I’m not going to quote extensively from a pre-war book because of the insights that been made since that time. This is because I’m not an idiot.
You make straw arguments about mainstream economics because you don’t understand it. “Keynesianism” just a boogyman term with no meaning.
It’s like Helen Keller trying to educate me on the second act of Don Giovanni. Bitch never had any ear for music.
I’ve linked this before, but apparently you have as much trouble with graphs as you do with English words. This is the Great Depression. It’s from the small-government libertarian Scott Sumner. I haven’t yet double-checked the data that created it, but this is, as it stands, the single most important correlation in economic history, the relationship between real wages (inverted) and industrial production. This is the story of the Depression, all of the good decisions and all of the bad, summarized in one amazing picture.
Your opinions are worthless.
Your facts are incorrect.
Your understanding of Keynesianism could not possibly be more distorted.
I’ve outlined in some detail more than a half dozen mistakes you’ve made. You went into denial. You are apparently incapable of acknowledging any of them, preferring to rely on the belief that if you link to the same group of idiots enough times, reality might eventually confirm to those delusions. Your links are an embarrassment to the positive influence those Austrians had back in the day, and they are an embarrassment to those few honest libertarians out there today who are capable of arguing their beliefs based on facts instead of fantasy. The nation would benefit if it had an honest libertarian party, but your attitude exemplifies the reason why this will never happen.
Until the libertarians (as a group) learn to grow the fuck up and accept reality as it is, rather than holding fast to what their idiot websites claim it to be, nothing will ever change for them.
Individual liberty is not “ingrained in the psyche of every human being”. For most of human history, in fact, the default has been strictly limited individual liberty.
I personally prefer individual liberty to authoritarianism, but don’t pretend it’s some instinctive yearning. It’s just something we were taught to value growing up.
This would result in the United States of America ceasing to exist as an independent nation, because we’d have been overrun by the Soviet Union in a matter of weeks.
A tiny, limited Federal government, such as you propose, would be even more of a corporate patsy. When Bank of America has a bigger army than the United States government, how is the government going to prosecute it?
Central banking and nominal currency valuation are the cornerstones of commerce. If you get rid of one or both you drastically limit the money supply and destroy economic growth.
I agree with this, to a point. I would be perfectly okay with a military half the size of the one we’ve got now; we don’t need 11 aircraft carriers when nobody else has more than four.
History makes it pretty obvious that if the government doesn’t educate children nobody else will.
No argument here.
Cost effectiveness is cost effectiveness. If businesses don’t ship jobs overseas, consumers will start buying foreign products. In the broadband age, there’s no way around this phenomenon; the US is simply going to have to become more competitive.
“Encouraging” things doesn’t make them happen. I seriously question the sanity of anyone who thinks local governments and charity will “pick up the slack”.
The US is not a “member” of the Council on Foreign Relations, and nor is any other state. It’s basically a big think tank.
As for the rest, we can already engage in robust diplomacy directly. Membership in the UN, IMF and World Bank just makes it easier for us to fulfil our obligations as a civilized nation to those less fortunate, and offers a safety net in the event that our economy collapses one day.
A constitutional republic is a democracy. I’m not sure who told you democracy is a bad word, but you should stop listening to that person.
The Founding Fathers lived in a world without electricity, the internal combustion engine, high-yield farming, telecommunications, the internet, powered flight, space travel, the pocket calculator, vaccination, antibiotics, automatic weapons, communism, mass transit, credit cards and a million other things we take for granted.
The Constitution, like fiat money, has value because we say it has value. There’s nothing inherently great about it; it prescribes a system of government which has worked pretty well, so we’ve kept it around. Unfortunately, it wasn’t written for today, but for the world of 250 years ago.
Reinterpreting the Constitution to reflect modern social, economic and political reality is not just useful, it’s been necessary to the development of our society. Otherwise, we’d still own slaves.
There is, in fact, a very good reason not to believe it - it didn’t happen when we had a more libertarian society with a much more limited federal government.
Rand Rover has proposed a similar scenario - that charity (and therefore, presumably, charitable giving) would swell to meet the demand for aid if government would just stop taxing people so damn much, but there’s no evidence that charitable giving is tied to taxation.
No, not “deregulation”. I want to remove the benefits and “perks” that business now enjoys by making them play by the same rules the rest of us do. No more subsidies of any kind, establish equal justice under the law, and severely punish fraud and corporate crime. We should have fraud laws and the courts should protect people from abuse. And most importantly, we should allow all bankruptcies to occur. Just by eliminating “moral hazard” and establishing market rules and regulations (natural rules), we would see more ethical behavior and less abuse of the system. And I propose we break up the banking monopoly (The Federal Reserve) and give it some competition.
As far as regulation is concerned, how has that regulation served us in the past few decades? We had SEC regulators, FDIC regulators, and many more that failed to prevent the Crash of 2008 and corporate crime in general. I am suggesting we get to the root of the problem by addressing the Federal Reserve system artificially setting interest rates too low and blowing up these speculative bubbles and encouraging the type of reckless casino gambling activity that many have engaged in. This should be stopped. Business should sink or swim on its own merits. In a free market, a business cannot succeed unless it is meeting a need that consumers have. Thus the successful business will be adding something of value to the lives of Americans. In our current system, business is encouraged to trade derivatives and credit default swaps that do nothing of value for the rest of us. Do you think they would do that if they didn’t know that the Federal Reserve would bail them out if they screwed up? I’m talking about removing the moral hazard, I’m talking about curtailing the Fed’s power to dump easy money into the economy encouraging reckless speculation and risky behavior.
Don’t you see that excessive regulations hurt entrepreneurs and small business much more than the big Wall Street firms? In my mind regulation is less about stopping fraud, crime, pollution, and abuse, and more about government disregarding property rights and demanding that decent honest business comply with burdensome mandates and restrictions on its actions. Do you concede that some regulations should be eliminated? We should not be demonizing business when people are losing their jobs.
I feel like my policies would be coming down much more forcefully on corporate crime and abuse than the position your side typically takes. Expose our banking system to vast increases in transparency through a thorough, independent Audit of the Federal Reserve system. Then we must prosecute all criminal activity that has taken place. Make no mistake about it, crimes have been committed.
I am getting to the heart of the matter, breaking up the “good ol boy network” of cronies and corporate shills that make up our banking and financial system. Do you really think just putting in a new regulatory agency is going to solve these problems? As far as me suggesting that “deregulation” will lead to a capitalistic paradise, I am saying no such thing. I am saying that our society would be much more prosperous with a higher standard of living for most people, and less corporate crime than we see today. You think I am ignoring 200 years of industrialized history? Where did you learn history? If the last century proves anything, it is that Central Economic Planning always fails. It leads to unsustainable deficits, a growing gap between rich and poor, erosion of civil liberties, high levels of inflation, and a gradual destruction of productive capacity due to over regulation.
Do you think the government has done a great job taking care of the poor today? Did you know that welfare checks and social security checks don’t keep up with the rate of inflation? Our government makes a great effort to obscure the true rate of inflation so that they don’t have to pay out increasing benefits to welfare recipients. Therefore if the government stopped handing out welfare checks AND stopped the runaway spending and sharply limited inflation by instituting tighter monetary policy, the poor would be better off. In the type of system we currently have, the wealth gravitates upward into the hands of the well connected. You shouldn’t harbor any illusions about the Federal Government being an altruistic institution that cares about the well being of the average person.
We don’t have less poor today than we did forty years ago. The “war on poverty” has failed. What if we eliminated the Income Tax and sharply limited monetary expansion and cut spending across the board? We would have much less poverty. Then, for the most part, charities, churches or other religious institutions, and local governments would be able to provide for those who really cannot provide for themselves. By the way, stop saying that my arguments “ignore all of history”. That is ridiculous. If you look at any natural disaster, whether it is Katrina or the earthquake in Haiti and compare the relative effectiveness of government aid vs private charity (Red Cross, missionary workers, volunteers) you would see it is no contest. Private charity is more effective at helping those who need it. Look at how much money was raised to help the victims in Haiti privately! How can you say that people won’t be willing to help those who need it? Plus, the money is spent more efficiently and effectively than government aid. Therefore a lot more can be accomplished with less through private charity.
And what makes you think that if people were taxed less and there was more prosperity created, it wouldn’t translate into more charitable donations? It would seem logical to me. If people are struggling to make ends meet, they are unable to help those who need it.
I want to stress that I am not one of those people who campaigns on the notion of cutting welfare benefits immediately and harps on about “welfare queens” and the like. I believe in cutting spending and balancing the budget, but I think Medicare and Social Security should be the last things we should cut. I think we should cut Corporate subsidies immediately, then cut the military budget by more than half, eliminate federal departments that are ineffective and unconstitutional, and reform our banking system. THEN we should look to have a transition away from Medicare and Social Security and other federal welfare programs over time. What makes you think we couldn’t get by without Medicare? Are you so close minded as to think that there can’t be alternatives that could serve people better while not bankrupting our country? In fact, a better question that I would like you to answer would be this:
**Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are insolvent. There is no way to fund them long term. What do you propose to tackle these issues if not either allowing people to opt out or phasing out the programs entirely over several years? **Obviously something has to be done. You can’t just bury your head in the sand and pretend that our federal government can take care of all these people indefinitely.
Where is the contradiction? I don’t believe anybody has a right to things. A right is a protection of freedom to behave as you wish, associate with who you wish, exercise free speech and do what you want as long as you don’t harm anybody else. The notion of having a right to someone else’s money or labor necessitates a violation of the other persons rights. If we have a government that operates under this premise, everybody loses there rights over time. Now you may say that the goal of society should be to take care of those who need it and nobody should go bankrupt because they have a medical condition. I actually agree with that. But you cannot say it is a Right. The goal should be to reduce the price of medical care as much as possible. Ensure competition among doctors. De link health insurance from your employer and allow competition across state lines. And protect the doctor patient relationship. There are many sound measures for effective health care reform that could be pursued. I just oppose Obama’s health care bill because it just reinforces everything that is wrong with our health care system currently. So, there is no contradiction to my views.
Its not isolationism. I support free trade, travel, robust diplomacy and friendship with all nations that offer it. I do oppose sanctions, dropping bombs, propping up foreign dictators and puppet governments. On the flipside, I also oppose sending foreign aid (private aid is fine) or establishing what the founders called “entangling alliances”. I also oppose having troops stationed around the world in an imperialistic manner. What is wrong with this? The reason much of the world hates us is primarily due to our aggressive, arrogant stance and us continually dropping bombs on third world nations in violation of international law and the rules of morality.
As far as the United Nations is concerned, we should leave because they don’t serve our interests (or those of other nations). The world would be better off without the United Nations. In fact, since we are the most powerful country we have in essence taken over the UN and used it as another tool to push our military might on the rest of the world. After the UN was established in the late forties the first thing they did was get us involved in the Korean War. We still have troops in Korea! Why? What purpose does it serve for us to maintain troops in all these countries?
And we are facing a serious fiscal crisis currently and we desperately need to cut back spending somewhere. I would contend that there is no better place to save money than to give up on our overseas empire. Do you dispute this?
Most of what our federal government does is unconstitutional. I will provide examples below:
Only congress can declare war. This is explicit in the Constitution. Yet, every war or military conflict since world war 2 has been undeclared therefore unconstitutional. And World War 2 was the last war we actually won. This is not a coincidence.
Presidential Executive Orders and signing statements have been used and abused continually to sidestep the congress to write laws. This practice is unconstitutional.
The congress is supposed to be in charge of managing the peoples money, not delegating that power out to a third party (the federal reserve).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.
Therefore the Federal Reserve system is unconstitutional.
The most important fact to understand about the Constitution is this:
The Constitution is NOT a list of what the federal government cannot do. It is NOT a list of prohibitions on the federal government.
The Constitution IS a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with ALL ELSE being DENIED to it by default. The absense of specific constitutional authorization for anything means that the federal government is denied/prohibited by default.
The Tenth Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think I have exhausted my views about vaccines. I don’t believe the federal government should be involved with mandating vaccinations. You can feel differently. This is so secondary to my larger point about Austrian economics, the Constitution and the proper role of government and personal liberties. Lets just let this issue die.
There is no Tea Party platform. I don’t have any association with any Tea Parties. Most of my friends are liberals. What I have been seeing though is not conservative anger or liberal anger, but rather Independent anger. More people are dropping the Democrats and Republicans and registering Independent. Independent registration is at an all time high. I think that is a very good sign.
You know, instead of trying to tie my views to some right wing bogeymen that fit your narrative of left vs right, perhaps you could actually attempt to learn a little more about the Constitution, the history of banking and the Federal Reserve, and Austrian economics and debate me on the merits of these arguments.
By the way, I always vote third party. I am willing to vote Republican or Democrat if there is an independent voice among those groups who is honest and won’t kowtow to the political establishment, but there very rarely is. Usually the party establishment will weed out the honest people early on in the primaries, like they did to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Last election I voted for Ralph Nader. You may find this surprising given that I have spent much of this thread talking about issues that I somewhat disagree with Nader about, but on the whole I believe he was the best choice on the Ballet here in California. He would end the wars immediately, no bailouts, aggressively prosecute corporate crime, restore civil liberties, reform election laws to allow more competition in the form of viable third parties and a host of other issues I agreed with. So, you should definitely not associate my views with people like Hannity and Beck.
So, if you care to, why not debate the issues, rather than trying to pigeonhole my views to fit your own narrow world view.
)
