| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2012 05:11:57 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Speaking of the NFL, is there a better example of corporate socialism? TV contract, revenue sharing, salary cap ... yeah they really believe in the "free market" having its way all right ... |
At least it isn't some government sanctioned monopoly like baseball. Lets get big government out of big sports! Laissez-faire for millionaires. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 05:19:14 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You say that our economic system is inherently unstable? Inherently cyclical might be more correct. The word unstable implies that without outside assistance, something would no longer be stable. In system dynamics, an unstable system is one that cannot resume stability once perturbed. Our economy can and will stabilize no matter the amount of intervention. |
Sure, the Great Depression proved that ... |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 05:27:03 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You say that our economic system is inherently unstable? Inherently cyclical might be more correct. The word unstable implies that without outside assistance, something would no longer be stable. In system dynamics, an unstable system is one that cannot resume stability once perturbed. Our economy can and will stabilize no matter the amount of intervention. |
Sure, the Great Depression proved that ... |
Many economists consider the handling of that recession by the FED to be the cause of the actual crisis: //www.wnd.com/2008/03/59405/
I will agree that the FED has probably handled this latest recession much better, and that concession comes with some recent reading of mine. So I'm no longer sure if I can go so far as to blame the FED. However I think I can still rightly blame the federal government somewhat as the cause of the recession, and prolonging its effects. In the past, I believe I have lumped the FED and the government together.
But if you want to be technical, the economy DID recover. So you cannot consider the system unstable, even considering the great depression.
Message edited by author 2012-09-12 17:29:56. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 05:32:01 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Many economists consider ... |
Yeah, would that be "a majority of economists" or "a small minority of economists"? "Many" just means more than three ... |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 08:25:13 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sure, the Great Depression proved that ... |
The vast majority of economists would say that the great depression did not end on its own. It lingered on until World War II, that is a massive government spending spree, where FDR gave up trying to balance the budget and spent the sort of money the Keynesians had been trying to get him to spend for years.
Sure Monetarists like Freedman, Bernanke and the rest of the Chicago school are sure the government was to blame for it all, and if all you read of economics is from that school, sure there is your majority.
If you read more widely you would see the Keynesian would argue it was due to a break down of international trade and lower aggregate expenditures were at root. Then there is the views of the Austrian school, The Stockholm school, the Carnegie school, the Fabians, the Marxists, and the precursor to the Keynesians, the Cambridge school that held "the economy produced more than it consumed, because the consumers did not have enough income. Thus the unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s caused the Great Depression." Gee, why does that sound so familiar? The pooling of capital in the top strata of the economy has what effect again?
If all you read is a small spur of the more radical of the Chicago school's writings, you should not use the word "many economist" let alone "most economists". Do not rely too much on economic cycles to right your ship, some cycles are longer than a season. Cycles of drought, cold, famine, species die off, solar activity and economic depression are indeed cyclical, but sometime those cycles end in the termination of things we would really rather not lose. |
|
|
|
09/12/2012 10:13:53 PM · #456 |
Interesting, do go on. Links to articles could help your point.
I agree that the great depression was not ended naturally, but the end of that depression was a bit of an exception in many ways. I'm not sure that Keynesian spending equivalent to the spending for WWII would have alone turned everything around like it did. WWII was a turning point for America, where we became one of only two real world superpowers. The more I learn about it, the more I believe psychology plays a larger role than any monetary policy when it comes to economic cycles.
The psychology of the current recession seems to be "the government will/can fix it", and I fear that sort of psychological stance is not healthy. But I have nothing to back that particular feeling up with... it's just my own take. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 12:26:50 AM · #457 |
| Right. Any economic theory has a good chance of working when, at the same time, your economic competitors are pulverized into rubble. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 12:55:35 AM · #458 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I might have been able to read your linked article with more openness if the author hadn't made several misstatements of fact in his opening paragraphs. Obama administration economists did not predict that "the stimulus would prevent the unemployment rate from hitting 8 percent." In fact, they predicted that the unemployment rate would rise to 9 percent. |
Actually, if you look at that graph posted from 2009, doesn't it look like they predicted with stimulus the rate would top out at 8.0%? The 9% you quote seems to be their prediction without stimulus. What am I missing?
Data: Bureau of Labor Statistics, "The Job Impact of the America Recovery & Reinvestment Plan," 2009, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein for the President's Council of Economic Advisers |
Yes, you're correct. My mistake, I misread that sentence. Thanks for pointing that out. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 11:20:06 AM · #459 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
So, according to you, what? The government should have done nothing, just sat on its hands and let the chips fall? How healthy do you think the economy would be now had that been the course of action (or, more accurately, inaction)? |
I think that is roughly what some people think. It's called Laissez faire, or free market capitalism.
Again, you're under the impression that the government is the engine of the economy.
I could post up a long rant that would take an hour to create that you will probably not read... instead I'll post up a very reasonable article that you probably won't read: //www.commentarymagazine.com/article/did-obama-make-it-worse/ It makes some very good points, and I suggest that you read it with an open mind. |
You'll have to point out the "very good points" that, in your opinion, this article makes, because I'm missing it. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 11:32:13 AM · #460 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You say that our economic system is inherently unstable? Inherently cyclical might be more correct. The word unstable implies that without outside assistance, something would no longer be stable. In system dynamics, an unstable system is one that cannot resume stability once perturbed. Our economy can and will stabilize no matter the amount of intervention. |
Capitalism tends naturally toward monopoly. If you support actual laissez faire capitalism, you would not support anti-trust laws, and very soon the system we have come to know as capitalism would look and behave quite a bit differently than it does today. I don't think most Republicans would support that version of free-market capitalism. So again, government intervention to fashion the way capitalism operates is a matter of degree, but almost everyone supports intervention to some degree. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 12:07:38 PM · #461 |
Capitalism is like the ocean.
It's a mistake to say that the ocean is evil. It's folly to try to get rid of the ocean.
But it's also a mistake to say that the ocean is benevolent, and to remove all levees and dams, and put all our most precious things on the basement floor. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 12:20:39 PM · #462 |
| I think I'm with Don on this one. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 03:06:29 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
So, according to you, what? The government should have done nothing, just sat on its hands and let the chips fall? How healthy do you think the economy would be now had that been the course of action (or, more accurately, inaction)? |
I think that is roughly what some people think. It's called Laissez faire, or free market capitalism.
Again, you're under the impression that the government is the engine of the economy.
I could post up a long rant that would take an hour to create that you will probably not read... instead I'll post up a very reasonable article that you probably won't read: //www.commentarymagazine.com/article/did-obama-make-it-worse/ It makes some very good points, and I suggest that you read it with an open mind. |
You'll have to point out the "very good points" that, in your opinion, this article makes, because I'm missing it. |
I started typing out a summary, but seriously, if you read the article and didn't get anything, what's the point in me wasting my time? How about you start with what you didn't understand.
I see the article essentially arguing that no matter the amount of money spend by the government, it just transfers the burden to a later time, basically making the recession last longer. Again, right now the consumer is waiting for the government to fix it. The government cannot fix it no matter their spending patterns. More than anything, it's a psychological mindset that is holding us back. We keep saying "it's getting better, give me more time". Instead, the 1920 Warren Harding approach was to say: "America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration." and further, "Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government, and at the same time do for it too little." Warren basically told the American people that it's up to them to turn over the business cycle. We hold the power, not the government. And that particular recession was rather short. It seems clear from the past that the more the government meddles, the longer the recession and recovery takes. Conversely, the more ownership given to the people, the quicker (albeit potentially harsher) the recession and recovery is. So my point is that the government has potentially reduced the severity of joblessness, but they have increased the length of joblessness. So pick your poison I guess. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 03:34:50 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You say that our economic system is inherently unstable? Inherently cyclical might be more correct. The word unstable implies that without outside assistance, something would no longer be stable. In system dynamics, an unstable system is one that cannot resume stability once perturbed. Our economy can and will stabilize no matter the amount of intervention. |
Capitalism tends naturally toward monopoly. If you support actual laissez faire capitalism, you would not support anti-trust laws, and very soon the system we have come to know as capitalism would look and behave quite a bit differently than it does today. I don't think most Republicans would support that version of free-market capitalism. So again, government intervention to fashion the way capitalism operates is a matter of degree, but almost everyone supports intervention to some degree. |
You're right to a certain extent, I don't support a total laissez faire system, but I do think that government intervention should also be quite limited. A private monopoly can generally only corner a very small segment of a market. Even with that segment cornered, competition will crowd in to get a piece of the cake. When it comes to a government, consider that it is essentially a monopoly. So you if you argue that capitalism tends towards monopolies, you must also consider the inverse: governments tend towards tyranny and totalitarianism. Given the choice between a private monopoly and a state monopoly, I choose a private one because it will always be much more limited in scope.
No matter, my original argument was not against anti-trust laws... just that the government has less control over the swinging of a free market than we think. It can hurt the economy when poor decisions are made, but I would argue that rarely does it actually help the economy. Just as most things, governments are cyclical too. The difficult thing is scaling it back peacefully once it's grown too big otherwise we potentially resume the path of the Kyklos cycle. |
|
|
|
09/13/2012 04:46:54 PM · #465 |
| Maybe the error in our thinking is to think it's possible to go back to the pre-crash economy. 70% of the GDP is consumer spending. During that period the consumer was treating their house like an ATM and spending the equity of ever-increasing values. The housing market was in a bubble. That source of cash is gone. That source of cash should not return (unless you want another bubble). Therefore we can conclude we will not return to pre-crash economic output. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 05:10:51 AM · #466 |
Back on the topic of taxes and spending, THIS is an example of why I don't think they should raise ANYONE'S taxes until they get a f*ing grip on stuff like this. While I was in the military in the 80's, they came out with their new "Fraud, Waste and Abuse" program where personnel could fill out reports of suspected fraud, waste or abuse. I found and filed endless examples and the few responses I got back were letters of justification of the waste. So in effect, I was responsible for even MORE waste in terms of my time and the "investigators" time.
I am willing to bet I could go through the budget and cut billions, if not zillions (with a Z) and no average American would even notice any negative effect. >:/
Message edited by author 2012-09-14 05:11:14. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 01:27:04 PM · #467 |
I think you're entirely correct Art. But in reality, 20M is such a small drop in the bucket that it can and will go on unchecked. I may suggest that many of these inefficiencies are a result of what's called baseline budgeting. Congress generally goes off of this baseline budget proposal for their upcoming budget passing. The issue is that each department WANTS this larger budget, so each year they must expand at the given rate in order to justify their given budget increase. As a result, they must spend their entire budget. Unlike a normal business, which has to justify increased size by increasing their revenue. The result in government is excess that must be spent or lost, and it gets spent inefficiently.
This recession was really marked by overspending by consumers living beyond their means (to your point DrAchoo). I would say that in general, this coming decade will be marked by a renewed personal sense of fiscal responsibility (well, unless we just become a state of entitlements, I guess it could go either way). I also believe that this recession will not truly end until the government stops the same practice of overspending that contributed to this crisis. Again, I think things like the impending fiscal cliff plays well into to the consumer psyche. Our economy will not move forward until congress takes proper action.
Message edited by author 2012-09-14 13:28:03. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 03:46:40 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I also believe that this recession will not truly end until the government stops the same practice of overspending that contributed to this crisis. |
Please note that the Ryan/Romney budget not only increases military spending, it includes items the military says it doesn't want or need. Also note that fuel delivered to military forces in Afghanistan ends up costing somewhere betweeen $60-200/gallon, not including dead Marines ... |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 04:04:17 PM · #469 |
I'm with you to a certain extent.
In reading Mitt's plan, he states that he wishes to reverse the defense cuts put in place by Obama (I'm not sure that's entirely necessary, myself), and return to baseline budgeting (ugh). He also states that he will find inefficiencies and free them up for investments elsewhere (yay!). One thing that's certainly true is that the defence industry is a large one in this country, and it does drive a significant portion of the GDP. The military is also a great way for lower income, unskilled people to climb the income ladder. If we begin to reform some of our social programs (like I think we should), the military becomes a very available option to those that want to better their futures.
Another thing to note is that our world has experienced a fairly unprecedented time of relative peace since the last world war. What's the new world order that is provoking this peace? The UN? No, not really, its the US. We have the best military force in the history of the world, yet we use it so sparingly. This is the reason the world has been able to adopt something closer to "peace" - not diplomacy alone. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 04:41:34 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
The military is also a great way for lower income, unskilled people to climb the income ladder. If we begin to reform some of our social programs (like I think we should), the military becomes a very available option to those that want to better their futures. |
Look to the Roman Empire for a hint of what can happen when an established society relies overmuch on its lower classes to handle its foreign adventures as the fat cats reap the profits... |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 05:03:49 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look to the Roman Empire for a hint of what can happen when an established society relies overmuch on its lower classes to handle its foreign adventures as the fat cats reap the profits... |
Feel free to explain your point. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 05:10:37 PM · #472 |
The bloated cost of delivering fuel to Afghanistan, including $20 million for firewood, has less to do with government waste here, that the issue of attempting to prop up a culture of kleptocracy. The reason the Taliban ever got a foothold in Afghanistan was because of the rampant corruption of the Najibullah regim that Russia installed, and Karzai is a man from exactly the same cloth and he has stolen all he can since he was installed as president in December of 2001. His family bilked the Bank of Kabul out of $900 million in unsecured loans and drained the bank dry. In contrast to them the Taliban is honest, maniacally devoted to an extremist religious view, but not likely to steal from the average Afghan. Estimates are that 30% of all monies sent to Afghanistan are stolen by the people we put in power.
So do we cut and run from Afghanistan? That would save us the sort of expenditures that seem to offend. Or do we stick it out and let our proxies take us for whatever they can?
Back in 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama tried to pressure the Afghan leader into tackling corruption, but his efforts served only to worsen relations between the two countries, and he soon backed off. Karzai made moves towards closer ties with Pakistan and House Republicans under the leadership of Darrell Issa chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" and tried to hang all the corruption on Obama. It seemed the corruption of 2001 to 2008 did not warrant investigation.
Message edited by author 2012-09-14 17:12:46. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 05:18:24 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The bloated cost of delivering fuel to Afghanistan, including $20 million for firewood, has less to do with government waste here, that the issue of attempting to prop up a culture of kleptocracy. The reason the Taliban ever got a foothold in Afghanistan was because of the rampant corruption of the Najibullah regim that Russia installed, and Karzai is a man from exactly the same cloth and he has stolen all he can since he was installed as president in December of 2001. His family bilked the Bank of Kabul out of $900 million in unsecured loans and drained the bank dry. In contrast to them the Taliban is honest, maniacally devoted to an extremist religious view, but not likely to steal from the average Afghan. Estimates are that 30% of all monies sent to Afghanistan are stolen by the people we put in power.
So do we cut and run from Afghanistan? That would save us the sort of expenditures that seem to offend. Or do we stick it out and let our proxies take us for whatever they can?
Back in 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama tried to pressure the Afghan leader into tackling corruption, but his efforts served only to worsen relations between the two countries, and he soon backed off. Karzai made moves towards closer ties with Pakistan and House Republicans under the leadership of Darrell Issa chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" and tried to hang all the corruption on Obama. It seemed the corruption of 2001 to 2008 did not warrant investigation. |
Seriously. Let's just Cuba their asses, this is truly a situation that cannot be resolved in a win-win manner, however, it seems that lose-lose is highly probable - given the great deal of historical fact we have which supports this conclusion. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 05:21:53 PM · #474 |
My main issue with the firewood story was the "No receipts or paperwork" aspect - NO ACCOUNTABILITY - it's just a tiny example. There was a PALLET of cash (can't remember how many millions or billions) "LOST" in Iraq as well. I would rather literally flush tax money down the toilet than have it end up where much of it is currently ending up over there.
I understand the issues in Afghanistan - what to do what to do - I initially liked the idea of helping setup democracies over there, but by now I think we should realize that might not be possible or might not be a good thing for the world. As to a solution - I dunno, but cut and run is looking pretty good. So is nuking the whole damn place (tongue slightly in cheek). Bottom line to me is that our priorities right now should be energy independence so we can not give a rats ass what happens over there, and enough defense to protect ourselves and our allies. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 05:27:14 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
My main issue with the firewood story was the "No receipts or paperwork" aspect - NO ACCOUNTABILITY |
Whoever shredded those documents should go from one comfortable government position, to a less comfortable one; Federal prison. |
|
