'[WDWMegaraptor;4977775']I really like leftists with no understanding of basic economics.
this quote kind of bugs me, Plenty of Leftists have a solid grasp of economics (at least on the micro level). We have jobs, pay taxes and create wealth, perhaps not with the same intensity as the 'rightists' but nonetheless, we are participants in the global economy on practically all the same levels. The American sense of free will is being assaulted at the moment, and rightly so. The massive Federal stimulus package smacks of socialism on and nepotism on a scale that boggles the mind of the everyday Conservative but that is ok, they need to get a good smack upside the head every once in a while. The world is changing, it is becoming more and less human and it is incumbent upon Americans to shape their participation and influence upon the world in a manner that best adapts the US to the unknown perils of the 21st century. A good start will be for Uncle Sam recognize the desperate needs of his own citizens before they can start preaching their practices to the rest of the world. i would argue that American social intervention has deteriorated to such a point that the populace has become afraid of something (social intervention) that was once commonplace to them. The New Deal was pretty bloody socialist and the Marshall program of the 50's wasn't much better. Coupled with the massive social net instituted over subsequent decades, America was able to transform its' wealth from WW2 into a vibrant social fabric that changed the world for the better. The USA developed scientists, engineers, teachers, diplomats and scholars who won our acclaim and better, or for worse, they have heavily influenced our lives to this day. The challenge for Congress lies in restoring some of this past glory and spreading it around enough so that the average American can truly benefit. The New G.I. Bill is a good start but there's much more to be done before American's can truly claim that their's is a just country.
One thing that should be noted, Sheik, is that the New Deal is believed by most, if not all, experts, historians, and economists, to have extended and worsened the depression for another 5 years then it should have been.
According to Gene Smiley, writing on the Web site of Liberty Fund,, "a number of economists" believe the New Deal delayed economic recovery. A 1995 survey of economic historians asked whether "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed 'with provisos' (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed.
I am an absolute illiterate in economy subjects, so I shut up and listen, this is a good advice, Von Mudra. Bush?, nah, this is an older song, by a terrible actor
Von Mudra;4978318One thing that should be noted, Sheik, is that the New Deal is believed by most, if not all, experts, historians, and economists, to have extended and worsened the depression for another 5 years then it should have been.
I wasn't speaking of success as much as I was bringing up the fact that America has been definitively socialist at various times throughout its' tumultuous history. While many people will exercise a generous amount of hindsight and call the New Deal a disaster but the truth is that it left a legacy of improvement that has edured well past the population that built it. Schools, Libraries, Art projects, Highways, farm and food programs, hydroelectric dams and infrastructural planning are all long term beneficiaries of the 'socialist' New Deal. Why don't Americans want those long term benefits renewed for the 21st century? It's not rocket science but it's not like Americans get taught that subject in school anymore but I digress,
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
Von Mudra;4978257Actually Lobo, people like me were the ones saying that the whole system would collapse, and the people in power right now are the ones who said it wouldn't. Bil Clinton is the one who signed the legislation regulating the banks to accept insolvent loans, Bernake and the other scumbags of the Fed, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, all of whom ran and oversaw the creation of the insolvency, are stilll in power as well, and are the exact people that true capitalists like me and others have been calling to be removed. And don't call Bush a capitalist, please. HAve some dignity. If he was anything in the white house on economics, it was an appeaser.
"You could also get the goverment to set up price regulations (min and maximum price), subsidising, penalties and that sort of thing. Or other alternatives (lets say soda is too expensive) such as the goverment running their own soda company so it can sell it's product at minimum (break even) profit levels. All depending in the exact problem at hand and whatever the goal is (cheaper soda, better quality soda, higher quantities of soda, ...)." Then, you're taking business/money. away from all the private companies, who can now no longer raise prices a tad to be able to expand production and their company, or lower prices a tad in order to bring in new customers. This complete inability to adjust to the market causes them to be unable to meet survival criteria in the ever changing world, thus causing all of them to have to fire staff, close factories, etc..., cause hundreds of thousands to lose their jobs. Then, the manufactures of the individual ingredients start losing money because they only have the government to deal with, which is buying at cuthroat prices, meaning that the manufacturers start losing money, and are forced to start firing people. They slowly go out of business, and a government manufacturing factory takes it place. Then, the government has fully taken over the entire private sector for soda manufacturing, hundreds of thousands of people are out of work, dozens of private businesses have collapsed, and the government has full reign to do whatever they want with the soda, including stopping its production altogether because soda isn't healthy for you, and therefore if you stop drinking it, they'll incur fewer healthcare fees, thus causing meaning we don't get domestic soda anymore, or it is rationed. = Hurray :) And if you think that's not possible, that's exactly the methods that happened in the Soviet Union and China :D
That's why I mentioned a combination of options and those options can also be applied with or under certain conditions, changed under others and so on.
Let's say that their is a monopoly in the soda market, then by goverment regulations you could introduce some temporary or semi permanent things to make sure that the general public is able to get good soda for fair prices under fair conditions by doing things such as taking ove the monoply and selling it into bits to investers, keeping all or part of it as a state company (incase part of the population is "denied" access to soda by the private companies). It could also set a maximum price for soda to stop the monopoly from making the huge profits that it does while sponsoring other soda companies to enter the market. Or it could set a minimum price incase the monopoly is selling it's wares at dump prices or below actual cost price to destroy the little competition left.
There is a whole load of options. Depending on the situation and product at hand (how much of a basic life requirement is it? The goverment could for example sponsor bakeries to ensure everybody has access to bread, or it could keep alife things that may are "socially" important but would not survive in a purely for maximum profit world.) .
Overhere for example the goverment regulates the (sadly) privatized health ensurance market. It sets resrictions such as what needs to be in the basic insurance coverage package and at what price, and I think there are some regulations regarding the more extensive packages/coverages aswell. Or take public transport, if the train and bus companies want to change the prices they have to get the okay from the goverment, which takes a look at how fair the proposes price increase is. It turned various proposals down, and pressed some buttons here and there to make sure that public transport prices will not sky rocket over night or that one part of the transport sector (the track/railroad owner for example) over charges any of the rail companies (who run the trains on the tracks that belong to the earlier mentioned company). The goverment also got it's hands in approving the propposed railroad schedules (which operators get how much access to the tracks) etc. etc.
I could think of plenty of reasons for goverments to influence the market, as pure capitalism and unlimited supply and demand doesn't always work (just look at the games they play in the oil market, thinking of it, our primairy natural resource here is gas, and that's all in goverment hands aswell, it also has a strong influence on the energy market as a whole).
Too bad they privatised a whole lot of sectors in the 90's. In most of those sectors competition never really got of the ground (2-3 major players remained, prices increased, in various sectors they found evidence of price deals between these companies to artificially keep prices up or the quality of the end product became worse as they pressed every last penny/cent they could).
You know, I started to write a long, complicated breakdown of your response...but I really just don't have the energy to. Because anything I say will be disagreed with, and you'll write another complicated breakdown of what I say. Then I'll have to respond to that, because I don't agree with you. And so on. And to be quite frank...I'm getting sick of these arguments that just go no where. You like government intervention, I do not. You like socialism, I like capitalism. And nothing either of us say to each other will change our views. And the constant arguments about this stuff is just draining me relentlessly.
Europeans just don't understand the American mindset that views government as a necessary evil.
Patrick HenryIs life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
Von Mudra;4979447You know, I started to write a long, complicated breakdown of your response...but I really just don't have the energy to. Because anything I say will be disagreed with, and you'll write another complicated breakdown of what I say. Then I'll have to respond to that, because I don't agree with you. And so on. And to be quite frank...I'm getting sick of these arguments that just go no where. You like government intervention, I do not. You like socialism, I like capitalism. And nothing either of us say to each other will change our views. And the constant arguments about this stuff is just draining me relentlessly.[/QUOTE]Oh I do like capitalism, as I like socialism and communism. Neither of those or any other theories are perfect or flawless. The same goes for technocracy and democracy, I like those ideas too but those are once again "flawed" (inperfect). We simply disagree on which combination of these systems (ranging from total freedom and lawlessness/anarchy to full enslavement by the system and no freedom at all) is the best. How much we need to be socially supportive of each other and how much liberty is required. To protect a person from others, to protect it from itself, to protect it for others, to serve a person and to serve others.
Humans can be selfish, they can be corrupted too. Which is also probably why no theory is ever flawless, as human greed and corruption makes it impossible to conjure up a perfect system.
Though I hope no person supports any theory in it's most extreme form. Full capitalism, communism etc. would mean a handfull of people could and would ultimately dominate all others. Be it under the banner of goverment (well perfect communism is without goverment... so err... lets enter something like Stalinism instead?) or tycoons. That when be being given so much influence, power, control and wealth can secure their position and rule/decive over many others of people. Though a dictatorship or monopolist tycoon could be toppled over, without restrictions it would rise once more with a new face but with the same consequences.
But to answer your concerns about economics, no answer given here by me, you or anybody else is right or wrong. They are different theories. People who studied economics more* and got let's say a master degree in it also not all agree with eachother what is right or wrong, good or bad to do. Just as they can't all agree about past actions and events and it's effects. Nobody can be "right".
[QUOTE='[WDW]Megaraptor;4979477']Europeans just don't understand the American mindset that views government as a necessary evil.
It's a potential evil, just as is any other person or entity. It needs to be bound, as needs any other entity. So that we can pull it's ropes/chains if it seems to cross the line and harm other people. Too much, near ultimate or ultimate power can not be entrusted to anybody or anything.
* In my case I finished highschool with an economic profile which features advanced/extended economics classes and related classes about organisations and management and such. All with marks 8, which isn't too bad. Those classes were all really interesting and fun. :) So I know a bit bout economincs, more than those who finished in other directions and didn't got those advanced economic type of classes (assuming they didn't learn in theor own time). But I am far from an expert and it wouldn't really matter anyway, as even them can't all agree with eachother. =p