210 Forum Posts by "Minarchist"
At 9/23/09 12:45 PM, poxpower wrote: No one has that positive outlook.
I do, only slightly modified and with proper English. Fewer public sector jobs = less work to do [to support them].
On the other hand, fewer private sector jobs = more work to do [to support the public sector jobs].
At 3/18/09 04:37 PM, Patton3 wrote: The world economy is one of the things I listed, and many of these things are problems the world has to deal with, not just the U.S. I know this comes as a surprise to some, but there's a world outside our borders and we're all conected.
I understand that, and actually, most of the rest of the world is even worse, which is why it makes sense to talk about the largest economy in the world, whose currency enjoys an undeserved place as the reserve currency of the world. As an economist, my focus is mostly on the economy.
As well, I never advocated that it's going to be all up to political leaders. Sure I did say "the leaders we produce and elect" but that statement also applies to stock brokers, CEO's, etc.
It will be leaders of industry, as it always has been, that will bring improvement to the lives of consumers.
As well, I do advocate some government action in areas like healthcare, the environment, revolts/protests, and repealing drug restrictions. Believe what you will, but in my view there are some things that can't be left up to the free market, and when the government steps up and does what it was created to do, rarely does it have a goal that infringes on our rights to any great extent and/or has any malicious pupose.
I acknowledge that you have an opinion, but it's based on fallacy and lies. So when I take exception to something you say, I'm going to call you on it. So unless you want to respond specifically to the points I raise, don't even bother giving me your opinion. It's worthless unless it can stand up to criticism. Also, I don't presume any government action to be malicious, though as history has proven it often is, but rather I look at the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of government action which almost ALWAYS infringes on our rights.
At 3/18/09 03:50 PM, Al6200 wrote:At 3/15/09 04:37 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I have a good "Economics Naturalist" question:It's probably because there are other high paying jobs in the US that require less education and ability to deal with human blood. (Think lawyer, investment banker, manager). It's possible that those opportunities don't exist in other countries so the US has to pay doctors higher salaries to stay competitive.
Why are there less doctors/population in the US, if docs get paid much more in relative and in absolute terms in the US?
You touched on the core of the issue, which is a very fundamental economic principle: opportunity cost. Tuition, taxes, lifestyle, alternatives, job prospects, etc all factor into opportunity cost. Government action affects opportunity cost by making tuition more "affordable," or in other countries, but directly setting wages. The unintended consequences are obvious and not so obvious: a misallocation of labor and higher tuition.
At 3/16/09 05:07 PM, Patton3 wrote: These issues will in all likelihood be dealt with during our lives due to necesity, and how well different countries and people address them will decide what the world will be like. Can this generation really rise to this challenge? Will we really be able to solve or lessen these issues? What do you guys think? And bare in mind, we are pretty much gauranteed that these issues will be addressed, for better or for worse, in our lifetimes by the leaders we produce and elect.
No amount of management or activist leadership is going to solve these problems because THEY ARE THE PRODUCT OF OVER MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNMENT ACTIVISM. Every issue you listed does not have a sustainable government solution. Only through freedom will these problems be resolved.
For example, the world economy is managed by government and pseudo-government entities like the Federal Reserve all around the world. In the US, we now have 100 years worth of band-aid regulations and increased government authority in the economy. And what has been the result? People now do more research before buying a $1000 plasma TV than before putting their life savings into a bank. Banks are awash in credit and lend to anyone that the government will ensure, and sub prime loans are securitized and sold on Wall Street. Because of (NOT DESPITE), the SEC and other regulatory bodies that make people FEEL SAFE even though they are POWERLESS to protect us all, Bernie Madoff was able to pull off the largest fraud in history (with the exception of the US dollar, of course). Government regulation has only made possible the very things it has tried to stop.
At 3/18/09 11:49 AM, morefngdbs wrote:At 3/18/09 06:44 AM, Korriken wrote: Perhaps, but they're not targeting a business they own, they're targeting a small number of individuals with a punitive tax. They're basically saying, "I don't want you to have it so I'm forcing it out of your hands with a law." We live in a nation ruled by law. Their contract has the force of law behind it. The government is basically saying "Screw your contract, if we can't stop you from getting the money, we'll just target you individuals with a tax to take it.";;;;;
Your just not getting it are you ?
I think you're the one having difficulty getting it. These bonuses were clearly allowed under the contract the government has with AIG. Only after it became a media shitstorm did the government even come out on the issue. Now they want to renege on their contract and change the rules. Is it a precedent? No, obviously the US government, especially this administration, hasn't had any respect for contracts for at least the last century.
At 3/16/09 12:00 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Here, I got information about the OCDE countries here, and I've added Argentina's data from here
What's the point of this? What agency or entity is best able to allocate labor? The correct answer is none. The free market best allocates labor according to supply and demand. It should be no surprise to anyone that more socialist countries have a worse distribution of resources and labor.
At 2/26/09 11:44 AM, Patton3 wrote:At 2/25/09 10:04 PM, Minarchist wrote:Yes, by opening markets and increasing demand, jobs will result.
They can effectively "create" quality jobs by opening up new markets, there by increasing demand which increases the number of jobs. My God, must I beat you over the head with this?
Ask yourself why markets are closed to begin with. It's either because they don't exist naturally or government has closed them directly or indirectly (or at least it tries to).
Markets don't exist naturally because they're not economical. For example, the "dog excrement shoe polish" market doesn't exist because there's not enough demand for shoe polish made of dog turds for anyone to go into business selling it.
Government directly closes, or more generally, ATTEMPTS to close markets by making it illegal in some way to produce or distribute a good or service. For example, prostitution or marijuana.
Government indirectly closes markets by removing or redistributing capital. For example, large taxes or high inflation spent on military expenditures. As people have less and less money, they stop spending it on things they least desire to pay for the things they most desire. Meanwhile, the military industry expands to meet government contracts more than was economical before the government spending, but this isn't new economic activity, it's just a bubble made possible by decreased economic activity in other markets.
So this idea that government can open new markets is unfounded. The best economic action that government can take is to cease new interventions, pay for its current obligations, and then finally halt all intervention. I challenge you to conceive a plan for government to open new markets that doesn't result in equal or more decreased economic activity in other markets.
There's no rule that states a system of free trade can't include some rules and restrictions.
You're an economic ignoramus. Read the first paragraph.
Oh, and can we both agree to not use name-calling? We're BOTH more intelligent than that.
No, this isn't a formal debate because you would have been laughed out of here a long time ago if it was. I'm also not trying to be your friend. If you demonstrate a pattern of saying idiotic things, I'm going to call you an idiot regardless of whether that's politically correct or not.
And you should be more honest in regard to those "benefits" you suggest. You want a FEW workers to benefit from protectionist policies, while all other workers, job-less, government workers, and CEOs alike pay for their benefits.No, I want people across the board who work harde to have some job security and quality.
Then stop advocating government intervention. Government intervention only introduces uncertainty into the market.
No need for government there? Did I ever say that helping people qualify for jobs couldn't include helping people go to private colleges? Let's see...nope.I mean, helping people become qualified and applying for jobs they can support a family on.No, I want specifics. We have the best colleges and universities in the world, the best and majority of which are private, which provide general education and direct job training, so no need for government there. We have private employment agencies, operating for both profit and charity, which connect labor with employers, so no need for government there. Is there something I missed, or do you think government can outperform the private sector?
No, in fact you didn't say anything. So why do we need government scholarships and loans? There are thousands and thousands of private loaning institutions and charity scholarship organizations, so no need for government there. And look at what happens now when the government loans money to all these students that don't have jobs because the government created a recession. Those loans are going to be written off with inflation.
Also, when government makes education affordable they encourage an increase in the price of education. If you're the president of a college and trying to maximize the profit of your school, and you know that the government is making it a priority to cover the costs of tuition for students, then you're just going to steadily raise tuition.
Answer this question: why is it that prices in EVERY industry decrease over time, yet education and health care, whose prices are largely covered by government DO NOT?
And frankly, if you can't afford to go to a school, and no one will loan or give you money to go there, you're probably not ready to go to that school, or maybe even any school at all. I personally turned down the easy federal money and went to a worse school because I understand the consequences of government intervention.
The example I gave is an example of a short term solution.I think giving jobs that perform necasary services to persons who otherwise drain public funds is a good thing. Is it a permanent fix? No. Will it put a little money in these people's pocket's? Yes.You said you wanted the government to "create" quality and sustainable jobs, and this is the only example you gave...
You said it was a "great example" of "putting people to work for the government" by "opening up new markets." I'm sure that if I pointed out that government jobs are the opposite of market jobs, it would just go above your head anyway.
Researching would be looking at other people's analysis. What you're talking about doing is analyzing the effects. Something noone here is really qualified to do. Professionally at least.It does weaken it when the topic is easily researchable.It's extremely difficult to research, although it is easy to read people's findings. And what are you going to find when you read them? 50% of economists disagreeing with each other. To say probably is only to admit that certainty is impossible.
Maybe in middle school that's what you kids call research. In the real world it's a little different. But semantics aside, it seems that you've dropped your silly contention regarding certainty in economics.
Look, when I said that, I was pissed. Pissed that someone I met on the internet decides to discredit me based solely on a few blog posts.(And let's be honest, you're a presumptive, arrogant blow-hard with all the social graces of Rahm Emmanuel.) You dn't know shit about what my education has been like, yet you assume what I know and don't know, based on a post I made in a blog.I don't care about your education, but what you're saying reveals incredible ignorance.
I think I'm discrediting you far more by picking your silly argument apart.
Well, were they or not? It seems to me that someone with education in both fields is more qualified to elaborate on this subject than is a person who is educated in one or the other.That's not the point at all. Are you really so dense?Robert Whaples is an economic historian who conducted a series of scientific surveys in which he polled the opinions of economists and historians regarding the Great Depression and Depression-era legislation.Where there any people polled who had a decent education in both subjects?
You're incredibly dense. The point isn't to determine who is right and who is wrong based on popular consensus. That's idiotic. It's just a random sampling to determine what the consensus is and how it differs between these two groups which, when writing on the subject (including textbooks), often have diverging opinions.
Don't just dismiss what I say and beliitle me because my question contradicts your way of thinking.Jobs, jobs, jobs, caused by increased demand for products, which was caused by the opening of new markets. The only one blathering political rhetoric here is you.I guess you just can't distinguish political rhetoric from economic argument, which frankly doesn't surprise me.
I haven't dismissed anything you've said.
None of the old crowd has a chance against Obama. Palin and Romney both supported McCain on bailouts, foreign policy, and other stupid things. Republicans will not win again until they return to a more libertarian message. There's just no sense in trying to beat democrats at their own game.
The one race to watch in 2010 is in Connecticut. If Peter Schiff decides to run for senate, as many of his supporters are urging him to, he will defeat Dodd handily. Dodd was wrong all along on the economy and even actively pushed the government propaganda that our economy was fine. Meanwhile, Schiff was on TV countless times explaining rationally why the day of reckoning was coming, even while others laughed at his face and called him crazy. Dodd has no credibility, but Schiff has distinguished himself as a practical straight talker with true economic understanding. If Schiff runs, we'll see one of the most senior democrats go down in flames.
At 2/22/09 05:38 PM, Patton3 wrote:At 2/22/09 02:55 PM, Minarchist wrote:I never said that you were advocating a pro-job policy, and I'm not advocating pro-job policy directly.At 2/21/09 06:37 PM, Patton3 wrote: I'm not going to quote the post above (not that it wasn't well writen), because I think I can answer it rather concisely.And you apparently missed my point entirely. I'm NOT advocating pro-job policy! I'm advocating PRO-PRODUCTION.
I never said HOW to create jobs, just that tax cuts aren't going to cut it.
Perhaps not exactly, but jobs are your end goal. It's your metric for the health of an economy. Don't feel bad about it though. Your boy Obama thinks the same way. If you think he's right and I'm wrong, feel free to address the economic argument I presented before, since you apparently just glossed over it.
Oh fuck, you're right. I do support nearly any system that creates quality, sustainable jobs.We can create jobs by opening up new markets with things like:There you are, once again repeating the folly of the "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" mantra.
Well, there you've done all the work for me and admitted it. Now for the task of making you regret your belief that government jobs are of greater quality and sustainability than private jobs.
I'm advocating free trade with a few benefits for workers. And not just our own.-free trade.But you're not advocating free trade. You're advocating managed trade.
Are you really that stupid to contradict yourself in a sentence that's only 10 words long? You're a proponent of managed trade. Please do not give free traders like myself a bad name.
And you should be more honest in regard to those "benefits" you suggest. You want a FEW workers to benefit from protectionist policies, while all other workers, job-less, government workers, and CEOs alike pay for their benefits.
I mean, helping people become qualified and applying for jobs they can support a family on.-helping people find jobsWhat possible role does government have in finding people jobs that private businesses and charity organizations don't do better?
No, I want specifics. We have the best colleges and universities in the world, the best and majority of which are private, which provide general education and direct job training, so no need for government there. We have private employment agencies, operating for both profit and charity, which connect labor with employers, so no need for government there. Is there something I missed, or do you think government can outperform the private sector?
I think giving jobs that perform necasary services to persons who otherwise drain public funds is a good thing. Is it a permanent fix? No. Will it put a little money in these people's pocket's? Yes.-putting people to work for the government. The jobs being created to conduct the 2010 U.S. census are a great example.You think low wage-paying part time jobs that last for a few weeks are a great example?
You said you wanted the government to "create" quality and sustainable jobs, and this is the only example you gave...
First of all, saying "probably" does not weaken an economic statement at all. Economics is a non-falsifiable science (a fact that frustrates me to no end). There is little consensus on metrics used to measure economic activity, much less more far-reaching issues. However, economists ARE bound by logic, so economic policy has to be logically consistent. Since economies are such vast and complex systems, there will always be a causality argument that is almost impossible to make conclusively, but we can rationally analyze a situation and make strong qualitative claims based on logical arguments (and let's be honest, you don't actually understand those arguments).It does weaken it when the topic is easily researchable.
It's extremely difficult to research, although it is easy to read people's findings. And what are you going to find when you read them? 50% of economists disagreeing with each other. To say probably is only to admit that certainty is impossible.
(And let's be honest, you're a presumptive, arrogant blow-hard with all the social graces of Rahm Emmanuel.) You dn't know shit about what my education has been like, yet you assume what I know and don't know, based on a post I made in a blog.
I don't care about your education, but what you're saying reveals incredible ignorance.
Robert Whaples is an economic historian who conducted a series of scientific surveys in which he polled the opinions of economists and historians regarding the Great Depression and Depression-era legislation.Where there any people polled who had a decent education in both subjects?
That's not the point at all. Are you really so dense?
Jobs, jobs, jobs, caused by increased demand for products, which was caused by the opening of new markets. The only one blathering political rhetoric here is you.At 2/22/09 01:20 PM, Patton3 wrote: Just a quick note. When I said new markets, I meant new markets for products, thereby increasing demand and creating new jobs because of higher demand."JOBS, JOBS, JOBS"
I guess you just can't distinguish political rhetoric from economic argument, which frankly doesn't surprise me.
At 2/21/09 06:37 PM, Patton3 wrote: Minarchist:
I'm not going to quote the post above (not that it wasn't well writen), because I think I can answer it rather concisely.
I never said HOW to create jobs, just that tax cuts aren't going to cut it.
And you apparently missed my point entirely. I'm NOT advocating pro-job policy! I'm advocating PRO-PRODUCTION.
The trickle down economics idea doesn't work.
I am not a supply-sider. You're getting lost in political rhetoric.
We can create jobs by opening up new markets with things like:
There you are, once again repeating the folly of the "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" mantra.
-free trade.
But you're not advocating free trade. You're advocating managed trade.
-helping people find jobs
What possible role does government have in finding people jobs that private businesses and charity organizations don't do better?
-putting people to work for the government. The jobs being created to conduct the 2010 U.S. census are a great example.
You think low wage-paying part time jobs that last for a few weeks are a great example?
At 2/22/09 01:16 PM, Patton3 wrote:At 2/21/09 07:28 PM, n64kid wrote:If you don't want people to think about it and break it down, shut the fuck up. And I was referring to my history professor, my Latin American studies teacher, who has a bachelors in economics and a masters in history and Lat. Am. studies, as well as "Western Civilization" by Jackson J. Spielvogel.At 2/21/09 07:01 PM, Patton3 wrote:The fact that you said "probably" makes that a limp-dicked statement. This is history, you can research it, not just speculate.Don't overthink what I write. But I was referring to this link.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR -s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.as px
First of all, saying "probably" does not weaken an economic statement at all. Economics is a non-falsifiable science (a fact that frustrates me to no end). There is little consensus on metrics used to measure economic activity, much less more far-reaching issues. However, economists ARE bound by logic, so economic policy has to be logically consistent. Since economies are such vast and complex systems, there will always be a causality argument that is almost impossible to make conclusively, but we can rationally analyze a situation and make strong qualitative claims based on logical arguments (and let's be honest, you don't actually understand those arguments).
On the subject of the merit of the New Deal, throughout my entire formal education, history textbooks generally took it as fact that, overall, the New Deal had a positive impact on ending the Great Depression. But it's interesting to see how the opinions of economists and historians diverge on this issue. Robert Whaples is an economic historian who conducted a series of scientific surveys in which he polled the opinions of economists and historians regarding the Great Depression and Depression-era legislation. Just over half of economists polled agreed that the New Deal lengthened the Depression. However, only 27% of historians agreed with that statement.
At 2/22/09 01:20 PM, Patton3 wrote: Just a quick note. When I said new markets, I meant new markets for products, thereby increasing demand and creating new jobs because of higher demand.
"JOBS, JOBS, JOBS"
At 2/21/09 04:50 PM, Achilles2 wrote: I agree with lowering the taxes, but not by that much. But I say that you shouldn't raise the minimum wage. It's been shown that raising the minimum wage leads to job loss. Keep the wage the same, or possibly even lower it.
It's good to see someone referencing LvMI. That's some good economic sense.
FORGET THE "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS" MANTRA OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
Jobs ARE NOT a means to themselves! This is a classic economic mistake that I am TIRED of hearing from nearly EVERYONE. Ask yourself why we have jobs in the first place. Is it to give workers a comfortable life? NO! Is it to give them an income to "buy back" the goods that they produce? NO! Is it to improve the environment? NO! Is it for the good of the community? NO! NO! NO!
Realize that jobs exist to produce goods than consumers desire! That's it. Everything else is inevitable collateral improvement. And with this principle comes the conclusion that job loss is the necessary result of shifts in consumer demand. But is this bad? Of course not, because as the jobs no longer produce goods than consumers desire, they are wasteful.
The government could theoretically employ EVERYONE, but it wouldn't matter what they're employed to do because the government is AT BEST going to anticipate the exact demand of consumers and employ labor in the exact same way as the free market. Two conclusions follow: 1) We KNOW this never happens because government bureaucrats are the most removed from the economy. 2) Why waste resources on employing thousands of bureaucrats that can do AT BEST what ZERO bureaucrats do.
OUR government created the bubble in the credit market (a story which has been repeated countless times throughout history) which lead to businesses and consumers making unsustainable choices. With the collapse of this bubble CONSUMER DEMAND HAS SHIFTED. To try to stop this economic adjustment is merely to REINFLATE THE BUBBLE.
Many people feel that this economic adjustment is unfortunate, but it's only as "unfortunate" as gravity. Gravity may limit us in what we wish to accomplish, but it's also a fundamental force that makes our universe possible. Economic law may limit us in what we wish to accomplish, but it's also the fundamental force that makes sustainable human advancement possible.
These jobs must go, and I pity those who feel the consequences, but I pity them even more for begging of government to do more of the same. But ultimately this is OUR fault, and WE should be the ones to suffer for it by finding new jobs inline with sustainable (natural) consumer demand. Compounding the problem for our children through government purchase of worthless assets and bad debt and destroying wealth-producing jobs to create jobs outside of consumer demand is a disturbing notion.
At 2/21/09 03:47 PM, fli wrote: And for a party to promise no taxes, yet for the past 8 years raised taxes-- but still have the audacity to call themselves the "no taxes" party--
You must have them confused with honest libertarians.
This is some serious wishful thinking going on for their side, and we just only need to remember what happened for 8 whole years. They taxed the shit of many things because they had no other way to do it.
Yeah, the past 8 years of Republican rule was horrible, but that alone is not an argument against a particular bill or for another.
Even Bush Sr. who once said, "Read my lips... no more taxes..." eventually realized that to get shit done, they had to tax things.
"No new taxes."
Because 40 to 45% percent of cooperations DO NOT pay taxes-- and we need to get a hold of them.
I think your statistic is bullshit, but taxing more corporations would be the biggest mistake the US could make. Corporate taxes are worse than an income tax, as the tax is applied directly to the means of production.
But, the problem is... many of them are Republican owned.
No, the problem is taxes are too high and regulation too severe, so businesses must move assets offshore and hide domestic assets to remain viable. Being Republican has nothing to do with having good business sense.
Those aren't tax cuts, they're inflation hikes. Tax cuts without spending cuts are meaningless and will do nothing to address the problems in the economy, but at least their plan didn't include an enormous increase in the size of government. Were Republicans right? No, but they were less wrong.
At 2/15/09 10:09 AM, Achilles2 wrote: 1) Whether you are liberal, conservative, or libertarian in terms of fiscal policies and the economy (just for my own records)
I'm a proud libertarian. It's always nice to have the moral high ground.
2) Tell what you think is wrong with Social Security (if anything)
It's financially insolvent and our government is bankrupt. The government's liabilities are now greater in value than the entire world GDP, and that is going to be going up drastically for the next few years.
Beyond that it's economically harmful to take money directly from the entire productive sector of the population to support the unproductive. People collecting social security had 62 years to plan for their retirement. Furthermore, there's no moral justification for government to forcibly take people's money for any reason, but the money the government takes doesn't even cover the costs, so the government borrows and inflates, further harming the economy, including those collecting social security benefits.
3) Tell us any idea (yours or someone else's) on how to fix any problems
End social security. It's an economically infeasible idea that has been exacerbated by a ballooning population of old people as medical technology has increased and baby boomers are entering that age. If you're under 50 and expect to get a single dollar in social security, you're an idiot. All social security payments now are freshly printed money or loans from abroad.
4) Do you think it would hurt the US more to enact Social Security Reform?
You don't seem to get it that reform WILL come. Whether that reform is a result of bankruptcy and lack of credit or not depends on what we do now. If we increase liabilities or do nothing at all, we WILL either have to inflate the dollar massively or abruptly cut off all entitlements.
I think the people that paid into social security while they were young deserve the benefits they were promised. I think Ron Paul's approach of letting young people out while cutting spending on wasteful foreign interventions to save money to pay off the liabilities is the only rational and economically feasible solution.
At 2/13/09 01:57 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Not really, since Europe still has a much better income distribution than you do
I'm not going to let you get away with that. Why is a more egalitarian income distribution better? Given that within any human population there's going to be a Gaussian distribution of natural attributes, some people are simply better apt to perform some jobs. Now, I don't mean to make this overly simplistic. Of course there are factors of education, training, experience, motivation, etc that will offset natural ability, but even within your own work place you can see a generally Gaussian distribution of proficiency. Wages that don't reflect that are less efficient.
Please don't get the impression that I think the US is really much better than Europe, however. While our income tax is comparatively low (the only reason an income tax exists in the first place is for the harmful redistribution of income), our government does spend and print a massive amount of money, and of course the politically connected will have artificially high wages because of that. But I think in general, the US is much better about not distorting natural incomes.
At 2/7/09 10:57 AM, JoS wrote: Think of global trade as a sport, and protectionism is steroids. Sure if you are the only one who juices your are going to get better results then everyone else, but then everyone else will start to use steroids giving you no advantage, and diminishes the quality of the sport. Same with trade barriers. If one person starts doing it, everyone will start doing and trade will grind to a halt, costing more jobs. The short term benefits of protectionism do not outweigh the long term damage.
Even this is not true. If consumers are paying more money to buy certain domestic products instead of foreign, then they have less to spend in other markets. So what's really going on is the more productive and competitive industries, including other domestic ones, are hurt to support one domestic industry. In the end, EVERYONE loses except those few people in the protected industries.
At 2/3/09 12:19 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:At 2/3/09 11:36 AM, Minarchist wrote:Inflation is, but it comes into effect not immediately, but with a delay; and given that I'm a Keynesian, I believe in the AS-AD framework, since the economy is far away from its potential output, inflationary pressures are to be minimal.At 2/2/09 10:04 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:Which you should be honest enough to admit is a tax.At 2/1/09 09:06 PM, Proteas wrote: Q. Where will the government get this money?Not really, since taxes are not being raised; the source for this money will be the Federal Reserve (ie, new money being printed)
A. From taxpayers.
btw I MISSED U :( where were you?
I'm working half time now while going to school, so I don't have much time these days. I'd love to have a discussion with you about the flaws of ASAD, since I doubt its critiques were introduced to you in your schooling, as was the case in mine. Unfortunately, I have a lot on my plate right now. Another day I hope.
At 2/3/09 04:26 PM, KemCab wrote: It's intended as a short-term solution. Having the government do it is at least saving them from collapse, which is significantly more tangible than fears in the market.
Saving who from collapse? A bloated, inefficient government? The US government is in dire need of collapse.
Which also the sense behind telling people to go shopping because that also stimulates the economy. Of course, there's a fine line where you have to save money rather than just squander it.
There is no sense behind telling people to go out and consume, consume, consume out of some false sense of duty. People will generally rationally consume when it's prudent to do so. Consuming when it's not in their best interest isn't going to stimulate the economy. It's going to make it worse! And how does government simply saying it's in their best interest make it so? It doesn't!
That's a ridiculous exaggeration but a certain level money is liquid. Computers do a lot of the buying in the stock market now within fractions of a second.
It's not an exaggeration at all. I'm simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion. If you feel it is ridiculous, then you should rethink your position.
Of course not. It's because if capital is just changing hands, then there is no way to improve productive capability, and thus no new wealth can be created.Capital is always just changing hands in our economy. It's not like it sits one place and gets pooled.
You should look up the economic definition of savings.
Consumption without production is unsustainable.We still have industry.
We produce a fraction of what we consume. What happens when the rest of the world decides it wants to stop loaning us money just to buy stuff from them?
At 2/2/09 03:42 AM, KemCab wrote:At 2/1/09 09:06 PM, Proteas wrote: I got this in an e-mail today, I figured it would be interesting to add to the discussion.This is a global economy. Short-term stimulation of the economy, no matter where it goes, will help people conduct business. You don't GIVE certain people money with an expectation of what to do with it. You make sure the capital is flowing.
This idea that the flow of capital should be the aim of our economic policy is ridiculous. Granted, some slow of capital IS necessary, but we don't NEED government to ensure that it does. People do this voluntarily to improve their lives. In fact, the only time that capital would cease to flow at all would be due to government intervention causing overwhelming uncertainty in the market. So if the flow of capital is our goal, then why not just pass laws that require you to spend money as soon as you get it? Or why doesn't the government just take all of our money and spend it, then take it again, in an endless cycle? Or why not just hyperinflate the currency? No one would hold onto their dollars then. Wouldn't that be an optimal state for the economy?
Of course not. It's because if capital is just changing hands, then there is no way to improve productive capability, and thus no new wealth can be created. This is the mistake of neglecting savings! It is by savings that new companies and factories are created, and from these come real, sustainable jobs, not the temporary and inefficient jobs allocated from one sector of the economy to another by government.
Consumption without production is unsustainable. What we're seeing now is the end of a long period of unsustainable consumption in the US. There's no way to avoid the market correction. It WILL come no matter how much Keynesian "pump priming" we do because intervention can only further consumption at the cost of needed savings. The question is if we want to brunt it with a quick, severe correction, or force it on our children with a long, severe correction.
At 2/2/09 10:04 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:At 2/1/09 09:06 PM, Proteas wrote: Q. Where will the government get this money?Not really, since taxes are not being raised; the source for this money will be the Federal Reserve (ie, new money being printed)
A. From taxpayers.
Which you should be honest enough to admit is a tax.
Or we could just leave them alone and worry about our own problems. We should take our troops out of the Korean peninsula and put that money to productive use back home. If both the North and the South want us to mediate, then we could, so long as we make it clear that we're not going to back either side in a war.
At 1/24/09 03:09 PM, HandsomePete wrote:At 1/24/09 03:06 PM, Minarchist wrote:At 1/24/09 02:52 PM, HandsomePete wrote:Wow, I've never seen someone so ignorant of libertarian ideology, and I've talked with a lot of idiots.I said extreme. I understand the general idea that most Libertarians share.
What you've described is not a part of any libertarian ideology. Libertarianism is not "do it yourself;" it's "associate freely."
At 1/24/09 02:52 PM, HandsomePete wrote: Under the extreme lassez-faire, Libertarian view, why not have everyone hire their own security guards, pump their own water to fight their own fires, walk to work or drive over the grass, and leave all education up to selectively choosing what you'll study, doing it on your own, home schooling everyone, etc. etc., blah blah. Fight all our wars personally, see how long it takes for a few of your neighbors to gang up on you.
Wow, I've never seen someone so ignorant of libertarian ideology, and I've talked with a lot of idiots.
At 1/22/09 12:46 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:Get over yourself. You're a lump of carbon. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? True job security comes from demonstrating your social utility.I was under the impression that the aforementioned prerequisites for job security were the demonstration.
No, you've ignored that the idea of utility includes the cost, including opportunity cost, of your contribution.
You've already admitted that outsourcing is a more efficient use of labor. Thus, by more efficiently allocating labor we generate more capital, which in turn leads to new jobs, technology, and other innovations, which in turn generates more capital, and so the cycle continues.Doesn't seem to be working so far. From what I can tell that increased capital's gathering dust someplace instead of creating jobs. Hence why I don't like the "trickle-down" model.
You're very confused. Offshoring has nothing to do with trickle-down economics, and you're not going to see how this capital is used from the outside, especially with your incredible ignorance of economics and finance. You can be sure that those companies that do use that capital are the ones that will thrive, and those than don't just let it "gather dust" are going to go out of business. But then again, you'd probably hilariously support a bailout for those companies to "save the jobs."
The funny thing is that you're against an inefficient distribution of labor wages when it goes to the CEO, but not other laborers. Either way it's inefficient and makes the company less able to compete and generate new capital.At least we agree on the former. As for the latter, I'd be perfectly fine working for a dollar a day; problem is that can't buy me one decent meal, to say nothing of paying my medical bills.
So you wouldn't be "perfectly fine working for a dollar a day," and you'd go somewhere else that pays more, thus forcing the company you were working for to raise its wages until it stopped losing employees faster than it could get them.
Obviously we don't all want million dollar toilets. We'd rather spend our money on other things that more greatly satisfy us or remove discomfort from our lives. There's a broad range of prices and qualities in goods for consumers to choose what they want. Imposing your idea of market competition is contrary to the entire idea of market competition.I'm not talking million dollar toilets. I'm saying if one company keeps selling the same toilet, while another sells one that doesn't clog as much with equal caliber and a comparable price, the latter is a better service. Cheap foreign labor, on the other hand, seems to me to be making products of more dubious quality to increase profits, which does not improve service.
I understand your argument perfectly. The million dollar toilet example was a reductio ad absurdum argument, which is never quite as cool when you have to point it out. The quality of a product or service vs its cost is a consideration every consumer makes. If the trend of offshoring really was to reduce the price at a greater cost of quality, then we'd all be using chamber pots instead of toilets.
Who is to decide what is just and fair? Just you? Get over yourself. There is no sense of justice and fairness in the market, only what is economical. And that which is economical is that which consumers demand.And my argument has been that what we've been doing has only been economical in the short term, with its problems building in strength and volatility until the whole system backfires. Incorporating a little humanity into the process might do it good.
No, you haven't presented a single economic argument. You've only shown how ignorant you are. As for humanity, I don't believe business managers act without humanity. I've never had a boss that wasn't compassionate toward my needs, and I think that some compassion is necessary for effective management. Managers that don't act with "a little humanity" probably aren't successful and are eventually fired or send their companies under.
And without the industrialists you rail against you'd be on the farm with ma and pa working all day and night just to feed yourselves and cover the costs of individual production.I have no problem with industry; without it I would have been dead years ago. I was saying the unions bettered industry by establishing standards for the benefit of the worker.
But that has nothing to do with you not working as a child.
At any rate, the problem with unions is that they've become empowered through government to the point where, in some industries, you MUST belong to a union. Or how school vouchers can't be implemented because the teachers unions make it too politically expensive. But I don't fault unions for these problems, as the fault lies in a government which has grown too far in scope.
It was checkmate from your first post.You can tell me what I'm saying is a pile of shit all you like. You don't have to rub it all over my face to prove your point.
If you don't like it, then educate yourself before speaking publicly.
I always find the discussion on health care in the US to be incredibly sad. On one side you have the proponents of socialized medicine who claim that the US system is incredibly flawed and the only solution being more government. On the other side you have proponents of the US system who defend it as a free market practice.
Both sides are wrong. The health care industry is perhaps the most regulated of all industries. Praising health care in the US for its market virtues is like praising David Hasselhoff for his sobriety. With increasing regulations we've been met by increasing prices and decreasing prevalence of health care coverage. Today it has become almost impossible for startups in the medical industry to mature without massive amounts of capital backing them. Furthermore, we've seen a huge decline in charity hospitals. In response to problems like high prices we've seen the government give money to the corporations to bring down prices or give money to individuals to afford the health care. The effect has been to INCREASE prices because while the market price has decreased negligibly, GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS A PRICE FOR CONSUMERS.
No, the US system is NOT good, but the proponents of government-provided health care are wrong that further regulation will help. They're only asking for more of the same: higher prices, less innovation and the absence of charity.
As a quick note on the morality of government action, people are quick to distance themselves from their government when it does something reprehensible (and there are countless instances throughout history) and quick to take pride in their government when it does something they view as moral. The truth is THERE IS NO MORALITY IN GOVERNMENT ACTION. Consider the differences between charity and government action to provide health care for the poor. In one case, individuals decide freely to help others. In the other case, government places a gun to their head and forces them to do it or just seizes their assets and does it (this is not allegorical; THIS IS, IN ESSENCE, TAXATION AND INFLATION). In the former case, it's clear that you've done something "moral" (Please note I use this term weakly as I acknowledge there are countless views on morality), but in the latter case, have you done anything moral? Has government done anything moral? Clearly not.
I've digressed a bit. We must accept that things happen to us that are beyond anyone's control, but we do not have an entitlement to any care or right to take from others to obtain that care. There is a lot of goodness in people though, and as this thread shows, there are many people that want to see everyone receive care. If you would just spend that money on achieving your objective rather than lobbying government to force everyone to, you'd go a long way to actually achieving your goal. But it is not economical (realistic) that everyone be provided the same level of care as those with the best, but over time, without a doubt, market forces will bring everyone's level of care up to and beyond the top level today at a rate much faster than any number of government bureaucrats.
As for Obama, he will not introduce socialized medicine. The US government is BROKE. It is in an incredible amount of debt just to perpetuate high prices on assets with little value. You may think that we could just raise taxes to fund health care, but you're ignoring the fact that government already taxes you through inflation to pay for its projects. The necessary solution then is not to increase taxes or inflate more, but rather to CUT SPENDING. Government has already grown to be an uneconomical burden on society, so it can either continue to grow to the point of complete collapse or responsibly scale back now. Please weigh these considerations before you continue to demand your "free" health care that you are somehow entitled to because you were born with a certain number of chromosomes.
There is no physical meaning for sub-Planck lengths or time. The physical universe really is discrete in nature, so these paradoxes do not manifest in reality.
At 1/21/09 02:40 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:At 1/21/09 01:36 AM, Minarchist wrote:I would hope that, if I earned my job, and I've been doing it for some odd number of years, and I've done well at it, I would be entitled to some amount of security.At 1/21/09 12:55 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: But you seem to have missed the point of that link: that what is most efficient isn't necessarily the best idea. The fact that foreign labor WILL work for pennies on the American worker's dollar doesn't make it right to take that job from the local AmericanWhy? Who says you're entitled to a job just because you're born in America?
Get over yourself. You're a lump of carbon. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? True job security comes from demonstrating your social utility.
It's not about being born American; it's about the rights of the worker, which I feel are universal.
Then what of of the job security of those benefiting from outsourcing? The market has adjusted to shift in labor allocation and costs and people across the entire social, geographical, and economic spectrum have jobs that are only possible due to other jobs being outsourced. Does universal job security not apply to them? You're advocating a double standard.
But this creates its own problem. If fewer people can be employed, then those unemployed can't afford the goods to begin with.indeed, it makes the situation worse because the laid-off worker is now less able to support him- or herself, and the market they're qualified to work in is disappearing. And because of the financial situation, these people can no longer afford to buy all the commodities which we sell, and business suffers as a result, bringing down the economy.This is often referred to as the "buy the product back" or "functional wage" fallacy in economics. It's rooted in the fact that, in general, the demand for labor is elastic. Put simply, if the cost of labor increases, then fewer people can be employed. If fewer people are employed without a corresponding increase in productive capacity (like technological improvements), then fewer goods are necessarily produced. It's ridiculous to think that labor (speaking generally) will have a greater share of those goods produced than before. So the ultimate effect of preventing outsourcing is to hurt all other consumers to the benefit of the few that are in affected industries.
No. Now you're making the fallacy of viewing economics as a zero sum game. The source of employment is CAPITAL, and capital is created through efficient use or reuse of resources. You've already admitted that outsourcing is a more efficient use of labor. Thus, by more efficiently allocating labor we generate more capital, which in turn leads to new jobs, technology, and other innovations, which in turn generates more capital, and so the cycle continues.
But if more people are employed for less pay, they still can't afford the goods, because prices aren't going down.
That capital will be used to some end, whether that be to lower prices, expand the means of production, research and develop new goods, etc. And besides, it's not like laborers in impoverished nations are going to be buying from the US market in the short term anyway. You're just repeating the fallacy of functional wages.
And to bring prices down, costs have to be cut somewhere, possibly meaning: less labor force which produces less goods and lays off workers;
Labor wages ARE a cost just like any other. No company WANTS to lower it's labor force. A lower number of laborers means less productive capacity.
technological advancement, which still lays off workers (perhaps more than the previous option)
Only in the short term. Technology allows us to more efficiently distribute labor, generating more capital.
or moving to cheaper labor, which lays off even more workers--sometimes an entire facility's worth.
Once again, only in the short term. Really what you're doing is railing against all means of capital production when capital is the source of everything that has improved our lives since the dawn of mankind.
(Or the luxuriously paid CEO could take a slight salary cut... Nah. He needs that third Lamborghini more than the factory worker needs the job his family depends on to put food on the table.)
The funny thing is that you're against an inefficient distribution of labor wages when it goes to the CEO, but not other laborers. Either way it's inefficient and makes the company less able to compete and generate new capital.
Really, your argument can be reduced down to the idea that wealth comes from cost of production, which is as silly as it sounds. Furthermore, you don't seem too concerned about other companies outsourcing into the US, like foreign auto companies, which makes you a hypocrite. If you are, then you're an isolationist, which everyone seems to agree is such a bad thing, as I've been mislabeled as one many times in the past. There's really no way for you to stand on your argument.My turn to point out your fallacy: either-or dilemma. I AM concerned about people in other countries getting their jobs outsourced, and I think they deserve the same rights and security as workers that we do.
But what about that universal job security? What about the American workers that have been working at Toyota factories for years?
But I'm not an isolationist either; I believe the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas is the lifeblood of progress,
Obviously you don't, because you're advocating restrictions on these.
and I know from paying attention in history class (gasp!) that attempts at isolation in the past have consistently ended in failure.
It's too bad you didn't pay attention in economics class.
What I'm trying to get at is the degree to which we have extended the idea of "free trade." More than just exchanging goods, we now put human resources up for sale
Human resources have ALWAYS BEEN UP FOR SALE.
not for offering better services, which is the kind of market competition I like to see, but offering adequate services for dirt cheap.
Obviously we don't all want million dollar toilets. We'd rather spend our money on other things that more greatly satisfy us or remove discomfort from our lives. There's a broad range of prices and qualities in goods for consumers to choose what they want. Imposing your idea of market competition is contrary to the entire idea of market competition.
And while some of the money saved probably does go into the business, a lot of it also goes into the pocketbooks of company execs who are already making dozens, even hundreds of times, what they and their families need to live on. Where is the justice and fairness in a system like this? How is this a healthy economy?
Who is to decide what is just and fair? Just you? Get over yourself. There is no sense of justice and fairness in the market, only what is economical. And that which is economical is that which consumers demand.
It's not foreign companies that are holding third world countries back. Unionizing would likely be as effective as it has been in the US auto industry. In other words, it would only further damage them. The real source of problems for these countries are their governments, which are propped up by richer nations, are such a burden on society.And I was saying the laborers should revolt against the oppressing government. Sorry if that was unclear. As for unions, they can be part of the problem TODAY, but back when they first formed they were needed to raise the standards of the American workplace.
I'm not going to agree completely with that, but people are free to associate as they wish.
Otherwise, I might have been manufacturing small parts on a factory floor at the age of nine, with no idea whether I'd be getting a high school education.
And without the industrialists you rail against you'd be on the farm with ma and pa working all day and night just to feed yourselves and cover the costs of individual production.
I'll end my turn here. Your move.
It was checkmate from your first post.
At 1/21/09 12:55 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: But you seem to have missed the point of that link: that what is most efficient isn't necessarily the best idea. The fact that foreign labor WILL work for pennies on the American worker's dollar doesn't make it right to take that job from the local American
Why? Who says you're entitled to a job just because you're born in America?
indeed, it makes the situation worse because the laid-off worker is now less able to support him- or herself, and the market they're qualified to work in is disappearing. And because of the financial situation, these people can no longer afford to buy all the commodities which we sell, and business suffers as a result, bringing down the economy.
This is often referred to as the "buy the product back" or "functional wage" fallacy in economics. It's rooted in the fact that, in general, the demand for labor is elastic. Put simply, if the cost of labor increases, then fewer people can be employed. If fewer people are employed without a corresponding increase in productive capacity (like technological improvements), then fewer goods are necessarily produced. It's ridiculous to think that labor (speaking generally) will have a greater share of those goods produced than before. So the ultimate effect of preventing outsourcing is to hurt all other consumers to the benefit of the few that are in affected industries.
Really, your argument can be reduced down to the idea that wealth comes from cost of production, which is as silly as it sounds. Furthermore, you don't seem too concerned about other companies outsourcing into the US, like foreign auto companies, which makes you a hypocrite. If you are, then you're an isolationist, which everyone seems to agree is such a bad thing, as I've been mislabeled as one many times in the past. There's really no way for you to stand on your argument.
So I'm all in favor of bringing the jobs back here. Not only would we be more financially stable, but it could very well incite foreign labor to revolt, unionize, and demand better conditions for themselves.
It's not foreign companies that are holding third world countries back. Unionizing would likely be as effective as it has been in the US auto industry. In other words, it would only further damage them. The real source of problems for these countries are their governments, which are propped up by richer nations, are such a burden on society.
At 1/19/09 08:25 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:At 1/19/09 08:15 PM, Minarchist wrote:Now did I say about economic policy? No. I purposely left it open ended for anybody to interpret it.
Not at all. He's asking what we can expect from Obama by first calling it a new era. He's assuming it will be a new era when the entire point of my post was that it's just more the same. But thanks for keeping me on my toes, junior.
Yeah, and then you got butthurt when people talked about the economy.
It Obama the same in Bush when it comes to say, Iraq? I don't think so.
Philosophically he's an interventionist, just like Bush. He's not going to bring any troops home from the other 134 countries. In fact, he wants to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. As for Iraq specifically, I'd be really, really surprised if Obama leaves before the scheduled 2011 departure. Just more of the same.
Furthermore, what else about Obama is fundamentally the same with Bush, besides possibly the economic plan? I'm sorry, I don't see anything.
An interventionist foreign policy and the assault on American civil liberties.
At 1/19/09 07:18 PM, glomph wrote: I don't care about the economy i care about physical things i value like people and the planet.
This is the statement that reveals your ignorance. Economy is the means by which man has propagated throughout the earth. Where do you think hospitals, bountiful food, clean water, etc came from? These are all as good as they are today because our economy isn't, for the most part, stifled. So what happens should you do so? A lot of the people you value are going to die and a lot of the people you would value will never live. As for the planet, it's really doomed no matter what we do. But we're it's only chance to survive a number of cosmological disasters.
