Enjoy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Enjoy.
I agree with this guy partially, but he seems to ignore the fact that the government invests in a lot of research both for medicine and for things like NASA. You could also use money used for military research as an example of government stimulus of the economy.
Keynesian economics isn't completely wrong, just like Milton Friedman wasn't completely right. It's a balance.
Keynesian economics isn't completely wrong, just like Milton Friedman wasn't completely right. It's a balance.
Well, at least Friedman was based around an economy that actually produces something..lol.
Your hero would certainly side with Friedman. You know, you can have a free market with oversight.
Your hero would certainly side with Friedman. You know, you can have a free market with oversight.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The original video would have been a lot more enjoyable if it was more balanced than CameronPoe after 6 hours in a pub.
The implementation of theory is key. It looked at past implementation with little context and at basic flaws in the theory, all with a very negative light. Not once did it ask what could be altered to make the system work, or what parts of the theory were ideal.
Ron Paul was hot in that second vid though.
The implementation of theory is key. It looked at past implementation with little context and at basic flaws in the theory, all with a very negative light. Not once did it ask what could be altered to make the system work, or what parts of the theory were ideal.
Ron Paul was hot in that second vid though.
Gee do ya think? Note the slogan: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9842Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The original video would have been a lot more enjoyable if it was more balanced than CameronPoe after 6 hours in a pub.
Or maybe you missed the part where he said he was from the Cato institute.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I understand, but you are more persuasive if you can make people think the middle of the road is on the far left or the far right.Kmarion wrote:
Gee do ya think? Note the slogan: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9842Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The original video would have been a lot more enjoyable if it was more balanced than CameronPoe after 6 hours in a pub.
Or maybe you missed the part where he said he was from the Cato institute.
Well, more libertarian than anything else. I would not call them far right. Especially considering the fact that the far right advocates excessive spending now also.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I understand, but you are more persuasive if you can make people think the middle of the road is on the far left or the far right.Kmarion wrote:
Gee do ya think? Note the slogan: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9842Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The original video would have been a lot more enjoyable if it was more balanced than CameronPoe after 6 hours in a pub.
Or maybe you missed the part where he said he was from the Cato institute.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Metaphorical left and right. I'm just saying their rhetoric sucks, regardless of your political position.
There are things I disagree with Paul on, but yes, I support a free market with oversight.Kmarion wrote:
Well, at least Friedman was based around an economy that actually produces something..lol.
Your hero would certainly side with Friedman. You know, you can have a free market with oversight.
'Centre for Freedom and Prosperity'. Nice. Some facts, some slanted commentary. Of course all he is concerned with is economic growth, which does not necessarily equate to political stability or widespread prosperity in times such as these. There are more aspects to life than just a GDP number going up, but of course to consider that might knock him off his high horse. I'll address some of the things I find odd in his commentary later. And of course such policies do not increase overall cash within an economy - to suggest that anyone might think that is ludicrous. It's short-term redisribution of wealth to get through a hard time collectively - it needn't remain policy forever!!!
PS What's his suggestions? 'Wait' until things get better? Eat our children? Roosevelt is recognised as having kept America out of collapsing socially following 1933. He doesn't seem to mention that... He conveniently neglects to mention the fact that when Roosevelt died unemployment stood at 1.9%
PPS Don't get any wrong ideas about my persuasions here - I'm a free marketeer (with conditions). The problems inherent in free markets need to be mitigated/prevented from happening ever again. Number one: Speculation. The number one threat to sustainability and stability. Something must be done to mitigate it. Number Two: Credit and risk management/regulation. The circulation of money across the entire world has proven itself to be incredibly dangerous to stability and must be scrutinised closely.
The bottom line is that idealism is all very well but at the end of the day it's ideal. And when the shit hits the fan in the real world expediency rears its head. He made no mention of the growth of a property bubble - free markets at their worst (speculation, property flipping a la Miami in the 1920s) - is a massive factor in this current crisis.
PS What's his suggestions? 'Wait' until things get better? Eat our children? Roosevelt is recognised as having kept America out of collapsing socially following 1933. He doesn't seem to mention that... He conveniently neglects to mention the fact that when Roosevelt died unemployment stood at 1.9%
PPS Don't get any wrong ideas about my persuasions here - I'm a free marketeer (with conditions). The problems inherent in free markets need to be mitigated/prevented from happening ever again. Number one: Speculation. The number one threat to sustainability and stability. Something must be done to mitigate it. Number Two: Credit and risk management/regulation. The circulation of money across the entire world has proven itself to be incredibly dangerous to stability and must be scrutinised closely.
The bottom line is that idealism is all very well but at the end of the day it's ideal. And when the shit hits the fan in the real world expediency rears its head. He made no mention of the growth of a property bubble - free markets at their worst (speculation, property flipping a la Miami in the 1920s) - is a massive factor in this current crisis.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-24 09:09:09)
Wars and natural disasters are great employers.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Who provides said employment? Government bonds are sold to pay for a massive ramp up in manufacturing output. So sometimes Keynes can work, sometimes it can't. Identifying what makes the crucial difference would be interesting. The real question is "How can we best expedite the movement of idle capital?".Kmarion wrote:
Wars and natural disasters are great employers.
One thing that puzzles me about America is how it's public spending is so large, or is regarded as being so large, even though it doesn't provide half of the social programs that European nations and the likes of Canada do. What is the money being spent on?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-24 10:35:18)
At home the unemployed replaced nearly a half million jobs. That increased consumer spending which generated more jobs. Those serving were living a meager life. While they might have been employed, they had little in the way of luxuries.. they could even be considered homeless. You just replace one segment of the population with the impoverished. That's if they weren't killed or disabled. Forced job abandonment and population thinning isn't what I would consider ideal.CameronPoe wrote:
Who provides said employment? Government bonds are sold to pay for a massive ramp up in manufacturing output. So sometimes Keynes can work, sometimes it can't. Identifying what makes the crucial difference would be interesting. The real question is "How can we best expedite the movement of idle capital?".Kmarion wrote:
Wars and natural disasters are great employers.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The US entered WWII at the end of 1941. In the preceding eight years FDR's administration had reduced unemployment by some 12.6%. Of course it could be argued that leaving things to their own devices might have made for a faster rate of reemployment.Kmarion wrote:
At home the unemployed replaced nearly a half million jobs. That increased consumer spending which generated more jobs. Those serving were living a meager life. While they might have been employed, they had little in the way of luxuries.. they could even be considered homeless. You just replace one segment of the population with the impoverished. That's if they weren't killed or disabled. Forced job abandonment and population thinning isn't what I would consider ideal.CameronPoe wrote:
Who provides said employment? Government bonds are sold to pay for a massive ramp up in manufacturing output. So sometimes Keynes can work, sometimes it can't. Identifying what makes the crucial difference would be interesting. The real question is "How can we best expedite the movement of idle capital?".Kmarion wrote:
Wars and natural disasters are great employers.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-24 11:06:39)
We were already turning up production by 1939 in support of our allies. This undoubtedly had an immediate impact on employment rates.CameronPoe wrote:
The US entered WWII at the end of 1941. In the preceding eight years FDR's administration had reduced unemployment by some 12.6%. Of course it could be argued that leaving things to their own devices might have made for a faster rate of reemployment.Kmarion wrote:
At home the unemployed replaced nearly a half million jobs. That increased consumer spending which generated more jobs. Those serving were living a meager life. While they might have been employed, they had little in the way of luxuries.. they could even be considered homeless. You just replace one segment of the population with the impoverished. That's if they weren't killed or disabled. Forced job abandonment and population thinning isn't what I would consider ideal.CameronPoe wrote:
Who provides said employment? Government bonds are sold to pay for a massive ramp up in manufacturing output. So sometimes Keynes can work, sometimes it can't. Identifying what makes the crucial difference would be interesting. The real question is "How can we best expedite the movement of idle capital?".
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2 <-- War begins
1940 14.6 <--
1941 9.9 <--
1942 4.7 <--
1943 1.9 <--
1944 1.2 <--
1945 1.9 <-- War ends
Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration (The largest employer in his new deal) was actually shut down because the War boom proved to be a greater source of employment. It was deemed unnecessary.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
33-37 - very much pre-war - 10.6% reduction. I have no idea what happened in 38 but of course when the war kicked in then why would the government feel the need for the WPA to remain: it should only ever have been a stop gap measure. Neither you nor I can probably comprehend what a country with 24.6% unemployment must feel like. And let's not forget the primary reason for the crash - speculation on the open market, insupportable self-reinforcing popular confidence and poor lending practices (it sounds quite familiar). If the free market was left to its devices those without jobs would have to be fed from the public trough while the market picks up - one might as well have them build infrastructure into the bargain.Kmarion wrote:
We were already turning up production by 1939 in support of our allies. This undoubtedly had an immediate impact on employment rates.
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2 <-- War begins
1940 14.6 <--
1941 9.9 <--
1942 4.7 <--
1943 1.9 <--
1944 1.2 <--
1945 1.9 <-- War ends
Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration (The largest employer in his new deal) was actually shut down because the War boom proved to be a greater source of employment. It was deemed unnecessary.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-24 12:16:45)
While I agree that the New Deal had a positive effect prior to WWII as you pointed out, I'm not sure natural economic forces wouldn't have had the same effect. I suspect it would not have because the government was a much larger spender than it is today as a percent of GDP.
For the equivalent effect to happen with today's dollars we're talking TRILLIONS.
We can't hope for a war on the scale WWII was because if we had something like that today 90% of the world would be under a nuclear winter. Our military machine is too efficient today and needs so few men to man compared to WWII warfare. I mean today we have in development autonomous fighting vehicles that need little to know human supervision.
If I was in charge and wanted to get us out of this slowdown I would lower taxes for everyone and bring to justice all the people who were responsible for this fiasco, including congressmen who's great idea it was to deregulate all this.
For the equivalent effect to happen with today's dollars we're talking TRILLIONS.
We can't hope for a war on the scale WWII was because if we had something like that today 90% of the world would be under a nuclear winter. Our military machine is too efficient today and needs so few men to man compared to WWII warfare. I mean today we have in development autonomous fighting vehicles that need little to know human supervision.
If I was in charge and wanted to get us out of this slowdown I would lower taxes for everyone and bring to justice all the people who were responsible for this fiasco, including congressmen who's great idea it was to deregulate all this.
The goal is to create sustainable jobs. We went back into a recession in 1937. With unemployment sitting previously at 25 percent it had little choice but to go up. The goal is to create sustainable jobs. It is important to look at the quality of employment also. From what I've seen those government created jobs were well below the national average at the time. Granted I am sure it helped immediately.
That is a reality no one want's to face. I am not a proponent of eliminating a safety net. But I do not think that my government can influence and create enough jobs to sustain a population of 300+ million. I believe they can impede the natural trends of growth though.If the free market was left to its devices those without jobs would have to be fed from the public trough while the market picks up
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ok, call me when there is a government with enough balls to tell their people to wait it out and things will be better in the long run. Then I'll listen.Kmarion wrote:
The goal is to create sustainable jobs. We went back into a recession in 1937. With unemployment sitting previously at 25 percent it had little choice but to go up. The goal is to create sustainable jobs. It is important to look at the quality of employment also. From what I've seen those government created jobs were well below the national average at the time. Granted I am sure it helped immediately.That is a reality no one want's to face. I am not a proponent of eliminating a safety net. But I do not think that my government has the capacity to influence the economy enough jobs to sustain a population of 300+ million. I believe they can impede the natural trends of growth though.If the free market was left to its devices those without jobs would have to be fed from the public trough while the market picks up
I understand the obvious desire to sugar coat it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Ok, call me when there is a government with enough balls to tell their people to wait it out and things will be better in the long run. Then I'll listen.Kmarion wrote:
The goal is to create sustainable jobs. We went back into a recession in 1937. With unemployment sitting previously at 25 percent it had little choice but to go up. The goal is to create sustainable jobs. It is important to look at the quality of employment also. From what I've seen those government created jobs were well below the national average at the time. Granted I am sure it helped immediately.That is a reality no one want's to face. I am not a proponent of eliminating a safety net. But I do not think that my government has the capacity to influence the economy enough jobs to sustain a population of 300+ million. I believe they can impede the natural trends of growth though.If the free market was left to its devices those without jobs would have to be fed from the public trough while the market picks up
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No, sugar-coating it is when you tell the people it's not that bad so the most simple-minded of the bunch will shut the fuck up. What the government does in response to all the whining is cover the economy in pillows before sending it off to the school of hard knocks, softening the blows but ultimately defeating the purpose.Kmarion wrote:
I understand the obvious desire to sugar coat it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Ok, call me when there is a government with enough balls to tell their people to wait it out and things will be better in the long run. Then I'll listen.Kmarion wrote:
The goal is to create sustainable jobs. We went back into a recession in 1937. With unemployment sitting previously at 25 percent it had little choice but to go up. The goal is to create sustainable jobs. It is important to look at the quality of employment also. From what I've seen those government created jobs were well below the national average at the time. Granted I am sure it helped immediately.
That is a reality no one want's to face. I am not a proponent of eliminating a safety net. But I do not think that my government has the capacity to influence the economy enough jobs to sustain a population of 300+ million. I believe they can impede the natural trends of growth though.
It's paradoxical that you need someone with the most popular appeal as possible to tell the people something that's neither popular nor appealing.
You won't find one... at least anything resembling a democracy. Once people realize they can vote themselves a paycheck (ala $600 'Stimulus Check'), they'll vote people in that will give them those - in only a monarchy that would work, but I'm not advocating that at all.
Is that Obama? Even a conservative like myself believes that maybe this is what our country needs right now...someone so popular and appealing willing to tell 'the people' something so unpopular. Its going to be expensive, I know...I mean look at what Bush is agreeing to with these bailouts with no accountability with the money (i.e. giving $25 billion to Bank of America only to have them lay off 35,000 employees a few weeks later).It's paradoxical that you need someone with the most popular appeal as possible to tell the people something that's neither popular nor appealing.
The last time the democrats had a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the White House, and the House of Representatives was in 1933 when they issued the 'New Deal', right?
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it I guess. Lets just hope its a softer landing because I doubt we'll have a war on the scale of WWII anytime soon even if Iran and North Korea got all uppeidy.
What is your suggestion Kmar? Is your suggestion for everyone to sit out the next 2 years or so of economic activity? How fast does a lumbering thing like 'the global free market' take to respond to crises? There will be a cost in terms of social unrest - just look at Greece or poor suburbs of Paris: you reach an instability point where everything unravels. What will happen in Detroit? What is your suggestion? Everyone that is currently being forced out of employment en masse will have to be supported, possibly even in the medium term. That is a political reality. Or do you think otherwise?Kmarion wrote:
The goal is to create sustainable jobs. We went back into a recession in 1937. With unemployment sitting previously at 25 percent it had little choice but to go up. The goal is to create sustainable jobs. It is important to look at the quality of employment also. From what I've seen those government created jobs were well below the national average at the time. Granted I am sure it helped immediately.That is a reality no one want's to face. I am not a proponent of eliminating a safety net. But I do not think that my government can influence and create enough jobs to sustain a population of 300+ million. I believe they can impede the natural trends of growth though.If the free market was left to its devices those without jobs would have to be fed from the public trough while the market picks up
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-24 13:22:53)
Can anyone agree with me on this point: If the government were to say tomorrow that they are lowering taxes wouldn't that immediately increase the likelyhood someone will feel better about their economic outlook and start spending? If we have those Stimulus Checks as an example people were spending them before they had them. For two months we had pretty good numbers...now how to sustain that without having the government send $600 stimulus checks every other month?