"Freedom" thread or something

manofmystery wrote: thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: manofmystery wrote: Our current era of economic collapse is just part of the boom and bust cycle promoted by the folks like Keynes and Krugman. Build a bubble through economic intervention in the market and then when it bursts and millions suffer, repeat. Au contraire - we've seen multiple collapses since Reagan's era of deregulation started.  What I think is happening is that we've put too much power into the hands of the rich, and they are playing Jenga with our economy.  They pull all the wealth out from the lower and middle classes and pile it up onto the top and then boom - economic collapse.  Then the government says "we can't live without you rich people!"  The government throws a bunch of money at them, and then rinse, lather, repeat. We saw multple collapses between 1917 when the Fed was established and 1980 when Reagan was elected too.I agree with you if by "the rich" you mean "federal reserve bankers." Exactly, Reagan did nothing to stop a cycle that had long existed. His free market credentials are fluff. He was a great speaker who talked a lot about deregulation and the market but in practice he increased government growth. Reagan is a convenient target to rally the economically ignorant against market ideals because he spoke a lot about them while not actually practicing any. This is why, during the campaign, I told everyone here than Romney would be worse for the cause of free market economics than Obama because, while neither supports the market, the media could successfully sell the image of Romney the Capitalist to sheep.

Now I can get behind the idea that Obama has not done what needs to be done in order to fix this problem.  I would argue that part of that is because of the gridlock in government and the fact that Obama is a pragmatist who will try to give people enough of something they want in order to make baby steps towards the goal rather than introduce a bill that will never make it through.  But I'm on board with saying that Obama has not done what needs to be done.  However, what I simply cannot get behind is the Libertarian idea that there should be no safety net - that programs like Social Security and Medicare (and ultimately a universal healthcare program - something I think would greatly benefit the USA) should not be.  I simply cannot abide that kind of reasoning.  I find it distasteful and immoral, to be frank.  Hard core Libertarians will struggle and struggle to tell me that these programs do not work and if we just had a completely free market everything would be fine, but I simply do not believe that - I am enough of an optimist to believe that we CAN put intelligent programs like these in place and that they will work, and enough of a pessimist to believe that if we had a truly free market, this world would go to hell in a hand-basket because people are just too selfish and greedy, and the powerful would use their power to gain more power and trample over anyone who gets in their way in order to do so.  I believe that we need public education because otherwise there will be families who simply can't afford private school (and I'm unwilling to allow such), I believe that there should be aid for the starving, I believe that universal healthcare is the only way to ensure that we don't end up with skyrocketing medical prices (USA provides such great evidence for that, especially when compared with countries that DO have universal healthcare), and I believe we simply need government for publicly used conveniences like roads and electricity as well as protections like Fire Departments and Police.

dtguitarfan wrote: manofmystery wrote: Our current era of economic collapse is just part of the boom and bust cycle promoted by the folks like Keynes and Krugman. Build a bubble through economic intervention in the market and then when it bursts and millions suffer, repeat. Au contraire - we've seen multiple collapses since Reagan's era of deregulation started.  What I think is happening is that we've put too much power into the hands of the rich, and they are playing Jenga with our economy.  They pull all the wealth out from the lower and middle classes and pile it up onto the top and then boom - economic collapse.  Then the government says "we can't live without you rich people!"  The government throws a bunch of money at them, and then rinse, lather, repeat.

We saw multple collapses between 1917 when the Fed was established and 1980 when Reagan was elected too.

I agree with you if by "the rich" you mean "federal reserve bankers."

We're getting dangerously close to me posting that rap video, again

I didn't say it was all Carter's fault, and I'm not interested in worshiping at the altar of Reagan. You claimed that the economy was nice and stable after FDR until Reagan, which is demonstrably false.

manofmystery wrote: Calls Bastiat an idiot then quotes Keynes as great economic thinker. Yeah, this guy is a reasonable person that we should be dialoguing with. Yeesh

Check out this article by former Republican Bruce Bartlett.  FTA:

I thought I had two perfect examples that fit my model of the rise and fall of economic ideas: Keynesian economics and supply-side economics. I thought at first I knew enough about the former to say what I wanted to say, but eventually I found the research I had previously done to be wanting. It was based too much on what academics thought and not enough on how Keynesian ideas penetrated the policymaking community. I hit upon the idea of ignoring the academic journals and looking instead at what economists like John Maynard Keynes, Irving Fisher, and others said in newspaper interviews and articles for popular publications. Recently computerized databases made such investigation far easier than it previously had been. After careful research along these lines, I came to the annoying conclusion that Keynes had been 100 percent right in the 1930s. Previously, I had thought the opposite. But facts were facts and there was no denying my conclusion. It didn’t affect the argument in my book, which was only about the rise and fall of ideas. The fact that Keynesian ideas were correct as well as popular simply made my thesis stronger.

By the way, that's a great article as Bartlett gives his story of how he ended up falling out of favor with the Republican party and then eventually abandoning their ideas.


Edited by dtguitarfan - July 10 2013 at 13:03

Calls Bastiat an idiot then quotes Keynes as great economic thinker. Yeah, this guy is a reasonable person that we should be dialoguing with. Yeesh

Quotes, in either or any side of the spectrum, have never and will never solve sh*t.

I don't see what's wrong with being an ideologue anyway. Aren't we all ideologues when it comes to issues we have thought a great deal about and believe strongly in?

dtguitarfan wrote: So...because you haven't heard a good proposal for a solution, that means we shouldn't even try?  Is that it?  That's sure what it sounds like....

We shouldn't adopt extreme solutions that will have a negative economic impact if we don't have a clear plan that we are confident will work, yes. Trial and error is not a good methodology when each trial is costly. You, and people like you, seem to be advocating a random assortment of things with no idea of whether they will solve the (alleged) problem, but which will definitely have harmful short term consequences. I don't think a plan with cost-benefit analysis is too much to ask for.

thellama73 wrote: Here is a sampling of climate predictions from over the years, not a single one of which has come true. Can someone explain why I'm supposed to cower in terror at predictions from people who have a long track record of never getting anything right ever? Weren't we supposed to have already been underwater by now? Weren't the ice caps supposed to be gone? Weren't the snows of Kilimanjaro supposed to have vanished forever? How long is it going to take before the world realizes that the reality we see every day does not mesh with the predictions of fancy climate models? If there still hasn't been any devastation in another fifty years, or a hundred, can we let it go at that point, or do we have to keep being afiaid forever? http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_10_worst_warming_predictions/ http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/joncgabriel/the-13-worst-predictions-made-on-earth-day-1970

One could point to the amount of research done in support of each of those claims, the scientific consensus in the field, the nascence of analytical techniques in fields outside of chemistry and physics, and just a general failure of static models for long term prediction which somehow wasn't quite realized as a problem at the time.