Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 262263264265266 285>
Author
Message
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Online
Points: 5575
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 08:28
^^  Of course full employment, or rather near full employment, can be achieved without inflation. But it would be a transient phase rather than something permanent.  There are bound to be ups and downs in business which will take their toll on life as such, whether we like it or not.  Unfortunately, business cycles don't make for good politics.  If there is a tendency for citizens to blame recessions on govt, then they will seek to flatten the cycles.  Easy money seems to be the tool for that.  In earlier times, i.e, 60s/70s, it led to inflation probably because there was still unquenched demand in the system.  As that article you posted suggests, perhaps there isn't anymore, hence even with low interest rates and a Fed stimulus program, there is no sign of inflation.  But the goal in both cases is essentially to keep some level of growth, even an anemic one, going at all costs.  Is it good economics?  No.  But just as we consume junk food, we beg for junk money to live on because we are addicted to lifestyle.  
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Watching You
Status: Offline
Points: 14541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King of Loss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 11:57
I've come to realize that some socialism is necessary for a functioning economy, without a vast underclass..... I hope people in here realize this...

Zizou 1988-2006
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 13:47
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^  Of course full employment, or rather near full employment, can be achieved without inflation. But it would be a transient phase rather than something permanent.  There are bound to be ups and downs in business which will take their toll on life as such, whether we like it or not.  Unfortunately, business cycles don't make for good politics.  If there is a tendency for citizens to blame recessions on govt, then they will seek to flatten the cycles.  Easy money seems to be the tool for that.  In earlier times, i.e, 60s/70s, it led to inflation probably because there was still unquenched demand in the system.  As that article you posted suggests, perhaps there isn't anymore, hence even with low interest rates and a Fed stimulus program, there is no sign of inflation.  But the goal in both cases is essentially to keep some level of growth, even an anemic one, going at all costs.  Is it good economics?  No.  But just as we consume junk food, we beg for junk money to live on because we are addicted to lifestyle.  



Well the idea is not to use CB easy money, int rates, tax cuts, subsidies and all the various ways to tinker with the private sector. That is viewed as ineffective, inflationary and even de stabilizing. I agree with that, esp as we rely more on the CB (1987 to 2007).


The fast and hard version: a permanent, government funded (paying at a min wage) job guarantee program. In expansion private sector hires out of it, in contraction they have a job ready for them when cut. Basically the same as now except instead of a pool of unemployed, they'd have a gov job, and it would also employ those that have never been employed (or sparingly). A "bottom up" approach, that would focus on rebuilding infrastructure, environmental clean up etc 
So by not competing with private sector, keeping labor flexible and "hiring off the bottom" should dampen inflation, raise many out of poverty, thus giving a big boost to agg demand, and people could earn their keep instead of getting welfare...of course everything works in theory!
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 14:02
Originally posted by King of Loss King of Loss wrote:

I've come to realize that some socialism is necessary for a functioning economy, without a vast underclass..... I hope people in here realize this...



Well considering I just said unemployment and an underclass are necessary to Capitalism I'd say yes, and I beat you to itTongue depends on what you mean by "some socialism" exactly
Regardless of system, (there are varieties of any system)it needs to be decentralized...have some type of market.

For me mobility is key. If there is a permanent underclass, but it's fluid I can accept this. Over the course of a life you can better yourself, hopefully your children and move up. Sure, a new underclass will emerge but same can happen for them ya know? Now I do fear the underclass is becoming more stagnant...and if so actions are needed.

Again, varieties. IMO Capitalism should be restrained and regulated, or socialism needs to be market based and not statist. If we can produce a system with good employment, wages, growth and mobility and strong democracy IDC what it's called honestly. Though I favor capitalism...a flavor of itLOL


Edited by JJLehto - November 28 2013 at 14:03
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Watching You
Status: Offline
Points: 14541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King of Loss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 14:44
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by King of Loss King of Loss wrote:

I've come to realize that some socialism is necessary for a functioning economy, without a vast underclass..... I hope people in here realize this...



Well considering I just said unemployment and an underclass are necessary to Capitalism I'd say yes, and I beat you to itTongue depends on what you mean by "some socialism" exactly
Regardless of system, (there are varieties of any system)it needs to be decentralized...have some type of market.

For me mobility is key. If there is a permanent underclass, but it's fluid I can accept this. Over the course of a life you can better yourself, hopefully your children and move up. Sure, a new underclass will emerge but same can happen for them ya know? Now I do fear the underclass is becoming more stagnant...and if so actions are needed.

Again, varieties. IMO Capitalism should be restrained and regulated, or socialism needs to be market based and not statist. If we can produce a system with good employment, wages, growth and mobility and strong democracy IDC what it's called honestly. Though I favor capitalism...a flavor of itLOL

The new permanent underclass that is developing in the United States is a clear development in a combination of a high number of illegal immigrants and the outsourcing of labor to cheaper overseas sources, not a causation of most of the system that we do have. There are some outside factors which the administrators of the system fail to regulate for being bribed with a lot of money.....which is the main cause of recent economic decay.....


Edited by King of Loss - November 28 2013 at 14:44

Zizou 1988-2006
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 16433
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 15:41
Originally posted by King of Loss King of Loss wrote:

I've come to realize that some socialism is necessary for a functioning economy, without a vast underclass..... I hope people in here realize this...

I have realized that too.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Online
Points: 5575
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 20:57
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:


Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

^^  Of course full employment, or rather near full employment, can be achieved without inflation. But it would be a transient phase rather than something permanent.  There are bound to be ups and downs in business which will take their toll on life as such, whether we like it or not.  Unfortunately, business cycles don't make for good politics.  If there is a tendency for citizens to blame recessions on govt, then they will seek to flatten the cycles.  Easy money seems to be the tool for that.  In earlier times, i.e, 60s/70s, it led to inflation probably because there was still unquenched demand in the system.  As that article you posted suggests, perhaps there isn't anymore, hence even with low interest rates and a Fed stimulus program, there is no sign of inflation.  But the goal in both cases is essentially to keep some level of growth, even an anemic one, going at all costs.  Is it good economics?  No.  But just as we consume junk food, we beg for junk money to live on because we are addicted to lifestyle.  

Well the idea is not to use CB easy money, int rates, tax
cuts, subsidies and all the various ways to tinker with the private
sector. That is viewed as ineffective, inflationary and even de
stabilizing. I agree with that, esp as we rely more on the CB (1987 to
2007). The fast and hard version: a permanent, government
funded (paying at a min wage) job guarantee program. In expansion
private sector hires out of it, in contraction they have a job ready for
them when cut. Basically the same as now except instead of a pool of
unemployed, they'd have a gov job, and it would also employ those that
have never been employed (or sparingly). A "bottom up" approach, that
would focus on rebuilding infrastructure, environmental clean up etc  So
by not competing with private sector, keeping labor flexible and
"hiring off the bottom" should dampen inflation, raise many out of
poverty, thus giving a big boost to agg demand, and people could earn
their keep instead of getting welfare...of course everything works in
theory!

But a job guarantee is in effect a subsidy in the hands of the beneficiary and a tax on the 'benefactor'. So you cannot permanently avoid their consequences. King of loss said about socialism being required to an extent. This leads me to what I wanted to say as well. Unfettered markets and their volatility conflicts with democratic govt. It's funny that neither keynesians nor monetarists are too hung up on democracy. So what then is a viable way to run a democratic economy?
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 22:48
That is pretty much what I said KoL. Well lacking the detail, but yeah there are changes happening to the economy that (regardless of what you believe) it can't be left unfettered. As I said, the mobility seems to be coming to an end sadly. If a stagnant underclass forms, well sh*t we're pretty much on the way to a caste system or feudalismCry

And yes, the democracy aspect is important to me. I too find it sad that this aspect is ignored. Too much gov tinkering and planning can be problematic, and I hate how many liberal people LOL off any talks of abuse of power. They usually then call you one of those crazy ron paul libertarians and claim science as their reasoning. Science is great, but does worry me how cult like it's become. Also....many  bad things have come in the name of science. Economics are important but humanity can't be ignored. Which I think many liberals do.

I was all for total free markets because I felt it was the decentralization of power, and gov would leave to the road to serfdom. But I see now that government is necessary, even if it often acts poorly. That universal aspect is needed, because unfettered markets just lead to concentration of wealth, thus power, and just an unstable economy.

how to run a democratic economy? Well damn that's the million dollar question! It can't be state socialism...it surely can't be 19th century capitalism. Some type of blend or new way is needed .

Edited by JJLehto - November 28 2013 at 22:59
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2013 at 23:09
hm can you explain Roger?
Wouldn't it basically work as welfare does, taxes go to pay for a basket of benefits, same deal except much of it would be replaced by a job.

I would imagine many ill effects of CB tinkering, easy money and etc etc would be avoided since it would not compete with the private sector. It'd do all the "jobs" are un profitable (or inefficient as the markets would call it). Only worry is inflation, they claim it'll all kind of self regulate...IDK if I trust that, may need some kind of law to keep wages sane. Also, there would still be the CB to maintain price stability.  Which was it's original intent correct? With a JG it would no longer need to worry about employment, which it can't really boost anyway.


Edited by JJLehto - November 28 2013 at 23:10
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Online
Points: 5575
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2013 at 08:42
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

hm can you explain Roger?
Wouldn't it basically work as welfare does, taxes go to pay for a basket of benefits, same deal except much of it would be replaced by a job.

I would imagine many ill effects of CB tinkering, easy money and etc etc would be avoided since it would not compete with the private sector. It'd do all the "jobs" are un profitable (or inefficient as the markets would call it). Only worry is inflation, they claim it'll all kind of self regulate...IDK if I trust that, may need some kind of law to keep wages sane. Also, there would still be the CB to maintain price stability.  Which was it's original intent correct? With a JG it would no longer need to worry about employment, which it can't really boost anyway.

My logic goes like this.  If persons are unemployed in an economy in the normal course, it could be because (a) they are unemployable, i.e, do not have the skills to perform any of the available jobs or (b) the economy is simply not producing the jobs they can perform, i.e., an oversupply of labour.  In either event, their getting employment through a job guarantee would likely only contribute to unproductive, wasteful activity.  The govt accounting for their wages through taxes is one part, but the other part is their employment may not add value to the economy.  On the other hand, with money in their hands, they contribute to excess demand, leading eventually to inflation.  The govt can manage this burden without letting inflation spiral out of control as long as the deficit is small.  Say if the deficit is in the range of 15% of total workforce, govt taking up the tab for it would only burden the economy further.  

Massive job losses in a recession is inevitable and patching it up by throwing money at it, either through monetary stimulus or through job guarantees, only temporarily mitigates the pain. It can be argued that the entire economy, entire citizenry suffers a little in order to alleviate the suffering of an unemployed minority.  There is a better way to 'smoothen' out the business cycles.  It can be achieved if govt spends its efforts instead in providing the necessary skills and resources to the workforce where the private sector finds it unprofitable.  Education for the poor, for instance.  Govt can also fund research projects that the private sector finds commercially viable but which could potentially have immense commercial spinoffs if a breakthrough is achieved.  And finally, govt can seek to facilitate business, not by siding with the big boys but by making regulations as simple and straightforward as possible and providing requisite infrastructure well in time.  By doing all this, the govt would enable the economy to grab opportunities for growth rather than be too constrained by costs or resources to do so and to thus widen the breadth of commercial activity undertaken in the economy rather than overspecialising, thus being better placed to cope with downturns.  All of this is unfortunately very long term and therefore not really seen as good politics anymore.  

Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2013 at 15:44
Well, we're of course discussing ideas. Anything that makes any sense is gunna be bad politicsLOLCry

First, I agree with much of that. Investing in education for the poor, as well as research, infrastructure all that, very good idea.
As for unemployable: couldn't the gov jobs provide the skills and training they lack?
As for not enough jobs being produced, this is understood. Private sector is for profit, they have no "responsibility" to produce jobs. Until of course it's profitable to do so. Which is all a JG is, taking those left out.
Yes, technically they won't really be contributing to the economy, but it can't be denied they could be used to contribute to society. Things like infrastructure that the US needs badly (and Im sure is a huge need in other countries), environmental clean up/retro fitting, building new power sources that may come from gov research.

It was experimented with in Argentina on a limited basis btw and while centrally funded it was local govs and NGOs that did the job producing. Idea being local economies know far better how to use their people and is less messy than central planning. (Also is good for America since we like local gov and hate any central planning).

I thought in recession lack of demand is the problem, so the boost it would provide could help spur recovery? Esp in our current situation were demand is way down. If most other welfare was replaced with a JG deficits may not be terribly impacted? The spending is all still there, and in a boom deficits shrink as they're hired out of gov. Also Id imagine anyone on the JG would pay taxes, like anyone else with a job helping to keep revenues up. Yes, IMO deficits should be small outside of the JG to keep them at reasonable levels.

There's lots of details, but hey I find it an intriguing alternative at least, and compared to welfare, easy money, propping up prices, excessive tax cuts and etc it must be a better idea? At least people would be doing something.
I guess the idea  behind it is all unused labor is wasteful, they can produce something...it may not be deemed profitable but would it better than welfare? It may be an out there theory but most unemployment is by nature unfufilled demand.
And we're talking long term. People with educations and experience will always be alright, and not really need this. But even in a peak, there are unemployed people that probably never worked, or do informally. As well as people who quit long term, which has been happening a lot in our current recession. It's kind of a long term unemployment solution, and education should be part of it.

Edited by JJLehto - November 29 2013 at 15:47
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2013 at 15:55
On a final note, and something libertarians may like....the war on poverty as it was dubbed has failed in the US. Even in the 60s to 70s in its peak results were negligible. Only the elderly saw a constant decline in poverty, but that started way  before and was due to social security.
Massive welfare spending hasn't done much in  near 50 years...in the long term unemployment and poverty have been trending up in the US despite more spending, and it was the 1990s boom that lifted many of the boats...a time when employment really increased and wages at the bottom trended up a bit. So regardless of what is to be done, something new is needed because it hasn't worked.

To keep things libertarian in here..I hear NJ is thinking of passing a law allowing illegal immigrants financial aid for education. Look I'm for immigration and take a less harsh on illegals but cmon, there are supposed to be rights granted to being legal citizens correct?? Also, a bit peeved if I was denied aid due to my middle class household but would have to pay for others, who aren't even citizens. Our governor has been willing to stand tough, so hope he vetoes this. Education for immigrants is great but they have to at least be legal. Besides, NJ can't handle much more tax, nor can we run any more deficits. Sometimes, I question if sanity is left! 

Edited by JJLehto - November 29 2013 at 15:56
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Online
Points: 5575
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2013 at 20:36
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

 
I thought in recession lack of demand is the problem, so the boost it would provide could help spur recovery? Esp in our current situation were demand is way down. If most other welfare was replaced with a JG deficits may not be terribly impacted? The spending is all still there, and in a boom deficits shrink as they're hired out of gov. Also Id imagine anyone on the JG would pay taxes, like anyone else with a job helping to keep revenues up. Yes, IMO deficits should be small outside of the JG to keep them at reasonable levels.

 

So let's distinguish between two different situations here - unemployment in recession and unemployment even outside recession.  In a recession there is as you say anemic demand and providing jobs could help stimulate some demand and indirectly help improve capacity utilisation for factories affected by the recession.  But what when there is no recession and yet there is unemployment?  If we take America's present position, it is not technically in a recession anymore, just slow growth.  And yet unemployment is what 7%?  On the one hand, some car factories are probably running on their third shift at this point while some people still cannot find employment.  I am not sure a job guarantee is the solution to that.   What are the sectors that are still depressed and what can the govt do to stimulate growth there, that is something they could address.  Obama has had 5 years already to do it and it would be money and energy better expended than on quarreling with Republicans to bring back the welfare state.  

The welfare economy of the 60s got into this trap too.  Since full employment was not attained at a particular level of output, they tried to raise the output even more, projecting that full employment would be attained at that level.  When OPEC and Japanese imports hit America at the same time in the 70s, it was not structurally prepared to handle it, leading to stagflation.  There is a political consequence of guaranteeing jobs.  It becomes a permanent entitlement rather than an 'emergency measure'.


Edited by rogerthat - November 29 2013 at 20:38
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Watching You
Status: Offline
Points: 14541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King of Loss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2013 at 20:41
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

On a final note, and something libertarians may like....the war on poverty as it was dubbed has failed in the US. Even in the 60s to 70s in its peak results were negligible. Only the elderly saw a constant decline in poverty, but that started way  before and was due to social security.
Massive welfare spending hasn't done much in  near 50 years...in the long term unemployment and poverty have been trending up in the US despite more spending, and it was the 1990s boom that lifted many of the boats...a time when employment really increased and wages at the bottom trended up a bit. So regardless of what is to be done, something new is needed because it hasn't worked.

To keep things libertarian in here..I hear NJ is thinking of passing a law allowing illegal immigrants financial aid for education. Look I'm for immigration and take a less harsh on illegals but cmon, there are supposed to be rights granted to being legal citizens correct?? Also, a bit peeved if I was denied aid due to my middle class household but would have to pay for others, who aren't even citizens. Our governor has been willing to stand tough, so hope he vetoes this. Education for immigrants is great but they have to at least be legal. Besides, NJ can't handle much more tax, nor can we run any more deficits. Sometimes, I question if sanity is left! 

I think other than Social Security, Food Stamps and Medicare for the Elderly, most other social programs have been a tremendous failure. Some of the time, certain programs outside of social security, food and healthcare for the elderly keep certain impoverished parts of the population in permanent serfdom..... If you look at the efficiency of these programs in some parts of Europe, it has maybe increased living standards for the bottom 50% of the population, but also has kept many members of the middle class from moving into the moneyed rich classes..

Mind you, legal immigrants are ones who start the most successful enterprises in America -> Carnegie, the people who created Google, Yahoo and Youtube are just a few that come to mind. But I think giving illegal immigrants the change for benefits within the legal system is a sham to those that came here legally and are now running successful enterprises... 


Edited by King of Loss - November 29 2013 at 20:46

Zizou 1988-2006
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2013 at 23:09
Certainly interesting points to ponder Roger, and yes that can't be denied...almost the entire Obama administration has been a waste unfortunately.  
As of October unemployment was at 7.3% officially. There's the sticky wicket of "unofficial employment" (people who have stopped looking) whcih I've seen near 11% as well as things like "marginally attached" and etc it's been a very very weak recovery.
 
Yes, it's like another 1930's the recession is over and there has been growth, but with a lack of jobs. I think these two are unique situations, in the 20s and 2000s the private sector took on way too much debt (reasons of which are debated) and that really holds back growth. Instead of bouncing back it just drags along. And the private sector will do what it can to maintain growth, spread work around as people leave/are let go, reduce hours, move offshore, all things that wont create jobs of course. It's all kind of hobbling along of course, a kick to the leg and it may all topple again. I know fears are if the US pushes for austerity it may cause a second recession (like in the late 30s) or if Europe dips into a second recession (which it seems to just barely be fighting off) this can topple the house as well.
 
Yes, of course KoL legal is not the problem at all, but there really is an issue with granting too many rights to illegal immigrants IMO. I mean, they're trying to build a life like we all did but cmon...it's getting borderline crazy now.
 
As for welfare, indeed outside SS I'd say much of it has been a failure. Not that it hasn't helped some but can also create bad situations/perverse incentives and a host of other unintended consiquences. This is an interesting take on it http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb78.pdf  It actually goes a bit to what Roger was saying about the 60s.
Also that yeah, in the long run much welfare has failed in its goal. I've seen seminars/interviews with some of those people and they've elaborated: how things such as civil rights and blacks leaving the south helped more than welfare, that welfare traps can be created..as you put it, serfdom: Just enough to stay alive and little chance of escape.


Edited by JJLehto - November 29 2013 at 23:23
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Watching You
Status: Offline
Points: 14541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King of Loss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 30 2013 at 00:40
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Certainly interesting points to ponder Roger, and yes that can't be denied...almost the entire Obama administration has been a waste unfortunately.  
As of October unemployment was at 7.3% officially. There's the sticky wicket of "unofficial employment" (people who have stopped looking) whcih I've seen near 11% as well as things like "marginally attached" and etc it's been a very very weak recovery.
 
Yes, it's like another 1930's the recession is over and there has been growth, but with a lack of jobs. I think these two are unique situations, in the 20s and 2000s the private sector took on way too much debt (reasons of which are debated) and that really holds back growth. Instead of bouncing back it just drags along. And the private sector will do what it can to maintain growth, spread work around as people leave/are let go, reduce hours, move offshore, all things that wont create jobs of course. It's all kind of hobbling along of course, a kick to the leg and it may all topple again. I know fears are if the US pushes for austerity it may cause a second recession (like in the late 30s) or if Europe dips into a second recession (which it seems to just barely be fighting off) this can topple the house as well.
 
Yes, of course KoL legal is not the problem at all, but there really is an issue with granting too many rights to illegal immigrants IMO. I mean, they're trying to build a life like we all did but cmon...it's getting borderline crazy now.
 
As for welfare, indeed outside SS I'd say much of it has been a failure. Not that it hasn't helped some but can also create bad situations/perverse incentives and a host of other unintended consiquences. This is an interesting take on it http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb78.pdf  It actually goes a bit to what Roger was saying about the 60s.
Also that yeah, in the long run much welfare has failed in its goal. I've seen seminars/interviews with some of those people and they've elaborated: how things such as civil rights and blacks leaving the south helped more than welfare, that welfare traps can be created..as you put it, serfdom: Just enough to stay alive and little chance of escape.

The funny thing is that some of those serfs are so happy to vote for more benefits rather than a solid job or a caree r where they are rewarded for their individual endeavors...... What a sad society we live... Promoting mediocrity like that....

Zizou 1988-2006
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 16433
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 30 2013 at 01:11
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Status: Offline
Points: 33170
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 30 2013 at 10:41
Well I do get it KoL when the alternative is nothing....which is what exactly is proposed.
I guess it's a very very stink answer, but it's better than nothing. if there was an alternative, well maybe it'd be found more appealing.

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

This article kind of agrees with what you and I were saying Brian.



No doubt! Like I said, I know many libertarians view the late 1800s as the golden age, so maybe they get stuck there.
When "the rich" were these business owners that grew and provided jobs, but today yeah...I just don't see how many (not all) of the rich are 'job creators' in the economy. If anything, it's about job destruction today. Many are quick to point out how the economy isn't a "thing" and I see validity to that, but then want to apply ideas from a radically different time to today?

Anywho, what's neat about that article: who creates jobs? We do. Kinda goes into what I've been thinking about lately that it really is demand that drives the economy. No amount of supply side favoring will do much, but guess we also have to boost demand honestly, with more workers/better infrastructure education etc....and not use easy money, tax cuts, de regulation and etc to boost it, but people working, saving and consuming


Edited by JJLehto - November 30 2013 at 11:54
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Status: Online
Points: 5575
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 01 2013 at 02:45
That sums up the predicament of the last few years since the meltdown.  After the meltdown, supply side interventions have been roundly discredited.  At the same time, people are apprehensive of demand side interventions as they might lead right back to Keynes.  However, that is nevertheless the direction in which the momentum seems to be shifting what with Yellen all set to take over at the Fed and Republicans coming out of the shutdown fiasco badly to put it mildly.   And meantime, it seems Russia is emboldened enough by the Snowden episode to pursue a United Eurasia all over again.  Thirty four years is all it took to rebuild the wall, huh?  Yipee, us 90s kids who missed the glorious Cold War era may now get a glimpse of it and read LeCarre novels as well. Dead
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Watching You
Status: Offline
Points: 14541
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King of Loss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 02 2013 at 21:54
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

That sums up the predicament of the last few years since the meltdown.  After the meltdown, supply side interventions have been roundly discredited.  At the same time, people are apprehensive of demand side interventions as they might lead right back to Keynes.  However, that is nevertheless the direction in which the momentum seems to be shifting what with Yellen all set to take over at the Fed and Republicans coming out of the shutdown fiasco badly to put it mildly.   And meantime, it seems Russia is emboldened enough by the Snowden episode to pursue a United Eurasia all over again.  Thirty four years is all it took to rebuild the wall, huh?  Yipee, us 90s kids who missed the glorious Cold War era may now get a glimpse of it and read LeCarre novels as well. Dead

Well, if you read the US news media, they're promoting another form of color revolution in Ukraine.

A good article written by a prominent US Libertarian Justin Raimondo on the subject:


Very interesting, since there are a lot of stronger nations that have been subjugated by the European Soviet Union, but it seems like the country of Ukraine is going against it.

Zizou 1988-2006
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 262263264265266 285>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.797 seconds.