Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
 Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: THC Titan]
#11210024 - 10/08/09 05:48 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
I think communities could do a far better job than government. People think that they can't do something once government takes over that role. Government likes to look benevolent because that's the easiest way to take advantage of people.
Welfare is redistribution of wealth which is a key part of socialism.
It is always interesting how no one has a convincing argument for welfare being good for the economy...
If your idea of "maximizing prosperity" means concentrating a majority of the country's wealth in the upper 1% of the population, you're limiting your conception of both prosperity and freedom. If a significant number of people are not healthy and not educated, their ability to exercise their freedoms (and pursue happiness, blah blah) is severely limited.
We can make education cheap again if we get government out of it. Healthcare is extremely expensive also from government involvement. Notice things get expensive when government tries to "fix it."
Again, no explanation in how government welfare benefits the economy... No one wants to touch that.
Let me give you some help with economics.
Read Frederic Bastiat's: That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen. You will then comprehend exactly how government makes things more expensive.
Edited by Mr.Al (10/08/09 05:51 PM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11210435 - 10/08/09 06:51 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
maybe you should read my posts again, it's obvious you're missing something
Can someone help me, or is Prisoner the only one here that understands his post?
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
 
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11210520 - 10/08/09 07:02 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
We can make education cheap again if we get government out of it. Healthcare is extremely expensive also from government involvement. Notice things get expensive when government tries to "fix it."
So your proposal is that only kids with well to do parents go to school?
Also, Government hasn't taken over healthcare. This isn't a socialist country as you think.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Again, no explanation in how government welfare benefits the economy... No one wants to touch that.
So you'd rather put the eldery in the streets than allow the economy to take a minor hit? People like you are in the minority, thank goodness.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
 Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,193
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 22 seconds
|
|
Where in the world do you get:
> So your proposal is that only kids with well to do parents go to school?
From:
> We can make education cheap again if we get government out of it.
If that is indicative of your reading comprehension skills, then it is no wonder that you have difficulty understanding Prisoner's posts.
Let me help you:
1) "We can make education cheap again" does not imply that there is no education. In fact, the wording clearly states that education exists, but that it has gotten expensive.
2) The only proposal made was that "if we get government out of it," then the costs associated with education would decline.
3) Nothing was said about well to do parents. I have no idea where you pulled this from.
4) Nothing was said about parents having to pay for schooling. I have no idea where you pulled this from.
5) Nothing was said about restricting a child's access to eduction. I have no idea where you pulled this from.
> Also, Government hasn't taken over healthcare.
The government completely regulates the healthcare industry, so in essence the government has taken over healthcare. The government decides who can be a healthcare provider (doctor, nurse, etc). The government decides who can get prescription drugs. The government decides who can produce prescription drugs. The government decides what prescription drugs are allowed. The government decides how long patents apply to prescription drugs. The government decides how much leeway to give to insurance companies. The government pays for healthcare for a segment of the population. etc, etc, etc.
And yet another brilliant leap of pulling BS from thin air... how did you arrive at:
"So you'd rather put the eldery in the streets than allow the economy to take a minor hit?"
From:
"Again, no explanation in how government welfare benefits the economy... No one wants to touch that."
How does his statement indicate his belief? It doesn't. I won't bother breaking this one down, but I would highly recommend that you slow down and read what people are saying rather than jumping to some inane conclusion that supports your personal beliefs and demonizes another. Perhaps an example will help you understand:
> People like you are in the minority, thank goodness.
So you'd rather kill everybody than let a few people suffer just because their children have Autism? And you claim to be the compassionate one.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
|
Regarding welfare:
Government welfare puts a drain on the economy. When the economy is experiencing a significant downturn more welfare is doled out... Can you see how this is cyclical?
Notice that they just announced that they are extending unemployment benefits... I can't imagine why.
When government gets involved in an industry it becomes more expensive. When government takes something over and runs it the result is generally the business continues post losses.
I'm curious about what you think about the auto bailout... As far as I can see only auto unions benefited... It's throwing good money after bad!
Remember how Nixon said they were just going to run Amtrak for a few years?
Real science is based on observation first. Pseudo science (Id est: keynesian "economics") appears to put together theories and then come up with idiotic things like the "paradox of thrift" idea when reality proves them wrong.
How is it that a prominent keynesian like Bernanke is obviously a moron?
Edited by Mr.Al (10/09/09 10:31 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11214780 - 10/09/09 10:44 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
Let me help you:
.
.
.
4) Nothing was said about parents having to pay for schooling. I have no idea where you pulled this from.
Ok, where do YOU think money will come from for schooling of children with poor parents?
Quote:
Seuss said:
The government completely regulates the healthcare industry, so in essence the government has taken over healthcare.
Do you think safety regulations are a bad idea? That's what most healthcare regulations are about.
Quote:
Seuss said:
And yet another brilliant leap of pulling BS from thin air... how did you arrive at:
"So you'd rather put the eldery in the streets than allow the economy to take a minor hit?"
What do YOU think will happen to the elderly with no money if we eliminate social security???
Your answers to these 3 questions will help me understand if I was "pulling BS from thin air" or not.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 6 hours, 9 minutes
|
|
Just imagine how much better off the elderly would be if they hadn't had their wages stolen for a Ponzi scheme for 40 years. Most of them would be millionaires living nicely off the interest and still leaving an estate for their children.
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
|
Here's the best idea yet...
Since government has proven itself to be the best at the task of allocating monetary resources intelligently let's all just send them all our money and tell them to do what they do best!
Reductio ad absurdum...
Government is the most wasteful allocator of resources. If you give them more funds you will see a deepening depression and a call for more welfare!
The welfare system is broken because it was a stupid idea in the first place.
How about.....
The elderly people living on a fixed income (from whatever source) would be far better off if they weren't faced with a severe inflation of the money supply that causes their fixed income to not be worth shit!
There is a school of economics that calls for endless inflation (that hurts the most those who have the least money), I think I recall that it is keynesian "economics"...
Edited by Mr.Al (10/09/09 10:58 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11215174 - 10/09/09 11:48 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Regarding welfare:
Government welfare puts a drain on the economy. When the economy is experiencing a significant downturn more welfare is doled out... Can you see how this is cyclical?
Notice that they just announced that they are extending unemployment benefits... I can't imagine why.
Civilized societies have welfare. I'm not disagreeing that it doesn't drain the economy a bit. I'm saying welfare won't go away, no matter how little you yourself care about the elderly, the people who are laid off work, the kids whose parents are on crack, etc. Sure, there's room for welfare reform that would require able-bodied people to at least do some type of menial work to get a paycheck, etc. But welfare won't go away; not in a civilized society.
Now, given that welfare won't go away, how do you pull a country out of a recession? The more jobs that are lost, the fewer people have money. The fewer people have money, the more jobs that are lost. Do you see the downward spiral? Putting money into the economy or lowering taxes is the only way to bring back jobs; both solutions increase the deficit, and put a drain on future generations. I've always been for a balanced budget amendment, which would stop deficit spending unless there were an economic crisis. Unfortunately, we are in an economic crisis.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
When government gets involved in an industry it becomes more expensive. When government takes something over and runs it the result is generally the business continues post losses.
I'm curious about what you think about the auto bailout... As far as I can see only auto unions benefited... It's throwing good money after bad!
I remember the Chrysler bailout in 1980. That seemed to work out fine. Time will tell if the latest auto bailouts were successful. I'm guessing GM will rise again.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Real science is based on observation first. Pseudo science (Id est: keynesian "economics") appears to put together theories and then come up with idiotic things like the "paradox of thrift" idea when reality proves them wrong.
What type of "real science" is there to back up the Austrian School? What countries can we look at to see that the theories work? You're the one advocating "real science", after all.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
How is it that a prominent keynesian like Bernanke is obviously a moron?
Um, because he's a republican? 
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
|
What caused the "recession" in the first place?
How can you not see that having a central bank that props up the fractional reserve banking system worsens the severity of boom & bust economic cycles?
The government answer is always to create, borrow, or tax to inject more money into the economy. Yes there is a short period (sometimes a couple years) of false prosperity. This is caused by the fact that initially there is more money circulating in the economy but it takes a little while for prices to adjust to the influx of new money. Once prices adjust to the new money people find that they are worse off than before the government "stimulated the economy".
We have established that welfare puts a drain upon the economy. Is it that much of a stretch to suppose that this might conceivably precipitate more welfare?
If the 1980 Chrysler bailout was such a resounding success why are they broke again?
Maybe companies that suck at life need to go bankrupt, have better businessmen buy them out, and then perhaps produce better products more cheaply???????
Can you not see how corrupt it is for the federal government to bail out an auto industry that was made unprofitable by auto labor unions?
If a business is not solvent it makes no sense for government to give them lots of money. They have already demonstrated that the business sucks at life and has become a bottomless money pit.
The auto bailout is a welfare program for auto unions.
To answer your question regarding an economy that practiced parts of Austrian economics: civilizations throughout history used precious metals for thousands of years as money. Precious metals have shown to be much more stable than government paper. The lifespan of fiat currency is never very long.
The chief teleprompter reader re-appointed Bernanke. The blame is shared by the puppet clown that is the definition of FAIL. This has nothing to do with political parties because both have followed the keynesian model. Making this an issue of political parties is a pathetic distraction from looking at the real causes of our economic problems.
Edited by Mr.Al (10/09/09 11:21 PM)
|
 Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,645
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck 
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I remember the Chrysler bailout in 1980. That seemed to work out fine. Time will tell if the latest auto bailouts were successful. I'm guessing GM will rise again.
so the first bailout for chrysler worked fine, why then are they in need of a bail out again
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 6 hours, 9 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Prisoner#1]
#11220805 - 10/10/09 12:18 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I remember the Chrysler bailout in 1980. That seemed to work out fine. Time will tell if the latest auto bailouts were successful. I'm guessing GM will rise again.
so the first bailout for chrysler worked fine, why then are they in need of a bail out again
Quite right. One can certainly argue that if the unions had gotten a taste of dissolution then they wouldn't have totally fucked all three auto makers unto death for the next 25 years.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,645
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: zappaisgod]
#11221461 - 10/10/09 02:31 PM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
the only thing that allowed chrysler to survive the first 20 years was the
contractual obligation the government had to purchase their vehicles, the
public wasnt interested in buying what they knew to be junk, anyone
remember the K-car, they leaked coolant on the showroom floor due to poor
head design and inferior gasket materials... not much has changed since
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Thanks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the social security trust fund is ficticious. The Government doesn't actually save any money for the future. It takes what it needs from FICA each year, and any leftover is used to cover the deficit. So long as the Government collects enough FICA to cover its current obligations, then things are good. If there is a projected shortage, then eliminating the wage cap on FICA would bring in enough extra money to cover that shortage.
Haha, it seems that Michael Moore and Sean Hannity followed this thread, as they almost duplicated it here:
We debated about 4 days before they did. 
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
|
Do you need to be reminded that government projections of funding required for future programs are low-balled to the degree that can only be called laughable?
It is interesting that followers of Keynes don't even make an attempt at economic debate.
Edited by Mr.Al (10/12/09 06:12 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11237499 - 10/13/09 12:38 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
What caused the "recession" in the first place?
It was caused by a lot of things. Deregulation, greedy bankers, greedy mortgage brokers, greedy real estate agents, greedy investors, etc. You probably can't stop greed, but you can bring regulation back.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
How can you not see that having a central bank that props up the fractional reserve banking system worsens the severity of boom & bust economic cycles?
How can you see that it worsens the severity? Here are the economic cycles in the US as far back as I could find them:
http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch8_1.html
The cycles appear to have improved significantly since central banks started playing a larger role.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
The government answer is always to create, borrow, or tax to inject more money into the economy. Yes there is a short period (sometimes a couple years) of false prosperity. This is caused by the fact that initially there is more money circulating in the economy but it takes a little while for prices to adjust to the influx of new money. Once prices adjust to the new money people find that they are worse off than before the government "stimulated the economy".
How do you define "false" prosperity? If I earn more money and use it to buy more things, is it really false prosperity? Especially in light of the graph I just posted above?
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
We have established that welfare puts a drain upon the economy. Is it that much of a stretch to suppose that this might conceivably precipitate more welfare?
Empirical evidence seems to show otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism
Economist Jeffrey Sachs states that when comparing developed free-market economies, those that have high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He asserts that poverty rates are lower, median income is higher, the budget has larger surpluses, and the trade balance is stronger (although unemployment tends to be higher). He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong when he said that high taxation would be a threat to freedom; but rather, a generous social-welfare state leads to fairness, economic equality, international competitiveness, and strong vibrant democracies.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
If the 1980 Chrysler bailout was such a resounding success why are they broke again?
Because of the financial crisis. They're not the only car company that's struggling.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Maybe companies that suck at life need to go bankrupt, have better businessmen buy them out, and then perhaps produce better products more cheaply???????
I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with saving them, because their failure was largely the result of the recession.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Can you not see how corrupt it is for the federal government to bail out an auto industry that was made unprofitable by auto labor unions?
What do labor unions have to do with this? Are you saying if they failed because of poor management, then they should have been bailed out? Seriously, why did you qualify your statement with labor unions?
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
If a business is not solvent it makes no sense for government to give them lots of money. They have already demonstrated that the business sucks at life and has become a bottomless money pit.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
The auto bailout is a welfare program for auto unions.
Again, what's the relevance of auto unions to your argument?
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
To answer your question regarding an economy that practiced parts of Austrian economics: civilizations throughout history used precious metals for thousands of years as money. Precious metals have shown to be much more stable than government paper. The lifespan of fiat currency is never very long.
Never? How long has the dollar lasted as a fiat currency? 75 years and counting? And it hasn't failed.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 1,403
Last seen: 1 hour, 47 minutes
|
Re: bill clinton fucking sucked [Re: Mr.Al]
#11237505 - 10/13/09 12:41 AM (2 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Do you need to be reminded that government projections of funding required for future programs are low-balled to the degree that can only be called laughable?
Yes, estimates are generally given on the low end of the estimated range. But I disagree that it's to a "laughable" degree (whatever that means).
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
It is interesting that followers of Keynes don't even make an attempt at economic debate.
Sorry, I had guests over this weekend.
--------------------
I love how the right makes shit up about what Obama is going to do, and then scare themselves with it. - Falcon91Wolvrn03
|
Yrat
Hello
Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 1,986
Last seen: 8 hours, 2 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Never? How long has the dollar lasted as a fiat currency? 75 years and counting? And it hasn't failed.
no, only since 1971. that's 38 years.
what is interesting to note, is that no fiat currency throughout history has lasted past 40 years. knowing this number, do you think the timing of all these collapses is just coincidence? the last bubble is the dollar bubble, and when it pops, look out below.
--------------------
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root."
-Henry David Thoreau
Strike The Root
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 3,518
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
What caused the "recession" in the first place?
It was caused by a lot of things. Deregulation, greedy bankers, greedy mortgage brokers, greedy real estate agents, greedy investors, etc. You probably can't stop greed, but you can bring regulation back.
Quote:
Again, you are not looking at the moral hazard created by artificially low interest rates. The federal reserve created the moral hazard. Central economic planning and banking caused the problem and you blame the market???
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
How can you not see that having a central bank that props up the fractional reserve banking system worsens the severity of boom & bust economic cycles?
How can you see that it worsens the severity? Here are the economic cycles in the US as far back as I could find them:
http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch8_1.html
The cycles appear to have improved significantly since central banks started playing a larger role.
[quote]How do you define improvement? Since the fed hijacked the currency the dollar has lost 96% of it's purchasing power. The situation we are in now constitutes improvement?
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
The government answer is always to create, borrow, or tax to inject more money into the economy. Yes there is a short period (sometimes a couple years) of false prosperity. This is caused by the fact that initially there is more money circulating in the economy but it takes a little while for prices to adjust to the influx of new money. Once prices adjust to the new money people find that they are worse off than before the government "stimulated the economy".
How do you define "false" prosperity? If I earn more money and use it to buy more things, is it really false prosperity? Especially in light of the graph I just posted above?
Quote:
I define false prosperity as the temporary good times that an influx of new money causes, before prices adjust to the increase in the money supply.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
We have established that welfare puts a drain upon the economy. Is it that much of a stretch to suppose that this might conceivably precipitate more welfare?
Empirical evidence seems to show otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism
Economist Jeffrey Sachs states that when comparing developed free-market economies, those that have high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He asserts that poverty rates are lower, median income is higher, the budget has larger surpluses, and the trade balance is stronger (although unemployment tends to be higher). He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong when he said that high taxation would be a threat to freedom; but rather, a generous social-welfare state leads to fairness, economic equality, international competitiveness, and strong vibrant democracies.
Quote:
Socialism worked great for Jamestown, didn't it? http://mises.org/story/336 How is it difficult to comprehend that government spending ALWAYS COMES AT A COST. When government spends, it means that production in the private sector will be decreased in the future. Government taking wealth from people through taxation or inflation is certainly means a decrease in freedom, is that not a key part in the right to pursue happiness? Certainly that idiot Sachs hasn't been to Britain and seen how well the welfare state there fares. Jeffrey Sachs is another useless windbag who would not be able to refute A.B.C. theory, which utterly destroys the entire keynesian school, and thus his words are worth less than nothing.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
If the 1980 Chrysler bailout was such a resounding success why are they broke again?
Because of the financial crisis. They're not the only car company that's struggling. Quote:
Bullshit, it's because labor unions have jacked up production costs to the point where American cars are not competitively priced in the market.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Maybe companies that suck at life need to go bankrupt, have better businessmen buy them out, and then perhaps produce better products more cheaply???????
I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with saving them, because their failure was largely the result of the recession.Quote:
How do you not comprehend that "saving" gigantic, bankrupt, and inefficient (fucking profitless!!! W.T.F. man!) corporations occurs at the cost of the entire damn economy! Healthy businesses produce more value. Subsidizing business failure is utter nonsense! It reinforces failure! W.T.F.!?!
Mr.Al said:
Can you not see how corrupt it is for the federal government to bail out an auto industry that was made unprofitable by auto labor unions?
What do labor unions have to do with this? Are you saying if they failed because of poor management, then they should have been bailed out? Seriously, why did you qualify your statement with labor unions?
Quote:
If labor unions make a business unprofitable to the point of insolvency the only REAL cure is for the business to declare bankruptcy! The only means for the production to become efficient and economically sound is for the valuable parts of the business to be bought out!!! The solution is not for the asshole sellout politician that they contributed vast sums of campaign money to send them even greater sums of public money!
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
If a business is not solvent it makes no sense for government to give them lots of money. They have already demonstrated that the business sucks at life and has become a bottomless money pit.
Fair enough.
Mr.Al said:
The auto bailout is a welfare program for auto unions.
Again, what's the relevance of auto unions to your argument?
Quote:
The central argument is that government spending occurs with unseen costs attached to them. It is immoral for politically well connected (sometimes also organized crime connected) unions to rob from the productivity of the entire economy through theft!
Mr.Al said:
To answer your question regarding an economy that practiced parts of Austrian economics: civilizations throughout history used precious metals for thousands of years as money. Precious metals have shown to be much more stable than government paper. The lifespan of fiat currency is never very long.
Never? How long has the dollar lasted as a fiat currency? 75 years and counting? And it hasn't failed.
Yrat answered that question. Fiat has a short lifespan because government abuses the shit out of the power to create new money and back it with nothing but force. You would do well to read this http://mises.org/story/2868 Have you invested in a wheel barrow yet? You might need it in the future to buy that loaf of bread.
Edited by Mr.Al (10/13/09 08:00 AM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,515
Last seen: 6 hours, 9 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
What caused the "recession" in the first place?
It was caused by a lot of things. Deregulation, greedy bankers, greedy mortgage brokers, greedy real estate agents, greedy investors, etc. You probably can't stop greed, but you can bring regulation back.
The banking industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the entire country. You might want to consider other government interference in banking as more culpable. For instance the CRA, Fannie and Freddie. Greedy real estate agents? How can they possibly do anything to affect the price? Greedy investors? Isn't that what they are supposed to be? Otherwise why invest? Likewise banks.
Not surprisingly you leave out the one group that actually is culpable. The bums who take loans that they don't repay.Quote:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
How can you not see that having a central bank that props up the fractional reserve banking system worsens the severity of boom & bust economic cycles?
How can you see that it worsens the severity? Here are the economic cycles in the US as far back as I could find them:
http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch8_1.html
The cycles appear to have improved significantly since central banks started playing a larger role.
I can see no evidence whatsoever that ups and downs are a product of the existence of a central bank. They seem to be an inevitable feature of economies, as you point out. This boom and bust cycle is also endlessly reflected in every homeostatic system on the planet. Which somewhat destroys your entire notion that insufficient regulation in the most heavily regulated industry in the country has caused this one.Quote:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
The government answer is always to create, borrow, or tax to inject more money into the economy. Yes there is a short period (sometimes a couple years) of false prosperity. This is caused by the fact that initially there is more money circulating in the economy but it takes a little while for prices to adjust to the influx of new money. Once prices adjust to the new money people find that they are worse off than before the government "stimulated the economy".
How do you define "false" prosperity? If I earn more money and use it to buy more things, is it really false prosperity? Especially in light of the graph I just posted above?
The graph you posted above has nothing to do with that. It is possible to have a "false" prosperity if you base it strictly on poor analysis. For instance, if you earn ten times more money but everything costs 100 times more but you only measure prosperity by dollar amounts that would be a false analysis. I haven't seen anyone fall for that in my entire lifetime. Then again, I have unfortunately seen someone fall for the "the dollar has lost 96% of it's value" nonsense.Quote:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
We have established that welfare puts a drain upon the economy. Is it that much of a stretch to suppose that this might conceivably precipitate more welfare?
Empirical evidence seems to show otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism
Economist Jeffrey Sachs states that when comparing developed free-market economies, those that have high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He asserts that poverty rates are lower, median income is higher, the budget has larger surpluses, and the trade balance is stronger (although unemployment tends to be higher). He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong when he said that high taxation would be a threat to freedom; but rather, a generous social-welfare state leads to fairness, economic equality, international competitiveness, and strong vibrant democracies.
I don't see any empirical evidence there about which direction the causality arrow points in. Welfare is a luxury only afforded to the most affluent societies. Affluence is not caused by welfare. See his own remarks regarding unemployment.Quote:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
If the 1980 Chrysler bailout was such a resounding success why are they broke again?
Because of the financial crisis. They're not the only car company that's struggling.
Quite right. The unions destroyed all three American auto maker. Maybe if the government hadn't bailed Chrysler out in the first place the unions would have been forced to cave and GM and Ford could have competed.Quote:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Maybe companies that suck at life need to go bankrupt, have better businessmen buy them out, and then perhaps produce better products more cheaply???????
I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with saving them, because their failure was largely the result of the recession.
No. They hadn't made any money to speak of for years and years long before this recession started. How is this recession different than any other recession they survived? Time and the inevitable corrosive effect of shitty union deals which were only prolonged by the original Chrysler bailout. The Chrysler bailout doomed them and GM and badly hurt Ford.Quote:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
Can you not see how corrupt it is for the federal government to bail out an auto industry that was made unprofitable by auto labor unions?
What do labor unions have to do with this? Are you saying if they failed because of poor management, then they should have been bailed out? Seriously, why did you qualify your statement with labor unions?
Because they did it and because they are the ones that benefit from the bailout. Qui Bono, indeed?Quote:
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
If a business is not solvent it makes no sense for government to give them lots of money. They have already demonstrated that the business sucks at life and has become a bottomless money pit.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
The auto bailout is a welfare program for auto unions.
Again, what's the relevance of auto unions to your argument?
Quote:
Mr.Al said:
To answer your question regarding an economy that practiced parts of Austrian economics: civilizations throughout history used precious metals for thousands of years as money. Precious metals have shown to be much more stable than government paper. The lifespan of fiat currency is never very long.
Never? How long has the dollar lasted as a fiat currency? 75 years and counting? And it hasn't failed.
How do you measure the value of precious metals? In loaf of bread equivalents?
--------------------
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
3,369 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
