US Presidential Elections 2

[Enoch]

Rational arguments can be made on both sides, and we can differ in our opinions without believing the worst about one another.

not when it comes to economics, and the liberalism that idiots like killian are pushing does not work. i'm sorry, but you are simply wrong here. we'll keep on pushing the same end of the string in hopes that some day it will work, however, driving ever forward to catastrophe.

I can't vouch for Hades' views, but it may shock you to learn that there are well-respected professional economists on both sides of the aisle in America. The Chicago School doesn't always have all the correct answers. Market failures exist, transaction costs sometimes need to be controlled, firms and consumers, even in the aggregate, don't always behave in a wholly rational manner, and, occasionally, it is actually in the nation's best interest to knowingly sacrifice some economic efficiency to achieve other societal goals. Based on these factors and others, there is solid economic analysis in support of many politically liberal policy initiatives.

 

It could just be the hangover talking, but isn't this something quite fundamental? How can any extreme social agenda ever really represent the will of a people as heterogenous as the USA? Therefore is it not an argument that therefore an extremist platform is logically and ineluctably unsuitable for a national leader?

You'd think so, but the problem in the States is that people have so stridently sorted themselves into one party or another that they would generally rather vote for an extremist on "their" side than they would for anybody on the other side. (This is often in spite of their official registration-- lots of voters register as "independent" but still reliably vote for only 1 party.) Both the major parties have figured out that it is easier to pander to the extremes of their party to raise the turnout among core supporters than it is to appeal to centrist voters (who aren't as likely to vote in the first place) and risk alienating your base.

[taks]

I can't vouch for Hades' views, but it may shock you to learn that there are well-respected professional economists on both sides of the aisle in America. The Chicago School doesn't always have all the correct answers. Market failures exist, transaction costs sometimes need to be controlled, firms and consumers, even in the aggregate, don't always behave in a wholly rational manner, and, occasionally, it is actually in the nation's best interest to knowingly sacrifice some economic efficiency to achieve other societal goals. Based on these factors and others, there is solid economic analysis in support of many politically liberal policy initiatives.

finally, you notice that i really was replying to hades, though more generally, ideologues. oddly enough, hades is a mishmash of ideologies so he almost fits the bill as an independent. he's just hung up on a few socialist ideals so i chide him about it.

 

i don't care if there are lots of "well-respected professional economists on both sides of the aisle." most tend towards friedman or von mises, keynsians are few and far between relatively speaking. marx was a smart guy and well-respected, too, you know. history seems to be proving the chicagoans/austrians right: market failures result from regulatory control over currency (the market in general, but it all boils down to currency control in the simplest form). i don't agree that it's in the nation's best interest to sacrifice economic growth for societal goals, either. the societal goals will be better met if we're all wealthier, and there's only one way to grow wealth.

 

i wish i could understand where folks like you came up with the whole "capitalism results in booms and busts" idea. not from history, that's for sure. it's as if you've been told this so often by the liberal establishment (primarily media) that you believe it. repeat a lie often enough i guess...

 

You'd think so, but the problem in the States is that people have so stridently sorted themselves into one party or another that they would generally rather vote for an extremist on "their" side than they would for anybody on the other side. (This is often in spite of their official registration-- lots of voters register as "independent" but still reliably vote for only 1 party.) Both the major parties have figured out that it is easier to pander to the extremes of their party to raise the turnout among core supporters than it is to appeal to centrist voters (who aren't as likely to vote in the first place) and risk alienating your base.

truth, except maybe the first bit. i think the media and the parties themselves (catering to the media) is where the sorting actually was derived. but you're totally right, when faced with two extremists, people tend to vote for the one that's "on their own side" rather than the opposite.

 

taks

[Enoch]

i don't care if there are lots of "well-respected professional economists on both sides of the aisle." most tend towards friedman or von mises, keynsians are few and far between relatively speaking. marx was a smart guy and well-respected, too, you know. history seems to be proving the chicagoans/austrians right: market failures result from regulatory control over currency (the market in general, but it all boils down to currency control in the simplest form).

Theorists have gone back and forth on this kind of thing. Pure Keynesian theory was dominant until it couldn't account for the stagflation of the '70s. Neo-classical Monetarism generally replaced it as the en vogue theory. What you say about Monetarist domination might have been true 20 years ago, but the data from the late '80s through the present has led to a revival of 'neo-Keynesian' thought. Ultimately, both schools (and their accompanying policy prescriptions) have had their successes and their failures-- and the competition between the two has been very good for the field overall. But I doubt that anybody is ever going to come up with a model that can reliably explain the micro and macro sides at the same time.

 

Of course, you were probably talking about the "Socialism!!1!" strawman that libertarians love to throw out there, rather than incremental Keynesian policy. And it is certainly true that you're not going to find many academic socialists in the economics department of any American univerisities. (The English departments, on the other hand...) But political discussions about actual fiscal policy proposals in the U.S. are about as removed from socialism as anti-littering laws are from police-state fascism. (I sometimes think that mentioning Marx in this kind of discussion should be governed by something similar to Hitler and Godwin's law-- it's the point where a libertarian's argument officially descends into absurd hyperbole.)

 

i wish i could understand where folks like you came up with the whole "capitalism results in booms and busts" idea. not from history, that's for sure. it's as if you've been told this so often by the liberal establishment (primarily media) that you believe it. repeat a lie often enough i guess...

Well, consider the intellectual history of the field. Back when classical economics was the only game in town (when it was called "political economy"), the business cycle was a much-discussed topic. It was explained as a side-effect of the creative destruction of a free economy: When times are good, firms would race each other to expand, which tended to lead to overproduction, prices falling, firms failing, and (particularly for durable goods) future demand declining, which rippled out to other industries via reductions in payrolls and defaults on debt. The Classical prescription for government response to an economic slowdown was to ensure that the government didn't crowd out private finance by borrowing money. This was done generally by raising taxes or curtailing government spending, and it didn't work particularly well. Keynesian theory arose specifically as an attempt to address this-- observing in the real world that wages and prices were "sticky" and the delays in their adjustment often led to firms failing and markets collapsing. Since the adoption of Keynesian policy prescriptions by leading governments, the business cycle has generally been gentler. It's not too hard to imagine where people came up with the idea that it helped.

 

I suppose a rephrase would be a more useful way to approach the issue-- how would a hypothetical pure-free-market economy prevent or mitigate the effects of rapid expansions or contractions in economic activity?

Edited October 22, 2008 by Enoch

[Meshugger]

From what i have gathered, a true free-market would be too chaotic to have a "crash" that would be of such of an impact that it would collapse the whole economy. Without a central bank the monetary system would be unaffected to a similar bank-depression that we have today, since the banks would know that there would be no one to back them up, not even the government, thus it would lower unnecessary risks and lending without sacrificing effiency.

 

Also, since the market would be more chaotic, there would be less chance of someone or some entity grabbing a monopoly within a sector for a longer given time, since 1) competition would be fierce anyway and 2) No corporate entity would be able to influence the government to impose laws that would secure their monopoly.

 

The problems arising from this is that it would be 100% meritocracy, leaving the less unfornunate and unlucky behind. Also, when the market is chaotic by nature, and more flexible, it would require people to be very flexible as well. Strictly meaning, families might have to move a lot, people would be required more than ever to re-educate themselves for new jobs, and a general feel of unsecurity, all of these often leading to social stigma. And of course by having an invisible hand guiding the market, it would be perceived as cold, or even unhuman by many.

 

I for one, wouldn't personally be affected as much, as im already working in a specialized field where the requirement is often to re-educate oneself.

 

But this is all wishy-washy utopia stuff. We can might as well discuss the merits of communism while we're at it.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Meshugger

[Aristes]

"But this is all wishy-washy utopia stuff. We can might as well discuss the merits of communism while we're at it."

 

Hahahahaha I thought this was funny.

 

I take issue with one thing Enoch said. Maxism is a much more fluid term than fascism. While we might pretend that terms such as marxism and socialism have a cut and dried meaning, that's not how their used. Even Marxism has ceased being a term people use based solely on Marx' works.

 

Socialism does not have the same stigma attached to it as fascism. Even communism does not, although it certainly aspires to the same level of loathing in some quarters. My point is, folks throw around words like Socialism as if they have no meaning and thus undermine the definition in the first place. Now, folks also do that with fascism, to be sure. But equating every Republican with Hitler and the nazis hasn't really changed the meaning, only reinforced the negative impact of the word.

 

I don't think Obama is a socialist. I don't believe he truly feels as if he's a socialist and he doesn't view his policies as such either. However, he does move closer to the socialist model, no matter which common use we take for the term. For that reason, I don't think that it's altogether clever to make the claim that he's a socialist. It's simply a statement regarding the difference between the two candidates.

 

...And, to be frank, I don't give a damn about the pie in the sky arguments on a theoretical level. We've got two choices for an election taking place in two weeks. I don't care about a mental experiment regarding true free markets as opposed to marxist doctrine. Obama is a move toward socialism (albeit a long ways off even for him) and McCain is marginally less so.

[taks]

(I sometimes think that mentioning Marx in this kind of discussion should be governed by something similar to Hitler and Godwin's law-- it's the point where a libertarian's argument officially descends into absurd hyperbole.)

you're the one that asserted the argument from authority, not me. i merely replied in kind, noting that citing "well respected" anything really doesn't mean anything.

 

for what it's worth, greenspan is one of the most "well respected" and he started out an austrian.

 

Well, consider the intellectual history of the field...

in general, this all went down after government intervention was already playing a major role in what was happening in the economy. you remark that "capitalism creates booms and busts" (paraphrased, and implied in what i didn't include in this quote), but there's no evidence to that end. you can't really use the huge expansions of the industrial revolution because the market was completely dominated by a massive influx of cheap labor (among other things). THIS is what i meant by "i don't understand." all of the observations that ultimately place blame on "unregulated free market capitalism" actually occurred during times of heavy regulation and/or extreme circumstances in which no system would work. that is the strawman.

 

I suppose a rephrase would be a more useful way to approach the issue-- how would a hypothetical pure-free-market economy prevent or mitigate the effects of rapid expansions or contractions in economic activity?

actually, it has always been claimed, even by you, that the hypothetical pure-free-market causes these expansions. your examples have never actually been shown, or demonstrated, to exist in a pure-free-market economy.

 

taks

[taks]

Socialism does not have the same stigma attached to it as fascism. Even communism does not, although it certainly aspires to the same level of loathing in some quarters. My point is, folks throw around words like Socialism as if they have no meaning and thus undermine the definition in the first place. Now, folks also do that with fascism, to be sure. But equating every Republican with Hitler and the nazis hasn't really changed the meaning, only reinforced the negative impact of the word.

they all actually embody one underlying tenet: collectivism (or statism). socialism is just the easier one to understand because it is more prevalent. there are not now, nor have there ever been, many fascist states.

 

I don't think Obama is a socialist. I don't believe he truly feels as if he's a socialist and he doesn't view his policies as such either. However, he does move closer to the socialist model, no matter which common use we take for the term. For that reason, I don't think that it's altogether clever to make the claim that he's a socialist. It's simply a statement regarding the difference between the two candidates.

well, we are debating on a message board on the intraweb, so legitiimate or not, your last bit is what we get.

 

...And, to be frank, I don't give a damn about the pie in the sky arguments on a theoretical level. We've got two choices for an election taking place in two weeks. I don't care about a mental experiment regarding true free markets as opposed to marxist doctrine. Obama is a move toward socialism (albeit a long ways off even for him) and McCain is marginally less so.

well, the pie in the sky arguments actually come from (at least on my side) repeatedly listening to blame for our economic system being inappropriately placed on the wrong culprit. i personally get tired of the problems of this quasi-socialist system getting blamed on capitalism. it is the ultimate in misdirection, made possible because the general population does not understand the theoretical distinctions at play. as a result, we move ever more towards a true socialist system (even more of a joke, socialism failed because we didn't have enough of it), be it a large step with obama or a small step with mccain. sigh...

 

taks

Edited October 22, 2008 by taks

[Enoch]

Well, of course nobody can prove (or disprove) that boom/bust cycles come from Ayn-Rand-dreamstate pure-free-market capitalism-- there has never been such a thing on a large scale. My earlier statement was a bit of a shorthand; I thought about historical analogies and the closest example I could think of was 19th-Century America, which was characterized by a dramatic business cycle. You (correctly) pointed out that there were a lot of other external factors that had a pretty big part in causing that instability, such as huge demographic shifts, money supply problems, etc., which I conceded.

 

 

FWIW, I'm not blaming current economic problems on "capitalism" or "socialism." I'm blaming it on bad decisions and bad leadership, from both the private sector and the public. Every economic system is pretty much equally susceptible to that. Personally, I don't think talking about the extremes is particularly useful-- we're in a modern mixed economy, wherein the market is the core mechanism, but government activity takes up a quarter or so of GDP. That ain't gonna change meaningfully anytime soon (and, at the risk of sounding Panglossian, it shouldn't), despite what the "creeping socialism" alarmists might think.

[taks]

FWIW, I'm not blaming current economic problems on "capitalism"...

wasn't accusing you of doing that...

 

... or "socialism." I'm blaming it on bad decisions and bad leadership, from both the private sector and the public. Every economic system is pretty much equally susceptible to that.

uh, that sort of requires socialist (government) control of the market. so ya kinda are blaming it on socialism even if you don't want to admit it. the capitalist system wouldn't be susceptible to it because mass bad decisions couldn't happen (particularly not like the current one), and leadership certainly wouldn't have a role to play.

 

Personally, I don't think talking about the extremes is particularly useful-- we're in a modern mixed economy, wherein the market is the core mechanism, but government activity takes up a quarter or so of GDP. That ain't gonna change meaningfully anytime soon (and, at the risk of sounding Panglossian, it shouldn't), despite what the "creeping socialism" alarmists might think.

i fully believe in the creeping socialism concept, and it has slowly been working towards more and more since the first income taxes (interestingly, the highest tax brackets used to be MUCH higher than they are now, but only the rich paid taxes in the beginning, too).

 

it results from compromise, which is hailed some sort of bipartisan "we're working together" when in fact it is nothing more than capitalists slowly conceding rights. it's not going to happen over night, but look at what we're facing already. an obama presidency means it will be easier for unions to grow again - in spite of the fact that the public no longer needs nor wants them - universal health care will happen, the ultimate of all boogeymen will be implemented thanks to the new religion known as environmentalism, taxes will go up, the federal government will play an even larger role in education... mccain in the office will only slow this down a bit, as will the economic woes we are currently experiencing.

 

the last bit, education, is really where it can go bad.

 

taks

Edited October 23, 2008 by taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

What is wrong with education having a national standard? Education, as a whole, is failing in the US and it needs a major restructuring and the individual states just aren't doing the job necessary to do it. Bush's little policy is not the right way but something needs to be done and I don't see a single state government taking charge and doing something about it so it is up to the federal government to do it.

[taks]

What is wrong with education having a national standard?

uh, it already has a national standard. education is a state issue, however, and i was speaking about adding yet another monster bureaucracy on to the list.

 

Education, as a whole, is failing in the US and it needs a major restructuring and the individual states just aren't doing the job necessary to do it.

i disagree. first, you're reading waaay too much into the media hype. second, private education seems to be working fine, without any government intervention (other than testing standards). in fact, they do it for less cost per child... hmmm.

 

oh, i should add, private, non-profit charter schools are gaining ground in the US quite rapidly. they do not get the same amount of funding, considerably less, yet somehow they are outperforming standard public schools. kwinkydink? nope.

 

Bush's little policy is not the right way but something needs to be done and I don't see a single state government taking charge and doing something about it so it is up to the federal government to do it.

bush's little policy is nothing more than a continuation of clinton's "goals 2000" or whatever it was called. not sure what you mean by not seeing a single state government taking charge. of course, you don't have kids, either, so all you get is what the media reports, and can't be expected to speak from anything other than ignorance on this subject.

 

get the unions out of teaching and let performance determine salaries and we'll see big changes. that's only the first step... get rid of national test standards is the next step. they don't work. whereever you set the bar, that's where schools will teach to. lowering the bar to "pass" more students simply moves the teaching standards down. increasing the bar means more students will fail. sorry, but the bell-curve really exists w.r.t. ability to learn (it is likely not even the "bell" that everyone knows, but more like a chi-square of some sort, IMO). the world needs to come to grips with the fact that not everyone is capable of learning the same things at the same rate. the current attitude is to assume it is bad for a childs ego to treat him as if he's not smart enough, and in the end, you get kids that are graduating without any skills because they got so far behind they never had a chance to learn what they were even capable of learning.

 

this whole thing is a mess, and the federal government has proven one thing: it is incapable of cleaning up any mess. yet here we have yet another example of someone advocating letting the federal government "solve" all of our problems. it's sort of like homer's beer concept... the federal government: cause of and solution to all of our problems.

 

taks

Edited October 23, 2008 by taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

So private schools are the answer then? Where only the rich are allowed to get a decent education? Nice thought there, Taks.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Enoch]

the capitalist system wouldn't be susceptible to it because mass bad decisions couldn't happen (particularly not like the current one), and leadership certainly wouldn't have a role to play.

OK, that's just laughably idealistic. The implementation of some state of mythical supercapitalism isn't going to abolish human nature. Believing otherwise is every bit as nuts as Marx's dream of a socialist worker's paradise. People have always done dumb things from time to time, and sometimes people do dumb things en masse. Yes, markets do adjust and correct for mistakes better than pure command-and-control economies, but it still takes time before confidence returns and business gets going again. (It wasn't government action that had all the major investment banks and hedge funds employing 30X leverage...)

[Aristes]

Education under Bush has seen a significant increase in spending, which goes against the idea that Republicans turn a cold eye to domestic spending. Damn, Republicans have gone hog wild on spending, especially during the Bush administration. I think that spending increase is wrong. I think the No Child Left Behind law is wrong. ...But, hey, the Democrats really don't have the right to complain about it since they had a pretty significant role in crafting the legislation.

 

I agree with taks whole heartedly as regards the teachers' unions. Apart from my general distrust, I have very specific problems with them. For example, the teachers union in California (CTA) opposes Prop 8. For those of you who don't know, Prop 8 changes the California constitution to define legal marriages as between one man and one woman. Why the hell does the teachers union support or oppose such a measure? What does this have to do with education? At best, the CTA could point to some of the tactics the prop 8 proponents use, but the underlying issue is not related to education in any way. I voted against the earlier proposition on the grounds that it was discriminatory, but I am voting for this proposition because the California Supreme Court overturned the earlier proposal. The people of the state should have the final word. The California Supreme Court, in a most cynical way, used their power on the bench to legislate. It's more important to me that the Supreme Court of California be put in its place than gay people get the right to marry. Frankly, I think they should have the right, but I had my say on the issue in the form of a vote. My side lost. Just like I will accept and support whoever wins the election for president, I support the decision of the majority in regards to marriage. This is not the equivalent of denying the right to marry between people based on race, religion, or ethnicity. If I saw the denial of same sex marriage as a grave offense to human rights, then I would not support the majority. It's merely an offense, but not a grave one. We can hope that future generations see it as such and change their stance. More important than providing this right to homosexual couples is asserting the power of the people of the state. We should not cringe before the bench and the bench should not impose its will like a pantheon of gods looking down from Mount Olympos.

 

Oh, hell, why not enjoy the pie in the sky debate? As far as strict capitalism goes, Enoch has it right. We won't have it at all. No matter what will yield the best result in the long run, each generation will do what suits its purposes at the time. This is why I rail so much against arguments that rely too heavily on theoretical models. Folks just won't abide conditions necessary for these models to succeed. The best either side can do is hope that some of their central theme gets through and friendly policies prevail. I've taken this to be Enoch's essential argument. If not, apologies.

[Meshugger]

Want to fix education? Easy, demand that for basic education, one has to have atleast a Master's degree in teaching. If one wants to teach in high-school, one needs to be specialized in a particular field, such as biology, math and so on. Want to hold lectures in in higher education? You have to become a PhD in that particular field, or get a Master's degree within that field and attend at basic pedogogic studies for a year or two.

 

Problem solved.

[Meshugger]

Sarah Palin thinks that the Vice-president should be in charge of the Senate. <-- Starts at 1:58

 

I can't even comment on her statement.

[taks]

ok, matthews is the idiot here...

 

the VP presides over the senate, indeed, the US consititution names the VP as the President of the Senate in article 1, section 3. the position is mostly procedural except when a tie is expected, which also coincides with, typically, the only time the VP shows up.

 

taks

[taks]

the capitalist system wouldn't be susceptible to it because mass bad decisions couldn't happen (particularly not like the current one), and leadership certainly wouldn't have a role to play.

OK, that's just laughably idealistic. The implementation of some state of mythical supercapitalism isn't going to abolish human nature. Believing otherwise is every bit as nuts as Marx's dream of a socialist worker's paradise. People have always done dumb things from time to time, and sometimes people do dumb things en masse. Yes, markets do adjust and correct for mistakes better than pure command-and-control economies, but it still takes time before confidence returns and business gets going again.

nonsense. you have even less evidence to support your position than i do and you call my position "idealistic?" the only evidence we have is "less regulation means more growth and more wealth, and more regulation creates booms and busts." period. human nature is entirely the reason capitalism works.

 

(It wasn't government action that had all the major investment banks and hedge funds employing 30X leverage...)

artificial risk, enoch, artificial risk, created by government regulation.

 

sigh...

 

taks

[taks]

So private schools are the answer then? Where only the rich are allowed to get a decent education? Nice thought there, Taks.

sometimes i think you need to really think a bit more before you post...

 

the point, killian, is that the government does not do anything "well" except maybe defense, but particularly not education, not at all. yet you want them to have an even larger role at a federal level. yeah, that's a good solution. see my earlier homer concept.

 

you totally missed my charter school comment, too. they are free, and get less funding than standard public schools yet outperform standard public schools... why is that? hint: privately run.

 

anyway, if all schools were private they wouldn't be accessible only to the rich. competition would see to that. plus, we'd all be spending less on taxes (locally, and at the state level). here you have yet another moronic comment that's based on the current socialist system (being applied to the capitalist system), rather than looking at how it would be different if the state was out of it totally.

 

taks

Edited October 23, 2008 by taks

[Aristes]

I'm sure you can comment on her statement, Meshugger, but I don't see why you would unless you're going to comment on the many factual errors Biden has made. I believe, more than any other presidential campaign during my lifetime, that the press is unquestionably biased to support one of the candidates. That's true of Obama over McCain. That's even more apparent in the treatment Palin receives in comparison to Biden. Look, I don't hate Biden. He's a good speaker and he's engaging and I'm sure I'd love to sit down and have a beer with the guy. ...But he never shuts up and makes some of the most profoundly stupid comments I've heard out of any of the four candidates. For the press to pound Palin and ignore Biden the way they do is absolutely shameful.

 

I would say that Palin wasn't my pick, except that then folks would think I was ashamed of her candidacy. Frankly, I'm not. She's not a terrible candidate. She's a mediocre candidate who's received some terrible treatment. The claims against her, those which aren't outright lies, tend toward hyperbole. Now, she's said some dumb things and I don't share a lot of her core beliefs, but it's ridiculous that the press has managed to get away with the type of coverage we've seen in this election. ...And I watch and read a variety of sources, from the New York Times to the Washington Post to Fox News to MSNBC. Palin's comments regarding the role of the Vice President, you may be suprised to know, fairly mimic Adam's own views while he was vice president. Namely, that the vice president should engage in debate with the senators. Adam's tried to act as part of the legislature during his early days as Vice President but was soon shuffled aside. Biden, on the other hand, stated factual errors regarding the constitution during the debate and received an absolute pass. Ridiculous. ...And folks from other countries see this crap on the news and buy it hook, line, and sinker.

 

Listen, if you don't like Palin's policy stance, fine. If you think she's dumb and doesn't know what she's doing, fine. Just try to come to these views based on reality and the press ain't providing that reality right now. Palin would not be my choice for either President or Vice President. On the other hand, for the first time in my adult life, I don't have a solid reason to vote for any of the candidates, so Palin has a lot of company.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I was responding to Meshugger's post but taks post before me.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Aristes

[Enoch]

the capitalist system wouldn't be susceptible to it because mass bad decisions couldn't happen (particularly not like the current one), and leadership certainly wouldn't have a role to play.

OK, that's just laughably idealistic. The implementation of some state of mythical supercapitalism isn't going to abolish human nature. Believing otherwise is every bit as nuts as Marx's dream of a socialist worker's paradise. People have always done dumb things from time to time, and sometimes people do dumb things en masse. Yes, markets do adjust and correct for mistakes better than pure command-and-control economies, but it still takes time before confidence returns and business gets going again.

nonsense. you have even less evidence to support your position than i do and you call my position "idealistic?" the only evidence we have is "less regulation means more growth and more wealth, and more regulation creates booms and busts." period. human nature is entirely the reason capitalism works.

It's not idealistic to believe that a bunch of organisms as stupid, venal, messy, corrupt, and short-sighted as human beings are can come up with and successfully implement an economic system (or any other system, for that matter) that is completely safe from risk, instability, and periodic fluctuations? Seriously?

 

And, outside of the most simplistic of blackboard charts in Econ 101, I've never seen anything close to the "evidence" that you claim we have so emphatically. All of the evidence on performance in the real economy relative to regulatory involvement is so crowded with noise that it's very easy for ideologues on either side to dismiss anything contrary to their thinking as caused by external factors (as you did when I mentioned that the business cycle has been generally calmer since the relative growth of government involvement in the 20th century). None of the data from the real economy is clean enough for us to know definitively what the overall lesson is. We make educated guesses, but none of them are certain.

 

(It wasn't government action that had all the major investment banks and hedge funds employing 30X leverage...)

artificial risk, enoch, artificial risk, created by government regulation.

Once again, economies are complicated, and you can't assign a single cause to any effect. There were dozens of "but-for" causes of the current problems, and the a good number of them (probably a majority) were bad decisions made by people in private business (and it's looking like many of the bad decisions made in government were decisions to decrease oversight and regulation rather than increase it). If you really really really want to scapegoat government, you can probably twist yourself in circles in figuring out how every one of them made their choices because they smelled some bureaucrat's fart 20 years ago. But if you've already decided who to blame before doing any analysis, well, you're not doing analysis at all-- you're just spinning to confirm your pre-existing ideology. And I'm not particularly interested in having that discussion.

[taks]

Once again, economies are complicated, and you can't assign a single cause to any effect.

that's a complete cop-out. everything touches everything in an economy, and when the federal government creates artificially low levels of risk, it effects every aspect of the economy. artificial risk, enoch. i'm sorry if you don't understand, but that permeates the entire system.

 

here's a good article on the problem:

 

http://mises.org/story/3165

 

taks

[taks]

It's not idealistic to believe that a bunch of organisms as stupid, venal, messy, corrupt, and short-sighted as human beings are can come up with and successfully implement an economic system (or any other system, for that matter) that is completely safe from risk, instability, and periodic fluctuations? Seriously?

are you joking? seriously, where have i EVER said that there is no risk, instability or periodic fluctuations.

 

you are now making the exact same type of strawman argument, incapable of reading or understanding what i have said.

 

for shame.

 

And, outside of the most simplistic of blackboard charts in Econ 101, I've never seen anything close to the "evidence" that you claim we have so emphatically.

try the first 100 years of US history. the value of the dollar actually increased. booms and busts did not begin until we began to regulate the economy. did you forget about that?

 

unbelievable. you're smart enough to avoid the strawman. please do so.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

I'm sure you can comment on her statement, Meshugger, but I don't see why you would unless you're going to comment on the many factual errors Biden has made. I believe, more than any other presidential campaign during my lifetime, that the press is unquestionably biased to support one of the candidates. That's true of Obama over McCain. That's even more apparent in the treatment Palin receives in comparison to Biden. Look, I don't hate Biden. He's a good speaker and he's engaging and I'm sure I'd love to sit down and have a beer with the guy. ...But he never shuts up and makes some of the most profoundly stupid comments I've heard out of any of the four candidates. For the press to pound Palin and ignore Biden the way they do is absolutely shameful.

 

I would say that Palin wasn't my pick, except that then folks would think I was ashamed of her candidacy. Frankly, I'm not. She's not a terrible candidate. She's a mediocre candidate who's received some terrible treatment. The claims against her, those which aren't outright lies, tend toward hyperbole. Now, she's said some dumb things and I don't share a lot of her core beliefs, but it's ridiculous that the press has managed to get away with the type of coverage we've seen in this election. ...And I watch and read a variety of sources, from the New York Times to the Washington Post to Fox News to MSNBC. Palin's comments regarding the role of the Vice President, you may be suprised to know, fairly mimic Adam's own views while he was vice president. Namely, that the vice president should engage in debate with the senators. Adam's tried to act as part of the legislature during his early days as Vice President but was soon shuffled aside. Biden, on the other hand, stated factual errors regarding the constitution during the debate and received an absolute pass. Ridiculous. ...And folks from other countries see this crap on the news and buy it hook, line, and sinker.

 

Listen, if you don't like Palin's policy stance, fine. If you think she's dumb and doesn't know what she's doing, fine. Just try to come to these views based on reality and the press ain't providing that reality right now. Palin would not be my choice for either President or Vice President. On the other hand, for the first time in my adult life, I don't have a solid reason to vote for any of the candidates, so Palin has a lot of company.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I was responding to Meshugger's post but taks post before me.

 

I didn't choose that link because i agree with the newscaster/pundit (Matthews, was it?). He was a real bully there, just ignore the guy. It just happened to be the first that i found containing that perticular statement.

 

While Biden surely says something akin of loopy statements, but one can easily spot that there's some sort of judgement, or ideas behind it. Strictly meaning, he can have some trouble expressing his thougths at times. Also, you can easily spot when he is in an uneasy situation, or is directly lying: That sharkgrin of his, yuck.

 

Palin however, is just empty, devoid of any abstract thinking IMO. Think of the statement for a moment: "Charge of the senate"? It doesn't even make sense on any level. Even a child would irk to that. I wonder how she spell "potato".

[Aristes]

And, outside of the most simplistic of blackboard charts in Econ 101, I've never seen anything close to the "evidence" that you claim we have so emphatically.

try the first 100 years of US history. the value of the dollar actually increased. booms and busts did not begin until we began to regulate the economy. did you forget about that?

 

I find it strange that I'm defending Enoch on this. First of all, he seems like the kind of guy who doesn't need my clusmy defense. I passed over that hurdle by wanting to talk. Second of all, I'm an unabashed capitalist. I guess I'm just not a true free market capitalist. ...Or maybe I should say if I'm going to die chargin the baricade, it's not at that particular barricade where I choose to die.

 

The reason I agree with Enoch on this issue isn't because I favor more government interference. I just prefer reasonable and pragmatic arguments and there's no chance in hell of going to the system you suggest, taks. I don't believe it is possible.

 

As regards this specific problem, however, I think the ascendency of the United States was one of those outside factors you point out earlier and Enoch discusses. There's simply no realistic way to compare the set of circumstances facing the country during the first hundred years compared to the circumstances facing the country during the next hundred. What about number of states? What about foreign markets? Rampant expansion during the first hundred years cries out for the argument of outside influences. I dunno. Enoch can give you one of his erudite responses. On it's face, this particular example seems bunk.

 

...But, lest I get off topic, your position is not supported in this election. I seriously doubt it will be supported in any election any time soon. So, while I favor the free market approach, I want to focus on attainable goals. At least, I want to focus on candidates who are closet to my position.