Honest Political Question

[hornadylnl]

Hmm. Either you are redistributing something or not. I didn't know there were different degrees of it.

 

[tuoder]

Hmm. Either you are redistributing something or not. I didn't know there were different degrees of it.

Marxists believe that all wealth should be distributed evenly.

Keynesianists believe that government intervention can be used to improve market conditions.

Austrian economists believe that all government intervention is bad.

 

[JetGirl]

Hmm. Either you are redistributing something or not. I didn't know there were different degrees of it.

"Somebody needs to pay for all my children and all our suffering...somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay".

 

[Fletch]

Keynesianists believe that government intervention can be used to improve market conditions.

With the definitions of "government intervention" and "improve" being left deliberately vague, but generally equating to either the forcible redistribution of wealth or the introduction of violence into a formerly voluntary arrangement.

Austrian economists believe that all government intervention is bad.

Untrue. Intervention in cases of force or fraud is deemed acceptable, though the form of "government" need not be the traditionally accepted definition.

In purely economic terms, Austrians have proven that every government intervention into the market necessarily results in a net destruction of wealth. This is most often illustrated with the broken window fallacy. Whether the destruction is warranted or not can be a matter of some debate, particularly for those who desire something but are unwilling to pay for it. However, the heterogeneous nature of value makes the entire conversation an implicit discussion of how we shall rob A to give to B and not feel guilty about it.

 

[hornadylnl]

Marxists believe that all wealth should be distributed evenly.

Keynesianists believe that government intervention can be used to improve market conditions.

Austrian economists believe that all government intervention is bad.

In light of all the things government has fubar'ed people still believe that they can make something better? Count me in the Austrian camp.

 

[tuoder]

With the definitions of "government intervention" and "improve" being left deliberately vague, but generally equating to either the forcible redistribution of wealth or the introduction of violence into a formerly voluntary arrangement.

It's deliberately simple, not deliberately vague. As an example, Keynesians believe in ideas like Obama's stimulus package. Austrians do not.

Untrue. Intervention in cases of force or fraud is deemed acceptable, though the form of "government" need not be the traditionally accepted definition.

I don't really see that as intervention, but that's a matter of semantics. Regulation of commerce is a traditional government function, whether through use of money supply, interest rates, or whatever.

In purely economic terms, Austrians have proven that every government intervention into the market necessarily results in a net destruction of wealth. This is most often illustrated with the broken window fallacy. Whether the destruction is warranted or not can be a matter of some debate, particularly for those who desire something but are unwilling to pay for it. However, the heterogeneous nature of value makes the entire conversation an implicit discussion of how we shall rob A to give to B and not feel guilty about it.

Proven is an interesting word for it. Can you direct me to a study? Economics, by it's nature, is not so clear cut.

The broken window fallacy is not applicable here because nothing is destroyed. I'm not asserting that value can be added to an economy through destruction. Clearly, it cannot.

Taxation is not the same as theft. One should expect to pay to maintain a society that has paid to maintain him.

 

[tuoder]

In light of all the things government has fubar'ed people still believe that they can make something better? Count me in the Austrian camp.

All human endeavor is subject to failure. This is no reason not to try.

 

[BloodEclipse]

It's deliberately simple, not deliberately vague. As an example, Keynesians believe in ideas like Obama's stimulus package. Austrians do not.

Borrow money from the Chinese, hand it out to reward those who voted for you. Stimulus money going to shovel ready() projects in favored districts sounds more like vote buying than it does stimulus.


I don't really see that as intervention, but that's a matter of semantics. Regulation of commerce is a traditional government function, whether through use of money supply, interest rates, or whatever.

Sure and they suck at it. Look at the track record.

Proven is an interesting word for it. Can you direct me to a study? Economics, by it's nature, is not so clear cut.

The broken window fallacy is not applicable here because nothing is destroyed. I'm not asserting that value can be added to an economy through destruction. Clearly, it cannot.

Taxation is not the same as theft. EVERYOne should expect to pay to maintain a society that has paid to maintain him.

 

[hornadylnl]

All human endeavor is subject to failure. This is no reason not to try.

When I act on my own interest and fail, I'm more than happy to accept the consequences. It is my responsibility to do so. But I have a real problem with those who believe I'm too stupid to know what's best for me. IE social security. I'm told I'm too stupid and irresponsible to be responsible for my future retirement so they create a great new program to take care of me in my golden years. They risk my money on this program, not their own. Then they squander my money and leave me holding the bag and accept no responsibility for it. Their answer? Well, we had good intentions.

Well I'm smart enought o know that the .gov f's up everything it touches and I won't receive a dime in social security. My solution? I get to pay for my retirement twice. The money the .gov confiscates from me by force and my private retirement savings. Do you know what the icing on the cake is? I know they will further confiscate my "profits" from my private savings to hand out to the douches who relied on social security. Wouldn't want them to have to choose between buying food or medicine!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Wait until they confiscate your 401K to pay someone else's social security.

When I act on my own interest and fail, I'm more than happy to accept the consequences. It is my responsibility to do so. But I have a real problem with those who believe I'm too stupid to know what's best for me. IE social security. I'm told I'm too stupid and irresponsible to be responsible for my future retirement so they create a great new program to take care of me in my golden years. They risk my money on this program, not their own. Then they squander my money and leave me holding the bag and accept no responsibility for it. Their answer? Well, we had good intentions.

Well I'm smart enought o know that the .gov f's up everything it touches and I won't receive a dime in social security. My solution? I get to pay for my retirement twice. The money the .gov confiscates from me by force and my private retirement savings. Do you know what the icing on the cake is? I know they will further confiscate my "profits" from my private savings to hand out to the douches who relied on social security. Wouldn't want them to have to choose between buying food or medicine!

 

[hornadylnl]

Wait until they confiscate your 401K to pay someone else's social security.

There's no doubt in my mind that it will happen. That's why I'm tempted to stop contributing to it.

 

[hornadylnl]

Tuoder,

What kind of elitist "I am god" complex do liberals suffer from that they believe without their own personal intervention in others lives they will starve to death? I find the idea that one person must control another to save them is just as morally repugnant as slavery. What makes a liberal more qualified to know how to live my life better than I do?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

There's no doubt in my mind that it will happen. That's why I'm tempted to stop contributing to it.

Wait until some demonrat figures out how to use eminent domain to strip your bank account of cash and leave a big old IOU to be repaid at some later time TBD.

 

[hornadylnl]

Wait until some demonrat figures out how to use eminent domain to strip your bank account of cash and leave a big old IOU to be repaid at some later time TBD.

By that time, they won't need to pretend that they will pay it back.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Tuoder,

What kind of elitist "I am god" complex do liberals suffer from that they believe without their own personal intervention in others lives they will starve to death? I find the idea that one person must control another to save them is just as morally repugnant as slavery. What makes a liberal more qualified to know how to live my life better than I do?

It's not their own personal intervention. Libs don't want to personally intervene in anything. That want to make you intervene. It makes them feel good, and they get to keep all their wealth. Two birds, your money.

George Soros is (proported to be) the biggest lib on the planet. Why does he still have billions of dollars in net worth? If he really cared about others he would give it all away. But the truth is that he really just wants to make sure you never get the chance to amass as much wealth as he has.

 

[Fletch]

It's deliberately simple, not deliberately vague. As an example, Keynesians believe in ideas like Obama's stimulus package. Austrians do not.

I don't really see that as intervention, but that's a matter of semantics. Regulation of commerce is a traditional government function, whether through use of money supply, interest rates, or whatever.

Proven is an interesting word for it. Can you direct me to a study?

And again you prove my earlier statement regarding how much Austrian economics you've actually read. This is one of the earliest points made in any general Austrian text, and is usually covered by about the third chapter. To save you the effort of doing any actual work, I shall endeavor to summarize:

Voluntary exchange is a positive-sum activity. I trade $20 for a box of ammo. I am enriched because I necessarily value the ammo more than I value the $20, and the store is enriched because it values the $20 more than it values the ammo. If either one of us valued what we traded away equal to or higher than what we received, no exchange would have taken place; since an exchange has taken place, by definition we have gained what we value more in exchange for what we value less. Wealth has been increased all around, and because of the nature of human action, it has been maximized.

If, before I can go to the store, some thug accosts me and takes my $20, my wealth has been decreased not only by the value of the $20, but also by the difference in value between the $20 and the box of ammo. It matters not the nature of the thug nor what he does with the money; wealth has been destroyed and rights violated. It doesn't matter if the thug goes out and gives the money to the poor, or even if he buys something on my behalf and gives it to me; I have lost the value of my wealth.

Value systems between individuals are heterogeneous, so they can't really be compared in a quantitative sense. The best that can be said is that the thug cannot value my $20 as much as I do, else he would have exchanged labor in voluntary trade to earn it as I did, rather than violating my rights to that which I have earned.

Similarly government, by the very nature of taxation, admits its own illegitimacy. If it offered something people valued, there would be no need to forcibly extract taxes from them to pay for it -- people will voluntarily purchase what they value. If it valued the money it confiscates as much as the people who earned it value that same money, government would earn it the way they do: by exchanging value for value in voluntary trade. Since government by its own tacit admission has nothing of value to offer, anything it endeavors to do destroys wealth by definition.

There are those here who have stated repeatedly that there are things they would gladly pay taxes to have, but they miss the point that if they would voluntarily pay for it, it's not a tax. The only morally legitimate source of funding for government is voluntary donation, or purchase of services rendered. Give everyone a 0% tax rate, and ask who's willing to donate to fund a military, and I guarantee you that there would be a lot of people around here who would step forward, checkbook in hand. Go down the list of "services" provided by the government in the same fashion, and you would quickly find out what people actually value and what they don't. You would also find just how much faith they place in government, as many would undoubtedly purchase the things they value from other vendors.

The broken window fallacy is not applicable here because nothing is destroyed. I'm not asserting that value can be added to an economy through destruction. Clearly, it cannot.

Unfortunately, you are asserting that very thing, and do not realize it, though you are correct in agreeing that destruction doesn't add value. You speak of money supply and interest rates, but fail to understand that inflation is destruction of wealth in the form of savings, and interest rate manipulation is destruction of wealth through the creation of shortages via price controls. You laud Obama's stimulus package without comprehending the massive destruction of existing savings that accompanies it, or the destruction and disincentivizing of future savings that must surely follow an effectively negative interest rate. You fail to grasp that the stimulus package (and its predecessor TARP) were deemed necessary because the credit shortages they are designed to alleviate were created by the price controls in the previous batch of interventions, which were deemed necessary because of the disastrous effects of the interventions before them, and so on.

Each intervention eventually necessitates an even greater intervention to fix its unintended consequences. Unfortunately, we have just hit the "Zero Wall" with the interest rate, and are attempting to push past it, but reality is beginning to assert itself. What has people up in arms is the fact that they realize, intuitively for the most part, that there is nowhere to go from here. When the consequences of this intervention create the need for the next intervention (and they will), we could very well have no choice but to suffer the enormous pain that has been delayed and piled up over decades of boom/bust cycles perpetrated by all of these interventions. If Obama were any kind of true leader, he'd be letting the house of cards fall apart now rather than desperately trying to pile one more layer onto it.

 

[Fletch]

Tuoder, I like you, I just think you're wrong as 2 boys copulation in church.

That would make you the first person on this forum so far.

Not even the first to say so... I said pretty much the same thing in a PM to another member earlier today. You shouldn't mistake disagreement with dislike; one of the people I respect most in this world is a flaming leftist. He and I will never see eye-to-eye on politics, and we both know it, but I'd take a bullet for him, and I'm fairly certain he'd do the same for me.

 

[hornadylnl]

It's not their own personal intervention. Libs don't want to personally intervene in anything. That want to make you intervene. It makes them feel good, and they get to keep all their wealth. Two birds, your money.

George Soros is (proported to be) the biggest lib on the planet. Why does he still have billions of dollars in net worth? If he really cared about others he would give it all away. But the truth is that he really just wants to make sure you never get the chance to amass as much wealth as he has.

It is very much their personal intervention. They want to control every aspect of our lives. The only time they want to make us intervene is to open our wallets. The only input they want from us is to open our wallets. Only they are capable of anything else.

 

[hornadylnl]

Fletch for president! That was an excellent post! My point about the fool, more intelligent man, and the true intellectual was a terrible attempt at what you said.

Those who tout the benefit of these bailouts are only listening to one side of the story. They buy the supposed benefits of the bailout and refuse to listen to the massive amounts of damage from the consequences of the bailouts.

 

[hornadylnl]

To expand on one of my earlier points. When government tells us that we are too stupid to take of ourselves, we are expected to view our dictators as loving, caring, etc. Yet when a man tells his wife she is incapable of taking care of herself, he's verbally abusive and on the same level as a murderer.