Honest Political Question

[SemperFiUSMC]

You claimed that I gave credit to the ending of the Great Depression to Socialists, and then named a Liberal and a Fascist.

Fascism is a nationalist ideology centered around large governmental authority in everyday life. Racism and beliefs of cultural superiority are endemic.

Socialism is any political ideology centered around direct ownership of the means of production by the people, or by their representatives. It seeks one uniform international culture, and denies any significant difference in anyone's abilities.

Liberalism is an ideology which favors freedom and equality.

Equating the three shows an astounding lack of knowledge of European history preceding WWII.

Typical leftist. Start executing personal attacks when you can't defend your answers. Priceless. I digress.

Thank you for the textbook definitions. Or did they come from wordiq.com? Again, parroting rather than providing original thoughtful analysis. Anyway, I thought we were discussing ideas, not definitions. But since you want to discuss definitions, let's.

FDR favored freedom and equality? Is that what they print in the textbooks these days? No wonder the Texas Board of Education demanded change to theirs.

So are you kidding? FDR was anything but a classic liberal. He was a progressive socialist, thru and thru. Socialism does not necessarily require ownership of the means of production; just control. And just like today, socialists have to take baby steps. FDR's policies and laws passed during his administration furthered us down the path toward socialism started by his cousin Teddy.

Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist Part (Nazis for short). Modern Socialists try to push him as far away from their ideology as possible (for obvious reasons) but the fact remains he was a socialist. He seized or ohterwise gained control of nearly all means of production in Germany before and during the war. Under your definition (or the one you plagerized, not sure which) he falls squarely into the socialist camp.

I just love anti-intellectualism.

Again, typical leftist response.

FWIW, I have two Bachelor degrees (magna *** laude, summa *** laude), an MBA, and need to complete one more course to complete a Masters degree from Harvard University. I'm not sure I qualify to be an anti-intellectualist.

Just because you go to school doesn't make you an intellectual. You actually have to learn, synthesize, process, and generat intelligent independant thought from that information you are presented. Simply being able to regurgitate rote memorized information verbatim does not make you an intellectual. True intellectualism is developing your own thoughts contrary to those that you have been taught. You're not demonstrating that capability yet, but there's still time, and lot's of hope.

You go to what school, psuedo elistist snob wannabe? Oops.

I was asking the question to illustrate the error of constructing a question in that way. Americans have still never changed Presidents during a war, given the choice to.[/qoute]

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Guess I am still stuck on being accused of engaging in anti-intellectualism.

Exactly how many opportunities have the American people had the opportunity to change Presidents during a War?

I'm sorry if you don't believe in objective discussion of ideas.

I'm all for the objective discussion of ideas. Please present an original one that hasn't been simply misquoted from some other dribble on the Internet, easily found on wordiq or wikipedia, or recited verbatim from a text book without attribution.

BTW I like my picture more.

 

[dross]

When government is involved the fix is always worse than the problem.

This reminds me of a lake in Colorado. It was a very good trout lake and had been for as long as anyone could remember.
A non native grass invaded the lake.
The Government decided it needed to act, so they so they introduced grass carp.
After a few years as the grass carp population rose, the trout population had significantly dropped. It seems the carp were doing such a good job with the grasses, that they were also sucking up the trout eggs as well.

The Government seeing the new problem decided once again to act.
This time they introduced pike to the lake and after a few years the pike did it's job in reducing the carp population.
It is now almost impossible to catch a trout because it seems the pike like them too.

Politicians are always selling these lies:

1. All negative consequences have a solution
2. There is a solution to a negative consequence that doesn't require a negative tradeoff somewhere else.
3. People you can identify who are hurt are more important than people you can't identify who will be hurt.

As I've said before, a politician would look at a baseball lineup whose members were all batting over .300 and demand we implement HIS solution to address the 70% failure rate. If his solution caused the batting average to go down, he would say, "Yes, but imagine how low it would have gone without my solution."

 

[Fletch]

As I've said before, a politician would look at a baseball lineup whose members were all batting over .300 and demand we implement HIS solution to address the 70% failure rate. If his solution caused the batting average to go down, he would say, "Yes, but imagine how low it would have gone without my solution."

And indeed, this is exactly what FDR's hagiographers have argued on his behalf.

 

[BloodEclipse]

If his solution caused the batting average to go down, he would say, "Yes, but imagine how low it would have gone without my solution."

As this administration is doing with the economy and unemployment numbers now.

 

[Que]

Well, I got a few questions answered before things started going down hill.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Well, I got a few questions answered before things started going down hill.

I think some things became clear as things started to go downhill.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I have read many good points in this thread, and some not so good.

It is very good to get fired up about your cause, but don't let the fire burn your butt.

This is the problem w/ studying economics. You can NEVER know if you are right or not because you cannot completely disassociate your "alleged cause" from all of the others.

An example is the question of what got us out of the great depression? In the end, we will never know. This is not because we are not smart, but rather because we cannot isolate all of the effects that FDR had, SCOTUS had, Keynes had, human psychology had, WWII had, trade disruption from the war had, the general trend had, banks had, major industrialists had, women working had, social changes had, etc etc etc.

The fact is everything we do has both a positive effect and a negative effect. As much as I believe the negative effects of the bailouts outweighed the positive effects of the bailouts I cannot say that there were no positive effects of the bailouts, only my opinion that in the long run the negatives will outweigh the positives (follow that...?)

The war forced us down paths, but it was also guided by FDR, Congress, Major Industrialists and so on. Each finger on both sides of the scale pushing with different levels of pressure. And that pressure was guided by different causes of priorities. For example, some industrialists were motivated by self interest, then by patriotism. Other industrialists were motivated by patriotism, then self interest. The same held for every elected official from town councilmen all the way up to the President.

In the end it was millions of human beings all over the world either taking advantage of the situation or showing self sacrifice, each to varying degrees and each with greater or lesser leverage.

What saved us? Who knows...!

I tend to agree the Federal involvement hurt more than it helped, but I don't think we can say with any degree of absolute certainty that it may(?) have been a wash given the war, and the war may have been a positive or negative given the debt load it placed on us in the long run.

So guys, keep in mind that all of these variables were both good and bad at the same time. How we think tends to cloud our judgment and prejudice us toward believing in one direction or another.

This then returns to answering the original question: what will get us out of our current mess? I believe that a multitude of changes are required that favor the free market and general free market reforms, but as I cannot predict the future I myself must admit that given future events they may reinforce my view or undermine it completely. This is just what I believe is the best course.

The rest is up to you.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Fletch]

This then returns to answering the original question: what will get us out of our current mess?

That's not the question really being asked by America. What the American voters want is for the entire system to continue as-is, without any pain. They don't want their assets to lose value, they don't want jobs to be reshuffled, they don't want present entitlements rolled back. Never mind that this is unsustainable, what they want is to be told that everything will be all right and things can continue as they were in <insert year here> without any of that bad stuff happening.

I believe that a multitude of changes are required that favor the free market and general free market reforms, but as I cannot predict the future I myself must admit that given future events they may reinforce my view or undermine it completely.

Anything big enough to enact change -- real change -- for the better, is by definition big enough to cause a lot of upheaval that will call into question the motives and sanity of those who prescribed the change. I know what the Austrian answer to this is, and it ends in a better America... eventually. Between here and there is a whole lot of pain that must be endured, kind of like open-heart surgery.

The problem with economics as a science is not that it doesn't explain things satisfactorily; it's that most people are so afraid to learn it that they'd rather remain ignorant. So when a change is made that results in pain, they don't have the ability or background to understand whether the pain results in good or ill... they just know they're in pain and clamor for relief, which politicians are all-too-ready to provide if it will advance their careers.

 

[jsgolfman]

Unfortunately, the disagreement seems to be between those who know and those who pretend at knowing.

For example, I've spent the last ten years studying Austrian economics. I have read Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, DiLorenzo, Callahan, Hazlitt, Hayek, and Murphy, to name a few. I subscribe to their podcasts, and I listen to their speeches. I may not have a degree in Austrian economics, but I sure as hell know what it's about.

So when I said you don't actually know anything about Austrian economics, I said it with a high degree of confidence. Your summary dismissal of it had exactly the same level of truth behind it as a person claiming they don't like McDonald's because it doesn't sell hamburgers.

It appears now that you are similarly being taken to task over Keynes... I will readily admit that my knowledge of Keynes' work is far more limited, but you haven't really shown great depth in this regard.

Perhaps you thought you'd buffalo us because we're just a bunch of bumpkins, perhaps not. Either way, you might want to double-check the actual depth of your knowledge before you go around making grand assertions about what's what.

I'd rep you, but I have to spread the love first.

And, no disrespect Liberatrian01 but you absolutely can know you are right. Whether some action has a positive short term effect (very short term) or not, doesn't change the fact that is is wrong. Continuing to say, "Well, guess we'll never know", without the scholarship is disingenuous at best.

 

[Libertarian01]

That's not the question really being asked by America.

Fletch,

With regard, sir, it IS the original question (paraphrased) by the OP. What America wants is of no concern to me, only attempting to answer the OP's question.

I'll leave all of America to the rest of you.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Fletch]

Fletch,

With regard, sir, it IS the original question (paraphrased) by the OP. What America wants is of no concern to me, only attempting to answer the OP's question.

I fully grasp the distinction; I just wanted to make a larger point.

The OP's question is rather broad, and I don't think it can be answered on a forum, at least not easily. There is a ton of information to be imparted before a simple answer can make any sense. I could say "radically reduce the size, scope, and power of the federal government", but the devil is always in the details, and in this case the details could fill volumes. Better to pick one issue at a time and drill down into it than try to solve the nation/world's problems in one fell swoop.

 

[Que]

That's not the question really being asked by America. What the American voters want is for the entire system to continue as-is, without any pain. They don't want their assets to lose value, they don't want jobs to be reshuffled, they don't want present entitlements rolled back. Never mind that this is unsustainable, what they want is to be told that everything will be all right and things can continue as they were in <insert year here> without any of that bad stuff happening.



Anything big enough to enact change -- real change -- for the better, is by definition big enough to cause a lot of upheaval that will call into question the motives and sanity of those who prescribed the change. I know what the Austrian answer to this is, and it ends in a better America... eventually. Between here and there is a whole lot of pain that must be endured, kind of like open-heart surgery.

The problem with economics as a science is not that it doesn't explain things satisfactorily; it's that most people are so afraid to learn it that they'd rather remain ignorant. So when a change is made that results in pain, they don't have the ability or background to understand whether the pain results in good or ill... they just know they're in pain and clamor for relief, which politicians are all-too-ready to provide if it will advance their careers.

That is the reason for my post. As an example, if I were "America" and realized that I was always tired and sluggish; constantly getting headaches; pains in my chest and blood in my waste, I would go to the doctor. I could ignore the symptoms and just die, but the prudent thing to do is go to the doctor. The U.S. is sick and doesn't want to go to the doctor.

I realize some necessary changes may hurt me and my family, but I don't want to be selfish and say, "Well, I don't care what happens after I die." IMO I just see many of the tax laws and shelters in favor of the very rich and nothing for the middle class. I read where many say that 50% of Americans pay no income taxes, but neither do the very rich, so who's paying? I would say people like me and most of us on this site.

 

[Fletch]

I realize some necessary changes may hurt me and my family, but I don't want to be selfish and say, "Well, I don't care what happens after I die." IMO I just see many of the tax laws and shelters in favor of the very rich and nothing for the middle class. I read where many say that 50% of Americans pay no income taxes, but neither do the very rich, so who's paying? I would say people like me and most of us on this site.

As explained by someone else upthread, the main way to do this is to simplify the tax code. Make it so that anyone can understand it. Charge everyone 10% or 20% or whatever off the top, no exceptions, no deductions, no screwing around, and call it good. (This is if you don't want to tackle the moral issue of taxing income, of course.) This removes the advantage of scale that larger corporations enjoy by having enough left in the budget to hire full-time accountants to track all the nonsense that the tax code imposes. It would also help, during the simplification process, to find a way to eliminate the self-employment tax, which destroys the earning potential of the newest and smallest businesses.

After that, you need to have a fundamental realization of the fact that all regulation hurts small business first. Every new law, every new requirement, every new i that needs dotting or t that needs crossing, all hurt small business first. This is for the same reason described above: big corporations pay full-time employees to do nothing but sit around and examine the new regs and find ways to comply or "comply" with them.

I work for a small company... less than 100 employees, but we already have a "compliance officer": a guy whose job it is to do nothing but make sure we're doing all the things the stupid laws say we have to do. He's probably making $75k or better a year, to do nothing but play yes-man for the government. Name a 5-person shop that could take on that expense.

Hopefully you can see the problem...

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm no economic genius but I've read some of Mises's works and he's right. His school follows that of human nature. We work to our own interests. Greed and selfishness isn't always a bad thing, IE: I want to be filthy rich. How do I get there? I can start a business and hire people to make a product that people want. While I'm raking in money hand over fist, my employees are also making money at jobs that otherwise wouldn't be there if I wasn't interested in filling my pockets.

 

[hornadylnl]

Tuoder,

If Keynesian economic theory is the answer, why don't you get out your checkbook and just start writing checks to everyone you know. Make them big, let's say $10,000 each. Think about how much 100's of people with $10,000 of new money in their pockets will stimulate the economy! Oh wait, that $10,000 check in their pocket is absolutely worth it because there is nothing to back it up with. Just as that $10,000 check is worthless, so is the "money" that the government is printing.

A $1 bill in of itself is worthless. It requires faith that there is something to back it up to make that piece of paper have value.

 

[tuoder]

Tuoder,

If Keynesian economic theory is the answer, why don't you get out your checkbook and just start writing checks to everyone you know. Make them big, let's say $10,000 each. Think about how much 100's of people with $10,000 of new money in their pockets will stimulate the economy! Oh wait, that $10,000 check in their pocket is absolutely worth it because there is nothing to back it up with. Just as that $10,000 check is worthless, so is the "money" that the government is printing.

A $1 bill in of itself is worthless. It requires faith that there is something to back it up to make that piece of paper have value.

 

[hornadylnl]

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

There are 3 sides to every story. Their is person A's side, person B's side, and the truth. A fool would only listen to 1 side and draw their conclusion. A more intelligent person would listen to both sides and then draw their conclusion based on who made the more convincing argument. A true intellectual would listen to both sides and then talk to persons C, D, E, and F. He'd separate emotions from facts and come to the truth.

Keynesian economics may have a dew good principles but those who subscribe to it seem to want to ignore all the unintended consequences that come with it.

I think all of us want to eliminate poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc but we differ on the means of doing so. The austrians want to make those in need responsible for themselves and the Keynesians want to enslave the haves to the have nots. I contend that slavery is far and above worse than poverty.

 

[tuoder]

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.

There are 3 sides to every story. Their is person A's side, person B's side, and the truth. A fool would only listen to 1 side and draw their conclusion. A more intelligent person would listen to both sides and then draw their conclusion based on who made the more convincing argument. A true intellectual would listen to both sides and then talk to persons C, D, E, and F. He'd separate emotions from facts and come to the truth.

I'm with you. I've heard a lot more of your side. I used to agree.

Keynesian economics may have a dew good principles but those who subscribe to it seem to want to ignore all the unintended consequences that come with it.

I think all of us want to eliminate poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc but we differ on the means of doing so. The austrians want to make those in need responsible for themselves and the Keynesians want to enslave the haves to the have nots. I contend that slavery is far and above worse than poverty.

Nobody wants to enslave anyone in this discussion. They just have a different theory on how economics works.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm not a scholar in Keynesian economics but doest it believe in redistribution of wealth?

 

[tuoder]

I'm not a scholar in Keynesian economics but doest it believe in redistribution of wealth?

Not in the same sense as Marxist economics, no, it doesn't.