IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags conservatives , republicans , Tea Party movement

Reply
Old 20th February 2010, 07:09 PM   #41
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Moving people from blood sucking leech mode to productive mode expands an economy, increases GNP, increases wealth.
To your sort, they are blood-sucking leeches. to the sane, they are the people who build the infrastructure that an ecconomy needs and keep the brigands and bullies from robbing or enslaving or cheating the weak.

Putting government workers out of work when there is no longer an industrial base is not going to increase productivity.

Quote:
By the way, nobody said a word of concern about the estimated [b]2M insurance company workers[b] who were understood to be out of work after a single payer takeover.
But they don't prodcue anything. If half of an average family's income were not going down that rat hole, maybe some working people could afford to open their own businesses or accumulate the capital to invest in companies that do make stuff here so that some people could go back to work.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2010, 07:18 PM   #42
corplinx
JREF Kid
 
corplinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,952
So no, it wasn't a free market. It was a government managed market. And it failed spectacularly. The best idea the interventionists have is "well, government should have managed the security industry more too". Its fail plus fail. "Government should manage the finance industry." Triple fail. They completely fail to comprehend that the only reason the source industry of mortgage lending failed, was due to government management!

What does it say when the best argument is "yeah, we could have turned the poor into the homeless en masse, but we wouldn't have had to pass TARP or lose any 401k money"? I would humbly suggest that if this is the best you have, then you are looking in the wrong spot for the blame. You are basically ignoring the underlying problem.

"Another black eye for free market capitalism", is just neo-comm wishing thinking. There isn't a single shred of evidence they can provide that there was a free market working.

Moreover, the idea that businessmen represent the free market, is not one Friedman shared. One of the key reasons that Friedman opposed managed economies is that businesses take unfair advantage of them. Tell me that wasn't the case during the mortgage lending bubble.
__________________
Nothing Reportable Here
corplinx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2010, 07:02 PM   #43
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
Originally Posted by corplinx View Post

As in the great depression, monetary policy had a lot to do with the Iceland crash. Their _government_ created a currency bubble through interest rate manipulation. And when the bottom fell out, it fell hard.
First this isn’t supportable by the facts. Specifically the inflation numbers do not support the notion of currency bubble.

Originally Posted by corplinx View Post
And when all the money started leaving the country, the banks fell hard.
The banks fell hard because they were over-leveraged, the same leverage that fueled the housing bubble.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2010, 07:11 PM   #44
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
Originally Posted by corplinx View Post
So no, it wasn't a free market. It was a government managed market.
No it wasn’t government managed at all. The core of the problem was in the derivatives market which is almost completely unregulated.

This lack of regulation allowed lenders to externalize risk thereby breaking the risk-reward system financial markets are built on. This risk doesn’t just disappear however; it gets taken up by the system as a whole and brings down the whole system under the right conditions.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 01:46 AM   #45
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
[quote=corplinx;5639486]Moreover, the idea that businessmen represent the free market, is not one Friedman shared.]/QUOTE]

Who, then, does? This makes bloody little sense.

Quote:
One of the key reasons that Friedman opposed managed economies is that businesses take unfair advantage of them. Tell me that wasn't the case during the mortgage lending bubble.
This is another reason why I am convinced that Friedmann was a dimbulb.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 11:22 AM   #46
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
Originally Posted by Magyar View Post
Well the COMPLETLY unfounded and IDIOTIC meme of the right is that if all those bureaucrat types were gone than business could function as the ALMIGHTY intended it to be and then those people would find REAL work or starve to death, I guess, and decrease the surplus population.
I could grant you heaving money at The Poor and The Old and we still haven't touched much.

One doesn't have to support an extremely limited government (which I do) to simply be against the massive, grotesque growth lately, and the stunning $3.2 trillion budget this year.


See, in good times, they run up the debt because the times are good and we can afford it. In bad times, we "have" to run up the debt to "help".

There's always a narrative to spend too much money, for the purpose of electing officials.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 11:35 AM   #47
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
I think Iceland´s main problem was that they didn´t have enough "substance".

In other words, when the whole finance thing tanked, they didn´t have enough of a "real" economy to soak up the losses.
So it is a look at americas future then.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 12:59 PM   #48
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,611
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So it is a look at americas future then.
Does America have 320,000 inhabitants, with 2/3 of the GDP and 90% of the exports consisting of fish?
Chaos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 02:12 PM   #49
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
....One doesn't have to support an extremely limited government (which I do) to simply be against the massive, grotesque growth lately, and the stunning $3.2 trillion budget this year.....
I think we should all, everyone in the country, get credit cards and max them out, giving the money to the US Government to pay off the debt.

Wait....I just actually proposed something dumber than what the government is doing.

Now that's an accomplishment.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 02:20 PM   #50
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Chaos View Post
Does America have 320,000 inhabitants, with 2/3 of the GDP and 90% of the exports consisting of fish?
About all we export any more is agricultural products and scrap metal and weapons, but we can't even manufacture weapons more complex than infantry small arms without importing computer chips from our major competitors like China.

Not good.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 02:31 PM   #51
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post

See, in good times, they run up the debt because the times are good and we can afford it.
Who's "they"?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 02:56 PM   #52
Captain.Sassy
Master Poster
 
Captain.Sassy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,236
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
About all we export any more is agricultural products and scrap metal and weapons, but we can't even manufacture weapons more complex than infantry small arms without importing computer chips from our major competitors like China.

Not good.
hmmm.

I'm not 100% with you on this. The US generally has a trade surplus in semiconductors and capital equipment.

http://www.bea.gov/agency/uguide1.htm#_1_19

/\/\/\
stats


Also, it pays to remember that traded goods are actually a pretty small share of the US economy. Just cause US exports go down doesn't mean that the US doesn't produce something any more. A US company may have invested abroad and be producing in a foreign market what it formerly produced for export in the US. This doesn't mean that the company no longer has the capacity to produce that good in the US for the US market.
__________________
Evolution
a poem

As luck would have it,
people.
Captain.Sassy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 03:12 PM   #53
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy View Post
Also, it pays to remember that traded goods are actually a pretty small share of the US economy.
Yeah. The big money is in trading paper, a lot of it based on the profits of companies that import manufactured goods. We are left, basicly, trying to get rich flipping each other's hamburgers.

Quote:
Just cause US exports go down doesn't mean that the US doesn't produce something any more.
When the companies that use to manufacture products here close their factories and move off shore, yes, it does erode our ability to recover and rebuild manufacturing capacity.

Quote:
A US company may have invested abroad and be producing in a foreign market what it formerly produced for export in the US. This doesn't mean that the company no longer has the capacity to produce that good in the US for the US market.
It does when they close the factories and ship the equipment off shore to set up their factories there.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 03:26 PM   #54
Captain.Sassy
Master Poster
 
Captain.Sassy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,236
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Yeah. The big money is in trading paper, a lot of it based on the profits of companies that import manufactured goods. We are left, basicly, trying to get rich flipping each other's hamburgers.



When the companies that use to manufacture products here close their factories and move off shore, yes, it does erode our ability to recover and rebuild manufacturing capacity.



It does when they close the factories and ship the equipment off shore to set up their factories there.
Hey man, I'm on your side re. crappy low-wage service jobs. It's getting harder for the working man, no doubt.

All I'm saying is that shutting down export capacity doesn't necessarily mean you're shutting down capacity to produce for the domestic market.

Shutting down domestic capacity, offshoring this and then importing what you formerly produced domestically for domestic consumption is a 'nuther thing.
__________________
Evolution
a poem

As luck would have it,
people.
Captain.Sassy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2010, 03:31 PM   #55
Peephole
Master Poster
 
Peephole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,584
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Who's "they"?
Reagan and the Bushes.

You know, big government icons.
__________________
Peephole is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.