CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Would we ever reach the economic goal of most Socialists? Practically impossible. Big business has far too much of an influence in this country, and the big business within this country has far too much of an influence around the entire world. America's Capitalism has globalized. It's almost impossible for the US government to take full control of the larger corporations. So I don't think that will ever happen (government control over all business is part of Socialism).
Instead, what we have is the economics of not Socialists, but Fascists. Government heavily regulates what business does, but still allows private property. You can own your shit, but government can tell you what to do with it. This is why we have prohibition, heavy sin tax, entitlement programs, etc. Socialism? To a Capitalist, very, but to a Communist, not enough.
America is far more Socialist than Capitalist, but it's still not Socialist (and never will be, so long as globalized Capitalism maintains its order around the world).
Actually, globalization and the Internet can be the best ways to maintain the Capitalist and Free Market system. While the US government itself becomes more socialized, the things it can't control (overseas and internet) becomes more powerful (in the sense that more and more people have access to it's free trade benefits).
Will we continue to feel the sting of the Fascist, third way economical system that the US government continues to push? Of course. Products are still regulated and taxation seems to expand it's boundaries. but with this constant pushing of a Mixed economy, people crave the free market more and more (which is what gives the Internet and Globalized Market so much strength). As unregulated Capitalism once created fear for a Communist revolution, socialized programs are creating a Capitalist revolution (one that is very hard to stop).
America is doomed by stupidity more than anything, and if the tea party and birther movements are indicative of anything, it's that America is doomed to become the "United Stupid States of America."
I'm part of the Tea Party movement and I consider myself far from stupid.
I'm still waiting for the tea party movement to have more than lofty ideas supported by vague rhetoric that appeals to a majority without stating a clear purpose. It has the hallmarks of a movement backed by wealthy political entrepreneurs who are looking to cash in on political unrest that has been mounting over the last decade.
So what is your solution Brainiac?
Solution to what? Stupidity? That's simple, actually. Start taxing churches, banning religious and corporate funding of political campaigns, and we should start to see our country move forward for a change. They've become a great burden on our society, religious groups have been meddling with our children's education for over a century, trying to censor science and history and corporations impede progress at every opportunity when it comes to reducing their profits, through lobbying and control of mass media.
The economy and government programs? Maybe you were asking about that? The trouble would seem to be centering an economy around a stock market, meaning that we're always on a knife's edge with respect to booms and depressions. Regulations are supposed to help us with this, but there might be something better we just haven't considered yet. Not that we'll ever change this. Government programs are intended to help you and I, but we can't keep fighting wars, spending a major chunk of our GDP on military, AND have social programs that take care of us. Plus, the corporate bailouts weren't a good idea at this time. We're in tremendous debt because of Reagan's reduction of regulations, plus a decade of really bad leadership (by mister "we need to stay in war" Dubya) and a depression followed by bailouts.
We're in tremendous debt because of Reagan's reduction of regulations.
Glad that you seen Michael Moore's latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, and second, of the 12 trillion dollars, most of the debt was produced by George W Bush and now Barack Obama's budget for 2010 and 2011 are over 1 trillion for each year. Debt
Glad that you seen Michael Moore's latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, and second, of the 12 trillion dollars, most of the debt was produced by George W Bush and now Barack Obama's budget for 2010 and 2011 are over 1 trillion for each year. Debt
We had a housing/property bubble, trading of debts, and all sorts of risky ventures, which were bound to collapse at one point or another but regulations were weakened which could have prevented some of this, and we could have used new regulations on increasingly prevalent systems like shadow banking. Plus, the most important thing perhaps, is that we would have benefited from safety nets for these types of emergencies (national insurance if you will).
You talk as though this latest incarnation of the tea party movement has been around for 100 + years or more, like the two major parties. It's in it's infancy and needs time to mature and find it's true bearings.
Taxing the churches, now that's a brilliant idea. The one group of non governmental organizations that can help the poor, and you want to cut them off at the knees. I say sharply cut welfare & other government handouts and let the private sector take care of their own which they are far more capable of doing then the dirt bags in Washington.
Taxing any individual group will never get us out of this recession. CUT taxes across the board and let the free enterprise system grow the economy.
You talk as though this latest incarnation of the tea party movement has been around for 100 + years or more, like the two major parties. It's in it's infancy and needs time to mature and find it's true bearings.
New parties and movements often state their aims clearly. After recently visiting one of their sites, I saw lots of mention of religious ideas, indicative of the religious right. It makes me think that that is one of their chief backers.
Taxing the churches, now that's a brilliant idea. The one group of non governmental organizations that can help the poor, and you want to cut them off at the knees.
Besides the fact that letting them operate tax free in a government endorsement of religion (separation of church and state, remember), and it forces you and I to support them with our taxes (because tax-free means others must work harder to bear the load) when we don't support their politics or theology (if you're religious, fine, but you're supporting churches with theologies very different from your beliefs); besides all of this, churches act as political endorsements, organisers, and use their wealth to fund movements that are deeply against our country's spirit of democracy and liberty (look at the Dominionists, Christian Reconstructionists, Creationism and Intelligent Design).
How do you feel about having to pull the slack up for religious organisations like the Wahhabi mosques, or Christian churches that amass wealth to try and lobby for government leaders who believe the Bible should be our country's supreme document? What about the megachurches that amass hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a televangelist's opulent lifestyle?
If a church wishes to be a charity, or a means to assist the poor, we already have laws for that. They can apply for tax exempt status, and this way be regulated so that they don't abuse the privilege.
I say sharply cut welfare & other government handouts and let the private sector take care of their own which they are far more capable of doing then the dirt bags in Washington.
Although I agree that we need to cut unnecessary expenditures to help pay for our debt, you have misplaced faith in the private sector. Businesses are routinely cut-throat, and history shows us that left to its own devises the private sector isn't as humanitarian as government-funded social programs.
Taxing any individual group will never get us out of this recession. CUT taxes across the board and let the free enterprise system grow the economy.
Your statement makes no sense. Taxes supply money to the government to, amongst other things, pay off their debt.
What you said is something like "Increasing our monthly bill's amount won't get our mortgage paid off any faster." The trouble with relinquishing control of the market so that it is "free" is that those laws which prevent monopolies, customer abuse through vendor lock-in and deceitful claims, and in general safeguard against bubbles and depressions cease to be. We had a market like this over a century ago and it was very exploitative.
You're missing a basic concept with regard to taxation. Historically when taxes have been lowered, revenue to the taxing entity has increased.
Think of a club or fraternal organization. If you need to increase revenue and you raise dues more then likely you'll see the opposite happen. Revenue will drop due to lower membership. On the other hand if you lower dues or offer other incentives you'll likely see an increase in overall revenue due to increase membership.
It's called "diminishing returns". The more you tax people, the more they'll find ways to beat the system.
You're missing a basic concept with regard to taxation. Historically when taxes have been lowered, revenue to the taxing entity has increased.
I really can't entertain this, because you're applying a rule that works as a graph with a select space where it applies, to taxation in general.
It's called "diminishing returns". The more you tax people, the more they'll find ways to beat the system.
This only works at certain points. When you're in debt, you pay more to cover it. We can't afford to keep reducing our country's income when we're in this amount of debt. You'll just pass the debt to yet another generation.
Wrong. Public schools, buildings and street and pubic maintenance is part of infrastructure.
Food stamps, welfare, indeed I forgot.
As for Socialism, time to get of the 19th and 20th Century because the definition of Socialism is changing, and Milton Friedman agrees. Also he agrees to
Now how did I know as soon as I saw the title of this debate that you wrote it?
PrayerFails definition of "Socialism":
Government programs PrayerFails disapproves of.
PrayerFails definition of "Infrastructure":
Government programs Prayerfails approves of.
Schools are infrastructure but medicare isn't? So, it's the government's responsibility to see to the education of it's citizens but not to their health? Fascinating. It is of no concern to the government if the people it is supposed to be governing keel over dead from disease, as long as they're literate I guess.
I am not a conservative libertarian, so there is distinct difference between what is absolute necessary and desired.
Health care is a product, and if it is appropriately sold in the free market without government exempting health care companies from anti-trust laws, the free market would allow the best product to be sold at the lowest price, and as for seniors, nobody wants grandma to die, but health care savings accounts should have been created years ago through savings by direct deposit from income, yet inflation continues to be a major factor, but that totally falls on the failure of government.
Whereas, public roads are critical to the infrastructure, and it would be almost impossible to privatize roads especially highways and partially rural roads. Plus, how would driving standards be set if privatized? That would be challenging. Driving rules different from road to road and tolls ranging from reasonable to ridiculous. Considering now the roads are owned by the government, they make the rules under which people are allowed to drive on them such as the driving age and increasing what you can do in your car.
Public schooling has merits but it still fails miserably considering dropouts in high school are terrifying. Less than 50% of students graduate high school in Milwaukee and Detroit and among other cities. School vouchers would amp school quality and effectiveness in public school because it would provide competition between private and public schools. Public Schools are a education monopoly, and this is the fundamental problem.
First of all, you are simply demonstrating that you do not know how markets operate on insurance when you insist that letting the market handle health care would lower prices and improve quality.
And I find it pretty funny that your "market" solution to the school system is to have the government use the tax money you think it steals from people to pay for other people's kids to go to private schools instead of public schools, as if that actually changes anything. Not to mention that no, public schools are not a monopoly... you seem to have a tendency to think everything the government does is a monopoly. Private schools have free and full access to the education market provided they pass accreditation processes. The reason they don't cover a higher share of the total market is that they're expensive.
you are simply demonstrating that you do not know how markets operate on insurance when you insist that letting the market handle health care would lower prices and improve quality.
So, simply please enlighten me with why does the government exempt health insurance companies from anti trust laws? Well, the White House also thinks that should be repelled as well.
"The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 4626. The repeal of the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it applies to the health insurance industry would give American families and businesses, big and small, more control over their own health care choices by promoting greater insurance competition. The repeal also will outlaw existing, anti-competitive health insurance practices like price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation that drive up costs for all Americans. Health insurance reform should be built on a strong commitment to competition in all health care markets, including health insurance."White House
So, public schools are not a failure in your estimation. They are a complete success because 100% of all students graduate.
I guess that you are missing the point of school vouchers. The school vouchers act as subsidy for poor families because money is given to them as a coupon, or act as a down payment for the family if they choose to attend to a private school, and if they choose not to go to the private school because it is still out of their range, they can use that money to attend the public school.
government use the tax money you think it steals from people to pay for other people's kids to go to private schools instead of public schools
So, simply please enlighten me with why does the government exempt health care companies from anti trust laws? Well, the White House also thinks that should be repelled as well.
Fist, would you please learn to differentiate between health care companies and health insurance companies? The antitrust exemption is an insurance provision.
Second, it does so to allow data pooling for actuarial purposes so that risk models can be more accurately constructed based on larger sample sizes and premiums can be set more appropriately than otherwise. Whether that is worth the trade-off of relaxing the anti-trust restrictions is debatable, but it's not like they do it just for the hell of it.
So, public schools are not a failure in your estimation. They are a complete success because 100% of all students graduate
I hope you are enjoying your debate with your imaginary opponent. Let me know when you feel like debating something that is even remotely similar to anything I actualy said.
I guess that you are missing the point of school vouchers. The school vouchers act as subsidy for poor families because money is given to them as a coupon,
Which acts to improve the educational system by... oh right, it doesn't. It's just shuffling around the way to pay for it in a manner that tries to direct more business towards private schools.
And I don't care what "Freedomworks" says about pretty much anything whatsoever, let alone actual serious policy.
I never wrote that. I am for public schooling.
Could have fooled me, considering everything you wrote about it after "has merits but..." was derogatory.
But if that's the case fine. So... health care is a product but education isn't then, and that's why public schools are "infrastructure" but medicare isn't?
Oh, no, sorry for the typo of health care companies instead of insurance companies. I know the difference.
it does so to allow data pooling for actuarial purposes so that risk models can be more accurately constructed based on larger sample sizes and premiums can be set more appropriately than otherwise. Whether that is worth the trade-off of relaxing the anti-trust restrictions is debatable, but it's not like they do it just for the hell of it.
What a bunch of bullshit? Why does the White House strongly supports the repeal?
Since I am debating myself apparently, do you think public school are failures? Please don't tell me that they need more money because they have been doing that for years, and proved futile. What is the graduation rate for private schools and public schools? Public~50% and Private ~95%
So, giving the poor the chance to go to elite private schools is just shuffling around the way to pay for it. Well, at least now, you understand that public school is a monopoly.
Public schooling has merits so long as it competes with private schools through the use of vouchers.
Public schools is infrastructure and medicare isn't.
Tell the old people that they are receiving more benefits than they paid because of their government or at least aware of it.
What a bunch of bullshit? Why does the White House strongly supports the repeal?
Because it's politically expedient to be visibly taking a stance that "gets tough" on health insurance companies in the current political climate perhaps?
Would you mind explaining what part of my explanation you thought was "bullshit"? Do you undersatand the importance of sample sizes in complex statistical modelling of populations? Do you even know what actuarial modelling is? Do you know what impact it would have on entry barriers to the insurance marketplace for new insurers ... and thus on the ability to maintain competition in the market which I'm pretty sure you think is a good thing (even though in insurance it's actually not so much) if you denied them access to that data? Are you claiming there was a different reason the anti-trust exemption existed?
Or is "what a bunch of bullshit" the full extent of your rebuttal?
Since I am debating myself apparently, do you think public school are failures?
I think they're sub-optimally effective. "There is just a tiny bit of room to operate in between the "Failure" and "100% success" options you seem to want to restrict the choices to.
I do not think private schools do any better after correcting for selection bias in the student populations they deal with or that introducing vouchers to drive more business to the private sector will have any measurable positive impact. Either one of two things will occur.
1. The priave school system will continue biasing their entry crteria to accept higher percentages of high performing students, then surprise surprise those students will do better on average than the public school population. This is no different than looking at the performance of kids in AP classes vs kids in regular classes then declaring AP classes make students perform better while ignoring that the reason the kids are in those classes in the first place is because they're the overachievers in the group.
2. The private schools will actually try and take on the underachieving sectors of the student population the public school system carries almost all of the load for now... and their performance measures will plummet as a result.
Neither of those things is actually helping the system.
So, giving the poor the chance to go to elite private schools is just shuffling around the way to pay for it. Well, at least now, you understand that public school is a monopoly.
"I offer a service for less expense than you do" is not me having a monopoly. You throw that word around far too much.
Public schools is infrastructure and medicare isn't.
Umm... ok. Is that supposed to be your answer to my questioning why you thought that? "Because it is"? Wow, no arguing with that logic.
I have no idea what your last sentance was supposed to be accomplishing...
When politicians visibly take the stance by getting though, it is completely useless, which doesn't mean anything. For example, Obama said he is going to kick some BP ass, OOOO, BP is shaking in their space boots because that absolutely is meaningless. Nobody in this spill will serve any time of any kind. It will all be fines. Plus, what personally did the CEO do to cause this spill? Nothing.
ANYWAY....
Samples sizes in modeling populations in statistical composition and actuarial modeling is a topic of awareness since it is linked to finance and economics.
Despite the logic and validity of these sciences, there is a real problem how these relate how they have anything to do with anti-trust laws. Don't see the connection. These are completely separate on why there are anti-trust laws.
The anti-trust laws would apply to health insurers only means that the carriers could no longer engage in collusive behavior in states where that is not prohibited. In theory, that could prevent a pair of dominant insurers from rigging prices or doing something else to prevent other plans from entering the market.
Government is interfering in the market by exempting insurance companies from anti-trust laws, and anti-trust laws is something that the government actually got right except when it applies to the government such as postal service and public schooling.
The priave school system will continue biasing their entry crteria to accept higher percentages of high performing students, then surprise surprise those students will do better on average than the public school population. This is no different than looking at the performance of kids in AP classes vs kids in regular classes then declaring AP classes make students perform better while ignoring that the reason the kids are in those classes in the first place is because they're the overachievers in the group..
Are you accusing schools of discrimination?
What is wrong with overachievers? That is the evolution of learning.
The private schools will actually try and take on the underachieving sectors of the student population the public school system carries almost all of the load for now... and their performance measures will plummet as a result.
Wrong, this is based on the assumption that private schools are competing against themselves, but in reality, if vouchers would be introduced, this would eliminate bias entry because public schools would be forced to finally compete and raise the bar as high as private schools in the quality and efficacy of learning. Therefore, now, in the current public monopoly, that is why public schools are failures, but they are competing against themselves, and nowhere to go and all day to do it.
*There is more than one definition of monopoly, "I offer a service for less expense than you do" This doesn't apply to public institutions. Public schooling is a public monopoly.
Public schooling is infrastructure because for the some part, it is our children, and our society is stupid enough, and this is important because we are already falling beyond the global competitive labor market, and our country still wonders why.
Medicare isn't infrastructure because it should have been privatized years ago through private savings accounts. Grandmas are great, and I would pay to help her out, but I shouldn't have to help pay for living expenses for others in the country whereas I will help pay the deadbeat moms and dads for their child to go through public school because in the long run, it protects my child from them lowering the standard of the labor market.
It's still astonishing to me that you make the arguments you do... (and I am under no delusions politicians simply taking a stance on something actually produces any results).
Anyway... you appear to be unaware that the anti-trust exemption allows insurance companies to pool their statistical data from their actuarial tables so that they can all see the actual incidents of different treqatments and diseases and onditions in the population and model their risk appropriately. Since this is information used to set pricing this is normally prohibited by anti-trust legislation as a form of price stting collusion.
If they could not do this any more, it would be almost impossible for new start-up insurance carriers to enter the market competing against massive corporations that have millions of customers worth of data to figure out how to set their premiums appropriately that they're not allowed to look at to figure out what their costs are likely to be. They'd be going in blind.
I don't actually care about that, since I don't see their being any appreciable benefit to increased competition in an insurance marketplace anyway... but that's still why the exemption is there. Which was your question.
Are you accusing schools of discrimination?
What is wrong with overachievers? That is the evolution of learning.
I am not "accusing" anyone of anything. I am stating a plain fact. There is a strong tendency for private schools to have heightened entrance criteria. They don't just take anybody who walks in off the street... which is pretty much what the public system has to do. Shocking that the system that gets it's pick of the better students shows better performance, isn't it?
Wrong, this is based on the assumption that private schools are competing against themselves, but in reality, if vouchers would be introduced, this would eliminate bias entry
1. There is nothing whatsoever in what I said that assumed the private schools were only competing "against themselves". That's ridiculous.
2. i JUST SAID that if the entry bias was eliminated the private school performance numbers would drop. So why are you telling me the entry bias will be eliminated as if that rebuts what I said?
There is more than one definition of monopoly, "I offer a service for less expense than you do" This doesn't apply to public institutions. Public schooling is a public monopoly.
Hey look, another one of your "because it is" arguments. I never get tired of those.
Public schooling is infrastructure because for the some part, it is our children, and our society is stupid enough, and this is important because we are already falling beyond the global competitive labor market, and our country still wonders why.
Medicare isn't infrastructure because it should have been privatized years ago through private savings accounts
WOW!
You actually just came right out and said it. Public schools are infrastructure and medicare isn't because you like the government doing edcation and you want the free market to do health care. Hilarious.
So public schools are infrastructure because "it's our children"??? But medicare ... pfft... that's only OUR LIVES (including, FYI, the lives of those children you were so concerned about a sentence back)
And medicare isn't infrastructure because you think it should be privatized and you shouldn't have to pay for other people's services... (unless it's education). Pure genius.
It's still astonishing to me that you make the arguments you do... (and I am under no delusions politicians simply taking a stance on something actually produces any results).
What the hell does that mean?
Is there self egotistical superiority arrogance dancing around yourself with infinite wisdom?
Since I am oblivious to the exemption allowing insurance to pool data as a way to provide a form of price setting for future insurance carriers, in the McCarran- Ferguson Act, I am not seeing anything related that to justification, and I have yet to find to the contrary.
Please a link that ties the anti trust exemption to the price setting for start up insurance companies.
Shocking that the system that gets it's pick of the better students shows better performance, isn't it?
Why should I accept what you are saying when, after I stated a similar belief, it was not accepted?
It doesn't matter what people accept. Facts exist independently of acceptance. I pointed out the fact that I'm not a liberal. That's all that matters here.
Wrong. Public schools, buildings and street and pubic maintenance is part of infrastructure.
Which is government-funded, and regulated instead of being privately regulated and left to the market.
Food stamps, welfare, indeed I forgot.
Can't let those disadvantaged get a free ride, gotta let them starve to death to make room for the wealthier people.
As for Socialism, time to get of the 19th and 20th Century because the definition of Socialism is changing, and Milton Friedman agrees. Also he agrees to
I don't care if your definition is changing, or if the pundits you listen to are changing the definition. Have you ever heard of the old adage, don't ask the communists for a definition of capitalism? Well don't ask libertarians and conservatives (or capitalists) for a definition of socialism. They're wrong and so are you. Until our government owns stakes in all our businesses, we aren't socialist.
Every time that you kindly provide the definition of socialism, and well noted before, yet you conveniently forget the reallocation of resources.
Reallocation of resources is not what defines socialism. Government (in tandem with public) ownership of business, allocation of resources such as wages, and economic planning are what define it. It isn't enough to have only one property in common with socialism, you must have the whole package.
Reallocation of resources is typical of any government.
XD lol. I think that a well thought out mix of socialism and capitalism that gives incentive for working hard, but still takes care of the poor, weak, and disabled (sadly lazy people also) is what America is headed towards which I for one am thankful for.
"However I should still hope that our nation does become socialist, as it stands the wealthy have been raping the working class for centuries."
Be carefull what you wish for - socialism is not the answer. Plus, the poor will always be "raped" either by the rich or by rich politicians. The government never keeps their promises and they can never take care you. But I see people today wanting their butts wiped because they can't do it themselves. Remember - If you have everything handed to you then you stay like a child and never become an adult and never learn how to.
50% of the United States economy is now consumed by government spending, which means federal government is 25% while the state and local government is 15% plus 10% in regulatory fines and fees.
This argument has always been one of the stupidest ones that I hear from people on the right. What Obama is advocating is not socialism. Are there people on the far left who want socialism? Probably, but they are in the vast minority, and I think we can all agree that they have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to economics, and will never gain a prominent voice in American politics because we aren't retarded.
As someone who has supported Obama along with many of his policies, and also realizes how bad socialism it annoys me when people say he is socialist, because that is simply not the case.
What Obama does advocate for is Keynsian counter-cyclical fiscal policy. This means that the government has an active role in preventing buisness cycles (booms and busts) from hurting our economy. The fact that people ignore though is that nearly every U.S. politician feels the same way. The only difference is how they implement these policies. People on the right tend to focus on supply side economics (usually involving tax cuts) and people on the left tend to focus on demand side economics (running a budget deficit when the economy is doing poorly like Obama is doing now, or running a surplus when the economy is doing well like Clinton did at the end of his second term). All of it is working toward the same goal, it just involves different methods.
What is important to note about this is that: none of this is socialism!
The more people use that term the dumber this debate gets because we can't argue rationally about how to most effectively run the government.
This argument has always been one of the stupidest ones that I hear from people on the right.
But Prayer Fails is a left leaning Libertarian... so it's not just the stupidest argument that you hear from people on the right... but also from the left.
Than instead of using this as an opportunity to bash anyone on the right, you should have said "The stupidest argument from people who are economically on the right".
I wasn't using this as an opportunity to bash everyone on the right
But you still did. lern 2 lissen.
I think those on the left who advocate socialism are equally retarded, but I didn't see you complaining about that.
Because I agree that those who advocate socialism are retarded, left or right (you weren't limiting it to the left, were you?)
It's funny how defensive you get about people on the right yet are more than willing to say that all liberals are elitists.
O RLY? I say that all liberals are elitists... holy shit! No, sir. A lot of Liberals are elitists, of course, but not all of them, and I wouldn't want to say that they are ALL elitists because that's stereotyping. Yes, stereotypes are created from truth, but that does not make them COMPLETE truth.
so what's your point on hypocrisy, anyway? I've attacked the Moralfags on the right on many occasions. I've also attacked the religious right on many occasions. O shit... this bit of fact kind of ruined everything you were saying. Why, o why, do you try to point me out as some right winger whenever I get upset with someone's generalization of a certain group of people? I even pointed out, in this thread, that America can NEVER (almost) become fully socialist. I wasn't even agreeing with these right wingers that you speak of. I was disagreeing. But no matter what, as long as I disagree with you about shit, I am just some shill who is trying to protect those poor Conservatives. It makes it hard to have a logical debate with you.
This argument is retarded. I clearly wasn't attacking all conservatives and if you want to try and spin my words to make it look like that, that's your problem not mine.
We are talking about economics here and virtually all the people accusing Obama of socialism are on the right, and all the people advocating socialism are by definition on the left. Stop being thick and trying to make what I say sound offensive when it clearly isn't.
I guess I can point to the obvious satire... but you guys don't like that (even though you do have Colbert Report). Or I can point to how I was saying "lefty liberal" to distinguish the extremism behind it... but once again, you guys don't care. If you truly read legitimacy in that statement (i said most of my friends are idiots...), i feel bad for you.
Ah yes the retroactive "I was being satirical" remark. What I like best about this is that there is no real way to prove it one way or the other, but hey please continue to talk to "us guys" as though I was some kind of group. Why not speak to me as an individual? Well I guess that's too tough for people like you! (see what I did there?)
Anyway, I promise you don't have to feel bad for me. I'm pretty satisfied with my life and my ideological positions, however if you want to continue to group me into these hilarious catagories, and then flip out when anyone does the same to you, well I'm going to play a sad song for you while cutting up a copy of Catcher in the Rye (since that's like the bible to "you guys").
Honestly you can justify it any way you want, but that doesn't make it right. The whole reason the site instituted the reward point rule was because of people like you who serial downvote without responding to people's arguments or contributing anything meaningful.
The reason you are getting downvoted has little to do with what side you are on, and a lot more to do with the fact that you have poorly formed arguments.
Taking it out on people who had nothing to do with the downvotes isn't going to help the situation but merely exacerbate it.
1. Keynesian Economics-Have you ever read "The Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. If you did, you would known that even in his book, Keynes contemplates the effectiveness of demand side economics citing the creation of inflation through lower interest rates and how it is increases nominal wages but detrimental to real wages where in the long run, it actually hurts the poor more than help.
2. Business Cycles- As previously discussed, are byproducts of central banks. Central banks are the sole reason for the business cycle, that being booms and busts.
2. Business cycles can by caused by a number of things, but I fail to see how the Central Bank is one of them. Inflation caused by speculative buying, and followed by a price correction can have the effect of causing a boom followed by a bust. The issue with the bust is that a downward spiral occurs in which people get laid off, and so there are less people spending money, so businesses make less money so more people get laid off. In addition, sticky wages make it difficult, if not impossible for the problem to correct itself naturally.
1. This is where the government must step in and spend money. While it is true that this excess spending will cause inflation in the long run, in the short run it will allow more people to have jobs, and thus be able to spend more. This increased spending will allow businesses to hire more workers and allow the economy to return to full output. Full output means both full employment and a return to the way things were before the bust. All inflation does is raise the price level, no one is actually hurt and the economy is no longer depressed. In other words the poor are helped, not hurt.
In the Austrian business cycle theory and as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit or money with the damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain low for too long, this results in the excessive credit creation, speculate bubbles and lowered savings. In order words, it is monetary expansion. This is also known as inflation.
When extended periods of low interest rates and excessive monetary credit creation, this is the result in a volatile and unstable imbalance between savings and investment. Austrians believe that a sustained period of low interest rates and excessive credit creation results in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment. Therefore, as the cycle continues, low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system; however, the expansion of credit causes an expansion of the money supply, through the process in a fractional reserve banking system. The bubble creates an illusion of investment, yet doesn’t really exist and ultimately crashes as did in 2008.
A small amount of inflation doesn't hurt the poor, and allows prices to adjust. The goal is to get the nation back to full output. If we get back to the natural rate of unemployment and we are producing just as much as we were before the inflation occurs, what does it matter that there is an increase in the price level?
Output = Real income. Inflation doesn't factor in.
I don't remember you explaining at all how business cycles are caused by central banks. How about this most recent recession, how was that caused by the central bank?
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, which result from too much money in circulation and available to purchase good and services. The extra money forces prices to rise in all goods and services.
Therefore, imagine being in an auction where everyone has allowance of $20. People will bid on those items based upon the amount of money available.
Now, for instance, the same auction with the same items available and the same people are bidding and now each bidder is given $1000. Guess what happens. The price of all items will increase strictly due to the increase amount of available money. This is inflation.
Therefore, the inflation hurts the poor since the increased cost of goods and services forces them to spend more money for the things they need to live.
WHY?
The increase in costs is due to inflation usually outpace the increases in wages, and since the poor rely on income to survive more, there’s little left to save.
The purchasing power of the wealth doesn’t decline near as much as for the poor. Therefore, the gap widens between the rich and the poor.
This is why the rich love monetary expansion.
2. Yes, every single recession is caused by the central bank, The Federal Reserve and their monetary policy.
Those large banks were reckless because they knew that even if they failed, the Federal Reserve would bail them out because the Federal Reserve is a private bank, yet under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, but with virtually no oversight under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Furthermore, in all business cycles, and as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit or money with the damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain low for too long, this results in the excessive credit creation, speculate bubbles and lowered savings. In order words, it is monetary expansion. This is also known as inflation.
When extended periods of low interest rates and excessive monetary credit creation, this is the result in a volatile and unstable imbalance between savings and investment. Therefore, as the cycle continues, low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system; however, the expansion of credit causes an expansion of the money supply, through the process in a fractional reserve banking system. The bubble creates an illusion of investment, yet doesn’t really exist and ultimately crashes as did in 2008.
Output = income is just a fact that is true by definition. The amount that a nation produces is equal to the income of the citizens within that nation. This is why we can use per capita GDP as a measure of average income. What this also means is that so long as we are at the natural rate of unemployment then we the nation is both earning and producing at its maximum regardless of the price level.
The reason that markets don't self correct quickly is often because of sticky wages. There are a number of causes for this (money illusion, labor unions etc...), but if this problem persists then it can have real consequences for individuals in the society and lead to much unneeded suffering. In an ideal world firms could reduce wages easily in response to market forces but this is usually unacceptable to workers (in part because of the reasons I named) and this means that instead of a decrease in wages we instead get layoffs. These layoffs cause an economy to begin producing at below full employment rate and the economy goes into a recession or possibly a depression. There then becomes a downward spiral where firms won't hire people because they can't afford it, and the unemployed won't buy goods because they don't have a job, thus hurting firms. This is where fiscal policy can help to break the cycle by implementing demand side economic policies. These policies may cause some inflation but they also allow the economy to return to full employment and thus full output and people to make full income.
I'm pretty sure you already understand this, however, what you don't seem to understand is that these expansionary fiscal policies are only used when the economy is in recession. During times when then economy is expanding Keynsian economics calls for contractionary policies to avoid exactly what you are describing. The point of Keynsian policies is to flatten business cycles so that there is steady growth and minimal booms and busts. Nearly every American politician in the past half century has subscribed to Keynsian policies, and guess what? We have experienced fewer and less severe recessions than we did in the first half of this century and the years before that (even before the Fed was created).
I'm not going to argue with you about the Fed for one simple reason: I know very little about it, and I'm not going to try and get into a debate about a subject which I am ignorant of (sorry, wish I knew more so we could).
Output=Nominal Wages is the same as output=income but not real income.
Aggregate demand policies can stabilized employment in recessionary periods, but it can never permanently reduce the natural rate of unemployment (NRU) because these polices are the direct result of the NRU.
Actual reduction in the NRU must be achieved through structural policies in the supply side economics.
WHY is the NRU contributed to the expansionary policies of aggregate demand?
The stable negative relationship between inflation and unemployment broke down.
This belief had the policy implication that unemployment could be permanently reduced by expansive demand policy and thus higher inflation. If unemployment was to be permanently lower, some real variable in the economy, like the real wage, would have changed permanently, and the only way to protect real wages is to control inflation.
Therefore, as continued aggregate policies expand even in recessionary periods, inflation would increase as would the new NRU would increase as well. Thus, the whole thing returns to how inflation is bad and returns to the central bank and my previous statement.
Keynesian economics was only popular among politicians because the popularity was spreading out in the public disseminated by the liberal experts.
What you don't seem to understand is that these expansionary fiscal policies are only used when the economy is in recession.
I'm not arguing that expansionary policies can be used to permanently reduce the level of unemployment, and nor do I argue that the Phillips curve can be maintained in the long term (just look at the 1970's).
What expansionary policies can do is help the employment rate to return to its natural rate when the economy is in recession. Once unemployment returns to its natural rate then expansionary policies should be discontinued, and if the economy continue to expand then contractionary policies should be considered.
You continue to argue against points I am not making.
What expansionary policies can do is help the employment rate to return to its natural rate when the economy is in recession. Once unemployment returns to its natural rate
But in times of recession, demand economics only exacerbate the natural rate unemployment to a new level. They is no returning to the original rate. It increases to a new level.
Whatever expansionary polices can do even in a recession, it doesn't matter. It still creates inflation, and in the long run, expansionary polices are harder to be discontinued once in practice.
I was arguing that demand economics should be used even in recession.
you continue to avoid the my points. More inflation and new levels of natural rate unemployment.
There is more to expansionary policies than just inflation. When we are in a recession, we are below the natural rate of unemployment. The government, by providing jobs, can bring us back to a normal level. Often this comes with some inflation, but the inflation is a side affect, not the main mechanism.
The government hires these people to do something: whether its something useful or just digging and filling holes doesn't make a lot of difference, but the point is that it moves the employment rate back to its natural level. And allows the economy to remain there because people hired by the government will spend money, and this will encourage the growth of private firms.
The issue is that during times of recession, people are holding onto their money. This is what Keynes described as "the paradox of thrift," when everyone holds onto money because there are difficult economic times. This causes the effect of an economic downturn to multiply. In an ideal world, wages would adjust relatively quickly, and we would return to full output and employment at a lower price level. In the real world however this doesn't happen quickly. Certainly in the long run we would eventually get back to equilibrium but to quote Keynes for the second time: "in the long run we're all dead." The period of time people spend suffering because the market takes time to adjust leads to a number of social issues and likely would proliferate crime. Heck, if the unemployment rate stays high for long enough we could end up with a revolution.
Remember Richard Nixon said,"We are all Keynesians now" and guess what happened in 1960's with its explosive expansionary policies with Medicare and other social programs.
Well, it created huge amounts of inflation because the only way to pay for welfare programs is to print more money, and at the time, life was great until the 1980's rolled around, and huge unemployment followed suite. Guess what, Ronald Regan and his supply side economics saved America. "We are all Keynesians... then."
"we could sit back and do nothing."
I would prefer this, and let the economy recovery on its own.
Alright, we are arguing in circles so I don't see any point in continuing.
As far as a revolution, why one earth would I want one of those? They almost always lead to high numbers of deaths and sometimes end up with governments run by people who have no idea what they're doing.
Despite what you may think I like capitalism. Free market systems work and have gotten us to the standard of living that we in the west enjoy. I think that certain regulations need to be in place, and that sometimes we need an active government, but in no way does this mean I want some kind of socialist/communist revolution. Have you seen Cuba? Or North Korea? Fuck that. I'll take an economically unequal but free nation any day.
"Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or direct worker ownership and control of the means of production and allocation of resources."
While the government does exert some control over some means of production and does engage in a small amount of wealth redistribution, no case has been made that shows that this will eventually result in direct worker ownership and control of society's means of production and allocation of resources. When heirs and heiresses start having to actually work for a living instead of being born into wealth, the terrified reactionaries might have a case. Until then, they'll have to accept that they don't know jack shit about what socialism actually is.
No, and frankly I find the argument ridiculous. The pervasiveness of sound bytes and buzzwords has only managed to further degrade any productive political discourse we may have once otherwise had. Politics is getting more juvenile every passing year. Most politicians know what "socialism" means and despite that they use it inappropriately to demonize opposing concepts, but many regular people don't have a full understanding of what socialism is they just know that .....socialism bad.