- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I'm gonna go bold point by bold point here:
1. I'm not quite sure I understand, but what you are talking about there would be quantitative easing, the act of buying government bonds by the Fed. The Fed, under Woodrow, was seen to the business community as a welcome asset to assist in stabilizing the market place.
2. The social contract theory, as afore mentioned, is social, not singular, one man cannot have his own government, otherwise, that would be anarchy. Where each man governs himself by his own rules. No one LIKES taxes, but, when we think about it, it is for the best, most of the time.
3. And maybe we should have a middle state of a mixed economy? Human motives cannot be clearly defined, what makes China prosper so greatly as of late? It is mostly culture, culture has a lot to do with it, but also the liberalization of markets, as China has permitted, however small, after all, China will soon exceed the number of research papers published in the US per annum. Something must drive the Chinese to work so fervently, and, without the proper capital motive, there must be a cultural motive. Basically what I'm trying to say is, there is no perfect system, only one that is best for a certain people, fi the pursuit of wealth is frowned upon, a society will be poor, yes, and will not develop a highly competitive market place or capitalist system, sort of like Feudal Japan.
4. I think that when companies fail of no fault of their own they should most often fall, no matter what, creative destruction. But, in times like these, letting them fail would create a worse economic recession. There are very few times these interventionist policies should be pursued.
5. JP fucking Morgan. Bailed out the economy TWICE! I always get weak (laugh) at that, its a funny thought to me that a single individual can do that, but he did. Gilded Age of American history. Horizontal and Vertical consolidation in cutthroat competition in a highly unregulated market place created so many trusts and such, that the Sherman Antitrust act was put into place. It led to the Gospel of Wealth (by rockefellar?) which advocated the rich "nannying" the poor by establishing libraries and other public or private institutions that would help the poor education themselves for personal betterment, but not for the increase in their personal livelihood.
6. I'm pretty sure thats the same thing as 4, right?
7. This is where we go awry, Reagan led to greatest deregulation movement, a counter to the Great society movement, the most important piece of legislation, in my opinion, the Glass-Stegall Act, was removed and other union busting and deregulatory moves were made, and guess what, after that we had our first major economic recessions since the GD.
8. I'm lazy right now and I'm not bothering to figure what the other poster meant by "it" XD
As intelligent and sentient beings that can morph their surroundings, I think there is a subconscious desire for natural simplicity, such that we find it to be aesthetically pleasing. The diversity of nature is simply caused by natural selection and evolution.
Have you looked at the economic data at all? The businesses are literally sitting on cash, waiting for demand to kick up! Besides, who spends more of their money, those on welfare, or the rich? The rich have what they need, my family is part of them, the poor, they don't, the spend every last dime attempting to procure the necessities.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Hey! Its your wacky story book, not mine!
Tell me, how has reforming people gone? For the last two Millennia, you've sure been doing a shitty job of it!
Clearly Christianity does not support giving to your fellow man and helping those who cannot help themselves! Or does it? I wonder how you reconcile those two?
I love when people pull this one.
FDR launched the single greatest government initiative for the American Economy. EVER. That was turning America into, basically, a command economy, during WWII. Unemployment was nearly non existent. Then post war demobilization occurred and we suffered a minor bout before returning to normal unemployment.
Also, if spending more doesn't help the economy, then why did our economy grow so much during WWII as the government created massive demand for things?
Don't tell me it was free enterprise, because what they needed was demand, something that the market can't supply by itself.
The right to keep what you earn is incumbent upon the state which insures the general welfare of its citizens, the definition of freedom to an American fundamentally changed in the great depression, freedom to live at a certain standard. Look at the Gilded Age, there was so much pain in that era as the rich literally could bail out America single handedly, JP Morgan did it TWICE!, the point is, we don't want to go backwards to the gilded age, we won't to make progress and forge ahead to future where the sweets of wealth don't manage to concentrate at the top, where the net worth of the top 5% is almost half of that of the bottom 95%, statistic vary depending on what you count as "wealth" I use the most reasonable one, in my opinion.
If they could, they would use slave labour to export their goods to enrich themselves, but the system of free labour was established after the Civil War in America for good.
What basically you have the Conservatives trying to do is apply the Laffer Curve, God's most awful mistake XD, the idea of the Laffer Curve is that there is an ideal tax range to increase the disposable income of all citizens while increasing the real income of the government. If it sounds like bull, don't worry it is. We all know that the stimulus was too small, it didn't cover the loss in potential GDP and the loss in demand. When we look at China, their stimulus was about as big as ours and bigger in relation to GDP, and guess what, they're doing far better than the rest of the austerity cult of the west. The Economy is not some beast that you can't predict, it is, more or less, rational, unless you refer to Stiglitz work on Market irrationality, but that is only a small component. The Economy works by the laws that govern it and the models which define it. We can recognize this downturn as a demand side issue because of the deflationary spiral of the dollar and the liquidity trap we're in. If it were a supply side problem, the wage cuts would work, and the anti inflationary policy of the fed would help, but that is not the issue, the dollar can hardly inflate any more because of the lack of demand, all the fed can do is buy government bonds, I.E quantitative easing, right now to keep inflation rising to combat deflation, a greater evil.
Tell me what would have been better? To let things sit like Herbert Hoover did, do nothing at all? What is the rationale behind doing nothing? The belief that the market will fix it? I hate to tell you, but the market says that, right now, the lack of demand is the biggest problem.