< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2655 OF 5300 ·
|Dec-15-11|| ||thegoodanarchist: previous post continued
The astute observer will recognize that most countries operate under an economic model that is a blend of more than 1 economic theory. I won't write a dissertation here to support this, as I consider it a truism recognizable to any diligent student of real-world economies.
My point is that, as america emerged from an economic model that was sort of a blend of colonialism/mercantilism during its youth as a country, it operated economically in a way that followed Austrian economics to a varying extent depending on which aspect of the economy one cares to dissect. As you must surely know, this facilitated a stupendous growth in this country in technical know how, wealth, and eventually, standard of living for the average worker.
This period was characterized by such government policies as small deficits, small and non-permanent government debt levels, and quite a bit simpler legal codes at all levels of government and in nearly all aspects of the legal system.
More to the point, though, is that recessions tended to be short-lived prior to the adoption of government intervention as the norm for addressing recessions [frequently referred to as "panics" in the histories of the times before FDR]. Correlation is not causation, but it certainly begs the question of "why for the last 80 years have we repeatedly tried to address bad economic times with the very same measures that have proven time and again to be not so effective?"
We don't need government stepping in to maintain "aggregate demand" during times of recession. What we need is for government to get out of the way of the role recessions play, which is to wipe out malinvestments in order to clear a path for the entrepreneurship of our citizens to restore economic health.
The very heart of "aggregate demand" is almost to say that people will sit by and starve to death during bad times, unless the government leads them to save themselves! Which came first, people or government? people, of course.
And we won't wait around starving during a recession until the government steps in! No! We pick ourselves up and keep plugging along. It happened before Keynesianism came along, and it will happen after Keynesianism is discarded in the dustbin of history.
|Dec-15-11|| ||cormier: <<<<<<<1 Kings 19:11 The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.”> |
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind.> After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.> 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.> 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.>
Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”>
14 He replied, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty.>
|Dec-15-11|| ||al wazir: <thegoodanarchist>: The view that panics, recessions, crises, or whatever you want to call them are a necessary part of the economic environment is at best oldthink, and at worst a coverup for the evils and evildoers of capitalism. If you had a car that broke down and required a new engine every ten thousand miles, you wouldn't say that it was a way to "wipe out [malfunction] in order to clear a path [...] to restore [mechanical] health." No, you would file a case with the Consumer Protection Agency.|
|Dec-15-11|| ||King Death: A little more on Social Security's race headlong toward the cliff:|
|Dec-15-11|| ||al wazir: <King Death: A little more on Social Security's race headlong toward the cliff>|
2036? This is a "headlong race" that won't reach the finish for a quarter of a century? A looming disaster, assuming we don't do anything about it for the next *25* years?
That's practically the same time scale as global warming. I'm waiting with bated breath.
|Dec-15-11|| ||HeMateMe: "War is over, if you want it"... John Lennon.|
|Dec-15-11|| ||OhioChessFan: <tga: it would be an understatement to say that the practice of using government spending to bolster aggregate demand approaches the level of being a religion among the politicians of these countries.>|
Not to mention the voters.
|Dec-15-11|| ||HeMateMe: China has hit back. They've put a 21% tax tarrif on USA cars exported for sale in China. We had put a tarriff on the tires they sell us.|
We thought they were "dumping" cheap solar panels on the USA, ruining out fledgling green power industry.
In the past, our response was usually enough to get some changes made, without further hostilities. This may be a permanent state of agression.
|Dec-15-11|| ||King Death: <OhioChessFan: I'm not sure what I'm on record with per teachers and the future of this country, but here's a review. In general, the quality of teacher in the USA is simply pathetic...>|
There are some who fit this description, no question, but the education system itself is pretty sad.
American students don't get trained to use their heads any more. It's all about making their 4.0 or going 1600 on the SATs, not succeeding in real life.
<...The people who can't get a degree in anything else in college end up in education...>
And I thought that distinction went to majors like political science and English, two likely roads to the un(der)employment line even when things were better.
<...I think high tech has brought forth an irrevocable and negative change in the work force...>
There have been other forces at work here. Before high tech grabbed its piece of the stage, many people were brainwashed with the idea that blue collar jobs were infra dig and that they had to go to college to amount to anything.
<...not eveyrone is above average. Not everyone is college material. Not everyone is capable of working in high tech...>
True, but one fallacy of today's education is that nobody's self esteem can even be bruised. In sheltering them from disappointments that are part of life, we're doing today's students a disservice. They often can't cope with real problems when faced with them.
|Dec-15-11|| ||OhioChessFan: <tga: The astute observer will recognize that most countries operate under an economic model that is a blend of more than 1 economic theory.>|
Beyond the command driven models, there is a disconnect between politics and economics. The US hardly has an economic model since the total picture is a hodge podge of mostly political driven short term band aids.
<Correlation is not causation, but it certainly begs the question of "why for the last 80 years have we repeatedly tried to address bad economic times with the very same measures that have proven time and again to be not so effective?">
People who get their politics from.....I don't know where.....aren't aware of the repeated failures of the very system they are espousing. If they are made aware, they deny the obvious and find some excuse. Sort of like the communists' explanation of 30 years in a row of bad weather to explain their 30 years in a row of poor agricultural production.
|Dec-15-11|| ||Softpaw: <thegoodanarchist: My point is that, as america emerged from an economic model that was sort of a blend of colonialism/mercantilism ...>|
1)When are you claiming that the U.S. "emerged" from a period of "colonial/mercantilism".
2) How and why did the U.S. benefit from this period? How essential was it that America was originally part of the British Empire, which was a state-militarist-economic entity? How important was the investment of the British Imperial profits into the U.S. economy?
3) Are you recognizing that America's government-led imperial westward expansion, government protection of infant industries via tariffs, trade restrictions etc., government involvement in massive infrastructure development (railroads, canals etc.)and so on, were essential to U.S. economic development?
< [the U.S.] operated economically in a way that followed Austrian economics..">
1) What period precisely do you claim the to be the golden age of U.S. Austrian economics?
2) What were those supposed Austrian economic policies in that period?
<More to the point, though, is that recessions tended to be short-lived prior to the adoption of government intervention as the norm for addressing recessions [frequently referred to as "panics" in the histories of the times before FDR].>
Did Keynseian policies lead to the Great Depression?
Why did (neo) Keynseianism become adopted almost worldwide (outside the Socialist Bloc and a few other regions) and why was it perceived to be so successful and universally lauded?
Why did (neo)Keynsianism come into near universal discredit in the late seventies and how did it eventually become superceded by "monetarism" (briefly), then neoliberalsm and "free market fundamentalism"?
How did the anti-Keynseian "Washington Consensus" come into being, and how did its imposition on many nations across the world, via IMF "structural adjustment" programs, World Bank development schemes etc, work out for those nations?
<We don't need government stepping in to maintain "aggregate demand" during times of recession. What we need is for government to get out of the way of the role recessions play, which is to wipe out malinvestments in order to clear a path for the entrepreneurship of our citizens to restore economic health.">
That is familar rhetoric, of course. Can you back it up with any logical arguments and empirical evidence?
Finally, why are most (all) developed nations right now pushing for budget cutbacks, wage reductions, worker "flexibility", cutbacks in pensions and health care, shifting taxes to the middle and lower classes-- in a word, "austerity" -- RATHER THAN following the prescriptions of such modern day "Keynseians" as Joseph Stigler, Paul Krugman et al.??
|Dec-15-11|| ||Softpaw: <johnlspouge: < <Softpaw> I found your exegesis on capital interesting and useful. Even to my naive perspective, however, the problem of quantification is much more fundamental in economics and not just restricted to capital.>|
I agree completely. I just chose "capital" because it is the central concept in "capitalism", yet almost no one can give it a coherent defintion, let alone show how such an entity can be quantified.
It would take several volumes to cover all the problems of economic quantification , not to mention the absurd behavioral and psychological premises the whole theoretical structure of mainstream economics is built upon.
Modern economics prides itself as being a "hard science", superior to such lower creatures as political science and sociology. But it is light-years away from being a "hard science" because of three interconnected issues:
1) Quantification problems
2) The absurd premises need to extract simplistic *economic* models out of complex and chaotic *social* systems (i.e. the untenable separation of economics from political an social forces)
3)The unavoidable inclusion of multiple unscientific, unfalsifiable value-judgments all through economic theory, however dressed up in the garb of value-free logic and mathematics.
|Dec-15-11|| ||Colonel Mortimer: "US lawmakers vote on indefinite detention"
US politicians are now the property of the highest bidder. No longer can one speak about the 'land of the free' without looking like a buffoon.
Welcome to the new world order my American cousins, the new militant pseudo-christian corporatocracy is at your service for this short trip to Armageddon.
|Dec-15-11|| ||Softpaw: <Correlation is not causation, but it certainly begs the question of "why for the last 80 years have we repeatedly tried to address bad economic times with the very same measures that have proven time and again to be not so effective?">|
Actually, very different measures have been tried over the last 80 years, and some have been very effective-- so your premise just isn't true.
I don't see how you can fail to recognize the historic shift away from (neo) Keynseian orthodoxy and the ascendancy of neoliberalism ("market-fundamentalism", neo-classical economics).
You write as if that historic shift never happened and that Milton Friedman, Paul Volcker, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, the "Washington Consensus", the EU "troika" of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund etc. never existed.
|Dec-15-11|| ||HeMateMe: ^^^
Why do you read this sensationalistic crap, <Mort>? From your newspaper, above:
<A new US law will declare the world a battlefield, making virtually anyone vulnerable to indefinite military detention.>
After terrorists get in a few lucky shots, people hit back. I suppose the above newspaper also decried the commando raid a couple of months back, that killed Bin Laden, right?
How can you read such garbage?
|Dec-15-11|| ||Shams: Oil, protectionism and the Great Norwegian Butter Crisis of 2011: http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...|
Sounds like the black market high-water mark thus far is... $740 USD for one box. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...
|Dec-15-11|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <HeMateMe:> <Why do you read this sensationalistic crap>|
Habeas corpus is a fundamental legal principal that your politicians are legislating out of common law and you think that's 'sensational'. In one sense of the word I agree with you.
<HeMateMe:> <How can you read such garbage?> Al Jazeera is many levels above the @#$%ty corporate journalism you get in the States.
|Dec-15-11|| ||HeMateMe: <Mort> Where do you get your daily info--The National Enquirer? The Daily Mail?|
|Dec-15-11|| ||Shams: <Colonel Mortimer><Habeas corpus is a fundamental legal principal that your politicians are legislating out of common law>|
Hey, show some respect to our Judicial Branch, please. It's working just as hard as Congress and the Executive to abolish habeas rights.
|Dec-15-11|| ||johnlspouge: < <Softpaw> wrote: [snip] 3)The unavoidable inclusion of multiple unscientific, unfalsifiable value-judgments all through economic theory, however dressed up in the garb of value-free logic and mathematics. >|
I agree. <patzer2> would have made a great economics teacher.
Thanks for your views. They saved me a lot of time and effort.
|Dec-16-11|| ||al wazir: Hitch died: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/201...|
|Dec-16-11|| ||Softpaw: Newt Gingrich: pledging allegiance to "one nation under God" makes the U.S. exceptional.|
<<Referencing the Ninth Circuit, Gingrich said that judges who believe the phrase "One nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the separation of church and state are "radically Anti-American" and should not be wearing the robe.>
"I taught a short course in this at the University of Georgia Law School, and I testified in front of sitting justices at Georgetown Law School and I warned them, 'You keep attacking the core base of THE AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, and you will find an uprising against you which will rebalance the judiciary.'">
Apparently it does--at least that was a key idea behind the move to stick those words into the Pledge.
<On February 7, 1954, with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln's pew, the church's pastor, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address titled "A New Birth of Freedom."
He argued that the nation's might lay not in arms but its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge's sentiments could be those of any nation, that "there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life."
He cited Lincoln's words "under God" as DEFINING WORDS THAT SET THE UNITED STATES APART FROM OTHER NATIONS."
President Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian very recently, just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.> Wikipedia
|Dec-16-11|| ||Shams: <al wazir><Hitch died>|
Dammit all. That is a loss.
|Dec-16-11|| ||Softpaw: In any case:
<<<On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.>
In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion.>
Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that "the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance... violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.">
|Dec-16-11|| ||HeMateMe: I loved <Psycho> and <North by Northwest>. It's a loss.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2655 OF 5300 ·