In the classical sence, where Conservative fiscal policy means to.
Spend less, and balance the budget at all costs.
Does Bush have:
A liberal fiscal policy
The most liberal fiscal policy of any US President ever
Your oppinions?
Full Version: President Bush, Fiscal Policy
I don't think you'll find a better explanation of the Bush fiscal policy than the analysis at The Cato Institute.
For a brief look into the current policy:
For an in-depth look at the 2006 US Federal Budget:The Grand Old Spending Party
Of course, in the current political, cultural climate, we are expected to assume that if the Bush (read: Republican) fiscal policy is to say you'll stop spending and the spend more (or more-ish) then the only other alternative is the Democrat policy of spending for the Greater Good.
This is what leads people, like me for example, to say that the US is headed for the Socialist economies of Europe. The US government is taking in too much money and using it to influence too many aspects of society.
For a brief look into the current policy:
QUOTE
February 16, 2007
The "Beltway Cut"
by Stephen Slivinski
So you're the president. Your party has just taken a beating in the 2006 mid-term elections. Voters came to realize that your party—over the previous 20 years has been affiliated in the public imagination with fiscal discipline—was no longer interested in making government smaller. So when it comes time to present your first federal budget in the post-rout era, what do you do?
If you're George W. Bush, you start the spending bonanza all over again, with an opening bid of $2.9 trillion. You increase the Pentagon budget by 10 percent, and that's before you add the price of the troop surge for the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. In short, you do what you've always been doing. You spend like hell and hope nobody—particularly fiscal conservatives—pays attention.
If you've followed media reports about the budget, you might have the impression that the Bush budget actually cuts spending overall. The Boston Globe, for instance, reported "deep cuts" in the Bush plan. But only by the pretzel logic of Washington could an overall spending increase of 4 percent, as Bush has proposed, be considered a cut. It's what you might more accurately call a "Beltway cut."
Here's how it works: Assume government spending will continue to grow annually by seven percent on average, as it has for the past six years. Then imagine you only get a four percent increase this year. Official Washington would see this as a three-percentage point cut. It's the fiscal equivalent of a recovering alcoholic drinking only two and a half beers instead of the whole six-pack before the A.A. meeting.
Another example of the Beltway cut is the president's proposal for Medicare, a program which is already racking up an estimated $32 trillion dollar deficit over the next 75 years. The new budget simply reduces the expected growth of the program from an average of 6.5 percent each year to 5.6 percent. That modest decrease in the rate of expansion was enough to make the New York Times editorial board livid, calling it an attempt to "slash key entitlement programs."
The Bush proposal does include some useful structural changes to Medicare that could reduce the long-term deficit in that program by $8 trillion. But even that is yet another version of the Beltway cut. His Medicare drug benefit has already increased those unfunded liabilities by more than $8.7 trillion. His proposals still leave a $700 billion hike intact.
In order to balance the budget by 2012, as Bush claims he wants to do, spending would have to actually be cut from current levels. But what's so special about 2012? The president could have presented a plan that really cuts overall spending, and balances the budget by the time he leaves office. This might have helped repair some of the damage of the past six years, during which Republicans successfully destroyed their image as the party of small government by hiking non-defense spending over 40 percent since 2001. And balancing the budget in the next two years would completely eliminate the Democrats' ability to use the deficit as a reason to kill the Bush tax cuts. Instead, the president has honed in on 2012, four years after he's left office.
Meanwhile, Democrats will continue to say the president's budget will destroy the social safety net and the press will continue to claim it is austerity incarnate. The bipartisan embrace of the Beltway cut continues and political life goes on. Everyone goes home happy.
Except taxpayers.
The "Beltway Cut"
by Stephen Slivinski
So you're the president. Your party has just taken a beating in the 2006 mid-term elections. Voters came to realize that your party—over the previous 20 years has been affiliated in the public imagination with fiscal discipline—was no longer interested in making government smaller. So when it comes time to present your first federal budget in the post-rout era, what do you do?
If you're George W. Bush, you start the spending bonanza all over again, with an opening bid of $2.9 trillion. You increase the Pentagon budget by 10 percent, and that's before you add the price of the troop surge for the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. In short, you do what you've always been doing. You spend like hell and hope nobody—particularly fiscal conservatives—pays attention.
If you've followed media reports about the budget, you might have the impression that the Bush budget actually cuts spending overall. The Boston Globe, for instance, reported "deep cuts" in the Bush plan. But only by the pretzel logic of Washington could an overall spending increase of 4 percent, as Bush has proposed, be considered a cut. It's what you might more accurately call a "Beltway cut."
Here's how it works: Assume government spending will continue to grow annually by seven percent on average, as it has for the past six years. Then imagine you only get a four percent increase this year. Official Washington would see this as a three-percentage point cut. It's the fiscal equivalent of a recovering alcoholic drinking only two and a half beers instead of the whole six-pack before the A.A. meeting.
Another example of the Beltway cut is the president's proposal for Medicare, a program which is already racking up an estimated $32 trillion dollar deficit over the next 75 years. The new budget simply reduces the expected growth of the program from an average of 6.5 percent each year to 5.6 percent. That modest decrease in the rate of expansion was enough to make the New York Times editorial board livid, calling it an attempt to "slash key entitlement programs."
The Bush proposal does include some useful structural changes to Medicare that could reduce the long-term deficit in that program by $8 trillion. But even that is yet another version of the Beltway cut. His Medicare drug benefit has already increased those unfunded liabilities by more than $8.7 trillion. His proposals still leave a $700 billion hike intact.
In order to balance the budget by 2012, as Bush claims he wants to do, spending would have to actually be cut from current levels. But what's so special about 2012? The president could have presented a plan that really cuts overall spending, and balances the budget by the time he leaves office. This might have helped repair some of the damage of the past six years, during which Republicans successfully destroyed their image as the party of small government by hiking non-defense spending over 40 percent since 2001. And balancing the budget in the next two years would completely eliminate the Democrats' ability to use the deficit as a reason to kill the Bush tax cuts. Instead, the president has honed in on 2012, four years after he's left office.
Meanwhile, Democrats will continue to say the president's budget will destroy the social safety net and the press will continue to claim it is austerity incarnate. The bipartisan embrace of the Beltway cut continues and political life goes on. Everyone goes home happy.
Except taxpayers.
For an in-depth look at the 2006 US Federal Budget:The Grand Old Spending Party
QUOTE
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinetlevel agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office.
Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending. Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinetlevel agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office.
Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending. Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government.
Of course, in the current political, cultural climate, we are expected to assume that if the Bush (read: Republican) fiscal policy is to say you'll stop spending and the spend more (or more-ish) then the only other alternative is the Democrat policy of spending for the Greater Good.
This is what leads people, like me for example, to say that the US is headed for the Socialist economies of Europe. The US government is taking in too much money and using it to influence too many aspects of society.
The problem is that ever since FDR, and with a brief break with Clinton, the Federal government has always gotten larger. Various Presidents have presided over and initiated that growth at differing levels, but it's always gone up.
The Republicans today are not the Republicans of the 40s, 50s, and all the way through the 70s. House and Senate control were firmly in Democratic hands throughout the 50s, 60s, and all the way until the revolution of 94. And when the Republicans rocked both the House and the Senate, they actually were forced to work with Clinton to control the budget and make sure spending didn't get out of hand. When Bush took over, and the economy tanked, all bets were off.
Spending would have skyrocketed under either party. Both parties now stand for Big Government, because each person on Capitol Hill is fighting for more power, and more power means a seat on some big committee that's meant to oversee some activity which costs money that's a direct drain on the taxpayers.
Spending's out of control now, but that's made paradoxical because the public's been placated by either no tax hikes, or even tax cuts (for the upper income quintile). That means the Feds are spending money they don't have, giving the Federal Reserve the enormous task of raising more and more money (subsequently taking on more and more debt) to fund the Federal government.
Eventually, it'll get to the point where either there will be a massive RIF of the Federal government, or politicians will have NO CHOICE but to raise taxes, and raise them high.
Considering the American public, the former will happen. And all will be well again, until the cycle starts again.
The Republicans today are not the Republicans of the 40s, 50s, and all the way through the 70s. House and Senate control were firmly in Democratic hands throughout the 50s, 60s, and all the way until the revolution of 94. And when the Republicans rocked both the House and the Senate, they actually were forced to work with Clinton to control the budget and make sure spending didn't get out of hand. When Bush took over, and the economy tanked, all bets were off.
Spending would have skyrocketed under either party. Both parties now stand for Big Government, because each person on Capitol Hill is fighting for more power, and more power means a seat on some big committee that's meant to oversee some activity which costs money that's a direct drain on the taxpayers.
Spending's out of control now, but that's made paradoxical because the public's been placated by either no tax hikes, or even tax cuts (for the upper income quintile). That means the Feds are spending money they don't have, giving the Federal Reserve the enormous task of raising more and more money (subsequently taking on more and more debt) to fund the Federal government.
Eventually, it'll get to the point where either there will be a massive RIF of the Federal government, or politicians will have NO CHOICE but to raise taxes, and raise them high.
Considering the American public, the former will happen. And all will be well again, until the cycle starts again.
Now here's the part that gets me.
When democrats say they want to Tax oil companies, and fund R&D for renewables.
You get people who blather about
"OMG Socialist Fiscal Policy! Stop the Communists. They deserve the money they rightfully earned."
But hey wait a minute, if they truely deserve every last penny of what they make.
Then how come we're funding them billions of tax payer dollars each year?
Is it so wrong to expect returns on investment of tax payers money?
When democrats say they want to Tax oil companies, and fund R&D for renewables.
You get people who blather about
"OMG Socialist Fiscal Policy! Stop the Communists. They deserve the money they rightfully earned."
But hey wait a minute, if they truely deserve every last penny of what they make.
Then how come we're funding them billions of tax payer dollars each year?
Is it so wrong to expect returns on investment of tax payers money?
you're using logic. there's your problem.
Actually, GreyFlcn skipped right over the answer any free-marketeer should give: The government shouldn't be funding them at all.
Ideally, the government should never have to subsidize private industry but I think it's acceptable, on a rare occasion, to inject funds for future scientific or industrial developments. The money should be used as a primer to show whether or not the subject is worth pursuing economically. Academia should be the ones taking on this mantle considering the amount of money that gets crammed into their budgets every year. And, if the research proves out, it should be up to private companies and the market, not Congress, to determine if the ventures are worth their merit.
But don't mind me, I only put the logic book on the shelf because I liked the cover.
Ideally, the government should never have to subsidize private industry but I think it's acceptable, on a rare occasion, to inject funds for future scientific or industrial developments. The money should be used as a primer to show whether or not the subject is worth pursuing economically. Academia should be the ones taking on this mantle considering the amount of money that gets crammed into their budgets every year. And, if the research proves out, it should be up to private companies and the market, not Congress, to determine if the ventures are worth their merit.
But don't mind me, I only put the logic book on the shelf because I liked the cover.
I think another huge problem is that federal social benefits never get taken off the books (...well, it's rare, anyway). The government pours money into something that - if privately funded - would have been abandoned long ago, but it just turns into a big monetary sinkhole. Plus they tend to not think about the implications of the things they do implement (...the 'straightening' of the Mississippi and the substantial resultant flooding comes to mind).
Everyone seems concerned about military spending, and while some of it is utterly useless (the old $100 for a toilet seat routine), the military is actually a decent use of the money (at least it does something), unlike some programs which are overstaffed or inproperly managed (or serve unnecessary roles).
...how's it go, "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" ?
Everyone seems concerned about military spending, and while some of it is utterly useless (the old $100 for a toilet seat routine), the military is actually a decent use of the money (at least it does something), unlike some programs which are overstaffed or inproperly managed (or serve unnecessary roles).
...how's it go, "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" ?
QUOTE(Spooge @ Feb 22 2007, 10:11 PM) [snapback]1608573[/snapback]
Actually, GreyFlcn skipped right over the answer any free-marketeer should give: The government shouldn't be funding them at all.
Ideally, the government should never have to subsidize private industry but I think it's acceptable, on a rare occasion, to inject funds for future scientific or industrial developments. The money should be used as a primer to show whether or not the subject is worth pursuing economically. Academia should be the ones taking on this mantle considering the amount of money that gets crammed into their budgets every year. And, if the research proves out, it should be up to private companies and the market, not Congress, to determine if the ventures are worth their merit.
But don't mind me, I only put the logic book on the shelf because I liked the cover.
Actually I agree with you fully.
Issue being, what are the chances of that happening ;D
Taxing away money that they shouldn't have given in the first place is about as close as they can get.
_
Generally the only time government should be intervening is to ensure that damages and services are properly paid for.
For instance when you have a situation like car exhaust.
Buying a catalytic converter yourself wouldn't give you clean outdoor air.
Market systems don't function very well when the linkage between paying for something and getting it is weak.
The other side would be infrastructure,
Where companies wants to use a resource, but none want to put in the resources to develop and maintain it.
_
But in general, if a government is investing in a company.
About the only good reason I see to do it is for R&D, and seed money.
Paying for the operating expenses of private companies is just silly.
Although my local electricty company PG&E, they have a rather inovative use of the market system thats blurs the lines between socialism and free market mechanisms.
Essentially the electricity provider is gaurunteed a relatively high rate of return.
The catch being, that rate of return goes up or down, not depending on how much electricity they sell, but on how much effeciency they sell that quarter.
_
As is California has half the energy use per capita as the rest of the United States.
And we're saving billions each year because of it
Keynesian economics ftw
Essentially the electricity provider is gaurunteed a relatively high rate of return.
The catch being, that rate of return goes up or down, not depending on how much electricity they sell, but on how much effeciency they sell that quarter.
_
As is California has half the energy use per capita as the rest of the United States.
And we're saving billions each year because of it
Keynesian economics ftw
Nice double post, moron.
First off, Keynesian economics is dead. Get with the new crowd of monetarists. Second, I don't think you know what Keynesian economics are in the first place. Because your last post doesn't show knowledge of it.
And no, you're wrong about infrastructure as well. Look at the oil companies. They have one of the most complex logistical chains out of any corporation in the world, because they are vertically integrated globally. They gotta secure rights for drilling, then drill, then send the oil over from their tankers or use a national pipeline, then bring it to a refinery, which then distributes it via a large chain of truckers or pipelines.
The most our Federal government should do is protect rights of minorities, ensure that people in rural areas (the ones most neglected by corporate enterprise) get a fair deal, national defense, and SLIGHTLY regulate our economy, but only when externalities apply.
You see, the free market is great because it's self regulating in terms of money, supply, and demand. The only problem is externality, because when you buy a car in a completely free market, you're not also buying the added costs that occur when your car makes exhaust. Or electricity, you're paying per kilowatt hour, and not for the pollution made to burn the coal or oil.
In any case, I say that the government should be almost halved. Keep defense spending the same. But slash on all those defunct social programs that were kept on the books.
First off, Keynesian economics is dead. Get with the new crowd of monetarists. Second, I don't think you know what Keynesian economics are in the first place. Because your last post doesn't show knowledge of it.
And no, you're wrong about infrastructure as well. Look at the oil companies. They have one of the most complex logistical chains out of any corporation in the world, because they are vertically integrated globally. They gotta secure rights for drilling, then drill, then send the oil over from their tankers or use a national pipeline, then bring it to a refinery, which then distributes it via a large chain of truckers or pipelines.
The most our Federal government should do is protect rights of minorities, ensure that people in rural areas (the ones most neglected by corporate enterprise) get a fair deal, national defense, and SLIGHTLY regulate our economy, but only when externalities apply.
You see, the free market is great because it's self regulating in terms of money, supply, and demand. The only problem is externality, because when you buy a car in a completely free market, you're not also buying the added costs that occur when your car makes exhaust. Or electricity, you're paying per kilowatt hour, and not for the pollution made to burn the coal or oil.
In any case, I say that the government should be almost halved. Keep defense spending the same. But slash on all those defunct social programs that were kept on the books.
QUOTE
Keep defense spending the same.
Why? What are we getting out of it?
QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 23 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]1608739[/snapback]
In any case, I say that the government should be almost halved. Keep defense spending the same. But slash on all those defunct social programs that were kept on the books.
Like what?
QUOTE
and SLIGHTLY regulate our economy, but only when externalities apply.
You missed one case: Natural Monopolies. In situations where market conditions will always result in a monopoly, it's usually better for the government to regulate that monopoly, or provide the service itself.
QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 23 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]1608739[/snapback]
Nice double post, moron.[...]
Smooooooth. Why should I read the rest of your post again?
QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 23 2007, 12:32 PM) [snapback]1608797[/snapback]
Smooooooth. Why should I read the rest of your post again?
yarly.
I wish I had something to contribute to this thread, but I still don't even understand government-level economics in the least. what does the national debt even mean? who is the government indebted to? the american people or what? and who is suffering? if the government can be that deep in crazy debt and it doesn't really mean anything tangible, why even put a number on it? what's to keep them from saying "Presto! we no longer have a national debt!"?
Ah, I forgot about natural monopolies. Good catch.
DiscoZombie: This is how the national debt works.
Suppose that Congress and the President come up with a budget that totals 2.9 trillion dollars (the estimated budget for 07), but the Federal government is only able to come up with 2.4 trillion dollars in revenue (through taxation, duties, etc). There is a 500 billion dollar shortfall between budget and revenue, which is called the budget deficit, not to be confused with the national debt, which is the aggregate of all budget deficits in the history of the US (assuming that the government's surpluses did not outpace the deficits).
This is where the debt comes into play. The 500 billion dollars must be raised by some other means other than taxation. Every other Tuesday, the Federal Reserve auctions off freshly printed bonds on Wall Street for below their face value. Let's say you buy a $10,000 1 year bond for $9500, in one year, you can redeem that bond for its face value of 10,000. Essentially making 500 dollars in one year. This part is crucial, because the bond represents an unbreakable promise. No Federal Reserve bond that has been issued has ever been defaulted on. Which means buying bonds is buying a guarantee of more money.
Obviously that sort of commodity will always be in high demand. So when the bonds are traded, the government gets an infusion of cash that goes towards the national budget. The primary buyers are American individuals and firms, though foreign buyers have been increasing dramatically. The largest foreign held debt block is around 200 billion, held by China. Overall, foreign buyers of US bonds total around 20-25% of the national debt.
The reasons for debt are actually very well founded. The concept (though it wasn't his invention) was brought up by one Alexander Hamilton, the figure who graces the front of the 10 dollar bill. His idea was to tie in national interests with the interests of the wealthy (because the primary buyers of bonds tend to be wealthy individuals or enterprises). Because the wealthy are buying into a promise of money, it was also in their interests to protect the interests of the United States, the issuer of that promise. There are some much more complex reasonings behind the debt which is beyond my understanding, but that's the general purpose.
The consensus on the national debt is that it's perfectly okay, as long as its relative size doesn't increase as much as the economy grows. In recent years, this has not been the case, turning a projected 243 billion dollar surplus into a 400-500 billion annual deficit. Though Bush can hardly be blamed for all of it. Given the economic downturn of the early 2000s, any President would have spent massively, and monetarist policy was to loosen the money supply to encourage investment.
That is a very basic description of what the national debt is, who owns it, and what it's for. It's usually a topic that is completely over the heads of most Americans, and used as a political tool to scare the American people.
DiscoZombie: This is how the national debt works.
Suppose that Congress and the President come up with a budget that totals 2.9 trillion dollars (the estimated budget for 07), but the Federal government is only able to come up with 2.4 trillion dollars in revenue (through taxation, duties, etc). There is a 500 billion dollar shortfall between budget and revenue, which is called the budget deficit, not to be confused with the national debt, which is the aggregate of all budget deficits in the history of the US (assuming that the government's surpluses did not outpace the deficits).
This is where the debt comes into play. The 500 billion dollars must be raised by some other means other than taxation. Every other Tuesday, the Federal Reserve auctions off freshly printed bonds on Wall Street for below their face value. Let's say you buy a $10,000 1 year bond for $9500, in one year, you can redeem that bond for its face value of 10,000. Essentially making 500 dollars in one year. This part is crucial, because the bond represents an unbreakable promise. No Federal Reserve bond that has been issued has ever been defaulted on. Which means buying bonds is buying a guarantee of more money.
Obviously that sort of commodity will always be in high demand. So when the bonds are traded, the government gets an infusion of cash that goes towards the national budget. The primary buyers are American individuals and firms, though foreign buyers have been increasing dramatically. The largest foreign held debt block is around 200 billion, held by China. Overall, foreign buyers of US bonds total around 20-25% of the national debt.
The reasons for debt are actually very well founded. The concept (though it wasn't his invention) was brought up by one Alexander Hamilton, the figure who graces the front of the 10 dollar bill. His idea was to tie in national interests with the interests of the wealthy (because the primary buyers of bonds tend to be wealthy individuals or enterprises). Because the wealthy are buying into a promise of money, it was also in their interests to protect the interests of the United States, the issuer of that promise. There are some much more complex reasonings behind the debt which is beyond my understanding, but that's the general purpose.
The consensus on the national debt is that it's perfectly okay, as long as its relative size doesn't increase as much as the economy grows. In recent years, this has not been the case, turning a projected 243 billion dollar surplus into a 400-500 billion annual deficit. Though Bush can hardly be blamed for all of it. Given the economic downturn of the early 2000s, any President would have spent massively, and monetarist policy was to loosen the money supply to encourage investment.
That is a very basic description of what the national debt is, who owns it, and what it's for. It's usually a topic that is completely over the heads of most Americans, and used as a political tool to scare the American people.
Hrmm, could have sworn I heard that last November we passed 50% of the national debt being owned by foriegn nations.
"and monetarist policy was to loosen the money supply to encourage investment."
Frankly putting money in the hands of those who are going to use it for operating expenses, or shove it into the stock market doesn't make much sence.
Instead you really should be after putting it into the hands of the middle class, where as they go off and spend it on mundane good and services, which causes a multiplier effect as it finds it's way across the supply chain. Which ultimately raises demand for companies to start producing products and services again, which causes them to be more inclined to make investments.
"and monetarist policy was to loosen the money supply to encourage investment."
Frankly putting money in the hands of those who are going to use it for operating expenses, or shove it into the stock market doesn't make much sence.
Instead you really should be after putting it into the hands of the middle class, where as they go off and spend it on mundane good and services, which causes a multiplier effect as it finds it's way across the supply chain. Which ultimately raises demand for companies to start producing products and services again, which causes them to be more inclined to make investments.
What makes you think you know better than I on what to do with my ###### money?
Keep your sticky fingers out of my ###### pocket.
Keep your sticky fingers out of my ###### pocket.
Yawn, multipliers are effected by every action in the economy. It can work either way. Money going into the stock market or to the bankers are going to then be sent to people seeking capital.
Here's the basic monetarist philosophy: as long as money is circulating in the economy, all is well. It really doesn't matter who's got it as long as it's moving around. Because the venture capitalist with the money is going to invest in some startup company and the governors of that company need to hire people to work for the company, and the money used to pay those employees are then spent by the employees.
It's a never-ending cycle just as long as money is circulating throughout the system. The Great Depression could have been avoided if the Federal Reserve hadn't contracted the money supply right as the stock market fell through, because that was the very moment that the economy needed liquidity and money. Wealth distribution in the United States might be horrible, but considering that even the poorest economic quintile can afford cars, tvs, microwaves, housing, it's not as bad as say....in Czarist Russia, where the rich were rich as hell and the poor literally ate grass.
No, the majority of the national debt is still held by American institutions and people. If you're talking about public debt, which carries an interest portion, then yeah, it's split about 50/50. But intragovernmental holdings account for a lot of the national debt, and that doesn't carry an obligation.
Numbers incomprehensibly large are required to understand these sort of financial facts and figures. These are the sort of numbers that people use to scare the American people, because people fear what they don't understand.
There's no point in worrying about national solvency just yet. We're far from that stage.
Here's the basic monetarist philosophy: as long as money is circulating in the economy, all is well. It really doesn't matter who's got it as long as it's moving around. Because the venture capitalist with the money is going to invest in some startup company and the governors of that company need to hire people to work for the company, and the money used to pay those employees are then spent by the employees.
It's a never-ending cycle just as long as money is circulating throughout the system. The Great Depression could have been avoided if the Federal Reserve hadn't contracted the money supply right as the stock market fell through, because that was the very moment that the economy needed liquidity and money. Wealth distribution in the United States might be horrible, but considering that even the poorest economic quintile can afford cars, tvs, microwaves, housing, it's not as bad as say....in Czarist Russia, where the rich were rich as hell and the poor literally ate grass.
No, the majority of the national debt is still held by American institutions and people. If you're talking about public debt, which carries an interest portion, then yeah, it's split about 50/50. But intragovernmental holdings account for a lot of the national debt, and that doesn't carry an obligation.
Numbers incomprehensibly large are required to understand these sort of financial facts and figures. These are the sort of numbers that people use to scare the American people, because people fear what they don't understand.
There's no point in worrying about national solvency just yet. We're far from that stage.
Well, frankly demandside money circulation is certainly better than supplyside.
Supplyside is much more open to corruption, and ineffeciency gluts.
Supplyside is much more open to corruption, and ineffeciency gluts.
QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 23 2007, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1608887[/snapback]
Here's the basic monetarist philosophy: as long as money is circulating in the economy, all is well. It really doesn't matter who's got it as long as it's moving around.
This is such a terrible philosophy. To me it's simply a question of morals... why should people be buying yachts while others starve to death? I see no justification for it.
Both extremes (Lassez-Faire and communism) are overly idealistic, the best solution to improve conditions for every human on Earth is some sort of a middle ground.
Too late to think here
QUOTE(Epidemic @ Feb 23 2007, 09:04 PM) [snapback]1608895[/snapback]
Because stopping people from buying yachts doesnt create more food?
You don't think that the money used to buy yachts could feed a lot of people in our country (and the world)? Starvation doesn't occur because we don't have enough food, it occurs because of income inequalities.
QUOTE
Greed Versus Compassion
What's the noblest of human motivations? Some might be tempted to answer: charity, love of one's neighbor or, in modern, politically correct language: giving something back or feeling another's pain. In my book, these are indeed noble motivations, but they pale in comparison to a much more potent motivation for human action that's much more potent. For me the noblest of human motivations is greed. I don't mean theft, fraud, tricks, or misrepresentation. By greed I mean people being only or mostly concerned with getting the most they can for themselves and not necessarily concerned about the welfare of others. Social consternation might cause one to cringe at the suggestion that greed might possibly be seen as a noble motivation. "Enlightened self-interest" might be a preferable term. I prefer greed since it is far more descriptive and less likely to be confused with other human motives.
That human greed is the greatest of human motivations should be obvious to all; however, a few examples will make it more concrete. Texas cattle ranchers make enormous sacrifices to husband and insure the safety and well-being of their herds: running down stray cattle in the snow to care for and feed them, hiring veterinarians to insure their health, taking them to feed yards in time to fatten them up prior to selling them to slaughter houses. The result of these sacrifices is that New Yorkers can enjoy having beef on their supermarket shelves. Idaho potato farmers arise early in the morning. They do backbreaking work in potato fields, with the sun beating down on them and maybe being eaten by bugs. Similarly, the result of their sacrifices is that New Yorkers can also enjoy having potatoes on their supermarket shelves.
Why do Texas cattle ranchers and Idaho potato farmers make these sacrifices? Is it because they love New Yorkers? Only the most naive would chalk their motivation up to one of a concern for one's fellow man in New York. The reason Texas cattle ranchers and Idaho potato farmers make those sacrifice is that they love themselves. They want more for themselves. In a word, they are greedy!
But that is the miracle of the market. Through serving the wants of one's fellow man, one acquires more for himself. That is precisely what Adam Smith meant when he said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantage." Adam Smith added, "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." One might pause here for a moment and ask: How much beef and potatoes would New Yorkers enjoy if it all depended on human love, charity and kindness? I'd be worried about New Yorkers.
Greed or if you like "enlightened self-interest", promotes other wonderful outcomes. It's nice that present generations conserve on scarce resources in order to make those resources available to future generations. Owners of buildings make sacrifices of current consumption, and spend resources on maintenance that extends the useful life of the building - long past their own lives. For example, the original owners of the Empire State Building are now dead; however, the sacrifices they made to maintain the building means that today's generation can enjoy it. When timber companies harvest trees on their land, they spend the resources necessary to plant seedlings and as such insure that the forest will continue to produce trees long after the owners are dead.
Can one realistically produce an argument that present generations make sacrifices of current consumption to insure that goods such as buildings and lumber will be available for future generations because they actually care about future generations? After all there's no quid pro quo i.e., there is no way for future generations to compensate them for the sacrifices made on their behalf. So why? Again, it's greed but with its facilitator, private property rights (rights residing in the owner to acquire, keep, use and dispose of property as deemed fit so long as that use does not violate similar rights held by another).
The present value, or selling price, of say 10,000 acres of forest depends not only on how much lumber the forest will yield in the year 2000, but also in the years 2005, 2010, 2030 and so on. The forest's capacity to produce lumber in these out years is summarized into its present value or selling price. The longer the forest will produce trees, the greater will be its selling price. Therefore, the current owner of the forest has a vested financial interest in doing those things that protect the forest's productivity whether or not he will be alive in 2010 or 2030. In other words, his wealth is held hostage to his doing the socially responsible thing - conserving society's scarce resources. Thus, one easily predicts that goods privately-held will receive better care than goods communally-held no matter what the good: cars, houses, land, etc. Owners tend to take better care of cars, houses and land than renters or other non-owners.
We should hasten to add that for private property to have these beneficial effects it requires more than simply holding its title. The owner must have options. One could hold title to land but the government restricts the uses to which the land can be put. An example is when a person holds title to a 1,000 acre plot of forest land but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decrees that some or all of it cannot be used for fear of threatening an endangered species. Such a decree reduces the private use-value of the land and hence weakens incentives to care for the land. Similarly, if there were high transfer taxes for land sales, it too would weaken incentives to care for the land. In fact, anything that weakens the owner's private property rights in the land weakens his incentives to do the socially responsible thing - conserve on society's scarce resources.
While human motivations such as charity, love, or concern for others are important and salutatory, they are nowhere nearly as important as people's desire to have more for themselves. We all know that but we pretend it is not. That unwillingness to acknowledge personal greed as vital to human welfare, and instead view it with disapproval, makes us easy prey to charlatans and quacks who'd take away our liberties in the name of combatting greed.
Walter E Williams
Ideas on Liberty, October 2000
What's the noblest of human motivations? Some might be tempted to answer: charity, love of one's neighbor or, in modern, politically correct language: giving something back or feeling another's pain. In my book, these are indeed noble motivations, but they pale in comparison to a much more potent motivation for human action that's much more potent. For me the noblest of human motivations is greed. I don't mean theft, fraud, tricks, or misrepresentation. By greed I mean people being only or mostly concerned with getting the most they can for themselves and not necessarily concerned about the welfare of others. Social consternation might cause one to cringe at the suggestion that greed might possibly be seen as a noble motivation. "Enlightened self-interest" might be a preferable term. I prefer greed since it is far more descriptive and less likely to be confused with other human motives.
That human greed is the greatest of human motivations should be obvious to all; however, a few examples will make it more concrete. Texas cattle ranchers make enormous sacrifices to husband and insure the safety and well-being of their herds: running down stray cattle in the snow to care for and feed them, hiring veterinarians to insure their health, taking them to feed yards in time to fatten them up prior to selling them to slaughter houses. The result of these sacrifices is that New Yorkers can enjoy having beef on their supermarket shelves. Idaho potato farmers arise early in the morning. They do backbreaking work in potato fields, with the sun beating down on them and maybe being eaten by bugs. Similarly, the result of their sacrifices is that New Yorkers can also enjoy having potatoes on their supermarket shelves.
Why do Texas cattle ranchers and Idaho potato farmers make these sacrifices? Is it because they love New Yorkers? Only the most naive would chalk their motivation up to one of a concern for one's fellow man in New York. The reason Texas cattle ranchers and Idaho potato farmers make those sacrifice is that they love themselves. They want more for themselves. In a word, they are greedy!
But that is the miracle of the market. Through serving the wants of one's fellow man, one acquires more for himself. That is precisely what Adam Smith meant when he said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantage." Adam Smith added, "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." One might pause here for a moment and ask: How much beef and potatoes would New Yorkers enjoy if it all depended on human love, charity and kindness? I'd be worried about New Yorkers.
Greed or if you like "enlightened self-interest", promotes other wonderful outcomes. It's nice that present generations conserve on scarce resources in order to make those resources available to future generations. Owners of buildings make sacrifices of current consumption, and spend resources on maintenance that extends the useful life of the building - long past their own lives. For example, the original owners of the Empire State Building are now dead; however, the sacrifices they made to maintain the building means that today's generation can enjoy it. When timber companies harvest trees on their land, they spend the resources necessary to plant seedlings and as such insure that the forest will continue to produce trees long after the owners are dead.
Can one realistically produce an argument that present generations make sacrifices of current consumption to insure that goods such as buildings and lumber will be available for future generations because they actually care about future generations? After all there's no quid pro quo i.e., there is no way for future generations to compensate them for the sacrifices made on their behalf. So why? Again, it's greed but with its facilitator, private property rights (rights residing in the owner to acquire, keep, use and dispose of property as deemed fit so long as that use does not violate similar rights held by another).
The present value, or selling price, of say 10,000 acres of forest depends not only on how much lumber the forest will yield in the year 2000, but also in the years 2005, 2010, 2030 and so on. The forest's capacity to produce lumber in these out years is summarized into its present value or selling price. The longer the forest will produce trees, the greater will be its selling price. Therefore, the current owner of the forest has a vested financial interest in doing those things that protect the forest's productivity whether or not he will be alive in 2010 or 2030. In other words, his wealth is held hostage to his doing the socially responsible thing - conserving society's scarce resources. Thus, one easily predicts that goods privately-held will receive better care than goods communally-held no matter what the good: cars, houses, land, etc. Owners tend to take better care of cars, houses and land than renters or other non-owners.
We should hasten to add that for private property to have these beneficial effects it requires more than simply holding its title. The owner must have options. One could hold title to land but the government restricts the uses to which the land can be put. An example is when a person holds title to a 1,000 acre plot of forest land but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decrees that some or all of it cannot be used for fear of threatening an endangered species. Such a decree reduces the private use-value of the land and hence weakens incentives to care for the land. Similarly, if there were high transfer taxes for land sales, it too would weaken incentives to care for the land. In fact, anything that weakens the owner's private property rights in the land weakens his incentives to do the socially responsible thing - conserve on society's scarce resources.
While human motivations such as charity, love, or concern for others are important and salutatory, they are nowhere nearly as important as people's desire to have more for themselves. We all know that but we pretend it is not. That unwillingness to acknowledge personal greed as vital to human welfare, and instead view it with disapproval, makes us easy prey to charlatans and quacks who'd take away our liberties in the name of combatting greed.
Walter E Williams
Ideas on Liberty, October 2000
I'm not saying that greed is an unnecessary thing, in fact I can see the point of what you posted, it's nothing new. But that does not address my question. Try again.
In many cases, it doesn't.
QUOTE
Greed or if you like "enlightened self-interest", promotes other wonderful outcomes.
In many cases, it doesn't.
QUOTE(Epidemic @ Feb 24 2007, 02:04 AM) [snapback]1608895[/snapback]
I agree with people that are unable to work, should not starve when we can make enough food already, but I think it has little to do with rich people placing a demand for yatchs.
But the supply chain used for making luxuries, has very little benefit to the economy as a whole.
Hell often most of it, is imported.
Which is why the purchase of more mundane items is ideal.
Since the supply chain companies are the ones which actually could use the boost.
QUOTE(Epidemic @ Feb 23 2007, 09:04 PM) [snapback]1608895[/snapback]
I agree with people that are unable to work, should not starve when we can make enough food already, but I think it has little to do with rich people placing a demand for yatchs.
Yes it does have little to do with the specific example of yachts, but I only use it to illustrate the damage that extreme income inequality can do. I see no harm in a little bit more socialism (much like some European countries) to make conditions better for everyone.
nvm
QUOTE(Nadagast @ Feb 23 2007, 09:15 PM) [snapback]1608900[/snapback]
I'm not saying that greed is an unnecessary thing, in fact I can see the point of what you posted, it's nothing new. But that does not address my question. Try again.
In many cases, it doesn't.
Then it shouldn't be so difficult to clearly identify some of these cases. . .
One of the favorite complaints of those who wield the classism boogeyman is that "so few have so much".
If there are so many more that would benefit from consuming goods that would increase their local economic status, then it is their individual consumer decisions that hold the most influence.
Governments will make decisions based on what will benefit the government best; the individual would only benefit from what was left over.
QUOTE(Spooge @ Feb 23 2007, 09:34 PM) [snapback]1608905[/snapback]
Then it shouldn't be so difficult to clearly identify some of these cases. . .
Constant civil wars in third world countries I would say are (in some cases) motivated by greed. The extremely large salaries paid to some CEOs are motivated by greed. Enron was motivated by greed.
Greed is acceptable to a certain extent...
People living in France and the UK and Germany, in heavily socialized systems, are living off better than the people in America?
Do you think the yacht builders are rich? More likely they're coming from the middle class. When money is circulating in the economy, it goes from all levels, top down, bottom up. You do realize that in the old days, when there were such things as gold standards, it was incredibly hard on the working class because old money was practically all the money there was?
The socialism in Europe isn't working out. Too many leechers, not enough workers. There are fewer incentives to work and be productive. The average American is far more productive than the average Western European. It's time for Western Europe to Americanize or they'll get left in the dust in a few decades.
As for your yachts...who's building the yachts? Who's paying for them? The rich are purposely buying something unnecessary, which is built by some company who employs a bunch of people. If a billionaire buys that ridiculously large A380 from Airbus, are they not helping the Airbus corporation, who in turn employs thousands of people? If a rich person buys an Aston Martin, aren't they helping out Ford, who in turn employs a bunch of people?
As long as people are buying, all is well. There's nothing inherently wrong with a concentration of wealth. Oh, and, Nadagast, you do realize that all the strife in Africa was caused by moronic African leaders who squandered their wealth on stupid planned central economies and agrarian reforms that screamed socialism? The average African is worse off today than they were under British colonial rule in terms of relative income.
And all the aid funneled into Africa is funneled right out and into the Swiss bank accounts of a temporary dictator of that country. And the food trucks the UN gives them go straight to the "freedom fighters".
A more or less free market with relatively little regulation from the government is the way to go. You complain about the concentration of wealth and the imperialism of the workshop, but the computers you work on, the cars you drive, the food you eat, and everything you depend on in your daily life was made possible only through private enterprise that was funded by rich venture capitalists. Governments are essential, which is why we have them, but never trust them with too much power. People tend to self regulate, imposing rules never works as effectively.
Do you think the yacht builders are rich? More likely they're coming from the middle class. When money is circulating in the economy, it goes from all levels, top down, bottom up. You do realize that in the old days, when there were such things as gold standards, it was incredibly hard on the working class because old money was practically all the money there was?
The socialism in Europe isn't working out. Too many leechers, not enough workers. There are fewer incentives to work and be productive. The average American is far more productive than the average Western European. It's time for Western Europe to Americanize or they'll get left in the dust in a few decades.
As for your yachts...who's building the yachts? Who's paying for them? The rich are purposely buying something unnecessary, which is built by some company who employs a bunch of people. If a billionaire buys that ridiculously large A380 from Airbus, are they not helping the Airbus corporation, who in turn employs thousands of people? If a rich person buys an Aston Martin, aren't they helping out Ford, who in turn employs a bunch of people?
As long as people are buying, all is well. There's nothing inherently wrong with a concentration of wealth. Oh, and, Nadagast, you do realize that all the strife in Africa was caused by moronic African leaders who squandered their wealth on stupid planned central economies and agrarian reforms that screamed socialism? The average African is worse off today than they were under British colonial rule in terms of relative income.
And all the aid funneled into Africa is funneled right out and into the Swiss bank accounts of a temporary dictator of that country. And the food trucks the UN gives them go straight to the "freedom fighters".
A more or less free market with relatively little regulation from the government is the way to go. You complain about the concentration of wealth and the imperialism of the workshop, but the computers you work on, the cars you drive, the food you eat, and everything you depend on in your daily life was made possible only through private enterprise that was funded by rich venture capitalists. Governments are essential, which is why we have them, but never trust them with too much power. People tend to self regulate, imposing rules never works as effectively.
QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 24 2007, 02:28 AM) [snapback]1608944[/snapback]
People living in France and the UK and Germany, in heavily socialized systems, are living off better than the people in America?
I don't think I would say that those countries are good examples of more socialized societies. Why do you ignore Norway and Sweden? I do think that people in those countries are living better than in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Say what you want about the other countries, the bottom line is that Norway and Sweden lean much more heavily towards socialism than America and they seem to be doing pretty damn well. That seems to go against your assertion.
I'm not saying that every country that is more socialized than America will be better. But the two countries mentioned above (and others) should at least show you that something about your assertions is wrong.
http://policyalternatives.ca/documents/Nat...of_Taxation.pdf
QUOTE
We examine 50 indicators that are commonly used to measure a country’s social progress. On over half of these indicators (29), the outcomes in high-tax Nordic countries are significantly better than those in low-tax Anglo-American countries, and on most of the remaining indicators (13), social outcomes are somewhat better in Nordic countries. In short:
• Nordic countries have significantly lower rates of poverty across almost all social groups;
• as an indicator of how well a country protects the vulnerable, the elderly have significantly higher pension income replacement rates in Nordic countries and the income received by those with disabilities relative to the population is much higher;
• income is distributed significantly more equally in Nordic countries;
• on every measure we examine there is significantly more gender equality in Nordic countries;
• Nordic workers have significantly more economic security;
• in terms of health outcomes, infant mortality rates are significantly lower and life expectancy is longer in Nordic countries;
• in terms of educational outcomes, a greater percentage of the population completed secondary school and university in Nordic countries and 15-year old students score higher on math tests;
• as a measure of personal physical security, homicide rates are lower in Nordic countries;
• as indicators of the degree of community and social solidarity in a country and general happiness and life satisfaction, there is significantly more trust among individuals and for public institutions in Nordic countries;
• there is significantly less drug use in Nordic countries; individuals have significantly more leisure time; individuals have more freedom, according to a widely referred to index of economic freedom; individuals report more life satisfaction; and they are more likely to discuss politics with friends;
• Nordic countries rank much higher on an index of environmental performance, and the Nordic countries give significantly more in foreign aid than Anglo-American countries.
Low-tax Anglo-American countries rank higher than Nordic countries on only seven out of the 50 social indicators. In each case, it is a trivial difference that could be easily due to chance: a slightly higher percentage of the 25–64 age group completed either college or university; 15-year-olds did slightly better on reading and science tests; a slightly greater percentage of people report a greater sense of freedom; there are on average a lower number of suicides; and a slightly greater percentage of individuals report they are very happy.
• Nordic countries have significantly lower rates of poverty across almost all social groups;
• as an indicator of how well a country protects the vulnerable, the elderly have significantly higher pension income replacement rates in Nordic countries and the income received by those with disabilities relative to the population is much higher;
• income is distributed significantly more equally in Nordic countries;
• on every measure we examine there is significantly more gender equality in Nordic countries;
• Nordic workers have significantly more economic security;
• in terms of health outcomes, infant mortality rates are significantly lower and life expectancy is longer in Nordic countries;
• in terms of educational outcomes, a greater percentage of the population completed secondary school and university in Nordic countries and 15-year old students score higher on math tests;
• as a measure of personal physical security, homicide rates are lower in Nordic countries;
• as indicators of the degree of community and social solidarity in a country and general happiness and life satisfaction, there is significantly more trust among individuals and for public institutions in Nordic countries;
• there is significantly less drug use in Nordic countries; individuals have significantly more leisure time; individuals have more freedom, according to a widely referred to index of economic freedom; individuals report more life satisfaction; and they are more likely to discuss politics with friends;
• Nordic countries rank much higher on an index of environmental performance, and the Nordic countries give significantly more in foreign aid than Anglo-American countries.
Low-tax Anglo-American countries rank higher than Nordic countries on only seven out of the 50 social indicators. In each case, it is a trivial difference that could be easily due to chance: a slightly higher percentage of the 25–64 age group completed either college or university; 15-year-olds did slightly better on reading and science tests; a slightly greater percentage of people report a greater sense of freedom; there are on average a lower number of suicides; and a slightly greater percentage of individuals report they are very happy.
QUOTE
Do you think the yacht builders are rich? More likely they're coming from the middle class. When money is circulating in the economy, it goes from all levels, top down, bottom up. You do realize that in the old days, when there were such things as gold standards, it was incredibly hard on the working class because old money was practically all the money there was?
You're missing the point entirely by focusing on the yacht.
QUOTE
The socialism in Europe isn't working out. Too many leechers, not enough workers. There are fewer incentives to work and be productive. The average American is far more productive than the average Western European. It's time for Western Europe to Americanize or they'll get left in the dust in a few decades.
It's easy to make assertions, do you want to back that up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...l%29_per_capita + study above.
QUOTE
As for your yachts...who's building the yachts? Who's paying for them? The rich are purposely buying something unnecessary, which is built by some company who employs a bunch of people. If a billionaire buys that ridiculously large A380 from Airbus, are they not helping the Airbus corporation, who in turn employs thousands of people? If a rich person buys an Aston Martin, aren't they helping out Ford, who in turn employs a bunch of people?
Thanks for telling me how companies work. I didn't know.
You're dodging the issue. You can repeat the fact that the money goes to many working people as many times as you want, it doesn't mean that the homeless people don't exist. This is a reality. Please... address it.
QUOTE
As long as people are buying, all is well. There's nothing inherently wrong with a concentration of wealth. Oh, and, Nadagast, you do realize that all the strife in Africa was caused by moronic African leaders who squandered their wealth on stupid planned central economies and agrarian reforms that screamed socialism? The average African is worse off today than they were under British colonial rule in terms of relative income.
There's nothing wrong with a concentration of wealth except when people are dying or living miserable lives and the money could be used to help them rather than to make an already very rich individual slightly more money which has no real impact on his living conditions anyway.
And you're right--Africa and South America are not pretty places to live because all the leaders there are idiots. Obviously. We're just so much damn better than them. It had nothing to do with history.
QUOTE
And all the aid funneled into Africa is funneled right out and into the Swiss bank accounts of a temporary dictator of that country. And the food trucks the UN gives them go straight to the "freedom fighters".
What's the dictator driven by? Greed... (I guess this is more of a reply to Epidemic)
I don't know what your point is. It should be obvious that I don't support taking the money intended to feed and help the poor and give it to the already rich. I assume you agree with me? I don't see where the discussion can go from there.
QUOTE
A more or less free market with relatively little regulation from the government is the way to go. You complain about the concentration of wealth and the imperialism of the workshop, but the computers you work on, the cars you drive, the food you eat, and everything you depend on in your daily life was made possible only through private enterprise that was funded by rich venture capitalists. Governments are essential, which is why we have them, but never trust them with too much power. People tend to self regulate, imposing rules never works as effectively.
What is this? You're offering nothing except assertion after assertion.
Why should I believe you when you say "People tend to self regulate, imposing rules never works as effectively."
For one you're just asserting this, when there are actual real world countries who are doing, by many measures, better than America, who are doing things that you say should be killing them.
Second, obviously you don't believe this to the extreme. You don't, for example, think that murder should be legal, because I mean... hey, people tend to self regulate. Imposing rules won't work as effectively.
Right? So it's just a question of where you draw the line.
Stop making assertions that I have no reason to believe.
Also just to be clear, I'm not advocating communism or anything like that, just a bit more socialism mixed in with our capitalist society. Seems to be working well for other countries...
QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 23 2007, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1608887[/snapback]
Here's the basic monetarist philosophy: as long as money is circulating in the economy, all is well. It really doesn't matter who's got it as long as it's moving around.
Money circulating is a necessary condition for the health of the economy, but not a sufficient one. Furthermore, it is a symptom and not a cause. I feel like monetary policy has overall reduced the economics understanding of the average person, not due to any fallacy of it's own, but because it is very easy to get lost in all the talk of multipliers and interest rates and forget that money is nothing more than a facilitator. It is a fluid to allow goods to move. People start with an intuitive understanding that is pretty close to the truth: If people are producing, and deriving benefit from that production, then the economy is healthy. Somehow that always seems to get lost.
QUOTE
Greed Versus Compassion
Greed is one of the most powerful motivators, but any nobility that it has is only due to the system we've tamed it with. Greed can just as easily compel someone to disrespect the property rights of others as to produce goods for them. In any situation with a negative externality, enlightened self interest just doesn't cut it.
QUOTE
Do you think the yacht builders are rich? More likely they're coming from the middle class. When money is circulating in the economy, it goes from all levels, top down, bottom up. You do realize that in the old days, when there were such things as gold standards, it was incredibly hard on the working class because old money was practically all the money there was?
The place that the money is going is irrelevant. The money will go somewhere regardless of what is produced. The important question is whether or not that yacht itself was a worthy use of it. The yacht builder could have done many other things with his time, but instead, he built a yacht. I'm not going to argue that there shouldn't be yachts, but imagine for a moment if we had some way of making the socially optimal production choice in every situation. Would that yacht get built? Would Somalians get fed?
It's important to remember that all of the proofs about optimality in a perfectly competitive market are only Pareto optimal. (This means, that you cannot make one person better off without making one person worse off if you start with the production choices that will be made in a competitive market.) Another way of saying it is that the optimal set of goods will be produced only if you believe that the current distribution of wealth is also optimal. This is a normative question, and not a positive one, and to address it you have to make some assumptions about what your model for fairness is going to be.
QUOTE
Oh, and, Nadagast, you do realize that all the strife in Africa was caused by moronic African leaders who squandered their wealth on stupid planned central economies and agrarian reforms that screamed socialism? The average African is worse off today than they were under British colonial rule in terms of relative income.
Oh I see. Clearly the slaughter or enslavement of tens of millions of people by colonial powers had nothing to do with it. Just one little tidbit. After slaughtering 10 million people in the Congo and enslaving the rest, Belgium left the Congolese to form their own government with only 500 highschool educated people in the entire country. I wonder why it didn't work out.
Notice that I didn't cite Belgian rule, I cited British imperialist rule, Moultano.
And, Nadagast, the Scandinavian countries? Those countries are characterized as nations with relatively low populations, and a high concentration of natural resources. A lot of Norway's wealth is due to its extensive oil reserves. Plus the three northern Scandinavian countries have a divisive issue: their social programs. Many politicians in those nations are arguing for the reduction or even elimination of the services that the government provides because it's not sustainable.
When you're an exporting country with a low population, you tend to do well because you have a large resource base that hungrier nations like the UK, France, and Germany are willing to pay for. This wealth in turn can be used by any relatively non-corrupt organization to then educate and train the local populace for service sector jobs. In any case, their private sector has not much regulation, they practice a sort of welfare capitalism, and sooner or later, they're going to eliminate the welfare aspect of it. 5 million in Norway, 9 in Sweden. In the vastly larger nations (in terms of population), they simply can't sustain their services. Why do you think Norway, Sweden, and Finland all have tight restrictions on immigration? Because if they accepted more people, their government would have to care for more people, and the system will go to hell faster than it already is.
In almost any nation that has social programs more extensive than that of the United States, one of the most pressing issues is how to sustain those programs or cut down on them.
In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well.
If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.
Helping poor people is a great part of the free market. Look at China, there was no way they could have lifted themselves from 1979 levels to where they are now without the help of Western capital and investment. Money will go to the markets with the highest profitablity assuming that those markets are stable, and that's what China was at the time. A stable, vast market. That's where all the money went.
As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.
"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.
And, Nadagast, the Scandinavian countries? Those countries are characterized as nations with relatively low populations, and a high concentration of natural resources. A lot of Norway's wealth is due to its extensive oil reserves. Plus the three northern Scandinavian countries have a divisive issue: their social programs. Many politicians in those nations are arguing for the reduction or even elimination of the services that the government provides because it's not sustainable.
When you're an exporting country with a low population, you tend to do well because you have a large resource base that hungrier nations like the UK, France, and Germany are willing to pay for. This wealth in turn can be used by any relatively non-corrupt organization to then educate and train the local populace for service sector jobs. In any case, their private sector has not much regulation, they practice a sort of welfare capitalism, and sooner or later, they're going to eliminate the welfare aspect of it. 5 million in Norway, 9 in Sweden. In the vastly larger nations (in terms of population), they simply can't sustain their services. Why do you think Norway, Sweden, and Finland all have tight restrictions on immigration? Because if they accepted more people, their government would have to care for more people, and the system will go to hell faster than it already is.
In almost any nation that has social programs more extensive than that of the United States, one of the most pressing issues is how to sustain those programs or cut down on them.
In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well.
If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.
Helping poor people is a great part of the free market. Look at China, there was no way they could have lifted themselves from 1979 levels to where they are now without the help of Western capital and investment. Money will go to the markets with the highest profitablity assuming that those markets are stable, and that's what China was at the time. A stable, vast market. That's where all the money went.
As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.
"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.
Note also the important statistic from your Nordic study you didn't bother to quote: Unemployment.
I'd copy paste, but I cant figure how to do that with PDF documents, so go to the bottom and look for footnote 70. It explains, in statistical detail, that the Nordic countries have lower employment growth, and higher unemployment, than countries with lower tax rates. And the US in particular.
I'd copy paste, but I cant figure how to do that with PDF documents, so go to the bottom and look for footnote 70. It explains, in statistical detail, that the Nordic countries have lower employment growth, and higher unemployment, than countries with lower tax rates. And the US in particular.
QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 24 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]1609057[/snapback]
Notice that I didn't cite Belgian rule, I cited British imperialist rule, Moultano.
Consider then Zimbabwe, where even today most of the black population attempts to eke out an existence subsistence farming on plots of land too small and poor to feed a family, while many whites retain lush and fertile fields and make a profit off of commercial agriculture.
QUOTE
In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well.
The free market is a tool like any other. Often it works beautifully, often it doesn't. In Pittsburgh in the '60s you had to change your shirt 3 times a day because it would be covered in soot in a matter of hours. When the pollution was especially bad it would blot out the sun entirely, and it would look like midnight at noon. That was the free market at work.
QUOTE
If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.
I'm all for doing away with agricultural subsidies. However, I haven't seen the case made 100% that it hurts poorer nations. It does prevent them from developing agricultural industry, but it also provides them with a lot of cheap food at our expense. Theoretically this should result in these countries specializing in other areas of production, but unfortunately infrastructure often isn't up to the task.
QUOTE
As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.
Many homeless people have untreated mental illnesses. You try holding a job with schizophrenia.
QUOTE
"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.
Socially optimal does not mean centrally planned. Markets can be pushed towards more socially optimal performance with appropriate subsidies and taxes, none of which requires central planning.
All of this is skirting around the central issue of the distribution of wealth, which is an issue of a wholly different quality. Free markets produce what is individually optimal for each person in proportion to the money they spend. This is a difficult problem, and not one that I'm willing yet to make any categorical statements on, but it's definitely worthy of discussion. It isn't intellectually sufficient to say that whatever the free market produces in this regard is best a priori.
Well it really comes down to the assumption of classical economics
Money is equivalent to the Well Being of Society.
And that if everyone seeks after their own rational self interest,
that it fullfills the greater good through the wonders of the "invisible hand" of the market.
While they do share many parrallels, but they aren't entirely equivalent either.
_
It's comparable to how dumptrucks get measured by weight when going to the landfill.
But landfills get filled by volume, not by weight.
But weight is easier to measure.
Money is equivalent to the Well Being of Society.
And that if everyone seeks after their own rational self interest,
that it fullfills the greater good through the wonders of the "invisible hand" of the market.
While they do share many parrallels, but they aren't entirely equivalent either.
_
It's comparable to how dumptrucks get measured by weight when going to the landfill.
But landfills get filled by volume, not by weight.
But weight is easier to measure.
QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 24 2007, 09:33 PM) [snapback]1609119[/snapback]
Note also the important statistic from your Nordic study you didn't bother to quote: Unemployment.
I'd copy paste, but I cant figure how to do that with PDF documents, so go to the bottom and look for footnote 70. It explains, in statistical detail, that the Nordic countries have lower employment growth, and higher unemployment, than countries with lower tax rates. And the US in particular.
That is an interesting point. But I think it's important to note that even with slightly higher unemployment they have all these positives, lower poverty rates, better income distribution, more gender equality, more economic security, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and a higher percentage of college graduates.
I won't say that slightly higher unemployment is good, but it does seem to eclipsed by the benefits (many of which you'd expect to see the other way around).
In fact it seems to reinforce the policies, even with higher unemployment they are able to do better in many categories where we'd think unemployment would make them worse. It seems to attest to the robustness of the system...
QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 24 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]1609057[/snapback]
And, Nadagast, the Scandinavian countries? Those countries are characterized as nations with relatively low populations, and a high concentration of natural resources. A lot of Norway's wealth is due to its extensive oil reserves. Plus the three northern Scandinavian countries have a divisive issue: their social programs. Many politicians in those nations are arguing for the reduction or even elimination of the services that the government provides because it's not sustainable.
You could explain away Norway's wealth by Oil but it's not like America has no oil, and that doesn't do anything to explain the other countries. And again the assertion that it's not sustainable...
QUOTE
When you're an exporting country with a low population, you tend to do well because you have a large resource base that hungrier nations like the UK, France, and Germany are willing to pay for. This wealth in turn can be used by any relatively non-corrupt organization to then educate and train the local populace for service sector jobs. In any case, their private sector has not much regulation, they practice a sort of welfare capitalism, and sooner or later, they're going to eliminate the welfare aspect of it. 5 million in Norway, 9 in Sweden. In the vastly larger nations (in terms of population), they simply can't sustain their services. Why do you think Norway, Sweden, and Finland all have tight restrictions on immigration? Because if they accepted more people, their government would have to care for more people, and the system will go to hell faster than it already is.
Some more assertions... I see no reason to believe any of this. It's not obvious to me and you give no evidence.
QUOTE
In almost any nation that has social programs more extensive than that of the United States, one of the most pressing issues is how to sustain those programs or cut down on them.
I don't imagine that it is easy to do but that doesn't mean we should let millions of Americans (or any Human really) go without health care and live in miserable conditions...
QUOTE
In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well.
People in Africa wouldn't get fed more? Why is that? It's because of the free market. I see no reason why... $1 million spent on a yacht couldn't in principle be spent anywhere, including feeding starving people around the world. I realize there are problems and it's not as easy as giving a ton of food to the leaders, but does that mean we should just let them starve?
QUOTE
If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.
Red herring... I am not interested in discussing this, but I'm pretty sure that by just doing away with CAP you won't magically feed and shelter everyone in the world.
QUOTE
Helping poor people is a great part of the free market. Look at China, there was no way they could have lifted themselves from 1979 levels to where they are now without the help of Western capital and investment. Money will go to the markets with the highest profitablity assuming that those markets are stable, and that's what China was at the time. A stable, vast market. That's where all the money went.
How is a child born in China any more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? This is where the free market fails. They both deserve our help.
QUOTE
As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_...d_States#Causes
You're probably right, some of the homeless people are just lazy (wow I think I disagree after I typed that) but I think saying that every one of them is just lazy and could easily get a job and a home if they wanted to, I don't think that's honest or accurate. I believe medical bills (we spend the highest percent of our GDP on medicine in America out of any country) are one major reason for homelessness.
QUOTE
"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.
Sorry I don't buy this at all. There's nothing holy about the free market. In theory it works great, but in theory it makes a lot of assumptions that I don't think hold in the real world. In theory communism works, but the same problems happen. Theory is not reality. The free market works great for some things, and is just plain awful for others. You are assigning too much value to what the free market thinks. It's just a system, thought up by a guy.
Norway exports more oil than any other nation besides Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's a lot of oil wealth to be distributed to 4 million people. Of course the US has oil, but do you think we're exporting that? We're a massive net importer, to the tune of 14 million barrels per day. That oil is for domestic use and for domestic operations, it's not meant to be sold overseas.
Norway's oil wealth doesn't explain why the other countries are rich. But Norway is by far the richest of them all. And Norway has oil, Finland and Sweden do not. But Finland and Sweden, like Norway, also have extensive natural resources and low populations. They're like mini-Canadas in a way.
Free market is a theory that doesn't work well in reality? Well it sure as hell worked a lot better than the diseased variants of communism that Russia and China applied.
Doing away with agricultural subsidies is a form of deregulation that the third world desperately needs. Everybody outside the developed world is clamoring for MORE globalization, not less. Because lowering barriers of entry into rich markets is something any export oriented nation wants. And the poor countries aren't benefiting from low food prices, they're suffering because any farmer at the commercial level is being put out of business by incredibly high subsidies going towards unproductive farmers.
Nadagast, do you know why the person born in China was given money? Because China is a big market that welcomes foreign investment. War torn countries where there is a lack of stability and necessary economic infrastructure are not markets that appeal to foreign investment.
In any case, does it really matter? All of this? You can talk about helping people, but it's not going to happen. It's going to depend on profitability. Because that's where the money goes, and the people in that market are the ones that are going to benefit. Magically giving out money to the public doesn't work and is a pipe dream in the US.
Norway's oil wealth doesn't explain why the other countries are rich. But Norway is by far the richest of them all. And Norway has oil, Finland and Sweden do not. But Finland and Sweden, like Norway, also have extensive natural resources and low populations. They're like mini-Canadas in a way.
Free market is a theory that doesn't work well in reality? Well it sure as hell worked a lot better than the diseased variants of communism that Russia and China applied.
Doing away with agricultural subsidies is a form of deregulation that the third world desperately needs. Everybody outside the developed world is clamoring for MORE globalization, not less. Because lowering barriers of entry into rich markets is something any export oriented nation wants. And the poor countries aren't benefiting from low food prices, they're suffering because any farmer at the commercial level is being put out of business by incredibly high subsidies going towards unproductive farmers.
Nadagast, do you know why the person born in China was given money? Because China is a big market that welcomes foreign investment. War torn countries where there is a lack of stability and necessary economic infrastructure are not markets that appeal to foreign investment.
In any case, does it really matter? All of this? You can talk about helping people, but it's not going to happen. It's going to depend on profitability. Because that's where the money goes, and the people in that market are the ones that are going to benefit. Magically giving out money to the public doesn't work and is a pipe dream in the US.
QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 25 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]1609232[/snapback]
Free market is a theory that doesn't work well in reality? Well it sure as hell worked a lot better than the diseased variants of communism that Russia and China applied.
I said the free market works great for some things, but not so great at others. I think it is very useful as a base for society but I also think that it fails miserably at trying to help everyone on the planet see the benefits.
QUOTE
Norway exports more oil than any other nation besides Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's a lot of oil wealth to be distributed to 4 million people. Of course the US has oil, but do you think we're exporting that? We're a massive net importer, to the tune of 14 million barrels per day. That oil is for domestic use and for domestic operations, it's not meant to be sold overseas.
All the profit from oil goes into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Governmen..._Fund_of_Norway
And you're ignoring the whole study I linked, that was about all Nordic countries not just Norway. And it seems to me that they have a lot of benefits that I would like to have. But I guess you can just keep asserting things.
QUOTE
Nadagast, do you know why the person born in China was given money? Because China is a big market that welcomes foreign investment. War torn countries where there is a lack of stability and necessary economic infrastructure are not markets that appeal to foreign investment.
Yes I can read, I understand what you said. I think this just highlights the inability of the free market to deal with situations like this. Why is a child born in China more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? Because China has a market that is more promising to foreign investment? That's an argument that I don't think anyone would put forward.
QUOTE
In any case, does it really matter? All of this? You can talk about helping people, but it's not going to happen. It's going to depend on profitability. Because that's where the money goes, and the people in that market are the ones that are going to benefit. Magically giving out money to the public doesn't work and is a pipe dream in the US.
It seems that your assertion here that it doesn't work is flat out wrong. The countries we are talking about *actually do* some of the things that I would advocate and are doing pretty damn good by any measure and better than the US by many measures. You can foretell impending doom all you want but it's not convincing at all.
QUOTE(Nadagast @ Feb 25 2007, 02:58 PM) [snapback]1609284[/snapback]
Yes I can read, I understand what you said. I think this just highlights the inability of the free market to deal with situations like this. Why is a child born in China more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? Because China has a market that is more promising to foreign investment? That's an argument that I don't think anyone would put forward.
Suppose two hungry children are sitting in two different fields. One of them is sitting alone under a tree. The other is sitting next to a man with a gun, who already has plenty of food of his own, and is threatening to shoot anyone who gets near him or the kid, even if they are carrying free food.
Which kid is more "deserving" of help? Well, the kids didn't do anything, they're both innocent. So they're equally deserving, so much as anyone can be said to be "deserving" of the help of a stranger. But which one would you help first, if you were nearby with some extra food? 99% of charitable givers will go for the one that doesn't require risking their own life to help. This doesn't even have anything to do with greed or profitability--its self-preservation, plain and simple.
Edit: In case you think I'm exaggerating with my example, Somali Pirates just hijacked a ship loaded with UN food aid to starving Somalis, for the third time in 2 years.
QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 26 2007, 02:40 AM) [snapback]1609367[/snapback]
Suppose two hungry children are sitting in two different fields. One of them is sitting alone under a tree. The other is sitting next to a man with a gun, who already has plenty of food of his own, and is threatening to shoot anyone who gets near him or the kid, even if they are carrying free food.
Which kid is more "deserving" of help? Well, the kids didn't do anything, they're both innocent. So they're equally deserving, so much as anyone can be said to be "deserving" of the help of a stranger. But which one would you help first, if you were nearby with some extra food? 99% of charitable givers will go for the one that doesn't require risking their own life to help. This doesn't even have anything to do with greed or profitability--its self-preservation, plain and simple.
Edit: In case you think I'm exaggerating with my example, Somali Pirates just hijacked a ship loaded with UN food aid to starving Somalis, for the third time in 2 years.
I don't think you're exaggerating, and you do have a point, (it is very hard to reach some areas of the world) but I think we are far from doing as much as we can reasonably be expected to. I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right?
Even internationally do you really think that every person that starves is only does so because our aid to them was taken while going there?
I think the pirate story is really a lot more insignificant than you give it credit, 3 ships in 2 years out of all the total ships? I don't have any statistics but that can't be more than .1% (maybe more than this if you consider only UN Ships, but of all ships...)
QUOTE(Nadagast @ Feb 26 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]1609588[/snapback]
I don't think you're exaggerating, and you do have a point, (it is very hard to reach some areas of the world) but I think we are far from doing as much as we can reasonably be expected to. I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right?
Even internationally do you really think that every person that starves is only does so because our aid to them was taken while going there?
I think the pirate story is really a lot more insignificant than you give it credit, 3 ships in 2 years out of all the total ships? I don't have any statistics but that can't be more than .1%
A rare dissuasion can still have a drastic impact. Say there's a movie theatre that will be bombed one day in some year, now, you've only got 1/365 chance that you'll be at that movie theatre on that day, but do you take that chance to see some movie? (...you could potentially go further, by saying that the movie theatre wouldn't really benefit from your patronage anyway, especially if they're the ones asserting the bomb threat; nevermind the fact that visiting that theatre gets you no economic gain)
Then you've got to factor in that simply shipping the goods isn't the only process involved, and people get to be threatened all the way down the line (...so, going to the gas station to fill up before going to the theatre, driving to the theatre, etc.). People have a very hearty sense of self-preservation.
(Feel free to replace movie theatres with supermarkets/coffee shops/etc.)
Also, while it may only be an occasional ship that gets hi-jacked, if it's a UN security force (or whatever the group that'd delivering it), then it's a pretty good chance that people in that group are repeatedly making the trips, meaning that the danger isn't spread between as great a number of people. Just look at the US, bombed once and they just go ape[expletive] (...not really charity, just more of the charity of 'we will not bomb the country that may, or may not, host your activity').
They just need to find some nicely buried resources, so that developed countries' governments can go in and stage coups, so that they gain marginally functioning governments, which could potentially (but often not) lead to easier aid providing. Or just have them finish their civil wars already. I'm not even really sure colonialism and imperialism is a valid excuse anymore, all of the Americas was at one point colonies of foreign nations, and many of those countries are finally getting on track (...although often not with as environmentally friendly industrial pracitices as even more developed countries might like).
QUOTE(Nadagast @ Feb 26 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]1609588[/snapback]
I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right?
How did we get from people starving to universal free health care? I must have missed the transition...
We went from one humanitarian problem to another.
Well, you know, theres no risk involved with helping me buy a new car either, but I don't see charities lining up at my door. So instead I get to stick with my '87, and try to buy my OWN health insurance.
The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen.
The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen.
QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 27 2007, 01:29 AM) [snapback]1609608[/snapback]
The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen.
What? People without health care is not a humanitarian problem? Again the assertion that it can't be solved by using money, ok... I don't buy it.
And yeah I'm sure everyone of the millions of uninsured people are holding out for the multi-million dollar coverage. Sigh...
QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 27 2007, 07:29 AM) [snapback]1609608[/snapback]
Well, you know, theres no risk involved with helping me buy a new car either, but I don't see charities lining up at my door. So instead I get to stick with my '87, and try to buy my OWN health insurance.
The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen.
Multi-million dollar coverage ceilings are of course a pipe dream, but nobody would seriously ask for those. Basic public healthcare, on the other hand, is quite possible. Denmark has it. And it's being paid by "someone else." Namely, taxes. Of course, that money comes out of my own pocket in the end, but it means that a large medical bill won't condemn me to bankruptcy.
Why is the answer to every supposed problem always "Throw gobs of money at it!"?
Rather than cut my paycheck down to 1/3, why not try to figure out why the medical bills have increased so fast? Reducing the costs is never an option for politicians, only reducing the portion paid by the old lady with nothing better to do than sit in the emergency room.
And while we're at it, let's take a closer look at why university costs have increased around 10% year after year. Of course, in both cases, the government has taken the role of the old mob loan shark: They cover the bill and then put the squeeze on the rest of us unsuspecting rubes for their payback (with interest of course). And if the cost is going to be covered no matter what, why not keep raising the prices?
Rather than cut my paycheck down to 1/3, why not try to figure out why the medical bills have increased so fast? Reducing the costs is never an option for politicians, only reducing the portion paid by the old lady with nothing better to do than sit in the emergency room.
And while we're at it, let's take a closer look at why university costs have increased around 10% year after year. Of course, in both cases, the government has taken the role of the old mob loan shark: They cover the bill and then put the squeeze on the rest of us unsuspecting rubes for their payback (with interest of course). And if the cost is going to be covered no matter what, why not keep raising the prices?
This is a bad time to mention that you actually get paid for studying in Denmark, yes?
Well, as it is with basic healthcare and education.
There's the indivual's benefit, and then there's the larger societal benefit.
Flu Shots for instance, are often given out for free.
Why? Because the societal benefit is much larger than the benefit 1 person attains for their own self.
_
Likewise, there's a monetary benefit to having healthy employees
There's the indivual's benefit, and then there's the larger societal benefit.
Flu Shots for instance, are often given out for free.
Why? Because the societal benefit is much larger than the benefit 1 person attains for their own self.
_
Likewise, there's a monetary benefit to having healthy employees
QUOTE(Spooge @ Feb 27 2007, 08:29 AM) [snapback]1609649[/snapback]
Why is the answer to every supposed problem always "Throw gobs of money at it!"?
Because money when used properly can fix problems? What else can you throw at a problem? I don't see what you can do about a problem other than spend money to try to fix it. (Donating time is essentially giving money)
QUOTE
Rather than cut my paycheck down to 1/3, why not try to figure out why the medical bills have increased so fast? Reducing the costs is never an option for politicians, only reducing the portion paid by the old lady with nothing better to do than sit in the emergency room.
Why don't you tell me? Isn't our free market system supposed to be so effective and efficient? Yet we Americans spend by far the highest percentage of our GDP on medical bills. Countries with health care for everyone spend a lower percentage of their GDP on it and they seem to get better returns. Plus it's just a flat out good thing that everyone can go to the doctor when they get sick.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.