So. Who here still thinks that the USA will EVER be back where it was in the 'economically on-fire' era of Bush's early reign?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2016 14:10
VIEWED: 5268
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, October 2, 2010 8:49 AM

Magon

Govt. regulation is interference on behalf of corporations, sometimes on behalf of some corporations at the expense of others, often in fact. However, in spite of your opening, you appear to almost completely agree with me.

Your asian reference is off, however. The poverty did not come *after* the prosperity of some, but rather was the prior state of everyone, and the prosperity of some is new, due to the introduction of free markets.

Of course free markets are not shrines, and a market totally unfettered by interference would lend itself to monopoly, but that's just a flaw in the design of the currency system. Any interference by the govt., which is, not just happens to be, but has to be, the arm of some corporation or other, and so could never be a neutral beneficent force.

Australia just has a better economic structure because it does not have a federal reserve system as the US, and now Europe. It's just a state in which the govt. has not yet been able to regulate markets to that degree yet. If the Australian market were more regulated by govt and less free, it would become like ours, and in time, it probably will, unless you have a more educated electorate.

Quote:
Free market also relies on continuous growth and unlimited/undiscovered resources.

Ah, this is the source of confusion. Those are not really free markets, but "international free trade" which was never free, but a fancy new name for imperialism that the Brits came up with to defend the opium wars in China. Of course, British Imperials could be looked at as govt. regulation of economies, or alternatively, as a corporatist system of govt-corporate monopoly merger.

At any rate, you seem to be falling heavily on the Hayek side, and not Keynes here, so I take it we agree, and I'm glad you followed the Chesterton link.

Welcome to the Tea Party ;)

Oh, and if you're confused, don't worry, it's completely natural. It's confusing at first. Soon you'll see we're really all on the same side, except for those nuts who think we're being invaded by immigrants, I suspect they're just ignorant. But it's not really a govt. totalitarian state control of an intellectual elite which you seek, but rather freedom from an imperial monopolistic domination, am I correct? If so, then we're really after the same thing.

(Funny side note, I said before reading this link that left in Australia was right in the US ;) )

Oh, another footnote: Govt., if given the power to regulate markets on an absolute scale will almost instantly be taken over by whatever the most powerful moneyed interests already exist. Govt, afterall, is also not a shrine, but the identical humans in a slightly different, more rigid and domineering form of organization (a) The USSR could be looked at as a state run by an oil company. and (b) I suspect the most influential person in Australia is Rupert Murdoch. Make what you will of that.

Also, this, from the link

c) "While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property."

and

d) "Distributism favors the elimination of the current private bank system, or in any case, its profit-making basis."

and

e) "Embodying the philosophy explained by Chesterton, above, that too much capitalism means too few capitalists, not too many, America's extensive system of anti-trust legislation seeks to prevent the concentration of market power in a given industry into too-few hands."

I suspect any informed tea partier would agree with all three of these points. However, the only role I see for govt. in regulating banks would be in the initial set up of the currency system, or in anti-trust, since a constant federal regulation of the economy such as we have in the US would inevitably lead to a bank-controlled govt. control of banks, which brings us back to the beginning of this whole cycle.

I hope you see that some of us on the right are not in fact nuts and w

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, October 3, 2010 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon

Govt. regulation is interference on behalf of corporations, sometimes on behalf of some corporations at the expense of others, often in fact. However, in spite of your opening, you appear to almost completely agree with me.

That's your system, because your politicans are so aligned with the corps who pay them off. Government regulation is government regulation - the less regulation, the more power the corporations have as in the USA.

Quote:
Your asian reference is off, however. The poverty did not come *after* the prosperity of some, but rather was the prior state of everyone, and the prosperity of some is new, due to the introduction of free markets.

Many Asian markets have had free market economies for many years. My point was about the inequities that often exist in free market economies, where you can have wealthy nations but lots of poverty. Trickle down economics is a myth.

Quote:
Of course free markets are not shrines, and a market totally unfettered by interference would lend itself to monopoly, but that's just a flaw in the design of the currency system.
Agreed.
Quote:
Any interference by the govt., which is, not just happens to be, but has to be, the arm of some corporation or other, and so could never be a neutral beneficent force.

I don't see that my government is totally in the hands of the corporations, not saying that lobbyists are not powerful, but I still believe they represent their electorates. Call me an idealist

Quote:
Australia just has a better economic structure because it does not have a federal reserve system as the US, and now Europe. It's just a state in which the govt. has not yet been able to regulate markets to that degree yet. If the Australian market were more regulated by govt and less free, it would become like ours, and in time, it probably will, unless you have a more educated electorate.

Nope. The Reserve Bank of Australia http://www.rba.gov.au/

Quote:
Ah, this is the source of confusion. Those are not really free markets, but "international free trade" which was never free, but a fancy new name for imperialism that the Brits came up with to defend the opium wars in China. Of course, British Imperials could be looked at as govt. regulation of economies, or alternatively, as a corporatist system of govt-corporate monopoly merger.

Free market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market = free trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade, it's just the international arm of what happens locally. Businesses rely on growth and expansion. It's how they measure success.

Quote:
At any rate, you seem to be falling heavily on the Hayek side, and not Keynes here, so I take it we agree, and I'm glad you followed the Chesterton link.

Welcome to the Tea Party ;)

Oh, and if you're confused, don't worry, it's completely natural. It's confusing at first.

Yeah, well I remember having a confusing discussion with you about how nazis were left winged, so I'd say YOU were the confused one here. Whatever way we were taught, it's clear that our world views are chalk and cheese. I generally consider myself to be keynsian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics if anything at all, favouring a mixed economy of regulated free markets, but I see that all these theories are now outdated, given the world population and the increasingly limited availability of resources. These days I align myself somewhere between the views of the left and the Greens. http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/economics

Quote:
Soon you'll see we're really all on the same side, except for those nuts who think we're being invaded by immigrants, I suspect they're just ignorant. But it's not really a govt. totalitarian state control of an intellectual elite which you seek, but rather freedom from an imperial monopolistic domination, am I correct? If so, then we're really after the same thing.

I don't have your views on government, so I guess we're not really o

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 3, 2010 1:24 AM

I don't disagree on any particular point, Miss.

The laughing Chrisisall

KLESST

Sunday, October 3, 2010 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Trickle down economics is a myth.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 3, 2010 7:10 AM

Magon,

1. Americans are not particularly different from anyone else, it's logical to assume that what would happen here would happen anywhere with anyone who followed the same path. In fact, the completely consistent pattern of disaster with socialist statism around the globe seems to back this up, as does the pattern of imperialism. The French in Algeria and the Japanese in Manchuria are not identical to the Dutch in South Africa, but the pattern of the relationships is consistent with imperialism, and people shouldn't expect radically different result if they decide to enact an imperialist ideology.

2. You're completely correct that trickle down economics is a myth. It's one of my gripes with Obama and one of his own idols, Reagan. An Indian I saw once did a clever skit on this which I've since seen imitated, recently I think it was the daily show, but the thrust of it was that the wealthy consume the fine wines, and an hour later, it will trickle down on the poor.

However, the long term free market nations of asia have by far the best wealth distributions in the region (Japan, Taiwan, SK)

The disparities of NK/SK are not caused by the south Korean free market any more than the poverty of western china is caused by the emerging middle class of eastern china. In both cases, the poverty is caused by the decayed ideology of communism. In southeast asia, the communist influence is pronounced, and at the very least keeping people poor.

If you want talk Indonesia, you have a point, but it's not like I'm advocating the Guanji as a solid economic system. (I suspect it would be more fair to blame the local economics than imperialism at this point, though I would accept the other as a valid argument.)

If by your govt. you mean Australia (you live in the UK right?) then I would say it was age and size. America was also once not as corrupt, though it has been very corrupt before. Australia is doing much better than most places, and the UK is doing better than Europe and almost everyone better than the US, but I'm not sure this is really necessarily due to design of the system.

The american structure is surprising in its resistance to being broken down by neocons and globalists into a slave state. Sure, they will succeed, but I think our constitution has given them a lot of trouble. But it's also worth noting why we have such a problem in this manner: America has lots of power, military and economic, and these globalists want that. I suspect that their next target is China, and with any luck (from an american perspective) they will give up on the US and leave us alone (I actually think the best hope is to convince them that we're ignorant and useless. Though then they might just rape us for natural resources. Ack. Maybe that's what they're already doing.)

I don't know a lot about the Australian central bank, but my understanding is that is a bank, and not a privately held consortium of corporations foreign and domestic, which is what we have here. If it's similar to ours in its regulatory power over the economy, than I would imagine that long term you would have trouble.

My understanding is that the only system which operates similar to ours is new Euro consortium. Ours is nearly 100 years old, and its becoming a more serious problem as time progresses, as it gains absolute control over the economy. Whether or not it is part of the US govt. is probably not significant, (it's not) rather its ability to influence the economy and its power over us is the part which creates a market no longer free. As I frequently put it, it's like playing monopoly when one player is allowed to deal himself endless cash from the bank.

From your own link:

Quote:

Free Trade. Not to be confused with Free market.

The distinction is subtle, but important.

Free trade is the lack of trade barriers. This would be fine except for the manner in which it enables imperialism.

The Free market is the free exchange of parties without govt. control except to the protection of property (from your link) This is pret

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, October 3, 2010 8:38 AM

Quote:
Magon,

1. Americans are not particularly different from anyone else, it's logical to assume that what would happen here would happen anywhere with anyone who followed the same path

I used to think that America was a lot like us, but the more I read from posters, the more I see the difference in beliefs and systems. Not surprising, really, that there would be differences. Same as if I went to China or Malaysia or Sweden. Countries have different systems of government that make differences. Of course we’re all globally linked through international finance. Bummer that.

Quote:
The disparities of NK/SK are not caused by the south Korean free market any more than the poverty of western china is caused by the emerging middle class of eastern china. In both cases, the poverty is caused by the decayed ideology of communism. In southeast asia, the communist influence is pronounced, and at the very least keeping people poor.

Not all countries are former communist countries in south east asia, but most are former colonies and I would agree that that has contributed towards the poverty. You contradict yourself somewhat in your post by saying that you don’t agree with trickle down economics, which is one of the foundations of free trade ideology...the concept that if a society is left alone from government regulation, prosperity for all will follow a good solid economy. What I am trying to demonstrate is that you can have a good strong economy and lots of poverty. Those Asian countries often do not have social security or decent universal health - so there is little chance of social mobility.

Quote:
If by your govt. you mean Australia (you live in the UK right?)

Are you saying that Australia is a part of the UK???????? I live in Australia and am Australian and have nothing to do with the Uk other than I once lived there. Sometimes I talk about the UK or the US...usually in a very ill informed manner

{quote]then I would say it was age and size. America was also once not as corrupt, though it has been very corrupt before. Australia is doing much better than most places, and the UK is doing better than Europe and almost everyone better than the US, but I'm not sure this is really necessarily due to design of the system.

Well no, it’s been pretty much established by everyone in reality world that the fact we are doing ok is exactly as stated in my previous post, well regulated financial system, the government funded stimulus package and the mining boom. But you believe what you will.

Quote:
I don't know a lot about the Australian central bank, but my understanding is that is a bank, and not a privately held consortium of corporations foreign and domestic, which is what we have here. If it's similar to ours in its regulatory power over the economy, than I would imagine that long term you would have trouble.

if you follow the link, you will see that it is a financial regulatory arm of the government. Hence we have a regulated banking system. Regulated meaning government regulated.

Quote:
Free trade is the lack of trade barriers. This would be fine except for the manner in which it enables imperialism.

so would you suggest tariffs then? How would someone who does not believe in government intervention prevent the imperialism that inevitable results from free trade.

Quote:
The free market is an ancient system of economic trade. Free Trade is the name of a globalist policy which has recently been developed and implemented (over the last 150 years or so, but slowly and incrementally.) Free Trade is really imperialism, or in the view of some, a step towards one world govt., which I suspect is just another tool of imperialism.

they are both as old as each other. Countries have traded freely, or not so freely depending on the authority of the times, for as long as people have been bartering. There is no ideological difference, although you may not like the outcome of one as much as the other. You are either anti government inter

DREAMTROVE

Monday, October 4, 2010 2:31 AM

Magon

I think that it's more that we have different experiences from different parts of our similar structure: For instance, our military has a callous disregard for the well being of its troops, gets involved in large scale conflicts with technologically unsophisticated poorer nations and uses the majority of our tax dollars. It also has a huge industry supporting it, and a large media propaganda campaign. This means that attitudes towards the military in the US will be different than it will be in Australia or Japan. But that doesn't mean that the people of the US are any more pro-war, or imperialistic in their viewpoints.

I will second your bummer that

Quote:
trickle down economics, which is one of the foundations of free trade ideology

I disagree with this statement. Obama is strongly in favor of it, as was Reagan. I think it comes from Keynes, but it's a tenet of certain types of capitalism that tend to be pro big business. I'm not anti big business, but I can still independently hold that trickle down economics is a fallacy, regardless of whether a democrat or republican is supporting it. I'll grant that it's not a tenet of communism ;) But that doesn't mean that I think it's correct.

I think we are both very familiar with the politics and economics of east asia, so there's no need to nitpick it, but I just have to a little bit, because we see some things slightly differently:

1. The successful economic growth co-existing with massive poverty is a result of states in transition in Asia. If you want a good example of this existing in perpetuity, America is an excellent example. Mexico is another. Since Mexico was long socialist and the US capitalist I suspect this is system-independent, and is just a measure of the level of corruption, which is very high in both of these N. American states, according to the CIA.

2.

Quote:

Those Asian countries often do not have social security or decent universal health - so there is little chance of social mobility.

I think this statement contains a conclusion which I would call conjecture, and would disagree with. The first part is true, of course, and I see this as a strength in these economies, and part of the reason that they possess far more social mobility than the US, which I think they do. I think the free market states of East Asia are a decent model for nations like the US to follow. I think the US is a terrible model for them to follow. I've posted here a whole lot of times that I rank Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong very highly as economic models, though I have plenty of disagreements with each, nobody's perfect.

I felt fairly sure you said you lived in the UK for some time. Maybe I have you confused with another poster, but I don't think so.

Quote:
Well no, it’s been pretty much established by everyone in reality world

Check this arrogance at the door. An assumption that you know objective reality, or that everyone agrees with you, is a really dangerous concept, and an obstacle to reaching any kind of understanding. Jes saying...

Australia will always be doing well for the same reason Alaska will: An abundance of resources relative to population, no outside imperial dominance, and no large underclass. It really doesn't matter what system you guys implement. I don't think that any sane person would say that Alaska's prosperity is due to Sarah Palin.

Okay, sure, someone could probably fuck it up, but it would be hard.

So your banking system is somewhat like ours, except that it seems that your central bank is govt. connected whereas ours is a regulated private corporation, which of course controls its own regulation, and ends up regulating govt. (It's a worthwhile study, it's a total mess, regardless of which side you want to attack it from.)

Tariffs are the right of any sovereign nation, I'd certainly prefer them to an income tax or anything that impedes the national economy.

I never said I supported international free trade, esp. in its absolute form. Unchecked international free trad

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 4, 2010 9:39 AM

Quote:
For instance, our military ....uses the majority of our tax dollars.

Nope. A common believed misnomer. Health, education and pensions take up more of the federal budget than does military spending.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_piecol.php?title=Total%20Spen
ding&year=2010&sname=&units=r&label=Pensions_Health%20Care_Education_Defense_Welfare_Other&fed=0.985897883_1.107228509_1.026283321_0.896189962_0.762304485_1.634801988

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

MAL4PREZ

Monday, October 4, 2010 11:02 AM

You'll note where Rappy goes for his information. That official sounding site he references, "usgovernmentspending" is actually propaganda built by Christopher Chantrill, "writer and conservative". Look into the site - Chantrill thinks the roaring twenties is The Way American Should Function, and the crash in 1929 was not related to anything anyone did in the twenties. I guess the evil govt somehow did something evil right then in Oct, 1929 that ended the party.

"Seventy years ago the leaders of both US political parties turned away from the policies that had created an economic powerhouse we call the Roaring Twenties....Today, after a twenty-five year economic boom, Americans are once more faced with a political elite that wants to monkey with success."

I'm amazed that folks like this guy can sit around blaming today's new policies for a crash that happened 2-3 years ago, when Bush was in office. Especially when the crash was so plainly caused by actions taken during the boom time, actions that made the boom happen but could not last.

Anyhow, this web site is put together by a conservative guy with an agenda and a tenuous hold on reality (funny Rap should be drawn to that kind of thing.) I wonder how Chantrill's interpretation of the US budget compares to posted government numbers... I'd post a few interesting comparisons I've already found, but I have got to get out the door, and this site is blocked at work.

Maybe later...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 4, 2010 2:30 PM

www.usaspending.gov

Useful link, though AURAPTOR may be wary that this site is maintained by the current administration. Propaganda is a possible concern.

So I'll also post a link to what I think appears to be unaltered budget data in excel spreadsheet form for the past 50 or so years.

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist08z7.xls

Non-discretionary defense spending in 2009, when the Obama administration took office, was 485.6 billion dollars. Non-discretionary defense spending in the last year (2008) of the Bush administration was 465.5 billion dollars.

Total nondiscretionary budget in 2009 was 942.3 billion dollars. Total nondiscretionary budget in 2008 was 922.9 billion dollars.

Bush spent about 50% of his nondiscretionary budget in 2008 on defense. Obama spent about 51% of his nondiscretionary budget on defense.

Also, that increase in defense spending should really piss off anyone who voted for Obama. Or at least, I hope it does.

This is a pie chart I found on wikipedia of the US Federal Budget in 2009 (I'm not sure why the link says "FY 2007", the chart itself is labeled Fiscal Year 2009). It appears to combine discretionary and non-discretionary spending. I believe the "Pensions" section in AURAPTOR's link is represented by "Social Security" in this one, though I'm not completely positive.

Non-discretionary and discretionary together come to 20% for Social Security, 19% for Medicare/Medicaid, 23% for Defense, 17% for "Other Mandatory" and 12% for "Other Discretionary."

Defense budget does eat up a lot, but whether you're talking a majority or not depends on whether you're talking discretionary or non-discretionary spending.

That is, of course, assuming that everything is being reported accurately to us by the government. I suspect that government contracts might be listed under "other," and that many of those contracts are defense related.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE