|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted June 21, 2010 06:51 PM |
|
|
[quoteThat runs counter to what a study found this year. Government jobs in general pay far more and have much better benefits than the same positions in the private sector.
Oh, and it is laughable to say that most government bureaucrats are there with an attitude of a public servant.
Clicky
Quote:
Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.
Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
.....
"The data flip the conventional wisdom on its head," says Cato Institute budget analyst Chris Edwards, a critic of federal pay policy. "Federal workers make substantially more than private workers, not less, in addition to having a large advantage in benefits."
Elodin:
Demand/Supply=Price
There is not a big demand in the govermental zone because its small, meaning that most of the employs will be better paid than in the private sector.... UNLESS we are considering how the measuring is done.
WHere does these janitors work, and how are they compared to bottom to top?
The other problem here, is that you guys have a HUGE communication problem.
Corribus & OmegaDestroyer are "specialists", which means they WOULD get better paid in the private sector. They must not be confused with the lower level of the sector, with such as janitor or nurses.
Which by my too critical eyes; I call your source invalid!
mvassilev: That is true, but on the flip side of the table we got profitable stuff that needs to be done. Like space exploration programs, development of too experimental techology, and cleaning up riversides so we can get wildlife there.
Farm subsidies is a waist, yes.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Society is an aggregation of individuals. So anything that helps individuals more than it harms them is a benefit for society.
That is not true. Society is eveidently more than the sum of the individuals - for example, only a society makes diversification of work possible.
Simply spoken, society profits only from RIGHTS, not from PRIVILEGES (please see "rights" and "privileges" in a very wide sense). Private ownership is of use as a general right, but not as a specific privilege. Everything that helps a person is beneficial for society only when it is IN PRINCIPLE available for everyone (a right) and not only for a few (privilege).
Example: if someone finds out how to brew beer it doesn't help society. Only when that person shares their knowledge (for free or for a price) or makes beer available (for free or for a price) does society profit.
Quote:
Economically spoken, for example, it would be better to simply eliminate people who have reached a certain age in combination with a certain level of sickness: why waste resources on them?
This is a very vague question ... so I cannot answer it adequately.
What is vague about it? Wasting medical supplies, money, resources maybe even organs, hospital room and so on to sick old people is ineffective and wasteful for society. Give them one final overdose and be done with it. That's ECONOMIC, and that's how our society would look, if it was completely economic.
It isn't, though, which is something.
[quote}Calling what I say dogmatic isn't going to disprove what I'm saying.
You forget, that you first have to prove what you say. Throwing around dogmatic sentences from out of doubtful booksm doesn't do anything for that - I could just as well quote Marx.
Quote:
People have their own preferences, and know them better than anyone else does. Thus, when they spend their own money, it is more efficient and thus makes them happier more than if anybody else did it for them. That's the basic principle.
True. But people are born into a society and tend to forget that they can spend all that money the way they want only, because there IS a society that makes all that possible, and that people have paid a lot of money for it.
Consequently it's their duty to REPAY society and help keeping it up for the next generations. That's why they pay taxes.
Corporations, by the way, pay taxes only on their PROFITS - and with all those opportunities and ways to let a profit disappear and seem like a loss, if a corporation really does SHOW a profit (on which to pay taxes) you can imagine how massive those profits in fact have to be.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 07:03 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
The thing is, we don't know how profitable space exploration really is, because we don't know how those resources would've been allocated if the government didn't take them. Whether it was the best possible allocation is an open question.
JJ:
Quote:
Example: if someone finds out how to brew beer it doesn't help society.
It helps that individual. Individuals are part of society. Therefore, it helps society.
Quote:
What is vague about it?
Everything. What does "eliminate" mean? Killing them? That undermines the whole point of society - to prevent people from aggressing against each other. Also, value is subjective, so "waste" is when one doesn't receive the maximum possible value for what one wants. If one wants elderly relatives to be around, then it's not waste at all. If a guy pays for his elderly parents to have surgery, it's not a waste because that's what he wants and he's paying for it.
Quote:
Consequently it's their duty to REPAY society and help keeping it up for the next generations.
There's a difference between society and government. We pay taxes to keep the government running because that's the best way, not out of any absurd duty to "repay" someone for something.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 07:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
OD:
You're focusing on what is seen, instead of looking at the bigger picture of both what is seen and not seen. Yes, these people are working - but who's to say things wouldn't work better if the resources were allocated by the market? For example, the FDA isn't all that great. They err to the side of caution - but they still err. "Drug kills people!" makes headlines. "People die here and there who wouldn't have died if the FDA approved a drug" does not.
There is no way we can say if the resources would be better spent until they are allocated differently. Right now we have to deal with the programs as they are.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 08:12 PM |
|
|
But the government inherently spends people's money in a way they don't want it to be spent.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 08:55 PM |
|
|
Mvass, let me correct a couple of errors of yours.
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Example: if someone finds out how to brew beer it doesn't help society.
It helps that individual. Individuals are part of society. Therefore, it helps society.
Error. Society doesn't mean "a number of individuals", nor is it equal to the sum of its members. "Society" means a number of individuals that live in a certain relationship with each other.
A number of separately living individuals build no society.
That's why there is a difference and a dividing line between the individual as an individual and the individual as part of society.
We are no insect collective either.
Quote:
Quote:
What is vague about it?
Everything. What does ... paying for it.
You are just proving my point which was that society isn't ruled exclusively by efficiency and economy. There are other priorities that are neither efficient nor economic, which means a society luckily will spend money for things that are neither economic nor effiecient, but serve other priorities.
Quote:
Quote:
Consequently it's their duty to REPAY society and help keeping it up for the next generations.
There's a difference between society and government. We pay taxes to keep the government running because that's the best way, not out of any absurd duty to "repay" someone for something.
That is wrong. We pay taxes to keep society going, not the government. The government is the chosen instrument to make sure, society keeps on going, and taxes give the government the means for it. Public education, health care, pensions, welfare, war (defense), infra structure (roads and public transportation), law enforcement, courts...
All that keeps SOCIETY going, not the government.
Only because all these things exist we are what we are and can do what we do. In fact, part of that was done only to enable you and everyone else to become what you are and do what you do. No, we don't pay taxes to keep the government running.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 10:10 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Every word is too much - you want to be ignorant, so keep that way and have fun with it.
It seems you are unable to counter my points and thus have resorted to yet more insults.
Quote:
That is not true. Society is eveidently more than the sum of the individuals - for example, only a society makes diversification of work possible.
Sorry, nothing mystical happens when pepole live in close proximity.
There could be a group of mountain men who all live far apart and who all grow different crops or provide different services but who have formed no society who trade their various goods with each other. They can diversify without being part of a society.
Now, you say that society profits only from RIGHTS, not from PRIVILEGES and yet rights exist apart from society so your statement makes no sense. People all have the same rights but not all societies are equally wealthy.
Quote:
That is wrong. We pay taxes to keep society going, not the government.
That is wrong. We don't pay taxes out of a sense of gratitude to society or to keep society going. Taxes are paid to keep the government going. The government is formed to protect the rights of the people and to better coordinate certain activities. However, governments are also the biggest threat to the people exercising their rights.
Governments have a tendency to gather more and more power to themselves and to rebel against the will of the people. The current democrat controlled US government is a good example of this. The government beaurocrats try to use government as a means of social engineering to help them gather power and remain in power. The beaurocrats use the government as a means of forcing their will on the people instead of doing the will of the people.
So government is a necessary evil but should be kept small and fed a limited amount of power. Otherwise the monster that is government will break free of its chains and gobble up those who it was to protect.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2010 10:43 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
You are just proving my point which was that society isn't ruled exclusively by efficiency and economy.
You're making a false dichotomy here - either someone is focusing on "efficiency and economy" or on "other things". But not so. If people's desires are satisfied with minimum output, that is efficient regardless of what those desires happen to be. Efficiency is about means, not ends. The end goal cannot be efficient or inefficient - only the means taken to get there.
Quote:
Public education, health care, pensions, welfare, war (defense), infra structure (roads and public transportation), law enforcement, courts...
Society existed before we had all this and it can exist without it. Sure, there would be a decrease in the quality of living of all of these things would be abolished, but it is false to say that this is necessary for society. We didn't always have taxes, and yet society existed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 09:33 AM |
|
|
Sincerely, you see things WRONG.
"Government" is something like the "management" of society. "Society" comes first. "Clan" came even sooner. "Society" means people that share a constant or persistent relation with each other. A society is a BODY of people with interdependencies; moreover they have something in common (I will come to the US later here, since they are somewhat different): language; religion (belief), culturtal heritage, whatever.
A very instructive example for the forming of a society (since we know so much about it) is the Roman society.
In any case, "government", as well as "classes" are a function of differentiation of labor, which is the cornerstone or foundation of society (in fact those two are solidly intertwined). Differentiation of labor isn't a human invention - nature does it even for pairs; and it's a pretty effective tool to accomplish more, simply spoken.
"Government" falls under differentiation and is basically no different from, say, baker.
Of course there are very diffferent governments, and due to the function of governments throughout history and a couple of other factors there have been times and societies where "government" played a starring role, so-to-speak.
However, that's not relevant here in this context (remember: all power comes from the people!).
So: government is sort of a MANAGEMENT of society. Historically PROTECTION always has been a main task of any government (and note that the idea of draft and armies from the people are fairly new: end of 18th century; before that soldiering was a profession). Moreover, governments would MAKE, UPHOLD and ENFORCE the LAW. The law is a code of conduct, valid within a given society, that rules basically the relations between individuals, defining the borders of individual rights when clashing with each other AND the borders between individual rights and societal right represented by the government.
Of course, the more diversified and potent a society gets, the more functions there are for any government - the more things have to be managed for the body of society; or SHOULD be managed. This is a question of REASON.
Note, that depending on the society, governments may be tasked with different functions or ARE even completely different. There have been some societies with different governments for different purposes. Both the North American Indians and the Romans knew governments for peace times and for war times. Dictator is the old Roman name for what was the War Chief for the Indians (even though there were other reasons a dictator might be empowered).
Which brings us to the US. The people later building the society of the USA all had a couple of things in common: they fled from either political or religious oppression or from poverty (or all three) into a virgin land free from all that. Consequently, when the US were formed, these aspects were the first on the list of tasks the government would have to fulfill: guarantee a maximum of personal freedom (religious freedom amongst that) for the individual and protect society from outside dangers.
Consequentually as low taxes and state intervention as possible has been one of the specific tasks the US government was to fulfill for the US society - but the change came with the depression from 1929 and then, later, with WW2. (We are now at money and taxes.)
As has been said, taxes are the funds that enable the government to fulfill their tasks FOR society. Depression and war time saw a massive increase of government spending. Unemployment rates in the US had been at 25% after the economic high of the 20s. Eventually the draft and MASSIVE government spending (public debts rising again) seemingly solved the problem.
Note that the US since then NEVER have returned to peace time pr pre-war production!
In other wordss: the level of public spending and spending for "defense" did never decrease (the way it did after WW1; in the 20s not only taxes were lowered, public debt was partly repaid as well).
Let me say it this way: the US never managed (for reasons not relevant in this context) the swing back to peacetime economy; instead, from 1940 onwards the US have a wartime economy, which is what the public debt is all about.
"Defense", geared for wartime is a government funded, substantial part of the economy without which the US economy would simply break down, bringing unemployment rates to depression time levels again.
Generally spoken, it doesn't matter of course what the government is spending this immense amounts of money for - provided it DOES spend it. They might order to bulldoze away half of the Rocky Mountains, then rebuild them along the Mexican Border, for example, and it would make no difference for the economy.
So, with part taxes and part loans (debts), since the NEW DEAL the government of the US is funding a sizable part of the US economy. The "free market" on its own and alone has been unable to provide a working economy.
Why is that? The 1920s were the culmination point and summit of the US economy as a free market. Electricity and Automobiles were boosting economy everywhere, and since it hadn't been that long ago that the land had been taken completely, there was plenty of DEMAND. The market system worked just fine, a soaring economy with a soaring demand for everything. It was no problem to get a loan, build a working business and repay the loan.
However, once a saturation point was reached the skyrocketing economy had to decelerate, and since everything was done with a view on skyrocketing economy, once the deceleration started, businesses would go broke and so on...
Without WW2 the US economy would have never reached satisfying levels again (and the US are not alone in this; in Europe it wasn't any different).
[EDIT: I'm adding something to make things clearer:
It didn't have to be a war and money to spend for war gear; it could have been everything (even the example of rebuilding the Rockies on the Mexican border). The main thing is that THE GOVERNMNT will get every loan it wants to open up new businesses, so in times of high unemployment where basically not enough people are there to spend money for new private businesses (so that noone or only very few start working ones) the government steps in and provides: Let's build ... the Hoover-Dam.
So it didn't have to be the war - it might have been anything else.
And another note: China is just in what were the 1920s for the US...]
What we CAN discuss now is the question why it is, that the free market didn't work out and hasn't been working once a certain point of saturation has been reached (not that it would make sense with the ideas some people have here).
But what we cannot discuss, since it is fact, is, that since then THE GOVERNMENT is keeping the economy going for society by providing jobs (and this comes not without a price, obviously and not so obviously).
What you have to accept - as a fact; you can read and see it everyhere - is this: without government spending worldwide economy would IMMEDIATELY break down completely. The US federal government alone spends 3.5 TRILLION Dollars in 2010 (and the EU does something along those lines as well), and when I say "spend" I mean spend as in PAY PEOPLE). A SUBSTANTIAL part of this money has been LOANED by the government - governments of the world are spending money all the time they don't have to keep the economy going.
Now, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the government spending the tax money and create jobs thereby - after all, this is part of their FUNCTION: you need people to get things like road-building and policing done, and you pay them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with going into debt for a government either - in this the government is no different than a corporation. Policing brings in no revenue (police is not cashing in for their services - or do the cops cash in when they find the burglar stealing from you?), and if you have to overhaul something (say, bring all the precincts into the age of computers, with networks and so on), it is NORMAL to do it by going into debt, expecting the investment to pay up.
There seems to be a limit, however, how much debts (and interest) a society and its economy can "stand", and we are currently quite busy testing that limit. We are experiencing something like the relativity effect of interest rates, where the interest rate is the part of the energy used to accelerate the economy that is transferred into mass, when nearing light speed.
In other words, economic growth (acceleration) doesn't happen, since a sizable chunk of the energy (GNP) is used up to pay interest rates (and therefore cannot be invested), resulting in those who are lending the money buying out things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, why are we paying taxes?
We pay taxes so that the government has the funds to fulfill their tasks. These tasks include a lot of things nowadays, and all of them has a purpose FOR society, whether it's public transportation, education, policing or something else. If we wouldn't want all those things, we wouldn't pay taxes and have no government or a different form of government.
The government, though, is determining HOW MUCH taxes we pay, and obviously this is the focal point.
a) society acknowledges the necessity for a "public funds" to take care of social needs and desires
b) government is the management or leadership responsible for executing everything necessary
c) QUESTION: who is determining what has to be done, howw much money is necessary and how much taxes have to be paid?
c) is the focal point of public attention. It is quite obvious that a government can act only when it has the money to do so, but who exactly determines which tasks the government has to fulfill, how much money it needs for it and who will have to pay what?
Answer: the government;  and the Supreme Court (which is part of the government).
Before we start to wail about how the management is determining how much money it needs to fulfill it's task, let's ask this: is there any viable alternative?
Could there be a impartial institution determining the tasks of government? We have that institution: the constitution in combination with the Supreme Court.
Can there be an impartial institution determining how much money should be available for spending and who would have to pay what?
We have that as well: it's the combination of executive and legislative power: the executive part cannot simple determine stuff; it has to make suggestions, but things have to be ratified by congress/senate or other legislative institution, since public budget is agreed upon BY LAW (once all institutions agree, the budget is set in law, so-to-speak).
A last word on free enterprise and government spending. Reaching a certain level auf automation, productive forces are set free for more ambitious projects - societal projects. The Pyramids - and other old examples like the Chinese Wall - are examples for that. A church or cathedral is an example as well, except in ancient times people didnt actually have free productive forces...
Anyway, we can fulfill every productive need with a small part of the productive societal force nowadays. SERVICES is one branch always open, but that one works only, if the economic level of a society is high enough so that everyone or mostly everyone can afford services: whether it's shoe-shining, hairdressing, prostitution, hand-reading or other services, everyone needs additional money to afford services, which means, the people dealing with production and basic societal needs and functions have to earn a surplus of money they can spend for (personal) services.
This suplus is where taxes come from, so taxes rival mainly with services (and today, entertainment) - the money deducted as tax can't be spend for a service with jobs like waiters, hairdressers, shoe-shiners, prostitutes and a ton of other service professions.
Tax money pays societal projects. Health care is a fine example, because it shows dependencies. If you see "health care" as a service profession, on first look there is nothing wrong to do it as a private business. There is a demand for docs (people get sick), hospitals, orderlies, nurses, physiotherapeuts and whatnot, and if people need those services, they can go and pay for them like they hire the services of a plumber or hairdresser.
However, health as a PUBLIC part. Contagious deseases, for example. Epidemics, plagues. Certain standards are needed. If someone is infected, that someone has to be taken care of - it doesn't do, to leave the poor to themselves (who couldn't afford the health services), because they will develop plagues that will spread to those who CAN afford the services, so there are a lot of very practical reasons to make "health" a PUBLIC issue.
Now, if people pay taxes for the public health issue, they may have individually less money to spend for services, but since this money is used to widen health service to the whole of society a) there is no job loss (public money makes sure there ARE jobs in health services) and b) the individual is supposed to need less money for health services, since the public health generally gets better.
However, the government has another function. A society needs goals. Sure, working a couple of hours and letting oneself be entertained the rest of the time, spending one's money for booze, drugs, TV, computers and so on, may be fun, but we know that this leads into decadence and degeneration sooner or later.
That's why a society needs goals, something to strive for. Reaching for the stars; conquering and eradicating cancer; beating poverty and starving; finding out, what we are living in; building a tower that reaches to heavens; finding hell and killing the devil and his minions; earching and finding the Holy Grail... you name it.
A government has to decide on these things. Most of you people are too young to know, but the 6os with NASA eventually flying to the moon was MAGIC. While it was the US who actually did land on the moon, they did it for HUMANITY; remember, it was a small step for Neil Armstrong, but a big one for HUMANITY (and not for the people of the US).
(This is basically one of the reasons why the world is so pissed about the US; instead of giving us more like this, the US are spending all that gmoney to keep the country on WARTIME production, ionstead of cutting off a couple of heads of the armament-industry-hydra and put the money to what I would call a "positive societal use", an unimaginable amount is wasted greasing the wheels of the war machine: nearly 700 billion dollars in 2010 - ONE HUNDRES DOLLARS for every single person in this world [and imagine what a lot of those people could do with a hundred bucks].)
So, the government has the role of giving examples, setting goals, show LEADERSHIP, which is another thing we do pay taxes for (so the government can spend it to Search for the Holy Grail).
This is, where our governments tragically fail, and this is, what eventually will lead to our collective downfal, if that's not changing.
Anyway, this has been long enough, and I'll stop here.
I'm not going to discuss the meaning of single words or single sentences in this - this is no scientific work. You may take in the gist or not - be assured I'm generally not wrong here, and I would strongly advise you to start reading things and try and get your facts straight in case you have a serious issue in here.
This posting isn't very ordered, and I suppose it's not that easy to read, sorry for that.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 01:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Public education, health care, pensions, welfare, war (defense), infra structure (roads and public transportation), law enforcement, courts...
Society existed before we had all this and it can exist without it. Sure, there would be a decrease in the quality of living of all of these things would be abolished, but it is false to say that this is necessary for society. We didn't always have taxes, and yet society existed.
Ah, an Anarchy society. The smallest government you can achieve.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 02:47 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:02, 22 Jun 2010.
|
@JJ
No, sorry, you are oh so very wrong. The debt is about Marxist policies, not about the US being in a "Wartime" economy. The loony libs implementsd more and more and more "entitlements" and other socialist programs to redistribute wealth. The massive entitlement spending is a cancer on the American economy and if not addressed it will kill the patient.
The recent financial troubles are due to loony libs forcing banks to loan money to poor people for them to buy houses. Of course, the poor people could not keep up with their loans.
And sorry, but the free market economy would be MUCH bettwer without money being stolen out of it for the "New Deal" Marxist policies. Government "tax and spend" that libs are so fond of is detrimental to the economy, not beneficial to it. The "New Deal" Marxist programs lengthened the Great Depression in the US.
Quote:
What we CAN discuss now is the question why it is, that the free market didn't work out and hasn't been working once a certain point of saturation has been reached (not that it would make sense with the ideas some people have here).
But what we cannot discuss, since it is fact, is, that since then THE GOVERNMENT is keeping the economy going for society by providing jobs (and this comes not without a price, obviously and not so obviously).
Sorry, your "facts" are false. The US rose from nothing to being the most powerful nation in the world, leaving the older European nations in the dust, precisely because of the free market economy and the unprecented amount of personal freedom US citizens have had.
Quote:
What you have to accept - as a fact; you can read and see it everyhere - is this: without government spending worldwide economy would IMMEDIATELY break down completely. The US federal government alone spends 3.5 TRILLION Dollars in 2010 (and the EU does something along those lines as well), and when I say "spend" I mean spend as in PAY PEOPLE).
Once again, you have presented false "facts." And Obama and the socialist governemnt massively increasing federal spending is harming, not helping America. They seem to have a goal of collapsing the American economy with massive debt.
Fortunately this year many of the communists in Congress are up for re-election. They have exposed themselves to the American people and so the socialist loons/commies will thrown out of office.
Oh, also, the primary purpose of taxes for the Marxists in contol of Congress/the White house is redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is not a valid function of government. In fact, it is theft.
Quote:
Before we start to wail about how the management is determining how much money it needs to fulfill it's task, let's ask this: is there any viable alternative?
Yes, "the people." The people have spoken against the Marxist agenda of the demoncrat Congress and yet congress merely gave the a one finger salute and continued to implement the solicialst agenda they wanted to push. The democrat controlled Congress is now [not] following the Constitution that places severe limitations on what the federal government is allowed to do by law.
Clicky
Quote:
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 03:45 PM |
|
|
Reading this, it can then only be a question of time until the Commie government in the US calls in advisors from Cuba to finish the already ongoing revolution, to set up People's Commissars and Soviets and to nationalize production facilities and banks.
No, wait, they are probably already there, the Cuban advisors, using the suckers in the Democrat Party for their dirty schemes.
And while the army is far away, lured thousands of Miles into the farscapes of the Middle East, the evil Commies have free hand to overthrow the natural political and economic order. I see it clear now - a conspiracy of the highest order.
Venceremos, Comrades! Expropriate the capitalists! Down with the Bourgeosie! Free cigars for everyone! Go, go, GO!
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 05:08 PM |
|
|
That would require President Obama to actually, you know, do something other than lecture.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 05:10 PM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 17:29, 22 Jun 2010.
|
Quote:
Once again, you have presented false "facts." And Obama and the socialist governemnt massively increasing federal spending is harming, not helping America. They seem to have a goal of collapsing the American economy with massive debt.
Fortunately this year many of the communists in Congress are up for re-election. They have exposed themselves to the American people and so the socialist loons/commies will thrown out of office.
Oh, also, the primary purpose of taxes for the Marxists in contol of Congress/the White house is redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is not a valid function of government. In fact, it is theft.
If you really want to get the communists out of office, you have to oust every Republican currently there too (except Ron Paul, he really stuck to his guns against wasteful spending).
I'm not saying the entitlements being thrown around now are good, just that they have been going on for a long time. Ron Paul even spoke out against where the party had been heading for 8 years under Bush at the Republican Presidential debates, but he was only laughed at by the Commies McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee.
They voted to massively expand the department of education while also putting in stipulations that would result in a loss of funding if enough kids fail. So kids no longer fail no matter how hard they try. (Under Bush)
They voted to drastically increase the side of Medicare in 2003 to win over the old vote with entitlements and get Bush a second term. What was the term you used for that blatant vote buying with a disregard for the deficit in a previous thread? They are hos?
Of course, that goes without saying they voted overwhelmingly to keep no-bid contracts with zero accountability. (Like all administrations seem to have done, terrible really. The wars are costing America too much money and dragging on too long. Iraq could have been avoided to pay for a massive tax cut and the economy would be much better off. No, America did not win Iraq, the Insurgents are still there and the Iraqi people voted the American forces out.)
But that won't happen. The commies will stay, in power under the new President. Karl "Marx" Rove has his own PAC now and will use it to keep bankrupting your future by getting his own handpicked candidate chosen. (He's already siphoning off most of the major donors from the RNC) All of your favourite commies (like Joe Wilson ( Yes, Obama did lie, but so does he) for example) will probably stay in power under the banner of the Republicans. It's time in my opinion for a new party that actually is responsible instead of being controlled by the entitlement nuts. Right?
In summary... the Commies you speak about will always be there. Lurking in the shadows, hiding in whichever party if the flavour of the month. Until we can actually have initiatives to bring all things that use government money (yes, contractors too) to at least 90% accountability, the waste will continue to be abhorrent.
Edit: Pretty self explanatory that keeping everything open will reduce inefficiency and prevent abuse of the system. Also it could legitimize cuts in areas where it needs it and increasing spending in minor areas where needed (like civil engineering, how many bridges have collapsed recently?) Also IMHO, all contractor contracts should be renegotiated or allowed to expire then renegotiated to permit auditing of those companies. If anything goes to waste (like million dollar plastic wal-mart toilet seats worth 3 dollars and 5 dollars shipping) that company should be cut and have to reimburse the government (and pay a penalty directly to paying off the national debt).
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 05:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That would require President Obama to actually, you know, do something other than lecture.
That's just a clever cover. Probably all important persons have already been switched against doubles, like they prophesized it in Invasion of the Body Snatchers or in the TV series The Invaders...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 06:29 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Wow, what an appalling amount of Keynesianism. Almost everything you said in that post is false. The market didn't reach any kind of "saturation point". The government's borrowing is hurting the US - unless we do something about the debt, it's going to grow like a cancer and strangle the budget. The fact is, government spending, as a whole, decreases wealth. There are very few things in which this is not the case, but just spending money on war can provide a short-term boost, but in the long run it will be harmful. It prevents people from saving. Saving is essential for capital accumulation. Capital accumulation is necessary to raise the standard of living. We would've never developed further if, in the days of nothing but agriculture, the government would force everyone to eat all the food that is produced.
Quote:
However, health as a PUBLIC part. Contagious deseases, for example.
Right, and I agree. But there's a difference between paying for vaccinations and paying for heart surgery. If I (that is, the taxpayers) pay for Bubba the Redneck's vaccination, that could prevent me from getting the flu. If I pay for Bubba the Redneck's heart surgery... how does that benefit me?
Quote:
A society needs goals. Sure, working a couple of hours and letting oneself be entertained the rest of the time, spending one's money for booze, drugs, TV, computers and so on, may be fun, but we know that this leads into decadence and degeneration sooner or later.
Completely incorrect. Letting people be free lets the virtuous people prosper, and those who fall to decadence - too bad for them. And even if they are decadent, so what? As long as they're stealing or taking taxpayer dollars, what's the problem?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 06:33 PM |
|
|
Hey, has anyone of you read common sense by Glenn Beck Thomas Paine?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 07:43 PM |
|
|
Mvass, I've no idea what you are talking about - the US are boosting the economy for 70 years now, by pumping public money into the armament industry. In case you didn't notice - I CRITIZED that (of course I didn't critisize it because it is economically wrong, but for other reasons).
For the rest, I suggest, instead of reading silly theory books about liberalism and falling for that nonsense that has been proven wrong a thounsand times over by history, just get a grip on history and check what has happened already in our long history and what has worked what what not.
As a serious note on the Commie US government - as far as I know, "redistribution of wealth" in the communist sense means a redistribution FROM top TO bottom - not the other way round, the way it happens. Certainly no Communist would pump public money into banks and corporations - they would just nationalizing the crap and considering the amount of money Western governments have pumped into the economy, read, into the pockets of those who managed to throw the crap into fan in tne first place, this wasn't even necessary, since the public owns the junk anyway after that money tranfusions.
It is ridiculous like nothing else to call a government communist that redistributes so much money from the public coffers into the hands of the capitalist pigs who - with their cut-throat gambling attitide - are to blame for the problems in the first place.
Everyone with a DROP of communist or Marxist blood in their sorry venes would have taken the chance and at the very least took the chance to get some anti-gambling laws through for the stock exchange - change a couple of rules to amek things a little bit safer; not to mention to just BUY the worthless stock of those broke banks and corps, fire the inept and corrupt management and enter the ring, until they could have sold the stock again with a decent win.
The only thing even more ridiculous is the fact that so many people are falling for the liberaln nonsense, craving even more of the same, when it were the darn liberals who brought this all upon us with their unwillingness to establish more control about what kind of fonds are brokered and so on.
When will people understand that the big money isn't playing by any rules, which is why the market isn't free. The market is like a horse race in which everyone tries every foul trick to cheat.
At this stage the only thing that weill help is a complete and worldwide nationalizing of all banks. Full governmental control of all money institutions. Otherwise countries will simply be bought out, ending with states going broke. The inflation will become uncontrollable due to the staggering amount of public debt, which will destroy all small savings, pensions, insurances, ending with the lower and the middle class being pennyless.
Of course this won't happen, since governments are very, very, obviously only puppets - they just wouldn't dare to bite the hands that feed them.´
Oh, and Dagooth, I agree: Soylent Green is people. I wonder when they will realize that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 09:34 PM |
|
|
The US has long been hurting the economy by wasting money on the armaments industry. War is destructive and reduces wealth. Taxing and spending likewise results in a decrease in wealth when spent on something with no externalities. Your understanding of economics is just crude Keynesianism. The Great Depression was caused by a contraction in the money supply, not any "saturation point" in the market. All that was needed was a decrease in interest rates, not massive government spending and regulation. Instead, the money supply was allowed to fall, creating a deflationary spiral that hit the economy hard. It is widely accepted among economists that the New Deal hurt recovery. Stop your social-democratic dogma. Keynes is dead, and good riddance.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 22, 2010 11:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Great Depression was caused by a contraction in the money supply, not any "saturation point" in the market. All that was needed was a decrease in interest rates, not massive government spending and regulation. Instead, the money supply was allowed to fall, creating a deflationary spiral that hit the economy hard. It is widely accepted among economists that the New Deal hurt recovery. Stop your social-democratic dogma. Keynes is dead, and good riddance.
Lol.
Complete nonsense. The depression was caused by a combination of overproduction/market saturation and the same credit-financed stock speculation that has been a factor now. When the stock market crashed, US industry was on the brink of breakdown anyway.
While it is true that the money supply was reduced by a sizable amount up to 1933, this was just the counterreaction to the fact that the money supply had been blown up disproportionally due to the fact that the soaring economy before that had been bought with credits with very high interest rates - the money reduction simply corrected the blown-up soap-bubble of the money- and stock-market.
If you take a look what happened in Germany, you'll see that Germany was hit QUITE heavilyby the depression - but stormed out of it by MASSIVE government spending, and with a vengeance. There was nothing like a free market in Germany, but the German economy still soared.
Friedman can claim whatever he wants - it's pure speculation. Most of what he writes is pure speculation. And HE, his theories and his supporters are to blame for the actual crisis - TOO MUCH liberalism in the capitaland stock markets.
Anyway, I won't stop you in your religious worship of economic theories that have been proven wrong by reality. Liberalism has passed the stadium of being dead - it stinks, and it stinks massively. But don't let that stop you praying the Friedman Bible.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
