|
| Thread: OWS and the We Are The 99% movements |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
posted October 06, 2011 01:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Brukernavn: Thats odd, because the Austrian school only stands for "give the marked tax breaks and let them collapse on themselves".
And considering how the Austrian school has ruled the US economy for the last 70 years, its fairly easy to spot which school is standing for the collapse of the economy.
The Austrian school is nothing but a new plastic wrap around the Neo Classistic "Lazze faire", which is a broken concept.
And lets not forget what the Keynesian school stands for:
The marked WILL collapse if left unattended, and it will use 10-20 years to recover, so the goverment HAS to stop in and make sure it does not collapse in the first place.
Sounds to me like somebody had predicted all the financial crisis all along.
What on earth are you talking about? 
How can the Austrian school of economics rule the US economy when the solutions are all Keynesian? You're contradicting yourself my fellow Norwegian...
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 01:28 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 13:29, 06 Oct 2011.
|
Quote:
It's not that gas or food is suddenly more valuable than it was a week ago, it's simply that your money is worth less.
which is quite hypocritical, considering many companies produce too much and just destroy the surplus.
Quote:
Things are already valued by their energy cost.
but take renewable energy for example? they insist more on the fact that it might be less costly (or not) that on the fact it might or not consume less natural resources.
funny line : Quote:
I pick up dog poop for $6 a walk
so, why are the jobs that no one wants to do also the least paid? (or is it because they are paid little than people do not want such jobs?)
Quote:
We could all become turnip farmers again, but that way we go back at least 2500 years and become a disappointment to our crotchety old and dead ancestors.
this is quite a stupid thing to say, no? abandonning a system doesn't mean abandonning all the progress.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 02:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
How do people here at HC feel about this (for lack of a better word) protest? Are you part of the 99%?
It appears to be a Marxist "I am entitled to your money" "movement." It certainly does not have support of 99% of the people. If you want a college education earn it. If you are $100,000 in debt I did not borrow the money, you did. If you want to "do what you love and not be a 'slave to the system'" don't complain that others have more money than you do--making mud pies won't earn you much money.
So where can I get a job, that allows me earn earn enough money to get into college?
Apparently there is a unemployment problem, meaning that one of the lucky MAY get hired, while others must starve or live permanently with their parents.
How do you propose we fix this problem?
And that brings us to the next problem: How many hours of work at minimum wage do I need to do in order to pay for college, and how does that compare to the cost of living?
And what is the lack of hirering in that sector which will hire?
Brukernavn: There was some Keynesian action done in the 30s, you know, goverment infastructure projects, and during the Cold War there was NASA, but NASA was never big enough to qualify for a Keynesian project.
So tell me fellow Nord: What is my contradiction? What has taxes fallen from roughly 90% to 20% for the rich?
What is my contradiction?
____________
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Brukernavn: There was some Keynesian action done in the 30s, you know, goverment infastructure projects, and during the Cold War there was NASA, but NASA was never big enough to qualify for a Keynesian project.
So tell me fellow Nord: What is my contradiction? What has taxes fallen from roughly 90% to 20% for the rich?
What is my contradiction?
Ever heard about bailouts, the Federal reserve, setting interest rates, stimulus packages, government sponsored programs, quantitative easing, fiat money system, inflation or fractional reserve banking?
In the '08 crisis a whole lot of banks and big corporations were bailed out by the government because they were "too big to fail". And the quantitative easing has continued to this day. This is all pure Keynesianism.
I stated your contradiction clearly in my reply; "How can the Austrian school of economics rule the US economy when the solutions are all Keynesian?" You are simply completely wrong about this issue. I would be impressed if you could name me one Austrian free market economist that's working in the government at the moment. The closest I know of is Ron Paul as the head of the oversight committee of the Federal reserve, and he's actively working to abolish the FED.
Low taxes is not an economic system. The low tax rates from the Bush administration are a direct result of the FED, because if they could not print the money they wouldn't be able to cut taxes without cutting an equal amount off the budget. That is Keynesian economic policy!
Edit: And just in case, let me underscore my point even further:
Quote:
Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector — and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.
Source (Not that Wikipedia is a reliable source, but their references are).
This has been the predominant thought of the large part of the last century. Are you really denying that? Just go into any economics class in any University, and they'll be teaching Keynesian economics. That's the case both here in Norway (NHH for instance), in the US, and pretty much every other part of the world (with a few exceptions).
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 03:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Brukernavn: There was some Keynesian action done in the 30s, you know, goverment infastructure projects, and during the Cold War there was NASA, but NASA was never big enough to qualify for a Keynesian project.
So tell me fellow Nord: What is my contradiction? What has taxes fallen from roughly 90% to 20% for the rich?
What is my contradiction?
Ever heard about bailouts, the Federal reserve, setting interest rates, stimulus packages, government sponsored programs, quantitative easing, fiat money system, inflation or fractional reserve banking?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no(quantitative easing), yes, yes.
I think inflation is what bothers me most about those.
Stimulus packages are a example on how to NOT fix the economy, and they are a Austrian measure for the most part, with exceptions.
Quote:
In the '08 crisis a whole lot of banks and big corporations were bailed out by the government because they were "too big to fail". And the quantitative easing has continued to this day. This is all pure Keynesianism.
The bailout was not done via making sure the marked got up to speed, but money was thrown at banks and the big corporations.
Nothing was done to ENSURE that the velocity was mantained.
So it was a Austrian measure, and not a Keynesian one.
They only ensured the marked did not collapse, and then left it alone.
And to rest of your reply:
1. Yes the FED is evil, and there is also many problems with it.
2. But sadly there has not been any Keynesian politics in the US since the 1930s, where the public sector was doing lots of lots of lots of infastructure to get the economy back to proper velocity.
There has been doing nothing to prevert the economy from default due hazard gambling, which is a extremely Keynesian measture to take.
Edit:
And as you said, wikipedia is not a reallyable source, and you are clearly misquoting it.
Wikipedia clearly states that a consumer will spend all his money, and because of that one must make sure the consumers gets enough money to spend.
Nothing has been done to fight the increasing amount of povery in the US since the 70s, nothing has been done to ensure that the class warfare would end.
____________
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 03:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Stimulus packages are a example on how to NOT fix the economy, and they are a Austrian measure for the most part, with exceptions.
My trolling sense is tingling 
Please, read up on Austrian monetary policy before you make more erroneous claims.
You really have NO idea what you're talking about. *shakes head*
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 03:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Stimulus packages are a example on how to NOT fix the economy, and they are a Austrian measure for the most part, with exceptions.
My trolling sense is tingling
Please, read up on Austrian monetary policy before you make more erroneous claims.
You really have NO idea what you're talking about. *shakes head*
There are 2 ways to do economic stimuluses:
1. You throw money at a private firm, result in the money getting eaten by the CEO and the stockholders.
2. You hire a private firm and let the workers eat the surplus.
In the first case, its a Austrian project if no goal or output is specified.
In the second case, its always a Keynesian project because the workers will spend money because they are plebeians.
And it can also be done indirectly, via IE tax cuts or exception from taxes if something special is done.
So... please elaborate, because I want to know what about my understanding about the world is lacking.
____________
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 04:51 PM |
|
|
@diablo
It's hard to find the motivation to have an intellectual conversation with someone who throws out claims before investigating them, redefines known terms, and generally doesn't know what he's talking about, but I'll give it one last chance.
Quote:
I think inflation is what bothers me most about those.
Stimulus packages are a example on how to NOT fix the economy, and they are a Austrian measure for the most part, with exceptions.
Where do you get this stuff from? Do you just invent it There would be no Federal reserve in a free market, and so stimulus packages would just be impossible. A stimulus is classical Keynesianism, often called deficit spending.
Quote:
The bailout was not done via making sure the marked got up to speed, but money was thrown at banks and the big corporations.
Nothing was done to ENSURE that the velocity was mantained.
So it was a Austrian measure, and not a Keynesian one.
They only ensured the marked did not collapse, and then left it alone.
Again, what on earth are you talking about? A bailout would be impossible in a free market. The very action of bailing out companies is Keynesian practice, no matter what the reason for it is.
Quote:
1. Yes the FED is evil, and there is also many problems with it.
I would say it's immoral and unconstitutional, but what do you mean by it being evil?
And just out of curiosity; what are, in your opinion, the many problems with the FED?
Quote:
2. But sadly there has not been any Keynesian politics in the US since the 1930s,
*Jaw dropped*
Where do you get this stuff from? Heard the quote "We're all Keynesian now"?
Quote:
where the public sector was doing lots of lots of lots of infastructure to get the economy back to proper velocity.
There has been doing nothing to prevert the economy from default due hazard gambling, which is a extremely Keynesian measture to take.
Nothing? What about the trillion bailouts? QE1 and QE2? They're fear mongering about defaulting, so they monetize the debt instead of liquidating it, as would have been done in a free market. It has done much to create the bubble, the boom, and made it even worse when the correction comes, the bust.
Just to be sure; do you know what I'm talking about here? I've assumed you know what these terms mean, but the more you write the more I have my doubts.
Quote:
And as you said, wikipedia is not a reallyable source, and you are clearly misquoting it.
How can Ctrl+c Ctrl+v possibly be a misquotation?
Quote:
Wikipedia clearly states that a consumer will spend all his money, and because of that one must make sure the consumers gets enough money to spend.
Did you read the part where it said that Keynesianism was "the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973)" and where it said: "The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought."?
I think the issue is rather that you don't understand either of the economic theories.
Quote:
Nothing has been done to fight the increasing amount of povery in the US since the 70s, nothing has been done to ensure that the class warfare would end.
Not only is this a false statement, but "class warfare" is more in line with socialist theory. In a free market, this is not the job of the government, but would be solved by the charity of individuals and volunteerism.
Quote:
There are 2 ways to do economic stimuluses:
1. You throw money at a private firm, result in the money getting eaten by the CEO and the stockholders.
2. You hire a private firm and let the workers eat the surplus.
In the first case, its a Austrian project if no goal or output is specified.
In the second case, its always a Keynesian project because the workers will spend money because they are plebeians.
Again, you show that you really don't know much about economic theory. This is not meant as an insult, but rather as an encouragement to read up on the issues so that discussions like this can be fruitful.
A stimulus does not exist in Austrian economic theory, it is rather impossible because of their monetary policy. How can you then say that a certain stimulus is Austrian? Do you even know what monetary policy is, and how these two economic schools differ on the issue?
Stimulus packages is one of the fundamental tools in Keynesian economic theory, beside setting interest rates. But it is non-existent in Austrian economy.
Quote:
And it can also be done indirectly, via IE tax cuts or exception from taxes if something special is done.
This is not the same thing.
Quote:
So... please elaborate, because I want to know what about my understanding about the world is lacking.
You could start by reading a book on Austrian economic theory. There are many available free online, just search in Google Scholar.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 04:53 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:02, 06 Oct 2011.
|
@Baron, re: Demands for Free College Education
Quote:
I am operating on assumption and conjecture, would you care to enlighten me? 
It seems that there is as much misunderstanding about the US education system in other countries as there is about the US healthcare system.
People love to say that so many Americans have no healthcare coverage - which is simply not true. ALL Americans have healthcare coverage. Hospitals don't turn anyone away. What many Americans have is no healthcare INSURANCE. Big difference.
Likewise, people like to think that most people can't pay for college education, or that they're buried under mountains of debt once they come out. Again, a gross distortion of facts.
Let's be clear about one thing first - even if everyone was entitled to go to college without paying, their educations wouldn't be FREE. The fact that these Wall Street loiterers use this word just shows their naivete. SOMEONE has to pay for it. What they're really advocating is to distribute the cost of everyone's education onto society - onto the shoulders of the average taxpayer.
(And think of it this way. Consider two families - one which has no children and one which has six. The family with no children would have to shoulder the cost of sending six children from another family to a University. They ALREADY have to shoulder the cost of sending all six children to elementary, middle, and high school because public schools in the US are paid for primarily out of property taxes. An injustice if I've ever seen one. Now they'd be asked to pay for 24 cumulative years of college on top of it. That is fair, exactly, how? What - because all children are ENTITLED to unlimited education?? My opinion is that if you want to have six children and you want them to be educated past high school level, it's your responsibility to see that it happens, or your childrens' responsibility to see that it happens. After all, they're legally adults at this point anyway. I do think society has a responsibility to help people get a basic education - but funds for it need to be leveraged fairly. Bah, I'm getting on a rant. In the end, public school system here in the US needs to be overhauled big time. And these twits on OWS are advocating a public college system based on the same idiotic model. LUNACY!)
Anyway, back to the way college funding works.
First, people with the means to do so must pay for complete college tuition out of pocket UNLESS they obtain merit-based scholarships to offset those costs.
Second, tuitions to most state schools (not private) are at least partially subsidized by state budgets. Meaning, you'll pay a lower tuition to go to a state school than a private school. And many of those state schools are also very good universities. I'm not sure where the money comes from to pay for this, but I know a very large portion of it comes from other money these Universities bring in (from athletics in large part, but also research grants, private donors, and likely some public government funding).
Third, people without the means to pay for University can secure federal loans. These loans are extremely low interest and are awarded by need. More importantly, there are numerous ways to defer repayment of these loans for quite a long time after graduation, and interest usually doesn't start accruing until you begin to pay them back. There are also federal programs that allow these loans to be partially or completely forgiven without paying back a dime. So the myth about being saddled with ridiculous debt immediately after graduation is just that - a myth. Fact is, that anyone in the US, no matter how poor, can secure a federal loan to go to four years of university, and can pay it back over a very long period of time for very low interest. And in some cases won't have to pay it back at all. And all schools, private or public, will accept these loans. So you can be the poorest-as-dirt yokel in the US and still get a completely paid loan to go to Harvard if you work hard enough through high school to be accepted.
Fourth, in addition to federal loans, the government has structured what are known as 529 plans in the tax code. These are similar to 401k retirement plans, except for education. The idea is that if you have a child, you can put money aside in an investment account that earns dividends tax-free. So long as you use the account for education, all dividends remain tax free. Effectively, this reduces the cost of college education significantly, because if you put a little aside monthly over a period of 18 years, that interest will grow a lot - and it's all tax free. The tax code is also structured in other ways to help people pay for higher-level education.
Fifth, most US colleges and Universities have work study programs that allow students to pay for tuition or pay back their loans by taking part time jobs while attending classes - further defraying the cost of education.
In the US, all you really need to have in order to go to University is a desire to go to University. No, it's not "free", but there's no such thing as "free" anyway. I'm not sure what the rationale is for changing this system to make society incur the debt for sending you to college rather than making YOU incur your own debt - especially when the terms of the debt are so forgiving. Interest rates are often well below inflation rate, so they're practically interest free loans. And all the other federal and state programs out there make it very reasonable to pay for college.
Now, let me give you my example.
I grew up in a fairly rich household. Not super rich, but pretty well off. And I'm not ashamed of it, either. (And my father worked very hard to earn it - he grew up fairly poor.) I went to a highly esteemed four year liberal arts college, and because my family had the means, it all was paid for out of pocket (although I imagine my family got a nicely-sized tax deduction for it). At the time, cost was about $40,000 a year or therabouts, which included room and board as well as tuition. I believe it's quite a bit more now. And by the way, that education was worth EVERY PENNY.
My wife on the other hand did not grow up in a rich household. She wasn't poor or anything, but they definitely didn't have the means to plunk down $120,000 on a college education. So she applied for a got a series of federal loans to cover a large chunk of that tuition. I don't remember what the interest rates were but several of them were pretty low.
After graduation, we both went to graduate school. My graduate school tuition was about $60,000 a year. Of which I paid not a nickel, because most graduate students in the US in the sciences are awarded assistanceships. Which basically means that in exchange for teaching classes, the University picks up the cost of tuition. Effectively it's a glorified work-study program. PhD took six years, so that's over $300,000 of education of which I paid nothing. Although I did have to WORK, so it wasn't exactly FREE.
My wife did the same thing. And since you can delay Federal education loans as long as you're in school, my wife didn't even have to pay back her college loans during that time. They didn't accrue interest, either, nor did their rates change. Basically, Federal loans are structured so that you don't have to pay them back until you have the means to do so. My wife didn't start paying hers back until 2010, a whole decade after she graduated from college. And in that time, she applied for and was awarded a loan repayment grant (also federal) that essentially forgave about 2/3 of her loan. Of the $50,000 or so she borrowed, she only had to pay back about $12,000 - and at 2-3% interest. Which is really nothing. Better almost to invest money elsewhere than to pay it off.
And now I have a child, so I put aside about $50-100 a month in a 529 plan, so that when SHE is ready to go to college, she should already have a year or two paid for. And she can borrow the rest at low interest and pay it off when SHE is able to do so.
So I think you'll see, very few people end up buried under a mountain of debt as soon as they graduate from college. Federal loans are very forgiving and are designed to help people without means get an education if they want it. You DO have to work to pay for the education - and why shouldn't you? I just don't see why the state should take on all the burden of seeing that you get to stay in school as long as you want to.
Of course, degrees above and beyond college are often not so easy to pay for. While the cost of a science PhD is, as I've said, offset by teaching, other PhDs are often not. And medical and law school definitely is not. My brother had to take heaps of loans to get his MD and he truly is saddled under a mountain of debt. Of course, he'll be making it back in spades eventually, so while he's got a few lean years ahead of him, he'll be ok.
I suppose the OWS people think the government should shoulder the cost of medical and law school, or nursing school, or MBAs, as well?
Pure silliness.
Anyway, that's the college system in the US. The issue is not one of making college free or not. It's an issue of who is paying for it.
I believe a person should pay his own way. I believe if a person wants a college education, he should work for it. I'm glad the government has things structured to help a person out, so that he's not at the mercy of predatory banks. And so that even the poorest citizen can get an education if he has the drive to do so. But a person still has to pay for the principal loan.
I do not believe society should bear the burden to allow ADULTS to get continuing education. I believe that cheapens the experience, and not in a good way. I believe people take an education less seriously if they are just given it.
Furthermore, if the state paid for all that education for all the people in the US, the costsof education would skyrocket. Which is what happens when people don't pay for items themselves. Look at the healthcare system. The cost of services is completely ridiculous, because people don't have to pay for them. They are completely inflated costs - SALINE at $800 for a few mL?? WTF is that? It's all funny money, because insurance companies pay for almost everything. Meh, that's a whole separate can of worms - the end result is that education costs would change radically if the government just paid for everything... and where would that leave foreign students?
So, just like all of the other "demands", I believe this one is silly, naive, and shows no understanding of how the economy works. I mean, can you imagine - minimum wage set at $20 an hour? Do you have any concept of how that would RUIN the economy? It'd be a complete disaster. These KIDS have no idea what they're demanding. They're just demanding things because they sound great, without any consideration of where the money would come from, and what it would do to the system.
Which is why I think the whole thing, as I said, is stupid.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think inflation is what bothers me most about those.
Stimulus packages are a example on how to NOT fix the economy, and they are a Austrian measure for the most part, with exceptions.
Where do you get this stuff from? Do you just invent it There would be no Federal reserve in a free market, and so stimulus packages would just be impossible. A stimulus is classical Keynesianism, often called deficit spending.
I count 2 insults, and 1 "Lazze faire for president", and no content.
Quote:
Quote:
The bailout was not done via making sure the marked got up to speed, but money was thrown at banks and the big corporations.
Nothing was done to ENSURE that the velocity was mantained.
So it was a Austrian measure, and not a Keynesian one.
They only ensured the marked did not collapse, and then left it alone.
Again, what on earth are you talking about? A bailout would be impossible in a free market. The very action of bailing out companies is Keynesian practice, no matter what the reason for it is.
Another Lazze faire for president" claim.
Quote:
Quote:
1. Yes the FED is evil, and there is also many problems with it.
I would say it's immoral and unconstitutional, but what do you mean by it being evil?
And just out of curiosity; what are, in your opinion, the many problems with the FED?
1. I mean that the FED is not accountable for their accountions, nor are they doing anything reasoable to ensure the economy is running proplerly.
2. I don't care for the constitutional parts, after all there would be no constitution in the free marked.
Quote:
Quote:
2. But sadly there has not been any Keynesian politics in the US since the 1930s,
*Jaw dropped*
Where do you get this stuff from? Heard the quote "We're all Keynesian now"?
Thats just libel to avoid answering.
"We have a goverment" != "Keynesian economy"
Quote:
Quote:
2. But sadly there has not been any Keynesian politics in the US since the 1930s, where the public sector was doing lots of lots of lots of infastructure to get the economy back to proper velocity.
There has been doing nothing to prevert the economy from default due hazard gambling, which is a extremely Keynesian measture to take.
Nothing? What about the trillion bailouts? QE1 and QE2? They're fear mongering about defaulting, so they monetize the debt instead of liquidating it, as would have been done in a free market. It has done much to create the bubble, the boom, and made it even worse when the correction comes, the bust.
Another insult and "Lazze faire for president" claim. Quote also taken out of context and misquoted.
The bailouts are a result of lack of Regulation and Keynesian policy, so is all the bubbles. And its a result of the goverment running Austrian policy.
And as said: I don't know anything about Quantitative easing yet.
Quote:
Quote:
And as you said, wikipedia is not a reallyable source, and you are clearly misquoting it.
How can Ctrl+c Ctrl+v possibly be a misquotation? [/qupte]
"All men are born equal", the year is 1800.
Is all men born equal?
No, they are not, because the quote lacks the context to explain what it is saying.
So copypasta is misquoting.
Quote:
Quote:
Wikipedia clearly states that a consumer will spend all his money, and because of that one must make sure the consumers gets enough money to spend.
Did you read the part where it said that Keynesianism was "the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973)" and where it said: "The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought."?
And I say again: What Keynesian thought?
1930s was migrated into war policy, before there was a national effort to build techology, which faded to nothing when the cold war came to a end.
There has been no real Keynesian spending since the 1930s. What is to hard to understand about that?
Quote:
I think the issue is rather that you don't understand either of the economic theories.
Another insult.
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing has been done to fight the increasing amount of povery in the US since the 70s, nothing has been done to ensure that the class warfare would end.
Not only is this a false statement, but "class warfare" is more in line with socialist theory. In a free market, this is not the job of the government, but would be solved by the charity of individuals and volunteerism.
Then pray, tell me: Why has poverty always existed?
And why should I care about those sore losers who has nothing?
Quote:
Quote:
There are 2 ways to do economic stimuluses:
1. You throw money at a private firm, result in the money getting eaten by the CEO and the stockholders.
2. You hire a private firm and let the workers eat the surplus.
In the first case, its a Austrian project if no goal or output is specified.
In the second case, its always a Keynesian project because the workers will spend money because they are plebeians.
Again, you show that you really don't know much about economic theory. This is not meant as an insult, but rather as an encouragement to read up on the issues so that discussions like this can be fruitful.
A stimulus does not exist in Austrian economic theory, it is rather impossible because of their monetary policy. How can you then say that a certain stimulus is Austrian? Do you even know what monetary policy is, and how these two economic schools differ on the issue?
Stimulus packages is one of the fundamental tools in Keynesian economic theory, beside setting interest rates. But it is non-existent in Austrian economy.
I think you need to read up on what the Austrian school of economy stands for, especially in contract to a Lazze Faire economy and a Neo-classic economy.
With your lack of knowledge, there is much misinformation.
Quote:
Quote:
And it can also be done indirectly, via IE tax cuts or exception from taxes if something special is done.
This is not the same thing.
I agree, but a lot of insane people claim its the same, and that the effect is the same.
And a lot of them has political power in the US congress.
Which is quite amusing to watch.
Summary:
-4 insults(thought it was a lot more there)
-6 votes for "Lazze Faire for president"
-Confusing "We have a goverment with Austrian policy" with "Lazze Faire". I recommend you to read a bit more.
-If you want to thread a tread to educate people on the free marked, please create one instead of spreading it on topics that does not concern it.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 05:30 PM |
|
|
I think that once accusations of insults start flying around, the conversation has run its course.
Why don't you take a step back before hostilities escalate further?
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 05:32 PM |
|
|
I'm embarrassed that I even tried...
Anyway, reading Corribus' post was a refreshing breath of good argumentation, and I completely agree!
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 05:34 PM |
|
|
Because ignoring them and counting them is a lot more fun.
Corribus: What changes to the education system do you suppose would be reasonable?
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 05:48 PM |
|
|
|
For colleges/universities or in general?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 05:50 PM |
|
|
Prefferably only for higher education, but both please.
____________
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2011 09:36 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 07:24, 07 Oct 2011.
|
As I see it, the current education system and healthcare system are all the American government can handle.
Ranked economically, a lot of countries beat the US simply because they take corruption into account, and it's the high corruption that keeps the US down. To trust that government with universal healthcare is a real risk (much like Mvass pointed out, the healthcare in Russia, which is also very high on the corruption index... neither country is anywhere NEAR where Iraq is right now mind you). It cannot handle such an institution in its current state. There would be far too much waste within it. A couple years ago I was arguing for it but I was basing it off my experience in Canada, which has low corruption. It's not a one size fits all solution.
We ALSO by the way have a similar educational system to the United States. Some colleges are partially funded by Provincial governments and others are fully private.
My husband went to a community college for a while before he was hired by Dell. Once he was laid off he went to a private college to finish his education in an accelerated course. I myself took an accelerated accounting course which I finished in a year and a half as opposed to 3, while working to pay for it.
There is only one part of the country where people get "free" college educations, and that is Alberta, our most Conservative province (Our Texas, Cowboys, Rodeos and all). College educations are paid for by the Provincial government's oil profits.
But yes, Education is worth every penny. Often it's worth far, far more than what you pay for it unless you pick a stupid course you have no business being in, or if you spend years going into courses shortly to see which one suits you best (Hubby again, did Art, then Business, then finally Computer Technician).
Edit: Also forgot to mention, the OWS protest is made up of a lot of people of all walks of life. They are disappointed in a: the government being bought and paid for by wall street b: the bail-out of wall street that saw executives take that money and add it to their pay and go on lavish vacations c: the lack of financial regulation that kept Canada and other nations stable. (mind you, your government might not be competent enough to pull it off from what I hear)
Not all of them are asking for free education and health care, many of them are just clamoring for the government and its private business partners to be accountable for the tax dollars spent on them. The Media had largely been ignoring them for a long time despite the protests being right outside, a few blocks away from the biggest news corporations in the US. So, the media like the redheaded stepchild it is, is trying to buttonhole a diverse crowd into whatever it can stereotype.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 07, 2011 01:56 AM |
|
|
|
Automate the system. No more corruption. WIN!
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted October 07, 2011 04:22 AM |
|
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted October 07, 2011 08:24 AM |
|
|
Whatever long talks and changes you propose to the system, I do not agree with. It's like Alexander the Great and the Gordian Knot. However you will theorize about untying it, our problems will still not be solved and the corrupted will still be seated in their power thrones.
The only way is: Cut it. Kill it with fire, like we say. And start all over again from ground zero. How are we gonna start over, I don't know. But if the corrupted are dead, if we have learned from our mistakes, we might just do it right this time.
I know ofcourse, you're not gonna agree with that. You're American neoliberalists after all. Unfortunately, the time that it's going to happen, will be because the majority of people will be desperate for it. Perhaps, hopefully, you will be among us too. These few that will still "have", will be that war's collateral damage victims. Whatever...
Well, that's my doomsday prophecy! Everybody gets to have one, so why shouldn't I? 
Man, I really wish it comes true though...
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted October 07, 2011 08:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Whatever long talks and changes you propose to the system, I do not agree with. It's like Alexander the Great and the Gordian Knot. However you will theorize about untying it, our problems will still not be solved and the corrupted will still be seated in their power thrones.
The only way is: Cut it. Kill it with fire, like we say. And start all over again from ground zero. How are we gonna start over, I don't know. But if the corrupted are dead, if we have learned from our mistakes, we might just do it right this time.
I know ofcourse, you're not gonna agree with that. You're American neoliberalists after all. Unfortunately, the time that it's going to happen, will be because the majority of people will be desperate for it. Perhaps, hopefully, you will be among us too. These few that will still "have", will be that war's collateral damage victims. Whatever...
Well, that's my doomsday prophecy! Everybody gets to have one, so why shouldn't I?
Man, I really wish it comes true though...
Who exactly are you speaking too?
Rather than wishing, why don't you participate?
|
| |
|
|
