Dak
mentat
We are already running a huge deficit, our economy is shrinking, and our health costs and senior population are exploding. I doubt that it is far from the truth.
The Economics Thread
- Thread starter Cythraul
- Start date
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
As opposed to...?
The term 'shadow government' backfires on people that use it due to the nature of it. There exists an entire backup government ready to take place if some true Patriot decides to do what's necessary to secure posterity for this nation.
That's the real 'shadow government.'
The international bankers, financiers and so forth do control nation's, that's not a secret, it's not a 'conspiracy' and it's a fact that economic crisis is often engineered to benefit these groups of people.
One may wonder what benefit they could get from the dollar tanking, and that benefit is more power because when it gets 'fixed' - they seem like heroes.
It's not far-fetched.
Dak
mentat
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
The problem I have is with imputing nefarious motives to people (see Meh's post above). There's no need to bring that into a discussion of economic theory or policy. It's not essential to understanding the effects of economic policy nor is it essential to understanding the plausibility of any given economic theory. It's extraneous to the whole point of this thread, and this is MY thread BITCH!
Dak
mentat
I don't see how the widespread "cooking of the books" isn't relevant to understanding economics.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Do you really think that determining whether or not somebody knowingly engineered an economic crisis is in any way essential to understanding anything that this thread was supposed to be about? If so, you are fucking ridiculous (and I say that with all due respect, because we agree on a lot of stuff as far as politics goes).
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Dak
mentat
I really meant more like how in a capitalistic system there will be institutions that try to fudge their numbers for various reasons and how this ripple-affects everyone else, especially with a stock market.
Right.. The fact that this economy is completely engineered to seem stable or chaotic at any given moment isn't relevant. Sure.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I was really thinking more in terms of things like being able to rent the building space to open up a restaurant or being able to afford a server room in your basement to work on some Google-esque project. There are plenty of business, science, and other endeavors that don't require vast amounts of capital. I'm not sure how we would compare the benefit of one more automobile factory or space station in the world to the benefit of many more restaurants or server rooms, but there is something to be said for giving that many more people the opportunity to realise some sort of ambition.
When inequalities lead to a decrease in overall quality of life, either by the deterioration of business competition or by a runaway expansion of the income gap between the richest and the poorest, that's objectionable. The former may be addressed by breaking up megacorporations based on an excess of market share, which I assume you aren't opposed to, but the latter brings into question things like education, health care, adequate wages, and other things which are vital to giving the average person a fair opportunity to succeed in life that you might consider an imposition on the "voluntary transactions" of capitalism. To deny people those benefits simply for the purpose of honoring "legitimate" transfers of wealth is morally repulsive.
See above. There are projects of all sorts of price tags which can benefit the economy.
Never mind that part - it was basically a badly-worded version of what I've said above in this post.
Not sure this part of the debate is going anywhere useful, so I'll hold off on responding here as well.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Why would the Secret Gov't even accept conference room B in the first place? Everyone knows that's a second-rate conference hall!
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
@VG: I am somewhat inebriated right now, but I will respond to some of your points. Given that I am inebriated, some of the points I raise might not be all that great. It looks like at this point we're getting into the murky issues of morality and what constitutes a legitimate role for the State (assuming the State is legitimate at all, which I am inclined to deny but I won't bother you with too much of my nutbar political views). Anyway, let's get started.
Several questions/requests:
(1) Define the 'overall quality of life.'
(2) What are some actual cases where inequalities lead to a decrease in overall quality of life, and how do inequalities contribute to said decrease? What is government's role in exacerbating existing inequalities? (I ask the last question purely as an exercise for you. I do indeed think government does play such a role)
(3) Why should it be the case that free markets contribute to a decrease in the overall quality of life? My view holds that they tend to do the exact opposite. After all, a market economy is not a zero-sum game (I believe I pointed this out to Cookiecutter earlier in this thread). If my view is correct, then why should we (or rather, the government) engage in systematic interventions in the economy? Why not just let capitalism do its work, i.e. raise the standards of living?
Business competition typically "deteriorates" in a free market because the winner in such a situation outcompeted its competitors. Hmmm, I wonder how that happens... It wouldn't have anything to do with benefiting the consumer would it? At any rate, a 'runaway gap between the richest and the poorest' may offend your sensibilities, but how does that justify the violence of the State?
I don't support government force to break up anything that arose from a process of voluntary exchange, agreement, contract, etc. At any rate, laws intended to break up "monopolies" typically end up benefiting special interests, not the man on the street.
There's so much to say about this point, both from an economic and a philosophic standpoint, that I really don't know where to start and I really don't know what the best way to respond to it is in a way that doesn't end up being a book-length treatise. Why exactly did you put "legitimate" in quotes? This suggests to me that there is some point according to you at which a transfer of wealth is not legitimate, namely when some other unfortunate people aren't getting what you think they should be getting. But this does not undermine the legitimacy of such a transfer. Suppose you give me $100. This is a legitimate transfer. After all, I did not steal it from you or anything like that. At what point does this become illegitimate? How in the world do such transfers go from legitimate to illegitimate if there's no theft, coercion, or fraud going on? Also, who denied them any benefits? They didn't have any of the benefits to begin with. Crucial distinction: there's a difference between denying something to somebody that they obviously had a rightful claim to and failing to provide somebody with something. Another crucial distinction: there's a world of difference between benefiting somebody and using the violence of the State to make sure somebody gets something. You're going to have to do a lot more than appeal to my emotions to convince me that something which is prima facie immoral is actually justified.
Several questions/requests:
(1) Define the 'overall quality of life.'
(2) What are some actual cases where inequalities lead to a decrease in overall quality of life, and how do inequalities contribute to said decrease? What is government's role in exacerbating existing inequalities? (I ask the last question purely as an exercise for you. I do indeed think government does play such a role)
(3) Why should it be the case that free markets contribute to a decrease in the overall quality of life? My view holds that they tend to do the exact opposite. After all, a market economy is not a zero-sum game (I believe I pointed this out to Cookiecutter earlier in this thread). If my view is correct, then why should we (or rather, the government) engage in systematic interventions in the economy? Why not just let capitalism do its work, i.e. raise the standards of living?
Business competition typically "deteriorates" in a free market because the winner in such a situation outcompeted its competitors. Hmmm, I wonder how that happens... It wouldn't have anything to do with benefiting the consumer would it? At any rate, a 'runaway gap between the richest and the poorest' may offend your sensibilities, but how does that justify the violence of the State?
I don't support government force to break up anything that arose from a process of voluntary exchange, agreement, contract, etc. At any rate, laws intended to break up "monopolies" typically end up benefiting special interests, not the man on the street.
There's so much to say about this point, both from an economic and a philosophic standpoint, that I really don't know where to start and I really don't know what the best way to respond to it is in a way that doesn't end up being a book-length treatise. Why exactly did you put "legitimate" in quotes? This suggests to me that there is some point according to you at which a transfer of wealth is not legitimate, namely when some other unfortunate people aren't getting what you think they should be getting. But this does not undermine the legitimacy of such a transfer. Suppose you give me $100. This is a legitimate transfer. After all, I did not steal it from you or anything like that. At what point does this become illegitimate? How in the world do such transfers go from legitimate to illegitimate if there's no theft, coercion, or fraud going on? Also, who denied them any benefits? They didn't have any of the benefits to begin with. Crucial distinction: there's a difference between denying something to somebody that they obviously had a rightful claim to and failing to provide somebody with something. Another crucial distinction: there's a world of difference between benefiting somebody and using the violence of the State to make sure somebody gets something. You're going to have to do a lot more than appeal to my emotions to convince me that something which is prima facie immoral is actually justified.
Similar threads
