The "Denial" of the Root of the Economic Turmoil

polaris_x · October 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

seems to me the forum is more like having beer with friends you may or may not have met yet and getting fired up and talking politics, religion .
Rock band forum or not doesn't seem to matter to me...I like it because there are plenty of people here I disagree with that teach me something, and many that I do agree with for the most part (Vinny, Inlet, a few others) have taught me much as well.

yeah ... and sure things get heated every now and then but has anyone been on the phillies thread on the AMT!? ...

my main point is if you jump into this forum guns ablazing with a staunch viewpoint - it's not likely going to be pretty ...haha

Bant · October 2011

polaris_x wrote:

i will say it again ... general election, primary ... whatever ... based on the list of candidates and prospective candidates - everyone should vote for ron paul ...

:thumbup:

Go Beavers · October 2011

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

There can examples that support your theory, but you still seem driven by the idea that Keynesian economics is our ruin and then you look for ways to support your conclusion, in a sense going in reverse.

What happens in amt a lot, and I see it more with conservatives, is that they state an opinion like it's a fact, and then talk themselves in a corner with more opinions, generalities, and personal comments on people who disagree with them. They give little direct response to facts used by others who disagree with them. At that point they bail on the thread (often one they started), saying how unreasonable the liberals in here are.

I think the personal attacks are kept to a minimum in here, and people over-blow the frequency of it. It's not like there aren't any zingers flying in the porch.

You seem to think Keynesian economics is good. Explain why. Don't use any theory in your explanation.

I'm not saying good or bad either way, just more disagreeing with your process and style of debate and presentation of your argument. But I'll go along with the question. Shouldn't Keynesian economics get credit for the tremendous economic growth in the 20th century by way of correlation, since it is so bad, according to you, by correlating it with the boom-bust cycle?

JT214511 · October 2011

polaris_x wrote:

honestly, i would gladly have a beer with the majority of the conservatives who regularly post here ... we often don't agree but most of them aren't patronizing and we understand that for the most part we all kind of want the same thing .

I like what you've said here. Although I come from a consequentialist libertarian side, I often argue the same thing: that most people have the same goals (a long, healthy, prosperous life and the chance to live in a thriving, prosperous, and peaceful society). If we could all realize that we have similar goals, then we could engage in relaxed, informative dialogue, rather than screaming matches and hatred. We would no longer question each other's motives and character (which not always possible to do anyway, as many people, including myself, don't always know their own motives) and instead focus on the validity of our arguments. Policy proposals such as ending the Federal Reserve, or instituting universal government healthcare would no longer be looked at as inherently evil, but evaluated as to whether or not it was a suitable method to achieving the goals most of us share. Discussion of ends (values and goals, in and of themselves) is a harder discussion to have, but the means to an end should be relatively easy once people agree on what goals they have in common.

polaris_x · October 2011

JT214511 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

honestly, i would gladly have a beer with the majority of the conservatives who regularly post here ... we often don't agree but most of them aren't patronizing and we understand that for the most part we all kind of want the same thing .

I like what you've said here. Although I come from a consequentialist libertarian side, I often argue the same thing: that most people have the same goals (a long, healthy, prosperous life and the chance to live in a thriving, prosperous, and peaceful society). If we could all realize that we have similar goals, then we could engage in relaxed, informative dialogue, rather than screaming matches and hatred. We would no longer question each other's motives and character (which not always possible to do anyway, as many people, including myself, don't always know their own motives) and instead focus on the validity of our arguments. Policy proposals such as ending the Federal Reserve, or instituting universal government healthcare would no longer be looked at as inherently evil, but evaluated as to whether or not it was a suitable method to achieving the goals most of us share. Discussion of ends (values and goals, in and of themselves) is a harder discussion to have, but the means to an end should be relatively easy once people agree on what goals they have in common.

exactly ...

unsung · October 2011

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, of why I will vote for Ron Paul is his push to audit and possibly end the Federal Reserve.

ONCE DEVIDED · October 2011

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

inlet13 · October 2011

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

The economy is important so that people live longer, healthier lives, with more prosperity and learn how to spell correctly.

jimc3 · October 2011

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

so societies with poor economies are better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

A Society is its economy

shitty economy = shitty society

thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.

you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.

you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?

think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?

how did those beds and houses come into existence?

that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.

or would you prefer this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h ... 7.5.2l14l0

Go Beavers · October 2011

jimc3 wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

so societies with poor economies are better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

A Society is its economy

shitty economy = shitty society

thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.

you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.

you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?

think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?

how did those beds and houses come into existence?

that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.

or would you prefer this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h ... 7.5.2l14l0

And bringing it back to the OP, are these thriving economies based on crusty Austrian economic theory or Keynesian economics?

jimc3 · October 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

jimc3 wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

so societies with poor economies are better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

A Society is its economy

shitty economy = shitty society

thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.

you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.

you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?

think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?

how did those beds and houses come into existence?

that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.

or would you prefer this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h ... 7.5.2l14l0

And bringing it back to the OP, are these thriving economies based on crusty Austrian economic theory or Keynesian economics?

irrelevant to the intent and goal of my post. I was responding to someone who questioned the importance of the economy. Austrian and Keynesian economics (obviously by their very nature) exisit because they understand the incredible importance of the ecomomy. They both have as a goal economic progress and prosperity, and they both have mixed-to-positive results. Austrian school is (broadly) laissez-faire capitalism, Keynesian is private-sector driven with government intervention capitalism. But they're both capitalism.

the poster "ONCE DEVIDED" seemed to me to be taking the radical Occupy Wall Street position of "all corporations are evil" and "capitalism doesn't work".

inlet13 · October 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

jimc3 wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

Why is THE ECONOMY.
so inportant.
I would think having a better society was a more inportant thing to have.

prosperous life. why and in what form
Im rich in love .
why are the poor so happy
and the rich so sad

cause al they have is each other
and we have so much to loose

so societies with poor economies are better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

A Society is its economy

shitty economy = shitty society

thriving economy = thriving society with mostly good people and a few a-holes who make things suck for everyone on occasion.

you have a limited amount of time on this earth. do you want to spend it in a shitty situation, or a thriving one that has some significant challenges every once in a while? there's no utopia. all the greatest minds the world has ever known have thought about it over thousands of years. I'm not saying you don't keep tweaking the recipe, but all the ingredients already exist. there's no more out there to be found.

you're here, alive, on this planet now. yes, love is the most important thing. but if we have the ability to make our time here better, shouldn't we do it?

think of it this way: humans used to sleep on the cold, hard, dirty ground in cold, hard, dirty caves. why do you think they eventually decided to sleep in warm, soft, clean beds with soft sheets in warm, clean houses?

how did those beds and houses come into existence?

that's the economy. everything the economy provides exists SOLELY because it makes someone's life better (in either the strictest or loosest definition of "better" there is). People want and need. the economy satisfies those wants and needs.

or would you prefer this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&h ... 7.5.2l14l0

And bringing it back to the OP, are these thriving economies based on crusty Austrian economic theory or Keynesian economics?

First, there's no bias in the use of the word "crusty". But, I'd say most economic growth occurred with adaptations to more of an Austrian perspective.

Unfortunately, I don't see many thriving economies now. But, I would say certain countries are moving away from government control and towards more market control, and are thriving (ie. China).

I'd say the US is an example of an economy, that until recent history, used (at least more of) an Austrian perspective. Now, of course, we've moved more and more to pure Keynesianism... with FDR forcing Americans to turn in their gold, to Nixon getting us off the Gold Standard and claiming "we're all Keynesians now"... to the Bush/Obama/Greenspan/Bernanke nonsense we've seen recently... we've slowly moved into a Keynesian nation.

North Korea, where those pictures were from, is without a doubt, based on more of a Keynesian perspective, than Austrian. If that answers your Q.

polaris_x · October 2011

north korea is a communist state ... how the heck is it based on keynesian economics?

edit: and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?

jimc3 · October 2011

inlet13 wrote:

North Korea, where those pictures were from, is without a doubt, based on more of a Keynesian perspective, than Austrian.

let's be fair. TECHNICALLY North Korea is closer to Keynesian than Austrian, but that's like saying your kids pee-wee baseball team is closer to the Astros than the Phillies.

jimc3 · October 2011

polaris_x wrote:

and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?

not according to wikipedia

"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy

"Sweden is an export-oriented mixed economy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Economy

those are obvious Kenesyian successes. of course, it's a lot easier to get 5 to 10 million homogenous people to agree and help each other out, than it is for say, 300 million diverse people to...

inlet13 · October 2011

polaris_x wrote:

north korea is a communist state ... how the heck is it based on keynesian economics?

edit: and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?

Agreed. But, he asked for comparison. If you're following along with the thread he quoted, it had photos of North Korea. He specifically asked about that.

I wouldn't classify North Korea as Keynesian at all. But, he asked between Keynesian and Austrian, and as such, I said Keynesian.... because it is closer to that.

inlet13 · October 2011

jimc3 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

North Korea, where those pictures were from, is without a doubt, based on more of a Keynesian perspective, than Austrian.

let's be fair. TECHNICALLY North Korea is closer to Keynesian than Austrian, but that's like saying your kids pee-wee baseball team is closer to the Astros than the Phillies.

Agreed. The guy asked for a comment on those photos (which were google images for "north korea"). I responded, the best I could under the conditions he requested.

I still don't understand what his point was. But, anywho...

polaris_x · October 2011

inlet13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

north korea is a communist state ... how the heck is it based on keynesian economics?

edit: and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?

Agreed. But, he asked for comparison. If you're following along with the thread he quoted, it had photos of North Korea. He specifically asked about that.

I wouldn't classify North Korea as Keynesian. But, he asked between Keynesian and Austrian, and as such, I said Keynesian.... because it is closer to that.

oh ... ok ... i misinterpreted ...

polaris_x · October 2011

jimc3 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?

not according to wikipedia

"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy

"Sweden is an export-oriented mixed economy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Economy

those are obvious Kenesyian successes. of course, it's a lot easier to get 5 to 10 million homogenous people to agree and help each other out, than it is for say, 300 million diverse people to...

modern day socialism isn't an economic model ... it's a way of governance ...

edit: yes, agreed it's much easier to accomplish things when everyone agrees on core principles ...

jimc3 · October 2011

polaris_x wrote:

jimc3 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

and why no pictures of norway or sweden which are modern day socialist countries?

not according to wikipedia

"The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy

"Sweden is an export-oriented mixed economy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Economy

those are obvious Kenesyian successes. of course, it's a lot easier to get 5 to 10 million homogenous people to agree and help each other out, than it is for say, 300 million diverse people to...

modern day socialism isn't an economic model ... it's a way of governance ...

edit: yes, agreed it's much easier to accomplish things when everyone agrees on core principles ...

but that's what were talking about...economic models.

I guess I'm curious as to your definition of "Modern day socialism" as it relates to governance?

Again, wiki:

"Norway is fundamentally structured as a representative democracy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Politics

"Today, Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy of government"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

(not trying to be Mr Wikipedia but it's just a convenient and efficient way to "cite")

The "Denial" of the Root of the Economic Turmoil

Comments

Categories

The &quot;Denial&quot; of the Root of the Economic Turmoil

Comments

Categories

The "Denial" of the Root of the Economic Turmoil