PDA

View Full Version : Fiscally responsible? Paying attention?



Sun Wukong
2nd October 09, 03:06 PM
We've had variations on this discussion forever and if I have anything to say about it, this conversation will never die.

I just wish you could nest mulitple polls into one thread. that would be awesome.

Sun Wukong
2nd October 09, 03:15 PM
Please take note: I'm NOT asking which of these brands of economics IS THE BEST, but specifically, I'm asking which have had the best track record in the US during the modern age (1930's to present).

f4n4n
2nd October 09, 03:20 PM
When you say neo classical are we talking "free trade ala. smith" here??

Sun Wukong
2nd October 09, 03:21 PM
I'm talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics

Ajamil
2nd October 09, 03:27 PM
Why isn't there a Pariah/Don't Know option? To wiki! (Anyone want to make my work less and pair up times when these economic structures have had effect?)

Neildo
2nd October 09, 03:27 PM
all work and no play makes chris a dull boy

f4n4n
2nd October 09, 03:31 PM
I'm talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economicsA simple yes would have done... but hey, what ever floats your boat.

Sun Wukong
2nd October 09, 03:36 PM
all work and no play makes chris a dull boy

you are right sir.

The good news is, I'm opening an electronics/cell phone store this month and I'm optimistic about my prospects because I don't have competition for about 25 miles.

The bad news, I have almost no free time, and I'm stressed out.

Sun Wukong
2nd October 09, 03:37 PM
A simple yes would have done... but hey, what ever floats your boat.

I wanted to as precise as possible, because there is a lot of confusion what "free trade" really means.

f4n4n
2nd October 09, 03:40 PM
You considered the competition you get from online stores? I know a lot of people who "recently" switched to buying their shit online, price and all you know?

Sun Wukong
2nd October 09, 03:43 PM
You considered the competition you get from online stores? I know a lot of people who "recently" switched to buying their shit online, price and all you know?
Yes, I did consider that. It's almost nil in this area; most everyone is computer illiterate around here.

Ironically, I've dedicated half of the store to an internet cafe'. Product diversification.

Sun Wukong
2nd October 09, 05:54 PM
Obviously, I feel that this has baring on the discussion.

TRgRz3nSG7o

Ajamil
3rd October 09, 12:07 AM
This means I should stop applying for the FAFSA then?

WarPhalange
3rd October 09, 01:52 AM
HOW DO ECONOMY?

Kiko
3rd October 09, 06:07 AM
This is ground zero because.....?

Cullion
3rd October 09, 07:37 AM
Friedmanite economics and the Austrian school aren't the same thing. They differ on monetary policy quite a bit.

downinit
3rd October 09, 09:27 AM
Please take note: I'm NOT asking which of these brands of economics IS THE BEST, but specifically, I'm asking which have had the best track record in the US during the modern age (1930's to present).

When you frame the question this way, haven't you essentially eliminated Austrian economics from the equation, seeing as these theories haven't really had a track record during this period? Actually, you've eliminated Marxist policies as well, since they've never prevailed in the US -- not that they'd be in the running anyway, since the results of their application have ranged anywhere from mediocrity to complete disaster.

Cullion
3rd October 09, 11:46 AM
SWK didn't know that Friedmanite economics and Austrian school economics aren't the same thing when he wrote the poll.

Sun Wukong
3rd October 09, 02:30 PM
SWK didn't know that Friedmanite economics and Austrian school economics aren't the same thing when he wrote the poll.


Actually, I do know they aren't the same thing. I lumped them together because their differences are minor for the purposes of the poll.

Sun Wukong
3rd October 09, 02:32 PM
When you frame the question this way, haven't you essentially eliminated Austrian economics from the equation, seeing as these theories haven't really had a track record during this period? Actually, you've eliminated Marxist policies as well, since they've never prevailed in the US -- not that they'd be in the running anyway, since the results of their application have ranged anywhere from mediocrity to complete disaster.

Well, I'm econo-trolling right now. There's only two serious answers on that list. Anyone who answers anything else is highly uninformed and I can disregard anything they say on the matter by their answer.

Cullion
3rd October 09, 02:36 PM
So, uh, what are you actually trying to demonstrate ?

Sun Wukong
3rd October 09, 02:49 PM
So, uh, what are you actually trying to demonstrate ?

If i told you that, I'd defeat the purpose of the poll.

EuropIan
3rd October 09, 02:55 PM
I voted keynsian, because it was actually used.

Cullion
3rd October 09, 03:07 PM
Well, as far as I can tell, since 1930 you've had basically neo-Keynsian approaches to economics with money either pumped into the military-industrial complex or the welfare system as the means of stimulus, and the money raised by varying mixes of taxation and government borrowing.

Whether or not this appears to produce prosperity just depends on whether the Fed happened to be goosing a credit bubble or was desperately trying to recover from the effects of the last one at the time. So I'm not sure what to vote for in that list. It's not like Americans really get to vote on economic policy, so why not just leave it alone ?

f4n4n
3rd October 09, 10:19 PM
I think they tried to get of the bit keynsian road after nixon... but went back later. I think though that in general they think they are going neo classic since him. Well, lets see how it unfolds. As I wrote somewhere else, medicare for the win!

HappyOldGuy
3rd October 09, 11:55 PM
It really depends on what you're talking about, the fed has really only done variations on keynes and friedman. When you talk about taxes, spending, etc, that's where other theories come into play a little bit.

f4n4n
4th October 09, 12:08 PM
The function of the fed is not do make the monetarian policy in the US, you should know that and I think you do...

HappyOldGuy
4th October 09, 12:18 PM
The function of the fed is not do make the monetarian policy in the US, you should know that and I think you do...

err. Yeah, it is. That's it's main purpose.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

Cullion
4th October 09, 12:41 PM
The function of the fed is not do make the monetarian policy in the US, you should know that and I think you do...

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

FickleFingerOfFate
4th October 09, 01:46 PM
I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.


I've been saying that about him for ages.

f4n4n
4th October 09, 02:01 PM
Sorry, I mixed up the words here (different in German you know) my bad.
What I wanted to say was that the FED is busy with exactly what I said they are not but don't get involved in the spending process besides buying or selling treasury options. While the State is the one who gets the saying in what they spend the money on. And the state should keep his hands out of the dealing of the FED (though they always want low loan rates because they think it is better for the economy)
But here is the thing, while the state will in a way always be a bit of keyns because he is always spending and thus influencing the economy, the question is, whether he does that as a regular actor within the market or if he tries to effect that market with his spending. And he can also decide on the amount of the spending, as well the areas or he can leave that road and go full keyns if he for instances provides subsidies or price caps, minimum wages etc.

Again, sorry for the mixup...

Cullion
4th October 09, 02:37 PM
The Fed buys things other than government bonds, absolutely. What do you think the bailout was ?

f4n4n
4th October 09, 02:47 PM
Well, they used a loophole in the founding law. They did that once before (in 1987 if I recall correct) but it was pointed out that they did this to keep the money stable and avoid a cascade which would likely have send the dollar down hill faster than an avalanche.
So did they interfere with the market? Yes, they did, but because, like almost everybody, they rather have a little bit kayns than having the american people face complete and utter capitalism and the results of it.
Still they main position of the FED over the last decades was to, if possible, not interfere with the market but provide a solid/stable setting for the market.

Cullion
4th October 09, 03:02 PM
The FED, by it's very existence and nature of its government debt purchase and money creating operations interferes with the markets.

They transferred the cost of 'total capitalism' from the banks who made the bad bets to the American people as a whole. Which is what they were founded to do.

Sun Wukong
5th October 09, 12:28 AM
I'm not asking what economic principles we've used, I'm asking which ones have done us the most good.

We didn't go from being a country that Japan thought it could push around to being a country the entire world is afraid of both militarily and financially by sitting on our hands.

Cullion
5th October 09, 02:13 AM
That's not a result of good economic policy.

Sun Wukong
5th October 09, 06:27 AM
That's not a result of good economic policy.


So our economic decisions had nothing to do with this?

socratic
5th October 09, 07:13 AM
I can't decide... All the options appear to be shitty.

elipson
5th October 09, 09:29 AM
So our economic decisions had nothing to do with this?

Very little. It had more to do with a huge natural resource base, an isolated geography from the rest of the world preventing you from being an easy target for ambitious neighbours, a large population based on easy immigration laws prior to WW2, and HUGE amounts of aggressive military spending and action.

If you want to know which economic system was most beneficial to the US over its entire history, then the answer Adam Smith inspired capitalism. None of your choices really affected the outcome of the US as a super-power.

I think Keynes had the biggest positive influence on the US, but I think most of the modern day US has been shaped by Reaganomics.

Vieux Normand
5th October 09, 10:08 AM
Why does the "economic system" of being up to the neck in debt to China not figure in the poll?

HappyOldGuy
5th October 09, 10:26 AM
Why does the "economic system" of being up to the neck in debt to China not figure in the poll?

That would be keynes.

Vieux Normand
5th October 09, 10:32 AM
That would be keynes.

In hock to a foreign (and not necessarily friendly) jurisdiction? That is indeed NEO-keynesian.

Feryk
5th October 09, 02:52 PM
Especially when they are in the process of devaluing the currency that debt is held in. Silly Chinese, thinking the USD was a 'reserve currency'.

HappyOldGuy
5th October 09, 03:14 PM
Especially when they are in the process of devaluing the currency that debt is held in. Silly Chinese, thinking the USD was a 'reserve currency'.

Umm, no.

Spade: The Real Snake
5th October 09, 03:17 PM
I remember the good old days, when we had to worry about Japan buying up everything.

HappyOldGuy
5th October 09, 03:19 PM
I remember the good old days, when we had to worry about Japan buying up everything.

Then they had this "sudden and unexpected" devastating economic collapse that forced them to reevaluate their goals as a nation and decide that hentai and schoolgirls matter more than world domination.

I wonder what the chinese will decide to do with their free time afterwards.

Cullion
5th October 09, 03:23 PM
Japan had been conquered and had it's government re-engineered by the US and was a client state militarily. Chinese hasn't and isn't.

Cullion
5th October 09, 03:24 PM
So our economic decisions had nothing to do with this?

What do you mean by 'our' ?

And no, I don't consider imperial military buildup at the expense of the public's capital reserves and indebtedness for the benefit of a relatively small corporate elite to be economic advancement.

The advances in living standard you see are a result of technological advance within the vestigal framework of a free market that you have, not shrewd economic policy. If you'd been experiencing genuine increases in public prosperity you wouldn't have so many of you struggling to pay doctors bills, eat crappy borderline toxic food and wondering how on earth your parents managed to buy homes with such lower debt loads despite being relatively less educated.

I know this doesn't apply to you per se, because you dragged yourself out of t3h Louisiana redneckery, and I respect you for it, but I think it applies to increasing numbers of Americans (and gen X & Y adults of other western nations).

Spade: The Real Snake
5th October 09, 03:24 PM
Then they had this "sudden and unexpected" devastating economic collapse that forced them to reevaluate their goals as a nation and decide that hentai and schoolgirls matter more than world domination.
Fucking D'UH!


I wonder what the chinese will decide to do with their free time afterwards.
Not killing all the female babies?

Sun Wukong
5th October 09, 03:44 PM
If you want to know which economic system was most beneficial to the US over its entire history, then the answer Adam Smith inspired capitalism. None of your choices really affected the outcome of the US as a super-power.


Respectfully that is not true at all. Economics is basically management of resources for the greatest productivity in both micro and macro situations. It is easy to say that we are powerful because of our natural resources, etc, but then again, take a loo at China, Mexico, India, Brazil, Columbia and Russia. They all have enormous land and labor resources.



China has poor natural resources and began this century with considerable social issues, but many of their problems as well as the problems of Russia, had to do with terrible economic management of the previous Monarch-based governments.

We may have made better political decisions that enabled us to more easily enact good economic policies this century more easily than those countries, but our decisions were still up to us and we made a lot of very good choices regardless of what many would say about how we just kinda got lucky due to no particular thing we did on our own. This is a cop out.

I realize I phrased my original argument in an 80 year time frame, but that is the era in which we saw the most economic growth. Surely, this did not happen by chance and circumstance; the kind of power the United States wields doesn't just fall into a societies lap because they are relatively isolated from the world.

We exploited our advantages, but that implies intelligent decision making and not just some random nation building game of grab ass.

HappyOldGuy
5th October 09, 03:50 PM
Japan had been conquered and had it's government re-engineered by the US and was a client state militarily. Chinese hasn't and isn't.

Which is relevant to an asset bubble 50 years later exactly not at all.

Spade: The Real Snake
5th October 09, 03:52 PM
Which is relevant to an asset bubble 50 years later exactly not at all.

Though it may explain a fascination with 50 yr. old American cultural icons

Sun Wukong
5th October 09, 03:52 PM
What do you mean by 'our' ?


Sorry Cullion, I was speaking inclusively of myself, my countrymen and our progenitors. I mean "our" as a nation. I may have had very little to do with things myself, but I am an American.

Sun Wukong
5th October 09, 04:07 PM
And no, I don't consider imperial military buildup at the expense of the public's capital reserves and indebtedness for the benefit of a relatively small corporate elite to be economic advancement.


These is not all we've done, but I think you've effectively identified and eliminated one red herring from my poll here.



The advances in living standard you see are a result of technological advance within the vestigal framework of a free market that you have, not shrewd economic policy. If you'd been experiencing genuine increases in public prosperity you wouldn't have so many of you struggling to pay doctors bills, eat crappy borderline toxic food and wondering how on earth your parents managed to buy homes with such lower debt loads despite being relatively less educated.


You are focusing on our current economic problems and not our past economic achievements. 80 years ago the world was experiencing the worst economic depression of our nations history and we ourselves were destitute as a nation. We were then on the precipice of potential decisions that would effect us for the rest of our days. If the decisions we made from 1930 to 1960 had nothing to do with our economic recovery, then I'd suggest somebody found a magic lamp somewhere and there is a genie who every american today owe's a handshake to.

Feryk
5th October 09, 04:34 PM
What do you mean by 'our' ?

And no, I don't consider imperial military buildup at the expense of the public's capital reserves and indebtedness for the benefit of a relatively small corporate elite to be economic advancement.

My God, I actually agree with Cullion on something economic.


The advances in living standard you see are a result of technological advance within the vestigal framework of a free market that you have, not shrewd economic policy. If you'd been experiencing genuine increases in public prosperity you wouldn't have so many of you struggling to pay doctors bills, eat crappy borderline toxic food and wondering how on earth your parents managed to buy homes with such lower debt loads despite being relatively less educated.

Again, I agree with Cullion. America has a socioeconomic system that fosters entrepreneurialism, innovation, and technological development. All good for the Americans. However, America's relative wealth (GDP Growth vs. the rest of the World's GDP Growth) has been decreasing relative to world GDP Growth since at least 1970. The US is averaging around 2.1 percent annual Growth versus 2.4 for the World as a whole. Canada is in the same ballpark. The UK is actually better, averaging 2.4%. Australia started out slower at 1.5% from 1970-1990, but increased to 2.4% from 1990-2007.

source: UNData. http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=World+GDP+Growth+Rates&d=SOWC&f=inID%3a93%3bcrID%3a15

Sun Wukong
5th October 09, 04:44 PM
Clearly we've made mistakes and continue to make some of them over and over again. That is not what is at the heart of this question. At the heart of this, I'm asking "What did we get right and where did those principles come from?"

What economic school of thought has done us the most good monetarily?

If all we did was fuckup, we wouldn't be where we are today in comparison with the rest of the world. Clothe ourselves, attend school and pursue our desires with a relatively reasonable hope of achievement.

Sun Wukong
5th October 09, 04:54 PM
Cullion, I'm not denying that we made mistakes. I AM deny we made nothing but mistakes. What I'm asking is if you can identify the common principles that most resemble a single school of economic thought that likely contributed the most to American prosperity what would that school be?

Cullion
5th October 09, 04:59 PM
Again, I agree with Cullion. America has a socioeconomic system that fosters entrepreneurialism, innovation, and technological development. All good for the Americans. However, America's relative wealth (GDP Growth vs. the rest of the World's GDP Growth) has been decreasing relative to world GDP Growth since at least 1970. The US is averaging around 2.1 percent annual Growth versus 2.4 for the World as a whole. Canada is in the same ballpark. The UK is actually better, averaging 2.4%. Australia started out slower at 1.5% from 1970-1990, but increased to 2.4% from 1990-2007

I actually disagree with what you've said here. In my view America is now borrowing money to import t3h smart and then frittering the fruit of their labour away. A simpler way to view it would be 'hollowing out'. This process is much more advanced in the UK. Let me be clear, I'm not making a racial point here. I'm describing a ruling white elite who are so distant from the people who their job it is to govern that it's not funny, they're just continually proposing anything that maximises their capital rather than personal labour returns, and ignoring the fact that the returns are diminishing.

To greater or lesser degrees, this is the poison of the West. English speaking nations are at the vanguard.

Sun Wukong
5th October 09, 06:59 PM
Cullion, are you just boycotting my poll on principle of not wanting to commit to an answer?

socratic
6th October 09, 06:20 AM
Speaking of the Soviet nations, apparently their education system kicked seven shades of shit out of everywher else's. Economic mismanagement pretty much was what kicked their bucket, because they weren't dumb, just greedy and willing to sacrifice lives en masse.

Feryk
6th October 09, 08:50 AM
Umm, no.

Keep looking. You'll start to notice that your dollar doesn't buy what it used to. Or are you thinking that was by accident?

Feryk
6th October 09, 08:57 AM
I actually disagree with what you've said here. In my view America is now borrowing money to import t3h smart and then frittering the fruit of their labour away. A simpler way to view it would be 'hollowing out'. This process is much more advanced in the UK. Let me be clear, I'm not making a racial point here. I'm describing a ruling white elite who are so distant from the people who their job it is to govern that it's not funny, they're just continually proposing anything that maximises their capital rather than personal labour returns, and ignoring the fact that the returns are diminishing.

To greater or lesser degrees, this is the poison of the West. English speaking nations are at the vanguard.

I thought you were trying to say that Americans were not 'getting richer', but actually backsliding as a nation. The UNData database supports that conclusion. There is evidence that the top 1% of Americans have steadily been getting richer, and that there is growing disparity between them and the average American household. All of this can be shown with empirical data.

The process you are describing (the 'hollowing out' stuff), I believe is probably happening, but I don't know how to find evidence of that.

HappyOldGuy
6th October 09, 10:52 AM
Keep looking. You'll start to notice that your dollar doesn't buy what it used to. Or are you thinking that was by accident?

Speaking as a middle class american with a strong vested interest in a weak dollar, this is something I watch rather alot.

Oh wait. You thought a weak dollar was a bad thing rather than a tax on us exports.

f4n4n
6th October 09, 11:23 AM
Well, though I am not that familiar with the US economic history, I think a wise man pointed out that two things carried the US economy for the last 60 year, the big number of educated people, financed by the GI bill, moving the focus from manual labor to a more educated work and then after that the baby boomers. And for the last part of the 90s to some extend up to 2002 you had the "new economy" going on. Moving to an even more educated part of work, that is hardly any manual labor but mainly brains... why you country hits the shitter now? Well your education system pretty much sucks, world interest rates have been on a decline for the last two decades, new big labor strong countries competing with your products that do not have the adv. of being hightech. Your country has been fighting a couple of wars that are quite pricey, the baby boomers are about to retire and there are not enough people to replace them and then there is the oil price, which already kicked your economy in the ass in the late 70s and is doing so again now.
What did you do right? Education for quite some time, combined with a great increase in births leading to more demand, higher productivity and the status as a super power and trading imperialistic style, forcing your "free market" idea on to countries in order to exploit parts of them that seemed helpful at that time.
Also you tend to forget that technical advanced impacted with a distinctive delay and thus you should extend your 80 year frame a bit because moving to electro engines and light bulbs though introduced way earlier only started to hit almost 15 20 years later.... same goes for the telephone, computer and all the other nice gadgets.

Feryk
6th October 09, 11:38 AM
Speaking as a middle class american with a strong vested interest in a weak dollar, this is something I watch rather alot.

Oh wait. You thought a weak dollar was a bad thing rather than a tax on us exports.

Actually, I think a weak USD is necessary. It's not bad, but it means that the relative wealth of the average US household is dropping relative to the rest of the world.

Sun Wukong
6th October 09, 04:36 PM
That would be keynes.
I'd have to disagree with you there. As much borrowing as we have done starting in 1981 and moving along outward doesn't rest so much at the feet of Keynes and maybe has more to do with a certain dead president whom is mentioned prominently in my little list.

FickleFingerOfFate
6th October 09, 04:41 PM
I'd have to disagree with you there. As much borrowing as we have done starting in 1981 and moving along outward doesn't rest so much at the feet of Keynes and maybe has more to do with a certain dead president whom is mentioned prominently in my little list.

So, the moron was;

REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!
REAGAN!!!!!!
REAGAN!!!!!!!
REAGAN!!

Cullion
6th October 09, 04:50 PM
Which is relevant to an asset bubble 50 years later exactly not at all.

It is relevant. It's relevant when you look at how gradually 1st World Asian political cultures change. These cultures, to me at least, seem nothing if not 'gradualist' at the top. I'm not trying to make some kind of 'racial' point, I'm trying to make a cultural observation.

Cullion
6th October 09, 04:57 PM
I thought you were trying to say that Americans were not 'getting richer', but actually backsliding as a nation. The UNData database supports that conclusion. There is evidence that the top 1% of Americans have steadily been getting richer, and that there is growing disparity between them and the average American household. All of this can be shown with empirical data.

The process you are describing (the 'hollowing out' stuff), I believe is probably happening, but I don't know how to find evidence of that.

I think the commonly accepted measures of 'wealth' are broken, especially for Western 'first worlders'. I'll go further. I think the measures of wealth people commonly accept in the US, the UK, some of the rest of the world are actually implanted memes, part of a long-term well-funded spin-campaign.

I calmly accept the fact that I'm seen as nuts for thinking that. But if you doubt me, please, let's thrash it out here.

Feryk
6th October 09, 05:01 PM
I can't thrash anything out if you don't explain it better. What do you think represents real wealth?

Sun Wukong
6th October 09, 05:14 PM
Cullion, are you just boycotting my poll on principle of not wanting to commit to an answer?

ahem...

Cullion
6th October 09, 05:17 PM
I'm going to have to make some extrapolations from almost metaphysical values here. I understand how flakey that is in logical debate, but before you lay into me, give me the chance to point out the ignored metaphyical underpinnings of the current measures, as I see them. Fair ?

Here's my first one:

Your degree of real wealth is inversely proportional to the degree of servitude you experience in real life.

How is this measurable ?

Well, it's not easy, but I think debt-load relative to income is one reasonable measure, or at least a start. I think that has been increasing the US and UK over the last 2 or 3 generations. Call me nuts.

Cullion
6th October 09, 05:19 PM
ahem...

Oh shit, sorry. In your terms, Neo-Keynsianism would win. In my terms, it's been a long exercise in fail and akin to asking survivors of a bank heist which robber took the least money. Sorry I can't be more positive than that, but I regard the socio-economic history of the English speaking West to be one, long, sad heist which was so well set-up that the most of the common populace didn't even realise it was happening.

Sun Wukong
6th October 09, 05:30 PM
Oh shit, sorry. In your terms, Neo-Keynsianism would win. In my terms, it's been a long exercise in fail and akin to asking survivors of a bank heist which robber took the least money. Sorry I can't be more positive than that, but I regard the socio-economic history of the English speaking West to be one, long, sad heist which was so well set-up that the most of the common populace didn't even realise it was happening.

God damn it man, you really need to start looking at the histories of 3rd world countries and the sick sad relationships their people have with their governments.

You know this to be true: the powerful abuse the weak. The rich rob the poor. You can't possibly think this is an isolated occurrence in English speaking countries. I'm not advocating socialism or communist ideology by saying that first bit; I'm no Vladimir Lenin, but it just so happens to be true.

Our governments are run by half-wits and gamed by spin doctors pretty much non-stop, but holy shit that happens in every government.

Probably 80% of every politician in the world got to power with the desire to make a buck on the backs of their citizens.

Don't lose sight of the few good things that actually happened.

Cullion
6th October 09, 05:36 PM
I admit in the counter-historical position. I'm a proponent of a model which hasn't been tried much, for good reason. I now acknowledge that the economic model I espouse has only briefly occurred in frontier societies, because that's how human nature is. I continue to espouse it, with reservations. I've learned to live with smart people thinking I'm nuts.

Sun Wukong
6th October 09, 05:42 PM
I don't think your nuts. I'm just trying to isolate sources of good economic actions in the US. Now that this is accomplished here, (I needed your vote to move forward with my plan) I'm going to start another poll.

HappyOldGuy
6th October 09, 05:50 PM
I admit in the counter-historical position. I'm a proponent of a model which hasn't been tried much, for good reason. I now acknowledge that the economic model I espouse has only briefly occurred in frontier societies, because that's how human nature is. I continue to espouse it, with reservations. I've learned to live with smart people thinking I'm nuts.

I don't think you are nuts. I think if you didn't have that one gaping hole in your game you would mop the floor with me on economics. There are a set of beliefs that I categorize as traps for smart people. because they are complex enough to challenge a smart persons brain, non mainstream, and offer answers that are internally consistent and not obviously falsifiable. Most people who's brainpower I respect fall into one or another. But that doesn't stop me from taking advantage of those weakspots in debate.

Cullion
6th October 09, 05:59 PM
I have just voted for the Neo-Keynsian model. This is obviously incongruous with my normally espoused beliefs, so allow me to explain it.

I admit to being a conspiracy theorist. I believe that monetary policy, almost in it's entirety, certain less publicly monitored but important portions of our law, and our public fiscal policies have essentially slipped from our democratic control, and are now the property of the top-tier of the international financial services sector. I believe I can demonstrate these points with primary sources. I understand HoG's point of view that the top tier of anything this big don't actually get to control the populace like radio-controlled toys, and there's a lot of compromise with the unexpected involved in practice.

Neo-Keynsians, like the Clinton administration, to my view, represent people with the nous to ride the waves this private power generates, and to win small concessions from them. I do really believe that the majority of 'liberals' for want of a better term, hold the views they do out of genuine good intention. I used to be such a liberal myself.

But, it's not enough. The concessions they win, in my view, are flibs, small PR plays, which simply set us up for problems in the future.

I regard the 'Reaganite' economists as unashamed placemen who simply perform a PR function where people's justified scrutiny of the politically-connected rich is diverted to mocking people just a tier or two below them in the phoney meritocracy we serfs live in.

I think I understand the trap HoG believes I'm falling into. I'm still holding on to these views for now. I'm not sure what kind of demonstration might sway HoG or SWK a bit more my way of seeing things.

socratic
6th October 09, 09:31 PM
It is relevant. It's relevant when you look at how gradually 1st World Asian political cultures change. These cultures, to me at least, seem nothing if not 'gradualist' at the top. I'm not trying to make some kind of 'racial' point, I'm trying to make a cultural observation. You'll have to be more specific. Which 'Asian' nations? China? Japan? Korea? These cultures suffer a lot of the same economic problems the rest of the world suffers, and sometimes worse. Japan is like 140% of it's GDP in debt. Corruption and grab-all-the-money-you-can-from-the-poor capitalism is strong in China. The buck is so powerful there they'd gladly sacrifice public health if it meant getting rich. Deregulated economy which would gladly sacrifice public health for money-making. I don't see many things in Asia socio-economically that don't have parallels in the 'West'.

elipson
6th October 09, 10:08 PM
Respectfully that is not true at all. Economics is basically management of resources for the greatest productivity in both micro and macro situations. It is easy to say that we are powerful because of our natural resources, etc, but then again, take a look at China, Mexico, India, Brazil, Columbia and Russia. They all have enormous land and labor resources.

My point wasn't that economics didn't make you powerful, my point was that the choices you had on your poll didn't necessarily lead to America being a superpower. The choice I would have taken was not on your poll, it was a write in vote. I agree with your counter-point about developing nations not making the same gains the US did.

elipson
6th October 09, 10:12 PM
I have just voted for the Neo-Keynsian model. This is obviously incongruous with my normally espoused beliefs, so allow me to explain it.

I admit to being a conspiracy theorist. I believe that monetary policy, almost in it's entirety, certain less publicly monitored but important portions of our law, and our public fiscal policies have essentially slipped from our democratic control, and are now the property of the top-tier of the international financial services sector. I believe I can demonstrate these points with primary sources. I understand HoG's point of view that the top tier of anything this big don't actually get to control the populace like radio-controlled toys, and there's a lot of compromise with the unexpected involved in practice.

Neo-Keynsians, like the Clinton administration, to my view, represent people with the nous to ride the waves this private power generates, and to win small concessions from them. I do really believe that the majority of 'liberals' for want of a better term, hold the views they do out of genuine good intention. I used to be such a liberal myself.

But, it's not enough. The concessions they win, in my view, are flibs, small PR plays, which simply set us up for problems in the future.

I regard the 'Reaganite' economists as unashamed placemen who simply perform a PR function where people's justified scrutiny of the politically-connected rich is diverted to mocking people just a tier or two below them in the phoney meritocracy we serfs live in.

I think I understand the trap HoG believes I'm falling into. I'm still holding on to these views for now. I'm not sure what kind of demonstration might sway HoG or SWK a bit more my way of seeing things.

I've spent years trying to decide what exactly it is you believe in economics.

Thank you for this. It's a good argument.

Feryk
7th October 09, 09:23 AM
Time for Cullion to crash the Bildeberg Conference. I'm sure they'd set a place for you at their table...:)

Btw, your point about control of the major financial institutions being more important than the control of the government seems to have been made for you recently. I'm just not sure what that has to do with the economic models being discussed.

Cullion
7th October 09, 05:52 PM
Btw, your point about control of the major financial institutions being more important than the control of the government seems to have been made for you recently. I'm just not sure what that has to do with the economic models being discussed.

Well, I'm not so much picking a side, as trying to explain why I'm a follower of such a minority view. I am taking the conspiracy-theorist line of believing I'm in the minority only because I've managed to resist a long-term propaganda campaign waged by a priviledged elite.

Feryk
8th October 09, 09:27 AM
I am taking the conspiracy-theorist line of believing I'm in the minority only because I've managed to resist a long-term propaganda campaign waged by a priviledged elite.

If we assume that you are correct in this, then you should also assume that they have factored your response into their propaganda campaign, and they will have accounted for a percentage of the population believing as you do. What makes you think you have managed to avoid drinking ALL the kool aid?

elipson
8th October 09, 11:26 AM
Recognizing the kool aid is the first step in not drinking it.

Cullion
8th October 09, 12:09 PM
If we assume that you are correct in this, then you should also assume that they have factored your response into their propaganda campaign, and they will have accounted for a percentage of the population believing as you do. What makes you think you have managed to avoid drinking ALL the kool aid?

I don't know if I have. That's why I change my mind sometimes when I notice something new.