Penn Jillette's counterintuitive commentary [Archive]

lomiller

1st April 2009, 04:11 PM

Like any good magician it’s all about the misdirection. At no point has Obama said anything about “spending out way out of debt” if you really want to go with the car analogy he wants to get the car out of the skid before worrying about whether he’s driving on the correct road.

On a side note, the main “counterintuitive” thing about driving out of a skid is the description about how to do it. Most people don’t really understand what “steering into the skid” means, but if you tell them to “steer in the direction you want to go” it becomes pretty darn intuitive.

If you really want to apply a car analogy to that you can. You want the banks working and the economy growing steer in that direction to end the skid. Once you are out of the skid then you drive to where you want to go and reduce the deficit.

Unabogie

1st April 2009, 06:59 PM

quixotecoyote

1st April 2009, 07:01 PM

Unabogie

1st April 2009, 07:08 PM

The latest one is

Tax Cuts
Almost as much spending as the current plan
Profit!

This is what I don't understand about modern conservatives. Rather than do what's obviously right in this situation, thereby regaining some credibility on the economy, they've decided to completely oppose Obama on everything, regardless of the merits, and to offer no serious plans as an alternative.

Especially since Obama is (to a fault) willing to work with them.

If I was running the RNC, I would be slapping Republican names on as many bills as I could to show that Obama + GOP = effective government.

Instead, the argument in 2010 will be "VOTE FOR GRIDLOCK!"

Is this really wise?

Really?

Meadmaker

1st April 2009, 07:54 PM

Like any good magician it’s all about the misdirection. At no point has Obama said anything about “spending out way out of debt”

Let's be fair to Penn. At no point did Penn say that Obama was doing the wrong thing, or that it wouldn't work.

Penn expressed my feelings on the subject quite well. I know Obama is smart. In Penn's words, he is "dripping smart". He acts like he knows what he is doing, and he seems so smart and so confident that you really want to believe that this is a good idea. And yet, your intuition tells you that what he is doing is a very, very, bad, idea.

Sometimes, the right thing is counterintuitive. I hope this is one of those times, because my intuition tells me that spending this huge amount of money without raising the taxes to pay for it will end up quite badly.

Unabogie

1st April 2009, 08:04 PM

Let's be fair to Penn. At no point did Penn say that Obama was doing the wrong thing, or that it wouldn't work.

Penn expressed my feelings on the subject quite well. I know Obama is smart. In Penn's words, he is "dripping smart". He acts like he knows what he is doing, and he seems so smart and so confident that you really want to believe that this is a good idea. And yet, your intuition tells you that what he is doing is a very, very, bad, idea.

Sometimes, the right thing is counterintuitive. I hope this is one of those times, because my intuition tells me that spending this huge amount of money without raising the taxes to pay for it will end up quite badly.

I understand your concern, but the whole point of this spending is that it's the best of a slew of bad options. The only good choice would have been to regulate the CDS market before it got so large that a 10% default rate on subprime mortgages would be enough to bankrupt half the country's banks.

The last quarter of 2008 had something like a 6% drop in GDP. No economists suggest anything other than spending from government to prevent a deflationary spiral, and no economists say such a spiral is unlikely.

If this were a fire, would you be arguing over the cost of water? That's the analogy here, as far as I can tell.

XXX

2nd April 2009, 01:35 AM

I don;t trust Penn at all in anything that he says. He deceptively edits the hell out of his "BS" show so that he can look better yelling at the people. And many times, as happens often on opinion shows, the coverage of other viewpoints, angles and facts can leave a lot to be desired. (Not that I have hated every episode or anything, I do like some of them.)

Upchurch

2nd April 2009, 06:56 AM

It's a classic argument from authority situation.

In terms of magic, tricks, and misdirection, Penn is a perfectly valid authority. As far as politics go, his opinion carries about as much weight as mine does.

mhaze

2nd April 2009, 07:56 AM

I have yet to hear any economist argue that government spending is not only essential at this point, but also the only recourse left.

GDP = consumer spending + investment + exports + government spending.

Now correct your formula for the effects of printing money and diluting the M1, M2, and M3 numbers.

The only good choice would have been to regulate the CDS market before it got so large that a 10% default rate on subprime mortgages would be enough to bankrupt half the country's banks.THAT is a $130B problem. Problem was not with subprimes, and your argument about the current course being the best option is word salad.

Like that of the Admin.

Unabogie

2nd April 2009, 09:01 AM

Now correct your formula for the effects of printing money and diluting the M1, M2, and M3 numbers.
THAT is a $130B problem. Problem was not with subprimes, and your argument about the current course being the best option is word salad.

Like that of the Admin.

Wikipedia seems to agree with me.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp)
But beyond that, you seem to misunderstand what I wrote, but I'll put some dressing on it so it goes down smoother for you. The problem is that the 10% default rate triggered trillions of dollars in credit default swap contracts to be called in. In light of that, the credit market froze shut. The sellers of these CDSs were assuming a default rate of only 5% in their projections, which was obviously wrong, and caused the situation we're in.

Here's a very good article (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?print=true) on the insanity that led us to where we are now.

Now, with frozen credit markets and AAA rated bonds which were only propped up by CDS contracts, what options are there?

Nationalize the zombie banks.
Facilitate the buying of these assets to unwind them and sell off the actual homes and mortgages they were based on.
Nothing.

Please let me know if there are more options than what I've written, since you haven't offered an alternative other than insults (unless childish insults can get money flowing, then have at it).

Meadmaker

2nd April 2009, 09:03 AM

If this were a fire, would you be arguing over the cost of water? That's the analogy here, as far as I can tell.

A better analogy would be arguing about the level of the water in the reservoir.

Beerina

2nd April 2009, 10:43 AM

Penn is a great magician, and I liked a lot of his "Bull---" episodes, but when it comes to politics and economics let us say his opinions are very questionable. He pretty much pushes the straight Libertarian line.

Last century had hundreds of long-term economic experiments involving roughly 10 billion people, showing a direct correlation between amount of freedom, including economic freedom, and general wealth of nations.

The theory is this economic power derives from freedom since people can be secure in keeping the product of their own efforts. How hard would you run in a 100-m dash if your win was "taxed" away and awarded to someone else?

So I'm a bit confused as to why any theory other than laissez-faire capitalism, a libertarian's economic position, is still considered viable today?

In any other field, every damned one of you skeptics demands proof. But politics is the last great refuge of woo for some of you -- even those who have given up on their own religious beliefs.

mhaze

2nd April 2009, 10:48 AM

Wikipedia seems to agree with me.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp)
But beyond that, you seem to misunderstand what I wrote....

Oh, wiki agrees with you when you look up GDP? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp)

Shucks, you would not be inclined to look up Real GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_GDP), would you?

The, uh, real kind of, uh, GDP?

Now where are we?

Addressing one part of your second assertion with your link, which I have read before: ... Now he saw. There weren’t enough Americans with ****** credit taking out loans to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product. The firms used Eisman’s bet to synthesize more of them. Here, then, was the difference between fantasy finance and fantasy football: When a fantasy player drafts Peyton Manning, he doesn’t create a second Peyton Manning to inflate the league’s stats. But when Eisman bought a credit-default swap, he enabled Deutsche Bank to create another bond identical in every respect but one to the original. The only difference was that there was no actual homebuyer or borrower. The only assets backing the bonds were the side bets Eisman and others made with firms like Goldman Sachs. Eisman, in effect, was paying to Goldman the interest on a subprime mortgage. In fact, there was no mortgage at all. “They weren’t satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn’t afford,” Eisman says. “They were creating them out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans. But that’s when I realized they needed us to keep the machine running”
Thus I repeat my prior assertion supported with evidence from your link.
THAT is a $130B problem. Problem was not with subprimes, and your argument about the current course being the best option is word salad.

Like that of the Admin.

2nd April 2009, 10:49 AM

Meadmaker

2nd April 2009, 10:49 AM

Last century had hundreds of long-term economic experiments involving roughly 10 billion people, showing a direct correlation between amount of freedom, including economic freedom, and general wealth of nations.

....

So I'm a bit confused as to why any theory other than laissez-faire capitalism, a libertarian's economic position, is still considered viable today?

Because it overlooks the restriction of freedom that comes from corporations and/or individuals who control vast sums of wealth. It assumes the only entity that can restrict freedom is the government. That simply isn't the case.

Beerina

2nd April 2009, 10:54 AM

Penn is a great magician, and I liked a lot of his "Bull---" episodes, but when it comes to politics and economics let us say his opinions are very questionable. He pretty much pushes the straight Libertarian line.

Besides, all he did was offer a prediction. It's no skin off your @$$ if he's wrong. Why so...touchy?

And, if he's right, you will ignore it in favor of some apologist explanation that allows you to maintain his wrongness and your rightness. Let's face reality here, folks.

Beerina

2nd April 2009, 10:57 AM

Because it overlooks the restriction of freedom that comes from corporations and/or individuals who control vast sums of wealth. It assumes the only entity that can restrict freedom is the government. That simply isn't the case.

Has nothing to do with the issue at hand. We're not talking a regulation here or there to describe what you're saying. We're talking about massive intervention, which has been shown to be a massive damper on the economy -- even with the best of intentions.

Also, consider this question: Are the worst of these trust-like pseudo-monopolies worse than what I just described? Of course not. Their "drag" on the economy is very little compared to the current level of government sitting atop the producers of the nation. Best not go there and investigate this. :rolleyes:

Meadmaker

2nd April 2009, 11:08 AM

Has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The "issue at hand" is, I'm guessing, the current economic crisis.

You're question, which is what I was answering, was why any theory other than laissez faire capitalism is still viable.

I will say that laissez faire capitalism will not result in the greatest degree of economic and other freedom, and that is why it is not the only viable theory.

That doesn't mean there ought to be massive intervention. I agree with Jillette's editorial. This whole process makes me very, very, nervous, and I hope this Obama fellow knows what he's doing. He seems awfully smart, but my intuition tells me that this whole thing ends very badly. Like Jillette, I hope Obama knows something I don't,

Also, consider this question: Are the worst of these trust-like pseudo-monopolies worse than what I just described? Of course not.
The East India company?

Unabogie

2nd April 2009, 11:08 AM

Oh, wiki agrees with you when you look up GDP? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp)

Shucks, you would not be inclined to look up Real GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_GDP), would you?

The, uh, real kind of, uh, GDP?

Now where are we?

I assume we're at the part where you explain why you think the distinction is important.

Addressing one part of your second assertion with your link, which I have read before: ... Now he saw. There weren’t enough Americans with ****** credit taking out loans to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product. The firms used Eisman’s bet to synthesize more of them. Here, then, was the difference between fantasy finance and fantasy football: When a fantasy player drafts Peyton Manning, he doesn’t create a second Peyton Manning to inflate the league’s stats. But when Eisman bought a credit-default swap, he enabled Deutsche Bank to create another bond identical in every respect but one to the original. The only difference was that there was no actual homebuyer or borrower. The only assets backing the bonds were the side bets Eisman and others made with firms like Goldman Sachs. Eisman, in effect, was paying to Goldman the interest on a subprime mortgage. In fact, there was no mortgage at all. “They weren’t satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn’t afford,” Eisman says. “They were creating them out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans. But that’s when I realized they needed us to keep the machine running”

Where are we quibbling?

Thus I repeat my prior assertion supported with evidence from your link. THAT is a $130B problem. Problem was not with subprimes, and your argument about the current course being the best option is word salad.

Like that of the Admin.

So you quote my article back to me, repeat your insult, and call it a day?

All while snipping out most of my post?

How about where you explain what your alternative solution is, then we can see if we're in agreement, since honestly I can't understand what you're getting at other than a giant "YAWP".

dudalb

2nd April 2009, 11:56 AM

Last century had hundreds of long-term economic experiments involving roughly 10 billion people, showing a direct correlation between amount of freedom, including economic freedom, and general wealth of nations.

The theory is this economic power derives from freedom since people can be secure in keeping the product of their own efforts. How hard would you run in a 100-m dash if your win was "taxed" away and awarded to someone else?

So I'm a bit confused as to why any theory other than laissez-faire capitalism, a libertarian's economic position, is still considered viable today?

In any other field, every damned one of you skeptics demands proof. But politics is the last great refuge of woo for some of you -- even those who have given up on their own religious beliefs.

We pretty much tried Lasseiz faire Capitalism in the 19th century.
Would you care to defend unsafe and dangerous conditions in mines and factories, five year old kids being put to work in factories, and all the other "benefits" of totally unregulated businesses?
Sounds to me like you are the one who like to ignore evidence in favor of a theory.

mhaze

2nd April 2009, 12:13 PM

I assume we're at the part where you explain why you think the distinction is important.

Where are we quibbling?

So you quote my article back to me, repeat your insult, and call it a day?

All while snipping out most of my post?

How about where you explain what your alternative solution is, then we can see if we're in agreement, since honestly I can't understand what you're getting at other than a giant "YAWP".noPe. Just covered the first two of your arguments and stopped to see what you'd say. You see, the third falls flat and must be restated with correct premises to be answered. Based on real GDP and actual causes of the collapse.

qwints

2nd April 2009, 12:18 PM

Last century had hundreds of long-term economic experiments involving roughly 10 billion people, showing a direct correlation between amount of freedom, including economic freedom, and general wealth of nations.

The theory is this economic power derives from freedom since people can be secure in keeping the product of their own efforts. How hard would you run in a 100-m dash if your win was "taxed" away and awarded to someone else?

On the first point:
1) Correlation does not equal causation. The US also had vast natural resources, military enforcement of corporate power in Latin America and a currency used as the global means of exchange.
2) Wealth of nations is not a universally agreed upon measure of success. How about life expectancy, civil liberties and quality of life?
3) Western Europe.

On the second point, you're making a false analogy. Money does not equal utility nor should it be a way of keeping score. It's simply a means of exchange. People have plenty of motivations unrelated to financial incentives. The government can't tax away winning the world series or producing a beloved work of art. It can and does tax the profits from doing so without producing an obvious disincentive.

Unabogie

2nd April 2009, 12:22 PM

noPe. Just covered the first two of your arguments and stopped to see what you'd say. You see, the third falls flat and must be restated with correct premises to be answered. Based on real GDP and actual causes of the collapse.

Shorter you: I got nothin'.

Fine, I will assume all of your arguments are true, although I'm having a very difficult time understanding what they are.

Please tell us:

The actual cause of the crisis (if you think there is a crisis).
Your solution.

I honestly can't unpack what you're writing here, so I'm interested.

GreyICE

2nd April 2009, 12:54 PM

Hey isn't one of the points of being a skeptic that you follow facts?

Anyone care to tell me if he made a factual statment in that article?

Bunch of nonsense from a blowhard is what it sounded like. Come back when you have facts, figures, and arguments instead of hyperbole and catchy phrases.

Kthulhut Fhtagn

2nd April 2009, 12:54 PM

This is what I don't understand about modern conservatives. Rather than do what's obviously right in this situation, thereby regaining some credibility on the economy, they've decided to completely oppose Obama on everything, regardless of the merits, and to offer no serious plans as an alternative.

Especially since Obama is (to a fault) willing to work with them.

If I was running the RNC, I would be slapping Republican names on as many bills as I could to show that Obama + GOP = effective government.

Instead, the argument in 2010 will be "VOTE FOR GRIDLOCK!"

Is this really wise?

Really?

Sadly in the world of partisan thinking "willing to work with them" usually means in so far as they (the minority party) are willing to do what we say and vote along the lines we want. There are some great examples of political double-speak and flip-flopping coming around now. Specifically in areas where Democrats opposed bills proposed while they were a minority but now have no problem with while the majority.

We pretty much tried Lasseiz faire Capitalism in the 19th century.
Would you care to defend unsafe and dangerous conditions in mines and factories, five year old kids being put to work in factories, and all the other "benefits" of totally unregulated businesses?
Sounds to me like you are the one who like to ignore evidence in favor of a theory.

This is one I hear alot from people opposed to lasseiz faire Capitalism. But I disagree that the evidence points to laisseiz faire capitalism leading to "unsafe" and "dangerous" conditions in mines and factories. Rather I think that was simple a product of the times (namely rapid industrial growth where regulations designed to protect people from such conditions were not previously needed, it wasn't considered a bad thing to have children helping you bring in the crop in an agrarian society that many people were just coming out of) and not the influence of lasseiz faire capitalism, I've yet to notice a trend which suggests that freerer market economies correlate positively with horrid working conditions. In fact I'd say it correlates positively with closed market or centrally planned economies.

Consider Hong Kong for example, which has been considered one of the most successful economies in the world and has been consistently rated the freest economy in the world for the past fifteen years. Direct your attention please to this (http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx) chart from the Index of Economic Freedom. The ideal economic balance I see is a hand's-off approach to business and intervening only to enforce regulations designed to defend its citizens.

Dr Adequate

2nd April 2009, 01:35 PM

But the error Jillette is clearly making is that Obama is not proposing to "spend money to get out of debt".

He's proposing to spend money to get out of recession.

The debt has to be paid off in the usual way.

No-one at all in the entire universe is claiming that the stimulus plan will reduce the debt.

Unabogie

2nd April 2009, 01:57 PM

Sadly in the world of partisan thinking "willing to work with them" usually means in so far as they (the minority party) are willing to do what we say and vote along the lines we want. There are some great examples of political double-speak and flip-flopping coming around now. Specifically in areas where Democrats opposed bills proposed while they were a minority but now have no problem with while the majority.

Yeah, there's always plenty of that on both sides. I could list examples but I suspect that will hinder the discussion. But Obama is really into this middle ground, as he's shown in the past, most notably with the stimulus. He's just not wedded to his ideas, which I think is a good thing.

I think the atmosphere was really ripe for the GOP to steal the show from the Senate Democrats and ram through a lot of legislation that Obama would sign.

A great example would have been military procurement reform spearheaded by John McCain.

Another would be a set of rules for merit pay for teachers, which Obama supports, but I don't.

A slew of those could have been substantially more effective than "hoping Obama fails". As a partisan Democrat, I ought to be thrilled with this, but I can't escape the feeling that we'll all pay for this obstructionism since our country has some pretty serious problems to fix.

mhaze

3rd April 2009, 07:35 AM

Shorter you: I got nothin'.

Fine, I will assume all of your arguments are true, although I'm having a very difficult time understanding what they are.

Please tell us:

The actual cause of the crisis (if you think there is a crisis).
Your solution.

I honestly can't unpack what you're writing here, so I'm interested.

The original cause was the Fed holding interest rates abnormally low for the 1990s-2008 period, leading to the "bubble". That's all normal economy up and down, more or less. Therein is a recession, not a depression. Go compute it.

The propping up by the administration of false value in credit default swaps and other derivatives by pouring large fractions of total money supply (1T is > 10%) is the current problem which can generate a prolonged depression. False value and false markets always collapse.

This is further worsened by two things

1. The demonstration of incompetence in the administration essentially going around every week putting out the latest fire. Shows little medium or long term planning and strategy.
2. The weekly demands/requests for more control over more industries by the White House (banking, auto, insurance, investments).

"Better" will happen only when the government gets out of the largest number of industries possible, not when it gets into the largest number possible. Recently we've been told we (Obama et al) were screwing up by Chavez, Germany, Russia, China....the list is quite long.

It is quite clear to outsiders that we have an administration that does not exercise restraint in spending, and who is spending outside their means to repay. They have warned us of consequences to that. Those should be quite obvious.

Darat

3rd April 2009, 07:43 AM

...snip..

Sometimes, the right thing is counterintuitive. I hope this is one of those times, because my intuition tells me that spending this huge amount of money without raising the taxes to pay for it will end up quite badly.

I've seen two ways of arguing this. One is that taxes will at some time have to be raised to pay back this money but that will happen once growth is restarted. The other is that it can be paid back out of the growth without having to raise taxes specifically to pay for today's spending. I don't think anyone (in actual authority) has said that the debt won't have to paid back!

Unabogie

3rd April 2009, 08:51 AM

The original cause was the Fed holding interest rates abnormally low for the 1990s-2008 period, leading to the "bubble". That's all normal economy up and down, more or less. Therein is a recession, not a depression. Go compute it.

The propping up by the administration of false value in credit default swaps and other derivatives by pouring large fractions of total money supply (1T is > 10%) is the current problem which can generate a prolonged depression. False value and false markets always collapse.

This is further worsened by two things

1. The demonstration of incompetence in the administration essentially going around every week putting out the latest fire. Shows little medium or long term planning and strategy.
2. The weekly demands/requests for more control over more industries by the White House (banking, auto, insurance, investments).

"Better" will happen only when the government gets out of the largest number of industries possible, not when it gets into the largest number possible. Recently we've been told we (Obama et al) were screwing up by Chavez, Germany, Russia, China....the list is quite long.

It is quite clear to outsiders that we have an administration that does not exercise restraint in spending, and who is spending outside their means to repay. They have warned us of consequences to that. Those should be quite obvious.

Thank you for this. So you are actually arguing for doing nothing, allowing the insurance companies and exposed banks to fail, then letting the market adjust afterward.

But your position is completely out of the mainstream. Even Mitt Romney is in favor of new regulation. And the G20 just agreed (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090402-714130.html).

The Group of 20 developed and developing nations said Thursday all systematically important institutions and markets should be regulated, and urged members to complete the implementation of the Basel II capital framework.

"We have agreed that all systemically important financial institutions, markets and instruments should be subject to an appropriate degree of regulation and oversight," the G20 said in an annex to the communique following its summit Thursday.

The group said hedge funds or their managers must be registered and will be required to disclose "appropriate information on an ongoing basis to supervisors or regulators," including on their leverage.

The group called on all G20 countries to "progressively adopt" the Basel II capital framework, which hasn't been agreed by the U.S. among others.
The G20 endorsed the Financial Stability Forum's recommendations on reducing procyclicality of accounting rules and also endorsed new principles on pay and compensation, which aim to ensure compensation structures are consistent with "long-term goals and prudent risk-taking."

These principles should be integrated into risk management guidance by the coming fall, the G20 said.

The group also called for "the standardization and resilience" of credit derivative markets, mainly through the establishment of regulated central clearing counterparties.

It called on the industry to develop an action plan on standardization by autumn 2009.
So clearly, all of the major nations favor more regulation, not less. But at least you've stated your plan (do nothing) which is more than most people have.

Beerina

3rd April 2009, 08:57 AM

laissez-faire cannot succeed in the USA, its french :D

Well, call it freedom-faire then! :)

Beerina

3rd April 2009, 09:02 AM

Because it overlooks the restriction of freedom that comes from corporations and/or individuals who control vast sums of wealth. It assumes the only entity that can restrict freedom is the government. That simply isn't the case.

The government is the only entity that can restrict freedom. They're the only ones who can send police to round you up if you refuse to "buy" their product. That's why I have to laugh at the concept of "political science" -- it's the only "science" that finds it ethical to experiment on unwilling test subjects.

In any case, historically, the big problems are always traceable to people with guns forcing their will on people. "Sugar trusts" and whatnot (I can hear the meme defense mechanisms prepping to regurgitate stuff like this) are, historically, incredibly minor as far as detracting from "quality of life". You have to think to yourself, a trust is bad...compared to what?

Unabogie

3rd April 2009, 09:12 AM

David Brooks wants to regulate the situation (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1).

On the greed theory vs. the stupidity theory:

Both schools agree on one thing, however. Both believe that banks are too big. Both narratives suggest we should return to the day when banks were focused institutions — when savings banks, insurance companies, brokerages and investment banks lived separate lives.

We can agree on that reform.

Beerina

3rd April 2009, 09:14 AM

We pretty much tried Lasseiz faire Capitalism in the 19th century.
Would you care to defend unsafe and dangerous conditions in mines and factories, five year old kids being put to work in factories, and all the other "benefits" of totally unregulated businesses?
Sounds to me like you are the one who like to ignore evidence in favor of a theory.

See, you are falling into the trap of fraudulently pretending the choice was between more dangerous factories and less dangerous, and with the attendant facade that hey, the government is here to save the day!

What happened in reality was capitalism offered a new choice -- but it was between starving farm life and a more modern life of plenty. That some factories were dangerous or had long hours still wasn't as bad as what went before, with few exceptions. And people freely chose to move to the cities.

Now, if you want to say government makes a good kibitzer to prod safer working conditions, that's different (though I wouldn't necessarily agree to the idea.) But don't pretend that the core of capitalism isn't what's driving it all. Furthermore, we know that too much involvement (aside from being a massive source of corruption in government as it's often planned that way for the purpose of kickbacks, illegal or legal, just to get the politicians out of the way just so business can get done) will slow down capitalism's progress, and the net slowdown will be responsible for much more severe problems than would have occurred without the regulations, good or bad.

Beerina

3rd April 2009, 09:22 AM

The "issue at hand" is, I'm guessing, the current economic crisis.

You're question, which is what I was answering, was why any theory other than laissez faire capitalism is still viable.

I will say that laissez faire capitalism will not result in the greatest degree of economic and other freedom, and that is why it is not the only viable theory.

Laissez-faire capitalism derives, properly, from freedom. It is what people freely do with their own money, property, and personal associations.

Anything other than this is not freedom. So to say laissez-faire capitalism will not result in the greatest degree of economic and other freedom is identical to saying "freedom will not result in the greatest degree of economic or other freedom." Capitalism arises naturally from freedom, and benefits everybody a hell of a lot more than other "systems".

Keep in mind "other systems" is a euphemism for not-freedom.

The East India company?

From the introduction to it on Wikipedia:

The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the English, and later the British, government. As a result, it was frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade monopolies and exemptions.

This is not laissez-faire capitalism. This is favoritism and rent seeking and using the power of police to, quite literally, force your competition out of business.

What were we talking about again?

qwints

3rd April 2009, 10:29 AM

The government is the only entity that can restrict freedom.

This is ludicrously wrong. It is trivially easy to provide examples of other entities which do so (e.g. organized crime). Furthermore, it's all too easy to forget that people are compelled to fulfill their basic needs in order to survive. Conditioning employment based on out-of-work behavior limits freedom (see loyalty oaths in the fifties.) Finally, let's not forget the systemic discrimination against racial and religious minorities that laissez-faire capitalism was unable to solve.

Unabogie

3rd April 2009, 10:33 AM

This is ludicrously wrong. It is trivially easy to provide examples of other entities which do so (e.g. organized crime). Furthermore, it's all too easy to forget that people are compelled to fulfill their basic needs in order to survive. Conditioning employment based on out-of-work behavior limits freedom (see loyalty oaths in the fifties.) Finally, let's not forget the systemic discrimination against racial and religious minorities that laissez-faire capitalism was unable to solve.

Or, to provide another obvious example, private prisons are allowed to donate huge sums of money to politicians who pass harsher laws which generate more profits for the prisons.

Now, true, these are government laws, but it's clearly the product of the private entity pressuring or rewarding the public one to curtail freedoms.

Meadmaker

3rd April 2009, 10:56 AM

The government is the only entity that can restrict freedom.

A common error, but an error nonetheless.

I was once held hostage at gunpoint. I'm pretty sure that guy wasn't working for the government.

My boss restricts my freedom in a big way. Oh, sure, I could just stop working for him. It's a bargain I made. I will do certain things, like not telling him that he is a total moron, in exchange for some money. I have complete freedom in this matter. I can simply choose to make a different bargain with someone else. Right?

In the not very recent past, one of the things that was part of that bargain was that I would not admit to homosexuality. If I said, "By the way, I'm gay," he could fire me. Today, he can't do that. Laissez-faire capitalism would say he ought to have that right, but in our system of government, today, he can't. I like our system better.

Lots of entities can and do restrict my freedom. Some are more effective at it than others. Government is the entity which has the greatest ability to do so, and so we must be vigilant about not letting them do that. However, any entity that gets too powerful can, and probably will, use their power to restrict freedom.

In any case, historically, the big problems are always traceable to people with guns forcing their will on people. "Sugar trusts" and whatnot (I can hear the meme defense mechanisms prepping to regurgitate stuff like this) are, historically, incredibly minor as far as detracting from "quality of life". You have to think to yourself, a trust is bad...compared to what?

Apply this logic to Homestead Pennsylvania, 1892.

WinstonCountyWildman

4th April 2009, 06:27 AM

I have yet to hear any economist argue that government spending is not only essential at this point, but also the only recourse left.

GDP = consumer spending + investment + exports + government spending.

So consumers aren't spending because jobs are hemorrhaging, investment isn't happening because the fed has already lowered rates to zero and the market is tanking, and we're a net importer.

Has anyone even offered an alternative stimulus plan besides

Tax cuts
????
Profit!

Or should we just let this situation play itself out? If so, why won't they argue for that explicitly?

I can offer one

For a little less than all the stimulus packages etc we can give every single adult american 200,000 dollars

make this mandatory to receive said monies. Use the monies for....

1 must pay off mortgage. If no mortgage or no home ownership must buy a home
2 pay off car loan, if no car loan and car is over ten years old must buy car
3 pay off all medical debts
4 blow the rest on regular consumer items like tv,game systems etc. American made only.
5 no saving it. must blow hell out of all of it

Simple but much more effective than the clusterf*** we are using now

mhaze

4th April 2009, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4581906#post4581906)
The government is the only entity that can restrict freedom.

A common error, but an error nonetheless.

I was once held hostage at gunpoint. I'm pretty sure that guy wasn't working for the government.

My boss restricts my freedom in a big way. ....Beerina is essentially correct.

If you enter into a contract for employment, you have of your own volition accepteid the group of constraints therein, some of which you might of course grumble about.

Part of one's contract with government is permitting gov. to carry guns and exercise force, the reason for that is that one is subcontracting to that extent for protection, which includes to some extent protection against others exercising force.

But government unilaterally enrolls a new citizen in its contract at birth with no termination clause excepting death, with the exception of some nations which allow exit and revokation of citizenship.

The several objections raised to Beerina's comment all fit within this framework as far as restrictions of freedom within the world of man.

Excludes restriction of freedom due to close proximity of grizzly bear.

Includes restriction of freedom due to government banning handguns and subsequently, the actual threat and danger of the grizzly bear, which is different than it's proximity.

qwints

4th April 2009, 09:15 AM

But the idea that people are free to work or not work is just empirically wrong. Poverty IS compulsion.

Unabogie

4th April 2009, 09:41 AM

I can offer one

For a little less than all the stimulus packages etc we can give every single adult american 200,000 dollars

make this mandatory to receive said monies. Use the monies for....

1 must pay off mortgage. If no mortgage or no home ownership must buy a home
2 pay off car loan, if no car loan and car is over ten years old must buy car
3 pay off all medical debts
4 blow the rest on regular consumer items like tv,game systems etc. American made only.
5 no saving it. must blow hell out of all of it

Simple but much more effective than the clusterf*** we are using now

You know, I've heard this one before, and I appreciate your suggesting it because at least we're agreeing on a set of facts and we can then argue over the solution.

I don't see any economists suggesting this, and I think I can see some obvious problems with it.

Cries of Socialism. The right wing would scream to the heavens in a bunch of poor people were given that much cash. Can you see congress passing such a bill?
What do you get for it? Big TVs and XBoxes? At least with a public works projects, we're going to get high speed rail and a new electrical grid. Stuff that will grow our economy for decades. Think of the internet and how much money we make off of having it. More like that, please. True, I think they focused too little on both of those and it should have been a lot more money for those to make sure they are completed.
Who enforces the spending rules? How big a bureaucracy would you need to enforce it? At least with a stimulus, you fund existing bureaucracies and then they are easily audited.
If everyone has this shiny new money to buy houses or cars with, doesn't that cause inflation?

I also thought that the government should save the car companies by simply ordering a new fleet of fuel efficient vehicles (which they did) but rather than hybrids, they should be all electrics like the Volt. And order millions of them. Or offer a one time, 100% tax credit for going all electric. For some reason, ideas like this never gain traction.

Still, we both understand the need for government spending, as opposed to inaction, which is what mhaze is suggesting.

Meadmaker

4th April 2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4581906#post4581906)
The government is the only entity that can restrict freedom.

Beerina is essentially correct.

Beerina is dreadfully wrong.

Qwints points out the essential flaw.

Consider, for example, my case. I made a bargain with my employer that I would provide services, and he would provide a certain amount of money. Excellent. Two entities engaged in free negotiation. Total freedom. Last week, though, I got a letter from my employer saying he had changed his mind, and that he was taking cost cutting measures that would result in me getting approximately 13% less money than we had previously negotiated for.

Hmmmm..... well, no problem. I am totally free to break my agreement with that employer and find another that will accomodate the lifestyle to which I have been accustomed. Complete freedom. Except....I can't. 10% of the people (at the official unemployment rate, actually much larger) in Michigan are ttying to find such an arrangement, and failing. My employer knows that he can get exactly the same services he previously contracted for, but at lest cost. He knows he can get away with that, because he knows that I do not, in fact, have the freedom to go elsewhere.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't feel oppressed by evil capitalists. In fact, I am one. The truth is that if I could find someone to give me more money, I would drop my employer like a hot rock. I don't have any objection to him doing the same for me.

Fortunately, in this country, one of the things that allows this is that we have the "social safety net". An employer can use his power to influence what sort of house I live in, and what sort of car I drive, but he cannot actually make me starve, and his ability to impact my health is limited. Therefore, in things that really matter, he can't exercise much control over me. However, his inability to exercise such control is precisely the result of restrictions on laissez-faire capitalism. A "social safety net" is not part of that system. By having it, we ensure that people will not tolerate, indeed are not allowed to tolerate, such things as unsafe workplaces, or backbreaking and spirit numbing labor that is still inadequate to live a healthy, respectable, life. I like it that way.

Lots of countries don't have that. They are lousy places to live.

What does this have to do with the current situation? We find ourselves in a situation where laissez-faire capitalism would dictate that failing companies, like GM and Bank of America, would go out of business. Government would do nothing, and they would stop. At that point, there would be massive unemployment because, like it or not, the workers at those companies do not have the freedom to simply start working somewhere else. There are no laws that prevent them from doing so, but they can't. The resulting diminution of economic status for all of those workers, and those who are affected by the "ripple effects", represent a real loss of freedom for the affected workers.

So, government may be able to increase freedom for more people by interfering in the marketplace.

Should they do so? I'm undecided myself. I am generally opposed to such actions, because the taxes necessary to fund such things also represent a real loss of freedom, and the borrowing which is being used instead of taxes represents a real loss of freedom to people who didn't even choose to take the actions. (i.e. our children will have less freedom due to our borrowing.) I'm just saying that you cannot claim that unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism maximizes freedom, nor can you try to apply that philosophy to the practical example of today's government policy.

gdnp

4th April 2009, 09:57 AM

I can offer one

For a little less than all the stimulus packages etc we can give every single adult american 200,000 dollars

make this mandatory to receive said monies. Use the monies for....

1 must pay off mortgage. If no mortgage or no home ownership must buy a home
2 pay off car loan, if no car loan and car is over ten years old must buy car
3 pay off all medical debts
4 blow the rest on regular consumer items like tv,game systems etc. American made only.
5 no saving it. must blow hell out of all of it

Simple but much more effective than the clusterf*** we are using now

Let's see, lets generously assume 2 trillion in stimulus funds, and assume that all this money has been or will be simply pissed up against the wall: the government will never receive anything of benefit for it. Now let us divide by $200,000, your amount per adult.

By my math, you are estimating the adult population of the US to be 10 million people. I suspect this may be a bit low, perhaps by an order of magnitude or more. In fact, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States)quotes the adult population as 228 million and change as of 2008.

How much would it cost to give 228 million people $200,000 each? Hmm, that would be 45.6 billion dollars. Which if I am not mistaken is slightly more than current plans for stimulus spending.

So let's try again.

2 trillion divided by 228 million comes out to $8771 per person. Certainly not a trivial amount, but not enough to pay off your mortgage.
Not enough to buy a new car, or even a recent model used car.
Not enough to pay off medical debts for anyone who has suffered a major uninsured illness.
Which leaves us with American made consumer items. If you can find any. My Dell computer was made in Malaysia. Playstation and Wii are Japanese, which leaves Xbox, which somehow I doubt is made in America. Can you point me to a US HDTV factory?

Any other great suggestions?

Meadmaker

4th April 2009, 10:03 AM

I don't see any economists suggesting this, and I think I can see some obvious problems with it.

Over in the economics forum, I created a thread calling for something called the Stupid Economic Stimulus Plan, that was different, but just as stupid, as the Winston Facetious Stimulus Plan. (Mine demanded immediate consumer spending by replacing part of your paycheck with gift cards.) Like Winston's plan, the plan had obvious problems.

And that's the point. Winston (WCW? Wildman? No way I'm typing out that long moniker every time.) threw out the gobbledygook of the economic stimulus plans, with all the multipliers and Keynesian theoretical mumbo jumbo and projected balance of GDP and economic modelling, and reduced it to a much simpler plan. In doing so, he made a plan where the flaws were obvious, instead of hidden behind a smokescreen of intellectualism.

However, he's right. If the current plan would work, so would his plan. Strip away the fancy schmancy pseudoscience (most economics is, in my not very humble opinion, pseudoscience), and you end up with Winston's plan.

(ETA: Although, gdnp corrected the math.)

Unabogie

4th April 2009, 10:14 AM

Over in the economics forum, I created a thread calling for something called the Stupid Economic Stimulus Plan, that was different, but just as stupid, as the Winston Facetious Stimulus Plan. (Mine demanded immediate consumer spending by replacing part of your paycheck with gift cards.) Like Winston's plan, the plan had obvious problems.

And that's the point. Winston (WCW? Wildman? No way I'm typing out that long moniker every time.) threw out the gobbledygook of the economic stimulus plans, with all the multipliers and Keynesian theoretical mumbo jumbo and projected balance of GDP and economic modelling, and reduced it to a much simpler plan. In doing so, he made a plan where the flaws were obvious, instead of hidden behind a smokescreen of intellectualism.

However, he's right. If the current plan would work, so would his plan. Strip away the fancy schmancy pseudoscience (most economics is, in my not very humble opinion, pseudoscience), and you end up with Winston's plan.

(ETA: Although, gdnp corrected the math.)

Except you're not acknowledging the benefits of both stimulus and infrastructure.

GDP can be goosed by the government, and if they goose it by investing in things that bring back a return on investment for everyone, it's a good investment.

The internet
The highway system
The railroads (soon to be high speed)
The new electrical grid which can give us true wind and solar power

Those are all good things, and can only be done (or in practice can only be done) by government.

Meadmaker

4th April 2009, 11:37 AM

Except you're not acknowledging the benefits of both stimulus and infrastructure.

That's a good point. Part of the Obama plan actually includes creating real stuff. To the extent that the real stuff that gets built is actually worthwhile, the stimulus plan has benefits beyond the mumbo-jumbo. So, the bridge building and such has real benefits, but the manipulation of who owes what to whom is basically the same as the Winston plan.

(And I'm not so sure about that wind and solar power part, but that's for the science forum. Wishful thinking and deficit spending won't create watts of power.)

mhaze

4th April 2009, 11:42 AM

Beerina is dreadfully wrong.

Qwints points out the essential flaw.
....0h, no doubt your case is stronger when the goalposts are shifted far from Beerina's statement.

applecorped

4th April 2009, 11:43 AM

applecorped

4th April 2009, 11:46 AM

Let's face reality here, folks.

No thanks. I prefer illusion to despair.

applecorped

4th April 2009, 11:47 AM

Bunch of nonsense from a blowhard is what it sounded like. Come back when you have facts, figures, and arguments instead of hyperbole and catchy phrases.

This is addressed to Obama, right?

Hittman

4th April 2009, 11:52 AM

He seems awfully smart, but my intuition tells me that this whole thing ends very badly. Like Jillette, I hope Obama knows something I don't,

The problem is we're not casual observers. We're sitting in the passenger seat, helpless, whie he accerates towards the brick wall. And he and his wealthy friends have one thing we don't – ejection seats.

Finally, let's not forget the systemic discrimination against racial and religious minorities that laissez-faire capitalism was unable to solve.

You have that backwards. Capitalism was working on that problem quite nicely until the government interfered. A businessman who discriminates in favor of green is going to succeed over one who discriminates in favor of skin color.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4457

For a little less than all the stimulus packages etc we can give every single adult american 200,000 dollars

I guess it depends on how you count it – I've seen numbers from $120k to $240k. I rather like the idea of just handing out the money, but I wouldn't make any rules about how to spend it. (Not that this would ever happen.)

Some of us would use it to pay off our mortgages and CC bills, which would give the banks cash and help the economy.

Some would buy big ticket items, like cars and boats, which would help the economy.

Some would spend it on travel, which would help the economy.

Some would start their own businesses, which would help the economy.

Some would spend most of it on lotto tickets, which would help the government.

Overall, the effect would be spread out all across our economy, and just about every sector would benefit.

My boss restricts my freedom in a big way. Oh, sure, I could just stop working for him. It's a bargain I made. I will do certain things, like not telling him that he is a total moron, in exchange for some money. I have complete freedom in this matter. I can simply choose to make a different bargain with someone else. Right?

Right. You entered into the contract freely, and can leave it freely. No one has removed any of your freedom by force – you have willingly removed some of it because it's to your advantage.

In the not very recent past, one of the things that was part of that bargain was that I would not admit to homosexuality. If I said, "By the way, I'm gay," he could fire me. Today, he can't do that. Laissez-faire capitalism would say he ought to have that right, but in our system of government, today, he can't. I like our system better.

So you'd prefer to work for a bigot than someone who respects your abilities and talents?

And the flip side of that is that it is very, very difficult for your employer to fire an incompetent worker who happens to be gay (or any other minority), out of fear of government reprisals. He either has to go through an extensive plan to do it, reducing but not eliminating his risk of being sued, or put up with the incompetent, depriving a more worthy worker of a job, and himself of the profits that more worthy worker would generate.

mhaze

4th April 2009, 11:53 AM

....Still, we both understand the need for government spending, as opposed to inaction, which is what mhaze is suggesting.Really believe that?

And you are going to fix the problem of too much spending with more spending?

2009 the pension plans and commercial real estate flop, and the Chinese pull out of dollars. (Say to the order of 1.2T, 1.3T, and 0.8T ). SS trust fund goes negative in 2011 for good, it teetered negative in feb. but that was a short month.

And those four problems not yet emergent, you fix them, too....with more spending? To get to where? Where we were in 2007? We cannot buy a time machine to put us back there by printing money. That is what the numbers say.

So...how'ya like that Hope and Change?

Meadmaker

4th April 2009, 11:55 AM

0h, no doubt your case is stronger when the goalposts are shifted far from Beerina's statement.

Beerina's statement is that government is the only entity that can restrict freedom. That's wrong.

An earlier statement said that laissez-faire capitalism was the only system that ought to be considered, because every other system restricted freedom. (That's a paraphrase from memory, not an exact quote.) That's wrong.

There's no goalpost shifting going on here. Other entities can restrict freedom, and laissez-faire capitalism does not maximize freedom.

mhaze

4th April 2009, 11:59 AM

Beerina's statement is that government is the only entity that can restrict freedom. That's wrong.

An earlier statement said that laissez-faire capitalism was the only system that ought to be considered, because every other system restricted freedom. (That's a paraphrase from memory, not an exact quote.) That's wrong.

There's no goalpost shifting going on here. Other entities can restrict freedom, and laissez-faire capitalism does not maximize freedom.I disagree on several grounds,but don't care to derail this thread with it-just wanted to point out that your response was not specific to gov:freedom.

Meadmaker

4th April 2009, 12:05 PM

So you'd prefer to work for a bigot than someone who respects your abilities and talents?

I would prefer to work for a very rich half-wit who overestimates the value of my labor, and I really don't care what he thinks about my sexual preference. (Full disclosure statement: I'm not actually gay. It was just an example. If anyone needs a specific thing that actually applies to me, substitute overweight, or Jewish. Not that most people on JREF care, I just didn't want to confuse anyone who might have seen apparent contradictions in other threads.)

Unfortunately, the point is that I don't have complete freedom to sell my abilities and talents anywhere, because the marketplace is not infinite. If there are only two employers in town, and both hate homosexuals, and I'm homosexual, then my freedom is restricted, and not by government.

If government demands that he hires qualified homosexuals, my freedom is enhanced, by government action.

And the flip side of that is that it is very, very difficult for your employer to fire an incompetent worker who happens to be gay (or any other minority), out of fear of government reprisals.

So, a balance must be struck, and at any given point in time, it's almost always wrong. Sometimes employers have too much freedom. Sometimes, too little.

Unabogie

4th April 2009, 12:14 PM

That's a good point. Part of the Obama plan actually includes creating real stuff. To the extent that the real stuff that gets built is actually worthwhile, the stimulus plan has benefits beyond the mumbo-jumbo. So, the bridge building and such has real benefits, but the manipulation of who owes what to whom is basically the same as the Winston plan.

(And I'm not so sure about that wind and solar power part, but that's for the science forum. Wishful thinking and deficit spending won't create watts of power.)

Specifically, I'm referring to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvdc), just for clarity:

A high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) electric power transmission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission) system uses direct current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_current) for the bulk transmission of electrical power, in contrast with the more common alternating current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current) systems. For long-distance distribution, HVDC systems are less expensive and suffer lower electrical losses. For shorter distances, the higher cost of DC conversion equipment compared to an AC system may be warranted where other benefits of direct current links are useful.

[..]

A number of studies have highlighted the potential benefits of very wide area super grids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_grid) based on HVDC since they can mitigate the effects of intermittency by averaging and smoothing the outputs of large numbers of geographically dispersed wind farms or solar farms.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvdc#cite_note-17) Czisch's study concludes that a grid covering the fringes of Europe could bring 100% renewable power (70% wind, 30% biomass) at close to today's prices. There has been debate over the technical feasibility of this proposal[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvdc#cite_note-18) and the political risks involved in energy transmission across a large number of international borders.

Tsukasa Buddha

4th April 2009, 12:49 PM

The government is the only entity that can restrict freedom. They're the only ones who can send police to round you up if you refuse to "buy" their product. That's why I have to laugh at the concept of "political science" -- it's the only "science" that finds it ethical to experiment on unwilling test subjects.

In any case, historically, the big problems are always traceable to people with guns forcing their will on people. "Sugar trusts" and whatnot (I can hear the meme defense mechanisms prepping to regurgitate stuff like this) are, historically, incredibly minor as far as detracting from "quality of life". You have to think to yourself, a trust is bad...compared to what?

:dl:

Oh, government-phobes are funny.

Tell me, what ridiculous definition of "freedom" are you using?

stilicho

4th April 2009, 01:18 PM

Some of us would use it to pay off our mortgages and CC bills, which would give the banks cash and help the economy.

That's actually part of the problem. Consumers are notoriously contrary to behaving the way they should to make the economy work flawlessly. We're supposed to save (or pay down debt) when the economy is flourishing and spend (or borrow) when it isn't. Unfortunately, we do exactly the opposite.

This is why stimulus packages are implemented the way they are. Giving the money out to individuals will result in the opposite to intended effect.

gdnp

4th April 2009, 01:19 PM

gdnp

4th April 2009, 01:36 PM

I guess it depends on how you count it – I've seen numbers from $120k to $240k. I rather like the idea of just handing out the money, but I wouldn't make any rules about how to spend it. (Not that this would ever happen.)

Some of us would use it to pay off our mortgages and CC bills, which would give the banks cash and help the economy.

Some would buy big ticket items, like cars and boats, which would help the economy.

Some would spend it on travel, which would help the economy.

Some would start their own businesses, which would help the economy.

Some would spend most of it on lotto tickets, which would help the government.

Overall, the effect would be spread out all across our economy, and just about every sector would benefit.

I suggest you read post #46. Unless I dropped a decimal point, 2 trillion dollars divided by 228 million adults comes out to $8771 per person. If you have heard $120,000 to $240,000 per person, you need to start listening to different sources. $240,000 times 228 million adults is 54 trillion dollars, five times the national debt. No one has proposed spending anywhere near this amount of fiscal stimulus. It is roughly FOUR YEARS worth of US GDP.

mhaze

4th April 2009, 04:30 PM

I suggest you read post #46. Unless I dropped a decimal point, 2 trillion dollars divided by 228 million adults comes out to $8771 per person. If you have heard $120,000 to $240,000 per person, you need to start listening to different sources. $240,000 times 228 million adults is 54 trillion dollars, five times the national debt. No one has proposed spending anywhere near this amount of fiscal stimulus. It is roughly FOUR YEARS worth of US GDP.Your conclusions are right as far as the math, but what of the premise (2T)? That's not an upper bound on the spending and incurred obligations of the last several months.

Also, while not complaining about your math, it does minimize the apparent amount of the money printing. Why not add in along with every person every dog and pet cat? They are people too.:)

Seriously, a better view is the 83M taxpayers, who in total pay about 1T, and your 2T is TWO YEARS OF IRS TAXES.

There is no reason to trivialize the vast sums being squandered in these exercises in manipulating the economy by amateurs with zero business experience.

Merko

4th April 2009, 04:48 PM

There is no reason to trivialize the vast sums being squandered in these exercises in manipulating the economy by amateurs with zero business experience.

I think the problem is more that the manipulators are professionals with far too much business experience. Thus they end up bailing out their fellow businessmen, rather than restoring a functioning marketplace.

MIT professor and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson wrote perhaps the best piece I've seen (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice) on the causes of the crisis, what should be done, and the reasons for why it isn't done. This is a little funny, considering I've spent quite a bit of time during the last decade protesting the policies of the IMF.

Dr Adequate

4th April 2009, 04:50 PM

Really believe that?

And you are going to fix the problem of too much spending with more spending? * facepalm *

:notm:

Lis-ten care-ful-ly. The aim of the stim-u-lus pack-age is to cure the re-cess-ion, not the def-i-cit.

Merko

4th April 2009, 04:52 PM

So I'm a bit confused as to why any theory other than laissez-faire capitalism, a libertarian's economic position, is still considered viable today?
It's probably a bit like why most people don't put their hand on the hot stove more than once.

Theories like orthodox marxism or laissez-faire economics certainly attract through their simplistic promise that you can understand everything from a few basic principles, but.. reality is not so.

gdnp

4th April 2009, 04:54 PM

Your conclusions are right as far as the math, but what of the premise (2T)? That's not an upper bound on the spending and incurred obligations of the last several months.

Also, while not complaining about your math, it does minimize the apparent amount of the money printing. Why not add in along with every person every dog and pet cat? They are people too.:)

Seriously, a better view is the 83M taxpayers, who in total pay about 1T, and your 2T is TWO YEARS OF IRS TAXES.

There is no reason to trivialize the vast sums being squandered in these exercises in manipulating the economy by amateurs with zero business experience.

I am not attempting to trivialize anything: thus my use of 2 trillion, as I thought that this was an overestimate of the amount that the government was spending on the TARP and the fiscal stimulus combined. It is not trivializing this vast sum to point out that contrary to what 2 people have now posted that this is not nearly enough to give 6 figure sums to every taxpayer in the country. How is it trivializing to point out other posters gross exaggerations with more precise figures?

As for amateurs with zero business experience manipulating the economy, Obama is taking advice from people like Paul Volker who last I heard was credited with the policies that ended the stagflation of the Carter presidency. I suspect the federal reserve, a quasi-independent agency with governors that were not appointed by Obama and do not answer to him or congress, also knows a bit more about the economy than you. This does not imply that they are screwing up, just to write them off as amateurs just because they disagree with you is disingenuous.

ETA: If you trying to point out that 1.3 trillion (this year's projected deficit) divided by 83 million taxpayers is $15,600 per taxpayer, I will agree that this is a disturbing sum. My share of this debt is likely to be much more than the average taxpayer, and I don't like it one bit. Unfortunately, I fear that the alternative would have been a failure of the banking system, 20% unemployment, and a decade-long depression.

mhaze

5th April 2009, 08:57 AM

I think the problem is more that the manipulators are professionals with far too much business experience. Thus they end up bailing out their fellow businessmen, rather than restoring a functioning marketplace.

MIT professor and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson wrote perhaps the best piece I've seen (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice) on the causes of the crisis, what should be done, and the reasons for why it isn't done. This is a little funny, considering I've spent quite a bit of time during the last decade protesting the policies of the IMF.You are factually correct - we are blithely asked to believe that some vague trickle down effect of giving away the country's reserve of wealth is "A Good Thing".

For some choice and selected group? One analogy would be the ship's crew and captain filling up the lifeboats with treasure, then rowing off with their friends, abandoning the women and children in a boat with an uncertain fate, but certain troubles.

Your conclusions are right as far as the math, but what of the premise (2T)? That's not an upper bound on the spending and incurred obligations of the last several months.
I am not attempting to trivialize anything: thus my use of 2 trillion, as I thought that this was an overestimate of the amount that the government was spending on the TARP and the fiscal stimulus combined.....

From Bloomberg News this week: "The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent or lent or committed $12.8 trillion" in new pledges. This they note is almost the value of everything the United States produced last year. "

Per family unit:

$154,000. About equal to average net worth.

Profligate, irresponsible spending. (NOTE: I'm using the 83M number of family units - the number of tax returns is about 138M, but many of these are pro forma, students, etc.)

Just calling it like it is. Stay focused on the numbers, ignore the misdirection and smokescreens.

Inflation and devaluation of the dollar, loans and US debt is paid off cheap
Ordinary households zoom over the One's 250K "no new taxes" pledge
Imported goods double or triple in price in dollars

GreyICE

5th April 2009, 04:01 PM

This is addressed to Obama, right?

No, it was addressed to Penn. It applies equally to you, however, as you have conspicuously fail to present anything resembling that.

Good job bringing that to everyone's attention though.

shuize

5th April 2009, 04:12 PM

Turning into a skid is counter-intuitive?

gdnp

5th April 2009, 04:54 PM

From Bloomberg News this week: "The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent or lent or committed $12.8 trillion" in new pledges. This they note is almost the value of everything the United States produced last year. "

Per family unit:

$154,000. About equal to average net worth.

Oh, I see. "The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent or lent or committed $12.8 trillion" in new pledges." So we are adding not only what the federal government has SPENT, but also what has been LENT by the government or by the fed, and money that has been COMMITTED but not yet lent or spent. And that number was being compared to giving $200,000 to each adult, which has now somehow magically morphed into $154,000 per family unit, which at 83 milllion somehow is less than half of the number of adults in the US. Maybe there are more polygamists in the country than I thought.

You know what? If I buy a house for half a million with 20% down and the government were to finance it, then they would have just loaned my family $400,000. Wow, that's almost 3 times as much as under your program. Of course, I have to pay it back. Gee, just like the bulk of the rest of 12.8 trillion dollars up there: A lot of it was given out as LOANS that have to be paid back. Which makes sense, since the purpose of much of this money was to recapitalize the banks that didn't have money to lend. That's a lot different than writing everyone a check now, isn't it? In case you haven't heard, some of the banks are paying the money back already. With interest. Have you subtracted that money from the 12.8 trillion figure?

mhaze

5th April 2009, 05:41 PM

Dr Adequate

5th April 2009, 06:16 PM

* facepalm *

:notm:

Lis-ten care-ful-ly. The aim of the stim-u-lus pack-age is to cure the re-cess-ion, not the def-i-cit. If mhaze thinks Jillette was right, if anyone thinks that Jillette was right, please say so.

Obama, whom Jillette admits "drips smart" is trying to fix the recession, not the deficit. The deficit comes later.

Sheesh.

mhaze

5th April 2009, 07:41 PM

Lis-ten care-ful-ly. The aim of the stim-u-lus pack-age is to cure the re-cess-ion, not the def-i-cit. .....Obama, whom Jillette admits "drips smart" is trying to fix the recession, not the deficit. The deficit comes later.

May I suggest that some of the Smart be not dripped, but used to comprehend the bounds of the current synergy between depression and deficit?
Wait...Penn already covered this with the analogy between skidding and crashing.

Never mind.

GreyICE

5th April 2009, 07:45 PM

May I suggest that some of the Smart be not dripped, but used to comprehend the bounds of the current synergy between depression and deficit?
Wait...Penn already covered this with the analogy between skidding and crashing.

Never mind.

Ah, so the depression was caused by the deficit. So basically... you're blaming it on Bush.

I wouldn't go quite that far, I am not a radical Bush lover, but even I can see that the root cause of the depression is deeper than Bush, even if he didn't help, and probably hurt quite a bit.

mhaze

5th April 2009, 07:53 PM

Ah, so the depression was caused by the deficit. So basically... you're blaming it on Bush.

I wouldn't go quite that far, I am not a radical Bush lover, but even I can see that the root cause of the depression is deeper than Bush, even if he didn't help, and probably hurt quite a bit.

You did not understand. I refer to the deficit of 2010, 2012, and 2014. This is not about placing blame in the past but understanding short term future effects of our current actions.

Gen. Honore said it well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVBY_SqzJtI

GreyICE

5th April 2009, 07:54 PM

You did not understand. This is not about placing blame. Gen. Honore said it well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVBY_SqzJtI So Bush destroyed the country with his politics, but we shouldn't take that as a reflection on the viability of his politics?

Dr Adequate

5th April 2009, 08:16 PM

gdnp

5th April 2009, 09:38 PM

No, I haven't subtracted it. I'm trying to state the problem accurately, which the prior guesstimate of 2T isn't even close to. Now, what are you trying to do? Minimalize the danger of excess debt?

You know what, that flat does not work at this scale. We are literally talking about debt that will be inherited by the next generation, and I object to any sort of ridiculing, minimizing, or even "taking an optimistic view" on the outcomes of that.

Further, for what it's worth, I expect a great deal of this back room funny money "loans" to not be paid off. This seems like a reasonable position. Ever had to assess credit worthiness or ability to pay?

Once again, you mix the deficit spending by the US government with the expansion of the money supply by the fed. The deficit spending needs to be paid back, or at least the interest on it needs to be paid. The fed, however, expands and contracts the money supply all the time. This has profound effects on interest rates, inflation, economic growth, the strength of the dollar, etc. It does not, however, lead to a debt that the government needs to repay.

Meadmaker

5th April 2009, 09:48 PM

MIT professor and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson wrote perhaps the best piece I've seen (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice) on the causes of the crisis, what should be done, and the reasons for why it isn't done.

Good piece. And frightening.

Meadmaker

5th April 2009, 09:52 PM

If mhaze thinks Jillette was right, if anyone thinks that Jillette was right, please say so.

Obama, whom Jillette admits "drips smart" is trying to fix the recession, not the deficit. The deficit comes later.

Sheesh.

So.

It's true that Obama is trying to fix the recession, not the deficit. However, his budget projections say that he will make progress on both. He's going to increase spending dramatically. He is not going to raise taxes as much as he is going to raise spending. He says the deficit will decline.

That's counterintuitive, and I hope Obama knows something I don't.

Dr Adequate

5th April 2009, 11:11 PM

So.

It's true that Obama is trying to fix the recession, not the deficit. However, his budget projections say that he will make progress on both. He's going to increase spending dramatically. He is not going to raise taxes as much as he is going to raise spending. He says the deficit will decline.

That's counterintuitive, and I hope Obama knows something I don't. I'd have to look at the figures.

On this thread, I am just trying to make it clear that no-one, especially the President who "drips smart", has claimed that the stimulus plan (per se) will reduce the national debt.

Puppycow

6th April 2009, 02:29 AM

That's counterintuitive, and I hope Obama knows something I don't.

Remember that republicans claim that lowering taxes reduces deficits too. Or, "tax cuts pay for themselves."

Counterintuitive, right?

“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006

Personally I think that Obama's budget projection is a very optimistic best-case scenario. Just like republicans who claim that tax cuts will spur so much economic growth that they will "pay for themselves.”

But I don't think that the national debt is at an alarmingly high level.
The numbers sound huge, but the US has a huge economy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

Compare the US with Japan.

mhaze

6th April 2009, 05:07 AM

Remember that republicans claim that lowering taxes reduces deficits too. Or, "tax cuts pay for themselves." Counterintuitive, right? Personally I think that Obama's budget projection is a very optimistic best-case scenario.

Right. The projection presumed a 4% GNP growth rate. We won't have that, there is no way.

Just like republicans who claim that tax cuts will spur so much economic growth that they will "pay for themselves.”

Economists note that a dollar in tax cuts will result in $3-4 of economic activity, while a dollar given out in a government program results in about another 40 cents of activity. The GAO has gone on record as saying Obama's budget and spending will have little or no effect on the economy in the first several years.

But I don't think that the national debt is at an alarmingly high level.
The numbers sound huge, but the US has a huge economy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

Compare the US with Japan.People have been shouting doom about the debt levels for decades, but at this time, with these levels of spending, yes, the debt is moving into very alarming levels. This you see by looking at the numbers.

For example, suppose that you make $100K per year and in the course of a month, you spend $200K and sign loan agreements for another 1,080K. That is exactly comparable to the current spending spree. (12.8T of new spending and debt, $1T in income tax revenues for individuals).

Further "spending" can have different effects. Consider for example the result of spending $2T to build 50 groups of 10 nuclear power plants. The effect of this on the balance of payments would be to move it from some $500-800B negative per year to $200-300B positive. Taking the low side, that's a 3 year payback and from then on it's all positive. So this investment would be one the government could do which would clearly have great benefits.

No such thing is happening or proposed.

Meadmaker

6th April 2009, 05:56 AM

Remember that republicans claim that lowering taxes reduces deficits too. Or, "tax cuts pay for themselves."

Counterintuitive, right?

Right. I recall one candidate even called such claims "voodoo economics".

And, it turns out, they were wrong, and the debt got very, very, large, and the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves.

Is the debt too big? Am I just not getting the right perspective? My share of the national debt is approximately $36,000. (Source: National Debt Clock web page) My wife and son also have a share, so my family's share is $108,000.

That's more than I owe on my mortgage.

A lot of people think that's the wrong way of looking at it and......(insert arm waving here).... However, no. That's the right way of looking at it. I look at my paycheck, and in the "subtractions" area I see a really big one called "Federal taxes" and when I look at what that is spent on I see, "Interest on the debt." The right way to look at the debt is that each and every one of us is paying interest on it. My son, when he starts paying taxes, will have a much smaller paycheck because a whole generation of politicians, especially Reagan, GWB, and now Obama, decided that there were more important things to do than pay the bills.

Meadmaker

6th April 2009, 05:59 AM

I'd have to look at the figures.

On this thread, I am just trying to make it clear that no-one, especially the President who "drips smart", has claimed that the stimulus plan (per se) will reduce the national debt.

Did Jillette say that?

Jillette did say that Obama is trying to spend his way out of financial trouble. Jillette is right. Jillette also says he knows a lot of people who tried that for themselves, and it didn't work out so well.

I look at Obama's budget projections and I see numbers that don't add up. I see that the plan for getting the economy rolling is a whole lot of spending. My intuition tells me that deficit spending results in short term gain, and long term pain.

ETA: The OP linked article didn't mention the stimulus plan. The OP linked article did say, "Obama says we can spend our way out of debt." I took that to mean his declining budget deficit numbers from his budget plan.

I hope I'm wrong.

elbe

6th April 2009, 06:04 AM

Jillette did say that Obama is trying to spend his way out of financial trouble. Jillette is right. Jillette also says he knows a lot of people who tried that for themselves, and it didn't work out so well.

I don't imagine most individuals' financial troubles are any sort of personal recession, though.

mhaze

6th April 2009, 06:07 AM

Did Jillette say that?

Jillette did say that Obama is trying to spend his way out of financial trouble. Jillette is right. Jillette also says he knows a lot of people who tried that for themselves, and it didn't work out so well.

I look at Obama's budget projections and I see numbers that don't add up. I see that the plan for getting the economy rolling is a whole lot of spending. My intuition tells me that deficit spending results in short term gain, and long term pain.

ETA: The OP linked article didn't mention the stimulus plan. The OP linked article did say, "Obama says we can spend our way out of debt." I took that to mean his declining budget deficit numbers from his budget plan.

I hope I'm wrong.I suppose it is difficult to cut out the double talk and tongue-in-cheek comment, and simply look at the numbers, and say, here are the effects? That is why people are taught math starting in the first or second grade and proceeding through school. They are not taught the alternative of relying on "hope" and not using their ability to think things out.

Well, until now, anyway.

Beerina

6th April 2009, 08:09 AM

Beerina's statement is that government is the only entity that can restrict freedom. That's wrong.

Do not confuse people refusing to deal with you of their own free will, which free people reserve to themselves as their right, with someone pulling out a gun, or threatening to do so, and demanding you give them some of your money, property, or effort.

So you are quite literally, wrong about that.

Secondly, you probably fantasize massive problems caused by unrestricted capitalism, all the while ignoring that not-capitalism, i.e. not-freedom, is far worse all around.

Capitalism is raising China and India up out of the dirt floors era. And what do the hand-wringers in the West worry about? Long or dangerous factory hours for low pay. But compared to...what?

I have a whole basket of hems and haws you can choose from. Take as many as you like.

An earlier statement said that laissez-faire capitalism was the only system that ought to be considered, because every other system restricted freedom. (That's a paraphrase from memory, not an exact quote.) That's wrong.

Again, a declaration from you is not even an observation of reality, much less a logical argument.

You believe in a worldview that has taught you that capitalism, i.e. freedom, and its dynamism is the worst possible thing. Yet when mapped against actual, measurable indicators of human prosperity, it is unparalleled.

See, that's how science works. Theories. Predictions. Measure the outcomes against the predictions. Revise as necessary.

Last century had hundreds of economic experiments with billions of people that showed a powerful correlation between freedom of the market and the general prosperity of the nation.

:bwall

Meadmaker

6th April 2009, 09:52 AM

Do not confuse people refusing to deal with you of their own free will, which free people reserve to themselves as their right, with someone pulling out a gun, or threatening to do so, and demanding you give them some of your money, property, or effort.

Unless of course they own all the food and they choose, of their own free will, not to sell any of it to me. Or, perhaps, they will sell me some, but only if I agree to work 60 hours per week in their vineyards, while they retain the right to terminate my employment for any cause. Well of course they have that right, and if anyone with a gun came along and suggested that they really ought to sell me some food even though I only worked forty hours per week, that would be a horrible transgression of justice and the rights of man. Likewise, if someone with a gun said they were required to pay me for my fourty hours of labor even though I worshipped a different god than the food-owners, that too would be a horrible transgression of the rights of man, would it not?

That seems to be the implication of your statements with regard to laissez-faire capitalism.

You believe in a worldview that has taught you that capitalism, i.e. freedom, and its dynamism is the worst possible thing.

I believe no such thing, nor is there a reasonable interpretation of anything I said that could lead one to such a conclusion.

I have said, and I believe, that unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism is not the best possible thing. Any other interpretation is your own invention.

And, lest this be seen as a derail, let's not forget why we're discussing this. Penn Jillette questioned whether Obama's methods, which he found counterintuitive, were the best. I agree with Jillette. However, you suggested that laissez-faire captitalism was the only reasonable system. I assume you were suggesting that since Obama's methods depart from laissez-faire capitalism, they were not the best possible approach. You can correct me if I'm wrong, about why you brought up laissez-faire capitalism.

I reject your premise that anything that deviates from laissez-faire capitalism is necessarily suboptimal. Therefore, whether Obama's plans are good or bad, your argumenta against them are unsound.

Tsukasa Buddha

6th April 2009, 01:35 PM

Do not confuse people refusing to deal with you of their own free will, which free people reserve to themselves as their right, with someone pulling out a gun, or threatening to do so, and demanding you give them some of your money, property, or effort.

So you are quite literally, wrong about that.

Secondly, you probably fantasize massive problems caused by unrestricted capitalism, all the while ignoring that not-capitalism, i.e. not-freedom, is far worse all around.

Capitalism is raising China and India up out of the dirt floors era. And what do the hand-wringers in the West worry about? Long or dangerous factory hours for low pay. But compared to...what?

I have a whole basket of hems and haws you can choose from. Take as many as you like.

Again, a declaration from you is not even an observation of reality, much less a logical argument.

You believe in a worldview that has taught you that capitalism, i.e. freedom, and its dynamism is the worst possible thing. Yet when mapped against actual, measurable indicators of human prosperity, it is unparalleled.

See, that's how science works. Theories. Predictions. Measure the outcomes against the predictions. Revise as necessary.

Last century had hundreds of economic experiments with billions of people that showed a powerful correlation between freedom of the market and the general prosperity of the nation.

:bwall

And the Scandinavian countries are what, flukes then?

Bluefire

6th April 2009, 03:00 PM

And the Scandinavian countries are what, flukes then?

No, they are an excellent example confirming Beerina's thesis.

mhaze

6th April 2009, 06:38 PM

.....I reject your premise that anything that deviates from laissez-faire capitalism is necessarily suboptimal. Therefore, whether Obama's plans are good or bad, your argumenta against them are unsound.You are certainly correct. The deviations from laissez-faire capitalism shown by drone soldier and queen ants coupled with the repetoire of instinctual behavior patterns and lack of intelligence is not suboptimal for the optimal life of an ant. This is a logical truism and a logical fallacy since the "sub" part construed as "subserviant" extends to create the following:

suboptimal = optimal for subserviant
optimal life = subservient

Wait....we were talking about people. No, their best and highest purpose is not the toiling of the proletariat, eg the life of an ant.

elbe

6th April 2009, 07:03 PM

Wait....we were talking about people. No, their best and highest purpose is not the toiling of the proletariat, eg the life of an ant.

On an episode of dirty jobs they showed ants where the old ones worked in the colony's landfill so they wouldn't have to be moved there when they die. Now that's efficient.

But why exactly did you bring up ants?

Tsukasa Buddha

6th April 2009, 07:39 PM

No, they are an excellent example confirming Beerina's thesis.

... 80% unionization rates with many government owned industries, high welfare and regulation, etc. = free market capitalism?

lomiller

6th April 2009, 09:31 PM

Did Jillette say that?

Jillette did say that Obama is trying to spend his way out of financial trouble.

his exact words:

Obama tells us that we can spend our way out of debt

Obama has said no such thing

Jillette also says

He says we can get out of all those big wars President Bush caused by sending more troops into Afghanistan.

Obama has said no such thing, he has said all along he will pull troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan but has never putting troops in Afghanistan will get the US out of Iraq.

pchams

7th April 2009, 12:12 AM

When the Romans, or any past culture that we know extracted money from provinces outside the realm, we called it weregild. or reparations, or taxes.
If the U.S. borrows [more] money now, will it ever be repaid?
Or is it colonialism in it's present form?

Dr Adequate

7th April 2009, 12:19 AM

You are certainly correct. The deviations from laissez-faire capitalism shown by drone soldier and queen ants coupled with the repetoire of instinctual behavior patterns and lack of intelligence is not suboptimal for the optimal life of an ant. This is a logical truism and a logical fallacy since the "sub" part construed as "subserviant" extends to create the following:

suboptimal = optimal for subserviant
optimal life = subservient

Wait....we were talking about people. No, their best and highest purpose is not the toiling of the proletariat, eg the life of an ant. It is interesting that you wish to compare the American working classes to insects.

I wonder if there was some other point that you wished to make. Only your post seems to be the utmost in meaningless gibberish.

Dr Adequate

7th April 2009, 12:20 AM

And the Scandinavian countries are what, flukes then? Oh, stuff that exists doesn't count. You should know that by now.

pchams

7th April 2009, 12:34 AM

and tell me, oh gurus, where does the buck stop?

pchams

7th April 2009, 12:41 AM

It's an arbitrary prison for most.

Meadmaker

7th April 2009, 09:48 AM

his exact words:

"Obama tells us that we can spend our way out of debt "

Obama has said no such thing

His budget says that he will spend a lot more, tax a little more, and have lower deficits. If Jillette were offering testimony, I would say he's inaccurate, but as a summary for a column, it's not bad.

Bluefire

7th April 2009, 10:03 AM

... 80% unionization rates with many government owned industries, high welfare and regulation, etc. = free market capitalism?

Except for the unionization rate (a free market may lead to high or low),
obviously the other things are not free market capitalism. Please spell out explicitly the argument you want to make using the nordic countries (preferably with Sweden, since there is where I have good knowledge).

volatile

7th April 2009, 11:02 AM

Oh, stuff that exists doesn't count. You should know that by now.

If it doesn't exist in Atlas Shrugged, it doesn't exist.

technoextreme

7th April 2009, 11:30 AM

And, lest this be seen as a derail, let's not forget why we're discussing this. Penn Jillette questioned whether Obama's methods, which he found counterintuitive, were the best. I agree with Jillette.
It is counterintuitive because Obama is trying to adress multiple disasters at the same time and most people are approaching it as if there is one. It is debatable whether or not spending will help our economic situation. It isn't debatable that we need to spend money to fix our infrastructure which is beginning to show signs of it becoming dangerous.

Almo

7th April 2009, 12:12 PM

So I'm a bit confused as to why any theory other than laissez-faire capitalism, a libertarian's economic position, is still considered viable today?

Because LFC has been proven to fail. It needs regulation.

mhaze

7th April 2009, 02:56 PM

His budget says that he will spend a lot more, tax a little more, and have lower deficits. If Jillette were offering testimony, I would say he's inaccurate, but as a summary for a column, it's not bad.I'll help out on this. His current spending drops the dollar to about 40 cents, then everyone making a salary is jacked into the high tax brackets. Plus imported goods triple in price.

Spending more, taxing more, higher deficits.

elbe

7th April 2009, 04:42 PM

Spending more, taxing more, higher deficits.

Wouldn't spending more but taxing less be higher deficits? Which, based off of experience, appears to be the only other option.

Meadmaker

7th April 2009, 09:57 PM

Wouldn't spending more but taxing less be higher deficits? Which, based off of experience, appears to be the only other option.

Obama's plan is spend a lot more. Tax a little more.

lomiller

7th April 2009, 11:32 PM

His budget says that he will spend a lot more, tax a little more, and have lower deficits.

Are you claiming future Budgets will spend more then the Budget + Stimulus + bank bailout that makes the 2009 deficit so large? If so you need to support that claim, because it looks to me like you are trying the old bait and switch.

mhaze

8th April 2009, 06:16 AM

Wouldn't spending more but taxing less be higher deficits? Which, based off of experience, appears to be the only other option.I'm thinking that when the currency devalues due to printing more of it, everyone moves into higher tax brackets and the alternative minimum. Meanwhile many entitlement programs racket up with inflation. Interest rates rise because they can't keep them low any longer. Bingo! You always need more money than taxes bring in - always - so you always print more.

Now consider the implications of Obama "raising tax rates on the wealthy".

The only road to fixing the problem is/would have been serious cuts in government. Like 20% across the board.

Obama's "budget" is a lie, and an excuse for irresponsible increases in government . The opposite from what is needed. Let's say "counterintuitive" is, well, polite.

elbe

8th April 2009, 09:05 AM

I'm thinking that when the currency devalues due to printing more of it, everyone moves into higher tax brackets and the alternative minimum. Meanwhile many entitlement programs racket up with inflation. Interest rates rise because they can't keep them low any longer. Bingo! You always need more money than taxes bring in - always - so you always print more.

Now consider the implications of Obama "raising tax rates on the wealthy".

The only road to fixing the problem is/would have been serious cuts in government. Like 20% across the board.

Obama's "budget" is a lie, and an excuse for irresponsible increases in government . The opposite from what is needed. Let's say "counterintuitive" is, well, polite.

It doesn't change my point, however. If in both situations you are spending more (assuming some fixed quantity "more") then taxing less would, automatically, increase the deficit more than taxing more. Which one is best for any particular situation will always be up for debate, but this isn't about that. It's simply receipts minus outlays equals deficit (or surplus), smaller outlays creates larger deficits.

Meadmaker

8th April 2009, 09:18 AM

Are you claiming future Budgets will spend more then the Budget + Stimulus + bank bailout that makes the 2009 deficit so large? If so you need to support that claim, because it looks to me like you are trying the old bait and switch.

You can look up the numbers if you like. I don't care to. He uses optimistic economic growth numbers to say that all will be well. (At least, if "well" is defined as half trillion dollar annual deficits.)

Maybe he's right.

ETA: Bottom line. He wants government to do more. He wants expanded health care, education, and energy investment. Fine. Someone has to pay for it.

elbe

8th April 2009, 09:38 AM

You can look up the numbers if you like. I don't care to. He uses optimistic economic growth numbers to say that all will be well. (At least, if "well" is defined as half trillion dollar annual deficits.)

Maybe he's right.

ETA: Bottom line. He wants government to do more. He wants expanded health care, education, and energy investment. Fine. Someone has to pay for it.

I've actually saw the projected budget numbers, as a percentage of GDP, when I looked up historical budgets for another thread and they are projected, from the white house, as around 18% with a slight growth for the next five years or so. That's less than it was in 2000 (20%).
Granted these are projected budgets.

You can see what they project here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/hist.html)

lomiller

8th April 2009, 12:05 PM

mhaze

8th April 2009, 02:43 PM

It doesn't change my point, however. If in both situations you are spending more (assuming some fixed quantity "more") then taxing less would, automatically, increase the deficit more than taxing more. Which one is best for any particular situation will always be up for debate, but this isn't about that. It's simply receipts minus outlays equals deficit (or surplus), smaller outlays creates larger deficits.No it does not work that way.

You can look up the numbers if you like. I don't care to. He uses optimistic economic growth numbers to say that all will be well. (At least, if "well" is defined as half trillion dollar annual deficits.)

Maybe he's right.

ETA: Bottom line. He wants government to do more. He wants expanded health care, education, and energy investment. Fine. Someone has to pay for it.Sure...all the newly create "Rich People" can pay. They who have millions, but whom are all taxed at the highest rates and who all get hit with the death taxes and alternative minimums. That's when a coke out of the machine costs $10.

littlehulkster

8th April 2009, 02:57 PM

Meadmaker

8th April 2009, 02:59 PM

Meadmaker, you are moving the goalposts all over the field.

First you claimed Jillette never said Obama’s plan was to “buy our way out of debt”, it was pointed out that he did say it.

Next you claim Jillette was correct in saying that was Obama’s plan, but couldn’t back it up.

Next you said Obama was going to increase the deficit because “spending will go up” and I had to point out that this years deficit includes stimulus and bank bailout spending.

To that you replied you didn’t want to talk about the numbers, proceed to beg the question by asking if he (Obama) is right to try and spend his way out of debt.

I'd be happy to talk about the numbers. I'm just not sufficiently interested to look them up and post them. However, I promise that if you do so, I'll talk about them.

What I'm pretty sure you'll find is that he is spending more than GWB, and taxing more than GWB, but that the rate of increased spending is greater than the rate of increased taxes. Feel free to count or not count the current fiscal year as you see fit.

Meadmaker

8th April 2009, 03:02 PM

I've actually saw the projected budget numbers, as a percentage of GDP, when I looked up historical budgets for another thread and they are projected, from the white house, as around 18% with a slight growth for the next five years or so. That's less than it was in 2000 (20%).
Granted these are projected budgets.

You can see what they project here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/hist.html)

Exactly. As percent of GDP, deficits are projected to go down. In other words, he is projecting that economic growth will make all things well.

elbe

8th April 2009, 03:46 PM

No it does not work that way.

It doesn't really matter how it actually works. A broad statement was made (Spending more, taxing more, higher deficits) and I pointed out that a different, though broad, statement was more accurate (Spending more, taxing less, higher deficits). If you want to properly represent how reality works, don't use overly broad statements.

mhaze

8th April 2009, 05:30 PM

Okay, well, my disagreements are on the framing of the question, and the premises, but I don't care to detour. Not sure it would lead anywhere meaningful.

Check this out - Reason TV, short video on the problem. I present it as a parallel to Penn's commentary. Opinions?

"We are spending 24 times the inflation adjusted cost of the New Deal...3 times the cost of WWII...reckless spending is what got us into this mess...is more spending really the answer?".

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/75966/

Hittman

8th April 2009, 06:23 PM

Unfortunately, the point is that I don't have complete freedom to sell my abilities and talents anywhere, because the marketplace is not infinite. If there are only two employers in town, and both hate homosexuals, and I'm homosexual, then my freedom is restricted, and not by government.

If there are only two employers in town you need to move to a bigger town. And that's not a realistic scenario.

Then there's the unintended consequences. I know of a couple of very unbigoted employers who avoid hiring mintorities because they're afraid they won't be able to dipline or fire them if they need to. Given our current legal climate that's a very realistic fear.

Unless of course they own all the food and they choose, of their own free will, not to sell any of it to me. Or, perhaps, they will sell me some, but only if I agree to work 60 hours per week in their vineyards, while they retain the right to terminate my employment for any cause.

A desperate, nonsense scenario.

The only road to fixing the problem is/would have been serious cuts in government. Like 20% across the board.

That would be a good start, but I'd like to see it go much further than that. We have entire departments that could be eliminated, and others that could be paired down to 20% of what they are now.

mhaze

8th April 2009, 08:23 PM

....That would be a good start, but I'd like to see it go much further than that. We have entire departments that could be eliminated, and others that could be paired down to 20% of what they are now.No argument from me on those counts.

The idea of 20% is to start carving into entitlements...

20B foriegn aid
100B for 1000+ overseas military bases
etc.

I can see 20% pretty easy ... we don't need 227 bases in Germany.

Meadmaker

8th April 2009, 09:10 PM

A desperate, nonsense scenario.

In our world today, and in most of the countries where people are reading this today, you are forunately correct. But can you seriously say that this scenario is nonsense? That it has not happened? That it will not happen again?

Ireland, 1847. Quite a lot of people were quite literally starving, and many more would have had they not had the option of moving to America. Meanwhile, Ireland, throughout the potato famine, was a net exporter of food.

The people who owned the food decided, of their own free will, not to sell it to the starving people in their midst. And who can blame them? The starving people didn't have any money.

GreyICE

9th April 2009, 12:14 AM

In our world today, and in most of the countries where people are reading this today, you are forunately correct. But can you seriously say that this scenario is nonsense? That it has not happened? That it will not happen again?

Ireland, 1847. Quite a lot of people were quite literally starving, and many more would have had they not had the option of moving to America. Meanwhile, Ireland, throughout the potato famine, was a net exporter of food.

The people who owned the food decided, of their own free will, not to sell it to the starving people in their midst. And who can blame them? The starving people didn't have any money.
Well more accurately, the farms were British owned and British operated. The farmers did not own their land, or the produce of their land, and this was enforceable by British guns. They continued to give their food to the British for their 'reward' of being able to feed their own families by the produce of their own lands.

The British saw no benefit in giving the food to the people who were not their farmers and starving, and saw great benefit in the actual starvation (nothing like the threat of kicking the tenant off their land DURING A FAMINE, eh?).

The Great Famine was a genocide by most modern definitions of the word. The British deliberately attempted to prevent the actions of non-British citizens to save Irish lives. Genocide - deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

So your scenario is a bit off, even if the thrust of your point is not.

mhaze

9th April 2009, 06:24 AM

Well more accurately, the farms were British owned and British operated. The farmers did not own their land, or the produce of their land, and this was enforceable by British guns. They continued to give their food to the British for their 'reward' of being able to feed their own families by the produce of their own lands.

The British saw no benefit in giving the food to the people who were not their farmers and starving, and saw great benefit in the actual starvation (nothing like the threat of kicking the tenant off their land DURING A FAMINE, eh?).

The Great Famine was a genocide by most modern definitions of the word. The British deliberately attempted to prevent the actions of non-British citizens to save Irish lives. Genocide - deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

So your scenario is a bit off, even if the thrust of your point is not.Moreover, Meadmaker argues (essentially) for greater indivudual liberty thru more government, but Ireland is an example of the opposite.

Beerina

9th April 2009, 10:01 AM

Because LFC has been proven to fail. It needs regulation.

Well, it's not failure as a rocket fails to launch and explodes. Therefore it may be a failure as in sub-optimal.

Therefore, to judge failure, one must have an objective, measurable standard that is tested for in, ideally, a repeatable, double-blind study. That can't be the case here, obviously. But you can at least do objective measurements of things like longevity, average health, average quality of live, amount of entertainment available, whatever.

Of course, such studies would be incorrect if one were to pick only studies known to show results that tout personal political philosophies. So that's why it's good to just use things like average life span, average health, average calories available or consumed, and so on.

Hmmmm. I wonder what studies of that sort of thing over last century's hundreds of "economic experiments" show?

I wonder. I'm feeling kind of lazy, hey, that kind of sounds like "laissez", doesn't it? Hah Hah. I made a funny.

Anyhoo, Almo, since you're so sure LFC is a failboat, can you point to such studies that show massively regulated capitalism, i.e. socialism, or fascism, for that matter, are better at producing longevity and quality of life?

I'm sure you have such info, for no honest person would ever make a statement like yours, at least on a skeptic board, without knowing the answer. I'll wait.

Meadmaker

9th April 2009, 11:13 PM

Anyhoo, Almo, since you're so sure LFC is a failboat, can you point to such studies that show massively regulated capitalism, i.e. socialism, or fascism, for that matter, are better at producing longevity and quality of life?

Seems to me like you are guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Is there any choice somewhere in between laissez faire capitalism and socialism or fascism? (I am assuming that your use of i.e. was a deliberate attempt to equate massively regulated capitalism and socialism.)

Meadmaker

9th April 2009, 11:22 PM

Moreover, Meadmaker argues (essentially) for greater indivudual liberty thru more government, but Ireland is an example of the opposite.

I don't think so. First of all, British government policy in the 17th and 18th centuries certainly created the conditions for disaster in 19th century Ireland, but the actual systems in place at the time of the famine were, I'm fairly certain, pretty much dominated by the free market. There weren't any laws preventing Irish people from owning large farms, it's just that they didn't have any money. Landlords held large tracts of land they had inherited or purchased, and they set the conditions for the tenant farmers, which conditions basically amounted to work your butt off and give me most of what you make, and I'll let you keep just enough to avoid starvation, which is a better deal than the other folks are getting.

I think starvation is kind of the ultimate loss of freedom, and so I think there would have been more freedom had exports of grain been kept in Ireland and distributed by government policy. I'm sure they could have found a way to keep everyone getting along, even if the residents of the manor house might have had a somewhat reduced standard of living under such a policy.

mhaze

10th April 2009, 08:03 AM

I don't think so......I do, and I have studied this Irish issue a bit. But having said that, there is a wider issue that you seem to have missed which is important.

"Laisse Fair Capitalism" does not condone the ganging up of capitalists with governments to restrict the freedom of the individual. This is in fact sort of an evil bastardization of capitalism. I am sure you will agree that this is what happened in Ireland, and what was happening in many of the other examples you have cited of problems with capitalism. So you may when arguing against capitalism, actually be arguing against bastardized versions, and would then find capitalists in agreement with you. If it was properly understood.

Beerina's argument is with the large mix of governments in historical existance, all imperfect realizations of a concept or realizations of a mixed model, those with large components of capitalism did in fact fare better. It's not possible to argue against this with something like equal opportunity for gays. This is only an advocacy that gays be included in the equal rights grouping as required for (minorities, women, families, etc). It's quite irrelevant in the design or conceptualization of an entire society.

Further I suggest that historically, cultural and thereofore legal anti-gay issues were the product solely of the State. This can be understood by thinking of a king in medieval Europe being concerned about how he can get the largest number of babies and hence the largest number of foot soldiers for his next campaign. From such economic and political realities come laws, cultural and religious imperatives which by nature are relatively long lasting.

Your argument that capitalism condones bad behavior on the part of individuals is not really that good. Segregation on public transport in the USA did not exist when those were privately owned. When the governments took over those transportation systems, then segregation crept in by law. And it's only really by law that you can have widespread discrimination and social injustice, isn't it? This does not hold a candle to the ocassional bigotry of an individual.

TriskettheKid

10th April 2009, 08:25 AM

Your argument that capitalism condones bad behavior on the part of individuals is not really that good. Segregation on public transport in the USA did not exist when those were privately owned. When the governments took over those transportation systems, then segregation crept in by law. And it's only really by law that you can have widespread discrimination and social injustice, isn't it? This does not hold a candle to the ocassional bigotry of an individual.

You might want to retake a look at that history.

Meadmaker

10th April 2009, 08:41 AM

"Laisse Fair Capitalism" does not condone the ganging up of capitalists with governments to restrict the freedom of the individual. This is in fact sort of an evil bastardization of capitalism.

Sure. However, "Animal Farm" described an evil bastardization of communism, but it was a good and accurate description of what inevitably happens with communism. It is inevitable that communism, when implemented, inevitably becomes an evil bastardization of communism.

I think the same thing inevitably happens with capitalism. Given unrestricted access to the economy, some people will win and some will lose. The winners will amass wealth, which they will use to amass power, including by using their influence with government to create an environment where they can amass more wealth and power.

I agree with Beerina that capitalism is better than the alternatives, but unregulated, capitalism inevitably turns into the sort of evil bastardization that you describe.

So, when trying to describe what course the government should take at this time, I think it is unhelpful to say that laissez faire capitalism is always the best answer, and therefore government should back off and get out. It's not that simple.

GreyICE

10th April 2009, 03:19 PM

I don't think so. First of all, British government policy in the 17th and 18th centuries certainly created the conditions for disaster in 19th century Ireland, but the actual systems in place at the time of the famine were, I'm fairly certain, pretty much dominated by the free market. There weren't any laws preventing Irish people from owning large farms, it's just that they didn't have any money. Landlords held large tracts of land they had inherited or purchased, and they set the conditions for the tenant farmers, which conditions basically amounted to work your butt off and give me most of what you make, and I'll let you keep just enough to avoid starvation, which is a better deal than the other folks are getting.

I think starvation is kind of the ultimate loss of freedom, and so I think there would have been more freedom had exports of grain been kept in Ireland and distributed by government policy. I'm sure they could have found a way to keep everyone getting along, even if the residents of the manor house might have had a somewhat reduced standard of living under such a policy. Uh, yeah, what? Are we discussing alternate history land?

Because the real Irish market was dominated by nothing resembling a free market. The Irish were kept as serfs on the land, with the rent conditions (they did not own their land or the produce thereof) leaving them in debt to land they could not leave. There is literally no way you have any understanding of Ireland during that time period.

The system was not free market, it was feudalism. And the government, the government? THE GOVERNMENT STARVED THE PEOPLE.

There have been examples of the government helping. That was an example of a government-sponsored genocide. This was not helpful.

And no, Britain has never owned up to what they did. I don't particularly think reparations or anything would be helpful, but when they want to understand their history, why they are hated, why people would blow them up and kill them to be free of their country... yes, it would help them to understand what they did in the past.

mhaze

10th April 2009, 04:46 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZCe8Fw8vyM

mhaze

10th April 2009, 05:00 PM

.....I agree with Beerina that capitalism is better than the alternatives, but unregulated, capitalism inevitably turns into the sort of evil bastardization that you describe.

So, when trying to describe what course the government should take at this time, I think it is unhelpful to say that laissez faire capitalism is always the best answer, and therefore government should back off and get out. It's not that simple.I think it is unhelpful to assert that bastardization of the US Constitution under guise of "helping social justice" tilts in the direction of "progressive improvement" instead of collectivism and it's ensuing miseries. Yes this includes whatever regulations and laws against personal freedom advocated in stealth "greater good" mode.

Meadmaker

12th April 2009, 08:57 PM

Uh, yeah, what? Are we discussing alternate history land?

Because the real Irish market was dominated by nothing resembling a free market. The Irish were kept as serfs on the land, with the rent conditions (they did not own their land or the produce thereof) leaving them in debt to land they could not leave.

Well, debt is the result of the free market, is it not? How did they go into debt? Were there laws that forced them into debt? Or was it the case that the only way they could get food was to agree to go into debt?

There is literally no way you have any understanding of Ireland during that time period.

Perhaps. It is my understand, based on very superficial research, that the government supported the "property rights" of the landlords. The landlords were free to do pretty much what they wanted. They owned the land. They could lease it out, as they chose, to their tenants. They could evict their tenants if they chose. They could sell their crops to whomever they wished, whether the customer was Irish or English.

Did the English government demand that Irish farmers export food? If so, that would not be a free market. If, on the other hand, they allowed landowners to sell to whomever they chose, that would be a free market.

I'll read a bit more, and if you wish to aid in my education, feel free to point me to a web site or two that would assist my comprehension.

GreyICE

13th April 2009, 12:31 AM

Well, debt is the result of the free market, is it not? How did they go into debt? Were there laws that forced them into debt? Or was it the case that the only way they could get food was to agree to go into debt?

Perhaps. It is my understand, based on very superficial research, that the government supported the "property rights" of the landlords. The landlords were free to do pretty much what they wanted. They owned the land. They could lease it out, as they chose, to their tenants. They could evict their tenants if they chose. They could sell their crops to whomever they wished, whether the customer was Irish or English.

Did the English government demand that Irish farmers export food? If so, that would not be a free market. If, on the other hand, they allowed landowners to sell to whomever they chose, that would be a free market.

I'll read a bit more, and if you wish to aid in my education, feel free to point me to a web site or two that would assist my comprehension. The landowners were the British and British appointed nobility. The people living on the land, aka the Irish were not free to sell their food, since the British took it all to pay the rents. The rents were the result of the British confiscating all the land.

This is nonsense Mead, nothing you are saying is based on any interpretation of history. If you want to write about how the Mugu-Bugus didn't sell to starving Mugu-Bugus because it was more profitable for them to sell to Unku-Womps, go right ahead! Just don't pretend you're talking about the Irish and the British.

Summary, since you missed it:

British enter Ireland
Depose all nobility, replace them with British or British-aligned nobility
Start charging rents on the land that are absurd
Famine kicks in, British move things like cattle over to Britain so starving Irish can't steal em.
British continue to export food from 'their' land during famine. Dead Irish not a concern.
British ask other nations not to offer aid to Ireland, blockade ports to try and prevent food-bearing ships from arriving in Ireland.
Irish flee and die in large numbers thanks to tyranny.

Fast forward 150 years:
British claim that it was all free markets, terrible tragedy, nothing they could have done.

Gangularis

13th April 2009, 12:51 AM

Last century had hundreds of long-term economic experiments involving roughly 10 billion people, showing a direct correlation between amount of freedom, including economic freedom, and general wealth of nations.

The theory is this economic power derives from freedom since people can be secure in keeping the product of their own efforts. How hard would you run in a 100-m dash if your win was "taxed" away and awarded to someone else?

If it's required that I run for my survival, I don't see why I still wouldn't run to the best of my ability if i still got more out of it, even if I don't get the entire cake to myself, at the end of the race... Running in a marathon is optional. "Running", or rather, pushing yourself to make money, is not optional in our society, if you wish to survive. You still gotta run.. why not run at your best, even if the whole mountain isn't yours, when you reach the peak?

mhaze

13th April 2009, 05:44 AM

If it's required that I run for my survival, I don't see why I still wouldn't run to the best of my ability if i still got more out of it, even if I don't get the entire cake to myself, at the end of the race... Running in a marathon is optional. "Running", or rather, pushing yourself to make money, is not optional in our society, if you wish to survive. You still gotta run.. why not run at your best, even if the whole mountain isn't yours, when you reach the peak?Yes, in a collective society or one bent in that direction, there would be incessant barrages of propaganda for a person to do his best for "the common good" - that would be spiced with some minor treasures, such as the use of the local mogul's Dacha on the Black Sea, perhaps accompanied by a courtesan picked out for you. Of course if you didn't win, you might be found to suddenly have "gotten ill and had to be put in a sanitarium".

So unfortunate.

Meadmaker

13th April 2009, 09:53 AM

The landowners were the British and British appointed nobility.

Well, sort of. Following O'Neil's defeat in 1603, the plantation policy did exactly this, and this sort of policy continued will into the 18th century. So, the British, through government action, became holders of the land.

However, at some point, and I confess I do not know at what point that was, the landowners ceased to hold their land as a fief from the Crown. They became hereditary landowners with property rights. Their land was private property that was inherited from their distant ancestors. Had they wished to sell it, they could have done so. Had they wished to give it away, they could have done so. Had they wished to allow their tenants to live and/or farm for free, they could have done so.

Likewise with the produce of the land. Had they wished to use it feed starving Irish people, they could have done so. Had they wished to sell it to English people, they could have done so. Since English people tended to have money, that was, generally, their desire.

So, of course, when the stage was set in Elizabethan times, and the land was given to the English lords, that was government interference. However, in the 19th century, when that particular famine actually occurred, the system was dominated by commerce.

I did do a bit of reading on this last night. Of course, things weren't a total free market system. It was that evil, bastardized, free market system that was mentioned before, the one that inevitably develops. However, the rhetoric employed by British policymakers could have been written by Republican strategists. They said the starving people were starving through their own failings. They upheld property rights. They worried that any aid to Ireland would create dependency. When one person came to the British Prime Minister to plead the case, the PM actually picked up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", and read from it to support his position.

The rents were the result of the British confiscating all the land.

To emphasize, this is certainly true, but it was confiscated 100 years (or more) earlier. By the time 1847 rolled around, the confiscators were fertilizing the land, not stealing it.

Beerina

13th April 2009, 10:08 AM

Seems to me like you are guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Is there any choice somewhere in between laissez faire capitalism and socialism or fascism? (I am assuming that your use of i.e. was a deliberate attempt to equate massively regulated capitalism and socialism.)

Oh, I acknowledge the existence of "in-between". Modern elective politics is essentially the story of how much intrusive power the government can attain vs. getting kicked out of office for slowing down the economy too much. People do want to stay alive, after all, and will work to put food in their mouths, no matter how many they carry on their backs like a pack mule.

Of course, the real issue isn't a handful of regulations, good or otherwise, which "work" or otherwise. It's the way out of control spending and taxing that's the point here, which exceeds any "reasonable" regulation and taxation by several orders of magnitude.

Beerina

13th April 2009, 10:16 AM

You might want to retake a look at that history.

We did. That's how we got to this position.

Allowing the ownership of slaves was an abrogation of government in doing its duty to secure inalienable rights for all. Yes, it derived from historical precedent, but had to take on an aura of dehumanization of the slaves as a "workaround" to the irritating Western philosophical development that owning your fellow man was wrong in and of itself. Since they were 2/3 a man or whatever, then it was OK again. Previously, if your city-state lost the war, you were killed or enslaved, and that was your new lot in life, end of story. No racism involved.

So, in that context, the powers that be who profited from slavery helped build up bigotry in the common yokel for the purpose of maintaining power via elections. Remember that after the US Civil War, the blacks in the south started electing people left and right, and it took 30 years for a whole new level of bigotry to be built up in the yokels so racist segregationist laws could be created and so on, to thwart this. Again, government abandoning its duty rather than upholding it.

Abandoning it, if you believe the purpose of government is to secure inalienable rights. But many around here believe in Vox Populi, Vox Dei, so rights exist only insofar as they don't stand in the way of The People and their demagogist leaders.

GreyICE

13th April 2009, 01:36 PM

Well, sort of. Following O'Neil's defeat in 1603, the plantation policy did exactly this, and this sort of policy continued will into the 18th century. So, the British, through government action, became holders of the land.

However, at some point, and I confess I do not know at what point that was, the landowners ceased to hold their land as a fief from the Crown. They became hereditary landowners with property rights. Their land was private property that was inherited from their distant ancestors. Had they wished to sell it, they could have done so. Had they wished to give it away, they could have done so. Had they wished to allow their tenants to live and/or farm for free, they could have done so.

Likewise with the produce of the land. Had they wished to use it feed starving Irish people, they could have done so. Had they wished to sell it to English people, they could have done so. Since English people tended to have money, that was, generally, their desire.

So, of course, when the stage was set in Elizabethan times, and the land was given to the English lords, that was government interference. However, in the 19th century, when that particular famine actually occurred, the system was dominated by commerce.

I did do a bit of reading on this last night. Of course, things weren't a total free market system. It was that evil, bastardized, free market system that was mentioned before, the one that inevitably develops. However, the rhetoric employed by British policymakers could have been written by Republican strategists. They said the starving people were starving through their own failings. They upheld property rights. They worried that any aid to Ireland would create dependency. When one person came to the British Prime Minister to plead the case, the PM actually picked up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", and read from it to support his position.

To emphasize, this is certainly true, but it was confiscated 100 years (or more) earlier. By the time 1847 rolled around, the confiscators were fertilizing the land, not stealing it. Oh certainly the rhetoric was pure Adam Smith - it's their own fault, it's their own failings. What we hear about people on welfare nowadays basically from the same morons, and they haven't gotten any smarter.

If you wanted to argue the rhetoric was the same, I'd agree. But look at the landowners locality - they were British. Most visited Ireland at best semi-frequently, and were part of British society. They were mixed with British nobility.

Sure they argued that the Irish were doing it to themselves. But when their ships were blockading Irish ports to prevent foreigners from offering food and assistance - that's not free markets.

Meadmaker

13th April 2009, 07:19 PM

Oh certainly the rhetoric was pure Adam Smith - it's their own fault, it's their own failings. What we hear about people on welfare nowadays basically from the same morons, and they haven't gotten any smarter.

If you wanted to argue the rhetoric was the same, I'd agree. But look at the landowners locality - they were British. Most visited Ireland at best semi-frequently, and were part of British society. They were mixed with British nobility.

Sure they argued that the Irish were doing it to themselves. But when their ships were blockading Irish ports to prevent foreigners from offering food and assistance - that's not free markets.

I don't know anything about the blockade of Irish ports, and some quick googling didn't reveal anything, either, except passing comments in forums. I would like to know more about it. I'll bet that somehow the powers that be justified it using some sort of pro-business rhetoric, though.

And that was the point of this digression. If you count on the "free market" to make everyone prosperous, you won't get there. I noted that the market can't really be free if someone controls all the food. Someone else said that was an impossible example, and I noted that in fact, it has happened quite a bit. In the 19th century, English commercial interests dominated the Irish food supply, and were perfectly happy to let the Irish starve, and all the time they hailed the wisdom of the free market. Never mind that, in any real sense, the market was anything but free. However, it was free in the sense that the owners were free to do pretty much whatever they wanted with their property.

GreyICE

13th April 2009, 10:10 PM

I don't know anything about the blockade of Irish ports, and some quick googling didn't reveal anything, either, except passing comments in forums. I would like to know more about it. I'll bet that somehow the powers that be justified it using some sort of pro-business rhetoric, though.

And that was the point of this digression. If you count on the "free market" to make everyone prosperous, you won't get there. I noted that the market can't really be free if someone controls all the food. Someone else said that was an impossible example, and I noted that in fact, it has happened quite a bit. In the 19th century, English commercial interests dominated the Irish food supply, and were perfectly happy to let the Irish starve, and all the time they hailed the wisdom of the free market. Never mind that, in any real sense, the market was anything but free. However, it was free in the sense that the owners were free to do pretty much whatever they wanted with their property. The internet is such a very terrible source for this (most is in books) but here's a source that generally describes it.

http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/the-khilafah/non-muslims/1586-how-the-khilafah-aided-the-irish-during-the-famine-of-1845

It's missing a few details, but it's basically the story.

Note that the Internet still remains a terrible place for history, it's very much a creature of the now.

mhaze

14th April 2009, 05:15 AM

Pretty gruesome, but here are some of the old newspapers.

http://adminstaff.vassar.edu/sttaylor/FAMINE/Examiner/

Excerpts.

Time will soon show that, whatever be their intentions, the conduct of Government officials will produce ruin and destruction in the country. There seems to be no concern about "deaths by starvation," at all.

An extensive agent here has gone to Liverpool, with the view of chartering ten large vessels to take out upwards of 1,300 families which are about leaving one estate in Ireland-- partly at the expense of their landlord,

SIR,-- I beg leave to call the attention of the local authorities to the fact that there is at present an immense quantity of Indian Corn stored in Cork, in such condition as must eventuate in total loss to the parties concerned. .... Is there no power vested in some responsible party to look into this matter and prevent this wholesale destruction?