my kinda French chick
The Professor
The Professor (move over Gisela ;) )
Digiman
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> skrev i melding
news:tH6La.2233$4J6...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...Is this made up or what?
It's difficult to relate to a person who bashes his/her own country that
way....
What would you say if an american chick flew over to England just to
complain about
all the things that suck in the US and works briliantly in England?
"Wow, she likes england, great chick" won't be it, i guess..
Or is it "shudder" that the Ussians in here that actually
both *can* and *does* think still believe that the french
are a bunch of wine-guzzling cheese-eating spineless and so on...
Even you prof?
Digiman
--
There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and
Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
>
>
Gisela Jönsson
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
news:tH6La.2233$4J6...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Interesting, but she seems kind of weird.
Especially with this:
"The stories in our newspapers fascinate her. "What is this anti-smacking
law? What is wrong with a quick smack? I thought only the French liked these
silly laws. In Finland, men are made to do 40 per cent of the housework.
Libertarians in every country should rise up against this madness.""
If she's a libertarian, she'd know what was wrong with smacking people
around. And I don't get the "men are MADE" part. Like there's a law? Maybe
there is a law. I've just never heard of it, which seems odd.
Hm.
/ Gisela
Digiman
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> skrev i melding
news:tH6La.2233$4J6...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
that its just silly nonsens, and could have been taken from The Onion.
Someone came up with this chick that, point by point,
confirms all those things the US said about france
> before and during the iraqi war.
At least they could have put some effort into it.
Digiman
My sig seems more and more appropriate...
The Professor
news:G5fLa.2627$os2....@news2.e.nsc.no...
>
> "The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> skrev i melding
> news:tH6La.2233$4J6...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > http://tinyurl.com/fh6a
> >
> > The Professor (move over Gisela ;) )
> >
> > Been reading it again, and came to the conclusion
> that its just silly nonsens, and could have been taken from The Onion.
> Someone came up with this chick that, point by point,
> confirms all those things the US said about france
> > before and during the iraqi war.
> At least they could have put some effort into it.
It's quite true, and appeared in a reputable UK newspaper, and linked to by
a number of US blogs.
First of all, I'm an equal opportunity Western Europe basher. There ARE
things wrong with France (for example), and she points out many of them.
It's not about the war and the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" stuff, but
about the fact that the relationship between the state and the individual in
France (and elsewhere in WE) is hardly the relationship that I think is
ideal. So finding her to be a kinda cool chick is mostly about her having
the guts to stand up and fight for her classical liberal ideas in a country
that largely detests such ideas. I admire her, esp. given that she's 21 and
female!
And Gisela is right - she's a bit odd, but anyone who's willing to take her
public stands and knows who Hayek is, is fine with me (I'll ignore the
smacking comment ;) ).
The Professor (why is it so hard to believe, Digiman, that a young woman
could actually believe what she does?)
John Shafto
"I thought it was just us. In France, we are taught in school about American imperialism, that all
Americans are either fat or work in sweatshops."
What a hoot, sounds a little like Neil there. :)
John
(who is neither fat, nor sweatshop worker)
wandering star
Ballbuster…
Not to mention neo-con con artist…
What's the big deal with the average worker caring more about the
weekend or holidays than work? That's why they call it "work"…
Yeah, privatize all the utilities. That may mean the worker will have
to work more and get paid less (Yay!!!) But it almost certainly means
the cost of the utilities will go up significantly… (Which the cons
will lamely explain away…)
That's the thing with the free market economy. The rich get very rich
and powerful and the workers get stepped on. That's why unions are
needed, even though they may inconvenience the public from time to
time. (Is it the workers fault or the big bosses?)
When the unions get stepped on the average wages go down. And you hear
this bullshit about tax cuts that help only the wealthy investor, and
how that puts money in the average person's pocket. Well the fact is
things like a decent wage and programs like universal healthcare
actually put more money into the average person's pocket. No "voodoo
economics" needed...
Government involvement in the economy makes things a less uneven
playing field.
But decades of progress can be wiped away in a few years when the cons
come to power.
wandering star
Let's see. America probably has the highest incarceration rate in the
entire world. Not to mention the highest crime rate, drug addiction
rate and poverty rate among first world nations. And America spends
the most on healthcare in the entire world, something like 15% GDP.
All other first world countries spend around 7 or 8 % GDP. Yet America
is also the only first world country to not have health care coverage
for all its citizens.
You hear of American states "legalizing" the purchase of cheaper
Canadian meds. Why don't the Americans reign in the "Barnum and Baily"
act and control the cost of health care through legislation like the
Canadians do??
I'm sure you'd like to believe that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.
But the fact is America is a mess and is hardly an example for the
rest of the world.
When you look at what the US Fed did to interest rates during the
early 80s and 90s, which nearly bankrupted 1st world nations, but
certainly bankrupted 3rd world nations, it makes my blood boil.
Especially considering the US won't lift a finger to undo the damage
they did. Not to mention they control the World Bank and IMF...
The Professor
news:9o1tfvgmrloldhosk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:03:05 GMT, "The Professor"
> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/fh6a
> >
> >The Professor (move over Gisela ;) )
>
>
> Not to mention neo-con con artist.
>
> What's the big deal with the average worker caring more about the
>
> Yeah, privatize all the utilities. That may mean the worker will have
> to work more and get paid less (Yay!!!) But it almost certainly means
> will lamely explain away.)
Can you provide me some evidence for that, esp. since all the other major
privatizations (airline de-reg, phone de-reg etc) have generated
*significant* declines in prices? Seems to me YOU are being the lame one
here.
> That's the thing with the free market economy. The rich get very rich
> and powerful and the workers get stepped on. That's why unions are
> needed, even though they may inconvenience the public from time to
> time. (Is it the workers fault or the big bosses?)
Sigh.... should I even bother? :)
> When the unions get stepped on the average wages go down. And you hear
> this bullshit about tax cuts that help only the wealthy investor, and
> how that puts money in the average person's pocket. Well the fact is
> things like a decent wage and programs like universal healthcare
> actually put more money into the average person's pocket. No "voodoo
> economics" needed...
cough, cough, cough. Familiarize yourself with some data my friend, and
then we'll talk.
> Government involvement in the economy makes things a less uneven
> playing field.
bigger cough, cough, cough
>
> But decades of progress can be wiped away in a few years when the cons
> come to power.
uh-huh.
Start here: http://it.stlawu.edu/shor/Good/myths.htm
The Professor (yes, WS, that is my site)
John Shafto
>
> You hear of American states "legalizing" the purchase of cheaper
> Canadian meds. Why don't the Americans reign in the "Barnum and Baily"
> act and control the cost of health care through legislation like the
> Canadians do??
Maybe because most Americans like to have the option to
spend more on health care, thereby having better health care,
and because most Americans like freedom of choice.
Pass a law that says only the govt may provide health care?
That's not freedom, it's communism.
We already have way to many laws telling people how
their health care will work (hence much of the expense).
That's not freedom, it's fascism.
Mike Smith
> I'm sure you'd like to believe that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.
> But the fact is America is a mess and is hardly an example for the
> rest of the world.
Yeah, well maybe if the rest of the world had pulled their own weight
rather than leaving it to us to buy the Cold War for three trillion
dollars, we'd be better off.
--
Mike Smith
Digiman
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> skrev i melding
> And Gisela is right - she's a bit odd, but anyone who's willing to take
her
> public stands and knows who Hayek is, is fine with me (I'll ignore the
> smacking comment ;) ).
>
> The Professor (why is it so hard to believe, Digiman, that a young woman
> could actually believe what she does?)
>
what i most reacted to was the way it was written, kind of surreal
and onion-ish.:).
And, totally off-topic and three months late I'll just mention the fact that
every year between 5 and 6 THOUSAND unexploded mines, bombs
and such are found in Norway, mostly from WW2. That's
60 years ago. And we were on the fringe of the whole thing.
Just a little something to illustrate why europeans
are not that eager to go to war.
Digiman.
ps. thanx for the polite answer prof.
wandering star
There is nothing about freedom of choice in American healthcare.
The fact is people who are well off have good health care. People not
so well off have to settle with cheap HMOs. And people even less well
off have to settle with nothing.
One interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath is that health care is a
human right.
It doesn't matter if healthcare is provided for by the private sector
or the government, but all people should have equal access to it,
because the basis for constitutional democracies is that all people
are equal and no one's life is more important than another's.
Of course, all other first world countries have government controls on
health care and have contained costs and spend about 7 or 8% GDP on
health care. America's cost of health care, however, has spiraled out
of control to about 14% GDP, and they don't even cover everyone.
The American system is not democratic or "free", it is plutocratic.
wandering star
Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
Let's not forget the US has probably the same population of Western
Europe in a single country under one Commander and Chief.
Yes it was great when the Americans entered the War and beat back the
fascists from the west. Of course if they didn't it would have been a
lonely world for freedom and free enterprise. And it was great when
the Americans bailed out Western Europe after the war. But if they
didn't they could have fell to the Communists, and that would've been
a far worse domino effect than Korea, Cuba or Viet Nam ever could've
created. And it's true American military technology is by far the best
in the world and getting better by the day. But the fact is the USSR
collapsed because their economic system was grossly inefficient
compared to the West - and that doesn't only mean the US.
But the problems in America are due to a lack of social programs,
progressive criminal rehabilitation and gun control. Those are the
main differences between the US and other first world countries who
don't have the same high crime rate, drug addiction rate, poverty
rate, etc.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp
wandering star
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9o1tfvgmrloldhosk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:03:05 GMT, "The Professor"
>> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/fh6a
>> >
>> >The Professor (move over Gisela ;) )
>>
>> Ballbuster.
>>
>> Not to mention neo-con con artist.
>>
>> What's the big deal with the average worker caring more about the
>> weekend or holidays than work? That's why they call it "work".
>>
>> Yeah, privatize all the utilities. That may mean the worker will have
>> to work more and get paid less (Yay!!!) But it almost certainly means
>> the cost of the utilities will go up significantly. (Which the cons
>> will lamely explain away.)
>
>Can you provide me some evidence for that, esp. since all the other major
>privatizations (airline de-reg, phone de-reg etc) have generated
>*significant* declines in prices? Seems to me YOU are being the lame one
>here.
For one, the Thatcher privatizations were notorious failures. There is
also the example of electrical privatization in California that turned
into a disaster. I live in Ontario, Canada, and our neo-con government
partially privatized the electrical utilities and the price went up
from about 4 cents per kwh to over 6 cents. (They eventually backed
down from full privatization.) The government then decided to cap the
rates at 4.3 cents per kwh with retroactive pay offs to buy votes in
the next election, and it's the taxpayer who will have to pay. In one
year that cost between .5 and 1.5 billion, and the government is
looking to fire-sale 2 billion in government assets to keep from going
into deficit.
As for Airline de-reg, that's not exactly a glowing example. It seems
all NA airlines were teetering on the verge of bankruptcy even before
9/11.
The long distance thing is definitely good. But was it de-reg that
brought down the costs or the emergence of new telecommunications
technology and probably even internet email and chat that lessened
demand?
I'm not knocking free enterprise. I just say it doesn't work in every
case, despite what Adam Smith might say. Especially when it comes to
American health care. Usually privatization just means cons selling
off government assets to help fund tax cut schemes that don't work and
give sweet deals to cronies. In fact the cons love creating huge
deficits so it creates a crisis that justifies them to cut social
programs or forces the next government to do the same to clean up
their mess. Look a Bush Jr. A 500 billion deficit when interest rates
are at their lowest in 50 years?? It would be pathetic if it wasn't
orchestrated (ironic, considering Bush Jr. probably can't even
pronounce the wordů)
>> That's the thing with the free market economy. The rich get very rich
>> and powerful and the workers get stepped on. That's why unions are
>> needed, even though they may inconvenience the public from time to
>> time. (Is it the workers fault or the big bosses?)
>
>Sigh.... should I even bother? :)
I know how you feelů :)
>> When the unions get stepped on the average wages go down. And you hear
>> this bullshit about tax cuts that help only the wealthy investor, and
>> how that puts money in the average person's pocket. Well the fact is
>> things like a decent wage and programs like universal healthcare
>> actually put more money into the average person's pocket. No "voodoo
>> economics" needed...
>
>cough, cough, cough. Familiarize yourself with some data my friend, and
>then we'll talk.
Oh, you're right. When unions get busted the wages go up. And when
cons come up with tax-cut schemes it's the average worker who gets the
most significant benefit. Not to mention the trickle-down effect that
has always, cough, cough, cough, worked wonders for the economyů
>> Government involvement in the economy makes things a less uneven
>> playing field.
>
>bigger cough, cough, cough
What about the pre-Keynesian economy? It was boom to bust, the workers
had shit pay, worked ridiculous hours in sweat shops and it crashed
into the Great Depression, which Keynes predicted, and ultimately led
to WW2. In the post war era the West couldn't afford to be so
plutocratic because that could mean the entire world falling to the
communists. That's what lead to the greatest economic gains for the
working class the world has ever seen. And that's the whole thing, you
give workers fair wages, give them opportunities to go into training
programs to develop their "human capital" and that makes the whole
nation richer. Same with the world. Under the US tyranny, third world
human capital is wasted. Three billion people live on under a dollar a
day when they could be working productive, decent jobs, paying for
their kids education and buying first world products. But we would
rather torture them under the burden of government debt that the US
Federal Reserve created.
But yeah, cough, cough, cough, let the chips fall were they may, and
let the environment go to shit as well just so you can make an easy
buck and claim you're doing the right thing. (That's the ironic thing
though. You're an actual believer. Most cons know they are only out
for what they can getů)
>> But decades of progress can be wiped away in a few years when the cons
>> come to power.
>
>uh-huh.
I guess it all depends on your definition of progress. Going from the
20th century to the 19th is not my idea of progress.
wandering star
<wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:30:34 -0600, "John Shafto"
><gro.o...@nhoj.rev> wrote:
>
>>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:432tfvouvkdojl9b2...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>
>>> You hear of American states "legalizing" the purchase of cheaper
>>> Canadian meds. Why don't the Americans reign in the "Barnum and Baily"
>>> act and control the cost of health care through legislation like the
>>> Canadians do??
>>
>>Maybe because most Americans like to have the option to
>>spend more on health care, thereby having better health care,
>>and because most Americans like freedom of choice.
>>Pass a law that says only the govt may provide health care?
>>That's not freedom, it's communism.
>>
>>We already have way to many laws telling people how
>>their health care will work (hence much of the expense).
>>That's not freedom, it's fascism.
>
>Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
>world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
>European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
>military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
Sorry, I posted this to the wrong message.
wandering star
Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
Let's not forget the US has probably the same population of Western
Royston Day
In fact, would you mind taking her *away* with you?
Thanks,
Englishman Pissed Off at Stupid French Woman
The Professor
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:44:45 GMT, "The Professor"
> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>
> >"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9o1tfvgmrloldhosk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:03:05 GMT, "The Professor"
> >> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/fh6a
> >> >
> >> >The Professor (move over Gisela ;) )
> >>
> >> Ballbuster.
> >>
> >> Not to mention neo-con con artist.
> >>
> >> What's the big deal with the average worker caring more about the
> >> weekend or holidays than work? That's why they call it "work".
> >>
> >> Yeah, privatize all the utilities. That may mean the worker will have
> >> to work more and get paid less (Yay!!!) But it almost certainly means
> >> the cost of the utilities will go up significantly. (Which the cons
> >> will lamely explain away.)
> >
> >Can you provide me some evidence for that, esp. since all the other major
> >privatizations (airline de-reg, phone de-reg etc) have generated
> >*significant* declines in prices? Seems to me YOU are being the lame one
> >here.
>
> For one, the Thatcher privatizations were notorious failures.
Care to present any actual evidence on that? Seems to me the UK economy has
certainly done no worse since then.
>There is
> also the example of electrical privatization in California that turned
> into a disaster.
If you think that was "privatization," then you really don't know what
you're talking about. Let's see.... we'll put price controls on wholesale
and "deregulate" retail, and that'll fix it. Yup, that'll do it.
Puuuuuhlease.
>I live in Ontario, Canada, and our neo-con government
> partially privatized the electrical utilities and the price went up
> from about 4 cents per kwh to over 6 cents. (They eventually backed
> down from full privatization.) The government then decided to cap the
> rates at 4.3 cents per kwh with retroactive pay offs to buy votes in
> the next election, and it's the taxpayer who will have to pay. In one
> year that cost between .5 and 1.5 billion, and the government is
> looking to fire-sale 2 billion in government assets to keep from going
> into deficit.
I honestly don't know a lot about what happened in ON, but I'll look into
it. I'm willing to bet that it was either/or: a) not genuinely privatized
b) privatized but not de-monopolized. You need privatization and
competition.
> As for Airline de-reg, that's not exactly a glowing example. It seems
> all NA airlines were teetering on the verge of bankruptcy even before
> 9/11.
Not all. Some yes, but not even most. You of course ignore the decline in
prices, increase in service, and decrease in accidents per passenger-mile.
And bankruptcies can be a sign of industry health, just as puking is a way
of getting rid of what ails you.
> The long distance thing is definitely good. But was it de-reg that
> brought down the costs or the emergence of new telecommunications
> technology and probably even internet email and chat that lessened
> demand?
Now that's just silly. How did most people in the late 90s, and still
today, access the Net? Through the phone companies! Lowered demand, yeah.
It is true that tech advances in wireless communications pushed us toward
de-reg (after all MCI stood for Microwave Communications Inc.), but the
falling prices post-date the introduction of true long-distance competition.
>
> I'm not knocking free enterprise. I just say it doesn't work in every
> case, despite what Adam Smith might say.
Adam Smith never said it did. You should read him sometime.
>Especially when it comes to
> American health care.
Do you seriously think that the US has a "privatized" health care system?
If so, you need to learn a thing or two. The US gov't is heavily involved
in health care markets, and many of the problems with US health care can be
traced to gov't intervention.
>Usually privatization just means cons selling
> off government assets to help fund tax cut schemes that don't work and
> give sweet deals to cronies. In fact the cons love creating huge
> deficits so it creates a crisis that justifies them to cut social
> programs or forces the next government to do the same to clean up
> their mess.
That's it alright. If you read all the books written by conservatives in
the last generation, that's precisely what they said you should do upon
gaining power. Run huge defiicits and shift all the problems to future
generations.
That's not to say that conservatives (in the US) haven't screwed up upon
taking office. They sure have. Usually it's been because they've deviated
from their own stated principles, often under immense political pressure.
> Look a Bush Jr. A 500 billion deficit when interest rates
> are at their lowest in 50 years?? It would be pathetic if it wasn't
> orchestrated (ironic, considering Bush Jr. probably can't even
> pronounce the word.)
Ah yes, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that orchestrates it all...
> >> That's the thing with the free market economy. The rich get very rich
> >> and powerful and the workers get stepped on. That's why unions are
> >> needed, even though they may inconvenience the public from time to
> >> time. (Is it the workers fault or the big bosses?)
> >
> >Sigh.... should I even bother? :)
>
> I know how you feel. :)
I don't think you do. I managed to post a link to a whole bunch of data
that suggests very strongly that your views here are dead wrong, yet you
show no sign of looking at them, much less responding to them. That's why I
sighed. I didn't think you'd respond.
> >> When the unions get stepped on the average wages go down. And you hear
> >> this bullshit about tax cuts that help only the wealthy investor, and
> >> how that puts money in the average person's pocket. Well the fact is
> >> things like a decent wage and programs like universal healthcare
> >> actually put more money into the average person's pocket. No "voodoo
> >> economics" needed...
> >
> >cough, cough, cough. Familiarize yourself with some data my friend, and
> >then we'll talk.
>
> Oh, you're right. When unions get busted the wages go up. And when
> cons come up with tax-cut schemes it's the average worker who gets the
> most significant benefit. Not to mention the trickle-down effect that
> has always, cough, cough, cough, worked wonders for the economy.
As I said, look at the data. Workers are much better off today than early
in the 20th century. I can also provide some additional data to show that
poor Americans today live better than middle-class Americans did in the
mid-70s. Did you look at the data I presented about the poor getting richer
faster than the rich? I didn't think so. Come back and talk to me after
you look at the evidence.
> >> Government involvement in the economy makes things a less uneven
> >> playing field.
> >
> >bigger cough, cough, cough
>
> What about the pre-Keynesian economy? It was boom to bust, the workers
> had shit pay, worked ridiculous hours in sweat shops and it crashed
> into the Great Depression, which Keynes predicted, and ultimately led
> to WW2.
This is so far wrong, I don't know where to start. It wasn't Keynes who
predicted the GD, it was his intellectual opponent, and devotee of the free
market - F. A. Hayek. Hayek understood correctly what caused the GD (the
Fed's inflation during the 20s), and what caused it to worsen (the Fed's
deflation in the early 30s) and what caused it to linger (the various labor
market interventions of FDR and Hoover, not to mention Smoot-Hawley). Thus,
the GD was a product of gov't intervention all around, not free markets.
And yes workers had lower pay. Why is that so bad? There was less capital
and what there was was less productive. Workers had fewer skills too. So
wages were lower. That's not an indictment of the market - it's just the
reality of economic growth. You can't get something for nothing, you know.
The reality is/was that wages grew throughout the early 20th century, just
like they have continued to through the rest of it and on into the 21st.
Add on to all of that that Keynes was just wrong about a whole bunch of
stuff, which I'll gladly detail if you're interested.
And I'd love to hear how the GD caused World War II. Do tell.
In the post war era the West couldn't afford to be so
> plutocratic because that could mean the entire world falling to the
> communists. That's what lead to the greatest economic gains for the
> working class the world has ever seen. And that's the whole thing, you
> give workers fair wages, give them opportunities to go into training
> programs to develop their "human capital" and that makes the whole
> nation richer. Same with the world. Under the US tyranny, third world
> human capital is wasted. Three billion people live on under a dollar a
> day when they could be working productive, decent jobs, paying for
> their kids education and buying first world products. But we would
> rather torture them under the burden of government debt that the US
> Federal Reserve created.
Once again, the poverty of the rest of the world is blamed on the US,
instead of where it really belongs: the leaders of those countries who have
adopted anti-growth policies all over the place. No doubt, the US hasn't
helped matters, and in some specific cases has made things worse. But, in
general, the poverty of the rest of the world is NOT caused by the wealth of
the US. If anything, the wealth of the US is part of the solution, not the
problem.
> But yeah, cough, cough, cough, let the chips fall were they may, and
> let the environment go to shit as well just so you can make an easy
> buck and claim you're doing the right thing. (That's the ironic thing
> though. You're an actual believer. Most cons know they are only out
> for what they can get.)
First of all, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. And second, what
you know about "most cons" is insulting beyond belief. I know many
conservatives, and almost all of them believe sincerely in what they say and
are not out for a buck at any cost. All those young people working for
conservative think tanks when they could be in the corporate world are just
"out for what they can get", eh? If you generalized about blacks or women
the way you do about conservatives, you'd be a bigot. Oh, I guess when it
comes to conservatives you are!
Of course that fits with your unwillingness to look at the data. It's so
much easier for you to believe that conservatives are just mean and/or
stupid and/or selfish bastards than to believe that they not only are
sincere but that they think their ideas will make the world a better place
*for everyone* and that they might have some evidence to back that up. If
you believed that conservatives were sincere, interested in the public
welfare, and had good arguments, you'd actually have to take them seriously
and debate the issues rather than slag them all as selfish bastards.
>
> >> But decades of progress can be wiped away in a few years when the cons
> >> come to power.
> >
> >uh-huh.
>
> I guess it all depends on your definition of progress. Going from the
> 20th century to the 19th is not my idea of progress.
Mine neither. But that leaves open the question of what the best set of
policies is for the *21st century*. Conservatives and libertarians think
largely free markets are the best policies. They believe that, most of them
anyway, because they think markets will serve the public the best. *I*
believe that because I think markets are especially good for those now poor.
And your response to that is....?
> >Start here: http://it.stlawu.edu/shor/Good/myths.htm
> >
> >The Professor (yes, WS, that is my site)
Ah yes, the data sit unread and uncommented upon.
The Professor (.....waiting......)
Brian King
<wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
>world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
>European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
>military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
That's one way to look at. It's also true that the U.S. spends more
on the military than every other country in the world put together.
>Let's not forget the US has probably the same population of Western
>Europe in a single country under one Commander and Chief.
>
>Yes it was great when the Americans entered the War and beat back the
>fascists from the west. Of course if they didn't it would have been a
>lonely world for freedom and free enterprise. And it was great when
>the Americans bailed out Western Europe after the war. But if they
>didn't they could have fell to the Communists, and that would've been
>a far worse domino effect than Korea, Cuba or Viet Nam ever could've
>created. And it's true American military technology is by far the best
>in the world and getting better by the day. But the fact is the USSR
>collapsed because their economic system was grossly inefficient
>compared to the West - and that doesn't only mean the US.
>
>But the problems in America are due to a lack of social programs,
>progressive criminal rehabilitation and gun control. Those are the
>main differences between the US and other first world countries who
>don't have the same high crime rate, drug addiction rate, poverty
>rate, etc.
>
>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp
>
>
America's crime rate is not due to a lack of gun control. How many
gun laws do you want?
The Samurai, The Mountie & The Cowboy:
http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/samurai.htm
Mike Smith
>
> Of course, all other first world countries have government controls on
> health care and have contained costs and spend about 7 or 8% GDP on
> health care. America's cost of health care, however, has spiraled out
> of control to about 14% GDP, and they don't even cover everyone.
And meanwhile, whenever someone abroad needs surgery or treatment that's
too complex or advanced to get in their home country, where do they come?
--
Mike Smith
The Professor
news:vg60sba...@news.supernews.com...
Or better yet, when they have to wait 6 months to get it.
This guy needs to compare the per capita numbers of advanced medical
equipment between the US and Canada - all that US health care spending
actually goes for stuff!
The Professor (will dig up that data)
LIBERATOR
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:38:26 -0400, wandering star
> <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
> >world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
> >European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
> >military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
>
> That's one way to look at. It's also true that the U.S. spends more
> on the military than every other country in the world put together.
And the people doing this were bullied visciously when children, and
they're doing this (creating a army of domination) as an echo of their
childhood - it's kind of a self-accepting thing, they only can accept
themselves now if they are the bully. So it is happening, and when
they see themselves in the mirror, they're impressed with themselves.
This entire chain of behaviors (tyranny to the common people) due to
being picked on in grade-school and not sticking up for themselves.
They now are bullying the world.
Laurel
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
Prof, I will never dispute the fact that there is more advanced technology
being used overall in the US than in other countries with less being spent
on Health Care. I think what WS failed to recognize is that it is mostly
private corporations in America, who have been financing the research,
development and technology, rather than just reliance on government funding
(take a look at how much of the GDP is spent from Governments on health
care, and you'll see the difference).
But I do have a problem with the fact that people (citizens!) in America
have been turned away from emergency rooms when they didn't have medical
insurance. I have a problem with the fact that hospitals charge (I don't
have current figures, but am paraphrasing an article from the Miami Herald
in 1987... I've forgotten the name of the mag that's enclosed in the Sunday
Edition...) seven dollars and ten cents for a pair of asprin, and similarly
inflate the price of other items, as well as charge the patient for kleenex
that was in the room, but never used.
I am lucky enough to be living in a socialized country where things are
covered: and we don't seem to have the same problem England (I find what
happened with Drewe unacceptable... there has to be a systematic change that
would solve a lot of the problems the system in the UK is facing) and Canada
(and Holland, incidentally) have with waiting lists. When I had a miniscal
tear last December, I had the CT scan on my knee (appt given within 24hrs),
the results the following day, the referral to the surgeon the same week
(December 20th) and he asked me "so when do you want to do this?" and my
response was "ASAP".
"How about Monday?" he said...
Having walked around with that flap of cartilige floating around in my knee
for a week, I can not imagine having to live with it for even double that
time. If I were uninsured in America, I would probably have to live with it
until I either raised the money or convinced the hospital that I could carry
the thousands of dollars in debt...
Having seen the bill afterwards (the difference between here and Canada, or
the UK, is that the patient is sent the entire bill... showing what has been
covered by the health insurance and what hasn't. In addition, you have to
co-pay 20-25% of the fee when you see the Doctor (or Dentist!) ... but to
begin with, you pay the entire visit fee (16 euros for a Doctor's visit,
incidentally) and then 75-80% of that is paid back to you. I honestly
believe that the co-payment system (Which Canadians have been rejecting for
years) will help cut down abuses of the system (people going to the Doctor
when they have a cold and expecting to walk out with a Rx.
I can't say that the healthcare possible in America is not better than in
other countries, but I certainly am happy to claim that the health care
given to all residents of the other countries I used in comparison is
certainly superior to the care given to all Americans.
Laurel
(There has to be some sort of middle-ground possible)
Mike Smith
> But I do have a problem with the fact that people (citizens!) in America
> have been turned away from emergency rooms when they didn't have medical
> insurance. I have a problem with the fact that hospitals charge (I don't
> have current figures, but am paraphrasing an article from the Miami Herald
> in 1987... I've forgotten the name of the mag that's enclosed in the Sunday
> Edition...) seven dollars and ten cents for a pair of asprin, and similarly
> inflate the price of other items, as well as charge the patient for kleenex
> that was in the room, but never used.
Malpractice insurance, and legal costs. It costs a lot of money to run
a hospital in the US these days. The problem isn't (solely) with the
hospitals, but with the tort system.
--
Mike Smith
Laurel
Thank you. I hadn't taken that into consideration. People need to see that
being over litigious has hurt everyone much more than it ever helped any
individual.
Laurel.
(Can you imagine the amount the lawsuit would have been if that woman in
Austria with the bungled anaesthesia had had her surgery in the US?)
Mike Smith
> (Can you imagine the amount the lawsuit would have been if that woman in
> Austria with the bungled anaesthesia had had her surgery in the US?)
Ya gotta admit though, that was *seriously fucked up*.
--
Mike Smith
Laurel
Sure. My point was that if that happened in the US, the lawsuit would have
been seven billion, or something... rather than a piddley little matter of
seventy thousand.
Laurel
(I can't believe the hospital offered only five thousand... they ought to be
grovelling, settling and happy she isn't suing for more...)
Mike Smith
> (I can't believe the hospital offered only five thousand... they ought to be
> grovelling, settling and happy she isn't suing for more...)
Why should they? They have the government on their side. How often
does someone successfully the government?
--
Mike Smith
wandering star
America is not the only country on the cutting edge of medicine. Other
first world nations develop new treatments and surgical techniques as
well. But you probably hear more about it in America because America
is a lot bigger than other countries. Everything has to be looked at
on a per capita basis.
If you're suggesting medicine in other first world nations is second
rate, you don't know what you're talking about.
wandering star
Canada is not a third world country. Their medicine is on par with the
US. But the fact is US medical costs are inflated, that's why they
spend so much anually per GDP.
wandering star
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:38:26 -0400, wandering star
><wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
>>world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
>>European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
>>military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
>
>That's one way to look at. It's also true that the U.S. spends more
>on the military than every other country in the world put together.
I find that hard to believe.
wandering star
>
>"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
>news:ysEMa.35791$8B.2...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> "Mike Smith" <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
>> news:vg60sba...@news.supernews.com...
>> > wandering star wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Of course, all other first world countries have government controls on
>> > > health care and have contained costs and spend about 7 or 8% GDP on
>> > > health care. America's cost of health care, however, has spiraled out
>> > > of control to about 14% GDP, and they don't even cover everyone.
>> >
>> > And meanwhile, whenever someone abroad needs surgery or treatment that's
>> > too complex or advanced to get in their home country, where do they
>come?
>>
>> Or better yet, when they have to wait 6 months to get it.
>>
>> This guy needs to compare the per capita numbers of advanced medical
>> equipment between the US and Canada - all that US health care spending
>> actually goes for stuff!
>
>Prof, I will never dispute the fact that there is more advanced technology
>being used overall in the US than in other countries with less being spent
>on Health Care. I think what WS failed to recognize is that it is mostly
>private corporations in America, who have been financing the research,
>development and technology, rather than just reliance on government funding
>(take a look at how much of the GDP is spent from Governments on health
>care, and you'll see the difference).
Bullshit. America is not the only country to develop new medical
technologies or work with corporations.
The Professor
Okay, let's compare Canada to some other OECD countries (NOT including the
US for the moment). Here are Canada's rankings on various measures:
MRI per million inhabitants: 18th out of 23
CT Scanners per million: 17th out of 22
Radiation therapy machines per million: 8th of 22
Lithotripter machines per million: 13th out of 14
Seems Canada's less than average compared to Western Europe, much less the
US, despite the fact that Canada spends 11.7% of GDP on health care, more
than any other OECD country beside Iceland.
Here's another stat: Canada ranks 17th out of 20 OECD countries on doctors
per capita.
You're right, Canada's not a third-world country. The question is whether
the Canadian health care system works, given the amount Canada spends and
the results it gets.
The Professor (note the US is not included in this data set)
wandering star
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:j4i2gvsm2s3sh5b03...@4ax.com...
>>I live in Ontario, Canada, and our neo-con government
>> partially privatized the electrical utilities and the price went up
>> from about 4 cents per kwh to over 6 cents. (They eventually backed
>> down from full privatization.) The government then decided to cap the
>> rates at 4.3 cents per kwh with retroactive pay offs to buy votes in
>> the next election, and it's the taxpayer who will have to pay. In one
>> year that cost between .5 and 1.5 billion, and the government is
>> looking to fire-sale 2 billion in government assets to keep from going
>> into deficit.
>
>I honestly don't know a lot about what happened in ON, but I'll look into
>it. I'm willing to bet that it was either/or: a) not genuinely privatized
>b) privatized but not de-monopolized. You need privatization and
>competition.
That's true. That's probably why privatizaion of utilites rarely
works, IMO. It's very hard to bring about the conditions that exist in
the "real" free market. And usually it's just cons selling off
government assets so their current deficit doesn't look so big.
>> As for Airline de-reg, that's not exactly a glowing example. It seems
>> all NA airlines were teetering on the verge of bankruptcy even before
>> 9/11.
>
>Not all. Some yes, but not even most. You of course ignore the decline in
>prices, increase in service, and decrease in accidents per passenger-mile.
Was there a decrease in accidents per passenger-mile? That's one thing
the free market can fail in, is in protecting people and workers
because cutting corners can mean a bigger profit.
>And bankruptcies can be a sign of industry health, just as puking is a way
>of getting rid of what ails you.
>
>> The long distance thing is definitely good. But was it de-reg that
>> brought down the costs or the emergence of new telecommunications
>> technology and probably even internet email and chat that lessened
>> demand?
>
>Now that's just silly. How did most people in the late 90s, and still
>today, access the Net? Through the phone companies!
Through local calls though.
BTW, how did the privatization of local call service work out in the
States? Did rates go up or down?
>>Usually privatization just means cons selling
>> off government assets to help fund tax cut schemes that don't work and
>> give sweet deals to cronies. In fact the cons love creating huge
>> deficits so it creates a crisis that justifies them to cut social
>> programs or forces the next government to do the same to clean up
>> their mess.
>
>That's it alright. If you read all the books written by conservatives in
>the last generation, that's precisely what they said you should do upon
>gaining power. Run huge defiicits and shift all the problems to future
>generations.
The cons hate government social programs so it's not surprising they'd
bankrupt them if given the chance.
>That's not to say that conservatives (in the US) haven't screwed up upon
>taking office. They sure have. Usually it's been because they've deviated
>from their own stated principles, often under immense political pressure.
>
>> Look a Bush Jr. A 500 billion deficit when interest rates
>> are at their lowest in 50 years?? It would be pathetic if it wasn't
>> orchestrated (ironic, considering Bush Jr. probably can't even
>> pronounce the word.)
>
>Ah yes, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that orchestrates it all...
Not a conspiracy. Just a fact. The cons hate government and if they
bankrupt it they destroy what they hate.
>> >> That's the thing with the free market economy. The rich get very rich
>> >> and powerful and the workers get stepped on. That's why unions are
>> >> needed, even though they may inconvenience the public from time to
>> >> time. (Is it the workers fault or the big bosses?)
>> >
>> >Sigh.... should I even bother? :)
>>
>> I know how you feel. :)
>
>I don't think you do. I managed to post a link to a whole bunch of data
>that suggests very strongly that your views here are dead wrong, yet you
>show no sign of looking at them, much less responding to them. That's why I
>sighed. I didn't think you'd respond.
Suffice it to say I think you're as full of shit as you think I am...
:)
>> >> When the unions get stepped on the average wages go down. And you hear
>> >> this bullshit about tax cuts that help only the wealthy investor, and
>> >> how that puts money in the average person's pocket. Well the fact is
>> >> things like a decent wage and programs like universal healthcare
>> >> actually put more money into the average person's pocket. No "voodoo
>> >> economics" needed...
>> >
>> >cough, cough, cough. Familiarize yourself with some data my friend, and
>> >then we'll talk.
>>
>> Oh, you're right. When unions get busted the wages go up. And when
>> cons come up with tax-cut schemes it's the average worker who gets the
>> most significant benefit. Not to mention the trickle-down effect that
>> has always, cough, cough, cough, worked wonders for the economy.
>
>As I said, look at the data. Workers are much better off today than early
>in the 20th century.
That certainly isn't do to con policies. They have only taken away the
gains made by workers in the post-war era.
>I can also provide some additional data to show that
>poor Americans today live better than middle-class Americans did in the
>mid-70s.
You would have made a good accountant at Enron...
>Did you look at the data I presented about the poor getting richer
>faster than the rich?
Give me a break. The fact is the ratio between the rich and poor has
increased dramatically in the last 20 years, and America has the
biggest gap and the highest poverty rate.
How about them sweet wages corporate execs give themselves where they
make millions while the company is going into bankruptcy and the
workers lose their pensions? Yeah, there's definitely been lots of
sweet-heart deal like that available to the average joe...
>And I'd love to hear how the GD caused World War II. Do tell.
The devestated economies gave rise to fascism.
>In the post war era the West couldn't afford to be so
>> plutocratic because that could mean the entire world falling to the
>> communists. That's what lead to the greatest economic gains for the
>> working class the world has ever seen. And that's the whole thing, you
>> give workers fair wages, give them opportunities to go into training
>> programs to develop their "human capital" and that makes the whole
>> nation richer. Same with the world. Under the US tyranny, third world
>> human capital is wasted. Three billion people live on under a dollar a
>> day when they could be working productive, decent jobs, paying for
>> their kids education and buying first world products. But we would
>> rather torture them under the burden of government debt that the US
>> Federal Reserve created.
>
>Once again, the poverty of the rest of the world is blamed on the US,
More like the anti-inflationary policies of the US Federal Reseve. The
fact is most of the debt in all countries, whether first world or
third world, is do to interest costs incurred during the early 80s
and early 90s when the US Fed was fighting inflation by raising base
interest rates to ridiculous levels, 15-18%, where they are now
something like 2%.
>instead of where it really belongs: the leaders of those countries who have
>adopted anti-growth policies all over the place. No doubt, the US hasn't
>helped matters, and in some specific cases has made things worse. But, in
>general, the poverty of the rest of the world is NOT caused by the wealth of
>the US. If anything, the wealth of the US is part of the solution, not the
>problem.
>
>> But yeah, cough, cough, cough, let the chips fall were they may, and
>> let the environment go to shit as well just so you can make an easy
>> buck and claim you're doing the right thing. (That's the ironic thing
>> though. You're an actual believer. Most cons know they are only out
>> for what they can get.)
>
>First of all, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. And second, what
>you know about "most cons" is insulting beyond belief. I know many
>conservatives, and almost all of them believe sincerely in what they say and
>are not out for a buck at any cost. All those young people working for
>conservative think tanks when they could be in the corporate world are just
>"out for what they can get", eh? If you generalized about blacks or women
>the way you do about conservatives, you'd be a bigot. Oh, I guess when it
>comes to conservatives you are!
I've seen them come to power. I've read about what they do and seen
what they do. And my opinion is that they are "cons" as in confidence
men.
>Of course that fits with your unwillingness to look at the data.
I look at data I read in the papers. I haven't looked at your data
because I don't trust the source. (No offense intended.)
>It's so
>much easier for you to believe that conservatives are just mean and/or
>stupid and/or selfish bastards than to believe that they not only are
>sincere but that they think their ideas will make the world a better place
>*for everyone* and that they might have some evidence to back that up. If
>you believed that conservatives were sincere, interested in the public
>welfare, and had good arguments, you'd actually have to take them seriously
>and debate the issues rather than slag them all as selfish bastards.
They are not interested in public welfare. The cons believe in fierce
competition and privilege. They don't not only want to win, but they
also want people to lose to give it meaning. All their privilege also
doesn't have meaning if other "lower" people are living comfortable
lives. (Not to mention their desire to keep wage-costs down and not
spend taxes on social programs.) IMO, the con sense of existence is
"law of the jungle" primitive. And frankly, I don't want to live like
an animal.
>> >> But decades of progress can be wiped away in a few years when the cons
>> >> come to power.
>> >
>> >uh-huh.
>>
>> I guess it all depends on your definition of progress. Going from the
>> 20th century to the 19th is not my idea of progress.
>
>Mine neither. But that leaves open the question of what the best set of
>policies is for the *21st century*. Conservatives and libertarians think
>largely free markets are the best policies. They believe that, most of them
>anyway, because they think markets will serve the public the best. *I*
>believe that because I think markets are especially good for those now poor.
>And your response to that is....?
Like free-trade, e.g., is going to do anything for the poor of the
world. It only perpetuates their poverty and makes them an eternal
source of cheap labor, which I would call "Neo-colonialism".
Freer trade is a different story. If you include things like labor
laws and minimun wage in the trade agreements then the poor will make
a decent wage, buy first world products and put their kids through
college, thus making the world a better place in time and also make
enormous wealth for people in the first world.
I also consider myself a libertarian, basically. I believe people
should have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't
directly infringe on other people's rights. But how can people be free
if they are a slave to their economical position? (That's the whole
point, isn't it?)
wandering star
The Professor
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 23:05:53 GMT, "The Professor"
> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>
>>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:j4i2gvsm2s3sh5b03...@4ax.com...
>
>>>I live in Ontario, Canada, and our neo-con government
>>> partially privatized the electrical utilities and the price went up
>>> from about 4 cents per kwh to over 6 cents. (They eventually backed
>>> down from full privatization.) The government then decided to cap
>>> the rates at 4.3 cents per kwh with retroactive pay offs to buy
>>> votes in the next election, and it's the taxpayer who will have to
>>> pay. In one year that cost between .5 and 1.5 billion, and the
>>> government is looking to fire-sale 2 billion in government assets to
>>> keep from going into deficit.
>>
>>I honestly don't know a lot about what happened in ON, but I'll look
>>into it. I'm willing to bet that it was either/or: a) not genuinely
>>privatized b) privatized but not de-monopolized. You need
>>privatization and competition.
>
> That's true. That's probably why privatizaion of utilites rarely
> works, IMO. It's very hard to bring about the conditions that exist in
> the "real" free market. And usually it's just cons selling off
> government assets so their current deficit doesn't look so big.
Once again, you attribute evil intentions to conservatives. Isn't it
possible that they honestly believe that privatization is better for
people than regulation/nationalization? They might be wrong about that
(I don't think they are), but you don't even entertain the possibility
that it might be. The result, as we see below, is that you refuse to
confront actual data and just stand there insisting you're right and
that they are evil bastards.
>
>>> As for Airline de-reg, that's not exactly a glowing example. It
>>> seems all NA airlines were teetering on the verge of bankruptcy even
>>> before 9/11.
>>
>>Not all. Some yes, but not even most. You of course ignore the
>>decline in prices, increase in service, and decrease in accidents per
>>passenger-mile.
>
> Was there a decrease in accidents per passenger-mile? That's one thing
> the free market can fail in, is in protecting people and workers
> because cutting corners can mean a bigger profit.
Here's some data from 1983 to 2002. Granted 83 is just after de-reg,
but you'll see that accident and fatality rates adjusted for the number
of departures, flight hours and miles flown have wobbled around the same
range over that whole period. The one clear trend is that fatalities
are down on an adjusted basis.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Table6.htm
>>And bankruptcies can be a sign of industry health, just as puking is a
>>way of getting rid of what ails you.
>>
>>> The long distance thing is definitely good. But was it de-reg that
>>> brought down the costs or the emergence of new telecommunications
>>> technology and probably even internet email and chat that lessened
>>> demand?
>>
>>Now that's just silly. How did most people in the late 90s, and still
>>today, access the Net? Through the phone companies!
>
> Through local calls though.
>
> BTW, how did the privatization of local call service work out in the
> States? Did rates go up or down?
I can tell you this much: for $60/month right now, I have unlimited
local and long-distance calls through Verizon. Before local de-reg, my
bill was notably higher for a variety of reasons.
>>>Usually privatization just means cons selling
>>> off government assets to help fund tax cut schemes that don't work
>>> and give sweet deals to cronies. In fact the cons love creating huge
>>> deficits so it creates a crisis that justifies them to cut social
>>> programs or forces the next government to do the same to clean up
>>> their mess.
>>
>>That's it alright. If you read all the books written by conservatives
>>in the last generation, that's precisely what they said you should do
>>upon gaining power. Run huge defiicits and shift all the problems to
>>future generations.
>
> The cons hate government social programs so it's not surprising they'd
> bankrupt them if given the chance.
Why do they hate social programs? Are they just heartless bastards or
do they believe that such programs wind up harming those they intend to
help? I believe the latter. I dislike many gov't social programs
because I think they are ineffective at helping those they are intended
to help. I want to help people. I just think there are better ways.
>>That's not to say that conservatives (in the US) haven't screwed up
>>upon taking office. They sure have. Usually it's been because
>>they've deviated from their own stated principles, often under immense
>>political pressure.
>>
>>> Look a Bush Jr. A 500 billion deficit when interest rates
>>> are at their lowest in 50 years?? It would be pathetic if it wasn't
>>> orchestrated (ironic, considering Bush Jr. probably can't even
>>> pronounce the word.)
>>
>>Ah yes, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that orchestrates it all...
>
> Not a conspiracy. Just a fact. The cons hate government and if they
> bankrupt it they destroy what they hate.
Why do they hate it? Is it just blind fury? Selfishness? What? Or is
it that they think gov't doesn't accomplish the goals it sets for itself
very well and that other methods are preferrable? I think it's the
latter, and so do most conservatives. If you don't think that's true,
then you don't spend much time around conservatives.
>
>>> >> That's the thing with the free market economy. The rich get very
>>> >> rich and powerful and the workers get stepped on. That's why
>>> >> unions are needed, even though they may inconvenience the public
>>> >> from time to time. (Is it the workers fault or the big bosses?)
>>> >
>>> >Sigh.... should I even bother? :)
>>>
>>> I know how you feel. :)
>>
>>I don't think you do. I managed to post a link to a whole bunch of
>>data that suggests very strongly that your views here are dead wrong,
>>yet you show no sign of looking at them, much less responding to them.
>> That's why I sighed. I didn't think you'd respond.
>
> Suffice it to say I think you're as full of shit as you think I am...
>:)
I don't think you're "full of shit." I think you're uninformed and have
an-as-yet-unexplained irrational hatred of conservatives.
>>> >> When the unions get stepped on the average wages go down. And you
>>> >> hear this bullshit about tax cuts that help only the wealthy
>>> >> investor, and how that puts money in the average person's pocket.
>>> >> Well the fact is things like a decent wage and programs like
>>> >> universal healthcare actually put more money into the average
>>> >> person's pocket. No "voodoo economics" needed...
>>> >
>>> >cough, cough, cough. Familiarize yourself with some data my
>>> >friend, and then we'll talk.
>>>
>>> Oh, you're right. When unions get busted the wages go up. And when
>>> cons come up with tax-cut schemes it's the average worker who gets
>>> the most significant benefit. Not to mention the trickle-down effect
>>> that has always, cough, cough, cough, worked wonders for the
>>> economy.
>>
>>As I said, look at the data. Workers are much better off today than
>>early in the 20th century.
>
> That certainly isn't do to con policies. They have only taken away the
> gains made by workers in the post-war era.
You are just wrong. Those improvements are due to what markets, mostly
free, have done for people, not social programs or unions. Go look at
the data and explain to me how gov't is responsible for those gains.
>
>>I can also provide some additional data to show that
>>poor Americans today live better than middle-class Americans did in
>>the mid-70s.
>
> You would have made a good accountant at Enron...
Note to readers: See how my attempt to point him to data comes up
against a snide name-call?
Here's some actual data. Hope it formats okay.
Percentage of Households with:
Poor Households 1984 Poor Households 1994 All Households 1971
Washing machine 58.2 71.7 71.3
Clothes dryer 35.6 50.2 44.5
Dishwasher 13.6 19.6 18.8
Refridgerator 95.8 97.9 83.3
Freezer 29.2 28.6 32.2
Stove 95.2 97.7 87.0
Microwave 12.5 60.0 1.0
Color TV 70.3 92.5 43.3
VCR 3.4 59.7 0.0
Personal computer 2.9 7.4 0.0
Telephone 71.0 76.7 93.0
Air conditioner 42.5 49.6 31.8
One or more cars 64.1 71.8 79.5
From: Myths of Rich and Poor, Cox and Alm. Basic Books 1999, p. 15
>
>>Did you look at the data I presented about the poor getting richer
>>faster than the rich?
>
> Give me a break. The fact is the ratio between the rich and poor has
> increased dramatically in the last 20 years, and America has the
> biggest gap and the highest poverty rate.
You are right about the rich/poor gap (although it's not "dramatic"),
but it doesn't mean what you think it means. It's completely consistent
with what I said above. The "gap" data is a snapshot, the data I'm
talking about is household tracking data.
I know AMR folks have heard this stat before but maybe you haven't: Of
the people in the lowest 20% of the income distribution in 1976, how
many do you think were still there in 1991? What percent? I'll answer
it later. No fair actually looking at the data on my website.
And the poverty "rate" says nothing about the absolute gains of
Americans. The poverty rate is a relative measure.
>
> How about them sweet wages corporate execs give themselves where they
> make millions while the company is going into bankruptcy and the
> workers lose their pensions? Yeah, there's definitely been lots of
> sweet-heart deal like that available to the average joe...
Worker total compensation continues to grow and American workers are, on
average, better off now than 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Look it up.
>
>>And I'd love to hear how the GD caused World War II. Do tell.
>
> The devestated economies gave rise to fascism.
Keep going...
>
>>In the post war era the West couldn't afford to be so
>>> plutocratic because that could mean the entire world falling to the
>>> communists. That's what lead to the greatest economic gains for the
>>> working class the world has ever seen. And that's the whole thing,
>>> you give workers fair wages, give them opportunities to go into
>>> training programs to develop their "human capital" and that makes
>>> the whole nation richer. Same with the world. Under the US tyranny,
>>> third world human capital is wasted. Three billion people live on
>>> under a dollar a day when they could be working productive, decent
>>> jobs, paying for their kids education and buying first world
>>> products. But we would rather torture them under the burden of
>>> government debt that the US Federal Reserve created.
>>
>>Once again, the poverty of the rest of the world is blamed on the US,
>
> More like the anti-inflationary policies of the US Federal Reseve. The
> fact is most of the debt in all countries, whether first world or
> third world, is do to interest costs incurred during the early 80s
> and early 90s when the US Fed was fighting inflation by raising base
> interest rates to ridiculous levels, 15-18%, where they are now
> something like 2%.
You really don't understand economics do you? The reason interest rates
were so high was *because of inflation* not because we were fighting it!
I do agree, however, that US policies bear some blame for the crushing
third-world debt burden, and I'm somewhat in favor of just forgiving
most, if not all, of those debts.
>>instead of where it really belongs: the leaders of those countries
>>who have adopted anti-growth policies all over the place. No doubt,
>>the US hasn't helped matters, and in some specific cases has made
>>things worse. But, in general, the poverty of the rest of the world
>>is NOT caused by the wealth of the US. If anything, the wealth of the
>>US is part of the solution, not the problem.
>>
>>> But yeah, cough, cough, cough, let the chips fall were they may, and
>>> let the environment go to shit as well just so you can make an easy
>>> buck and claim you're doing the right thing. (That's the ironic
>>> thing though. You're an actual believer. Most cons know they are
>>> only out for what they can get.)
>>
>>First of all, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. And second,
>>what you know about "most cons" is insulting beyond belief. I know
>>many conservatives, and almost all of them believe sincerely in what
>>they say and are not out for a buck at any cost. All those young
>>people working for conservative think tanks when they could be in the
>>corporate world are just "out for what they can get", eh? If you
>>generalized about blacks or women the way you do about conservatives,
>>you'd be a bigot. Oh, I guess when it comes to conservatives you are!
>
> I've seen them come to power. I've read about what they do and seen
> what they do. And my opinion is that they are "cons" as in confidence
> men.
And there you go again.... name call instead of presenting rational
arguments and data.
>>Of course that fits with your unwillingness to look at the data.
>
> I look at data I read in the papers. I haven't looked at your data
> because I don't trust the source. (No offense intended.)
You have a problem with the Panel Study on Income Dynamics from the
University of Michigan? Perhaps the most trusted and used social
science dataset in the US. You have a problem with the US Treasury's
tax return data? You have a problem with the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas?
I'm not making this stuff up on the crapper you know.
>>It's so
>>much easier for you to believe that conservatives are just mean and/or
>>stupid and/or selfish bastards than to believe that they not only are
>>sincere but that they think their ideas will make the world a better
>>place *for everyone* and that they might have some evidence to back
>>that up. If you believed that conservatives were sincere, interested
>>in the public welfare, and had good arguments, you'd actually have to
>>take them seriously and debate the issues rather than slag them all as
>>selfish bastards.
>
> They are not interested in public welfare.
And you know that how? You confuse means and ends. You think because
someone doesn't agree with your means (gov't) to an end (making the
world a better place), that they therefore don't agree with your ends.
That's a logical fallacy. Most, but not all, conservatives I know
belive that shrinking gov't involvement in the economy would serve the
public welfare.
>The cons believe in fierce
> competition and privilege. They don't not only want to win, but they
> also want people to lose to give it meaning. All their privilege also
> doesn't have meaning if other "lower" people are living comfortable
> lives. (Not to mention their desire to keep wage-costs down and not
> spend taxes on social programs.) IMO, the con sense of existence is
> "law of the jungle" primitive. And frankly, I don't want to live like
> an animal.
Can you cite me some textual evidence for that claim? Find me something
that a major conservative thinker or politician has said where he or she
says that other people have to lose to give their winning meaning. Or
where they find it unacceptable that "lower" people are living
comfortable lives. I want a textual citation. I have, and do, read a
lot of conservative and libertarian intellectual and political articles,
books, and websites, and have never seen such an argument. I know many
conservatives and libertarians personally and have never heard one say
anything like that, even drunk. chapter and verse please.
>
>>> >> But decades of progress can be wiped away in a few years when the
>>> >> cons come to power.
>>> >
>>> >uh-huh.
>>>
>>> I guess it all depends on your definition of progress. Going from
>>> the 20th century to the 19th is not my idea of progress.
>>
>>Mine neither. But that leaves open the question of what the best set
>>of policies is for the *21st century*. Conservatives and libertarians
>>think largely free markets are the best policies. They believe that,
>>most of them anyway, because they think markets will serve the public
>>the best. *I* believe that because I think markets are especially
>>good for those now poor. And your response to that is....?
>
> Like free-trade, e.g., is going to do anything for the poor of the
> world. It only perpetuates their poverty and makes them an eternal
> source of cheap labor, which I would call "Neo-colonialism".
And you'd be wrong. The wealthiest parts of the third-world are those
with the freest trade (holding their domestic policies constant).
> Freer trade is a different story. If you include things like labor
> laws and minimun wage in the trade agreements then the poor will make
> a decent wage, buy first world products and put their kids through
> college, thus making the world a better place in time and also make
> enormous wealth for people in the first world.
This is the oldest economic fallacy in the book. If the poor can't
produce enough to earn that minimum wage, they won't get hired. Period.
> I also consider myself a libertarian, basically. I believe people
> should have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't
> directly infringe on other people's rights. But how can people be free
> if they are a slave to their economical position? (That's the whole
> point, isn't it?)
I suggest you do some reading. Tell me which rights are infringed upon
when I hire someone at $3.50/hour. Tell me which rights are infringed
upon when I sell my products in the third world, or provide a job for
someone there. Do you or do you not believe that consenting acts
between adults are okay? If so, for example in the bedroom, then why
not in the market?
The Professor (predicts more accusations of bad faith and no response to
the data)
John Shafto
>
> Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
> world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
> European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
> military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
We spend more on our military, so you don't have to.
Not that I support the size of our military budgets.
I think they could be easily halved, and Europe,
especially, should defend itself.
(Canada, OTOH, will always have a free ride, being
a neighbor, and the home of the greatest rock band. :)
John Shafto
> The result, as we see below, is that you refuse to
> confront actual data and just stand there insisting you're right and
> that they are evil bastards.
One of the things that often mesmerizes me about political
debate is how it can be so emotional for some people.
It's like a car wreck, I can't look away! :)
Max C. Webster III
> (Canada, OTOH, will always have a free ride, being
> a neighbor, and the home of the greatest rock band. :)
Pete and Roger moved to Canada?
- Max -
=======
The kiddie porn laws more lax or something?
Mike Smith
>
> Not that I support the size of our military budgets.
> I think they could be easily halved, and Europe,
> especially, should defend itself.
I hear that. Admittedly, they do seem to be working on it. Galileo
will be a big step for them, though I can't really foresee a scenario
where we'd deny them GPS info.
> (Canada, OTOH, will always have a free ride, being
> a neighbor, and the home of the greatest rock band. :)
That, and bearing the burden of having birthed C*l*n* D**n.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
> "John Shafto" <gro.o...@nhoj.rev> done said:
>
>
>>(Canada, OTOH, will always have a free ride, being
>>a neighbor, and the home of the greatest rock band. :)
>
>
> Pete and Roger moved to Canada?
At the risk of scratching a wound - The Who ain't the greatest anything
without Moon and the Ox. ;_;
--
Mike Smith
Brian King
<wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 05:11:49 GMT, lord...@mindspring.com (Brian King)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:38:26 -0400, wandering star
>><wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
>>>world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
>>>European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
>>>military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
>>
>>That's one way to look at. It's also true that the U.S. spends more
>>on the military than every other country in the world put together.
>
>I find that hard to believe.
US dept of defense 2004 budget is about $355 billion. Total world
expenditures on defense projected for 2004 fiscal year about $730
billion. I'll leave the math to you.
bk
mh
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>
>Why do they hate social programs? Are they just heartless bastards or
>do they believe that such programs wind up harming those they intend to
>help? I believe the latter. I dislike many gov't social programs
>because I think they are ineffective at helping those they are intended
>to help. I want to help people. I just think there are better ways.
It seems awfully easy to paint with a broad brush and say many (most?)
government social programs are ineffective. What do you include in
that list? AFDC? Government-backed student loans? CHIP? Low-income
housing? You say below that the poor today are better off than they
were in the past ... yet if all these programs were so ineffective, it
would seem that the gains would be nonexistant.
Granted, wanderingstar is painting with his own broad brush; still, in
following national and local legislatures, it seems to me that
conservatives have never met a social program they liked. One con here
in Texas went as far to say that if these poor folks just didn't have
cell phones or cable TV, then they'd be able to insure their kids.
Another said she didn't know where anyone got the idea that there
should be "free" public education. Still more conservatives go on and
on about how liberals "hate" America and are treasonous in their very
existence. Any wonder that folks on the left attribute malicious
motives to the right?
>
>You are just wrong. Those improvements are due to what markets, mostly
>free, have done for people, not social programs or unions. Go look at
>the data and explain to me how gov't is responsible for those gains.
40 hour work week?
The concept of health benefits, etc. considered a given for most jobs?
Child labor laws?
IIRC, these are things driven by unions and enforced by government.
\
>
>Poor Households 1984 Poor Households 1994 All Households 1971
>
>Washing machine 58.2 71.7 71.3
>Clothes dryer 35.6 50.2 44.5
>Dishwasher 13.6 19.6 18.8
>Refridgerator 95.8 97.9 83.3
>Freezer 29.2 28.6 32.2
>Stove 95.2 97.7 87.0
>Microwave 12.5 60.0 1.0
>Color TV 70.3 92.5 43.3
>VCR 3.4 59.7 0.0
>Personal computer 2.9 7.4 0.0
>Telephone 71.0 76.7 93.0
>Air conditioner 42.5 49.6 31.8
>One or more cars 64.1 71.8 79.5
>
>From: Myths of Rich and Poor, Cox and Alm. Basic Books 1999, p. 15
And how many of those "poor folk" were able to afford these things
because of a helping hand from the gov't? How about because of
increases in federal minimum wage laws? And just how is "poor" defined
for the purposes of this graph, anyway? It strikes me as the same type
of argument conservatives use against environmental laws "Look how
clean things are. We've got clean air, clean water. We don't need any
environmental regulations." (Meanwhile forgetting that those same
environmental regulations are the exact reason why we have cleaner air
and cleaner water today. Cuyahoga River, anyone?)
Laurel
Successfully *what* the government? Sue? Well, I dunno. We'll wait and see.
(But you know what I'm saying...)
L.
Laurel
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:39:29 GMT, "Laurel" <lau...@pandora.be> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
> >> equipment between the US and Canada - all that US health care spending
> >> actually goes for stuff!
> >
> >Prof, I will never dispute the fact that there is more advanced
technology
> >being used overall in the US than in other countries with less being
spent
> >on Health Care. I think what WS failed to recognize is that it is mostly
> >private corporations in America, who have been financing the research,
> >development and technology, rather than just reliance on government
funding
> >(take a look at how much of the GDP is spent from Governments on health
> >care, and you'll see the difference).
>
> Bullshit. America is not the only country to develop new medical
> technologies or work with corporations.
Gosh. That is hardly worth a response.
L.
Laurel
Sure. My point was that if that happened in the US, the lawsuit would have
been seven billion, or something... rather than a piddley little matter of
seventy thousand.
Laurel
The Professor
news:jhbagvs90b4b50mi9...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 02:45:56 GMT, The Professor
> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Why do they hate social programs? Are they just heartless bastards or
>>do they believe that such programs wind up harming those they intend
>>to help? I believe the latter. I dislike many gov't social programs
>>because I think they are ineffective at helping those they are
>>intended to help. I want to help people. I just think there are
>>better ways.
>
> It seems awfully easy to paint with a broad brush and say many (most?)
> government social programs are ineffective. What do you include in
> that list? AFDC?
Yes.
>Government-backed student loans? CHIP? Low-income
> housing?
Yes
I'm prepared to argue that there are alternatives to all of these
programs that would work just as well, if not better.
>You say below that the poor today are better off than they
> were in the past ... yet if all these programs were so ineffective, it
> would seem that the gains would be nonexistant.
Two problems here:
1. It's always a counter-factual: how well off would the poor be if
there had been more/fewer gov't programs? We can never know for sure.
2. To say that because such programs were created and the poor are now
better off is a potential "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Just
because A happened before B doesn't mean A caused B.
I would argue that what's made the lives of the poor so much better off
are the increases in technology and productive efficiency generated by
markets. Those have both decreased the real cost of goods and services
(see the labor hours comparison on my website) and increased workers'
real wages by giving them more and better capital to work with.
>
> Granted, wanderingstar is painting with his own broad brush; still, in
> following national and local legislatures, it seems to me that
> conservatives have never met a social program they liked. One con here
> in Texas went as far to say that if these poor folks just didn't have
> cell phones or cable TV, then they'd be able to insure their kids.
> Another said she didn't know where anyone got the idea that there
> should be "free" public education. Still more conservatives go on and
> on about how liberals "hate" America and are treasonous in their very
> existence. Any wonder that folks on the left attribute malicious
> motives to the right?
I don't see the problem with the second statement for sure, and I'm okay
with the first in the sense that people have to make choices (sometimes
unpleasant ones). Many conservatives and libertarians argue that
increasing competition in education via vouchers etc would be one of the
BEST things we could do for the poor, particularly the urban poor, who
are disproportionately of color. I'd certainly make that argument. Say
public education is bad idea is not necessarily say "I don't want
everyone educated."
>>
>>You are just wrong. Those improvements are due to what markets,
>>mostly free, have done for people, not social programs or unions. Go
>>look at the data and explain to me how gov't is responsible for those
>>gains.
>
> 40 hour work week?
Was already becoming the norm before laws were passed. Same with the
disappearance of child labor, btw.
> The concept of health benefits, etc. considered a given for most jobs?
That IS the result of gov't but not the way you think, and it's a
problem. The linking of health benefits with work is the fundamental
source of the problems with the US health care system, as it has driven
the evolution of HMOs and all the rest. It comes out of WW II when the
gov't put price and wage controls on. Employers couldn't compete by
offering higher wages, so they began to offer these other sorts of
benefits instead. Add on the fact that non-monetary benefits aren't
taxable, and you get the mess we have today. A great example of gov't
causing undesirable unintended consequences.
> Child labor laws?
See above. Read the history and see how it was well on the way out
before the laws came around. Moreover, for many families, having their
kids work was the only way they could survive. Unfortunate yes, but had
child labor been abolished earlier, it would have meant starvation and
death for many people.
> IIRC, these are things driven by unions and enforced by government.
Not as clear as you might think.
> \
>>
>>Poor Households 1984 Poor Households 1994 All Households 1971
>>
>>Washing machine 58.2 71.7 71.3
>>Clothes dryer 35.6 50.2 44.5
>>Dishwasher 13.6 19.6 18.8
>>Refridgerator 95.8 97.9 83.3
>>Freezer 29.2 28.6 32.2
>>Stove 95.2 97.7 87.0
>>Microwave 12.5 60.0 1.0
>>Color TV 70.3 92.5 43.3
>>VCR 3.4 59.7 0.0
>>Personal computer 2.9 7.4 0.0
>>Telephone 71.0 76.7 93.0
>>Air conditioner 42.5 49.6 31.8
>>One or more cars 64.1 71.8 79.5
>>
>>From: Myths of Rich and Poor, Cox and Alm. Basic Books 1999, p. 15
>>
>
> And how many of those "poor folk" were able to afford these things
> because of a helping hand from the gov't?
If you look at my other data on the declining real cost of those goods,
I think you'll see that it's more due to the factors discussed above
than helping hands.
>How about because of
> increases in federal minimum wage laws?
That's made some folks better off, but caused unemployment among a bunch
of others. Not enough to explain those gains above.
>And just how is "poor" defined
> for the purposes of this graph, anyway?
I'll double check for sure, but I believe it's either the lowest 20% of
the income distribution or folks below the poverty line. I don't have
the book at home with me.
>It strikes me as the same type
> of argument conservatives use against environmental laws "Look how
> clean things are. We've got clean air, clean water. We don't need any
> environmental regulations." (Meanwhile forgetting that those same
> environmental regulations are the exact reason why we have cleaner air
> and cleaner water today. Cuyahoga River, anyone?)
To some degree, yes. But we also know that environmental cleanliness is
directly correlated with increasing wealth. As economies grow past
about $6000 percapita GDP, the environment starts getting cleaner,
regardless of policy.
The Professor (now we're talking)
John Shafto
> mh <> wrote
> >
> > 40 hour work week?
>
> Was already becoming the norm before laws were passed. Same with the
> disappearance of child labor, btw.
The examples of this are legion. Politicians and bureacrats love
to take credit for everything good that happens, and Hobbesians
can't see how anything but unlimited power could make it happen,
and yet, we have constant, obvious, examples of how they are
responsible for none of it.
Bill Clinton (nor the Republicans in congress, nor Greenspan)
didn't create the tech boom of the 1990s, they merely more
or less let it happen. The supreme court didn't all of the
sudden decide that sodomy laws are unconstitutional because
they are courageous moral examples for us all to follow.
In a democracy, govt has to follow what most people want,
right or wrong, at least if they want to stay in office.
mh
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>mh <mh.anti.spa...@austin.NO!2SPAM.r.r.SPAMSUX..com> wrote in
>news:jhbagvs90b4b50mi9...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 02:45:56 GMT, The Professor
>> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Why do they hate social programs? Are they just heartless bastards or
>>>do they believe that such programs wind up harming those they intend
>>>to help? I believe the latter. I dislike many gov't social programs
>>>because I think they are ineffective at helping those they are
>>>intended to help. I want to help people. I just think there are
>>>better ways.
>>
>> It seems awfully easy to paint with a broad brush and say many (most?)
>> government social programs are ineffective. What do you include in
>> that list? AFDC?
>
>Yes.
Why? Because you've never had to take it?
>
>>Government-backed student loans? CHIP? Low-income
>> housing?
>
>Yes
>
>I'm prepared to argue that there are alternatives to all of these
>programs that would work just as well, if not better.
Why? What's wrong with these programs? You're prepared to argue that
there are better alternatives ... posit some ... show me some real
world examples where the "free market" has provided better
alternatives to each of these. I'll grant that these (and many other)
government programs aren't as efficient as they could be, but in my
mind, that doesn't mean they should be abolished -- just fine-tuned.
>
>>You say below that the poor today are better off than they
>> were in the past ... yet if all these programs were so ineffective, it
>> would seem that the gains would be nonexistant.
>
>Two problems here:
>
>1. It's always a counter-factual: how well off would the poor be if
>there had been more/fewer gov't programs? We can never know for sure.
But you're stating that with fewer gov't programs, they'd be better
off. We're supposed to just take your statement on faith?
>
>2. To say that because such programs were created and the poor are now
>better off is a potential "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Just
>because A happened before B doesn't mean A caused B.
>
>I would argue that what's made the lives of the poor so much better off
>are the increases in technology and productive efficiency generated by
>markets. Those have both decreased the real cost of goods and services
>(see the labor hours comparison on my website) and increased workers'
>real wages by giving them more and better capital to work with.
One man's "solid reasoning" is another man's "post hoc, ergo propter
hoc" I suppose ...
>
>>
>> Granted, wanderingstar is painting with his own broad brush; still, in
>> following national and local legislatures, it seems to me that
>> conservatives have never met a social program they liked. One con here
>> in Texas went as far to say that if these poor folks just didn't have
>> cell phones or cable TV, then they'd be able to insure their kids.
>> Another said she didn't know where anyone got the idea that there
>> should be "free" public education. Still more conservatives go on and
>> on about how liberals "hate" America and are treasonous in their very
>> existence. Any wonder that folks on the left attribute malicious
>> motives to the right?
>
>I don't see the problem with the second statement for sure, and I'm okay
>with the first in the sense that people have to make choices (sometimes
>unpleasant ones). Many conservatives and libertarians argue that
>increasing competition in education via vouchers etc would be one of the
>BEST things we could do for the poor, particularly the urban poor, who
>are disproportionately of color. I'd certainly make that argument. Say
>public education is bad idea is not necessarily say "I don't want
>everyone educated."
But is it a bad idea? I don't think so. The U.S. workforce, largely
the product of public education, has made the country the "top of the
heap." I'd think the case would be otherwise if public education was
so inefficient and deleterious, then how did we get here?
I had an interesting conversation last night with someone who teaches
in inner city schools. It's clear to her that the students from stable
homes, with parents who value an education are the ones who succeed.
Those whose parents don't care (for whatever reason) generally fail.
I'd posit that the largest problem with public education isn't in
schools and teachers, its the parents who look at it as "free"
daycare. But I still agree with Jefferson, et. al., that a "free" and
universal public ed system is the bulwark of any great society.
>
>>>
>>>You are just wrong. Those improvements are due to what markets,
>>>mostly free, have done for people, not social programs or unions. Go
>>>look at the data and explain to me how gov't is responsible for those
>>>gains.
>>
>> 40 hour work week?
>
>Was already becoming the norm before laws were passed. Same with the
>disappearance of child labor, btw.
So the laws were passed and those who were intransigent against those
changes were forced into it.
I've got no problems with such minimum standards when they serve to
promote "the greater good."
>
>> The concept of health benefits, etc. considered a given for most jobs?
>
>That IS the result of gov't but not the way you think, and it's a
>problem. The linking of health benefits with work is the fundamental
>source of the problems with the US health care system, as it has driven
>the evolution of HMOs and all the rest. It comes out of WW II when the
>gov't put price and wage controls on. Employers couldn't compete by
>offering higher wages, so they began to offer these other sorts of
>benefits instead. Add on the fact that non-monetary benefits aren't
>taxable, and you get the mess we have today. A great example of gov't
>causing undesirable unintended consequences.
>
>
>> Child labor laws?
>
>See above. Read the history and see how it was well on the way out
>before the laws came around. Moreover, for many families, having their
>kids work was the only way they could survive. Unfortunate yes, but had
>child labor been abolished earlier, it would have meant starvation and
>death for many people.
And abolishing the minimum wage wouldn't have a negative impact?
History proves that people will take whatever job they can get, even
if it's low paying and dangerous. Minimum wage laws, workplace safety
laws and the such, in my view, serve to correct the negative aspects
of the free market.
From what I've read, the minimum-wage/unemployment relationship is
shaky, at best. I've yet to see concrete proof that an increase in
minimum wage correlates to an increase in unemployment. The studies
that do show such correlation (that I've seen) are pretty weak.
>
>>And just how is "poor" defined
>> for the purposes of this graph, anyway?
>
>I'll double check for sure, but I believe it's either the lowest 20% of
>the income distribution or folks below the poverty line. I don't have
>the book at home with me.
>
>>It strikes me as the same type
>> of argument conservatives use against environmental laws "Look how
>> clean things are. We've got clean air, clean water. We don't need any
>> environmental regulations." (Meanwhile forgetting that those same
>> environmental regulations are the exact reason why we have cleaner air
>> and cleaner water today. Cuyahoga River, anyone?)
>
>To some degree, yes. But we also know that environmental cleanliness is
>directly correlated with increasing wealth. As economies grow past
>about $6000 percapita GDP, the environment starts getting cleaner,
>regardless of policy.
Hmm. Got a cite for that?
Mike Smith
Yes, sue. Maybe it's different in Europe, but suing the US government
is rather quixotic.
--
Mike Smith
The Professor
news:nqbbgv4lg07bvgi95...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:19:14 GMT, The Professor
> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>
>>mh <mh.anti.spa...@austin.NO!2SPAM.r.r.SPAMSUX..com> wrote in
>>news:jhbagvs90b4b50mi9...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 02:45:56 GMT, The Professor
>>> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>>> It seems awfully easy to paint with a broad brush and say many
>>> (most?) government social programs are ineffective. What do you
>>> include in that list? AFDC?
>>
>>Yes.
>
> Why? Because you've never had to take it?
No, because you can track a pretty good correlation between the rise of
the welfare state and the halt in the decline of the poverty rate, not
to mention a slowdown in the improvement of the condition of the urban
poor, esp. the urban poor of color. That correlation is consistent with
critiques of the welfare state. It's also worth noting that before the
rise of the welfare state, there were lots of community, non-profit, and
other forms of social provision that worked pretty well. See below.
>
>
>>
>>>Government-backed student loans? CHIP? Low-income
>>> housing?
>>
>>Yes
>>
>>I'm prepared to argue that there are alternatives to all of these
>>programs that would work just as well, if not better.
>
> Why? What's wrong with these programs? You're prepared to argue that
> there are better alternatives ... posit some ... show me some real
> world examples where the "free market" has provided better
> alternatives to each of these. I'll grant that these (and many other)
> government programs aren't as efficient as they could be, but in my
> mind, that doesn't mean they should be abolished -- just fine-tuned.
Note I said "alternatives" not the free market. Before the US welfare
state, there were many ways in which poorer folks provided for
themselves in times of trouble: churches, fraternal organizations,
ethnic group connections etc.. They worked pretty well, too, but for a
variety of reasons they were pushed out by the welfare state. Best
recent book on this: David Beito, *From Mutual Aid to the Welfare
State* U of North Carolina Press.
>
>>
>>>You say below that the poor today are better off than they
>>> were in the past ... yet if all these programs were so ineffective,
>>> it would seem that the gains would be nonexistant.
>>
>>Two problems here:
>>
>>1. It's always a counter-factual: how well off would the poor be if
>>there had been more/fewer gov't programs? We can never know for sure.
>
> But you're stating that with fewer gov't programs, they'd be better
> off. We're supposed to just take your statement on faith?
And we should take yours on faith too? Note I said we can never know
"for sure." We can still present arguments on evidence on either side
and attempt to persuade one another. There's just no iron-clad
empirical proof because it's a counterfactual.
>>
>>2. To say that because such programs were created and the poor are now
>>better off is a potential "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Just
>>because A happened before B doesn't mean A caused B.
>>
>>I would argue that what's made the lives of the poor so much better
>>off are the increases in technology and productive efficiency
>>generated by markets. Those have both decreased the real cost of
>>goods and services (see the labor hours comparison on my website) and
>>increased workers' real wages by giving them more and better capital
>>to work with.
>
> One man's "solid reasoning" is another man's "post hoc, ergo propter
> hoc" I suppose ...
Maybe, but a close reading of the historical record can distinguish
causation from correlation. I'm pretty comfortable that my description
is both theoretically and empirically supported.
I'd certainly make that argument. Say
>>public education is bad idea is not necessarily say "I don't want
>>everyone educated."
>
> But is it a bad idea? I don't think so. The U.S. workforce, largely
> the product of public education, has made the country the "top of the
> heap." I'd think the case would be otherwise if public education was
> so inefficient and deleterious, then how did we get here?
Once again, there's a counterfactual involved. Second, maybe we got
there because of institutional factors such as free markets, private
property, and the rule of law that have enabled us to be innovative and
accumulate capital. That accumulation of capital also contributes to
worker productivity, and thus to wages.
Third, I think you ignore the deplorable state of the public schools in
much of urban America. The folks who live there are NOT served well by
it, which is why they tend to support real educational competition in
significant numbers. The KKK couldn't devise a "better" system for
impoverishing black and latino Americans than our current public school
system (and labor laws - see below).
>
> I had an interesting conversation last night with someone who teaches
> in inner city schools. It's clear to her that the students from stable
> homes, with parents who value an education are the ones who succeed.
> Those whose parents don't care (for whatever reason) generally fail.
> I'd posit that the largest problem with public education isn't in
> schools and teachers, its the parents who look at it as "free"
> daycare. But I still agree with Jefferson, et. al., that a "free" and
> universal public ed system is the bulwark of any great society.
No doubt that all other things equal involved parents produce educated
kids. But that's not the point. If true competition in the production
of K-12 education would raise the quality of education in general, it
would raise it for involved and non-involved parents, even if the
difference between them remains. Why not do it?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>You are just wrong. Those improvements are due to what markets,
>>>>mostly free, have done for people, not social programs or unions.
>>>>Go look at the data and explain to me how gov't is responsible for
>>>>those gains.
>>>
>>> 40 hour work week?
>>
>>Was already becoming the norm before laws were passed. Same with the
>>disappearance of child labor, btw.
>
> So the laws were passed and those who were intransigent against those
> changes were forced into it.
Yup, some. The question is whether it was a net benefit. There are
real reasons why families might choose to have their kids working - as
in they need the income. You're so focused on the "intransingent"
employers, that you miss the victims of the laws. Question: would you
bar children from working on farms?
> I've got no problems with such minimum standards when they serve to
> promote "the greater good."
Neither do I. I'm just not convinced that they do.
> And abolishing the minimum wage wouldn't have a negative impact?
> History proves that people will take whatever job they can get, even
> if it's low paying and dangerous. Minimum wage laws, workplace safety
> laws and the such, in my view, serve to correct the negative aspects
> of the free market.
Minimum wage laws impoverish those with the least skills, who are often
folks of color, thanks to poor schools and past discrimination.
Question: if minimum wage laws are designed to help the poor and
downtrodden, why were they supported by White South Africans when
apartheid was created and opposed by native Blacks? Maybe the natives
knew that such laws would shut them out of the market?
Take Walter Williams favorite analogy: Why is it when you go shopping
for meat, you often by hamburger even though you know steak is of higher
quality? Answer: it's cheaper. Suppose the steak got pissed off about
the hamburger always selling itself so cheaply (Exploitation I say!!
"They'll take whatever buyer they can get!"). Suppose we passed a
minimum meat law that said no meat can ever sell for less than $4/lb.
Hamburger will never again have to grovel to be sold cheap. Who
benefits from this?
Now you walk through the meat section and see a steak at $4/lb and
hamburger at $4/lb, what do you do? Either you stop buying meat
altogether (or less of it for sure) and/or you buy more steak relative
to hamburger. Hey, if they cost the same, get the one that's "worth"
the money! That's perfectly analogous to how mw laws harm those with
least skills.
>>>How about because of
>>> increases in federal minimum wage laws?
>>
>>That's made some folks better off, but caused unemployment among a
>>bunch of others. Not enough to explain those gains above.
>
> From what I've read, the minimum-wage/unemployment relationship is
> shaky, at best. I've yet to see concrete proof that an increase in
> minimum wage correlates to an increase in unemployment. The studies
> that do show such correlation (that I've seen) are pretty weak.
If you track the real value of the minimum wage against the black/white
unemployment ratio, you'll see a direct relationship. As the real value
of the mw rises, black unemployment, esp. among the young, rises
relative to white unemployment.
Here's some data on recent changes in the MW law and their effect on
employment. Scroll down all the way to see the tables:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html
>
>
>>
>>>And just how is "poor" defined
>>> for the purposes of this graph, anyway?
>>
>>I'll double check for sure, but I believe it's either the lowest 20%
>>of the income distribution or folks below the poverty line. I don't
>>have the book at home with me.
>>
>>>It strikes me as the same type
>>> of argument conservatives use against environmental laws "Look how
>>> clean things are. We've got clean air, clean water. We don't need
>>> any environmental regulations." (Meanwhile forgetting that those
>>> same environmental regulations are the exact reason why we have
>>> cleaner air and cleaner water today. Cuyahoga River, anyone?)
>>
>>To some degree, yes. But we also know that environmental cleanliness
>>is directly correlated with increasing wealth. As economies grow past
>>about $6000 percapita GDP, the environment starts getting cleaner,
>>regardless of policy.
>
> Hmm. Got a cite for that?
It's called the "Environmental Kuznets curve" and generally recognizes
in the environmental economics literature.
http://www.perc.org/pdf/rs02_1.pdf
Scroll down to page 7 to see:
"Grossman and Krueger held constant the identifiable geographic
characteristics of different cities, a common global time trend in the
levels of pollution, and the location and type of the pollution
measurement device. With these constant, they found that ambient levels
of both sulfur dioxide and dark matter (smoke) suspended in the air
increase with per capita GDP (gross domestic product) at low levels of
national income but decrease with per capita GDP at higher levels of
income. These findings provided statistical evidence for the existence
of an EKC relationship for these two indicators of environmental
quality. The turning point came when per capita GDP was in the range of
$4,000 to $5,000 measured in 1985 U.S. dollars (or about $6,200 to
$8,200 in 2001 U.S. dollars). Unlike the relationship found for sulfur
dioxide and smoke, no turning point was found for the mass of suspended
particulate matter in a given volume of air. In this case, the
relationship between pollution and GDP was monotonically increasing.5
Following closely on the heels of the Grossman and Krueger study, Shafik
and Bandopadhyay (1992) estimated the relationship between economic
growth and several key indicators of environmental quality reported in
the World Bank’s cross-country time-series data sets.6 They found a
consistently significant relationship between income and all indicators
of environmental quality they examined. As income increases from low
levels, quantities of sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter, and
fecal coliform increase initially and then decrease once the economy
reaches a certain level of income. The turning-point incomes in 1985
U.S. dollars for these pollutants are $3,700, $3,300 and $1,400
respectively.7 (In 2001 U. S. dollars, the turning points would be about
$6,100, $5,400, and $2,300)."
The Professor (this is one way to spend the 4th....)
John Shafto
> But I still agree with Jefferson, et. al., that a "free" and
> universal public ed system is the bulwark of any great society.
If you consistently argue against _any_ competition in education,
Jefferson wouldn't have agreed with you. He would cringe
at the explosive federalization, unionization, NEA, and monopolistic
practices that have evolved over the last 50 years.
Many seem to think that since some, localized, public education
is a good thing, that an absolute federal monopoly must be
better. Having a beer is a good thing, drinking a keg is not.
--
"Education is here placed among the articles of public care,
not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches
out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much
better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution
can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for,
are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which
contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them
to its preservation." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
"Education not being a branch of municipal government, but,
like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only,
I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the
structure of government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
"If twelve or fifteen hundred schools are to be placed under one
general administration, an attention so divided will amount to a
dereliction of them to themselves. It is surely better, then,
to place each school at once under the care of those most
interested in its conduct."
--Thomas Jefferson: Plan for Elementary Schools, 1817.
"The expense of the elementary schools for every county is
proposed to be levied on the wealth of the county, and all children
rich and poor to be educated at these three years gratis."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. Correa de Serra, 1817.
wandering star
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
Those figures are bogus. Canada never spent 11.7% of GDP on health
care. The highest was 10.0% in 1992. (These figures are taken directly
off the OECD website:
Here are the actual figures:
Total expenditure on health %GDP, 2001
Canada 9.7
France 9.5
Iceland 9.1 (2000)
UK 7.6
US 13.9
(There was a UN study done a couple of years ago that said France has
the most efficient health care in terms of cost and what is
delivered.)
Since the US has a higher GDP per capita rate than most countries,
health care spent per capita shows their costs are actually more
inflated:
Total expenditure on health - Per capita, US$, (Purchasing Power
Parity), 2001
Canada 2792
France 2561
Iceland 2562 (2000)
UK 1992
US 4887
wandering star
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:38:26 -0400, wandering star
><wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
>>world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
>>European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
>>military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
>
>That's one way to look at. It's also true that the U.S. spends more
>on the military than every other country in the world put together.
>
>
>>Let's not forget the US has probably the same population of Western
>>Europe in a single country under one Commander and Chief.
>>
>>Yes it was great when the Americans entered the War and beat back the
>>fascists from the west. Of course if they didn't it would have been a
>>lonely world for freedom and free enterprise. And it was great when
>>the Americans bailed out Western Europe after the war. But if they
>>didn't they could have fell to the Communists, and that would've been
>>a far worse domino effect than Korea, Cuba or Viet Nam ever could've
>>created. And it's true American military technology is by far the best
>>in the world and getting better by the day. But the fact is the USSR
>>collapsed because their economic system was grossly inefficient
>>compared to the West - and that doesn't only mean the US.
>>
>>But the problems in America are due to a lack of social programs,
>>progressive criminal rehabilitation and gun control. Those are the
>>main differences between the US and other first world countries who
>>don't have the same high crime rate, drug addiction rate, poverty
>>rate, etc.
>>
>>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp
>>
>>
>America's crime rate is not due to a lack of gun control. How many
>gun laws do you want?
America's gun fetish is insane... :)
wandering star
wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:44:25 -0400, wandering star
><wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 05:11:49 GMT, lord...@mindspring.com (Brian King)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:38:26 -0400, wandering star
>>><wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
>>>>world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
>>>>European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
>>>>military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
>>>
>>>That's one way to look at. It's also true that the U.S. spends more
>>>on the military than every other country in the world put together.
>>
>>I find that hard to believe.
>
>US dept of defense 2004 budget is about $355 billion. Total world
>expenditures on defense projected for 2004 fiscal year about $730
>billion. I'll leave the math to you.
You're basically right. I looked up the figures and in 2002 America
came in first in military spending, spending 43% of the world total
($335 b of 784, US$ PPP.)
Ironically, Japan came in 2nd with 6% of the world total. (Jesus, I
hope they're not planning on invading anyone... ;)
I would have thought that China and Russia spent a lot more though...
wandering star
wrote:
>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:j3i2gvoubmhhs1gre...@4ax.com...
>>
>
>> Believe it or not the US is ranked 43rd in military spending in the
>> world, with 3.5% of GDP. They still spend more than first world
>> European countries, but the US has always "gone it alone" in terms of
>> military policy. So the European countries can hardly be blamed.
>
>We spend more on our military, so you don't have to.
>
>Not that I support the size of our military budgets.
>I think they could be easily halved, and Europe,
>especially, should defend itself.
Yeah, I think their should be a European Union military. I think the
world would be better off with 2 different super powers rather than
just one.
wandering star
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
I don't refuse to confront actual data, I just don't trust whacked out
interpretations of the data. (Saying the working poor today are better
off than a middle class family in the 70s is an obvious example.)
Of course I believe I'm right, just like you do. You probably don't
think too highly of liberals or union bosses...
>> The cons hate government social programs so it's not surprising they'd
>> bankrupt them if given the chance.
>
>Why do they hate social programs? Are they just heartless bastards or
>do they believe that such programs wind up harming those they intend to
>help? I believe the latter. I dislike many gov't social programs
>because I think they are ineffective at helping those they are intended
>to help. I want to help people. I just think there are better ways.
So maybe the cons bankrupt social programs by running up huge deficits
and refusing to pay down the debt when they're in power for our own
good?? ;)
>>>That's not to say that conservatives (in the US) haven't screwed up
>>>upon taking office. They sure have. Usually it's been because
>>>they've deviated from their own stated principles, often under immense
>>>political pressure.
>>>
>>>> Look a Bush Jr. A 500 billion deficit when interest rates
>>>> are at their lowest in 50 years?? It would be pathetic if it wasn't
>>>> orchestrated (ironic, considering Bush Jr. probably can't even
>>>> pronounce the word.)
>>>
>>>Ah yes, the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that orchestrates it all...
>>
>> Not a conspiracy. Just a fact. The cons hate government and if they
>> bankrupt it they destroy what they hate.
>
>Why do they hate it? Is it just blind fury? Selfishness? What? Or is
>it that they think gov't doesn't accomplish the goals it sets for itself
>very well and that other methods are preferrable? I think it's the
>latter, and so do most conservatives. If you don't think that's true,
>then you don't spend much time around conservatives.
I don't spend much time around cons cause I don't like having to look
over my shoulder all the time... ;)
>>>> >> That's the thing with the free market economy. The rich get very
>>>> >> rich and powerful and the workers get stepped on. That's why
>>>> >> unions are needed, even though they may inconvenience the public
>>>> >> from time to time. (Is it the workers fault or the big bosses?)
>>>> >
>>>> >Sigh.... should I even bother? :)
>>>>
>>>> I know how you feel. :)
>>>
>>>I don't think you do. I managed to post a link to a whole bunch of
>>>data that suggests very strongly that your views here are dead wrong,
>>>yet you show no sign of looking at them, much less responding to them.
>>> That's why I sighed. I didn't think you'd respond.
>>
>> Suffice it to say I think you're as full of shit as you think I am...
>>:)
>
>I don't think you're "full of shit." I think you're uninformed and have
>an-as-yet-unexplained irrational hatred of conservatives.
I'm not so uninformed and my distrust of cons is not so irrational...
>>>> >> When the unions get stepped on the average wages go down. And you
>>>> >> hear this bullshit about tax cuts that help only the wealthy
>>>> >> investor, and how that puts money in the average person's pocket.
>>>> >> Well the fact is things like a decent wage and programs like
>>>> >> universal healthcare actually put more money into the average
>>>> >> person's pocket. No "voodoo economics" needed...
>>>> >
>>>> >cough, cough, cough. Familiarize yourself with some data my
>>>> >friend, and then we'll talk.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, you're right. When unions get busted the wages go up. And when
>>>> cons come up with tax-cut schemes it's the average worker who gets
>>>> the most significant benefit. Not to mention the trickle-down effect
>>>> that has always, cough, cough, cough, worked wonders for the
>>>> economy.
>>>
>>>As I said, look at the data. Workers are much better off today than
>>>early in the 20th century.
>>
>> That certainly isn't do to con policies. They have only taken away the
>> gains made by workers in the post-war era.
>
>You are just wrong. Those improvements are due to what markets, mostly
>free, have done for people, not social programs or unions. Go look at
>the data and explain to me how gov't is responsible for those gains.
Whatever. In any case, I find your "economic fundamentalist" views to
be extreme.
>> More like the anti-inflationary policies of the US Federal Reseve. The
>> fact is most of the debt in all countries, whether first world or
>> third world, is do to interest costs incurred during the early 80s
>> and early 90s when the US Fed was fighting inflation by raising base
>> interest rates to ridiculous levels, 15-18%, where they are now
>> something like 2%.
>
>You really don't understand economics do you? The reason interest rates
>were so high was *because of inflation* not because we were fighting it!
You don't know what you're talking about. The market doesn't determine
interest rates, the technocrats at the US Fed do. They raised interest
rates to ridiculously high rates (up to 18%) during the early 80s to
put the economy in severe recession because of the fact that there is
little inflation in an economy in recession. In fact, at the same time
Reagan was attempting to create economic growth with that Reagonomics
tax cut bullshit. Guess who won out on that one?
The Fed also created the recession during the early 90s, where
inflationary pressures were also created by oil supply shock.
The fact is since the early 80s the Fed has set out on a mission to
eliminate the business cycle through monetary policy. They have
succeeded in producing the longest periods of growth in the post-war
era, both in the later 80s and 90s. But whether this type of economy
benefits the average person is debatable.
So whatever your beliefs that the free market economy is
self-regulating don't forget about the Fed's not-so-invisible hand… ;)
>I do agree, however, that US policies bear some blame for the crushing
>third-world debt burden, and I'm somewhat in favor of just forgiving
>most, if not all, of those debts.
That would probably be better for everyone.
>>The cons believe in fierce
>> competition and privilege. They don't not only want to win, but they
>> also want people to lose to give it meaning. All their privilege also
>> doesn't have meaning if other "lower" people are living comfortable
>> lives. (Not to mention their desire to keep wage-costs down and not
>> spend taxes on social programs.) IMO, the con sense of existence is
>> "law of the jungle" primitive. And frankly, I don't want to live like
>> an animal.
>
>Can you cite me some textual evidence for that claim? Find me something
>that a major conservative thinker or politician has said where he or she
>says that other people have to lose to give their winning meaning. Or
>where they find it unacceptable that "lower" people are living
>comfortable lives. I want a textual citation. I have, and do, read a
>lot of conservative and libertarian intellectual and political articles,
>books, and websites, and have never seen such an argument. I know many
>conservatives and libertarians personally and have never heard one say
>anything like that, even drunk. chapter and verse please.
That's just my impression. People don't tend to talk about things like
that in any case, however much it may influence their behaviour.
>> I also consider myself a libertarian, basically. I believe people
>> should have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't
>> directly infringe on other people's rights. But how can people be free
>> if they are a slave to their economical position? (That's the whole
>> point, isn't it?)
>
>I suggest you do some reading. Tell me which rights are infringed upon
>when I hire someone at $3.50/hour.
If you hire someone in a third-world country for $3.50/hour that would
be a good thing. Wages like that for unskilled labor would put more
money in people's pockets and have a multiplying effect in their
economies.
>Tell me which rights are infringed
>upon when I sell my products in the third world, or provide a job for
>someone there. Do you or do you not believe that consenting acts
>between adults are okay? If so, for example in the bedroom, then why
>not in the market?
People who are desperate don't give too much thought to the idea of
"consenting."
Laurel
"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n5qcgvsp46k7c6ojd...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:41:07 GMT, The Professor
> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
> >Okay, let's compare Canada to some other OECD countries (NOT including
the
> >US for the moment). Here are Canada's rankings on various measures:
> >
> >MRI per million inhabitants: 18th out of 23
> >CT Scanners per million: 17th out of 22
> >Radiation therapy machines per million: 8th of 22
> >Lithotripter machines per million: 13th out of 14
> >
> >Seems Canada's less than average compared to Western Europe, much less
the
> >US, despite the fact that Canada spends 11.7% of GDP on health care, more
> >than any other OECD country beside Iceland.
>
> Those figures are bogus. Canada never spent 11.7% of GDP on health
> care. The highest was 10.0% in 1992. (These figures are taken directly
> off the OECD website:
Well, before discounting them, let's find out where Prof got his stats.
And I've got a question or two... Where is the money coming from that's
being quoted? I don't see the purpose of comparing expendetures to the
GDP... in some countries (the socialized ones) the expendeture is on the
shoulders of the government... In the US, I would say the majority (yes, I'm
thinking about medicare too) is spent by private corporations rather than
government. They of course get their money from individuals and health
insurance companies... and they charge lots of money for drugs (especially
the new ones, for which the research costs they have taken care of need to
be covered) What is included in the stats? Prescription meds? Do they
include all the things bought like vitamins, medicine (prescription drugs
too), phisiotherapy etc? Do they count the costs the paitents give out?
One thing that has always made me wonder is the cost of medicine. The cost
of prescription meds to the publis in the US is astronomical. The drug
companies claim that they charge what is fair for the product... in some
cases saying that they can't produce it for less, however in Canada there is
a cap put on the cost of medicine. If the companies claim they can't produce
it for less and still make a profit, then why do they bother selling the
drug in Canada?
> http://www.oecd.org )
>
> Here are the actual figures:
>
> Total expenditure on health %GDP, 2001
>
> Canada 9.7
> France 9.5
> Iceland 9.1 (2000)
> UK 7.6
> US 13.9
>
> (There was a UN study done a couple of years ago that said France has
> the most efficient health care in terms of cost and what is
> delivered.)
I'll believe that. (I've had experience with hospitals in France)
> Since the US has a higher GDP per capita rate than most countries,
> health care spent per capita shows their costs are actually more
> inflated:
>
> Total expenditure on health - Per capita, US$, (Purchasing Power
> Parity), 2001
>
> Canada 2792
> France 2561
> Iceland 2562 (2000)
> UK 1992
> US 4887
First, I'd like to know what is included in those stats. Do they take into
account homeless people too in the per-capita stats?
Laurel
Laurel
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
> >>> (most?) government social programs are ineffective. What do you
> >>> include in that list? AFDC?
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> > Why? Because you've never had to take it?
>
> No, because you can track a pretty good correlation between the rise of
> the welfare state and the halt in the decline of the poverty rate, not
> to mention a slowdown in the improvement of the condition of the urban
> poor, esp. the urban poor of color. That correlation is consistent with
> critiques of the welfare state. It's also worth noting that before the
> rise of the welfare state, there were lots of community, non-profit, and
> other forms of social provision that worked pretty well. See below.
I would argue that these community programs worked well because in addition
to supporting people in need with the basics, they also addressed the social
need - of people needing to have people to talk to about what is going on -
the need to feel 'known' if you will. That is something that I think would
be near-impossible to do within a federal program.
L.
Laurel
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 02:45:56 GMT, The Professor
> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
> >Once again, you attribute evil intentions to conservatives. Isn't it
> >possible that they honestly believe that privatization is better for
> >people than regulation/nationalization? They might be wrong about that
> >(I don't think they are), but you don't even entertain the possibility
> >that it might be. The result, as we see below, is that you refuse to
> >confront actual data and just stand there insisting you're right and
> >that they are evil bastards.
>
> I don't refuse to confront actual data, I just don't trust whacked out
> interpretations of the data. (Saying the working poor today are better
> off than a middle class family in the 70s is an obvious example.)
>
> Of course I believe I'm right, just like you do. You probably don't
> think too highly of liberals or union bosses...
I think it's dangerous to make any assumptions.
> >I don't think you're "full of shit." I think you're uninformed and have
> >an-as-yet-unexplained irrational hatred of conservatives.
>
> I'm not so uninformed and my distrust of cons is not so irrational...
I think it's more irrational than my distrust of people who like to make
sweeping blanket judgements about people they don't know just because they
belong to a particular group...
> >The Professor (predicts more accusations of bad faith and no response to
> >the data)
Laurel
(Prediction is better than assumption)
The Professor
>
> I don't refuse to confront actual data, I just don't trust whacked out
> interpretations of the data. (Saying the working poor today are better
> off than a middle class family in the 70s is an obvious example.)
I presented you with data. You called it whacked out. Since you didn't
offer any data to support your view, I'd say you are speaking from
ignorance or, as you say later, "impressions." I'll stick with the
data, thank you very much.
> Of course I believe I'm right, just like you do. You probably don't
> think too highly of liberals or union bosses...
I spend most of my working day with people to YOUR left. They are my
friends and I like and respect most of them very much. I think they're
wrong about a lot of stuff, but I don't not think highly of them. Your
point?
>>You are just wrong. Those improvements are due to what markets,
>>mostly free, have done for people, not social programs or unions. Go
>>look at the data and explain to me how gov't is responsible for those
>>gains.
>
> Whatever. In any case, I find your "economic fundamentalist" views to
> be extreme.
"Whatever" - the last resort of the argument-less.
>>> More like the anti-inflationary policies of the US Federal Reseve.
>>> The fact is most of the debt in all countries, whether first world
>>> or third world, is do to interest costs incurred during the early
>>> 80s and early 90s when the US Fed was fighting inflation by raising
>>> base interest rates to ridiculous levels, 15-18%, where they are now
>>> something like 2%.
>>
>>You really don't understand economics do you? The reason interest
>>rates were so high was *because of inflation* not because we were
>>fighting it!
>
> You don't know what you're talking about.
Heh. Let's see. I have a PhD in economics. I specialize in money and
banking and macroeconomics. I have written two books and dozens of
articles on the subject. But I don't know what I'm talking about... I
hate having to put my dick on the table my friend, but I'm willing to
bet I know a lot more about this subject than you do.
(Yet more evidence that you haven't looked at the evidence on my web
page)
>The market doesn't determine
> interest rates, the technocrats at the US Fed do.
Wrong. They both matter. The Fed has some discretion, but is highly
constrained by market conditions. It can't pick "whatever" interest
rate it wants to, as you suggest it can.
>They raised interest
> rates to ridiculously high rates (up to 18%) during the early 80s to
> put the economy in severe recession because of the fact that there is
> little inflation in an economy in recession. In fact, at the same time
> Reagan was attempting to create economic growth with that Reagonomics
> tax cut bullshit. Guess who won out on that one?
The ignorance here is too stunning to even respond to.
> The Fed also created the recession during the early 90s, where
> inflationary pressures were also created by oil supply shock.
Oil supply shocks don't cause inflation, the Fed does.
> The fact is since the early 80s the Fed has set out on a mission to
> eliminate the business cycle through monetary policy. They have
> succeeded in producing the longest periods of growth in the post-war
> era, both in the later 80s and 90s. But whether this type of economy
> benefits the average person is debatable.
I would agree that the growth of the 80s and 90s was fueled to a
significant extent by the Fed having successfully beat down inflation.
Explain to me why a low-inflation economy that doesn't eat away at the
retirement and welfare fixed-incomes of the old and poor is not good for
people.
> So whatever your beliefs that the free market economy is
> self-regulating don't forget about the Fed's not-so-invisible hand… ;)
Oh, don't worry, I haven't forgotten. If you recall, I pointed out that
the Fed was responsible for the Great Depression, or have you forgotten
that?
And I've argued, in print many times, that the Fed should be abolished
and replaced by a competitive system of money production. Howzat for
"economic fundamentalism"?
>>Can you cite me some textual evidence for that claim? Find me
>>something that a major conservative thinker or politician has said
>>where he or she says that other people have to lose to give their
>>winning meaning. Or where they find it unacceptable that "lower"
>>people are living comfortable lives. I want a textual citation. I
>>have, and do, read a lot of conservative and libertarian intellectual
>>and political articles, books, and websites, and have never seen such
>>an argument. I know many conservatives and libertarians personally
>>and have never heard one say anything like that, even drunk. chapter
>>and verse please.
>
> That's just my impression. People don't tend to talk about things like
> that in any case, however much it may influence their behaviour.
"That's just my impression." You know, I should just stop here because
that sentence nicely sums up most of what you've been arguing. Not much
in the way of data or actual evidence, but lots of impressions about
history and the motives of the people you disagree with. Sad, really.
>>> I also consider myself a libertarian, basically. I believe people
>>> should have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't
>>> directly infringe on other people's rights. But how can people be
>>> free if they are a slave to their economical position? (That's the
>>> whole point, isn't it?)
>>
>>I suggest you do some reading. Tell me which rights are infringed
>>upon when I hire someone at $3.50/hour.
>
> If you hire someone in a third-world country for $3.50/hour that would
> be a good thing. Wages like that for unskilled labor would put more
> money in people's pockets and have a multiplying effect in their
> economies.
And what if I did it in the good ol USA or good ol Canada?
The Professor (that website again: http://it.stlawu.edu/shor)
wandering star
I didn't suggest that fuckhead. The Fed determines interest rates
according to the inflation rate, which it is determined to keep within
a 1 to 3% margin. I.e. if the inflation rate goes above that rate the
interest rates go up. Now please arrogate some more of your ridiculous
voodoo economic bullshit...
>>They raised interest
>> rates to ridiculously high rates (up to 18%) during the early 80s to
>> put the economy in severe recession because of the fact that there is
>> little inflation in an economy in recession. In fact, at the same time
>> Reagan was attempting to create economic growth with that Reagonomics
>> tax cut bullshit. Guess who won out on that one?
>
>The ignorance here is too stunning to even respond to.
Ok, enough of this worthless bullshit. You have a PhD in economics
blah, blah, blah, wrote 2 books and I'm the Queen of England.
Blow me you fucking idiot.
PLONK
[snip]
wandering star
>
>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jlrcgvg4nsmt6cvop...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 02:45:56 GMT, The Professor
>> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>> >Once again, you attribute evil intentions to conservatives. Isn't it
>> >possible that they honestly believe that privatization is better for
>> >people than regulation/nationalization? They might be wrong about that
>> >(I don't think they are), but you don't even entertain the possibility
>> >that it might be. The result, as we see below, is that you refuse to
>> >confront actual data and just stand there insisting you're right and
>> >that they are evil bastards.
>>
>> I don't refuse to confront actual data, I just don't trust whacked out
>> interpretations of the data. (Saying the working poor today are better
>> off than a middle class family in the 70s is an obvious example.)
>>
>> Of course I believe I'm right, just like you do. You probably don't
>> think too highly of liberals or union bosses...
>
>I think it's dangerous to make any assumptions.
I wasn't making an assumption. I was "hazarding" a guess. Oh, I guess
that's dangerous too... :/
>> >I don't think you're "full of shit." I think you're uninformed and have
>> >an-as-yet-unexplained irrational hatred of conservatives.
>>
>> I'm not so uninformed and my distrust of cons is not so irrational...
>
>I think it's more irrational than my distrust of people who like to make
>sweeping blanket judgements about people they don't know just because they
>belong to a particular group...
Yeah, my thinking the neo-cons are used-car salesmen is like race
discrimination. Please...
>> >The Professor (predicts more accusations of bad faith and no response to
>> >the data)
>
>Laurel
>(Prediction is better than assumption)
Jerkoff...
Laurel
> Jerkoff...
That's your job as it is physically impossible for me.. perhaps you'd take
care of Libby's pent up sexual frustration after you're done with yourself..
Plonkity-plonk
L.
(Subscribing to usenet is not a license for obtuse behaviour)
wandering star
>
>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:eepdgvcapon5flfkt...@4ax.com...
>> Jerkoff...
>
>That's your job as it is physically impossible for me..
Why? Did the judge order you to undergo chemical castrastion?
> perhaps you'd take
>care of Libby's pent up sexual frustration after you're done with yourself..
>
>Plonkity-plonk
Yeah, it's uh been fun... :/
The Professor
>
> Ok, enough of this worthless bullshit. You have a PhD in economics
> blah, blah, blah, wrote 2 books and I'm the Queen of England.
>
> Blow me you fucking idiot.
>
> PLONK
>
> [snip]
Heh. :) I love it when the argument-less descend into the dark place.
The Professor (<blows the smoke off his keyboard, and reholsters it>)
The Professor
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:23:27 GMT, "Laurel" <lau...@pandora.be> wrote:
>
>>
>>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:eepdgvcapon5flfkt...@4ax.com...
>>> Jerkoff...
>>
>>That's your job as it is physically impossible for me..
>
> Why? Did the judge order you to undergo chemical castrastion?
Uh nutjob... she's a chick.
>
>> perhaps you'd take
>>care of Libby's pent up sexual frustration after you're done with
>>yourself..
>>
>>Plonkity-plonk
>
> Yeah, it's uh been fun... :/
You're just making friends all over AMR, aren't you?
The Professor (we'll see if he really plonked me)
Brian King
America's share is rising due to the substantial increase since 9/11.
China and Russia spend a lot on hardware but they probably pay their
soldiers very little.
Brian
lordonly.net
Mike Smith
> I would have thought that China and Russia spent a lot more though...
I would imagine that Russia's expenditures dropped drastically with the
fall of the Soviet Union (or some time before).
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
>
> I didn't suggest that fuckhead.
<snip>
> Now please arrogate some more of your ridiculous
> voodoo economic bullshit...
Sounds like someone's getting desperate...? ("Arrogate"?)
> Ok, enough of this worthless bullshit. You have a PhD in economics
> blah, blah, blah, wrote 2 books and I'm the Queen of England.
>
> Blow me you fucking idiot.
>
> PLONK
Hunh. I guess it's even worse than I thought. Buh-bye.
--
Mike Smith
wandering star
<mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>wandering star wrote:
>>
>> I didn't suggest that fuckhead.
>
><snip>
>
>> Now please arrogate some more of your ridiculous
>> voodoo economic bullshit...
>
>Sounds like someone's getting desperate...? ("Arrogate"?)
Either that or highly annoyed...
The Professor
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 23:32:11 -0400, Mike Smith
> <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>
>>wandering star wrote:
>>>
>>> I didn't suggest that fuckhead.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Now please arrogate some more of your ridiculous
>>> voodoo economic bullshit...
>>
>>Sounds like someone's getting desperate...? ("Arrogate"?)
>
> Either that or highly annoyed...
What's so annoying? Don't like challenging evidence?
>>> Ok, enough of this worthless bullshit. You have a PhD in economics
>>> blah, blah, blah, wrote 2 books and I'm the Queen of England.
Or is it the fact that I really am all that I said?
Nice to meet you, Your Majesty.
The Professor (annoyed?!)
John Shafto
>
> Heh. :) I love it when the argument-less descend into the dark place.
>
> The Professor (<blows the smoke off his keyboard, and reholsters it>)
<heh>
You done good Prof.
(but he was unarmed ;)
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"The Professor" <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote in message
news:Xns93AFAC19E554...@24.24.2.167...
Couldn't you just have shown him your web site? ;)
AhBartlebyAhHumanity
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>wandering star <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:jlrcgvg4nsmt6cvop...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>> More like the anti-inflationary policies of the US Federal Reseve.
>>>> The fact is most of the debt in all countries, whether first world
>>>> or third world, is do to interest costs incurred during the early
>>>> 80s and early 90s when the US Fed was fighting inflation by raising
>>>> base interest rates to ridiculous levels, 15-18%, where they are now
>>>> something like 2%.
>>>
>>>You really don't understand economics do you? The reason interest
>>>rates were so high was *because of inflation* not because we were
>>>fighting it!
>>
>> You don't know what you're talking about.
>
>Heh. Let's see. I have a PhD in economics. I specialize in money and
>banking and macroeconomics. I have written two books and dozens of
>articles on the subject. But I don't know what I'm talking about... I
>hate having to put my dick on the table my friend, but I'm willing to
>bet I know a lot more about this subject than you do.
Bullshit. I've read books by people a lot more informed than you.
Let's not forget your right-wing economic ideas are not scientific
fact. Not to mention widely accepted. So you're credentials, whatever
they are, don't mean anything in the end. It ultimately boils down to
politics.
>(Yet more evidence that you haven't looked at the evidence on my web
>page)
Sorry, but your web page doesn't impress me.
If all the major media access your web page and report that you've
found all the answers as to how the economy should be run then I'll
acknowledge you're right.
>>The market doesn't determine
>> interest rates, the technocrats at the US Fed do.
>
>Wrong. They both matter. The Fed has some discretion, but is highly
>constrained by market conditions. It can't pick "whatever" interest
>rate it wants to, as you suggest it can.
Like I said before, the Fed sets interest rates according to
inflationary pressure. The target is between 1 and 3% inflation and
they have to guess the momentum of the economy. If inflation is high
they raise the interest rates; if the economy is under-performing they
lower them - which is happening presently...
Anyone who reads the news knows this... Intrepet it however you
want...
>>They raised interest
>> rates to ridiculously high rates (up to 18%) during the early 80s to
>> put the economy in severe recession because of the fact that there is
>> little inflation in an economy in recession. In fact, at the same time
>> Reagan was attempting to create economic growth with that Reagonomics
>> tax cut bullshit. Guess who won out on that one?
>
>The ignorance here is too stunning to even respond to.
First fact, the Fed's base interest rates did reach 18% in 81...
Second, after 8 years of high inflation since the 73 war against
Israel, (where the US was seen to be involved and OPEC raised the
price of oil), the Fed was desperate to do something about it. And the
fact is they did raise the interest rates to put the economy in
recession to fight inflation. Fact is, that's the same policy they
use to this day.
Third, when Reagan was trying to expand the economy in 81 with his tax
cut plan it went nowhere because the Fed caused the 81/82 recession
with it's high interest rate monetary policy, which was the worst
recession since the Great Depression.
And that's one of the great ironies, that people say "it's about the
economy, stupid" when it comes to US presidents. Fact is the US
presidents don't have anything to do with the economy. It's all about
inherent factors the government has nothing to do with. The US Fed is
king of the economy. In fact, if Reagan's tax cuts actually did
anything for the economy at the time it would have only caused the Fed
to raise interest rates even higher to kill the economy, and
inflation.
But like I also said, the Fed has taken on the goal of eliminating the
business cycle since the early eighties. Anyone who knows anything
about economics knows this. And the fact is the Fed has produced the
longest runs of economic growth in the later 80s and 90s since the
post-war era.
Are all these facts ignorance to you? Where'd you get your degree? Did
you pay some guy in a back alley for it??
>> The Fed also created the recession during the early 90s, where
>> inflationary pressures were also created by oil supply shock.
>
>Oil supply shocks don't cause inflation, the Fed does.
The ignorance here is too stunning to even respond to. ;)
>> The fact is since the early 80s the Fed has set out on a mission to
>> eliminate the business cycle through monetary policy. They have
>> succeeded in producing the longest periods of growth in the post-war
>> era, both in the later 80s and 90s. But whether this type of economy
>> benefits the average person is debatable.
>
>I would agree that the growth of the 80s and 90s was fueled to a
>significant extent by the Fed having successfully beat down inflation.
>Explain to me why a low-inflation economy that doesn't eat away at the
>retirement and welfare fixed-incomes of the old and poor is not good for
>people.
There is more than one way to skin a cat... The brutal policies of the
Fed screwed over a lot of people. It also caused all the debt/deficit
problems in first world countries and bankrupted third world counties.
There is also the fact that in the Keynesian business cycle it would
take a while for economic growth to materialize into benefits for the
average person, where as in the Fed's business cycle it is a long,
drawn-out, painful recovery for the average person.
>> So whatever your beliefs that the free market economy is
>> self-regulating don't forget about the Fed's not-so-invisible hand… ;)
>
>Oh, don't worry, I haven't forgotten. If you recall, I pointed out that
>the Fed was responsible for the Great Depression, or have you forgotten
>that?
They don't have the same policies they had back then... During the
1987(?) stock market crash the Fed expanding the money supply to avoid
the same problems the 1929 market crash caused.
>And I've argued, in print many times, that the Fed should be abolished
>and replaced by a competitive system of money production. Howzat for
>"economic fundamentalism"?
I read that the Fed, during the early 80s recession, actually adopted
the monetary policies of this famous, gold-bug-like economist who
believed the money supply should be tied to something or other… (It
was a while ago…) Maybe you know who I'm talking about? (I think you
should. I can look it up…) In any case, in the book I read the Fed
technocrats only adopted the policy as a pretense to run the economy
into a brick wall to kill inflation…
>>>Can you cite me some textual evidence for that claim? Find me
>>>something that a major conservative thinker or politician has said
>>>where he or she says that other people have to lose to give their
>>>winning meaning. Or where they find it unacceptable that "lower"
>>>people are living comfortable lives. I want a textual citation. I
>>>have, and do, read a lot of conservative and libertarian intellectual
>>>and political articles, books, and websites, and have never seen such
>>>an argument. I know many conservatives and libertarians personally
>>>and have never heard one say anything like that, even drunk. chapter
>>>and verse please.
>>
>> That's just my impression. People don't tend to talk about things like
>> that in any case, however much it may influence their behaviour.
>
>"That's just my impression." You know, I should just stop here because
>that sentence nicely sums up most of what you've been arguing. Not much
>in the way of data or actual evidence, but lots of impressions about
>history and the motives of the people you disagree with. Sad, really.
That people want animal power over other people is sad, really.
>>>> I also consider myself a libertarian, basically. I believe people
>>>> should have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't
>>>> directly infringe on other people's rights. But how can people be
>>>> free if they are a slave to their economical position? (That's the
>>>> whole point, isn't it?)
>>>
>>>I suggest you do some reading. Tell me which rights are infringed
>>>upon when I hire someone at $3.50/hour.
>>
>> If you hire someone in a third-world country for $3.50/hour that would
>> be a good thing. Wages like that for unskilled labor would put more
>> money in people's pockets and have a multiplying effect in their
>> economies.
>
>And what if I did it in the good ol USA or good ol Canada?
"Rots of ruck"...
Mike Smith
>
> Bullshit. I've read books by people a lot more informed than you.
Upon what basis do you determine how well-informed the Prof is? Do you
have a list of all the books he's read and what courses he's taken? Did
you give him a quiz or something? You're pretty fucking arrogant,
aren't you?
> Let's not forget your right-wing economic ideas are not scientific
> fact. Not to mention widely accepted So you're credentials, whatever
> they are, don't mean anything in the end.
By analogy, Rush sucks because they aren't wildly popular. Porsches
suck because only a few people have them. Popularity as a standard of
quality? C'mon, you can do better than that.
> If all the major media access your web page and report that you've
> found all the answers as to how the economy should be run then I'll
> acknowledge you're right.
Yeah, 'cause those media people are *so* wise and good.
>>>The market doesn't determine
>>>interest rates, the technocrats at the US Fed do.
>>
>>Wrong. They both matter. The Fed has some discretion, but is highly
>>constrained by market conditions. It can't pick "whatever" interest
>>rate it wants to, as you suggest it can.
>
> Like I said before, the Fed sets interest rates according to
> inflationary pressure. The target is between 1 and 3% inflation and
> they have to guess the momentum of the economy. If inflation is high
> they raise the interest rates; if the economy is under-performing they
> lower them - which is happening presently...
>
> Anyone who reads the news knows this... Intrepet it however you
> want...
You realize that you two are in what I've heard called "violent
agreement" here. You're saying the same thing he is, but you're
vehemently disagreeing - just *because*, I guess. The idea that you
might agree on something would make your head explode.
> But like I also said, the Fed has taken on the goal of eliminating the
> business cycle since the early eighties. Anyone who knows anything
> about economics knows this. And the fact is the Fed has produced the
> longest runs of economic growth in the later 80s and 90s since the
> post-war era.
Uh, huh. Let's see if they can keep it going, maybe by imposing
*negative* interest rates?
> That people want animal power over other people is sad, really.
Yes, it is. And it may be true of your favorite "neo-cons", but
libertarians aren't really all that interested in it.
--
Mike Smith
AhBartlebyAhHumanity
<mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>AhBartlebyAhHumanity wrote:
>>
>> Bullshit. I've read books by people a lot more informed than you.
>
>Upon what basis do you determine how well-informed the Prof is? Do you
>have a list of all the books he's read and what courses he's taken? Did
>you give him a quiz or something? You're pretty fucking arrogant,
>aren't you?
I think it's pretty arrogant to bring up the whole degree and
credentials bullshit. An argument should be based on facts not
authority.
>> Let's not forget your right-wing economic ideas are not scientific
>> fact. Not to mention widely accepted So you're credentials, whatever
>> they are, don't mean anything in the end.
>
>By analogy, Rush sucks because they aren't wildly popular. Porsches
>suck because only a few people have them. Popularity as a standard of
>quality? C'mon, you can do better than that.
There is no standard of quality. It's all political opinion. Maybe an
extreme position on the left or right is really true and society
doesn't know it. But if a government ever tried such a position it
could make a huge mess, which is why responsible governments tend to
take the middle road (IMO).
>> If all the major media access your web page and report that you've
>> found all the answers as to how the economy should be run then I'll
>> acknowledge you're right.
>
>Yeah, 'cause those media people are *so* wise and good.
Sorry, but if you have a political/economic idea you have to sell it,
otherwise it doesn't have much worth. Fact is, there are a million
ideas out there... How is one supposed to compare? Is everyone to get
a PhD in economics to read the newspaper? That wouldn't make any
difference, in any case, considering economists have diametrically
opposing ideas, dependind on where they are on the political spectrum.
>>>>The market doesn't determine
>>>>interest rates, the technocrats at the US Fed do.
>>>
>>>Wrong. They both matter. The Fed has some discretion, but is highly
>>>constrained by market conditions. It can't pick "whatever" interest
>>>rate it wants to, as you suggest it can.
>>
>> Like I said before, the Fed sets interest rates according to
>> inflationary pressure. The target is between 1 and 3% inflation and
>> they have to guess the momentum of the economy. If inflation is high
>> they raise the interest rates; if the economy is under-performing they
>> lower them - which is happening presently...
>>
>> Anyone who reads the news knows this... Intrepet it however you
>> want...
>
>You realize that you two are in what I've heard called "violent
>agreement" here. You're saying the same thing he is, but you're
>vehemently disagreeing - just *because*, I guess. The idea that you
>might agree on something would make your head explode.
>
>> But like I also said, the Fed has taken on the goal of eliminating the
>> business cycle since the early eighties. Anyone who knows anything
>> about economics knows this. And the fact is the Fed has produced the
>> longest runs of economic growth in the later 80s and 90s since the
>> post-war era.
>
>Uh, huh. Let's see if they can keep it going, maybe by imposing
>*negative* interest rates?
Good point. If the US economy goes into deflation there's not much the
Fed can do about that. I believe that problem has plagued Japan for
the last 10 years.
Tax-cuts and government spending could help things along. But they
can't be "bullshit" tax-cuts (IMO) where the wealthy receive most of
the money. Fact is, it doesn't matter how much money the wealthy make,
it doesn't affect the economy. They don't add to inflationary pressure
and they don't contribute significantly to economic growth. But if the
average person is spending too much while inflation is up that will
significantly add to inflatioin. And if the average person is spending
when economic growth is low that will significantly influence it.
Although I'm no economist, I think the governments and federal banks
should get together and bring governmental and monetary in line. If
the federal banks could've raised sales taxes to fight inflation, back
during the early 80s and 90s, instead of raising interest rates alone,
that would have meant the government wouldn't have had to go into debt
to pay interest on the debt. It would have been a lot easier on
people, businesses and third world countries.
>> That people want animal power over other people is sad, really.
>
>Yes, it is. And it may be true of your favorite "neo-cons", but
>libertarians aren't really all that interested in it.
All depends on your brand of libertarians. Some believe all people
should be free to do what they want if it doesn't affect the rights of
others, and I count myself among them. Others believe, basically, they
should have the freedom to take away other people's freedom. Reminds
me of Animal Farm, where some animals are more free than others... But
the motivation is the same: animal desire to have power over others.
Mike Smith
>
> I think it's pretty arrogant to bring up the whole degree and
> credentials bullshit. An argument should be based on facts not
> authority.
IIRC, you started it by calling him "uninformed"; i.e. attacking his
credentials rather than his argument.
> Sorry, but if you have a political/economic idea you have to sell it,
> otherwise it doesn't have much worth. Fact is, there are a million
> ideas out there... How is one supposed to compare?
You said it yourself - based on the facts and the argument, not on the
credentials or the popularity. You don't seem to be able to make up
your mind on that subject, though.
>>Yes, it is. And it may be true of your favorite "neo-cons", but
>>libertarians aren't really all that interested in it.
>
> All depends on your brand of libertarians. Some believe all people
> should be free to do what they want if it doesn't affect the rights of
> others, and I count myself among them.
Me, too. Prof, too. I don't know of any libertarians on this group who
*want* power over others, except maybe *you*, actually. I mean, not
that you personally want power over others, but you don't seem to mind
whipping out the government as a solution to problems.
--
Mike Smith
AhBartlebyAhHumanity
<mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>AhBartlebyAhHumanity wrote:
>>
>> I think it's pretty arrogant to bring up the whole degree and
>> credentials bullshit. An argument should be based on facts not
>> authority.
>
>IIRC, you started it by calling him "uninformed"; i.e. attacking his
>credentials rather than his argument.
No, he started with that bullshit. He was saying I was uninformed and
didn't understand economics and went on to say the reason interest
rates got so high was because of inflation not because the fed was
fighting it. Then I countered that he didn't know what he was talking
about. Fact still is the technocrats at the Fed set interest rates,
not the markets. And they set rates to either counter inflation or
stimulate the economy.
>> Sorry, but if you have a political/economic idea you have to sell it,
>> otherwise it doesn't have much worth. Fact is, there are a million
>> ideas out there... How is one supposed to compare?
>
>You said it yourself - based on the facts and the argument, not on the
>credentials or the popularity. You don't seem to be able to make up
>your mind on that subject, though.
Nice little bit of editing... Here's the rest of my quote:
>>Fact is, there are a million ideas out there... How is one supposed
>>to compare? Is everyone to get a PhD in economics to read the
>>newspaper? That wouldn't make any difference, in any case,
>>considering economists have diametrically opposing ideas, depending
>>on where they are on the political spectrum.
I am able to make up my mind. The topic is complex though... (Are you
up to snuff?)
For one, political arguments (which include economics) are based on
both opinions and facts. One can't say they have a degree in economics
and say their position is fact, no more than a person with a degree in
political science can tell you what party to vote for.
It would be wonderful for the whole world if people could come up with
a macroeconomic equation or theory that would make the world a better
place, like Newton or Einstein figuring out physical laws that exist
throughout the entire Universe. But the fact is such economic theories
- and there are a million of them - can't be tested except for to put
them in place in a real economy, which would affect the lives of
millions of people. So instead of concerning myself with a million
economic hypotheses, I'll just read the news, maybe the occasional
book on the subject, just like a good little citizen. And let's face
the facts, a lot of people are out for their own interests and don't
care about the well-being of society.
>>>Yes, it is. And it may be true of your favorite "neo-cons", but
>>>libertarians aren't really all that interested in it.
>>
>> All depends on your brand of libertarians. Some believe all people
>> should be free to do what they want if it doesn't affect the rights of
>> others, and I count myself among them.
>
>Me, too. Prof, too. I don't know of any libertarians on this group who
>*want* power over others, except maybe *you*, actually. I mean, not
>that you personally want power over others, but you don't seem to mind
>whipping out the government as a solution to problems.
How does the government affect you? Do you own a business and have to
fill out forms you don't want to? I find it hard to see how the
government takes away from people's freedom, except with drug laws,
prostitution laws, etc... (morality bullshit)
But as for my point that there are libertarian's who want the freedom
to take away other people's freedom, like in Animal farm where some
animals are more equal than others; "The Professor" wrote in one
message, where says he doesn't believe in minimum wage, that if he
hires someone for $3.50 an hour then it's a deal done between 2
consenting adults. That isn't about freedom and equality; it's about
power in an animal hierarchy.
Laurel
"AhBartlebyAhHumanity" <m...@wlyb.com> wrote in message
news:cp9phvgm39iv10q36...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:36:58 -0400, Mike Smith
> <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>
> >AhBartlebyAhHumanity wrote:
> >>
> >> Bullshit. I've read books by people a lot more informed than you.
> >
> >Upon what basis do you determine how well-informed the Prof is? Do you
> >have a list of all the books he's read and what courses he's taken? Did
> >you give him a quiz or something? You're pretty fucking arrogant,
> >aren't you?
>
> I think it's pretty arrogant to bring up the whole degree and
> credentials bullshit. An argument should be based on facts not
> authority.
This is a classic argument by the unenlightened, under-educated and
combatively egotistical.
Laurel
(wonders how big his mouth would be IRL)
AhBartlebyAhHumanity
LOL... an argument based on authority and not fact is a false
argument... Ever heard of science?
>Laurel
>(wonders how big his mouth would be IRL)
AhBartlebyAhHumanity
(wonders why annoying people write things in parentheses at the end of
their post...)
Max C. Webster, III
> "AhBartlebyAhHumanity" <m...@wlyb.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Smith <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>>
>>> AhBartlebyAhHumanity wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bullshit. I've read books by people a lot more informed than you.
>>>
>>> Upon what basis do you determine how well-informed the Prof is? Do you
>>> have a list of all the books he's read and what courses he's taken? Did
>>> you give him a quiz or something? You're pretty fucking arrogant,
>>> aren't you?
>>
>> I think it's pretty arrogant to bring up the whole degree and
>> credentials bullshit. An argument should be based on facts not
>> authority.
>
> This is a classic argument by the unenlightened, under-educated and
> combatively egotistical.
>
> Laurel
> (wonders how big his mouth would be IRL)
For some reason, size 12, extra wide comes to mind.
- Max -
=======
Do you have this in a wing-tip?
John Shafto
news:folphv8vgafc1eout...@4ax.com...
>
> How does the government affect you? Do you own a business and have to
> fill out forms you don't want to? I find it hard to see how the
> government takes away from people's freedom, except with drug laws,
> prostitution laws, etc... (morality bullshit)
>
> But as for my point that there are libertarian's who want the freedom
> to take away other people's freedom, like in Animal farm where some
> animals are more equal than others; "The Professor" wrote in one
> message, where says he doesn't believe in minimum wage, that if he
> hires someone for $3.50 an hour then it's a deal done between 2
> consenting adults. That isn't about freedom and equality; it's about
> power in an animal hierarchy.
And I suppose you think that "power in an animal hierarchy"
is immoral, and that govt is justified in setting up a much more
powerful hierarchy (because the people who make up or
control govt are assumed not to be the same animals)?
Mike Smith
>
> And I suppose you think that "power in an animal hierarchy"
> is immoral, and that govt is justified in setting up a much more
> powerful hierarchy (because the people who make up or
> control govt are assumed not to be the same animals)?
The people who control the government are far worse - they actively
*seek out* power over other people for its own sake, rather than
unfortunately having it thrust upon them as one of the consequences of
having a lot of money, for instance.
--
Mike Smith
Laurel
"AhBartlebyAhHumanity" <m...@me.me.me.com.not> wrote in message
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:41:22 GMT, "Laurel" <lau...@pandora.be> wrote:
>
> >
> >"AhBartlebyAhHumanity" <m...@wlyb.com> wrote in message
> >news:cp9phvgm39iv10q36...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:36:58 -0400, Mike Smith
> >> <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >AhBartlebyAhHumanity wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Bullshit. I've read books by people a lot more informed than you.
> >> >
> >> >Upon what basis do you determine how well-informed the Prof is? Do
you
> >> >have a list of all the books he's read and what courses he's taken?
Did
> >> >you give him a quiz or something? You're pretty fucking arrogant,
> >> >aren't you?
> >>
> >> I think it's pretty arrogant to bring up the whole degree and
> >> credentials bullshit. An argument should be based on facts not
> >> authority.
> >
> >This is a classic argument by the unenlightened, under-educated and
> >combatively egotistical.
>
> LOL... an argument based on authority and not fact is a false
> argument... Ever heard of science?
Science has nothing to do with anything you've ever dribbled. Your supposed
arguements have, thus far, been straw-men based on nothing more than
speculation and derogatory remarks: Hardly grounds for an impartial proof of
anything.
> >Laurel
> >(wonders how big his mouth would be IRL)
>
> AhBartlebyAhHumanity
> (wonders why annoying people write things in parentheses at the end of
> their post...)
Ooooooooooo. I'll consider myself burned by your scathing remark... but
just on a quark of one of the molecules of a piece of dead skin on the back
of my heel which is just preparing to depart... oh... there it goes.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. thanks for playing little man, now go back to
your sandbox and try your faulty logic on someone of your own intellect.
Laurel
(Man, that was just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy)
The Professor
> <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>
> >AhBartlebyAhHumanity wrote:
> >>
> >> Bullshit. I've read books by people a lot more informed than you.
> >
> >Upon what basis do you determine how well-informed the Prof is? Do you
> >have a list of all the books he's read and what courses he's taken? Did
> >you give him a quiz or something? You're pretty fucking arrogant,
> >aren't you?
>
> I think it's pretty arrogant to bring up the whole degree and
> credentials bullshit. An argument should be based on facts not
> authority.
Yes, yes it should. Too bad you don't have either.
>
> >> Let's not forget your right-wing economic ideas are not scientific
> >> fact. Not to mention widely accepted So you're credentials, whatever
> >> they are, don't mean anything in the end.
> >
> >By analogy, Rush sucks because they aren't wildly popular. Porsches
> >suck because only a few people have them. Popularity as a standard of
> >quality? C'mon, you can do better than that.
>
> There is no standard of quality. It's all political opinion. Maybe an
> extreme position on the left or right is really true and society
> doesn't know it. But if a government ever tried such a position it
> could make a huge mess, which is why responsible governments tend to
> take the middle road (IMO).
Ah yes, compromise and relativism - the last refuge of the
argumentless. Also the labeling of my position as "extreme"... as if
his view of economics isn't. Maybe the middle-of-the-road is the
problem. After all, if you drive in the middle of the road, you get
hit by traffic both ways.
>
> >> If all the major media access your web page and report that you've
> >> found all the answers as to how the economy should be run then I'll
> >> acknowledge you're right.
> >
> >Yeah, 'cause those media people are *so* wise and good.
>
> Sorry, but if you have a political/economic idea you have to sell it,
> otherwise it doesn't have much worth. Fact is, there are a million
> ideas out there... How is one supposed to compare? Is everyone to get
> a PhD in economics to read the newspaper? That wouldn't make any
> difference, in any case, considering economists have diametrically
> opposing ideas, dependind on where they are on the political spectrum.
No, but you should read as much as you can on as many sides as
possible. And yes, some people know more than others. I don't go to
my car mechanic for advice in raising my kids, and people probably
shouldn't go to you for advice on the economy.
>
> Tax-cuts and government spending could help things along. But they
> can't be "bullshit" tax-cuts (IMO) where the wealthy receive most of
> the money. Fact is, it doesn't matter how much money the wealthy make,
> it doesn't affect the economy. They don't add to inflationary pressure
> and they don't contribute significantly to economic growth. But if the
> average person is spending too much while inflation is up that will
> significantly add to inflatioin.
This may be the single most economically illiterate sentence you've
uttered yet. Get this through your head: spending does NOT cause
inflation!!! Inflation happens when the monetary authority produces
too much money. Giving people their tax dollars back, or gov't
spending more of said tax dollars does not cause inflation. Holding
the money supply and the velocity of money (how fast it changes hands)
constant, if I choose to spend more, it must be because I'm saving
less. If I'm saving less, then my bank has less to lend, and thus
someone else is spending less. My spending increase is matched by
their spending decrease. No upward pressure on prices as a whole.
Can you follow that?
>And if the average person is spending
> when economic growth is low that will significantly influence it.
See above please.
>
> Although I'm no economist, I think the governments and federal banks
> should get together and bring governmental and monetary in line. If
> the federal banks could've raised sales taxes to fight inflation, back
> during the early 80s and 90s, instead of raising interest rates alone,
> that would have meant the government wouldn't have had to go into debt
> to pay interest on the debt. It would have been a lot easier on
> people, businesses and third world countries.
Care to explain how raising sales taxes would fight inflation? First
of all, raising sales taxes would add to the price of goods and
services no? :) Second, that price increase would cause a decline
the quantity demanded of those goods, leading, perhaps to more
bankruptcies and business failures. This would be bad for US
businesses, workers, and the third-world countries who buy their
products. I take back what I said about economic illiteracy above.
This beats it.
>
> >> That people want animal power over other people is sad, really.
> >
> >Yes, it is. And it may be true of your favorite "neo-cons", but
> >libertarians aren't really all that interested in it.
>
> All depends on your brand of libertarians. Some believe all people
> should be free to do what they want if it doesn't affect the rights of
> others, and I count myself among them. Others believe, basically, they
> should have the freedom to take away other people's freedom.
Explain to me how allowing capitalist acts between consenting adults
takes away freedoms. Explain to me further how raising taxes, as you
suggest above, does NOT take away my freedom to spend my income as I
wish.
Reminds
> me of Animal Farm, where some animals are more free than others... But
> the motivation is the same: animal desire to have power over others.
Right. Use a book that is one of the best anti-socialist allegories
ever to attack capitalism. Your illiteracy knows no bounds.
The Professor (this was supposed to be my night off)
John Shafto
news:bc452e86.03072...@posting.google.com...
>
> Maybe the middle-of-the-road is the
> problem. After all, if you drive in the middle of the road, you get
> hit by traffic both ways.
I find that often people don't care to look at the map,
and discover WHAT road they happen to be in the
middle of, and where it is taking them.
(I'll take the road that leads to more freedom, thanks)
WhySoGreenAndLonely
How is government bureaucracy more animal-powerful than the right-wing
dystopian ideal? (I assume we're talking about first world nations…)
WhySoGreenAndLonely
Actually I was referring to science as critical thinking in
contradistinction to the authority argument you were espousing… Ever
heard what happened between Galileo and the Church? Who was right?
>> >Laurel
>> >(wonders how big his mouth would be IRL)
>>
>> AhBartlebyAhHumanity
>> (wonders why annoying people write things in parentheses at the end of
>> their post...)
>
>Ooooooooooo. I'll consider myself burned by your scathing remark...
Actually it was just an observation. Just thought I'd share… ;)
>but
>just on a quark of one of the molecules of a piece of dead skin on the back
>of my heel which is just preparing to depart... oh... there it goes.
Is it me, or does that make no sense? Faulty logic?? BTW, molecules
are not made up of quarks they are made up of atoms. Sub-atomic
particles like protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. But it
wouldn't matter if a sub-atomic particle was stuck to your skuzzy
shoe, (if that was possible) they are all the same… (Thank God for the
particle, lol… BTW, if a sub-atomic particle goes for a swim does he
get wet or does the water get him??)
>
>Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. thanks for playing little man, now go back to
>your sandbox and try your faulty logic on someone of your own intellect.
Yeah, too bad you couldn't measure up… ;)
BTW, I think "Faulty Logic" would make for a cool new John Cleese
show. ;)
>Laurel
>(Man, that was just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy)
WhySoGreenAndLonely
(Thinking of some stupid thing to write in parentheses.)
WhySoGreenAndLonely
wrote:
>AhBartlebyAhHumanity <m...@wlyb.com> wrote in message news:<cp9phvgm39iv10q36...@4ax.com>...
>> Sorry, but if you have a political/economic idea you have to sell it,
>> otherwise it doesn't have much worth. Fact is, there are a million
>> ideas out there... How is one supposed to compare? Is everyone to get
>> a PhD in economics to read the newspaper? That wouldn't make any
>> difference, in any case, considering economists have diametrically
>> opposing ideas, dependind on where they are on the political spectrum.
>
>No, but you should read as much as you can on as many sides as
>possible. And yes, some people know more than others. I don't go to
>my car mechanic for advice in raising my kids, and people probably
>shouldn't go to you for advice on the economy.
Sorry, but there's only one way to fix a car and many ideas on how an
economy should be run. But the world is definitely a better place
considering people in power don't go to you for advice on the economy.
(BTW, that's not a cheap shot. I very seriously believe that.)
>> Tax-cuts and government spending could help things along. But they
>> can't be "bullshit" tax-cuts (IMO) where the wealthy receive most of
>> the money. Fact is, it doesn't matter how much money the wealthy make,
>> it doesn't affect the economy. They don't add to inflationary pressure
>> and they don't contribute significantly to economic growth. But if the
>> average person is spending too much while inflation is up that will
>> significantly add to inflatioin.
>
>This may be the single most economically illiterate sentence you've
>uttered yet. Get this through your head: spending does NOT cause
>inflation!!! Inflation happens when the monetary authority produces
>too much money. Giving people their tax dollars back, or gov't
>spending more of said tax dollars does not cause inflation. Holding
>the money supply and the velocity of money (how fast it changes hands)
>constant, if I choose to spend more, it must be because I'm saving
>less. If I'm saving less, then my bank has less to lend, and thus
>someone else is spending less. My spending increase is matched by
>their spending decrease. No upward pressure on prices as a whole.
>Can you follow that?
I follow what you're saying according to your economic belief system.
But the fact is that doesn't describe reality.
For one, the US Federal Reserve doesn't hold the money supply and
velocity constant. Here's what they have to say on the issue:
"1. Some economists have argued that, besides serving as a longer-term
anchor for the price level, tight control over the money stock will
stabilize the economy in the shorter run. To the extent that the
relation between the money stock and the economy is very close, an
overheating of the economy is associated with stronger demand for
money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for money
growth and does not meet that demand, interest rates will rise and
will choke off demand and inflationary pressures. Conversely, a
weakening of the economy is associated with a decreased demand for
money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for money
growth, interest rates will decline and aggregate demand will
increase.
"Most observers, however, have come to believe that the slippage
between the money stock and the economy, at least in the short run, is
sufficiently great that efforts to exert tight control over money may
lead to less, rather than to more, economic stability."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/frspf2.pdf
(page 11 of 16)
Secondly, the amount that people are spending (aggregate demand)
definitely affects inflation.
Here's what the Fed says:
"Lessened demand resulting from higher interest rates and the stronger
dollar tends to reduce production and thereby relieve pressures on
resources. In an economy that is overheating, this relief will curb
inflation." (page 8)
And the reality is properly focused tax cuts or government spending
will increase demand for goods and services, and depending on the
position in the business cycle, this will stimulate economic growth
and possibly increase inflationary pressures. Hence the need for
governments to align their policies with the federal bank.
>>And if the average person is spending
>> when economic growth is low that will significantly influence it.
>
>See above please.
>>
>> Although I'm no economist, I think the governments and federal banks
>> should get together and bring governmental and monetary in line. If
>> the federal banks could've raised sales taxes to fight inflation, back
>> during the early 80s and 90s, instead of raising interest rates alone,
>> that would have meant the government wouldn't have had to go into debt
>> to pay interest on the debt. It would have been a lot easier on
>> people, businesses and third world countries.
>
>Care to explain how raising sales taxes would fight inflation?
My theory is that if there was a floating federal sales tax that the
Fed controlled and people knew how it worked then people would tend to
spend less and save more when inflation is a problem, waiting for
taxes to drop, and spend more when the economy is in recession.
>First
>of all, raising sales taxes would add to the price of goods and
>services no? :)
Yes, I realized that before. But they could remove it from the
calculations. After all, if a sales tax increase reduces demand and
inflationary pressures then it certainly wouldn't be contributing to
inflation.
What about the money people have to spend on interest rates? Is that
factored into the inflation calculation? (Somehow I don't think so.
BTW, that reminds me of comparing the taxes between Canada and the US.
Since health care in Canada is paid with taxes and the American system
isn't that certainly seems to distort the reality.)
>Second, that price increase would cause a decline
>the quantity demanded of those goods, leading, perhaps to more
>bankruptcies and business failures. This would be bad for US
>businesses, workers, and the third-world countries who buy their
>products. I take back what I said about economic illiteracy above.
>This beats it.
When the Fed raises interest rates to combat inflation it leads to
bankruptcies and business failures and is bad for US businesses,
workers, and third world countries. Raising taxes to fight inflation
would actually be less harmful.
The fact is when the Fed raised interest rates to ridiculous levels in
the early 80s and 90s not only did that create a lot of economic
damage directly, but it also nearly bankrupted first world governments
and bankrupted third world governments because of the cost of
servicing their debts. Raising sales taxes would mean governments
making money rather than going into debt to pay interest on their debt
which the taxpayer gets screwed for.
>> >> That people want animal power over other people is sad, really.
>> >
>> >Yes, it is. And it may be true of your favorite "neo-cons", but
>> >libertarians aren't really all that interested in it.
>>
>> All depends on your brand of libertarians. Some believe all people
>> should be free to do what they want if it doesn't affect the rights of
>> others, and I count myself among them. Others believe, basically, they
>> should have the freedom to take away other people's freedom.
>
>Explain to me how allowing capitalist acts between consenting adults
>takes away freedoms.
There are a lot of situations where people have no choice but to
accept a horrible deal. Like your idea that there should be no minimum
wage. If a person's making $3.50 an hour where is he supposed to live?
In a cardboard box?
> Explain to me further how raising taxes, as you
>suggest above, does NOT take away my freedom to spend my income as I
>wish.
No, what I suggested above was governmental policy aligning itself
with federal bank monetary policy to make the most efficient policy.
For example, if the government is trying to increase aggregate demand,
like with the Reagan tax cuts in the early 80s, while the federal bank
is trying to lower it to fight inflation, that only means the federal
bank will have to raise interest rates even higher. But it doesn't
matter whether your money is being taking away to pay higher taxes or
higher interest rates when the Fed is fighting inflation…
>Reminds
>> me of Animal Farm, where some animals are more free than others... But
>> the motivation is the same: animal desire to have power over others.
>
>Right. Use a book that is one of the best anti-socialist allegories
>ever to attack capitalism. Your illiteracy knows no bounds.
Rotfl… For one, George Orwell was no fan of naked capitalism. Second,
the book is about a revolution that comes around full circle where the
tyranny the farm animals ended up with was just as evil and corrupt as
the tyranny they revolted against. Third, the metaphor that the people
in power in an unrestrained capitalist society are the farmers and the
powerless are exploited farm animals is not exactly a glowing
endorsement of right-wing ideals… Fourth, didn't realize you had to
have some kind of authority to reference a metaphor from a book… But
the fact is your right-wing extremist libertarianism is a lot like
communism: in theory everyone is supposed to be free and equal, yet in
the end it turns out some people are more freer than others…
WhySoGreenAndLonely
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>wandering star <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:jlrcgvg4nsmt6cvop...@4ax.com:
>
>> The Fed also created the recession during the early 90s, where
>> inflationary pressures were also created by oil supply shock.
>
>Oil supply shocks don't cause inflation, the Fed does.
Here's what the Fed has to say:
"At times, the economy is faced with adverse supply shocks, such as a
bad agricultural harvest or a disruption in the supply of oil, which
put upward pressure on prices and downward pressure on output and
employment."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/frspf2.pdf
(page 1 of 16)
Who am I going to believe? Them or you?
WhySoGreenAndLonely
(Wonders who this professor character is. Ha, just realized I can be
annoying in parentheses too...)
Laurel
there he goes again!
*PLONK*
L
I'm My Own Best Friend
Bet if I changed my name to "I'm My Own Best Friend" then you'd like
me. :(
Mike Smith
That's the third name change. No, of *course* you're not just a lousy
fucking troll.
--
Mike Smith
The Professor
news:bkk4ivklg7k3j7cm5...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 13:18:39 GMT, The Professor
> <sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>
>>wandering star <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:jlrcgvg4nsmt6cvop...@4ax.com:
>>
>
>>> The Fed also created the recession during the early 90s, where
>>> inflationary pressures were also created by oil supply shock.
>>
>>Oil supply shocks don't cause inflation, the Fed does.
>
> Here's what the Fed has to say:
>
> "At times, the economy is faced with adverse supply shocks, such as a
> bad agricultural harvest or a disruption in the supply of oil, which
> put upward pressure on prices and downward pressure on output and
> employment."
>
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/frspf2.pdf
Yes, those things put "upward pressure on prices," but that "pressure"
can only be successful across the board if the Fed "accommodates" it with
an increase in the money supply. Go look up "monetary accommodation."
Think of it this way: if oil prices and the prices of related goods
rise, households will spend more on those products (assuming their price
elasticity is less than one - which oil is - but you knew that...). But
if households spend more on those products, that means they have LESS to
spend on other goods and services, and the prices of those goods and
services will tend to drop. Thus the increase in prices from the oil
shock are offset by price decreases from the shift of demand from
elsewhere to the energy products. The net effect on the price level is
largely nil.
There *will* be adverse effects on the economy, as the the real scarcity
of oil makes its way through. And if the Fed tries to combat those
adverse effects with an increase in the money supply (which it did in the
mid-70s, you can look it up), you WILL get inflation and you WON'T solve
the problems created by the real increase in the price of oil due to the
shock. You get the worst of both worlds.
Thus you can't get inflation without the Fed accommodating the real side
shock.
> (page 1 of 16)
>
> Who am I going to believe? Them or you?
Right. You should believe the Fed's own publications, which, of course,
have no PR value and shouldn't be read as potentially exaggerating the
Fed's role/effect on the economy to make it seem more important than it
is. I bet you're the first to dismiss, say, Nike's, description of the
things it does, but you'll believe the Fed's hook, line, and sinker.
The Professor (one definition of a troll is someone who switches
screennames on a regular basis)
WhySoGreenAndLonely
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
That's your theory. But the Fed seems to think the economy is more
complicated. Like I pointed out in the other post, the Fed says:
"1. Some economists have argued that, besides serving as a longer-term
anchor for the price level, tight control over the money stock will
stabilize the economy in the shorter run. To the extent that the
relation between the money stock and the economy is very close, an
overheating of the economy is associated with stronger demand for
money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for money
growth and does not meet that demand, interest rates will rise and
will choke off demand and inflationary pressures. Conversely, a
weakening of the economy is associated with a decreased demand for
money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for money
growth, interest rates will decline and aggregate demand will
increase.
"Most observers, however, have come to believe that the slippage
between the money stock and the economy, at least in the short run, is
sufficiently great that efforts to exert tight control over money may
lead to less, rather than to more, economic stability."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/frspf2.pdf
(page 11 of 16)
>> (page 1 of 16)
The Professor
news:vn5civk5majfc5hd7...@4ax.com:
>
> That's your theory. But the Fed seems to think the economy is more
> complicated. Like I pointed out in the other post, the Fed says:
You really don't read well do you? See below.
>
> "1. Some economists have argued that, besides serving as a longer-term
> anchor for the price level, tight control over the money stock will
> stabilize the economy in the shorter run. To the extent that the
> relation between the money stock and the economy is very close, an
> overheating of the economy is associated with stronger demand for
> money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for money
> growth and does not meet that demand, interest rates will rise and
> will choke off demand and inflationary pressures.
I don't disagree with this. In fact, I think the proper monetary policy
is for the money supply to move with the demand to hold it. My point is
that the Fed is not the best institutional arrangement for achieving this
goal, for a variety of reasons.
And...please tell me how your apparent endorsement of the Fed's view here
is consistent with the other things you've said about the Fed raising
sales taxes (which it has no power to do...) and all that?
>Conversely, a
> weakening of the economy is associated with a decreased demand for
> money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for money
> growth, interest rates will decline and aggregate demand will
> increase.
Yes, and that's a problem. Again, the money supply should track the
demand to hold it.
> "Most observers, however, have come to believe that the slippage
> between the money stock and the economy, at least in the short run, is
> sufficiently great that efforts to exert tight control over money may
> lead to less, rather than to more, economic stability."
>
> http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/frspf2.pdf
Fine. You'd have a point if I actually believed the Fed should "tightly
control" the money supply.
The Professor (is that clear enough?)
WhySoGreenAndLonely
<sgho...@aol.comrade> wrote:
>WhySoGreenAndLonely <memememememe...@me.me> wrote in
>news:vn5civk5majfc5hd7...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>
>> That's your theory. But the Fed seems to think the economy is more
>> complicated. Like I pointed out in the other post, the Fed says:
>
>You really don't read well do you? See below.
You really don't write well do you? See below.
>> "1. Some economists have argued that, besides serving as a longer-term
>> anchor for the price level, tight control over the money stock will
>> stabilize the economy in the shorter run. To the extent that the
>> relation between the money stock and the economy is very close, an
>> overheating of the economy is associated with stronger demand for
>> money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for money
>> growth and does not meet that demand, interest rates will rise and
>> will choke off demand and inflationary pressures.
>
>I don't disagree with this. In fact, I think the proper monetary policy
>is for the money supply to move with the demand to hold it. My point is
>that the Fed is not the best institutional arrangement for achieving this
>goal, for a variety of reasons.
Of course you don't disagree with it. That was the point I was making.
(See below.)
>And...please tell me how your apparent endorsement of the Fed's view here
>is consistent with the other things you've said about the Fed raising
>sales taxes (which it has no power to do...) and all that?
I think raising a federal sales tax will stifle aggregate demand and
lowering it will stimulate the economy a lot better than using the
money supply.
After all, interest rates only affect a narrow part of the economy.
But sales taxes affect aggregate demand much more directly, especially
if people knew there was a floating sales tax like they know of the
Fed's floating interest rates.
>>Conversely, a
>> weakening of the economy is associated with a decreased demand for
>> money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for money
>> growth, interest rates will decline and aggregate demand will
>> increase.
>
>Yes, and that's a problem. Again, the money supply should track the
>demand to hold it.
What do you mean it's a problem?!?! The Fed is describing your
monetary policy and you say it's a problem that can be solved by
following your monetary policy?? Please!!
>> "Most observers, however, have come to believe that the slippage
>> between the money stock and the economy, at least in the short run, is
>> sufficiently great that efforts to exert tight control over money may
>> lead to less, rather than to more, economic stability."
>>
>> http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/frspf2.pdf
>
>Fine. You'd have a point if I actually believed the Fed should "tightly
>control" the money supply.
That's bullshit. By all your arguments you said the economy is
self-regulating and supply shocks don't create inflation only the Fed
does because they don't follow a tight control of the money supply
where velocity is constant.
>The Professor (is that clear enough?)
WhySoGreenAndLonely (what are you trying to hide?)
The Professor
news:2p7fivk570pvf3did...@4ax.com:
>>And...please tell me how your apparent endorsement of the Fed's view
>>here is consistent with the other things you've said about the Fed
>>raising sales taxes (which it has no power to do...) and all that?
>
> I think raising a federal sales tax will stifle aggregate demand and
> lowering it will stimulate the economy a lot better than using the
> money supply.
>
> After all, interest rates only affect a narrow part of the economy.
Bahahahaha!!!! Can you say "home mortgages?" Can you say "every fucking
institutional investor in town?" This is just absurd. The total value
of goods/services affected by the interest rate dwarfs a sales tax, esp.
if you imagine exempting certain goods to avoid regressivity. And you
still haven't acknowledged that the Fed has no power to control sales
taxes - nor told me how anyone will actually *know* when it's time to
adjust them (or how much!)
> But sales taxes affect aggregate demand much more directly, especially
> if people knew there was a floating sales tax like they know of the
> Fed's floating interest rates.
Puhlease.
>
>>>Conversely, a
>>> weakening of the economy is associated with a decreased demand for
>>> money. If the Federal Reserve sticks to a predetermined path for
>>> money growth, interest rates will decline and aggregate demand will
>>> increase.
>>
>>Yes, and that's a problem. Again, the money supply should track the
>>demand to hold it.
>
> What do you mean it's a problem?!?! The Fed is describing your
> monetary policy and you say it's a problem that can be solved by
> following your monetary policy?? Please!!
I do NOT believe that Fed should "stick to a predetermined path for money
growth," so the fact that they do in the face of an increase in the
demand for money (technically money's income velocity) is a problem.
>>> "Most observers, however, have come to believe that the slippage
>>> between the money stock and the economy, at least in the short run,
>>> is sufficiently great that efforts to exert tight control over money
>>> may lead to less, rather than to more, economic stability."
>>>
>>> http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/frspf2.pdf
>>
>>Fine. You'd have a point if I actually believed the Fed should
>>"tightly control" the money supply.
>
> That's bullshit. By all your arguments you said the economy is
> self-regulating and supply shocks don't create inflation only the Fed
> does because they don't follow a tight control of the money supply
> where velocity is constant.
No, you are making that up. I said no such thing. I said that inflation
happens when the Fed allows there to be a supply of money in excess of
the demand to hold it. That might happen because MD falls and the Fed
doesn't reduce the money supply, or because the Fed increases the MS
greater than the MD is rising (or flat). Is that clear enough? I DO NOT
BELIEVE IN FRIEDMAN-LIKE GROWTH RULE. Clear enough?
>
>>The Professor (is that clear enough?)
>
> WhySoGreenAndLonely (what are you trying to hide?)
I've now been abundantly clear.
The Professor (I never use all caps except with the "deaf")