Forum Post: The Libertarian Fairy Tale
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 11:11 p.m. EST by puff6962
(4052)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The really sad part is that most Libertarians do not understand what the world was like before the New Deal, before social security....before medicare. They are not familiar with the term, "poor house." They never watched "The Little Racals." They do not understand why so much literature of the preceding one hundred years dealt with a poor child, family, or maiden being saved by a rich prince or patron. There were largely two classes in the Gilded Age, and you didn't want to be one of them.
Can you estimate how long you will live, how much you will have to save, or whether your investments will be stable and the funds available when you're elderly? Have you ever attempted to get private insurance on your own? Imagine being 67 with a history of diabetes.....get real. The number one cause of bankruptcies continues to be medical bills. Can you imagine what would happen to a generation of older Americans if medicare were not available? What would the older uninsured do when they had a heart attack? Their entire estate would have to be liquidated and Libertarian vultures would develop a cottage industry of picking through their assets in the name of freedom and capitalism. Yippee!
Like all Utopian delusions, Libertarianism is a fairy tale. It should be retitled, "Corporate Anarchism" or "Corporate Fascism." It is not a workable governmental philosophy. It has no precedent in the history of mankind to which it can point and make it's case. It ignores any confounding realities. It is a lie told by gullible cranks who desire to sound intelligent by proposing an unworkable system. Unfortunately, there are those dumb enough to listen.
I was once a Libertarian because I believe that freedom is a central value worth dying for as did the early patriots of our nation. What I learned over time is that the TRUE Libertarians of the French revolution said " Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Meaning that freedom, liberty is NOT enough. It must be complemented with equality and fraternity or what in America became "Justice for ALL" Liberty without justice is never going to form a more perfect union or any other kind of union. Liberty alone will never help us " Crown our good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea". We do want liberty for the individual but it must be balanced with an embrace of our neighbors and a sense of common-union or community. This makes a nation not a mob. So, I am now a Libertarian Socialist showing that I do still care about liberty but one which has a heart of concern for others. Libertarian Socialism is LIbertarianism with a conscious and concern for one's neighbors. That is the America we want one with liberty AND justice for all.
Amen.
I am an old-school liberal, by the way, and we agree completely.
What in effect this translates to is Liberty tempered with Wisdom. It is a movement toward the highest ideals exemplified in the lives of Buddha, Jesus,Francis of Assisi and Gandhi.Cain's question is still reverberating through our lives, the answer to which is Yes and NO. Yes = the good Samaritan. No=I am not responsible for the choices and decisions of anyone. If he falls by the wayside see Yes.
If anyone thinks these are Utopian ideas study the lives mentioned above. The hype notwithstanding about these individuals , they were human and displayed qualities well within the abilities of all humankind.
It is only through the belief in the innate goodness in ourselves that we can ever hope to create a sane world. There is no other way.
Isn't a Libertarian socialist still a Libertarian?
BlueRose, actually a Libertarian Socialist is the much older classical kind of Libertarian as it was always called in Europe. American Libertarianism is usually only concerned with individual liberty whereas LIbertarian Socialism is VERY concerned with that but also concerned with two more things: equality before the law for all and fraternity or brotherhood. In other words it much wants each individual to speak and act freely and abhors top down dictatorships or tyranny. However, it has a concern for one's neighbors as well. It is echoed in our Constitution with the desire to form a more perfect union of people not just have a bus station of individuals. We sing, "and Crown her good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea" So we are not JUST about individual liberty but seek to balance that with the needs of our common union or community. We do not want bullies, like huge corporations, to be so free that they can crush our neighbors. So it is a common sense liberty which knows the individual is part of a community and that the community has rights as well and that there is a need for justice and caring for our weakest members. It works like a family of free brothers and sisters not like the Lone Ranger. It seeks not only for us to be free FROM domination by others but also for us all to be free TO succeed. It seeks an equal playing field upon which all can pursue life, liberty and happiness. It does not guarantee happiness but it does seek to establish a just society with equal opportunity. In other words the power of the most powerful must be restrained so that they do not become economic royalty that crush and dominate their fellow citizens. Multi-national corporations are today's royals and they must be restrained if we are to have liberty and justice for all human citizens. That said people should be rewarded for hard effort and work but not to such a large degree that they take that wealth and crush others. The scales of justice must balance liberty, equality and brotherhood. This takes wisdom and demands an educated citizenry. It rejects all tyrants financial as well as aristocratic.
"So, I am now a Libertarian Socialist "...I really like that tag...it makes sense to me.... thanks for the explanation.
[Removed]
It sounds contradicting. If "Libertarian Socialist" mean your individual taking care your neighbors, that's great. However if you think governments have to do that, that's not libertarianism at all. French social democracy created Napoleon. We all should know that.
You are most correct that a bottom up democracy is able to be attacked from without by a group that later establishes a tyranny. This does not make Libertarian socialism bad it makes a tyrant who stops it bad. Libertarian means it is a bottom up movement of the common people not a domination by any king, dictator, or tyrant. Socialism means it votes at a local level to care for its weakest members not to be bullied by its strongest. Think how a family operates. The key is that Libertarianism is bottom up. It abhors all royal domination kings, dukes or the modern multinational corporations which are today's economic royals. They are beating the fuck out of their serfs. They like any king are above the law and justice is tossed out the window. Look at OWS and you see no tyrants and they complain we have no leader. The leader is the principles of liberty and justice. It is a government of freedom and law-committees and all. Just look. It also needs to be defended in the same manner it is established with strong action by the 99%.
How would technology influence Libertarianism?
Technology is just a megaphone. We have improved our methods of communication over the years. Smart people today do not use pony express no matter what their political party. I will say that OWS Libertarian Socialists seems to be much more tech wise than tea party conservative Libertarians.
Yes, we have produce an age of technological giants and intellectual midgets.
Exactly. Libertarianism is based upon individualism at it's heart.
Two thumbs up!!! I was one of those Schiff indoctrinated libertarians not very long ago. Then I learned American history. Not the Rockefeller version either. Suddenly, everything made sense. You progessives weren't so naive after all. It was I who was lead astray.
Right on. Man I wish others would follow suit.
[Removed]
Schiff indoctrinated libertarians?
[Removed]
Who cares about deregulation of corporations and tax breaks for the rich, I get to smoke weed and watch porno!
Libertarians generally have unresolved issues with male adolescence. Might makes right, problems with authority figures, compassion is for wussies, you can't learn anything good in school...
Look in their eyes, and you will usually recognize one of two expressions: 1)That hollow "dumb-look" of a trusting follower 2)The sociopathic right-wing scammer
Recently there is another, younger group: The impassioned conspiracy-nut that is trying to save you from the Liberal-Zionist-Federal Reserve-Bilderberg plot to confiscate your bong and force you to finish the GED.
Amen.
lol, so true
It's good to keep a sense of humor about these things, but the "END THE FED" crowd not only has connections to elites like the Koch brothers, but they also have ties to violence, racism and even domestic terrorism.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/
I'd put the conspiracy theorists, gold standard worshipers, and constitutional minimalists in a different camp. There are reasons to oppose the federal reserve without invoking conspiracy nonsense or Ron Lawl libertarianism.
There are good arguments for reforming the Fed, or at least getting a non-libertarian as the chair (Greenspan and Bernanke are libertarians). "END THE FED", however is an entirely different animal. No left-winger has ever called to abolish central banking, and "END THE FED" makes OWS look like we're a bunch of feather-brained conspiracy nuts who don't know what we're talking about. Or worse.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/
Bernanke thinks Libertarians are nutcases.
Bernanke is perhaps the most level headed person in the country to run the Fed.
We live in very difficult and frightening times and history shows us that this combination breeds scapegoating and demagoguery.
The pendulum of the Fed swings from left to right and right to left. Right now, it is the closest it has been since the early 1960's.
This may not endear me to some on this forum, but I would be weary of any fool who thinks that you can run a modern industrial state without a central bank.
Anyone who cries, "End The Fed," would right now be robbing you of your last bite of food and stealing your firewood if the Fed had not intervened so aggressively in 2008 and 2009.
Imgagine, The Road, by Cormac McCarthy on steroids. That's what it would look like in America if our system of credit suddenly collapsed.
Alternatives
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Fedral Reserve Bank FED
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553
EIR
http://www.larouchepac.org
15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America. Information Clearing House, Grafiken über Einkommens- und Vermögensverteilung in den USA
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25399.htm
http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/?p=11384
http://elboheme.blogspot.com/2010/05/die-wahren-ursachen-der-krise_12.html
End the Fed [Gebundene Ausgabe] Ron Lawl (Autor)
Produktbeschreibungen Pressestimmen "Rarely has a single book not only challenged, but decisively changed my mind. " --Arlo Guthrie
"Everyone must read this book--Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans--all Americans." --Vince Vaughn Kurzbeschreibung In the post-meltdown world, it is irresponsible, ineffective, and ultimately useless to have a serious economic debate without considering and challenging the role of the Federal Reserve.
Most people think of the Fed as an indispensable institution without which the country's economy could not properly function. But in END THE FED, Ron Lawl draws on American history, economics, and fascinating stories from his own long political life to argue that the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional. It is inflating currency today at nearly a Weimar or Zimbabwe level, a practice that threatens to put us into an inflationary depression where $100 bills are worthless. What most people don't realize is that the Fed -- created by the Morgans and Rockefellers at a private club off the coast of Georgia -- is actually working against their own personal interests. Congressman Paul's urgent appeal to all citizens and officials tells us where we went wrong and what we need to do fix America's economic policy for future generations. Alle Produktbeschreibungen
Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country [Taschenbuch] William Greider (Autor)
From Publishers Weekly In this penetrating study of the Federal Reserve Board in the Reagan era, Rolling Stone writer Greider (The Education of David Stockman) views the "Fed" chairman (until recently Paul Volcker) as the "second most powerful" officer of government, the high priest of a temple as mysterious as money itself, its processes unknown to the public and yet to be fully understood by any modern president. Controlling the money supply by secretly buying and selling government bonds and thus affecting interest rates, the Fed can manipulate billions in business profits or losses and millions in worker employment and stock, bond or bank account values, the author explains. Greider's conclusions are startling at times. The Fed, he maintains, could have prevented the 1929 crash. He also asserts the "awkward little secret" that the federal government deliberately induces recessions, usually to bring down inflation and interest rates. A time-consuming but extremely informative read. Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine vergriffene oder nicht verfügbare Ausgabe dieses Titels. From Library Journal The recent retirement of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System seems an appropriate time to look at the man and at the system itself. William R. Neikirk's Volcker ( LJ 10/15/87) brought out the subject's personality, convictions, and modus operandi. Greider ( The Education of David Stockman, LJ 10/15/82) touches on these characteristics, but focuses on the system's influence on world economy. Greider throws much light on how our nation's unelected managers of monetary policy make day-to-day decisions. A very readable narrative, recommended for academic and public libraries. M. Balachandran, Univ. of Illinois Lib., Urbana-Champaign Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine vergriffene oder nicht verfügbare Ausgabe dieses Titels.
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve [Gebundene Ausgabe] G. Edward Griffin (Autor)
Einleitungssatz The secret meeting on Jekyll Island in Georgia at which the Federal Reserve was conceived; the birth of a banking cartel to protect its members from competition; the strategy of how to convince Congress and the public that this cartel was an agency of the United States government. Lesen Sie die erste Seite
http://www.fromthewilderness.com
http://www.larouchepac.org
There's lots of Libertarians who I think mean well (though many are just cynically deploying the ideology knowing full well it can't fly, to get what they want: legalized Robber Barons). But they seem to just short-circuit on basic points of how their system can possibly work. My discussions with them often end up being very circular, because we get to a point where their logic fails, so they short-circuit and reboot, so to speak. Or get personal and bitter. It's pretty bizarre sometimes, it seems sort of cult-like frankly; mind you it could simply be a factor of their age or education or something, I don't know.
I don't think they're dumb. Some of them seem pretty intelligent, but you know, intelligent people have believed all sorts of stupid things in the past, against all logic. Its pretty hard for some people to let go of cherished ideas. At various points in my life I've been all over the political map, these days I consider myself a Keynesian centrist, but you name it, I've probably at least experimented with the idea at one point or another. Even a few rather abhorrent ones .... but the point is, I know its difficult to change and its hard to expect people to change overnight. Especially when we don't recognize whatever virtues and insights they do have.
The easiest thing in the world to sell is that which has never existed.
[Removed]
If libertarians got what they wanted, there wouldn't be enough time for all the above to happen, because the western states would start a civil war squabbling over water rights first, so it doesn't matter anyway.
A lot of libertarians nowadays are just republicans re-branding once the neo-cons tarnished the name, they still just want to de-regulate, but have no interest on letting the states get in the way of any of the fun by making their own regulations, but then they know returning to the "true republic" as conceived by the libertarian faithful isn't possible anyway.
Real libertarians are different. Even though I don't think their pie in the sky political theory would fly, the true states rights people are nice folks, true idealists. But ask them about logistics and they are stumped.
Feel kind of bad for them, since with the tea party and now Occupy, they are soooooo excited and think they might have a chance now-- they don't seem to know that they don't have as many new converts as they thought-- guess they'll find out when RP's margins are the same as last time around
I don't doubt much of what you say, except the parts about the civil war and an impossibility turning more towards a republic. It's already happening anyway, and from what I can tell most of the fighting about it is the feds fighting the states when the states would like to do things differently. Medical marijuana, immigration, healthcare, etc.
Well I hope you are right, though figuring out how to mediate the issues about shared resources is not going to be anything but herculean :) ... And a shift to regional power may be spurred along if those who claim currency collapse is imminent and inevitable are speaking true (economics is not my strongest subject so I can't say either way) though that way will be pretty painful and hopefully we can avoid it or control that landing somehow.
Either way, we are among the billions living the curse of finding themselves living in "interesting times" so we shall see many things changing I believe, and my faith leads me to feel that however rocky the road, we shall come out the other end with a more just society, just as the spiral of history has shown we somehow manage to do even for the many horrors and periods of "backsliding" we do along the way. All I can do is throw in my 2cents and do what my heart tells me is my part in the play, and part of that is to love us all and keep praying we live up to our potential. I am not tied to any one philosophy, I just am unswerving in my devotion to results, where the most men can live the most freely and have the most means to care for their families and their communities.
If I am wrong, and the more just world we end up in looks like a libertarian one (or an anarchist one, or any philosophy I don't agree with for that matter) I will gladly offer my apologies for doubting and buy a round for all the libertarians or whoever in the house. Till then I will keep up the good fight along with all good people, even if for the time being the need to keep up seeking a better way than we have now is the only agreement we can muster.
So here's to life and love and liberty for America and for all the world, however that comes to pass is fine by by me.
When I was 22 I went to blue cross and blue shield to willingly pay them money for health insurance. I was turned down because I had a pre-existing condition, a mild form of epilepsy, that required me to take pills that cost 30 dollars a month. Other than that I am in 100% perfect health. I was going to be paying them a little over a hundred dollars a month. But they told me "no can do."
Our healthcare system is flawed.
I am a doctor and our health care system is immoral. It is a cancer on the entire metaphysical notion of providing health care. It turns caring for our fellow men into a means of making a profit. And, I have nothing against capitalism, the latter has subsumed the former. It has evolved into a system of BENEVOLENT EXTORTION.
I agree whole heartedly with the view the government has no right to police morality or personal choices. But government can and should regulate business. Also, a social safety net is a good thing, but probably works better at a state level, if properly implemented.
I agree as far as the government should only be allowed to break up monopolies when they form which the have done in the past.
[Removed]
What if one state offers social security and you have to move to another?
What if the state you work in stops supporting education.....and your job does not allow you to move?
Here's an idea. How about we start taking care of each other, rather than offloading that responsibility onto an uncaring, faceless technocracy?
Kumbaya my Reagan, Kumbaya.
You seem to have the attitude that if government doesn't do it, no one will.
Read a book by David Kuo titled, "Dangerous Faith" and realize the level of cynicism involved in faith based initiatives.
Also, understand that I come from the premise that we all know too well what too much government can look like. I've been to the DMV too. But, what very few of us have ever seen, is what too little government would mean. The closest I've ever come is in living in the inner city and hearing gunshots on more nights than I didn't.
It is not enough to give an unproven strategy the benefit of the doubt when so much is at stake. The last time this occurred was in 1978 with the creation of supply side economics.
Some good things did happen for a select group of people, but real wages for the average male actually peaked prior to this time and have trended downwards ever since. Yet, some would say that the solution to the ills of unfunded government and a regressive tax structure is.....more tax cuts for the wealthy.
I am wealthy, but I would rather have a better society than a newer car.
I've actually met David, and once knew his wife very well. If he is still with us, he is in a very bad way with a brain tumor. I have personally never supported faith-based initiatives insofar as they are in any way connected with government.
I live in the inner city, but fortunately crime has declined here. You are well aware of the libertarian view that inner city violence is almost completely the result of the war on drugs. It does not take much investigation to discover the horrific violence all over the world based solely on our puritanical imposition of drug prohibition. There are more Mexicans being killed in Mexico than we were losing at the height of the Vietnam war. This is all a result of what I would consider "too much government," especially given the fact that it has led to rampant corruption amongst our officers and agencies, not to mention the pressures from the prison-industrial complex.
Volcker solved stagflation by simply jacking up interest rates. We don't really have that option these days given the public and private debt we are barely able to service. I'm no particular fan of supply-side economics because the math doesn't work. But neither does it for Keynesian alternatives.
Economies and networks have very similar dynamics, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, I believe that durability, robustness, stability and the like are essential for a truly effective monetary system. But as it is now, so long as the fraud of the Fed is allowed to continue, we are pretty much stuck with whatever monetary school might get imposed upon us.
Nassim Taleb said recently that wealth can be described by redundancy. How many cars can you drive? How many houses can you live in? One way or another, the over-redundancy that is squeezing the hell out of regular folks is going to have to give. Income taxes, however, is not the way to go, though, IMO.
[Removed]
Gilded Age do-over, but this time we'll be better people, so it will work out.
Sweet. So what we need is massive, coercive government to force us to be good? That sounds soooo awesome!
Government as a forum to project our values into the public sphere to inspire and incentivize eachother to be good. The New Deal. Ever look up FDR's approval or historical rankings? Lots of people found it to be quite sweet. 40 years of the resulting liberal consensus and a prosperous, just, free society; destroyed by Reaganite neoliberal freemarketism and anti-government propaganda. Congrats on being a tool of the decline.
Sort by aggregate demand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results
Sorry. I can't like the idea of a government ". . .project[ing] our[?] values. . ." etc. Whether I agree with those values or not.
Because chances are, I won't. And I won't be alone.
And yet I want everyone to be able to express their values and advocate ones view of what is good. And to disagree with mine.
But to force people into a mold of a consensus of what is "good," and to force them to pay to support that which they fundamentally disagree. . .Well, as Shatner would say,
"I can't get behind that."
Fortunately, it only requires that most of us can.
Sooooo. . . screw the Bill of Rights?
Nah, just embrace the social contract. Some small liberty must be sacrificed (i.e. taxation, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, etc) for the privilege of having the greater part protected by the state; the calculation being that all have a fuller expression of our natural rights than we would in a state of nature - where real violence against our right to life, liberty, and property is a constant threat.
Do you think the founders meant the bill of rights to somehow prevent taxation?
Thank you. Well said, wish I could give that 10 thumbs up.
I actually do think that was their plan. I remember reading something about the Stamp Act, and that it took a Constitutional Amendment to legitimize the income tax.
Only tax I ever found that was anything close to fair was a transaction tax replacing all others and with no exemptions whatsoever.
Closest would be the APT tax, http://apttax.com/faq.php#pie
There are about $4 quadrillion in transactions in USD every year (that we can count). Half a percent on every transaction would therefore yield as much as $20 trillion. Enough to pay for government at its current size at all levels, with plenty of surplus to pay down debt. Not coercive, anonymous, and a tax base hundreds of times larger than the tiny slice of GDP from which taxes are drawn now.
Have you ever reviewed this analysis, prepared by a fellow OWSer?
http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Taxation is not just about revenue, but about tackling inequality in the process. Inequality is the root of many, many social ills.
Like instability and the financial crisis:
http://www.thenation.com/article/36891/right-prescription-ailing-economy
And health and well-being:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
So, the lack of a really progressive nature would make me leary of APT. I did read the NYT piece on it, and as just a revenue stream, it is interesting.
Here's where I got my numbers. You want the download that has country tables, and look at the US tab.
http://www.bis.org/list/cpss/index.htm
It doesn't take long perusing that sheet to realize that the "value of payments" is many multiples amongst the largest players, and that measly checks, CC, debit sorts of everyday transactions are a pittance. Thus, massive progressivity, especially on many, many transactions that are currently tax-free, like forex/equities/bond transactions, and massive interbank transfers that I suspect is a function of very high leveraging for big market plays. The corporations always dress up their balance sheets in a posed, quarterly snapshots, but those intermittent, static scorings do not show the reality of the situation, which of late has been massive volatility, which is never good for those who like to plan ahead, and that there is no downside for.
To answer you quickly, I was intrigued so I dug deeper. Turns out that apt ends up being very progressive, because those with the most end up transacting (investing, speculating, spending) multiples of what they earn in a year. Think of all the trading that is suddenly captured. I end up being against the Tobin/Robin Hood tax because it does nothing to dismantle the current, unfair system.
I've seen the Richard Wilkinson. I'll look at the rest and report back.
edit:
The Brian Rogel is full of good stuff. The data seem fine, and kudos for the visualizingeconomics graphs. Fortunately it is short on suggestions for fixes, because, like you said, I think I'd likely be turned off.
Nation article and Brian seem to agree that raising top marginal rates is the ticket, and maybe capital gains tax increase, or a financial services transaction tax.
I'd be more supportive of such stuff if it meant dismantling the income tax regime, and the supreme bubble-blowing power of the federal reserve/federal deficit spending. Brian, I believe, gives too much import to taxes as being able to solve deeper economic issues.
Rather than try to tweak a failed system, I'd prefer to democratize banking powers, or at least re-instituting Glass-Steagal. Globalism has destroyed us, yet where is the disincentive to move capital abroad, and where is the incentive to repatriate it?
I still don't understand why we would want to tax incomes, because what we tax we get less of. What is so terrible about income that we have to tax it? IRS sets my 4th amendment alarms off.
I did read that it's supposedly progressive, because of the volume of transactions at the top. I'm just having a hard time seeing it, i.e. compared to high top marginal tax rates or a 25% capital gains rate...
I'd like to read an economist like Krugman on APT. So many of these tax proposals end up being regressive, so I would have to see a trustworthy analysis to be convinced - and it sounds like any analysis that convinced me would probably turn you off. :)
[Removed]
Massive coercive corporations do that now.
I take it, that's your preference?
Sarcasm. We'll get such better rulers this time around, you think? And that will be the case, why? Because the personages fronting big daddy government will be so much more popular this time around?
Congrats on being a tool of the decline, not to mention a tool of the totalitarians. I apologize for not being so ready to abandon such fundamental precepts as to believe in a form of government formed to preserve my rights, rather than sell them off to the highest bidder in full defiance of our founding documents.
So you're saying it's OK by you, if corporations coerce we small people?
They do it everyday.
I have no idea if we'll get better leaders next time around.
Frankly, as I've said before. I'm sick and tired of "leaders", I would prefer to have a representative back.
Tool of what decline? You don't know me.
I'm retired and worked for over 40 years.
I for one, want an end to all coercion. The corporate stuff in particular, as they coerce everything they can including our government.
Get the money out first and lets see what we have left to work with.
OccupyWallstreet.
I'm good with getting the money out first and then see where we are. I think corporations are evil by nature, so you won't find me supporting those.
I'm not really all that OK even with a representative, but lets get the money out, and see how they do.
Agreed.
This is the best response I have heard so far socialism should be a product of the people and stay in the peoples hands. State run socialism is and can be a bureaucratic nightmare no this has to be a do it your self deal. OWS is a key example of the type of people socialism that can work.
My wife needs a CAT scan on her back.
Can you help us out?
Sure. I can help a little.
Maybe people could get a job instead of whining that they have no money.
If the state stops supporting education do I get to keep the 75% of my property tax that goes to the public schools?
If you refund the amount that was spent on yours, then YES.
None would be spent since they stopped supporting it.
They really should have supported your education a little more.
I was not the one that suggested they stop supporting it that was someone else. I just asked the question If they stop supporting it do I get to keep the money they currently take.
Yes. But you would have to pay private tuition for your kid's education and that is a little pricey.
Actually private school cost less per pupil than public school. At least in NJ.
Not where I live.
Did you really check?
In most states private school is cheaper per pupil than what is spent on public schools per pupil.
What we need are school vouchers. Then I could send my kid to any school and use a voucher to pay the bill.
And then people who benefit from an educated populace could lower their taxes. Why would you have children?
I would be curious to learn the source for your numbers. Please forward the study to me.
So now I have to do research for you? You can use google.
I will tell you this.
The National Catholic Educational Association reports that the mean tuition for parish elementary schools is between $2,607 and $6,906.
The avereage per pupil spending for US public schools is about $10,000 per student and some states like NJ the average is over $15,000.
You're comparing tuition (likely subsidized) for Catholic elementary school to K-12 public education costs? Hardly apples to apples.
People already do decide where to live based on school systems.
People who value the cosmopolitan atmosphere of New York won't go live in North Dakota or Oklahoma or Idaho.
People who like the wide open spaces and gun rights won't come live in New York.
People who want textbooks & history re-written to conform to New Evangelical Christian theology & Confederate revisionism move to Texas.
Schools are, for the most part, still a local matter. Lots of stuff promulgated by the Fed Dept of Ed does more harm than good. No Child Left Behind, anyone?
Pell Grants & NDSL are probably the best thing they've ever done.
The America that you describe will not be a United States of America for long.
Ready to fight another civil war are ye?
Do you have any doubts that if America was divided in its politics along geographic margins (all the reds lived here, all the blues lived there) that we would be the United States of America at this current juncture?
You can already see the divide be geography, by city/rural, by color.....but, if it were a very strict divide, would the Northeastern United States have any philosophical overlap with the South? Would California want to be associated with Texas?
If you read about the Nullification Crisis of 1832.....and the lead up to the Civil War......you see the same dynamic of propaganda driving ideology driving opinions driving propaganda.......The cycle will continue to build.
Where there is certainty, there is violence. And, what bothers me most about conservatives, evangelicals, and libertarians is their CERTAINTY!
If this trend is not countered, you will....in your lifetime....see violence breeding violence. At that point, you will have to make a choice, just as every southern gentleman did in 1861. Will it be Civil War? I do not know. But, it will not be the United States of America.
Well, I perhaps have a better view of people in general. We've been corralled into these false blue/red camps and become agitated with the cognitive dissonance this creates. The two parties seem scientifically designed to split us exactly in two. The TV and the politicians and newspapers are full of highly charged issues that are largely irrelevant, compared to the rampant fraud and corruption that is going largely unreported. I think if we can move away from the competitive sports mentality we'll slip back into the love and mutual respect that I see all the time in day to day interactions. The primary anger I see is not with other people, but with the apparently untouchable corporatism and over-bearing government.
Just remember my post when you are older. In fact, print it now so that someday you can say that someone did predict all that would occur.
Well, with such vociferous lefty propaganda as you spread, I truly do hope that love will overcome. Call me a sap, but I think people prefer peace to conflict.
People react to fear, not love. They don't teach you that in Sunday school, but it's true. Richard Nixon
Exactly. You have been doing your level best, so far as I can tell, to try to scare off those who love their lives, their fellow human beings, and feel the government is more an agency of fear than it could ever be of love. Then you fear-monger that decentralizing power will mean bloody civil war. That you are aware that fear is a much cheaper method to shepherd your herd does not in and of itself equate to anything other than that. Scaring people into line. Well, I guess I don't scare that easy, and prefer the gentler persuasion that I believe may have a more lasting and meaningful impact on folks. Fear is the most powerful motivator, but it shuts down the mind, and I don't have much patience for mindlessness myself.
Some Fairy Tales become Horror Stories.
If you met a young starving artist named Adolf in a Vienna cafe, circa 1910, what would you do?
You must look at the world based upon the A to Z ramifications, not the A to B Fairy Tale.
I am convinced of the outcome of libertarian philosophy based upon the makeup of those powerful individuals and organizations who advocate it. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the rest of you are just the proletariat.
I'm no Koch supporter, and not a member of L party. Not sure how you worked Hitler in, but boy you sure did. I advocate decentralization of power as defense against totalitarianism. How do you propose?
"The Separation of Powers as elucidated within the US Constitution."
So 9th and 10th Amendment thumbs up?
War and Money powers in Congress' lap?
Signing statements and executive orders trashbinwise?
Love it! Any chance 17th Amendment could be shtcanned?
The Separation of Powers as elucidated within the US Constitution.
In previous centuries "Libertarianism", or its predecessors, compensated for a flawed belief in absolute property by having a frontier, with capital sort of free for the taking. People could homestead and make a living from the earth, with a few tiny asterisks about fighting to banish some native Americans. Now as I understand, in practice, what that meant was that some people went out and busted their humps trying to get farms started, only to find out that some land office had opened in the East and sold the deed to their property to a speculator, and George Washington was on the way with a drafted army to drive them off their land (with the new forts making his own huge private holdings abruptly more valuable). A show like "Gold Rush" suggests things haven't really changed all that much in a few remote places where frontiers still exist in some sense; those doing the work still end up being cheated in the end, while those holding the paper make a fortune. But at least the system offered the poor a hamster wheel of hope.
The crucial realization for the proper implementation of libertarianism, anarchism, or any other proposed ideology of freedom is to recognize that no ideal system can exist unless it recognizes all possible human rights - and among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can have a system with little or no government in which people have not accepted the right of one person to control tens of thousands of acres or to exercise arbitrary power over thousands of employees, but you cannot have such a system, except in empty words, if people can be placed in a situation where they have no legal means to survive.
We live in a modern industrial state. How can you apply such arguments that have no application to our current world? You sound like some Sarah Palin reality television show.
I was speaking about the antiquated mindset of the Libertarian Party. Nonetheless, I think that it is well past time to re-run some thought experiments using simple, model systems in order to test candidate rules of the economic game. For example, I think of Libertarianism as a passable philosophy for ten people who wash up on a desert island, but when the eleventh is held at gunpoint at the water's edge because all the land is private property, it loses its luster. We need some way to formally recognize the essential need for the upper class to relax its grip on capital and allow everyone a fair chance to make a living. That is true no matter whether we are speaking of farmers or nanotech engineers.
the upper class only relinquishes its capital when the heads are in the basket. hello mr billionaire you look like you have more money than you can carry, would you like to share your load? hehehehehehahahaha show this man to the poverty line james..how on earth do they keep rising above it.
Good points, sorry I misinterpreted.
No need to apologize - I don't always have the benefit of someone telling me when I'm being unclear. ;)
The term libertarian originally referred to the voluntary non-statist type of socialism ( think of the early healthcare proposals for a public option, medicare for all and healthcare cooperatives ) as opposed to the state version of socialism ( Stalin, Lenin etc.) Noam Chomsky identifies as a libertarian AND a socialist. In Europe and most of the world the term libertarian means this voluntaryist form of socialism. It has come to take on a very different meaning in large part because of the Koch brothers founded Cato Institute. I myself am a libertarian socialist like many people ( minarcho-syndicalist) however I know a lot of conservative libertarians and U.S. Libertarian Party members. They are not the way you think and nothing like the Tea Party ( the Libertarian Party platform is pro-choice and pro-immigrant, the Tea Party is much more similar to the Constitution Party). Even the really conservative ones do not think social programs should be cut right now but phased out over a long time (presumably when there is less corporate welfare and more small businesses and self employment) or turned in to programs where participation is voluntary. They like to talk a lot about ideas that are pretty utopian and radical but in practice they are much more liberal than Republicans . In the past the basic idea was that libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative but now that the social issues ( the wars overseas, the drug wars, the prison system...) ARE economic issues there is much more common ground with liberals. If you give them a chance, ignore everything you hear about them on Fox News and tune them out a little when they talk about philosophy you might find a lot of common ground with them on the wars, police brutality, the Fed, the Patriot Act and many others issues.
Ideologies are always implemented by pragmatists and soon it is the pragmatists who control the movement and bend it to their ends. In this case, the pragmatists are the Koch brothers and some other nutty billionaires.....you will either bend to their version of their movement or you will be disenfranchised and cast your lot with someone else.
Libertarians tend to be individualists, and not easily led. I haven't been able to suffer much of the big L Libertarian stuff. Perhaps it was the Koch influence that turned me off (although I don't think I knew anything about them at the time).
They are the Lenin and Trotsky of the entire movement.....plus it's underwriter.
The odd paradox is that the Koch's father was an engineer whose ideas were not adopted here......so he took his refinery ideas to the Soviet Union in the 1930's. So, you could say that communism is the grandfather of libertarianism.
I could say that, but I wouldn't. You can try to cast everyone that holds libertarian views into a monolithic herd blindly following some supposed leaders, but it would be disingenuous.
Cult members do not usually see themselves a members of a cult.
Says a member of a cult? Have you honestly witnessed anything cult-like in my comments? To me, you seem like a PC enforcer where anyone not agreeing with your rather extreme characterizations must be punished with your sharp toys.
No, I just don't suffer fools. If you have a serious point based upon solid reasoning, I am very happy to say good point. Unfortunately, I have simply read too many Libertarian wet dreams to be patient.
No patience, yet you'll hang out and relentlessly dish out over-generalizations, accuse folks of racism, and being cult members. I like it when you have something to add, but this sort of crap wastes everyone's time. Not a cult member, dude. You can call off the dogs.
Ideologies are always implemented by pragmatists and soon it is the pragmatists who control the movement and bend it to their ends. In this case, the pragmatists are the Koch brothers and some other nutty billionaires.....you will either bend to their version of their movement or you will be disenfranchised and cast your lot with someone else.
I think libertarian thought lends itself to manipulation being rather open-ended and utopian . It has served the Koch brothers well and enabled them to create a market for oil commodities (which they pretty much invented). The language of libertarianism has been well used to rebrand the Constitution Party and nativism ( Tom Tancredo) as the Tea party ( also Koch funded). But when you are talking with an actual libertarian individual ask them when they think all the social programs ( what they call a "nanny state") should be cut and what must happen first. They will probably give you a long answer about something that will happen 50 years from now after they create a free market by cutting corporate welfare. What that means is that if you can get past the philosophy you could spend the next 50 years working on ending corporate welfare together as well as all the socially liberal ideas they usually like. Then ask them if social programs should be kept and made voluntary in this imaginary future. Many will answer yes. As an idealogy it is dangerous ( at least in the American version) but as individual people a lot of them are OK. They kept turning out to antiwar rallies after the election when a lot of Democrats thought things were going to be fine. Ih nothing else you can count on them as individual people for anything you organize related to ending the wars.
The most useful ideology is a vague one.
Useful to whom? Sadly whoever has the most money to put it to use. As the Koch brothers fund most of the sources of U.S. libertarian commentary ( Reason magazine and Cato) they have a lot of say in what the term means and how the people using it define themselves. Still, people are not stupid, a lot of them work out some sort of minarchist compromise that isn't too extreme and most of the people who like the concept of liberty enough to slap the libertarian label on themselves have some core values down in there that are pretty decent. Yes, they can be exhausting. But if you invite them to an antiwar rally or anything related to auditing/ending the Fed they will show up with enthusiasm while many mainstream Democrats will stay at home hoping things will just work out.
I'm sorry for being vague. When I respond on the thread, I am jumping around and I forget that people don't see what I've just posted. The most useful ideology is one that is filled with platitudes and slogans with the details only to be worked out much later. That leaves ample room for men like the Koch's to bend the movement to their ends when the appropriate time has come. Remember, that communism was not immediately adopted in Russia following the 1917 revolution. It took a lot of speeches about a workers' paradise and endless arm twisting before the movement triumphed over it competitors. Then it took slogans and more speeches, with the appearance of participation by the masses, and a little help from Herbert Hoover (look that one up) before it took hold. Only after it was firmly in power did the great abuses begin.
The key to a movement is to find a message that can resonate to the extent that it drowns out all naysayers. You can only do that if, like the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, you stay vague.
wow ! that was incredibly well put . puff6962 i loved the literary and historic references . it's so rare to find someone that educated thats not propagandized
Gracias.
The new Libertarians, the ones who have never even voted before, are particularly obnoxious. They think rights come from owning property, everyone else is screwed. They want a purer capitalism, less taxes for those who asses they kiss, no regulations on business practices that damage environment and are harmful to workers. They think they are country club elite! Shut up and sit down, you are 99% too, which means you are getting royally screwed too, you just don't know it.
The Libertarian-ism of the right leads to neo-feudalism. Remember Ronald Raygun's "shining city on a hill?" That was a feudal lords dream and were now living in it.
Reagan was hardly a libertarian.
He might not have been by today's definition, but he certainly would agree more with most Libertarians on economic policy then with any so called Liberal.
Surely however his continuation of the war on drugs, his replacing striking air controllers, involvement in Nicaragua, all of the proxy wars directly oppose libertarianism.
Nice piece.
Yup it's true. The fed was created for a reason, to protect individual banks from failing. This benefited the rich as well as the middle class because it gave people confidence in the banking system. The people would fell safe putting their money in and the banks would have money to lend out and make a profit on the interest. The FDIC was invented as part of the new deal to insure individual deposits. The problem we have now is the merger of wall street and retail banks that puts the people on the hook for speculative gambling losses by the investment wings of banks and insurance companies.
All I can say is don't be so dependent on the gov't. They will turn their backs on you in a heartbeat. We must depend on each other. I don't agree with this post. I'm a Libertarian and I lost my job, had to file bankruptcy because of high medical bills and the threat of foreclosure on my home, and half my retirement fund was lost. I, like you, am mad as hell!!! The current system is no longer working. Scary days are approaching. One day in the not-too-distant future, you are going to realize that the most valuable asset we have is our freedom. Keep gov't out of our lives, become self-sufficient, and when the shit hits the fan, you'll be glad you did.
Now, let's play with the if's of your experiences. If you had had an effective government regulating financial hubris, then you probably would not have had the financial excesses that let to the current disaster. You would likely still have your job and your home would be safe. If you had a single payor (public or privately administrated, but government funded) then your medical bills would not have sacked you and you would not have had to declare bankruptcy. If you say that having an effective government means ending your freedoms, then you've gone down the road of a paradox. Canadians skated through the economic calamity of 2008-2009 and, the last time I checked, they were pretty free. Remember, too, that bankruptcy laws were changed by the Republican house and senate five years ago, and....if they had got their full wish list....you wouldn't have had even the option of bankruptcy. Don't get mad. Do what you have to for your family, read "The Big Con" by Jonathan Chait, and discover all of the things that must be done to get us back on the road that was America.
Government was regulating the financial hubris. That is the problem.
Thanks, I'll definitely look into "The Big Con".
So basically you are saying, we should be happy with what few crumbs we get in this system and stop complaining about the unfairness happening in our leaders.
No. Absolutely not. I think you should read, The Conscience of a Liberal, by Paul Krugman and identify how the world has changed and what we do indeed need to change so that it is better.
The Libertarian ideal is a free market in which companies can compete efficiently, bringing better products to market and thereby creating more jobs. However, competition doesn't sustain itself. When companies compete, one invariably wins. Once a company dominates its market, it out-prices or buys out any upcoming competition, and keeps innovation within its own interest. Competition just doesn't compete.
Libertarianism appeals to people because it assumes we live in a free-market political system, in which like-minded people could vote to protect their interests easily enough if the system were neutral and not corrupted by monied and other interests. It doesn't imagine that in democracy as in markets, there are winners and losers and that the middle class has just woken up to the fact that it has lost; the financial interests have created a 'corporate state' that serves and protects them.
Considering that, have we thought through how we are really going to break this system through peaceful protest? Or are we running on faith that it's just going to happen? Are consensus decisions and expressing discontent without demands really going to work? Maybe the Libertarians aren't the only ones lost in fairy tales.
Libertarianism is corporatism with a few slogans thrown in to polish the dog turd.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is the Gilded Age dress up in a tutu.
The "Libertarian ideal" is just that, an imaginary ideal based on free-market fundamentalism, not historical fact. We had libertarianism once upon a time, and it was a terrible system. That's why we needed things like unions and laws against monopolies and price-fixing and other types of collusion. If it were up to libertarians we would go back to the days before the minimum wage when child labor was everywhere.
Show me one Libertarian nation in history that has ever flourished?
Show me just one and I will put it, and keep it, at the top of the forum.
Wow.... this is actually a great thread... I don't necessarily have anything to add, just want to express my appreciation for the level of debate and educational quality here.
Ya, I've enjoyed it too. But, Libertarians have such long posts.
It takes a lot of words to defend the undefendable.
Of course there are thousands of libertarian societies in existence today.
They are called predator herds.
or canibals
The original post is mostly incorrect. You do not whatsoever describe libertarianism when you call it corporate fascism. Corporate fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism.
Actually, Libertarianism is very similar to what you had under Mussolini: A laissez-faire program that decreased taxes on the wealthy, banking and foreign investment, while pushing for privatization and the dismantling of trade unions.
What sort of regulations, taxes, or standards would you put upon corporations? How would you regulate interstate commerce?
Corporations are regulated, taxed, and have standards under the statues and codes that govern them; they are nothing more than contractual entities created to protect members from direct legal exposure. For example, incorporate your business and see if you can get away with not being taxed. But go without being legally sheltered, as a sole proprietor, and your assets are fully exposed to being sued. Interstate commerce is called out in the Constitution, with the states being responsible for tariffs, imposts, and duties. In fact, imposts, duties, and tariffs are what raises revenue to run the government, not income tax. Where the skullduggery comes into play with corporations is that they have become monolithic and tantamount to governments. That is what is being protested.
Change a few nouns and a few verbs, and you would make a good Troskyite. Occupy is not a communist Soviet.
??? I don't follow you.
Corporations on the scale of big banks, big pharma, agribusiness, big oil, etc... are fascist in nature, monopolizing industry and controlling government --and vice versa-- as it is one thing. Moreover, what is happening is corporate socialism. What the so-called "left" or "progressives" are protesting is something they don't understand. They are calling for socialism which already exists.
In a strange sense, I agree with that characterization. I would call it, "corporatism," and would say that it is fueled by lobbyists and campaign donations rather than being any traditional political movement.
Yes we are coming into agreement here.
The machinations of politics and budgets and markets are being interwoven into an alienating political structure, for and by an elite political class. Yet this class retains the guise of capitalism while bilking the people out of their income (and jobs) --which doesn't actually pay for anything in government.
Thanks for the essay. I suspect that more than a few "libertarians" are libertarian in name only, using it as cover for their opposition of American drug policy. They are running away from the dreaded L word. Liberal.
I thought this about libertarians too, then I met an objectivist and I realised that the Libertarians where completely rational in comparision.
What's sad is someone like you continually confuses the hell outta history to think that "We've have ever lived in a Libertarian Utopia"...
The Gilded age... was all because of the misappropriations of government and Corporations.
Real Libertarians are focused on Individualism, and believe that all forms of Collectivism should be regulated, as all FORMS OF COLLECTIVISM are some form of government that have more power than individuals.
Essentially True Libertarians believe that Corporations don't deserve innate rights Humans do, nor do True libertarians believe in limiting the liability of personal responsibility in their business.
This should be retitled " I really don't have a clue what I'm talking about, but I'm gonna post it anyways"
What would the world be like if we wound our American experience back to 1900 and were all Libertarians?
--Women could not vote. --Robber Barons would control our economy. --There would be unclean water and unsafe foods. --We would have never entered WWI or WWII and Hitler would have won. --Children would go to work with their parents. --There would be no highways. --There would be no medicare or social security. --There would be people who wanted to change the system, but corporations would be to powerful. Unions are violently suppressed. --You would not have the right to be foolish.
Libertarianism like all political beliefs is a form of collectivism by its very nature though. I do think thought hat he was mistaking Libertarians for the much more insane Objectivists. It also doesnt help that quite a few libertarian politicians are just objectivists taking up a more friendly name.
You should have run a soviet in 1922. Trade a few of your nouns and verbs, and you could be dubbed a Troskyite.
Well since Trotskyists are basically the somewhat less radical communists and Libertarianism is the opposite of communism it makes sense that a moderate libertarian would sound similar to a Trotskyist.
Your taking things to extreme I'm left wing libertarian but I never once thought we should get ride of the social safety-net. People shouldn't be dictated to by its government :who they can marry. what they want to do to there body. If they can say this or that. or read what every they want. the patriot act was a terrible idea social security is really good one,but the politicians use it as a slush fund. government isn't useless it isn't efficient with our money as they should be. http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I've taken the politicalcompass test too and I also chart as left-libertarian.
It may be the right-libertarians or the people who watch Glenn Beck and call themselves libertarians who are giving the rest of you/us a bad name.
In reference to this from the op:
"They are not familiar with the term, "poor house.""
A friend I debate with frequently who considers herself a libertarian actually said to me that unfit parents (poor, perhaps drug addicted but not only drug addicted) should have their children taken away by the state and put in orphanages (privately run, of cours) so they'd have a shot at a decent life.
And I told her she should watch the Little Rascals. Hehe, well no, I actually didn't tell her that but I get where OP was coming from with that.
What I did tell her was that in third grade I read a biography of Annie Sullivan, Helen Keller's teacher, and there were graphic descriptions of Annie & her tubercular little brother growing up in a poor house in late 19th century Massachusetts. I don't know if that one was govt run or privately run but....
I also told her that in doing some genealogy research I got a good look at some records from orphanages in NYC. There are daily lists of kids who had died from dysentery, tuberculosis and other contagious diseases. These orphanages/poor houses were run by private charities.
And for a more recent example, I told her to look into the institutions we now have, which frequently ARE contracted out by the govt TO private charities. Group homes and such. Or foster care.
Many, many problems ranging from inadequate care to gross neglience to outright abuse & cruelty.
So, point is. This person who proposed this calls herself a libertarian. I don't see where taking away parents' rights & empowering institutions to take over the care of poor children is in any way libertarian but maybe I don't really understand libertarianism beyond the political compass test.
I got news for you. You're not a Libertarian, you're a liberal.
i'm a libertarian, i support these things because i am practical and my libertarianism begins with a lower case l. god help me if i ever become so bad at economics and recognizing how government incentives corrupt markets that i become a fiscal liberal.
Tell me what part of this you disagree with: http://robertreich.org/post/11113448478
Also the "seven lies" one.
7 lies video:
i agree tax cuts on the rich don't "trickle down" - or i would say don't spur, economic growth.
this seems to imply that we should raise taxes - but if lowering them doesn't spur economic growth, why should raising them? i don't think that either does anything to spur economic growth. i do think that raising taxes on anyone during an anemic economic recovery is a poor idea. the time to raise taxes is during booms. i think the time period here is a bit dishonest. he mentions top tax rates, but my understanding is few people actually paid them - there were many loopholes to get around them. post ww2 growth also had a lot to do with... ww2. we were the only country left standard with manufacturing capacity and no need to rebuild our country. we also had years of pent up demand by citizens at home and soliders abroad that finally got to be released as we no longer needed to sacrifice for the war effort. war bonds matured. we had a less crony environment which allowed for more competition and entrepreneurship. the world economy was not yet as globalized, and the other citizens in it could not compete with our volume of talent anyway. these things are left out while he focuses on tax rate alone. you get a half story that fits his narrative.
shrinking government doesn't create more jobs - it does relieve our deficit and bring down spending though. i hear few people when they talk about shrinking government use his examples - ie. cops. if he is arguing with republicans, how many of them are standing up and saying we need less cops? since we are talking about libertarians, their version of shrinking government is more along the lines of eliminating the department of education (federal) not firing police officers (local, state). would those dept of ed employees need new jobs? yes. but the jobs they do have are not considered good by fiscal conservatives anyway. they are not productive jobs - they produce no good or service. they are public jobs funded by my taxes. and i don't believe they do anything states couldn't do more efficiently or more intelligently. although keynesian economics is fine for paying someone to dig a hole and someone else to fill it in, i am not - this is not a job i want to keep if i think it's a waste of money. i'm not for jobs for the sake of simply having jobs. this is part of the government you can shrink and part of my taxes that can be given back to me or spent on something more intelligently.
agree
i think like 2, more omissions here. the government may have lower administrative costs than private organizations - but how much of that is because of the government? i have a friend who is a CIO and just implemented EMR (electronic medical records) - and i asked him why it took so long. i read they make you more accurate and save you money. in a free market why wouldn't everyone adopt this? i speculated that doctors were scared of computers, especially old stubborn doctors, so they weren't that widespread. and he told me the medical industry hadn't joined the paper to electronic revolution that had began in the 80s, because the government (even still) mandated that records be on paper. so they could pay for, run, and synch 2 systems - or keep the one they had. there are other rules too - so where did reich mention these? what about the cause for ever rising prices - that consumers often don't know (or care) what anything costs? they are completely out of the price discovery mechanism - and abuse insurance, a tool designed for mitigating catastrophic risk, as some kind of prepaid medical service. if you simply restore a market where people care about this, people will look at prices and prices will plummet. part of obamacare is setting up a market exchange ON TOP of the current messy health care system that SOME people will get in - why not remove the cogs (tax incentives) out of the current broken machine, so the original problem is fixed, and ALL people get on the market? and not a market on top of a broken system?
social security isn't a ponzi scheme - but it is taking more money to run and fewer productive workers are bearing the cost of supporting each retired person. shouldn't we be encouraging people to rely more on their own savings for retirement - rather than assigning that burden to pay for us to young people once we get old?
agree
linked video:
i don't disagree necessarily with any of the video you linked. are you going to claim that because i'm a libertarian i either don't believe, or somehow support, an unfair distribution of income gains to the rich/super rich? because i can guarantee you i've been looking at this information and bitching about it for much longer than 99% of the OWS people i encounter.
this video does ignore the composition of the economy - it paints the picture as if our problem is simply from not taxing the rich enough. but our past 10 year problems are not a result of that, but the result of building an economy around a fantasy housing bubble and the resulting collapse and pain that would be expected under any tax rate. it also does not mention anything about cronyism - how government hands out special favors to those corporations with power. these favors go to those corporations and benefit the powerful people in them most.
Ok, I have to go to bed but will try to respond in depth tomorrow. You don't really understand Keynes. But, the main point was that you think fiscal liberalism is simply bad economics with fiscal policy corrupting markets. However, you just sat through 5 minutes of liberal economics in a nutshell and "don't necessarily disagree."
So - yes, bubble mainly caused by deregulation as well as the ill-advised housing push. But more importantly, 30 years of Reaganomics/neoliberalism left the economy (read: middle class) in a weakened state and is why so much reliance on credit (the overextended-credit-housing-push shouldn't have been necessary) that ultimately caused the bankruptcy of the middle class... Anyway, good night.
Actually, one last point, for now: You also don't understand social security. The trust fund is just sitting there, growing - as investments in government securities. It will continue growing, meaning more contributions than benefits paid on an annual basis (plus earning interest), for some time. In the next 20 years or so, contributions will become less than benefits. Without any changes, that means the fund will start being depleted - and will have to start selling securities and losing out on interest. In 25-75 years, it will be depleted (if no changes are made, i.e. a tweak to eligible income) and at that time, benefits might have to decrease. Based on likely ongoing contributions at that time, SS could continue paying out 75% of estimated benefit obligations. It is not broke and not a burden on us. We will be the burden by the time it's depleted, unless we change eligible contributions (say to $150k/yr), in which case the problem goes away. I don't see any reason to force people out into the cold on this. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7
More on this and a probably a much better explanation from Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/about-the-social-security-trust-fund/
i did not say i largely agree to anything liberal - i simply said i agreed to there being income inequality. i agreed to us spending more than we take in. those are simply facts i was agreeing with - they had nothing to do with politics at all.
the bubble was not mainly caused by deregulation - there was reglation there that simply wasn't followed. there is a fantasy that regulation can solve problems, but there are holes to climb through and that's if it is even enforced at all. corporations capture regulators. you can mention glass steagal, probably the biggest deregulation that contributed, but it just changed the composition of some of the involved banks. had it not been repealed, there is no reason to think we wouldn't have still had a housing bubble. you neglect to mention the only way you can build a bubble is if you keep blowing air into it - and the federal reserve provided all of this with a monetary policy that was made too easy, too long. my problem with this system is the arrogance of man to think he knows what monetary policy should be. he does not know what the price of milk or batteries should be, and all modern economists agree on this, but how do keynesians believe man can figure out what the price of money should be? and where is your mention of crony systems that have contributed to the downfall of the middle class? the reason that the price discovery mechanism is broken in health care is that the government broke it. the reason that education has inflated far beyond anything is that the federal government 100% insures their student loans which can't be discharged even in bankruptcy. the student loan system is set up basically as a bank that cares even less about getting paid back than any did on wall street, and that gets bailed out constantly. the OWS cries should be to fix this ridiculous system and idea - not for rich people to pay their student loans.
how do you say social security is not a burden on us? i have to pay a bunch out of my check each month that immediately goes out into some old person's hands. it is not an annuity like it was sold to the people at all. it's not like a savings account where the money i put in earns interest and then i get it - i put in money and it shoots out to someone else. i could have saved that money for myself. i could have spent it and created demand in the economy. long ago a large number of workers supported 1 person receiving benefits, today it's something like 3. tomorrow it could be 1. i have no desire for my grandkid to support my retirement through this generational transfer of wealth. you're arguing against a straw man i didn't make. i didn't say you can't just tax people more and keep it going. i said i don't think it's fair that i pay for someone else's retirement income or someone will pay for part of mine. and that we should be encouraging people to be more cognizant of a need to save money themselves rather than rely on the government to do it for us. and you make it sound like i'm just forced to invest in an annuity but that is not at all how it works - i believe there have been several court cases where it was quite plainly stated it is not an annuity. that is just the metaphor they provide when selling the program to the public.
why didn't the same abuses in our financial system occur in 1965, in 1978, or in 1993? what restraint was there and how did it work?
There was Glass-Steagall, which kept the investment banks and the deposit banks separate. That is, the gambling was kept away from the savings side.
One of the things that has made this recession so bad is that it is the first big crash of the financial system since the Great Depression. And history shows that crashing the financial system leads to a longer, deeper recession than other, more mundane business cycle downturns.
Prior to the FDR, there used to be more "panics" or depressions. This is the worst in all those decades.
since the inception of the federal reserve, there have been less frequent panics, but they have been more severe when they do happen.
the austrian school explains this as all of misallocations not being released in pieces, but being saved up until they are large and can't get any larger, at which point huge misallocations of resources need to be liquidated and allocated properly again to meet real market needs.
those that defend the fed claim that the lower frequency of panics is due to its greatness, but i would expect less frequencies anyway simply because of technology. data for everything is more available than ever today; we have the ability to forecast and manage inventory and switch over means of productions better than any time in history as well. we should expect a much smoother business cycle because of all of this anyway.
i do not fully subscribe to any school, i think "all models in wrong but some are useful" applies quite well. most keynesians were quite blind to this mess coming and how bad it was going to be. the austrian critique of the fed that it sends the wrong signals to the economy and people start making mistakes as a result sounds feasible. regardless, i think we've moved off a cycle of the fed smoothing out business cycles. it seems we are now on a boom/bust bubble cycle instead with the fed as the driver.
we had different monetary policies, financial "innovation"/bullshit, prvate hubris amont other things. glass steagal was there but were it not for glass steagal, we would have still had the mess we have today. maybe it just would have been smaller.
No.
agreed, inside job is something like eleventy billion times better that moore's capitalism.
glenn beck is a sensationalist idiot, i just don't like it when the same person who says that turns around and says oh but that michael moore - nothing but the honest truth and the full story from him.
Michael Moore always makes good points, but he extrapolates beyond what evidence he presents. He could have made a great movie in Sicko without taking the patients to Cuba....etc.
The logic of the doubter is difficult to overcome. If 99% of your argument is unassailable, they will point to the 1% as proof of your error.
i guess if it is someone partisan pointing out the partisan hackery of another side, it is still only $5 after all.
I bought ten copies and handed it out to my Glenn Beck adoring in-laws in the hopes that they never speak to me again.
i always check 1 and 2 star reviews on books at amazon, this one is not really convincing me i should throw it in the cart. the thing i like about barry ritholtz and his book i mentioned is that barry doesn't care about one side or the other, works in finance and has a trained background in physics. my other favorite guy doesn't care much for either party and has an amazing track record for understanding past, analyzing current, and forecasting future events.
this book kind of seems like, here are reasons why republicans have done stupid economic things (and i'm sure there are many reasons/examples) - but it then seems to chime in with the great liberal view that i have doubts is much better given the reviews i skimmed through.
Na. Trust me. Buy the used copy for a penny. The book is a concise history of Republican economics. It explains that the supply siders are really a joke amongst economists, but why their theory has taken over the Republican party. It delves into how the old Republican moderates were pushed out, and how dogmatic the new generation of pubes has become.
It is humorous, frightening, brief, and insightful. I think it was meant as a compendium of Chait's thoughts and was not meant for the novice. But, if you know what a Laffer curve is or how the reconciliation process can circumvent senate filibusters, then you will see it as one of the most important books you could read.
It is an overview of EVERYTHING that must change for OWS, or any other movement, to produce change.
i don't disagree with that at all, i surely put the brunt of the blame on other parties - i only expect so much rationality out of a consumer, especially an american one who appears to suffer from declining financial literacy. he will still act better if not sent the wrong interest rate signal though. in fact, everyone will act better then.
book seems interesting i added it to my wish list. didn't add the chick one, i already have barry ritholtz's 'bailout nation' and my assumption is that there is much overlap.
The most important book to read this year is by Jonathan Chait. It's called, "THE BIG CON." It is simply the best summary of what has gone wrong over the past thirty years that I have read.
borrowers can be counted on for restraint if sent the right signal. i'm looking at a 30k car. i will exercise more restraint and put in more thought in making this purchase if the interest rate is 10%. i will show far less if the rate is 0%. the federal reserve, the central planning of the men we think are so smart that they can control the economy, kept monetary policy easy and kept rates really low for a really long time. you need easy money to fuel a bubble and this was it. had they not done this or had we an entirely different monetary system or way of setting rates, then borrower hubris may have never left that of traditional trends.
But the borrower is the one importing the future at the cost of funds to the lender. The lender is only able to collect some compensation for his risk. It classical economics, buyers as a whole are considered rational. Individual buyers, on the other hand, are considered in probabilistic terms.
You would like a book called, "Against the Gods," about the history of risk and probability. It doesn't really speak much about economic calculations....other than how annuities and etc....let to the necessary science of statistics. But, I look at the macro of the pre financial crisis as a representation for what went on between the buyer and lender. In essence, mutual abandonment of responsibility and ignorance of risk.
i don't disagree that requiring lenders to hold on to pieces of the pie are necessary reforms going forward. that seems like something that should have always been a requirement. the less lenders care about this the more reckless lending standards become. for the extreme example, sallie mae doesn't need to care at all. taxpayers make them whole, and education has bubbled up to an insane cost and students graduate with mountains of debt. a stipulation to hold on to what you lend wasn't part of glass steagall though.
you seem to dismiss the stupidity of borrowers in your comments. i agree with you that bankers knew what they were doing and it was dumb - but don't tell me borrowers didn't know when they were stepping into waters they shouldn't. when i was making 65k, a mortgage guy i spoke to told me he could get me 500k. this was around 12/04. you didn't need to be a financial wizard to not take that deal. yet how many people did? borrowers (among others) were also sent the wrong signal again by the federal reserve - that savings were high, and money was cheap to borrow. many less mistakes would have been made at rates of 7%, 8%, 9% etc. if you had a market setting rates, while everyone was borrowing, demand would be high, so you could raise the interest rate/price of money. this would also stifle a frothing or growing bubble. we have men targeting rates at the federal reserve though, so ours went 7%, 6%, 5% instead.
I did note, that borrowers cannot be counted on for restraint in any economic system. The borrower is held as someone who desires to import the future into today and is therefore, inherently, optimistic. As Demosthenes once stated: "Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true."
Yes, people overbought. Dumb people chose ARMS hoping to refinance later. Speculators bought numerous properties with no collateral. (And, yes, there was a very predatory environment of lenders). But, there are always at least two parties to an agreement, and in a lender/borrower relationship, it is the lender who is assumed to be the one looking into the future with a responsible gaze.
i found sicko very convincing the first time i watched it, before i had even a remote interest in economics or politics. i could watch it again and start picking it apart with ease. i'm not defending the current system either it is terrible. but i think moore has hardly found what caused the problems nor what should be done to fix them.
same with capitalism. i wouldn't have a problem if he reeled against crony capitalism and if he titled the movie that way. i'm pretty sure i've seen him in at least 2 clips where he basically said yes the movie is about crony capitalism. yet his rhetoric is all simply about capitalism and that is how he titled his movie. and certainly his examples in the movie were the croniest of crony. then he shows the bread shop, as if all places could run like this. i mean they could - but not by manner of force. if moore would like to inspire more companies to run that way, great, that's fantastic. if moore would like to inspire legislation to make companies run that way, good luck, that is not going to work.
Ya, if you compare Capitalism, A Love Story to the new doc, Inside Job, you realize how Moore's theatrical proclivities drive him.
the glass steagal act separated investment banks and commercial banks. but many bank participants were only one or the other before and after repeal of the act. the glass steagal act would have done nothing to affect the ultra low interest rates and too easy too long monetary policy we had. it would not have done anything to over leveraged investment houses like bear sterns. it would have done nothing to fraudulenty related securities or mispriced risk from the copula formula. it would have done nothing to keep housing lending standards. it probably would have slowed down the bubble's growth or made it a little smaller. but it would have done nothing to prevent the bubble from occurring.
I believe that a segmented financial system, whatever the form of legislation is enacted, is best. It may be less efficient in some instances, but it does two things. First, smaller is better because it allows for a greater understanding of risk exposure. Second, it encourages restraint.
What was lacking prior to the financial crisis was the latter. Borrowers lost all restraint and used their homes as piggy banks or rising home prices as a rationale to take on excessive debt. Borrowers, however, are not assumed to be the source of restraint in an economic system. Lenders are. In the years leading up to the financial crisis, enticed by the same dynamics that had given borrowers a hubris regarding debt, lenders lost EVERY sense of responsibility that had characterized the sleepy, conservative, nature of the old bank president. The fuel for this change was, again, rising values for real estate, but the additional ingredient was securitization. Now underwriters had no foot in the same fire as their borrowers and Wall Street couldn't buy these loans and securitize them fast enough. Wall Street also had very little connection to the borrower because they dumped these mortgage backed securities to pension funds, countries, and etc. as quickly as they could bundle them. The only reason why the investment banks, and Fannie / Freddie got burned is because they either began to drink their own poisonous cool aide or were caught holding the hot potato when the financial crisis hit. Whatever loans that had not been bundled and sold off as securities essentially became worthless and the big banks had to book losses in the billions.
Anyway, segmentation and requiring that underwriters, local banks, investment banks all maintain some percentage of their production will provide some degree of incentive for each step in the securitization process to be responsible.
This requirement, keeping some percentage of production, will also limit a financial entity's ability to leverage.
So, more responsible underwriting, bundling, securitizing, and with less leverage. Simple.
And, yes, something analogous to Glass Steagall would have dampened the excesses that led to the crisis.
If you want to read a great book on the subject, get "All the Devils are Here" by Bethany McClane. (Same lady who wrote, "Enron, the smartest guys in the room."
I thought you were a little more reasonable. Keynes didn't invent the Fed and doesn't depend on it by the way. His focus is fiscal policy, not monetary. You still don't get SS, and it seems like you completely skipped everything I wrote besides "its not a burden." Cya.
i dunno about the hole, i mean kruggy sounds happy if we prepare for the imminent alien invasion. there is still opportunity cost - the attempted stimulus still uses resources. to take the supremely wasteful version, let's say we pick a spot in south dakota for diggers and fillers. now that they have money, they can create demand and a job! someone opens up a mcdonald's there to feed them. but just as bubble jobs were created as housing ramped up, we just created a fake stimulus job. take away a perpetual hole digging/filling stimulus, and you take away the need for those people to work in that area of south dakota, or for someone to have a mcdonald's there to feed them.
The people digging the holes and all the people supporting them are not on the dole or living in a shelter, but are out in the world, feeding the money they're earning into the system in an organic way. The cash passes through numerous hands before it ends back up in some CEO or shareholder's bank account. This money has allowed consumers all over the spectrum to continue purchasing, and been re-invested multiple times in more productive capacity. By the time the stimulus is withdrawn, there's a thriving economy in the nearest city. Or, the hole digging town itself has a self-sustaining economy of its own - a dairy was built to produce milk for the cafe and starts producing artisan cheese they sell over the internet, etc, etc...
But, again, except in this totally abstract way, you'll never find a Keynesian suggesting we waste it on holes. We have a lot that needs doing. Massive investments in infrastructure and alternate energy, etc. Oh I just realized your point about Krugman and the aliens is a Keynesian arguing we should waste it - well that's him. I think it's still stimulative but not in the ideal way.
i like your ecosystem, thanks, it is a good analogy.
my concern is that the way stimulus is actually constructed and distributed, that we can recover in the same amount of time that we would have had there been no stimulus. only with it, reached the same point with much more additional debt. this is why the only stimulus i support is infrastructure (transportation, communication, energy) with no winners or losers picked. and no hole diggers
Keynes should be applied in major crises, not blips that will recover quickly. We can know when that is. There are indicators and they all went off in 2008. Have a good weekend.
right - unless there isn't. when people thought they were rich, they took out HELOC money or just spent it more recklessly than they should have. jobs were made to meet this new demand - whether they were in building houses, or receptionists for builders, or making fancy cheese. but this bubble burst and all that wealth went away. no longer were that many construction workers needed, nor receptionists, nor was there enough demand for all the fancy cheese makers, and many closed shop.
how is the withdrawal of the fantasy bubble money any different than the withdrawal of the stimulus money? how do you know that the stimulus money went to create the "right" kind of jobs that will last after you take it away, vs. the "wrong" kind of jobs that didn't last when fantasy housing money was taken away?
Well, consider an ecosystem in a long-term drying trend. It adapts, new species fill niches, shrrubs or grasses replace trees, etc, and life goes on. This is what happens when you slowly withdraw stimulus
Now, make it a drought that comes on quickly - no rain falls for 200 days. Everything just dies and you get a dustbowl. The bubble bursts.
Further, the top soil blows away. Productive capacity is irreparably damaged. This is why stimulus has to be pumped into the economy rapidly following a downturn. This didn't happen after 2008 and the top soil is somewhere over the pacific right now.
On the total flipside, every ecologist knows that an ecosystem creates its own weather. Plant trees in a denuded section of the Amazon and you get more local cloudcover and precipitation. It becomes self-sustaining. You have to water the saplings but as they grow, weather takes over. Think about it.
i read everything you wrote. you don't get my point if you think we shouldn't do more to get people to rely on it less. and that there is no money "invested" for me, it is not a system of forced investment or an annuity. i'd be fine with a stimulus that was actually stimulative - one 100% on infrastructure - what we have had is 95% wasted spendulus. broken window fallacy clash for clunkers. and kruggy wishing aliens would attack us.
Actually, Keynes preferred "bottom up stimulus to "top down" as in bank bailout. He also cautioned against micro-managing the economy and thereby encouraging excessive risk taking. The primary reason that the stimulus wasn't more effective was that much of it ends up in the hands of Chinese manufacturers as a result of deregulated trade,(marketed as free trade). Americans love anything with the word "free" in it.
have you read "secrets of the temple" or "debt the first 5000 years" or "super imperialism"
I have not read any of the above three, but just looked at excerpts from each. I had some awareness of "Debt the First 500 years" from quotes and excerpts, but not the other two. I just read an interview from 2003 with Michael Hudson. Pretty amazing. I presume you already have read these books but I will put the link for the interview below in case anyone else reading this would like to get a clue. http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/04/21/an-interview-with-michael-hudson-author-of-super-imperialism/
i agree - important issues to understand - what have you read about keynes - what do you think are the best readings to help understand how the system works
Well, of course his seminal work was The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. It's been a long time since I read it.through. I'd be happy if people would even read the wiki article, since there seems to be so little understanding of his ideas.(I know, wiki, but it's pretty good in this case.)
are you aware that keynes said this during the depression -"if the gov't can't think of anything more productive it should hire people to dig holes and the next day hire them to fill them in!" i am paraphrasing but you get the idea - i am sure you can easily find the real quote if you want
I'm aware of the quote. The quote itself implies his preference for that which IS productive. I't funny how some argue that FDRs stimulus did nothing to end the depression, but war did. Ironically the war did employ the unemployed. It got cash flowing in the economy. It was stimulus, It was huge deficit spending on stuff that was frequently blown up. The goal in stimulus is to get cash flowing. See" the multiplier effect" in Keynes theory.
After inflated, and handed down, the extra money that the people get is worth the spending power they had to begin with, before inflation and printing..
It benefits bank cartels first.
That garbled statement makes no sense to me. How did the WPA benefit "bank cartels first"?
That's what I said. He wanted it spent. And he could count on government to spend it.
If you understand what grows an economy, the creation of value (turning something useless into something useful, or something useful into something even more useful), then SPENDING (stimulus) can never do much to actually achieve the creation of value. Real economic growth takes time! Just like getting your body into shape. BUT, what stimulus IS pretty good at is reinforcing corporatism, and financial cartels, while robbing all of the poorest who have cash of their buying power.
i don't think those programs are actually stimulative outside of an economics classroom. keynes would be fine with hiring jack to dig a hole and jill to fill it in. that does not stimulate long term organic growth. wider roads where bottlenecks exist actually would.
Long-term organic growth is good and the ultimate goal, but money in the pocket of those who will spend it instead of those who won't is necessary to keep the engine chugging until organic growth returns.
Stimulate to keep the downturn from cutting so deep that it actually damages productive capacity (keep the engine idling instead of letting it get cold), then continue stimulating (throttle up) until the economy returns to unaided growth - it's a dual-action thing (there is a multiplier as money works its way up the food chain and its at play here) - before finally, carefully, removing the stimulus (throttle back) and letting organic growth take over. Then, start using the increasing tax revenue to pay down the debt...
It's a lot less magical than Austrians like to make it seem. So, real infrastructure investments are the ideal, but the hole-digging thing (never recommended really besides maybe Keynesians making a simplistic point) is still stimulative.
I believe Keynes would agree with that. That is that actual productive activity is preferable.
Actually Keynes preferred for the government to spend the money so those on the bottom couldn't save it and ruin the point of the whole stimulus. Boom.
When the government spends money, it still ends up in the hands of of "people", be they WPA workers or bankers. It is true that if the money just sits in a bank, it does nothing to stimulate the economy.
The whole point of the stimulus is stimulus, not redistribution. Stimulus means money in the economy; you know, goods and services being exchanged for cash? Oh whatever.
A classical liberal is a libertarian. I find the libertarian philosophy attractive because I'm a pacifist. I'm attracted to moving closer to a society that uses less force on individuals.
Wait until you see how a corporation breaks up a strike....1920's style. The world, no corporations, could use a good pacifist like you.
Apparently many US citizens have no awareness of how we achieved our workers rights in this country. Neoliberalism has been very effective in demonizing organized labor. There is little collective memory of the sweat shops, the child labor and the generally horrendous working conditions that existed prior to that battle.
Exactly.
You don't have to be libertarian to be a pacifist nor do you have to be a pacifist to be libertarian.
I find the libertarian philosophy to be the only philosophy that is 100% pacifist. The conservatives want to bomb the world in the name of American values while progressives want to empower our own government to use force and threats of jail and/or property confiscation to redistribute earned wealth. As a pacifist I recognize the need to use force in self defense, however I reject all other use of force. This would include having others use force on my behalf.
Nice fallacious reasoning here. I like how you deify the state as if it was God himself. Without the state we would not feed our kids! Two words: Mutual Aid. Now go read.
History prior to economic justice programs like the New Deal was as follows:
Those powerful/wealthy enough to be in a position to help the vulnerable, instead exploited and abused them. Full stop.
What gave them the power to do that? Seriously, go read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Your criticisms of the system were thought up by anarchists. The only difference is who to blame?
They took the power. They bought any who disagreed. They turned your neighbor into their agent and used him against you. They played the many against each other. They used greed in their favor. They made everyone slaves in one way or another, and ever other voluntary association of this or that fell by the wayside.
that is so true
LOL ok "Lockean" I wont feed you any longer.
I assume now you think Locke would have agreed with you? Every fucking whackjob since the enlightenment has tried to claim Locke.
Locke was a social contract theorist who believed in a minimal state. What else do you need to know? He was not an anarchist so no he wouldn't agree with me.
Locke, the Founding Fathers, Mills, and Jesus would have probably spouted and entirely different message if they had existed in the time of a modern industrial state.
We are an economy of transitions....industrialization, the tech age, international trade....changes seem to be accelerating ever faster. The problem with economies in transition is that there are, irregardless of skill levels, winners and losers....big time.
Libertarians say, "so what." Government has no job in picking winners or losers, nor in moderating the conditions so that the maximal number can benefit.
Ask a Libertarian what a Walmart brings to a small town.....then ask everybody who used to frequent, be employed on, or own a shop on main street.
In the end, you have to decide what type of world you want to live in and I don't believe all of the lingo and catchphrases of Libertarianism. It rings like some ideologue arguing for the communist utopia that was to come in 1917. Pipe dreams hidden behind slogans.
So, do you belong to some organization of anarchists?
More people increased their standard of living by leaps & bounds greater than any other time in the history of humanity. 1865 - 1930.
The are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.....
I would like for you to provide the reference for your statement, please.
go look it up loser. "The Gilded Age is most famous for the creation of a modern industrial economy. During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy grew at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly"
When you start from one and increase to ten, you have a 900% increase.
When you start from one hundred and one and increase to 110, you have an increase of just under 9%.
You're looking at statistics, little man, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
For the majority of Americans, 1929 was no better than 1829.
Go spank your monkey for a while and let this sink in.
yea ok - please put down the crack pipe. It's making you delusional.
Maybe, you should pick your's up.
Remember folks Alan Greenspan was a Libertarian, Ayn Rand supporter. Look what his polices has done to this Country.
Agree. But the Lib-tan's will reply that what we need is even more Libertarian insanity.
Sir, some hold that "EVEN libertarian is good." It is a sarcasm that even libertarian is not practiced by its purported defenders among the 1%. The core of libertarianism is equality of two persons in front of a court of law. It is not necessary to arrange difficult experiments to test it. Just send two persons, one with suit and necktie and the other with denim to a court in England (center of libertarianism). The one with the suit has definitely more chance to win than the other, whatever is the mooting of each party. Mind of a libertarian judge is that one with denim is from the lower classes and lower classes are liars. Case is not important for him.
England is not the center of libertarianism. A system that still acknowledges a monarch, has not even the pretense of a right to self-defense or speech?
Oh my.
the monarchy in England is more synonymous to Tom Cruise in the church of Scientology. It is a figure head, a spokesperson and a tool of national identity. Cruise may embody his church but he is inept in making its laws.
I understand that but culturally that speaks of an acceptance of authoritarianism more than in the former colonies where the granting of noble titles by government is illegal.
what is the one percent lineage but a noble licence. if we really stayed true to our roots, so i believe, there would be five classes each with twenty percent of the population.
I'd rather be classless. However it is in human nature to rate others and oneself. Without the title of nobility to aspire to we became one who aspired to the classical comforts of nobility - wealth.
So although no class should be enforced we will always self-assign things as class to ourselves and others. I don't talk about class because I believe to reference it is to give the idea power and I find it sets against ourselves rather than those who truly do us harm.
good point
Well said, sir. Fully agreed. Hence, please consider removing "in England" and kep the remaining part of the argument.
But, if to you not paid, or promised anything - you would be writing the same thing?
I just like to write.
Sorry!
Thank God!
Yep, the trouble with critics is that they dont listen every philosophy is a reaction to something it is the environment that makes a philosophy true not the philosophy, libertarianism is a reaction to government gone wrong, truth is reality is reality and that is what we need to deal with not some persons ism im seek of people sticking to isms because they cant analyze what is going on, different environments call for different solutions and the world is too complex to debate in this nonsensical fashion instead of criticizing libertarians, leperchauns, dogs, or other things why not try to figure what is going on in thier life and determine what bothers them. There maybe things that should be addressed instead it ends up as Im in cap A your in camp B your wrong I wont try to understand what is bothering you. Good luck. We need to unite under the democratic party and forget this nonsense.
"Can you estimate how long you will live, how much you will have to save, or whether your investments will be stable and the funds available when you're elderly?"
yes. people do it all the time.
"Have you ever attempted to get private insurance on your own?"
yes. I have and people do it all the time.
"Imagine being 67 with a history of diabetes"
sorry, I can't imagine being stupid enough to wait that long to do something about my situation. maybe that kind of thinking comes easy to you because you are familiar with waiting around for someone else to do shit for you.
"The number one cause of bankruptcies continues to be medical bills."
and that is what the govt ought to protect people from, catastrophic illness, not check ups and sprained ankles and marriage counseling. but of course the whining class and the ultra-needy class will whine and whine until their votes are paid for with someone else's money. and here we are, seeing the result of an entitled public and cowardly politicians who can't say no.
"Can you imagine what would happen to a generation of older Americans if medicare were not available?"
no one is advocating taking existing coverage away from old people, so spare us the drama queen shit.
no wonder maximum freedom makes you say dumb shit. you don't understand it and you're scared shitless of it.
So this is where all the knowledge is. Great post
Nice pile of strawmen.
You got to love a good strawmen....particularly when the premises are true.
oh come on puff, the libertarian Utopia is 'wonderful'
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarianism-is-so-wonderful/
It's been tried before, and we could bring back ALL the glamour of the gilded age. Child labor, prostitution, no worker regs. shoddy products, no public education.
What's not to 'love'?
Yes, welcome to RonPaulistan. Child labor should not be allowed to fall asleep on the job......we must turn the lights up!
YES!!! and neither frost of night, nor heat of day will stop their post office (there wouldn't be one)
But hey $4.25 would be a great price to send a letter.
What would UPS or FedEx charge to deliver a letter?
about $4.25 I think last I checked
Oh, I was wondering what you meant by that number. The post office is vital and is a national service. It may not be perfectly efficient, but it is perfectly necessary.
Three things, puff6962. Firstly, I agree that solely libertarian economics will not work, as just competition just leads to giants like Wal-Mart dominating the whole system. An element of socialism is necessary too; probably more than just an element, actually.
HOWEVER, libertarians also support personal rights, not just small government. Individual freedoms are necessary, plain and simple. Things like the Bill of Rights protect us from dictators, totalitarian governments, etc. We need that side of their argument.
Finally (this is just a personal request), please just state non-biased facts instead of attacking all Libertarians and their philosophy. OWS gets all types, and pages like this can offend those why support Libertarianism. The last thing Occupy needs is to alienate more of its supporters.
All that aside, I'd like to say that, regardless of your views, you're very eloquent and very good in a debate. Thanks for contributing to OWS's forum, puff.
Communism promised to bring economic freedom to the peasants.....Ideologies often promise the opposite of the inevitable outcome of their philosophy.
If you have uninhibited capitalism in a modern industrial state, you will have imbalances that you could never have imagined.
You will have the Robber Barons on steroids. You will see personal freedoms become dictated by a caste system. If you are born into a lower caste, your education and employment options will not emulate those of our current of past ages.
I am so opposed to Libertarians because they are so supportive of a fairy tale that will end up being a tale of horror.
Did you read my post? I had said that the ideal government would be a socialist economy with libertarian personal freedoms. I have no idea how this would lead to a caste system. Equal personal rights + socialized income (everybody gets a set amount of pay, plus moderate bonuses to promote personal achievement) = caste system, due to different incomes? How does that come about? Do explain why and how, please.
puff6962,
Your post only reveals your complete ignorance of history, economics, & libertarianism.
Libertarianism is based on he principle that no one may initiate the use of force on anyone else. Everything flows from that principle, civil liberties, free markets, etc. If you want to claim that you are against aggression you must be a libertarian. Do you want the govt to tax people to fund health care? Then you advocate aggression. The ends don't justify the means.
The problem with health care is that it is too expensive. Why? because the industries involved, medical, pharma, insurance, are among the most heavily regulated. Additionally, the govt pays for 1/2 of all medical care in the US already. If there are problems with health care they weren't caused by a non existent free market but by the govt interventions you think are the solution. Limiting competition & subsidizing something is a great way to make it unaffordable. Hence, the results of the govt's regulation that we see today. Puff, I see that you say you're a doc which is strange since I thought you guys refer to yourselves as physicians. Regardless, stop shilling for the system that is lining your pocket at the expense of the 99% & start advocating for a free market that can start delivering affordable health care:
The Myth of Free-Market Healthcare http://mises.org/daily/5066
'Libertarianism is a fairy tale. It should be retitled, "Corporate Anarchism" or "Corporate Fascism." '
A note on corporatism, this has got to be one of the most revealing parts of your post, revealing your utter ignorance, that is. Corporatism & free markets are opposites, that's why libertarians oppose corporatism. Corporations are creations of the govt. We oppose govt. We would do away with the corporation completely, not just personhood. I would say that it is the left that helps the corporations by empowering their patron the govt.
Blah blah blah. You sound like a 1930's intellectual drawn by to communism by the idea of novelty.
Is this the best you can do? Surrender accepted, you must have nothing to counter my missive. Go take your empty & nonsensical words somewhere else.
You sound defensive. Somewhat like a man whose worldview has been shaken.
I think that I've been exceedingly patient with the Libertarians who wish to dwell in a movement completely at odds with the corporate state that would result from the adoption of Libertarian principles. I've got a lot of these to respond to, so I'm sorry to disappoint. I did read what you said and, briefly, I would say that there are certain segments of the economy that do not lend themselves to the productivity gains seen in the overall economy.
Examples include teachers, cops, doctors, firefighters, regulators, the military, and etc.
You see, it is only possible for a doctor to see so many people in a day. So, while the average American may be doing the work of 5 as compared to a hundred years ago, the average doctor may only be twice as productive.
Government is inefficient because government tends to get straddled with inefficient duties. Our police forces and firefighters are not private entities because they could either never charge enough for their services or they could charge too much and become extortionists. They could be fragmented and, as private entities, effectively useless (go see how effective ADT is the next time your home alarm goes off). Government performs many inefficient services.....including providing a safety net.....because competition would not necessarily produce a better result.
Go look up the administrative costs of traditional medicare versus the administration costs of the average private insurer. Who is more efficient in delivering care instead of paperwork? You may be surprised.
And, I hate to tell you this, but....as societies become even more productive.....these vital, crucial, and inherent functions of government will only become proportionately more expensive. In other words, though the cost of an I phone or 3d television may drop in half over the next ten years, the cost of providing medical care will not, the cost of educating will not, the cost of policing our cities will not, and etc. They will therefore seem, proportionately, more expensive.
Cut them if you will, but....despite their disproportionately increasing cost....they are vital investments in a society and you will pay dearly if they are ignored.
Competition has done nothing to improve the quality or to reduce the overall cost of medical care. It never will.
Rather than write a book let me refer you to one that debunks your ideas:
The Voluntary City Choice, Community, and Civil Society Edited by David T. Beito, Peter Gordon, Alexander T. Tabarrok Foreword by Paul Johnson
Highlights
http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=17
Perhaps you should have written the book yourself.
The reason local, state, and federal governments perform certain assigned roles is that private enterprise can't make a buck performing these same roles. They're necessary functions but inherently inefficient functions.
Nothing in this copy and paste manifesto contradicts the premise of my response.
I can present the evidence but I can't make you accept it. Oh well.
Synopsis
Civil society has received renewed attention since the Berlin Wall fell and took the ideal of central planning with it. Some observers have suggested that the voluntary institutions of civil society are now, to paraphrase Marx, specters haunting the world—albeit helpful ones that can deliver the health, prosperity and well-being that collectivist economies could not.
The case for civil society is stronger than most of its enthusiasts realize. As the authors of The Voluntary City show, history is replete with enough examples of well-functioning voluntary institutions to merit a radical reconsideration of the presumed need for government involvement in many areas of civic and commercial life. Roads and bridges, education, housing, social welfare, land-use planning, commercial law, even policing and criminal prosecutions have been provided effectively by the non-governmental sector at various times and places in the past.
Urban Infrastructure and Urban Myths
The presumption that markets cannot provide adequate urban infrastructure is an urban myth quickly dispelled by The Voluntary City. Stephen Davies (chapter 2) begins by reexamining the evidence and showing that the English cities during the industrial revolution were not chaotic shantytowns whose lack of zoning and building codes undermined public health and safety. Rather, private-property rights and contracts—key institutions of civil society—made the urbanization demanded by a fast-growing economy and population rapid yet orderly.
David Beito (chapter 3) shows how developers created the private self-governing enclaves (or private places) of St. Louis, complete with private streets, sewers, electricity and even private governance structures. Residential developers of this period anticipated many of the techniques used by modern urban planners. But they faced market-incentives and constraints that spurred innovation and avoided the wastefulness and hubris that often characterize their modern counterparts.
During the early 19th century, private enterprise in both the United States and Britain also produced networks of highways that facilitated travel and trade. Daniel Klein (chapter 4) traces the efforts of turnpike companies of early America to replace the earlier system of governmental highways, which had fallen into decay by the late 18th century.
Private entrepreneurs have also created large-scale industrial communities with complex physical infrastructure and services. Robert Arne (chapter 5) explains the complex workings of Chicago’s Central Manufacturing District, with its well-functioning docks, local and rail transportation, electricity, and many business services.
Law and Social Services
Is law possible without the state? Surprisingly, the answer appears to be yes. Bruce Benson (chapter 6) investigates the Law Merchant: the voluntarily evolved and enforced legal system that governed trade among international merchants. The Law Merchant filled the vacuum left by the fall of the Roman Empire, when merchants themselves created a dispute-resolution system that all parties regarded as fair. Today, arbitration and conflict-resolution businesses, like the Law Merchant of yore, offer many advantages over state systems, and have even spread to environmental mediation and community disputes. Stephen Davies (chapter 7) shows how, in the 19th century, local communities and private prosecution associations provided criminal justice.
Can private initiatives provide crucial social services? David Beito’s second contribution to this volume (chapter 8) discusses the fraternal societies that arose during the 19th century to look after their members before the rise of the welfare state. Millions of Americans received health and life insurance through fraternal, mutual-aid societies. David Green (chapter 9) discusses the “friendly societies” of Britain and Australia.
Like law and poor relief, education is another service that was adequately provided by private initiative in the 19th century. James Tooley (chapter 10) shows that prior to state involvement, literacy and school attendance rates in England, Wales, and the United States were 90 percent and rising. In many developing countries today, a large private-education industry exists to alleviate the failure of government-run schools.
Community and the Voluntary City
Community life is shaped in countless ways by governing institutions. In search of more livable communities, millions of Americans have turned to living in proprietary communities run by private homeowners associations. Fred Foldvary (chapter 11) presents the theory and history of proprietary communities, and explains how they can deliver the “public goods” (and services) that many assumed only governments could provide. Donald Boudreaux and Randall Holcombe (chapter 12) argue that in many respects the governance structures that arise in the market (e.g., condominium associations and corporations) outperform those of conventional cities and towns, which never deviate from the rule of one person–one vote. Robert Nelson (chapter 13) explains how older established neighborhoods can gain the advantages of proprietary communities. His proposed Residential Improvement Districts would give inner-city residents greater control over their neighborhoods, enhance personal safety, and improve the use of land and local resources. Spencer Heath MacCallum (chapter 14) suggests that multiple-tenant income properties are a stepping stone on the path to a hotel model of residential housing. Unlike political communities, private hotels offer some of the services provided by municipal governments but without their coercive wealth redistribution and wealth-draining battles for control. There is no reason why the hotel model should not be applied to residential homes leased for long periods, he argues.
Market Challenges and the Voluntary City
In the concluding chapter, Alexander Tabarrok shows how economists have failed to adequately explain to policymakers the historical scope of private initiative. Theories that assume that the marketplace cannot provide “public goods” are often theories with little empirical basis. The theory of market failure needs to incorporate a theory of government failure. Market-failure theory, in fact, is better understood as “market-challenge” theory.
“Market-challenge theory can identify areas where empirical investigation is likely to be especially valuable and interesting. But empirical investigation may discover market failure, or it may discover practices and institutions that help markets to succeed in the face of challenges.” In sum, The Voluntary City remedies this deficiency of contemporary urban decline by investigating the history of large-scale, private provision of social services, the for-profit provision of urban infrastructure and community governance, and the growing privatization of residential life in the United States. The strength of The Voluntary City lies in its examples of how market-based entrepreneurship, rather than politics-as-usual, has shown itself to be well equipped to provide local public goods. The Voluntary City further suggests that in the process of providing local public goods, market-based entrepreneurship can renew community and strengthen the bonds of civil society.
This current Libertarians and Past situations of the 1920s and 1930s doesn't seem to be a legitimate argument unless you asked a libertarian if that was Needed THEN, in which case I believe most would agree it WAS. but..
I'm not a libertarian or defending anyone, just like to be rational in my arguments.
Perhaps, then you should try again.
no need to try again, my point stands untouched.
you cant claim that if something worked in 1592 it will work now and expect anyone with any intelligence to agree.
or in this case, 1930
I have a big concern that Ron Pawl, the biggest Libertarian of them all, is trying very hard to co-opt ows - he is very much trying to capitalize on those who are "down with the FED" problem is, is exactly what this article talks about, catch them on those few little wish list items and a "sure let's legalize pot" and, bam! sparkly, sparkly - it seems like the Utopian world ahead... problem is no one paints that picture of what the world will be like after they're done deconstructing 150 years of social and legal progress in this country. You can just throw that word equality right out the window, there will be the differing level of have nots, those few with jobs, and those dying in the shanty towns in the streets. Anyway, I keep finding links, particularly on Youtube, where Ron Lawl supporters (inside men?) are utilizing clips and the "99%" to elude to a connection to OWS. An example in point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7PwcC9qzw&feature=share, watch this video then click on the link of the guy who uploaded it and you will find a pretty interesting page that also make an allusion to media blackouts... think it's about OWS, but then you find out it is a Ron Lawl snake hole... I don't know how we deal with this kind of stuff but there definitely needs to be some communication. I am with #occupyiowacity (IA) and we do not have the resources that you do in terms of think-tanking how to keep Ron Lawl and others who want to co-opt (or send in campaign recruiters). I don't want our movement to turn into a Ron Lawl rally. He is the only Republitarian who has not bashed the OWS, but says he supports them: see his message to OWS on Youtube as well. I think this guy is a snake and he thinks he's found the garden of Eden (with reportedly 1/2 mil in the bank)... see where I am going with this... 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNlSY1LNEY 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieJmrxV1Hk4 3.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqau48Wz4O0 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33dKgKc1SrM and well, they go on and on and on... I don't want us to wake up one morning and find out we've all been sleeping again. Ron Pawl gets in here, most of us are out of here. (Won't let me spell the man's name correctly, what's up with that?)
I have a big concern that Ron Lawl, the biggest Libertarian of them all, is trying very hard to co-opt ows - he is very much trying to capitalize on those who are "down with the FED" problem is, is exactly what this article talks about, catch them on those few little wish list items and a "sure let's legalize pot" and, bam! sparkly, sparkly - it seems like the Utopian world ahead... problem is no one paints that picture of what the world will be like after they're done deconstructing 150 years of social and legal progress in this country. You can just throw that word equality right out the window, there will be the differing level of have nots, those few with jobs, and those dying in the shanty towns in the streets. Anyway, I keep finding links, particularly on Youtube, where Ron Lawl supporters (inside men?) are utilizing clips and the "99%" to elude to a connection to OWS. An example in point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7PwcC9qzw&feature=share, watch this video then click on the link of the guy who uploaded it and you will find a pretty interesting page that also make an allusion to media blackouts... think it's about OWS, but then you find out it is a Ron Lawl snake hole... I don't know how we deal with this kind of stuff but there definitely needs to be some communication. I am with #occupyiowacity (IA) and we do not have the resources that you do in terms of think-tanking how to keep Ron Lawl and others who want to co-opt (or send in campaign recruiters). I don't want our movement to turn into a Ron Lawl rally. He is the only Republitarian who has not bashed the OWS, but says he supports them: see his message to OWS on Youtube as well. I think this guy is a snake and he thinks he's found the garden of Eden (with reportedly 1/2 mil in the bank)... see where I am going with this... 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNlSY1LNEY 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieJmrxV1Hk4 3.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqau48Wz4O0 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33dKgKc1SrM and well, they go on and on and on... I don't want us to wake up one morning and find out we've all been sleeping again. Ron Lawl gets in here, most of us are out of here.
They're using Paul to move thing right that the average american will accept everything else as moderate.
But has anyone discussed HOW to prevent the movement from being co-opted, any specific tactics or messages through the #ows media group? Maybe some mainline news TV interviews restating that we will not be co-opted. Hell maybe it should be the tag line after any interview. It could help stop all these speculations...
Remember Ronnie Raygun's oft repeated dream of America as "A Shining City on a hill"? A Medieval feudal vision if there ever was one. The logical end of a truly Libertarian society is FEUDALISM.
puff6962, what is this permalink stuff about? I was enjoying our debate. And believe it or not, I have considered your argument.
I don't know, I haven't hit that button.
Check this out....
http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/10/ron-paul-speech-at-des-moines-iowa-straw-poll-oct-29-2011/
Does this guy sound like an establishment puppet?
My answer to the question isn't just a no,but a HELL NO!
How foolish you must be to think that you can lump an entire group of people under "Libertarian" beliefs.
People who denounce libertarians are just fear mongering socialists who want the government to take care of everything.
Libertarians do not all believe that absolute minimalist government is necessary, they simply believe that the government should not be so eager to step in and regulate every facet of human life. They believe that government legislation to hinder free trade and other freedoms only tends to force people to work around their rules and regulations which leads to an even more corrupted system, such as the one we see today.
I believe that it is a logical conclusion that modern day government has grown far too large and needs to be scaled back in order to allow true capitalism and free markets to reign again. You can call that "Libertarian" belief, but I just call it logical.
The financial crisis demonstrated that the big evil banks and corporations need the government to survive. A libertarian would not have bailed them out, thus allowing the rich to fail like they deserved to. Yeah sure government gives out other handouts to people like SS and Medicare, but those are small potatoes compared to welfare for the rich like bailouts and special insider treatment from the FED. Our wars are also welfare for the rich.
Only the official beltway Libertarians like Koch funded Reason magazine are constantly going on about cutting SS and Medicare. Libertarians like Ron PauI however have said they would not cut social security for anyone but would plan to let young people opt out of it if they chose to. Real libertarians like Paul know the key to preserving SS and Medicare is to stop all the other wasteful spending, bailouts, wars, and reigning the FED in. The only one who never votes to loot the SS trust fund like the other politicians do, dems included, is the libertarian Ron PauI, because he never supports any of the other spending that causes the politicians to loot SS.
What was it like before "The New Deal"?
Read "The Grapes of Wrath."
My parents lived in Grove, Oklahoma during the Great Depression. Both of their families went to California for work. That book is more true than any textbook on the period. Steinbeck actually toned down the book because he didn't think that people would be receptive to how bad the migrants' plight had been.
This book is historical fiction. You need to read this non-fiction book:
http://www.henrygeorge.org/pdfs/PandP_Drake.pdf
There was a depression about every 20 years during the previous 120 years with GNP drops of 10% to 20%, The Depression in the 1930's saw gnp drop about 22% . After the New Deal GNP only went negative 1% or worse 3 times. SO Depressions never happened and recessions were short and shallow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States
To get this county going strong again we need to cerate jobs. I have a plan if you would hear me out. Like the tariffs we could use the IRS to charge more taxes to companies that are American companies but build over seas. Example Company A does everything here they pay 15% (let use fake number for easy of explain) Company B has it factory over seas and it customer service there as well let charged them 45% and, Company C just has it factory over seas lets charge them 30%. this way we encourage company to stay here and even bring back there factories , but most important new companies to form here. Think of it this way, wash machine company make a good wash machine for $700 here and another company make a let quality machine in China for $450. but the one in Chine now cost $650. I would buy the better one make here because it is a better deal. This encourages customer to buy American and not just shop by price. Plus this the Government get to taxes from all the worker in the American factories and the Factories overseas no taxes from workers the Government can make up the taxes from the companies. I would like someone to get back with me and let me know if interested in hear more details. This could help make America strong for years to come
To get this county going strong again we need to cerate jobs. I have a plan if you would hear me out. Like the tariffs we could use the IRS to charge more taxes to companies that are American companies but build over seas. Example Company A does everything here they pay 15% (let use fake number for easy of explain) Company B has it factory over seas and it customer service there as well let charged them 45% and, Company C just has it factory over seas lets charge them 30%. this way we encourage company to stay here and even bring back there factories , but most important new companies to form here. Think of it this way, wash machine company make a good wash machine for $700 here and another company make a let quality machine in China for $450. but the one in Chine now cost $650. I would buy the better one make here because it is a better deal. This encourages customer to buy American and not just shop by price. Plus this the Government get to taxes from all the worker in the American factories and the Factories overseas no taxes from workers the Government can make up the taxes from the companies. I would like someone to get back with me and let me know if interested in hear more details. This could help make America strong for years to come
Tariffs are the most straightforward way. The history of the US shows that tariffs were employed to create the no. 1 manufacturing nation and the no. 1 economy on earth. In 2010 we lost the no.1 manufacturing slot to China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
The WTO would come down on this. In a sense, this is happening somewhat. Corporations incorporate in countries like Ireland because of very favorable corporate tax plans. They ship jobs overseas, declare the profits in Ireland, and then expect us to buy their products because they're an "American" company. The devil is in the details....and the economics. In our country, over the past 30 years, workers who produce things like textiles have gotten decimated while others, who make exports like airplanes, have done pretty well. I think, just like in banking, segmentation of economies....rather than unrestrained internationalism....needs to be employed to slow down some of the instabilities produced by these dynamics.
Be cool if some of the big Hollywood studios acted more like co-ops and less like the corporations they are. The stage hands and craft people would get paid better and the movies might improve too.
For its worship of individualism, Libertarianism could also be called "Libertarionanism".
Worship of individualism....what a crock. Libertarians have their spot on the lifeboat so they tell everyone else that freedom means to tread water. Who falls for these stupid slogans?
You hit the nail on the head.
I think a lot moved in the direction of this label of "Libertarian" some years ago in light of all the liberal versus conservative discussion. When it relates to some matters many are decidedly non-Catholic, or more "liberal." When it comes parenting, most are decidedly "conservative" - we will always recommend a path of prudence. (And this is probably the very reason a "liberal" party no longer exists in even our most metropolitan areas). When it comes to individual opinion, or relatively innocuous behavior, most are more of the "to each his or her own" mindset, or libertarian. But that does not mean we want to live in a world without law or community censure.
The reality is that none of us can be hammered into a particular mold, but that's exactly what parties try to do, because they need a platform to present to the public or they will cease to be a party.
Your rant is centered on national healthcare. The problem is that you have not applied the basics of economy. A 300 mil plus and rapidly growing population with a total cost over a lifetime of one million in healthcare expenses (because we want the best healthcare; anything else would be considered discriminatory in some form), would cost each of us a minimum of one million plus in Federal taxes over a lifetime, or in other words, about three to four times what the average tax payer (fewer and fewer ARE tax payers) currently pay in federal taxes.
Our population will hit 700 mil plus by the end of the 24th century. You want healthcare? We need the jobs to grow the tax base. Simple, simple, math.
If we merely print the money for healthcare, infuse the necessary cash, it will become valueless over night in light of world economy and the need to import resources.
Your health care numbers are fiction. The average modern industrial state spends around 4700 dollars per year on each citizen to cover health care. We spend twice that and are ranked so far down the list in overall quality of care (what is it 34 or 43rd?) that this "we can't pay for it" argument is just facile.
There is always two ways that opponents to medicare for all divide and conquer. First, they claim creeping socialism.....everyone from the Dixiecrats (who didn't want to be in the same hospital as a black person) to Ronald Reagan (who didn't want to be in the same hospital as a black person). Second, they say that we can't pay for it. I have a sad truth for you, traditional medicare was run with a lower administrative cost than any current private insurer. Check the numbers before you make a fool of yourself. The sad truth is that our health care industry is a benevolent parasite that is sucking us dry almost to the point of killing our economic system. And, like any parasite, they fight to keep their teeth in a host.
A medicare for all policy is ethical, more efficient, and would lead to better care for all. It's just about 50 years late.
That's it exactly - it's 50 years late and it's no longer affordable. And if you think European dental and healthcare are better than ours you need to go take a look for yourself because I certainly have and it's a fallacy.
There is no way you will cover anybody in the US for 4700 a year. And you also need to weigh that 4700 against the average European salary, which, even for the well educated, is far less than ours. Also look at property values and mortgages because they are the biggest expense in most lives - they mortgage for three generations with 99 year mortgages because their meager salaries don't permit a 10 year mortgage. What I'm saying, is that 4700 is far more valuable to them than it is to us. And taxes have had a huge impact on productivity.
You're living in a fantasy world. I want reality, something that's feasible.
I am a retired orthopaedic surgeon and have studied both the french, canadian, and british systems. I would not want the british, because there the doctors are actually employees of the state. However, in canada and france (as well as most other industrial states), the physicians and hospitals are actually private entities funded through a single payer system. That hybrid seems to work best. I have never seen a patient under this system who was not more satisfied than the orthopaedic patients here. This corresponds to a similar finding that medicare recipients are more satisfied with their care than are recipients of private insurance. Socialism.....no, just simple and rational. Private insurance is a minefield and is fraught with the wrong incentives.
I'm not hung up on this word of "socialism." No society can live without some level of socialism. My problem with singe payer is that I have seen no effort whatsoever to contain costs. Nine out ten women in a delivery room here, at any given moment, are illegals. You could argue, well then we are already paying for 9/10s of the population. Ok, so maybe the scenario is an inaccurate measure, or exaggerated, but still it lends the impression that what they are presently proposing is that we finance the medical care for all of South America. And tax payers are highly opposed to this. I'm also concerned about their preference for state medical employment because I personally view the medical profession as a possible avenue to wealth available to all. I don't want this possible avenue of wealth closed to our children.
I think it could be argued that Obamacare was written for the purpose of promoting the interests of a certain few insurance providers. But let's face it, either way we have a government that can't even manage a one day election without corruption, how then do we manage care for 300 mil? And this, too, is a concern - we have a much larger population than most European countries, which is growing daily, while more and more are deferring employment in favor of life on the couch, in front of their PC or the TV, in the hope of another's charity. More and more are seeking care for frivolous ailments, throw in our drug addicted population... and I see this as one big disaster for the 53% of Americans that actually contribute to our tax revenue, many of whom who will lose their employer provided insurance, their compensation packages, without so much as a hope of recompense.
It's just one big joke. We need to put America back to work again. We need employment opportunity. And we need to contain the cost of medical care.
Read, "The Big Con."
Single payers, or Medicare, bargain every day. In fact, medicare sets the baseline against which 99% of insurers base their reimbursements. You already have socialized medicine in America. The only caveat is that you have an entire cottage, parasitic, health care industry that is sitting between what an individual pays in and what care the individual receives.
Health care, whether it be by medicare or private insurers, will never follow an efficiency model. It is impossible for a physician to see 200 patients a day or for a surgeon to do two surgeries at once (I have tried).
In the end, the only way to rapidly may the system more equitable and efficient is to eliminate the percentage of money in that does not go patient care. And, the only way to get there is to eliminate the middlemen. The entire private insurance industry is one that levies a 26% administration cost on to the top of what is paid for care. That is private enterprise in it's most disgusting form....inefficient yet insurmountable.
It doesn't matter to whom or to what you ascribe the cost, private insurance is no longer affordable for most people, nor is it any more affordable for our employers. This still does not address the fact that hospital costs and doctor's fees, particularly those of surgeons, are outrageous. (What ever happened to the hippocratic oath?)
Additionally, we've been told we will not be permitted to seek a competitive international market for prescription drugs; why when the only option for many is to forgo their medication?
OK, so single payer negotiates for lower costs... what will those be in light of another three hundred thousand on the federal payroll who at the very least are inefficient, or more precisely, incompetent? Have you tried calling a NY State office lately? You're lucky if you can even find one individual who enunciates well enough to even understand. Add to this a rapidly growing population of illegal aliens and it's STILL unaffordable for the too few that are working, unless we address the cost of this maserati that we have allowed the free market, science and technology to create. We will indeed introduce a level of efficiency or eventually you will have no one sitting in your office. We will become a society of regression (as if we are not already) in which only the wealthy will have healthcare, until one day, a "czar" rises to power to slay all the naysayers, each and everyone.
He already did, his name was Ronald Reagan. It just took a long time.
Actually we all did very well during the Regan years. You can't hold him responsible, now, if he has no ability to effect a current change.
We had a business cycle. The fed broke the back of inflation with 17% interest rates, which caused a severe recession, and the last 4 years of Reagan's presidency represented the pent up demand from that effect. To ascribe the 80's, with incredible deficits and military stimulus spending, as doing very well is somewhat of a simplistic review. Remember what happened in 1990 when the business cycle ended....well, read about it.
Well, you're right interest rates were at 18.5%. On the other hand, we had less unemployment, greater benefits, and houses were affordable. In short, there was a sense of general prosperity.
Which time period showed greater economic, technological, social, and cultural progress, 1980-1988 or 1992-2000? I include cultural only because we got rid of Boy George.
I don't think the political process contributes much technologically, unless we are speaking of military support. And it certainly is not intended to contribute anything culturally.
The early 90s brought us a lot of angst as northern industry moved south, a severe recession, high unemployment, decreasing benefit packages... later a rise in housing costs. Personally, I'd have to go with the mid 80s... but at some point there all is more or less blurred.
Do you have a 10 year mortgage?
Not any more no, but I did have.
can someone please play the movie !waking life! that movie tells it all and i want everyone to know about it and see it, its a must!!
Capitalism is based on the idea that the consumer will balance and maintain the system. However, in today's world the consumer has been greedy, they have sought only the cheapest product with little regard to ethical impact of their decision. This greed has been reflected at the top. It is now up to consumers, it is up to us, to balance the system. We must overcome our greed and spend the extra dollar on the most ethical purchase, not the cheapest. Your dollar is a moral extension of yourself. You decide which companies to grow and which to weed out with each purchase you make. Support the organic, the sustainable, and the green. Buy your gifts from Main St. not Wal-Mart and shop local. Put your money in your local bank or credit union while avoiding the too big to fail.
Currently we need regulation to maintain accountability. It would not happen overnight but in a morally conscious market any immoral company would be defeated and render government regulation unnecessary. This could pave a path for liberals and conservatives overcome their differences come together under one movement acting as one people, which is what we truly are. United we will be powerful enough to make the change we both so desire. We can stand together to end corruption by reestablishing a morally accountable capitalism where government regulation is no longer necessary. We are not different, we are human beings. This is our moment. Be the change you want to see.
Wal-mart has become China Direct. It is the most efficient distribution system ever created and has allowed China to pervade it's products to every metropolis and small town in America.
No better argument could be made for equalizing our trade with China than to shut down Wal-mart tomorrow.
Wonderful comment.
Ayn Rand and Greenspan. Marriage made in hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8EVczrTyg
Love it, thanks.
well. the 99% just wants an even playing field again, and here's how we will get it done;
Here's how we can easily Reform Wall Street: Take away their powers "Once Again." And the best way to get this done is a Million People March to Capitol Hill!
For example, "We are here Congress because we want you to REINSTATE the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1aPEc3wX which was created to help save our country from the Great Depression by preventing investment companies, banks, and insurance companies from merging and becoming large brokerage firms; instead of just being Banks and Insurance companies -- Congress why can't you learn a history lesson from 1929? The current system doesn't work, except for the 1%, twice again. Btw, why did most of you vote for the major repeal of G-S Act in 1999? Shattering The Glass-Steagall Act: http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act (2nd story here)
Think about where we are now, it all started in 1999 with lawmakers like Senator Phil Gramm who helped create legal gambling casinos for our banks: CNN's The Ten Most Responsible for Economy Collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQOxr2wBZQ&feature=related
Furthermore Congress, we also want you to CHANGE the Commodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 BACK to where it was before 2000, which since has deregulated energy markets and consequently allowed for such scams as The Enron Loophole; whereas in the early 2000's Enron Corp. was charging 250 bucks plus for a kilowatt hour...They all when to jail for this. But, the Enron loophole is still not completely closed, for example, allowing speculators to resell barrels of oil over and over again before it reaches the gas station owner. It's basically legal gambling at our expense. What were those lawmakers thinking then? What are you thinking now? Either do the right thing, or you're part of the 1%."
So why are oil prices high? The Enron Loophole. Former Head of U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Professor Michael Greenberger, speaks to Congress on the high price of oil--and he's not happy about Energy Deregulations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related
Rolling Stones Reporter Matt Taibbi: Truth about Goldman Sachs--how they have cornered the markets--basically, The Enron Loophole and the Shattering of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waL5UxScgUw
Let's get focused and bring back The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, they got it right 1933, so we don't need to REINVENT the wheel because bringing this Act back will help create an even playing field once again....and let's finally Close the Enron Loophole, which allowed Enron to charge what they wanted for energy; they went to jail for this; but no one completely closed the loophole, why? Re-Election Monies from the big brokerage firms and oil companies! The writing is on the wall.
Let's get organized and reinstate these critical financial reforms with a Million People March to Capitol Hill!
And considering we need a strong central focus/goal, maybe call it: "The Million People March to Capital Hill to Reinstate The Glass-Steagall Act and to Finally Close The Enron Loophole"
That will get their attention!
I agree.
First Power, Then Change.
I always picture Libertarians to look like Sheldon (The Big Bang Theory) on Crack.
For a New Deal in the Tradition of Roosevelt, for a New Bretton Woods and a new Glass Steagal...and for Protectionism instead of FREE TRADFE...
The LaRouche Movement
http://www.larouchepac.org
Mondragon Project - the greatest commune of the world and a brilliant and benefiting Job Machine....!!!
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Linden LaRouche????
Are you fucking kidding me?
[Removed]
What is LIbertarian Communism or Libertarian Socialism?
[Removed]
[Removed]
and what is your take? that the world is thisclose to going back to the pre-New Deal days if not for the, ahem, responsible use of power by the federal govt?
what a joke.
just admit you are afraid of more freedom and you want to be coddled by the nanny state. you'll look like a gullible fool, but at least you'll be honest.
I am just so afraid of "freedom."
Shouldn't you be out with your militia buddies? Watch out for those black helicopters.
I will bet that you are paying for your AK-47 with unemployment benefits. It looks like the nanny state has a problem child on her hands.
What do you call a 100 lesbians with guns?
Militia Ethridge.
What do you call someone like you with a gun?
Fucking scary shit.
I do not and never have owned a gun. I have no interest in owning a gun.
you are an imbecile on top of being a gullible fool and dishonest.
admit you want the govt to coddle you every day. it's plain to see.
Yes, I may prove to be an imbecile, but I have managed to get to my age and remain empathic.
You are already a bitter little shit who thinks that life has treated you bad and the world should be as harsh on others. Good luck, but you are who you deserve to be.
"Yes, I may prove to be an imbecile"
you already did. and then you did again....
"You ...thinks that life has treated you bad..."
what? no I don't. what in the world gave you that idea? I'm not even sure what that means, but I have never thought that "life" has "treated me bad." I am responsible for my life and my happiness and I'm pretty happy so far. I laugh at these ows dummies, the ones who DO think that life has treated them bad. so once again, you couldn't be more wrong.
you serial assumptionists are fucking pathetic.
try to accept that when someone disagrees with you about something, that doesn't mean they are the exact opposite of how wonderful and virtuous you think you are. in other words, grow the fuck up.
If you have time to monitor this board and type your drivel, on a Wednesday afternoon, then I would say that either you're a crappy employee or you are very underemployed.
You imagine a world of "every man for himself" and I don't think you can imagine what a world like that truly looks like.
I feel for you, you're obviously a very saddened individual, but the world doesn't have to be such a terrible place for you. People have both destructive and constructive impulses and sadness tends to bring out the former.
Have you considered counseling?
"you're a crappy employee or you are very underemployed"
another stupid binary from a very small mind. yeah, I guess it must be one or the other, right? no other possibilities at all.
"You imagine a world of "every man for himself" -- no I don't. stop assuming so much.
"I feel for you" -- no you don't. stop lying so much.
I'm an optimist. I believe, given the opportunity, most people can self-govern without the govt up their ass every time they turn around. I'd still want a reasonable social safety net and I don't want anyone to go broke because they got sick. unlike you, I do not live in a binary world of absolutes. exceptions abound. but as a guiding principle, I think smaller govt is more effective and better for everyone.
“I heartily accept the motto, — ‘That government is best which governs least.’”
Henry David Thoreau
but what does he know? he was just a greedy, selfish dick, right?
maybe one day you'll realize that everyone who disagrees with you on something is not the opposite of you. until then, no matter your age, you're a silly little boy who lives in a fantasy world where you are the avenging hero of the downtrodden and everyone else is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil and greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedy. talk about a need for counseling!
I'm sorry, what were we arguing about? Are you the "you can't handle the freedom" guy? (You have to imagine Jack Nicholson saying that).
‘That government is best which governs least.’
You know, we've had that in history.....The Guilded Age, the 1920's, and 2000-2006......
The result has always been vast instabilities of wealth and corruption. Do you understand what life was like for the poor or the rural in the America of the late 19th and early 20th centuries?
You also never seem to identify what your "least" form of government will entail.
There is a classic dynamic in societies that weak governments breed abuses by private entities and strong governments breed abuses by government entities. (I just made that up and it's pretty fucking good, isn't it?)
So, you pick your poison. The answer, I think, is to choose a form of government somewhere in the middle......but the question is, of course, whose middle.
"I'm sorry, what were we arguing about?"
I called you out on your distaste for as much freedom from state power and control and you threw a hissy fit. First you claimed I was a gun nut (I'm not), then you claimed I wanted a law of the jungle (I don't), then you claimed I believe the world treated me bad (I can't even comprehend such an idiotic notion), then you claimed to know the first thing about how I make my living (you don't), then you claimed to "feel for" me (a lie)...need any more info on how you've been wrong over and over and over? Or do you want to obsess about me some more so you can avoid facing your own cowardice?
comparing the far too little regulations of the 20s with the current nanny state that was in effect before and throughout '00-'06...seriously, are you trying to look like a fool? I guess you fell for the bullshit media line/lie that the financial shitter was the result of "no regulation" of the banking industry. intelligent people, on the other hand, knew is was poor regulation, incestuous regulation, cronyism regulation that failed to do its job. the idea that there was no regulation is absurd beyond words, but you heard it, added it to your bush brain disease, and fell for it hook, line and sinker.
"You also never seem to identify what your "least" form of government will entail."
ok, maybe the problem is you can't read. I mentioned the constitution, the social safety net, and catastrophic medical coverage. but you missed all that because you are an emotional wreck with an ego so delicate and fragile, once a thought has taken root in your head, no other countering information will be processed.
you're a fool and a cartoon version of an actual human. I am done wasting my time with you.
After all the time you wasted on libertarianism?
Seems a waste.
don't be afraid of more freedom than you currently have. it won't bite you.
Does that mean I can visit Canada without a passport again?
I'll bet not.
It's the conservatives who hate freedom.
You offer only false freedom.
so me (an atheist for 30 years) and my desire for and end to drug prohibition, coin-operated abortion, and gay marriage is what you call a conservative?
nice kneejerk, you silly fool.
Still can't answer a question.
I guess I am silly. I thought this was the libT fairy thread.
"Still can't answer a question."
which one? "Does that mean I can visit Canada without a passport again?"
you mean that wasn't rhetorical? or did you think our discussion would automagically lead to a change in legislation? sorry to disappoint you, but no, I don't think you can now visit Canada without a passport.
what is the point of this question? how is it relevant? did I miss any other questions you asked?
Boy, you really put a lot of effort into that one....you're pretty riled up aren't you.....so, were you finally able to get a chubby? This is a troll magnet topic, meant to attract you here so that you get to vent your fairy tale to your heart's desire while leaving other forums alone.
Every paradise has it's serpent and I am a student of the first half of the 20th century. I have seen what rhetoric was used to espouse very different political movements and what that rhetoric led to.
Your desire to restore true freedom is the most dangerous of all rhetoric. In the past, it has always been those who wish to return society to it's former greatness that have most quickly taken that society to disaster.
Ronald Reagan fit this mold and everything we are experiencing today is based largely on the dogmas that grew out of the Reagan Revolution.
But, the results of a Libertarian majority in our political thought will simply crush all that is right with the American experiment.....all in the name of "true freedom."
Now, now puff. you know libTs have a problem with reality.
It takes a gentle touch to bring them around...........LOL
Not sure what country you live in or what the point of your post even is. But if you can't agree with Libertarianism which includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom then you are living in the wrong country. This is what we (USA) were founded upon. (btw, that definition is from wikipedia, which means it is the agreed upon meaning by the largest majority of people)
As for your questions... "Can you imagine what would happen to a generation of older Americans if medicare were not available? What would the older uninsured do when they had a heart attack?"
The answer is they would die. There is this thing in life that happens to all of us and it is the most natural thing that anyone knows, it's called death. It happens when you are too old to function on your own and is perfectly normal and healthy. Fighting death is one of the largest problems in the world today along with over population. Nursing home problems, insurance/health problems, family struggle, and many more issues all develop because people are keeping others alive against their will. People will pass when they are meant to. Fighting it only leads to problems. Nature will win at this every time or at least it has 100% of the time thus far, learn to deal with this fact and the world opens up to you.
I hope you continue your beliefs and end your life when you, personally, become very sick. That would truly show that you adhere to your own beliefs. We simply should not live past the age of 43. Nature is done with us at that point and, from there on, we are only debits on a balance sheet. Oh wait, that was 1911.
Save what you have written here and read it again in thirty or forty years. Life is a rather precious thing and there are tremendous advantages in taking care of those who have take care of us.
If this is your Libertarian wet dream, then you really do belong in the United States of RonPaulistan.
[Removed]
Imagine a system where healthcare is affordable without insurance because there are no mandates that require you to subsidize the cost of others including those who abuse the emergency room. You know doctors in the past have treated 67 year olds with a history of diabetes in the past before all these precious social programs - for less cost - than they do now.
So your talking about an end to the insurance corporations?
Take the road back to the country doctor?
Or is this just starry eyed?
You should read Deadly Spin and understand the level of coercion employed by the health care investors market.
Real insurance without the lopsided appeal to large corporate contacts is what I advocate. Emergency only services with pay at point of service for routine check ups. Lower costs lower paperwork. Already some offices are offering services at up to 1/3rd of the rate if you pay for it without insurance because it saves so much on staff time processing insurance paperwork.
Sounds like insurance jargon.
Read Deadly Spin.
Not at all. Modern health insurance makes as much sense as buying food or gas insurance. They aren't either low incidence or high consequence actions.
Insurance is there to move risk to a 3rd party - not to pay for everyday expenses.
More jargon??
What's gas insurance? I don't think I have that.
Is it sold by geckos?
Read Deadly Spin. Please.
Can we have a discussion without you trying to belittle everything?
I said that modern health insurance makes as much sense as buying food or gas insurance. The fact that neither of those exist shows that there isn't any sense at all in them. Therefore my statement shows I find there to be no sense in how modern health insurance currently operates.
Really is that such a hard meaning to get from my sentence that instead of understanding it you decide to mock it?
I'll add it to my reading list which is currently over 40 books long. Can we have a discussion like two adults in the meantime?
Why do you mock me?
I asked a few simple questions.
What is gas insurance? I've never heard of it.
Are you attempting to equate health insurance with car insurance?
Perhaps I sound a bit harsh because I've been having these same arguments over and over and over, for over 2 months, and I have yet to find a libertarian defender that will give even an inch, yet they expect me to accept whatever they say at 100%.
No compromise.
That's right, not one inch, and that's just in this forum..
Here's the bottom line. There is no such thing as a "free market". It's impossible. Perhaps a more accurate term is necessary, as that one lacks accuracy..
I am not a car.
Beliefs on health care are some of the most manipulated.
Move the book up on your list.
No mockery intended - in fact I thought you were mocking me.
If you can find a logical flaw in my argument I'll change my mind. Its how I became a libertarian in the first place.
Gas insurance doesn't exist because there is no reason for it to exist. That was rather my point. Insurance there is to spread out the costs of things that are rare (house fire for example) but whose impact is huge (losing all your stuff and place to sleep). People find the risk of that happening worth paying for. Say for example the risk that your house burns down is 1 in 10,000 each year and your house and all the stuff costs 10,000 dollars. It is then worth paying 1 dollar a year to insure against that risk. The dollar is wasted if the house does not burn down but very well spent if it is. You have shifted the risk of your house burning down to the insurance company for the cost of 1 dollar. That is a deal.
It is a lot more complicated than that in reality but that is the fundamental reason insurance exists.
Currently healthcare insurance doesn't just cover those rare but high cost issues (horrible injuries, bad diseases) but frequent and known costs (medication, checkups, dental visits, cavities, blood work) and that shouldn't be something that is insured because it isn't a risk. Its not something that may happen or may not happen - it is going to happen quite regularly and scheduled in fact. You don't insure regular events because that doesn't move any risk ownership around. This makes it cost more for everyone involved.
The way insurance works now (as in how it is purchased and delivered) also acts to increase price while lowering quality because it destroys the ability to judge value. That is a whole other big explanation.
I understand and sympathize with your frustration. Very often I am frustrated here on these forums as well as I explain a concept over and over again while being verbally assaulted for presenting new information or new ways of looking at an issue.
Still no compromise?
Trust me, I know more about "health care insurance" then you do.
I've been on the front lines since 1980, when my wife became a hemiplegic. The limits on care are unconscionable. Evil, even.
Read the book and get back to me.
What is there to compromise with? I haven't even finished explaining my position. And why is compromise desired? Compromise is lose-lose as each sacrifices. What we should be working towards is collaboration where we devise a solution that we both desire. It is win-win.
How can you claim to know "more about" a topic than any person when you don't know that person's experience or knowledge? Understanding how health insurance functions since the 80's and today isn't really useful for understanding how insurance should function (and its the comparison of the two that reveals many problems).
I believe that how our system functions is evil. It causes higher prices for less quality of care while taking longer to deliver it. It is inefficient, ineffective, overly priced, complicated, and cumbersome. The current system needs to be entirely scrapped.
At what point can we start agreeing on the problems and then move towards solutions?
What's there to compromise on?
Everything.
And then you call for collaboration?
WTF?
Collaboration is win-win as we both move towards a shared goal. Compromise is lose-lose where we each sacrifice what we want in order to get something halfway. Collaboration is a much better result.
I ask what is there to compromise on because we haven't even finished examining the causes of our current shitty system so how can we compromise on the solutions when we haven't even gotten to them
We could start by getting the money and the republicans out.
I would rather get the money and all political parties out.
Political parties themselves encourage people to view politics like they are members of sports teams and root for one team to "win" or "lose" when the focus should not be on teams or any labels but on ideas that move us to a better world.
that would signal the market and government to invest in and streamline the creation of doctors. I believe this would work well, until enough doctors are created that prices for their services would decrease. then we can have another political fight on whether we ought to subsidies the creation of doctors.
I also think licensing of doctors should be voluntary. The artificial restriction of the supply of doctors by medical schools needs to end. Also if someone wants to pursue alternative medicines they should be freely able to make that decision for themselves (barring of course some form of mental incompetence).
i have to agree. there are not many arguments that I agree with when it comes to Milton Friedman, but his arguments against licensing makes sense. until i learn better, I am not a fan of license.
I love Milton for how he could explain some very basic market interactions to broad audience. His focus on supply side only and his Chicago pro-monetarist ideals not so much.
I cannot imagine such a system because it does not and never will exist. Medical care is expensive. It is expensive because it is good.....not because you are paying for anyone else and not because it is not driven by market forces.
Health care has never followed a market model and never will. You don't decide care issues based upon dollars and that kills the whole premise of inspiring efficiencies in the system.
The most efficient health care systems in the world are government sponsored and government run programs. That is the sad, but obvious, truth.
If you want a truly economic system, then you should desire that we scrap the current hodgpodge that serves very few people well and costs twice as much as in other countries and that we move to a single payer and government sponsored plan.
Facts are difficult things. But, you should imagine what has worked elsewhere rather than what will never work.
Except it has existed.
Medical care can be expensive - it only is expensive in all areas now because the costs of others procedures are factored into your price. If you aren't in need of lengthy contact with a specialist, a procedure involving hours in an OR, or expensive treatments - its not really that costly.
If you do need that - well that is why insurance (real insurance not what we have now) comes into play to cover those rare but costly events (same as a house fire).
I want to scrap the current hodgepodge and remove government from healthcare altogether.
Facts are difficult things so I can understand your problems with them.
I don't see any facts presented here.
Who would check for efficacy?
Horseshit. Insurance costs money because people get sick. You buy insurance because you can never tell when YOU will get sick.
Do you know how many healthy, uninsured, 22 year olds I have seen come in with vague complaints and end up having a tumor somewhere? They didn't want to spend on insurance because they were healthy. They thought health insurance was expensive. They didn't want to pay for the care of others. They, or their parents, ended up straddled with hundreds of thousands in medical bills, bankruptcy, late care, and drastically changed lives because they were as misguided as you.
Health care is expensive and your entire reasoning is a facile argument.
You don't get insurance for everyday occurrences such as checkups and physicals or most prescriptions. At least at one point in time you didn't because those are more like fixed costs.
Insurance is for things of low incidence (chance of occurring) but large consequence. Such as the house burning down, getting cancer, shot, car accident and the like.
I could go into a lot of detail and historical information on how government involvement first started forcing the morphing of insurance (and its horrible consequences) if you would like. (going to lunch now though)
Those 22 year olds made a choice and had to live with it. They gambled and lost - their choice.
You misunderstand the entire nature of rare events....."fat tails".....nobody ever thinks the unthinkable will happen to them.
I am a physician and really see no benefit in pursuing this with you. You seem to be arguing a mentality that would return our medical system to penicillin and bloodletting with payment consisting of chickens.
Good luck insuring yourself. You'll save money until that headaches begin....then your vision changes a little.....and then you get that first seizure. Here's a clue to your diagnosis.....it IS a tumor.
I'm talking risk management (my job) and economics (my education).
I've offered to describe in detail how we got where we are and how the government's interference has created bad incentives and moral hazards. You now firmly state you would rather not even see the reasoning but would rather dismiss it outright by mockery and an appeal to innovation (a logical fallacy).
You don't even seem to be understanding what I am saying about insurance and you don't bother to ask me to clarify - you simply hand waive.
Continue to support policies that will make your job harder, socially, emotionally, and fiscally. When it collapses and you cannot afford to work you will be forced to return to a system of direct payment at point of service.
What percent of insurance float gets paid out in benefits?
What is the number one cause of bankruptcies in this country?
How does insurance work? Would it work if you only began paying in when everybody was 64?
How do you propose to magically produce the savings that you are implying?
Questions! Thank you. That is the beginning of a useful dialogue.
What percent of insurance float gets paid out in benefits? - That would be up to the insurance company.
What is the number one cause of bankruptcies in this country? Medical bills. And we both agree it shouldn't be that way don't we?
How does insurance work? Would it work if you only began paying in when everybody was 64? Fundamentally it works by distributing costs. And it would depend on what one was insuring (almost always yes but it could result in very high premiums for example life insurance).
How do you propose to magically produce the savings that you are implying? No magic at all - just removing the barriers and bad incentives that exist right now.
What barriers do you see to providing cheap care?
Do you understand that medical care has been tried, for four decades, to confirm to market forces......but the problem is that medical decisions are not based upon economics. For doctors, there is simply too much at stake if you undertreat and are wrong. For patients, there is no incentive to underspend because, what if you are wrong? Can a patient truly understand the variables involved in their care? (NO).
Should insurance rates vary based upon nicotine use, alcohol use, and weight? Yes.
Should rates vary based upon compliance with a low cholesterol regimen? Yes.
Can you wring greater efficiencies? Yes....go to a single payer system and you will, immediately, add a 14 percent efficiency by reduced administration cost.
It hasn't had market forces for at least 4 decades. I forget when the first grossly affecting legislation was passed.
The barriers I see:
Sure we could get more efficiency from a single payer, but we could get the most from a more market system.
In single payer when your costs are not related to the amount of service it removes any disincentive to get service. How many more people in the ER or doctors office for the common cold demanding antibiotics? This increases demand which drains considerable resources and since supply isn't going to rachet up to meet it (no incentive to) it means artificial means of restricting access occur. Poof red tape and long waiting lists. More needlessly dead people.
Governmental support has not bred higher prices, better technology has. Unfortunately, anything that is new is priced at a premium.
Medical appliances and new drugs are priced at a premium and are not DRG'd. They exist outside of any competitive framework. That is one reason why there is the challenge to create all things new rather than efficiently implement all things that are good.
I believe its a combination of the two and prices fall faster when the government is not involved.
Take a look at lasik which falls outside of most insurances the new technology has seen prices fall dramatically because of market forces.
I'd rather read another Fairy Tale.
So instead of investigating the rate at which prices fall for new technology that exists outside of the governmentally subsidized health insurance racket you would rather choose to believe that the evidence is made up?
Exactly how does ignoring any information help to make you either better informed or better versed to remedy the failing system? Wouldn't the rational position be to examine all the evidence and take all the information one could get?
[Removed]
I'd just like to say Libertarianism isn't as you describe...
It can best be described as "Constitutionalism", as most basically, it is anti-federalism. People like Ron Lawl don't believe in zero government, they just believe that there has been a misallocation of duties and responsibilities between state and federal government.
If it isn't in the Constitution, the federal government has no place doing it...now if states want to take up the issue, they have State Constitutions they can add amendments to. He would not be against Counties offering non-profit insurance co-ops, as a public option for health care.
Politically speaking, I consider myself a progressive libertarian.
Read, "Freedom From Fear," about the American people living through the Great Depression and, then, you will have some notion of what the world looked like with a minimal federal government.
People have gotten very used to the level of government services they are currently receiving, and likely wouldn't go backwards very far...
That said, 'I' personally have no problem reallocating LOTS of federal programs to states and counties.
Libertarians simply don't like top down mandates, and huge one size fits all programs, because they result in massive buracracies and unendable corruption.
Turning back programs to the states and municipalities is only a divide and conquer strategy by the Right. You need to read the book......
But, that was the system we had until the 1940's and it led to some of the worst abuses and conditions in American history.
Turning 'over' programs to states may or may not be a good idea, but the simply fact is that the Constitution is supposed to divide the power between the federal government and the staes...
At present there are programs and departments that have been misallocated. Libertarians don't believe in no federal government, or that there are things government shouldn't do, but rather there are thing the federal governmenthas NO business being involved in...
Yes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The federal government is like GM after the world's largest dose of Viagra. It is simply so massive and with so many tentacles that is beyond the ability of one person to grasp.
But, nothing springs from a vacuum and all of those good intention programs seemed like a good idea at the time......there was at least some evidence of need. However, some problems do not respond to a billion dollars any more than they do to a hundred.
No sound mind fails to understand that the government needs to be restructured. Ineffective programs must be scrapped and, if no effective solution can be devised, nothing should take their place. Other programs should be consolidated rather than duplicated among agencies. Some initiatives deserve an increase in spending. Safety net programs.....medicare and social security in particular.....should be means tested and reformed (code words for "raise the age of eligibility").
But, the question is.....who do you want guiding this process? Personally, I think that is the core issue of any OWS participant.
And, history instructs us well, those who hate the government are usually pretty crappy at running it.
It is time to have progressives, realists, experts, and intellectuals retake their place as the braintrust of our society. It was once a good thing to actually be smart.
There is little argument that something should be done. But, would you trust Herman Cain to make complicated decisions based upon medicare actuarial data? Would you have confidence in Michelle Bachmann's ability to focus upon anything besides gay sex? What would happen if Rick Perry couldn't remember the third branch of our government?
Obama is by no means a FDR, but he is also no Herbert Hoover. I simply do not trust where Libertarianism will take us and I have seen where neoconservatism has.
Hey genius, the govt expanded greatly before & especially during the Depression. You give us an example of the dangers of big govt & the misery it inflicts.
Yes, the federal government went from almost nonexistent to existing. You have no idea what the world was like for an average American in 1932....or 1922.
You deserve the world that you may get.
As usual your view of history is way off. The federal government went from almost nonexistent to existing when the US went from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. It's been downhill since.
1922 - By cutting taxes & spending the govt had quickly ended the recession of 1921.
1932 - By trying to stimulate their way out of a recession the Hoover administration brought on the Depression:
“The greatest spending administration in all of history”
Did Hoover really subscribe to a “hands-off-the-economy,” free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didn’t think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole. He accused the president of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was “leading the country down the path of socialism.”[8] Contrary to the conventional view about Hoover, Roosevelt and Garner were absolutely right.
(snip)
Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP soared from 16.4 percent to 21.5 percent.[12] Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.” http://www.fee.org/articles/great-myths-of-the-great-depression/
Look at the actual dollar amounts, not percentages....
The recession of 1921 behaved more like the traditional panics of the ages and it's end had no relationship with any substantive gov't actions.
In 1930, over 60% of the federal budget was taken up by the debt left from our TWO YEAR INVOLVEMENT in World War I.
That would be like the modern national budget being so small that interest on the debt from our involvement in Iraq for the past three years subsumed around three years of our government spending.
Your GNP numbers are incorrect and misleading. You are weighing government spending against a collapsing level of GNP over these years.
Hoovers measures were slight in comparison to the problem. He thought that government could encourage voluntary measures by business. He was wrong.
You are obviously smart enough to manipulate statistics to bend towards your desired beliefs.
Government did not take adequate measures to reliquify our economy until World War II. The middle class was born in the process.
FDR attacked Hoover for running deficits in 1932. FDR also refused to cooperate with Hoover's desired measures until assuming office in march of 1932. This was pure politics, but FDR did not want to be associated with Hoover's measures on the Europeans servicing their debt.
FDR often changed his positions and behaved like a pink pong ball in pinball table. His only political philosophy was "whatever works." A very flawed overall outlook, but a very necessary one at the time.
Hoover's ideals would have led to revolution in 1933......FDR did not inspire socialism......he preserved capitalism.
Ok, puff, not too bad this time. I would say that FDR instituted a form of elected fascism. What came out of his presidency was definitely no free market.
BTW, the Depression wasn't ended by WW II. It ended after the war & the govt finally started to cut spending & regulation. Then the economy recovered. Just like the medicine that worked so well in '21.
No, the war provided the massive fiscal stimulus that was necessary to restart the engine of our economy. Fiscal stimulus continued in the years following the war as economists and politicians had a pestering fear that, by withdrawing it, depression conditions would return.
The middle class was the outgrowth of the FDR realignment, wage and price controls during the war, and the continuation of this stimulus and these wage norms after the war.
I don't know where you get your info. According to this chart http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1902_2015USp_F0xF0fF0sF0l govt spending decreased after WW II. Not to mention in the early '20s. The economy then boomed.
During WW II the economy wasn't recovering. Prosperity hadn't returned. There was little to buy & much was rationed. This is not recovery but war masking the continued Depression. The military became a giant make work program.
There were wage controls during WWII, massive treasury drives, shortages, and pent up demand.
Most importantly, there were labor shortages during the war. What was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression?
None of which changes the truth of my statement that the war wasn't an economic recovery. From an economic POV there's no difference between the Works Progress Administration & the military. Big make work projects that drain the economy, ie the private sector.
An Economy On Life Support Is Not Recovering http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/08/economy-on-life-support-is-not.html
Recovery Depends on Investment and Capital Accumulation http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/08/recovery-depends-on-investment-and.html
What you guys don't understand is what the world is going to be like after our fairy tail debt and credit fiat money based economy returns to reality. All the "great" programs you love have been financed by borrowing from future generations. Our welfare warfare state is clearly not sustainable. Libertarian circles I run in are not anarchist. They are in support of the government supporting contract law and monopoly busting. You have erected a straw man and then knocked it down. You do have a point that if libertarians do ever gain control of government it will be difficult for us to transfer theory into governance.
Your world is the bare minimum strategy and, what you may not realize, that world has existed in America before. Read about the average American of the 1920's, supposedly a "good" time, and you may have some vision of what a Libertarian society would truly look like. Or, you could read "The United States of RonPaulistan."
You have made my point exactly. I am well aware of what life was like in the 20's. I am older than you think. What we are living in is a false monetary bubble created with fiat money, limitless credit and debt. Our prosperity is an illusion. We are going back weather you and I want it or not. You think it's bad now, just wait. You have reached the caboose of your gravy train. The question now is what kind of world do we want to build on the ashes of the socialist utopia you think is normal. Do you want a fascist police state or a constitutional republic? When it comes to government h--- yes I want the bare minimum. It is costly and wasteful.
Our prosperity is based upon the skills of our people being maximized in the most meritocratic of societies......otherwise, why would you strive.
"The bare minimum" is like the butcher CEO who is brought in to gut a company so that it's balance sheet will look good to investors. It works for a couple of quarters and then the cracks begin to appear and, quite soon, the company is just a shell of what it was. Revenues are down, return of equity collapses, and you have a rusty turd that nobody would want.
I always try to picture the US as a corporation and ask myself, if I were the CEO, how would I make the company stronger and the employees more productive. Your system, quite simply, would suck and I want no part in it. Neither should you.
This would be like me commuting to work in an 18 wheeler rather than a prius. We don't need all the government we have. Using your analogy it would be like running a bloated company and refusing to make changes in the face of a changing business climate. No one would just keep on running it the way it is and go into bankruptcy.
Yes, the government is bloated.....but, many programs serve a function with a real need.
If you really want to cut government expenditures, however, then you're better off not worrying about the little fish.....you go right to where the money is; defense, medicare, social security, and medicaid.
These are the real targets of your crew. Government waste is just a smokescreen.....you want to shoot yourself in the foot (you will be old some day too) while gutting money for older people.
I take no pleasure in telling you this, however, because I too believe we will have to make the corporation more lean.
What stands in the way is the fact that old people VOTE and they tend to vote against those who may be for cutting their benefits.
That is why you see the bravado about government waste.....that is why you see a starve the beast strategy for funding our government.
The strategy of the Right is to induce a severe fiscal crisis and to use the chaos as the stepping stone for severe austerity measures, namely the gutting of social security and medicare.
It's a cynical strategy and, unfortunately, it may work. I would love to see reform, but not by these guys. I try and keep foxes away from my hens.
One person in the race wants to cut defense and unconstitutional programs and keep commitments to seniors on medicare and social security. Actually I am pretty old, just short of social security age. But if it goes bankrupt because no one is courageous enough to make the cuts I don't see how that helps anyone. I think we may still have a short window of opportunity to salvage some of the services people have grown dependent on if we vote for him. I don't think the right wants to cut anything much either since they go into apoplexy if you talk about ending the war funding.
We have an unlimited window if we pay for the services we receive. This is the crisis the Right has pushed for over the past 30 years. Every time they pushed for tax cuts they knew this day would come. It has been the almost occult goal of the Right to overturn the New Deal since the days of William Buckley. The strategy has always been to discredit these programs, underfund them and breed cynicism, propose an "opt-out" and vouchers, and finally privatize these functions.
But again, who would sell health insurance to a 78 year old? What happens when your IRA tanks and those funds you counted on have evaporated in the market?
I am older and I cannot imagine what would have happened if Teabaggers or Libertarians had been in charge in 2008.
Those who hate government are usually pretty crappy at running it. Governing requires expertise and experience. Only reasonable people can guide us through these very challenging times. We simply don't have the time for ideologues and crackpots.
"We have an unlimited window if we pay for the services we receive." Agreed. However we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend.
Any 78 year old who has his IRA in the stock market is not very bright.
If the freedom movement had been in charge in 2008 the d--n bankers would have gone bankrupt. They would not have gotten bonuses, stock in those banks would have become worthless, the credit markets would have frozen up for months, pensions invested in mortgage backed securities would have taken a hit, and the whole stock market would have tanked. Then smart people with assets would then step in and pick the bones of the banks, mortgages would be marked to market and bought for what they are worth, credit markets would unfreeze as it sorted out. A bunch of rich bankers would have to start working for a living or have some boy friends in their jail cell. Bad debt would be liquidated. People would realize that they have to take risks into account when investing. The world would go on and we wouldn't still be dealing with it now.
"Those who hate government are usually pretty crappy at running it. Governing requires expertise and experience. Only reasonable people can guide us through these very challenging times. We simply don't have the time for ideologues and crackpots." Agreed, that why we need RP.
Dear Lord, you just don't realize that people are not always rational in their decisions nor do they have the same opportunities. Unrestraining capitalism and providing no strong supports for a meritocratic system has always led to two classes....and you don't want to be one of the poor.
We need an honest man, such as RP, but not one with his theoretical deficiencies.
Unfortunately I do realize that people are not rational in their decisions. Yes, there would be two classes. We have that now. You are right, I don't want to be one of the poor. However with the central bankers and the governments oppressing us it is an uphill battle I am forced to fight every day. I have been poor (living in a beat up trailer in WV) and after thirty years I have fought my way up to lower middle class in a house with two mortgages, raising four kids and one grandchild (gosh I love that girl) along the way. I have worked harder than anyone should have to. I work 6 jobs, 5 part time of course, (50 to 60 hours per week year round). Actually 4 of those jobs are for the government and the rest are farm related. I don't ask for anything but for the government and the bankers to get out of my way. I know how to survive.
My dream is that for one day before I die, I get to live in a free republic as it was originally conceived.
It's more complicated then making our motives and our governance comply with a document.
We have a consumer driven economy. That means people spend money.
Now, if those same people have to worry about starvation, becoming ill, instability in their employment, growing old and running out of money......
They will not spend money.
Our economy would actually tank very significantly in a world where the government did not provide some safety net, particularly for old age.
Libertarianism seeks to maximize personal freedoms and to turn economies loose....but in it's implementation, could have the opposite effects.
I'm worried about all those things except starvation. Our economy is going to tank anyway. We are broke. Do you want to be a canary or a sparrow? I would rather be free and take my chances rather than be caged but well cared for. I realize not everyone agrees. But I am afraid the canaries will soon not be fed very well.
We were broke before, during, and immediately after World War II.
Of course, then, we were a much smaller economy and it made it easier to achieve 4% GDP growth to expunge the magnitude of our debt.
Now, we are a very large economy and the law of large numbers will apply (no matter which economic policies we choose, growth will be slower). The Laffer argument has been disproved by the Bush Tax Cuts....they didn't spur the growth they promised or pay for themselves. The Clinton tax regimen gave some assurances, along with budget cuts, that our country was on a satisfactory trajectory.
The only way to realistically grow a mature economy is to squeeze all of the talent out of your populace.
It's similar to a Deming argument. If you think about the Space Shuttle having over 15 million parts, then you have a number or control issues. If you have simply a .1% rate of failure for each part, you would still encounter 15,000 parts failures per launch. Either you can engineer 4 backup systems for every part and have extensive monitoring of every part to insure that the thing at least gets off the ground........Or, you can perfectly engineer each part so that it's reliability is as close to perfect as possible.
Now, we have a relatively mature economy and we have been able to achieve growth with a relatively low performance of our individual citizens. Our country has got to where it has because it's blueprint was better than any other country's in history. However, now we've been emulated and, in some situations, surpassed. If we assume that each citizen is a mechanical part of our machinery, we will have to perfectly educate each person and make them perfectly productive so that we can experience 4% GDP growth once again.
The problem is not that our government is doing too little, the problem is that it's not being a hardass about certain things like education and is not spending enough on promoting the sciences and engineering.
We need perfect parts.....and I don't think you can get there with kids watching 7 hours of TV per day and Libertarianism.
Rambling, I know, but Deming is one of the organizing principles of my outlook on the world and I'm watching the Daily show.
Interesting table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt
Debt as a % GDP has oscillated between 35% and 117% for the past 70 years. It just naturally takes that long for such a fantasy system to collapse? Or is there some % that is sustainable? Is it just the baby boomers that have you worried? So why not fix the Social Security revenue problem by bringing the cap on contribution back to covering 90% of income, and fix healthcare with Medicare for all - the most efficient insurer in the market, where we can implement true cost controls? Then cut military spending, bring back high marginal tax rates, and go back to the 40 years of prosperity, stability, and relative equality we had from the 40s-70s..?
Or is it more an ideological thing?
The gold standard for an advanced capitalist economy is the fairy tale, IMO.
What I actually don't understand is, why so nostalgiac for the Gilded Age?
Thanks for the well reasoned and intelligent reply, plus the data. I don't believe this debt includes the unfunded liabilities of Social security and medicare. I believe that would increase our debit as a % of GDP by three to four times. If interest rates increase, which is inevitable, the debt becomes even more unsustaianable.
Don't you think that allowing the government to increase the money supply without limit puts the burden on the poor and middle class through an inflation tax we cannot avoid? Didn't we have an advanced capitalist society in 1932 when Rosevelt confiscated all privately held gold and in 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window. I'm not sure how that point is valid, although I hear it often repeated. I just don't understand how people can have freedom and a noncorrupt government if a private entity is allowed to control the money supply.
In addition to cutting military spending, other large blocks of federal spending should be eliminated. Energy, HUD, Ag, Homeland security, Commerce, EPA, etc. Then we can focus on shoring up the entitlement programs promised to people. Although I would like to see them changed or phased out over time with something that works better. Maybe states can be allowed to come up with their own systems as would be allowed under the Constitution.
I don't think cutting military spending, the SS cap removal and high marginal rates will by itself solve the problems thus bringing back the 40s to 70s.
Fact: Bringing the cap on Social Security-eligible income to $180k, which is in-line with the 90% total income that has been the average over the life of the progam, would fund it into the distant future.
Fact: Healthcare costs are a societal burden, they are an "unfunded liability" whether the government is responsible, or we shift the burden to private citizens. The government, though, is the only entity that can effectively control these costs and limit their impact on any one segment of the population.
Someone arguing for the APT tax mentioned yesterday that there is nearly a quadrillion USD tax base in annual financial transactions... Suffice it to say, this problem is not insurmountable.
Inflation benefits debtors (like, most Americans, the government) at the expense of creditors (like banks, the 1%). It would also put devaluative pressure on our currency which would be beneficial in terms of trade and the manufacturing base. In 1947 inflation climbed to 20%, and it was a good thing. It helped us pay our war debts and power the economy into 30+ years of real, stable growth. We need more inflation. We're on a deflationary track. Like the Germans, the GOP and other inflation hawks are irrationally paranoid about inflation. Stagflation is not an issue in our current environment - because of high unemployment and high debt, and hyperinflation is not a concern either, with intelligent policy. 5% real inflation would be good, higher would be acceptable. Please, don't bring up gasoline. Its price is hardly linked to inflation, with so many externalities at play. In real life, inflation closely matches the official numbers, and is historically low.
What we have now is stagnation tax:
'Therefore a very tight monetary policy which seeks to reduce inflation - even at the cost of real (inflation adjusted) economic growth and jobs can be viewed as a "stagnation tax"'
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_tax (begin reading at "nevertheless")
No. It was the end of a period that was more like feudalism. Robber Barons do not advanced capitalism make.
The gold supply was putting artificial limits on real productivity. Money is just a proxy for the exchange of real goods and services. Demand and supply were both artificially limited by Bretton Woods.
We had it, 40s-70s. Our parents were free and government was far less corrupt than today. The issue is money in politics, deregulation/privatization schemes, and the various industrial complexes going unmonitored - all these problems are surmountable with a vigilant citizenry at the helm.
This is what your ideology is really about. End the Fed and everything else is a cover for dismantling government by starving the beast. With the exception of DHS, every one of those programs was an improvement in the lives of Americans. Back to the Gilded Age. I don't think you have any idea how bad things were for most Americans. Struggle and strife and government intervention built the middle class. You folks seem to want it exterminated at all costs.
With some committment, intelligence and creativity, I'm quite sure of the opposite.
Krugman is probably not your favorite economist, but you can check his facts:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/when-inflation-was-good/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/stagflation-versus-hyperinflation/
And theirs:
http://www.zacks.com/commentary/19459/What+Inflation+Hawks+Don%26%2339%3Bt+Get
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/budget-baloney-why-social_b_824331.html
Yes, raise the cap to 180k, and you would see SS solvent thru about 2060, add some job creation and 2060 turns into 2085 as per the SS Trustees report low cost scenario.
In fact widespread job creation and wage growth alone would make SS good thru 2085 as per the low cost scenario.
Excellent post.
Right, it's really pretty simple when the spin-doctors aren't allowed to muddy the picture... Thanks.
I've given a look see at each Trustees report since 2005 and am fairly conversant on all things SS. I know the CBO says the shortfall over 75 years is .6% of GDP. Raising the cap to 180k might be .2%, so we need only .4% to close the gap, and job creation can do that.
I advocate for doing nothing right now, then in 10 to 12 years take a look see, and tweak. But I have no problem restoring the cap to where it has been traditionally. We have always made these sorts of adjustments, and knowing where we came from gives us great perspective moving forward.
Could not comment on your other post for some reason.
It is not just Catholic Schools that are cheaper than public schools. The problem is the public school bureaucracy. In NJ for example there are more than 600 school districts. More than there are towns. Each has a half a dozen of administrators that art paid more than $100,000 and many more than $200,000. It is about $1 billion in overhead costs. We need to move to a system of one district per county. There are 16 counties in NJ.
http://tinyurl.com/7az8vtp
That makes sense to me.
looselyhuman FTW!
Fact-full and opinion-light, you sir are a champion on this forum.
Well, thanks Marchelo. :) It's not perfect. I need to do some more refining of my position on inflation. This guy explains it pretty well though, if you (or anyone reading this) is interested in more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/we-need-more-inflation-2011-10-20
Puff also has a thread on the subject, but I'm not sure the article he links fully covers it. Here's that thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/inflation-is-the-only-answer/
Of course, in addition to loosening-up monetary policy I'd also fix tax policy and double- or triple-down on real fiscal-stimulus (damn the torpedoes) in the form of green infrastructure work that's badly needed, but that's just me...
On the tax side, check out: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
I read all your links. This is a good debate. Sort of like chess by mail.
As we write this the Federal government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Do you think that is healthy? I don't. This is the end of a very long credit and deficit expansion cycle. It worked better near the beginnning in your golden years (40s to 70s). But now stimlus is not having the desired effect. Our social security is invested in mostly treasury bonds. What happens to the value of those bonds when rates rise or the inevitable federal default happens. Social security is not solvent long term and people know it in their gut.
Healthcare costs are not a societal burden. They are an individual burden. Why does someone else abusing their body become my burden? The government has no right to forcibly take money from me to use for others.
I agree that inflation can be a friend to debtors. It is not a major hurdle to banks since they seem to have done fine over the years. It is very tough on savers, thus it has the effect of destroying capitol. Who would save at 2% when inflation is 5%. It is tough on pensioners and those on fixed income ie. the poor. Inflation encourages debt. That is why the bankers love it.
Of course we had an advanced industrial society in 1932. I can't believe you said that. Our country gained real wealth from the 1870s to the early 1900's. It wasn't this phoney wealth that flows to the banking cartel like it has since the federal reserve was created.
The gold supply was putting real limits on the Vietnam war. That is what a gold standard does. It forces the government to live within its means rather than borrow from future generations. To fund war with hard money, taxes must be raised. This serves to limit wars. Isn't that a good thing?
You are actually defending the banking cartel? You think the banks should control our money supply? They thus have the power to cause booms and busts by increasing and decreasing the money supply. Who owns the federal reserve? Do you know? If you do, please tell us so we all will. Why would we let shadowy bankers contol our lives by controling our money?
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed) 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
I will take Jefferson over Krugman any day.
I imagine that all federal agencies have done some good. But at what cost? These agencies are not authorized by the Constitution as per the tenth amendment. And should be ended.
I do know how hard it was for most americans. Not first hand, and neither do you. All four of my great grandfathers made the Cherrokee strip land run. They did what they had to do to survive. The banks and corporations were not doing them any favors then either.
You may be quite sure the economy is coming back. I don't think prosperity is coming back until the system is cleansed of debt. Which everyone seems unwilling to let happen. We will soon find out. But Keynesianism has about run it's course and the bills are coming due.
Keynesianism has not run its course, because Keynesianism has not been running for 30+ years. It stopped being Keynes the moment Reagan started following Friedman off the cliff. Running deficits in boom-times to starve the beast undermines the very basis of Keynesian countercyclical stimulus.
In another post you wax fait accompli about the end of the gravy train. That is a choice. It was a choice made by Reagan and everyone since. A very conscious choice by many to undermine the effectiveness of Keynes while conspiring to keep a Keynesian facade - better to assign the blame. Works apparently. Or just Austrian obtusity.
Keynes is working fine in places like Germany and the Netherlands - beyond Keynes - full-on social democracy.
This says it all. Most of society disagrees. We don't like stepping over bodies in the streets. We don't enjoy watching poor children die of treatable illness. We don't find society worth it if we don't have general relative prosperity and welfare. The social contract is failing us once we get to that point.
It was not advanced in the Gilded Age as you claim. It was real wealth for a few Robber Barons, and the vast majority living at poverty levels. Again, closer to feudalism.
Because revenue as a percent GDP is at the lowest level in 60 years!
Loosely is a fine advocate, and a good example for those who wonder whether any good can come from all this. Even though I have not agreed with some of his prescriptions and readings of history, he is open-minded and does his research. He didn't know me from Adam, and here he goes referencing APTtax. (I'm going to try to post my research and updated proposal for such an animal, I call the "Fiat Fee" to the forum soon.)
I, however, do not have the faith in massive, centralized government that he has. I'm OK with raising the cap on SS, although I have never thought SS was a good idea, and I was never asked my consent to participate in it. I would prefer pairing the rise in the cap with a proposal of a certain candidate to allow those 25 and under to opt out of the system, yielding a tax cut for employers, as well as more money in the paychecks during a low-earning time of ones life.
I also diverge in taste when it comes to economists. Although Reich has said a few things I agree with, I am generally horrified by his views.
I have very much enjoyed Nassim Taleb's views on fragility. Yes, it is partially because it plays into my distrust and distaste for central planning and global/supranational/nation governance. One reason you may not have heard: Because centralized authority/regulation/planning is FRAGILE. A single point of failure. If the FDA fails to prevent a dangerous new drug from coming onto the market, then the entire country is subjected to the damage this failure creates, which history has shown can be extremely devastating.
Taleb argues, and I agree, that we should seek to create robust systems, and as the internet, for example, has shown is that massive decentralization and extraordinary variety has become very robust. If one web site fails, it doesn't bring down the whole ship.
I would say that our monetary system is anything but robust these days, and many fiat systems around the world are in constant jeopardy of catastrophic failure. Yet we stand by and watch the same globalized, privately owned interlocking fiat hegemonies carrying on the theater that somehow more of the same will be better. Even the Pope has gotten in on the endless refrain that if we just form another level of another over-arching committee of banksters that is over all the others, then they will finally have the power to solve what I consider to be unsolvable at that level.
(cont)
(cont) I have not found Krugman to be anything but a shill for the banksters. They don't mind inflation, so long as they can beat it. In "When Inflation Was Good" he doesn't mention massive cuts in military spending as well as huge tax cuts. This peace dividend, I believe is more responsible for the good times he was referencing, but it still did not defeat the massive inflation that the deficit spending caused during WWII.
Stagflation? Yes. Reggie Middleton agrees, so I think I better. But I don't believe that inflation and unemployment are linked nearly as closely as Krugman seems to want to say. The Fed's dual mandate is destructive, because the Fed always has an excuse to do whatever they want, and believing that inflation and employment are so tightly linked has provided cover for policies that are destructive of the working class in ways that their stats don't like to show.
As to the gold standard, if anyone thinks that's a bad idea, I'd like them to take a breath, and consider what I have found to be the most intelligent explication of what a real gold standard looks like, and it's called "freegold."
It's rather simple, and not, so far as I can tell, the generally held view amongst goldbugs, but I think that a certain candidates views on the gold standard are very much in line with freegold. Note that the good doctor has developed his views over decades, and these days would be better described as advocating competing currencies, which would most certainly include commodity-backed currencies.
But back to freegold. Although I am somewhat of a newbie on the subject, I have been returning to http://fofoa.blogspot.com/ regularly to polish my understanding, and I read http://zerohedge.com (especially the comments) daily. Many of those who advocate a gold standard want there to be some rational restraint on the creation of money so that money can actually be a reliable store of value, one of its primary purposes. FOFOA agrees with the sentiment, but argues that we really don't want a government or fed-run gold standard. They totally screwed it up at the end of the 40s-70s that you reference. And besides, we have little evidence these days that the value of a dollar is of any concern to those who inflate it with bailouts, the fed window, the fed monetizing the debt, massive leverage, and total financialization of housing, education and healthcare, which has blown massive bubbles without the corresponding capital to warrant the expansion. We are all very much poorer and in record debt as a result. And there is no amount of love for Keynes that will change those facts.
This is the plight of fiat currencies, and what FOFOA taught me was that gold will always be a standard, whether there is a monetary unit based on it or not. This is because since gold has been the historical money, the amount that any particular fiat currency will buy is the measure of that currency over time. So our having seen the price of gold on a long surge to historical heights, this says nothing about its scarcity or its demand (except as a hedge against the devaluation of fiat), the high price of gold simply shows the fiat currency's inability to reliably hold value over time.
So freegold is a proposal to release gold from any restriction, and to allow it to float freely against all currencies, because unmanipulated gold is a good store of value when fiat currencies have been anything but.
So although gold is money, whether the Bernank wants to admit it or not, we need a robust monetary system that serves all the purposes of money: store of value, unit of account, and medium of exchange. It could be argued that gold COULD serve all those purposes, but perhaps it could really be best as a store of value, and we could create other currencies that may serve the other purposes better.
If we allow states, as they've already begun to do, to create and allow more localized alternatives, then we are all better off because we are more secure against catastrophic failure of our current centralized system.
Question. Does liberal equal libertarian?
In the US, only in the redefinition popularized by Hayek.
I think that asking such a question implies that you should be browsing wikipedia a little more.
Or maybe I deserve an answer that isn't smart-assed based. Way to try to win people over prick.
Give a man a fish and he'll smell fishy too. Go do your own fucking research, and then we'll see if you can be rehabilitated.
Give a man bounds and he'll overreach. Place what man wants in reach and he'll grab at it. Suck my genitalia and go to hell.
Are you a high school girl?
Actually high school boy. But you were close.
So why "genitalia?" I mean, if you're gonna go for "suck my.." Why not go all the way?
Well to be honest big words are know to distract morons. I don't think the guy's an idiot but apparently I got that wrong.
No, he's not an idiot. As for you, well, youth explains it.
Yeah i've heard it all before. Pigheaded, brash, and without a care in the world.
A high schooler who thinks he's heard it all before. Whodathunkit.
Anyway, life has a way of smoothing out those rough edges.
"Youth is a dream; a form of chemical madness."
who cares? this is just a shit show
I never claimed to know everything or heard it all. Well I did but I really know I don't. Just those particular lines. I'm not particularly fond of being told what to do and it has gotten me in trouble many a time. However, reading that I bet you think I am some stoner teenager who dislikes authority because its getting in the way of my high.
Certainty, hubris, anger, righteousness - it is a dangerous cocktail.
Where are the humility, compassion, caution, doubt? All things need balance.
These are the things you'll hopefully learn, if you survive the process.
I ain't planning on dying until I hit a ripe old age of 200. Anyways, in all seriousness. I don't think I'm excessively prideful or cocky. Just self confident in my abilities to do certain things. Not particularly angry and anything. And I'm not sure where you got righteous. Humility: I hate to put myself above anyone. Learning to write I used to not capitalize i because I didn't want people to be angry at me. Compassion: I gave a hobo a ride to the highway and 20 dollars even though no one else would who were all Christian and apparently I'm going to hell. Different story. Caution: Probably over-cautious at times. Doubt: Why would I doubt myself?
No, I think you're far more dangerous than that. :)
I guess you're right. A child that knows everything who has a modicum of an education and can type. Its like the trifecta of danger.
I like to overreach and to overreach....oh, that feels good. Excuse me for a minute. Feel free to find your genitalia while I'm gone.
"I am the 99" Occupy Wall Street Theme Song http://soundcloud.com/michael-ayers/i-am-the-99
All I can say is don't be so dependent on the gov't. They will turn their backs on you in a heartbeat. We must depend on eachother. I don't agree with this post. I'm a Libertarian and I lost my job, had to file bankruptcy because of high medical bills and foreclosure on my home, half my retirment fund was lost. I, like you, am mad as hell!!! The current system is no longer working. Scary days are approaching. One day in the not-too-distant future, you are going to realize that the most valuable asset we have is our freedom. Keep gov't out of our lives, become self-sufficient, and when the shit hits the fan, you'll be glad you did.
I don't understand, if you're a libertarian and don't want to depend on government, why did you file for government protection against your creditors? Shouldn't you have taken responsibility for the debts you agreed to? Or is big government ok only as long as it's helping you and no one else.
In the end of the day, what you propose is trading one sort of fascism for another.
No. I support a return to the American dream...work hard, play fair, help your fellow man, mutual sacrifice, duty.....I support the return to an America where a CEO was paid 34 times the average worker in his factory (not 300). I support an America where a teacher is an honored profession and students will put down their I-pods long enough to crack a book. I support a world of responsibility for ourselves and our brothers. The America that I am fighting for does not have an ideology, it is only constantly searching for the truth. It is a meritocracy and it is a democracy.
I love rainbows and kittens and care bears too.
At the core I think we may agree, however I do not believe the government is competent enough or would remain free of corruption long enough to force these things to happen.
Actually as a Libertarian I see it this way.... Democrats want to tax the hell out of me to give my money to social engineering so lazy people can live as well as I do without sacrifice. They want to take away my rights, like the right to keep and bear arms. Republicans want to tax the hell out of me and spend it on killing machines. They also want to take away my freedom like the right to marry who ever I love. Libertarians want me to have as many freedoms and rights as I can have and minimize my taxes. It's not that Libertarians think the country will have no laws or taxes. It's just that we believe the country would be better off with less restrictions on citizens, lower taxes, and a smaller federal government.
You mean they want to give it to black people.
Yes. They would very much like to give freedom to black people.
Yes, freedom and Jim Crow.
Yeah, right. The lies taste good with crow, no?
A limited police force is most often an ineffective police force.
No modern industrial state can exist with the complete hogwash that you guys are peddling. You are as dangerous and as detrimental to this Union as Southern agitators in the first half of the 19th century.
Yeah! All hail the loving LRAD, unlawful detention, enhanced interrogation and the predator drone! Give us GPS chips and taser bracelets! We shall have our freedom yet! Clear the way for my re-education in the camps, and sign me up for the civilian inmate labor program to teach me some manners. Quick, get me some flouride water and plant my ass in front of the TV, I'm a dangerous sombitch!
What's so amusing it that the strongest proponents of your fairy tale are the dumbasses who would be anonymous among the masses of unskilled labor working for a buck a day. You're arguing for a complete end to every progressive measure that has improved life for the average worker more over the past hundred years than in all of human history in it's entirety.
Not so much. As a matter of fact, I'm a union member. Guess again!
With Union members like you, who needs enemies.
I've yet to find many enemies around these parts. Don't really think that way. Only been here a couple days. I seem to have run into a few that sure seem to take me as one, though. Such a warm welcome. Not. Didn't know this was such an exclusive club. I've been in support of the protests since day one, but I can tell you have it all figured out. Would you like me to leave? I think I read you've already been nominated to be president of this mess. Here, you can have my vote and I'll just walk away. Best of luck with that neo-liberal, politically correct, more of the same you seem to be peddling. If you are against even those who are with you on so many issues, I'll just have to assume you have wisdom I won't be able to fathom, and should simply excuse myself from your excellency's presence, but not without the expectation of another rapier-like parting shot from your holiness. ;-)
"One of Us" is the dumbest ploy of the dumbest agitator. You learn to pick up on the verbage....I was there from day one....is probably a sentence you should not use if you want to blend in.
If you are truly a Libertarian Union Member who was there from day one at the protests, then I would say that you are a schizophrenic out of work arm waiver who now has nothing better to do than to spleuch on this forum.
So, welcome. But, don't waste my time.
Never claimed to be a libertarian. You've read into me all that I can take today. Besides, I'm a dumb schizophrenic, and I only wish I didn't have to get up and go to work tomorrow. And you're right, I do have something better to do than feed your paranoia about those who might not prefer being dictated to from on high. Abuse away. I'm sure you'll believe it's no great loss. And with the exception of looselyhuman and a couple others, that's all I've gotten around here anyway. Love to you all, because I'm afraid you're really going to need it.
I guess I didn't understand the meaning of your posts....I just got back tonight and am trying to catch up on these at one per two minutes. Is there a way to change the wait thingy?
Anyway, rereading what you wrote, you were either being very supportive or very disruptive. I would ask, if you can, to clarify the meanings of your two posts:
Yeah, right. The lies taste good with crow, no?
and
Yeah! All hail the loving LRAD, unlawful detention, enhanced interrogation and the predator drone! Give us GPS chips and taser bracelets! We shall have our freedom yet! Clear the way for my re-education in the camps, and sign me up for the civilian inmate labor program to teach me some manners. Quick, get me some flouride water and plant my ass in front of the TV, I'm a dangerous sombitch!
My duty on this forum is to present forum topics that attract trolls like a moth to a flame. Then my duty (or dudie) is to swat them down like the little bitches that they are. So, if you are not a troll, then I apologize for my words and I truly would like to welcome you here.
I do sometimes post serious things.....they tend not to get read so much.....so, if you want to know what I believe, it's out there. You just have to skim past the bitchslapping posts.
It is obvious you are very prolific and quick on the draw, and while you may have the tendency to view folks in general disagreement with you as trolls, you know that you have become that what you are puportedly fighting against. I don't blame you for that, really. I probably agree with your slapdowns as often as I don't, but I do think your sweep is a bit over-broad and runs the risk of alienating innocents who may well have an earnest willingness to lend their intellect and research to maybe make a difference.
I think that I am one of those people who has been studying my whole life for something like OWS to come along. I admit that I haven't followed this forum until the last couple days and in no dedicated way. I witnessed you beating up on many people I believed had valid points that deserved better, or at least to be left alone, to see where they'd go. Your tactics tend to shut down what might be harmless discussions, yielding fight/flight instead. You certainly tripped mine a bit. I apologize for the liar remark, but damn, you whipped the racist card out like it was nothing. Atomsmasher didn't mean any harm to anyone. He/she seems like a perfectly decent libertarian who wanted to express his/her nutshell view and BLAM, call him a racist. Cold.
So I tried to match on tactics a little. It's not my bag at all, but I did my best. But I guess you've redeemed yourself in my mind, because I somehow managed to break your groove for a long enough for you to write the above post, which I appreciate.
To answer your question I'm not sure what I meant by either of the above posts you reference. I'm sorta dumb and schizophrenic. :-) It was more about the bitch-slapping match than anything. Not sure why you're so hostile towards the libertarian types. The ones I know don't think anything like what you've portrayed in your post.
The domineering nature of the post and some of your comments would lead me to believe that you have no interest in any honest and/or informed dissent from your views whatsoever. Maybe there have been these cranks around of which you speak and are trying to root out. What of it? Why not meet them on honest terms and let them root themselves out?
You don't really have to answer. I'd just as soon consider this thread as closed. There's probably others we'd both rather attend to. Peace, brother.
Why do you take so much of your time preparing an argument that will if anything, divide the movement? Libertarianism is about the individual not a collective, anything. I do realize that Utopia(Libertarianism) is not completely practical in this country at the moment. That is why I am here. But I will still try to make the country a better place, even if it is by just a small fraction.
If you believe that we need to get back to the moderation that defined the generation, a la 1950-1970, then you are onto the wrong track. Libertarianism is a movement that is being funded by, and leads ultimately, to the Koch brothers. Sorry, your Utopia is owned by some nutty billionaires.
can you prove this? And quit trying to collectivize me. I am an individual and unfortunately no one is giving me money.
From the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
who collected the money on behalf of the libertarians? It wasn't me. This is what is wrong with collectivism and prejudice. We already know that there will be a fool who will throw a water bottle at the police. Did OWS collectively throw the water bottle? No. One individual threw it so should we hold you accountable for the guy that threw it?
Individualism is then the cousin of anarchy.
we don't have to be lawless to be treated as individuals and have our rights as individuals. The law supposedly protects against racial profiling. So because I am a certain race, you can't classify me with a certain characteristic and make a judgement.
Because I am a jew, doesn't mean anything to the Nazi's. I am an individual first and the mob can not infringe on my rights because they don't come from me being jewish.
What is this, creative writing class?
do you want to have a worthwhile argument? this is the problem with collectivism. A great example is Nazi Germany.
i will take the form of govt created by madison as the best form of govt ever created by far....not this mutilated version we have now. When our constitution is applied to all humans and interpreted properly, nothing else comes close.....as imperfect as it may be.
All political/social ideals are fairy tales. But seeing as how we've tried all the others, I'd be curious how libertarianism would work out.
It has been tried, Feudalism,Laissez faire, free market,liberal economics, neoliberalism, all variations of the same thing. The same thing that created the great depression, and in the case of neoliberalism, that's the direction we have been going for about 40 years. Result-The Great Ression.
That is like saying we should ignore all aspects of what worked in the past only for something novel.....for no other reason than it is novel. The founders borrowed from Greek and Roman tradition, British common law, and their own common sense to build our current system. An anti-intellectual approach is not novel, it is reckless.
Read, "The Big Con" by Jonathan Chait to get some perspective. The world is being screwed up by ideologues who stand to benefit from a discredited and dysfunctional government.
I really hope you understand, what sounds too good to be true IS too good to be true.
Yes do it because it is novel. Why not? I mean really why not try for the hell of it?
The French revolution was novel. The 1917 revolution was novel. Fascism was novel. Hell, why don't we just install a dictator. Get off this board and enroll in school, any school.
I personally think benevolent dictatorship is the way to go.
Why don't we just bring back Bill Clinton?
You do realize there was a time when you could have a doctor do a house visit in exchange for an apple pie or baked chicken. What happened? Government got involved. Since medicare and gov influence exploding the insurance scam, costs have skyrocketed. Insurance is NOT health care. When gov is paying the bill, the industry knows they can charge whatever they wish. Which is why you pay $10 for an aspirin. In a true free market you can bet the patient would refuse to pay more than a quarter for an aspirin.
You are also forgetting about family. If one has given love within his life he will have others that care for him and help him when he needs it. The elderly used to live with their kids in the last days of their lives. The kids took care of them better than any overpriced nurse, because there was love between them. People have always had churches, social clubs and other connections.
What good has social security done other than falsely lead people to think they will be able to live on it when they retire? Look at just since Obama took office. Seniors didn't get a cost of living raise for three years. Meanwhile underreported inflation has been about 30%. Obama just defunded their social security by 30% by using inflation. By time the younger generation gets SS their $1000 check it will buy them a gallon of milk. It's better to have people save for their own retirement. Take their own risks and profit from their wise financial decisions. Those who make bad choices will learn to change their ways and preach to others about responsibility.
The funny thing is when you pay for your own bills you seek out cheaper prices and ways to keep your costs down. If you know eating bad food can cost you an open heart surgery you will eat better so you don't face that cost. If gov pays, you eat as you wish and have other pick up the tab for your bad lifestyle choices.....
great post ^^^
No, providers cannot charge what they want. There are contracts. These contracts are based upon, most often, medicare rates.
You already have rationing of health care. It is done in secret by private insurance companies who have a very strong incentive to screw their participants. I have spend 21 years in this industry and I would much rather be a member of medicare than I would any HMO.
Government is not the enemy, bad government is the enemy. A system that allows the abuses of the health care industry and 45 million uninsured is bad government.
Libertarians would solve that by saying that any governmental intervention is wrong and contrary to freedom. Crapola. Can you imagine the abuses to the elderly and the rest of society if you allowed private insurers to go carte blanch?
Crapola.
Insurance is not health care.
Many health insurance mandate advocates like to use the auto insuance example. Let's do that. I am not forced to have full coverage on my car. Let's assume I forgot to check my fluid levels and my transmission burns up. I go to the mechanic. It takes him two days to fix it and charges me $2,000. But, compare that to a health accident, such as breaking my arm. It takes the doctor an hour to put on a cast and he charges medicare $10,000. What took more skill and time, fixing my cars transmission or setting my bone and putting on a cast? Why is one a fraction of the cost? How much would it cost to fix my transmission if government forced every car owner to carry full coverage insurance? Would demand go up? Would car owners stop checking their fluid levels since they know their car will be fixed? Will the mechanic raise his prices as he knows government will pay whatever he charges and not seek out cheaper options?
divisive troll post. do not feed the trolls.
No. You have to put up troll magnet posts so that the trolls will leave the rest of the board alone. It's not easy being a troll magnet.
what is it exactly that you think a Libertarian believes and/or wants?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Your seeing things in black and white.If I said the occupy wall street was a bunch of kids with adhd running around shiting on cars and yelling like idiots..is that fair of the whole bunch?
I'm a doctor and I crap in a toilet.
What do you think a Libertarian wants? Does he want to keep medicare? Does he want to sustain social security? Will he let someone who couldn't afford health insurance die?
Socialism have failed and social democracy, one you like, is failing. "Corporate Fascism." is something you are against- you know bank bailouts are "Corporate Fascism." Libertarianism is just political movement to reduce the size of governments. Welfare systems are self destruct system- just ending up is bankruptcy of you country.
What works in practice cannot be wrong in theory.
Libertarianism has never worked in practice and must therefore be wrong in theory.
The way of the world is cycles. You make people dirt poor, they will pounce on a scrap of bread. You give people endless bread, they will make decisions which leave them poor.
Libertarianism would make most people very poor while leaving them little of the machinery that would one day allow them to have plenty of bread.
Libertarianism most resembles the world of America from reconstruction through to the great crash. Life for the average American, for the most part, drastically sucked despite tremendous gains in national wealth. In rural America, the farmer lived no different, and no better, in 1910 than he did in 1710.
The theory of government is the theory of societies. What you wish for is the enslavement of the masses to a master who has simply been renamed.
You may proclaim that you are following the principles of Liberty and it's maximization, but your economics nothing but a rebranded lazy fairy and your outcome will be the return of America to 1900.
Funny. We are just seeing big government social democracy failing, not libertarianism. The reason we see the unfairness of government, like bank bailouts or special interests controlling the policy, is that the governments are too big, to mach money are there, and too much power they have. That's why they try to take advantage from the systems for their interests.
People complain about corporate greed, but we should be honest about many of us are greedy too. Human is one who try to take advantage from the system if the system allow you to take advantage. I am living very poor area of city, I know many people who are completely healthy mentally and physically, but don't work and collect government welfare. I know many people who receive food stamp eat the most expensive food in store because I work for market. I don't jealous because it is bad for them. However, seeing them makes me not work hard and pay tax bill. I think corporate welfare is a very unfair system, but also government welfare system for poor, or not working, is also a very unfair system. And that's killing motivation of middle class and poor in our inner city neighborhoods.
Yes, we should have social welfare systems, but not by government force, by voluntary. We should take care our communities, poor, and neglected people, by ourselves, but not forcing other people to do so. Instead forcing taxation and dumping the responsibility to our governments, we should donate our resources to our own welfare system. Stop complain how poor you are. You should be thankful how rich you are and think what you can do for welfare of our society.
We are the 100% and same time we are all unique individual. You make change, not governments.
Libertarianism failed a long time ago.....it was called The Gilded Age. There are abuses in our system that must be corrected, but that does not mean that Libertarianism should be the paradigm that is employed as a reference.
Did those who wished to overthrow Czar Nicholas gain anything by aligning themselves behind a "new" paradigm?
Voluntary is the new codeword for "gutted." Wherever you hear that word, just be honest and say that you wish for a "gutted" social security system, a "gutted" medicare umbrella, a "gutted" system of paying for grandma to stay in the nursing home.
Poor people don't voluntarily contribute to their own safety nets because an extra 50 dollars a month to those people is manna from heaven.
I would submit to you that everything you wish were more "voluntary" is exactly what you will wish, in your old age, you had fought to preserve.
It doesn't matter that I want to have no welfare or not, puff6962. Because welfare system is self-destructive. Like social security, you put one dollar and you are expecting to get 3 dollar. What kind of stupid people create such system and think that is a great way to protect poor and old people. It is so irresponsible. That's quality of social democracy governments.
I am only saying that we need to create our own social safety net by ourselves because government one is going to fail soon. The next big political problems will be how we make the transition without chaos.
Many of people here naively believe that if we tax more for rich, we can sustain such welfare system but not. Unfounded liability of social security, medicare, medicaid, for next 10 years is more than 50 trillion dollar. You have no way to pay for it by taxation.
This is going to be financial reality. There are not enough wealth is available to run such promise in the first place. Then what you are going to do? You got to create better welfare system by yourself. That's I believe. Good night.
Yes, unfunded liabilities must be faced. That mean's adjustment of benefits and increasing revenues. But you, my friend, don't understand why a very conservative.....some would say Libertarian......society accepted social security in 1935. When was the last time you saw a seventy year old starve to death or live in the poor house? Those terms are not even within your lexicon because of a safety net.
You have to decide what kind of world you want to live in......the problem is that the type you choose when you are young may not be very good for you when you are old.
How's that Soviet Union working out for ya ? Talk about Utopian delusion lol! First of all Government meddling started way before the New Deal. Healthcare & education costs didn't begin to skyrocket until the govt came to the rescue to "fix" things. please do your homework.
We should distinguish somewhat between the right to universal access and intrusive regulation. After all, the current system does little to guarantee the poor access, but it certainly makes sure that no child with strep throat will get his antibiotic until the physician has received a huge fee, no matter how cheap the pills may be nor how certain parent and child are that the prescription has worked before. Now I happen to support the legalization of drugs, and when I say that, I mean not just some recreational tomfoolery but the right of people to go out and buy the medicines they need even if they can't afford a doctor - radical stuff, to be sure. I don't see any reason why we can't accept a public right to healthcare and reject the intrusive regulations rather than the other way around.
I would agree that we could at least stand for broader access to OTC drugs if not overall legalization.
ah - so you want guaranee's in life - dont we all lol!
It's not unreasonable to expect guarantees. For example, people expect guarantees that, for example, some right-wing freaks aren't going to pile out of a pickup truck and attack the OWS protesters. And indeed, it doesn't happen, thanks in part to the remarkable degree of police expenditure in New York City, but more due to the common acceptance of all the people of the country that that isn't an appropriate means of political expression. If you can make crime a rare and unwanted deviation from normal life, you can make hunger and homelessness and involuntary unemployment the same way. Rights cost money to protect, but they form the basis of civilization; the more we have, the more civilization we have.
The third grade level of your facts and reasoning leave me no choice but to pray for you....and I'm an atheist.
show me your facts & I'll show you mine
Life is too short.
indeed. too short to be sitting in the park in the rain lol!
I think you should recheck your history.......you don't really seem to get the message. No one is advocating getting rid of Medicare and throwing people on the streets. But Medicare is going to end whether you want it to or not, there is no money for it. It's living in a fantasy land if you think there is. We need to transition to a system that is sustainable.
There is no money for medicare and social security because nutcase supply siders have convinced people like you that the only way to prosperity is through giving the wealthy more tax breaks. Do you realize what marginal tax rates looked like before Ronald Reagan? Do you understand that between 1947 and 1979, the U.S. AVERAGED 4% GDP growth. The problem is not in paying for these programs, the problem is with people wanting these programs but not wanting to pay for them.
Tax the wealthy all you like it won't fix the problems of medicare. Everyone wants the program's, and no one wants to pay for them you are correct.
http://robertreich.org/post/11329289033
Maybe you should read this:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
"It is not a workable government philosophy" Really? So, the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have died with honor and pride for this country did so for a philosophy that is flawed? Christian values and helping one another is a bad philosophy? Letting men choose their own fates and what charities to donate to if any is a bad philosophy? I'd rather be dirt poor live in a cardboard box and feed my children rotten cabbage from the gutter than to live in the socialist dream you portend because you're not willing to rise to the challenges in your life. I'm sick and tired of paying for people like you. It's called a community and it worked for well over a hundred years before the 'New Deal'. Americans wrote most of our best history during those times. You sir, are a deluded fool who hopes to achieve everything by relying on those willing to do everything while you sit on your haunches and do the bare minimum. Get off of wall street and get a job.
You don't remember slavery, the american indians, the gilded age, the beating of striking workers, child labor, tainted food and dirty water, sharecropping, the KKK.......
You're probably a double wide redneck, so I will assume that you know what these moments in history are.
You show me ONE republican congressman or senator who has spoken out for social justice, the poor, income inequality without immediately following the sentence with tax cuts and I'll consider your further arguments with merit.
Show me ONE republican congressman or senator who has voted for a SINGLE tax increase since 1991, and I will show you a ghost.....because there hasn't been. You are siding with an ideology hoping that a crumb will fall from the table of your masters, but it doesn't work that way in the world.
Name me one person who has asked any Republitarian to describe to us what the endgame is, to paint a picture of this country after they have been in office 2 terms that has received a straight answer. Or has anyone even bothered to ask? I want to know, and constituents deserve to know: What is an average citizen's life like? An elderly citizen who lost their social security suddenly. How about the seriously mentally ill and all the disabled who lost their disability. Where did all the disenfranchised people go? What happened to all the men who came home from Iraq with no job and no benefits? How many people go to college? How do they pay for it? What kind of jobs do people have? What happened to all the people who lost their homes?
You can't get any of them to answer head-on questions like this. They deflect, they'll make a joke at your expense, but they will not answer you. None of them.
The key to a fascist movement is to remain vague until you have total control.
You have no understanding of economics, and you look at today's insurance and medical cost and right now, your right being 67 with diabetes would cost a lot. This is only true because government has been in medical care for a long time now and has driven up the cost. Government always drives up the cost and lowers standards when it gets involved. Look at our failed education system, it cost 13,000 yr per student in a public school. It cost 7,000 yr to go to a better private school/ charter school. Public schools charge more and you get less. This is what happens when government gets involved, always. What your failing to see is that what you are talking about has never worked and never will. Which we have already passed the point of no return. America as we know it is over, its just a matter of time now. The things that need to be done won't be done. Look to Russia, Libya etc. Thats our future now. Which you won't have to worry about medical care, cause there won't be any for anyone. If were lucky emergency rooms will stay open until they run out of supplies.
I'm a doctor and it has been advances in medicine that have driven up costs.
Government, ie medicare, was at the forefront in attempting to control costs through diagnosis related groups. These initiatives were rapidly copied by insurance companies....resulting in lower reimbursements to physicians and hospitals.
There was a time when, prior to the latter 1970's, doctors and hospitals just submitted a bill to medicare or to Blue Cross and it got paid (unless it was nuts). Those were the years that older physicians recall with a glimmer in their eyes. However, those days are long gone.
Government today does nothing to increase the cost of health care except where it makes it available to people who would otherwise not be touched with a thousand foot pole by private insurers. Those people would be treated in third world public hospitals....and would likely die....because there is not enough charity in the world to take on the costs of providing good care to the elderly.
Get real, kiddo, and stop watching Fox news. I can almost hear your brain cells screaming.
Well said!
Whatever the argument maybe, the fact remains the government can't pay for 45% of the populations food, medical care, retirement/disability and last very long. When the dollar crashes and all your savings and money is wiped out, you can't say I didn't tell you so.
Since we've already established your credentials as a medical expert, I will also take your excellent advice on general economics.
Well that makes 2 of us.
Where the Libertarians lose me is that they want to destroy public education -- the very thing that made the technological revolution we are experiencing possible. The last few generations are a novelty in some five thousand years of human civilization, and they want to crap all over it.
States can handle education laws why do u need your federal govt to control it?
Just the Federal DoE. Before the FDoE, Americans had the best education in the world. Now we rank far below the top, and it's because the FDoE pushed us towards standardized testing and other crap that doesn't actually teach us anything. I've come out of school with a mind that can do multiple choice extremely well, but often ends up tripping over itself when given an essay question.
Curse the Federal Department of Education. My state can handle its own educational system, and if it can't, I'll move to a state that CAN!
Education is hampered most by the fact that the average teen spends 7 hours a day on electronic media.
Teachers should be experts in their fields who know how to teach. But, the issue that nobody wants to address is that we have a lot of dumb kids who should be reading books instead of sexting.
not destroy public education, the federal department of education.
Are the politicians in DC really that much smarter than the people in your community, county or state? Do you trust the politicians in DC more than your local government to make the best decision for your education?
If you have grievances about how the eduction system is going, at which level is it easiest to handle it at? Local or national level?
Public education has taken on a life of its own, and in the process outgrown its utility.
You're familiar with the law of non-contradiction, right? Aristotle, look it up. So if we have a country full of stupid people, and public schools are supposed to "educate" people, then those both can't be true. Either people ARE getting smarter (and we're unable to actually measure it) or schools aren't really in the business of educating anyone. It's scary to consider...
is this a post where you blame the health care system that broke because the government married it to employment somehow on free market libertarianism, even though it is obviously government intervention that produced this?
Our health care system is a hybrid that emerged from employers trying to attract workers during WWII and with the great society programs of the 1960's. It's neither conservative or liberal, it's a mess.
it is the ill effects of well intended but misguided policy, as is often the case, and is part of why i am a libertarian.
Wait until you see the well intended, but ill effects, of Libertarianism. Wait, you already are. Supply siders are basically Libertarians who can't add very well. If all you can do in government is laud special favors on business and the wealthy, in hopes that a crumb may fall from their table to you, then you are a modern Libertarian.
wait, we already aren't because this system does not actually exist. where do you think it does?
Mexico, Bangladesh, Guatemala, etc.
those places are corrupt as shit and don't even defend basic property rights. give me a break.
Do you think a system dominated by unrestrained corporations will be just. What kind of a cracker are you?
i'm fine with practical regulation, i'm not an ideological capital L Libertarian. most of our problems today are made from stupid regulation or mandates (albeit well intended). here is the problem with many of my progressive friends, the few that actual realize the problems of cronyism:
corporations control the government fix the problem by giving the government more power
Cronyism is married to lobbyist and corporate donations to campaigns. Turn off the gasoline and you make the fire controllable.
i'm less concerned about inflation and more concerned about incorrect monetary policy that can retard growth or fuel a bubble. or fiscal policy that is just spending money that is wasted.
crony corporatism has already produced that system, a system in which nobody can oppose them because they set up the rules to be unfair. what extra power do you think they'd have if government stopped handing out special favors? obviously they've run out of anything they could do without asking for them. i know of no way a corporation can change the rules of the game to unfairly favor themselves instead of others other than by having friends in government do it for them.
Thank you for your response. Please look at my new topic....A Buffett Approach to Ending Corporate Control of Our Government. (Or something like that).
i don't care what the father or farmer are praying for - inflation and how much should not be a choice made by men!
countries that have much less lobbying still have cronyism. less cronyism is better than more cronyism, but if you don't allow the government to do these things in the first place there would be nothing to lobby for.
Meet the new boss.....same as the old boss. Libertarianism would just produce a system in which corporations held such power that nobody would dare oppose them. That's a Who song, by the way.
Do you think that inflation would be tamed if we took a hands off approach to fiscal and monetary policy?
you're never going to be able to stop corporations finding ways to funnel benefits to corporations for special favors. the answer isn't to put up barricades they will find ways to get around, it's to take away the power to give away special favors.
A father looks around the dinner table and prays for inflation to end so that he can feed his family. A farmer looks around the dinner table and prays for inflation to quicken so that he can feed his family.
Every decision has a winner and loser. Some to varying degrees, but there are very few win win's in the world.
If you cannot eliminate something entirely, that doesn't mean that you can't keep it under control. Think Herpes....or diabetes.....or Saddam under Clinton. If you simply banned any form of contact between lobbyists and politicians except that which was recorded and entered into the Congressional record, then you would very rapidly diminish corporate influence....bribery.....of our government. Oh ya, you also have to ban all corporate contributions. Think Herpes.
No.
Fix the problem with government (reclaim it), and also restore government's moral mandate.