What has happened in the United States is what happens when all the original platform of the Socialist Party is enacted into law.



What has happened in the United States is what happens when all the original platform of the Socialist Party is enacted into law.
Seriously, Austrian economic theory? I could respect it if you went with the Chicago school, but goldbugs?Red Katie wrote:If ideal systems have nothing to do with human nature, what makes them ideal? Capitalism as proposed by Adam Smith, von Mises, von Hayek, and many others (yes, including Ayn Rand) was based on their understanding of human nature, not some other-worldly, pipe-dream "ideal."Xamonas Chegwé wrote:All idealised societal models are doomed to failure because mankind is not ideal. Mankind is unpredictable, capricious, prone to acting against his own best interests and, capable of great acts of altruism and selfishness in equal measure. That doesn't make man evil or impure, merely human.
Read up. Start with Hayek.
Did you learn that from your professors, or was it your own interpretation?Red Katie wrote:Keynes specialized in generating arguments to support any economic bullshit any particular government wanted to try. His work consists of bogus mathematics as a smoke screen for specious arguments.
Don't expect a reply any time soon. Red Katie last visited Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:36 amhiyymer wrote:Did you learn that from your professors, or was it your own interpretation?Red Katie wrote:Keynes specialized in generating arguments to support any economic bullshit any particular government wanted to try. His work consists of bogus mathematics as a smoke screen for specious arguments.
Thanks. As far as I can remember about all Keynes really showed us was that the government role in the economy exists and has a big impact on demand and we might as well recognize that. In other words the government has an obligation to manage its fiscal behavior in such a way that it stabilizes the economy and doesn't aggravate the business cycle. In the hands of politicians that can become chronic deficit spending, but that's not what Keynes advocated. Because of that his name gets associated with all kinds of stuff that he said nothing about, like government welfare, and became associated with government activism as a general style.Seraph wrote:Don't expect a reply any time soon. Red Katie last visited Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:36 amhiyymer wrote:Did you learn that from your professors, or was it your own interpretation?Red Katie wrote:Keynes specialized in generating arguments to support any economic bullshit any particular government wanted to try. His work consists of bogus mathematics as a smoke screen for specious arguments.
I did admire the conviction with which he expressed his feelings on the matter.
Oh boy! Just you wait until our local gaggle of libertarians hears that! They'll give you what-for!hiyymer wrote:In my view the issue of "big government" is just a smoke screen (along with the abortion issue) that has allowed a lot of people to enrich themselves at the expense of the general population.
I am not a libertarian but I am very pro free markets. We need the government to assure that markets are fair and regulated in such a way that self-interest can't game the system. The republicans have always stood for the exact opposite. Every oligopolist that want a sweet deal in Washington can find a sympathetic hearing at the republican trough. In addition the republican record on fiscal management and control of big government spending is pathetic to dismal. But the record seems to matter far less than the rhetoric, because people are gullible and susceptible to having their hysteria button pushed and some of them even think criminalizing abortion is more important than economy. Where I disagree with the libertarians is that the verdict of the market is synonymous with social equity. But that argument should be dealt with after the free market has done its thing, because free market capitalism is by far the best and most efficient way of allocating resources for the maximum benefit of all.Seraph wrote:Oh boy! Just you wait until our local gaggle of libertarians hears that! They'll give you what-for!hiyymer wrote:In my view the issue of "big government" is just a smoke screen (along with the abortion issue) that has allowed a lot of people to enrich themselves at the expense of the general population.
You don't see the contradiction there? Adam Smith's invisible hand? Private greed being synonymous with public good?hiyymer wrote:I am very pro free markets. We need the government to assure that markets are fair and regulated in such a way that self-interest can't game the system.
Libertarians are not claiming that the verdict is synonymous with social equity. They say that you get what you deserve, and that this is how things ought to be. They say that if you work part time in a car wash and consequently struggle to stave of hunger, you deserve your predicament as much as the CEO who earns in excess of a million dollars a day. Social equity simply doesn't enter into the equation.hiyymer wrote:Where I disagree with the libertarians is that the verdict of the market is synonymous with social equity.
Surely you jest my lady... the current disaster is a result of Say's law gone amok (offer any toxic shit you may cook up, there will be a market to make you rich off of it)... Keynesian economics and empowering the demand side of the economy actually gives a nice jumpstart, and if handled correctly will truly enable the trickle effect... It certainly has nothing to do with the mad greed and outrageous concentration of wealth that have been dominant since the 80sRed Katie wrote:Double talk. What free market? This recent disaster is the result of government control of the economy. And Keynes has been a disaster for every country that ever touched him.
Nice quote... but was it a good idea to perform such unhallowed thread necromancy?Horwood Beer-Master wrote:"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
Then the CEO doesn't deserve what he gets, because there is no free market for public company CEO salaries. They are determined by a system of cronyism that circumvents the legitimate interests of the those paying the salary, the stockholders. Governance of public corporations is a dysfunctional mess. But that's not really the issue.Seraph wrote:You don't see the contradiction there? Adam Smith's invisible hand? Private greed being synonymous with public good?hiyymer wrote:I am very pro free markets. We need the government to assure that markets are fair and regulated in such a way that self-interest can't game the system.
Libertarians are not claiming that the verdict is synonymous with social equity. They say that you get what you deserve, and that this is how things ought to be. They say that if you work part time in a car wash and consequently struggle to stave of hunger, you deserve your predicament as much as the CEO who earns in excess of a million dollars a day. Social equity simply doesn't enter into the equation.hiyymer wrote:Where I disagree with the libertarians is that the verdict of the market is synonymous with social equity.
Libertarians do justify executives' salaries on precisely the grounds that they are determined by market value. The board directors, and everybody else who defends those salaries commonly say something like: "If we don't pay him (and for some reason it is rarely "her") this amount, someone else will, and we lose him, which is to the detriment of our company."hiyymer wrote:Then the CEO doesn't deserve what he gets, because there is no free market for public company CEO salaries. They are determined by a system of cronyism that circumvents the legitimate interests of the those paying the salary, the stockholders. Governance of public corporations is a dysfunctional mess. But that's not really the issue.Seraph wrote:You don't see the contradiction there? Adam Smith's invisible hand? Private greed being synonymous with public good?hiyymer wrote:I am very pro free markets. We need the government to assure that markets are fair and regulated in such a way that self-interest can't game the system.
Libertarians are not claiming that the verdict is synonymous with social equity. They say that you get what you deserve, and that this is how things ought to be. They say that if you work part time in a car wash and consequently struggle to stave of hunger, you deserve your predicament as much as the CEO who earns in excess of a million dollars a day. Social equity simply doesn't enter into the equation.hiyymer wrote:Where I disagree with the libertarians is that the verdict of the market is synonymous with social equity.
There isn't one as far as libertarians are concerned.hiyymer wrote:I fail to see the difference between "you get what you deserve" and the verdict of the market is synonymous with social equity.
They can justify anyway they want, but it doesn't make it so. The board has no economic stake in the outcome. It's that simple. They just have to set a price that looks fiduciary. Typically what happens is the hired consultant says manager of companies this size make between x and y, and board says our guy is the best (they're his friends) and give him a little less than y. What do they care. It looks right, they get their weekend junket, and get to network with other people in the club. It's like you have to buy bread in one place, and the price is set by the bread seller and the bread seller's best friend (as your ostensible fiduciary representative even though you're paying for it, not him) and they can set any price they want as long as it's not too far above what other bread makers charge.Seraph wrote:Libertarians do justify executives' salaries on precisely the grounds that they are determined by market value. The board directors, and everybody else who defends those salaries commonly say something like: "If we don't pay him (and for some reason it is rarely "her") this amount, someone else will, and we lose him, which is to the detriment of our company."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests