Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
4 Pages123>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Formo  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:12:02 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

This will send DakotaT into a raving tissy fit.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Sponsor
Offline DakotaT  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:42:49 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 658
Applause Received: 1,347

Hardly! This just in, black people hate Republicans, and always will. I wonder if it has anything to do with how they have been treated by guys like Paul Ryan who want to gut every social program currently being used by the blacks?

Do the Teabaggers have a few token black supporters like Elbert Guillroy that serve as window dressing for their claim of being culturally diverse, Formo?
UserPostedImage
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:47:19 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 432
Applause Received: 255

I actually have to agree or come closer to agreeing with Dakota on this one. TRUTH and history are on the side of Formo and this good sincere man in the video. However, this is about politics and propaganda - the total sleaze and dishonesty of the horrendously leftist mainstream media. Thus, the 94% rate which the Democrat Party has been able to keep blacks down on the liberal plantation will probably continue indefinitely.

The sick and disgusting result of this is that blacks, who for the most part are good moral people, going to church in greater percentages than whites, detesting abortion and homosexuality, being normal patriotic America-loving Americans, not to mention the ones most adversely affected by loose and liberal immigration policies, END UP SUPPORTING THE GOD DAMNED LEFT WING POLITICIANS WHO ARE DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW ON ALL THOSE ISSUES. That is a damn shame, but it is a fact that will probably continue as long as the Dems keep successfully using the black overseers to keep their people in chains - figuratively, of course.

The other factor is that to a great extent, Dakota is correct, the Republicans, tea partiers especially, Paul Ryan in particular, have done exactly as Dakota says - advocated severe cuts to Dem/lib social programs. It is a fundamental principal of political science that people vote with their pocketbook ahead of all other issues like the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph. It's also a fundamental principal of political science that politicians, if they sense hopelessness in winning the votes of a certain demographic, will just say the hell with that demographic, we will do the Ryan thing and try to cut the programs that demographic relishes.

What COULD be - but what WON'T be is this: the link between TAXES and Government Spending should be completely severed. What I mean by that is taxes should be cut to the bone, as Republican supporters would like - economically speaking, we don't need taxes anyway except as a pretext to the world that Americans are willing to pay our own way just a little bit hahahaha. The spending should be financed by DEBT - which it is now to a great extent. Keynesianly speaking, this would inject money to the economy, stimulating growth, and making things better for everybody - not trickle down, but flow up. Politically speaking, it would buy votes - like the damned Dems have for generations - of blacks and other dependent class voters. The Debt? As I have stated numerous times in this forum and a lot of other places, the debt would be repaid - basically turned over and turn over ad infinitum - using dollars backed by our debt instruments. Since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, we could get away with it, assuming we remain the militarily dominant country of the world so no nation or group of nations could challenge having our dollar as the reserve currency.

Why will this never happen? 1. because this deficit spending thing shouldn't be flaunted too much. Even though we are dominant, we don't want the word to get out too much that we are living off tribute money from the lesser nations of the world, 2. because the God damned leftist mainstream media would STILL twist things around - and blacks and other minorities would be gullible enough to gobble the sh*t up - that the Republicans wouldn't get credit for it anyway, and 3. there really is that Ryan element of the Republican Party which, not necessarily for racist reasons, but more for jealousy or whatever thinks that keeping the poor people of all colors down enhances their own position on top - the Dakota Doctrine hahahaha.

Basically, however, none of this makes any difference because the Illuminati or the Jewish Bankers or whoever the Insiders are, are pulling the strings, controlling everything, and THEY will simply maintain the Status Quo - and I, for one, LOVE that Status Quo - the Good Life we ALL have.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Formo  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:41:53 AM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
Hardly! This just in, black people hate Republicans, and always will. I wonder if it has anything to do with how they have been treated by guys like Paul Ryan who want to gut every social program currently being used by the blacks?

Do the Teabaggers have a few token black supporters like Elbert Guillroy that serve as window dressing for their claim of being culturally diverse, Formo?


Ladies and gents.. Ignorance at it's finest!
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Online Wade  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:26:17 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 674
Applause Received: 688

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
I actually have to agree or come closer to agreeing with Dakota on this one. TRUTH and history are on the side of Formo and this good sincere man in the video. However, this is about politics and propaganda - the total sleaze and dishonesty of the horrendously leftist mainstream media. Thus, the 94% rate which the Democrat Party has been able to keep blacks down on the liberal plantation will probably continue indefinitely.

The sick and disgusting result of this is that blacks, who for the most part are good moral people, going to church in greater percentages than whites, detesting abortion and homosexuality, being normal patriotic America-loving Americans, not to mention the ones most adversely affected by loose and liberal immigration policies, END UP SUPPORTING THE GOD DAMNED LEFT WING POLITICIANS WHO ARE DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW ON ALL THOSE ISSUES. That is a damn shame, but it is a fact that will probably continue as long as the Dems keep successfully using the black overseers to keep their people in chains - figuratively, of course.

The other factor is that to a great extent, Dakota is correct, the Republicans, tea partiers especially, Paul Ryan in particular, have done exactly as Dakota says - advocated severe cuts to Dem/lib social programs. It is a fundamental principal of political science that people vote with their pocketbook ahead of all other issues like the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph. It's also a fundamental principal of political science that politicians, if they sense hopelessness in winning the votes of a certain demographic, will just say the hell with that demographic, we will do the Ryan thing and try to cut the programs that demographic relishes.

What COULD be - but what WON'T be is this: the link between TAXES and Government Spending should be completely severed. What I mean by that is taxes should be cut to the bone, as Republican supporters would like - economically speaking, we don't need taxes anyway except as a pretext to the world that Americans are willing to pay our own way just a little bit hahahaha. The spending should be financed by DEBT - which it is now to a great extent. Keynesianly speaking, this would inject money to the economy, stimulating growth, and making things better for everybody - not trickle down, but flow up. Politically speaking, it would buy votes - like the damned Dems have for generations - of blacks and other dependent class voters. The Debt? As I have stated numerous times in this forum and a lot of other places, the debt would be repaid - basically turned over and turn over ad infinitum - using dollars backed by our debt instruments. Since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, we could get away with it, assuming we remain the militarily dominant country of the world so no nation or group of nations could challenge having our dollar as the reserve currency.

Why will this never happen? 1. because this deficit spending thing shouldn't be flaunted too much. Even though we are dominant, we don't want the word to get out too much that we are living off tribute money from the lesser nations of the world, 2. because the God damned leftist mainstream media would STILL twist things around - and blacks and other minorities would be gullible enough to gobble the sh*t up - that the Republicans wouldn't get credit for it anyway, and 3. there really is that Ryan element of the Republican Party which, not necessarily for racist reasons, but more for jealousy or whatever thinks that keeping the poor people of all colors down enhances their own position on top - the Dakota Doctrine hahahaha.

Basically, however, none of this makes any difference because the Illuminati or the Jewish Bankers or whoever the Insiders are, are pulling the strings, controlling everything, and THEY will simply maintain the Status Quo - and I, for one, LOVE that Status Quo - the Good Life we ALL have.


Well, last I saw, they were borrowing trillions of dollars a year. So you are getting that part of your wish, aren't you.

Agree with you on tax reductions, though. :)

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:13:49 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 432
Applause Received: 255

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Well, last I saw, they were borrowing trillions of dollars a year. So you are getting that part of your wish, aren't you.

Agree with you on tax reductions, though. :)



As a libertarian/anarchist/whatever, what is your p.o.v. on the conspiracy theory stuff (last paragraph)? True or false, Good or evil?

What's you p.o.v. on Keynesian Economics - applicable to tax cutting? applicable to spending? applicable to both? not applicable at all? Why in each case?

What's your p.o.v. on the Dakota Doctrine - there is an element among the political "good guys" which puts down poor people, black and otherwise, just for their own self-aggrandizement? common or rare among tea partiers?

Do you concur that the Status Quo is a beautiful wonderful thing in this country? Or are you dissatisfied, and if so, for what reason?
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Online Wade  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:30:27 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 674
Applause Received: 688

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
As a libertarian/anarchist/whatever, what is your p.o.v. on the conspiracy theory stuff (last paragraph)? True or false, Good or evil?



I don't believe there are evil people out there conspiring to keep the poor down and take all their wealth. That makes for good movies and even better space opera novels (both of which I enjoy immensely), but its both lousy economics and lousy history. Rich people have opportunities that the rest of us don't. That's just a fact of life, and while I'm envious of those opportunities, I'm not of the mind to deny them to others just because I don't have them. And frankly, if rich people were to conspire to take other people's wealth, they probably would be better off conspiring to take the wealth of dumb rich people than either smart or dumb poor people -- because rich people have more wealth to take.

Quote:


What's you p.o.v. on Keynesian Economics - applicable to tax cutting? applicable to spending? applicable to both? not applicable at all? Why in each case?


Keynes had a better solution in 1933 than Hoover/Roosevelt. The big reason we had the Great Depression is that the Fed stomped on the growth of money at the very time it should have expanded it. In the 1930s there was a "liquidity trap."

However, being the solution in 1933 doesn't make it the solution in 2006-2013.

As for fiscal policy (taxes or government spending), he was wrong. Economic growth comes because of innovation on the supply side, not by stimulating the demand side. Increasing taxes chills innovation. As for spending, my belief it is not the amount of spending that matters, it is what the money is spent on. If the people who are the best at doing something (i.e., can do it at the lowest opportunity cost) happen to be the recipients of the spending, then government spending is a good idea, if they aren't, it isn't. Thus, spending on the marines to do the national defense thing is a really good use of funds, much better than spending it on mercenaries who read Soldier of Fortune.

Now I tend to think there are very few of those situations. Building of interstate highways, building the Hoover Dam, some national parks. Some courts. (The most precise term for what I am is a "minarchist" (short for "believes that there are some "minimum" roles for government.)

And I tend to think most of transfer payments (approximately half of all government spending) are NOT transferring money from those who do things at a higher opportunity cost to those who do things with a lower one. I generally believe transfer payments are a *bad* thing.

(Which is part of the reason Dakota and others like to call me uncompassionate. Big Grin )

Keynes was also wrong in his notions that one could use fiscal policy to smooth out the business cycle. For the opportunity cost reason and because that kind of short term economic manipulation requires timing and information policy makers simply don't have.

Quote:



What's your p.o.v. on the Dakota Doctrine - there is an element among the political "good guys" which puts down poor people, black and otherwise, just for their own self-aggrandizement? common or rare among tea partiers?



By good guys you mean whom? lib good guys, conservative good guys, both?

The problem with politicians is they like power. Sometimes because they think that power will allow them to get the social/economic/strategic outcomes they believe the country needs, sometimes because they just like power for its own sake. I think the latter are far less prevalent than usually portrayed -- I tend to think people in politics generally do things because they tend to believe what they are doing are the right things to do. (Man is inherently fallen/sinful, not inherently evil.)

I simply think they value power-based "solutions" far too highly. I tend to believe that voluntary interaction gets far more "good" accomplished, than using coercive power to "make people do good" does. Acton said that power corrupts, but he meant it in two ways. It doesn't just corrupt the person with the power. It corrupts the interactions between people more generally. "Power" solutions tend to reduce decisions to zero-sum games. Voluntary interaction (e.g., trade) tends to be a positive-sum game.

If I'm watching a Packer game, I want a zero-sum game with the Packers winning. But in just about everything else, I want win-win solutions. And politics to me is, almost always, a zero-sum game with "some gotta win, and some gotta lose." Because everyone can't have power; if someone has it, someone else doesn't.

And that to me is why power is corrupting.

Quote:


Do you concur that the Status Quo is a beautiful wonderful thing in this country? Or are you dissatisfied, and if so, for what reason?


No I do not.

The greatest part of this country IMO is that Americans have regularly refused to be satisfied with the status quo. For most of its history this country has epitomized a world view that to an unprecedented degree (in historical terms) values innovation and the "creative destruction" of entrepreneurship. That to an unprecedented degree is willing to accept criticism from both within and from outside. That to an unprecedented degree has accepted diversity and difference, not in the politically correct sense of "diverse protected groups of race, religion, gender, etc." but in the real sense of voluntary association (Tocqueville's point) and individual difference. America wasn't built, America didn't grow, America didn't become the world economic leader, America didn't become the only surviving "Superpower" by conforming to the status quo ante. America did and became all the things because Americans have, over and over again, millions of times, been willing to say, "to hell with the way things have been done before, there's a better way and we're going to make it happen.

Oh, along the way, a lot of those people saying "to hell with the old way" have been loons, deluded idiots, and dangerous subversives. Absolutely. But America has grown to be great, and it has stayed great because it has allowed those loons, idiots, and subversives to do what they do. Because some of those loons, idiots, and subversives have turned out to have it correct.

Like those loons we call the Founders. Like the loons and dangerous subversives that were the original Tea Partiers. Like the loons who were willing to risk it all on the Frontier, who believed that man could fly, who thought man could land on the moon and return safely.

Am I dissatisfied with this country? I'm dissatisfied with my job, and what I've made [or rather failed to make] of the gifts God gave me as an individual. Profoundly so.

But dissatisfied with this country? Only to the extent that we seem to have been overrun by the naysayers. In my opinion, ours is a time of opportunities with maybe one precedent in human history, the original Industrial Revolution. And unlike Britain circa 1800, where they were starting from a point of historical poverty, we are starting from a point of unprecedented wealth. Not just in the sense of purchasing power, but in terms of life expectancy, health care, and especially in terms of opportunity.

If I were 18, without a penny to my name, *this* is the time and the place I'd choose to be.

Despite the sewer that is Washington DC and American political decisionmaking, despite the screwed up educational system, despite the profound ignorance which my fellow citizens demonstrate daily with respect to history and economics (damn straight I'm an elitist: I don't believe Americans are evil or stupid; but I do believe we're generally damnably ignorant).

Individuals, voluntary associations, people willing to say the hell with the status quo, people who saw power as something always needing to be limited not something to be increased or re-distributed, people who valued trade and craft and innovation -- THOSE are what made the country great.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline porky88  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:47:57 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 189
Applause Received: 379

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
This will send DakotaT into a raving tissy fit.

I know you were looking rile up Dakota, but the southern strategy kept African Americans from the party. You can’t cherry pick the first 100 years of a political party and literally ignore, you know, the last 50 years. Political Parties change in order to win. That's why they exist. The Republicans did 50 years ago. They’ll do so again and probably sooner rather than later. That fight seems to be ongoing, especially regarding the current immigration bill and gay rights.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#9 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:16:41 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 432
Applause Received: 255

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
I know you were looking rile up Dakota, but the southern strategy kept African Americans from the party. You can’t cherry pick the first 100 years of a political party and literally ignore, you know, the last 50 years. Political Parties change in order to win. That's why they exist. The Republicans did 50 years ago. They’ll do so again and probably sooner rather than later. That fight seems to be ongoing, especially regarding the current immigration bill and gay rights.


Good Point about the "southern strategy". However, I would suggest that strategy was a product of the political reality - then and now - that winning the black vote is hopeless for the Republicans - for the reasons I suggested in the earlier post - mainly blame the God damned leftist media, but also the gullibility of the huge majority of blacks - voting AGAINST their own interests and beliefs - allowing themselves to stay enslaved on the liberal plantation, thanks to the black liberal overseers who dutifully deliver the vote. Looking at the situation and seeing the hopelessness, Republicans invoked the Southern Strategy, basically re-enfranchising southern Democrats who were disrespected and ostracized in their own party.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline DakotaT  
#10 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:58:21 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 658
Applause Received: 1,347

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Good Point about the "southern strategy". However, I would suggest that strategy was a product of the political reality - then and now - that winning the black vote is hopeless for the Republicans - for the reasons I suggested in the earlier post - mainly blame the God damned leftist media, but also the gullibility of the huge majority of blacks - voting AGAINST their own interests and beliefs - allowing themselves to stay enslaved on the liberal plantation, thanks to the black liberal overseers who dutifully deliver the vote. Looking at the situation and seeing the hopelessness, Republicans invoked the Southern Strategy, basically re-enfranchising southern Democrats who were disrespected and ostracized in their own party.



Republicans aren't going to get any of the minority vote because the minorities know that Party does not consider them equal in any way shape or form. They have waged a war on women, immigration, and poverty. Somebody please explain the righteous qualities of GOP, because I certainly don't see any. And the only real attribute I do see is greed.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
yooperfan on 6/20/2013(UTC)
Offline DakotaT  
#11 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:00:38 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 658
Applause Received: 1,347

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
Ladies and gents.. Ignorance at it's finest!


You really have no clue why I consider the Tea party insignificant do you? Uneducated rubes clamoring on to a Constitution they need explained to them.
UserPostedImage
Offline DarkaneRules  
#12 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:23:53 AM(UTC)
DarkaneRules

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/15/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 209
Applause Received: 351

I hate when ethnic groups are "used" by politicians in any case by any party. Really unfortunate inevitability of politics.
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Formo on 6/20/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#13 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:24:18 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 432
Applause Received: 255

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
Republicans aren't going to get any of the minority vote because the minorities know that Party does not consider them equal in any way shape or form. They have waged a war on women, immigration, and poverty. Somebody please explain the righteous qualities of GOP, because I certainly don't see any. And the only real attribute I do see is greed.


Yeah, like I said, the Dakota Doctrine. I don't disagree with you; I just wouldn't make it a blanket indictment of all on the Republican/conservative side. Small minority, big minority, majority of those on our side, basically on the side of good, I don't know and you don't know what's in people's hearts - where the dividing line is between greed/jealousy and political reality that they aren't gonna win that vote anyway, so f*ck 'em. The sick thing is that the God damned liberal Democrats USE that minority vote to ram through a bunch of crap that those minorities hate as much as the good people - stuff which really ain't good for their own cause.

What we need is a Good-Hearted Populist Conservative, first and foremost for a strong America, also with the good people in terms of social/moral stuff - opposing the gay agenda, abortion, etc., but generous - I HATE to use the word "liberal" in terms of injecting government money to help those needing help - and ideally, doing so with low taxes/mainly deficit spending. If somebody like that came along, would you support him (or her), Dakota?
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#14 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:30:10 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 432
Applause Received: 255

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
You really have no clue why I consider the Tea party insignificant do you? Uneducated rubes clamoring on to a Constitution they need explained to them.


I'm not that much in love with the Tea Party, but "uneducated rubes"? I don't think so. You will find a solid majority of Wade-types, intellectually, among them, from what I have observed. Of course, not all are good people like he apparently is - the Dakota Doctrine, but stupid they aren't.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#15 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:59:45 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 432
Applause Received: 255

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
I don't believe there are evil people out there conspiring to keep the poor down and take all their wealth. That makes for good movies and even better space opera novels (both of which I enjoy immensely), but its both lousy economics and lousy history. Rich people have opportunities that the rest of us don't. That's just a fact of life, and while I'm envious of those opportunities, I'm not of the mind to deny them to others just because I don't have them. And frankly, if rich people were to conspire to take other people's wealth, they probably would be better off conspiring to take the wealth of dumb rich people than either smart or dumb poor people -- because rich people have more wealth to take.


Keynes had a better solution in 1933 than Hoover/Roosevelt. The big reason we had the Great Depression is that the Fed stomped on the growth of money at the very time it should have expanded it. In the 1930s there was a "liquidity trap."

However, being the solution in 1933 doesn't make it the solution in 2006-2013.

As for fiscal policy (taxes or government spending), he was wrong. Economic growth comes because of innovation on the supply side, not by stimulating the demand side. Increasing taxes chills innovation. As for spending, my belief it is not the amount of spending that matters, it is what the money is spent on. If the people who are the best at doing something (i.e., can do it at the lowest opportunity cost) happen to be the recipients of the spending, then government spending is a good idea, if they aren't, it isn't. Thus, spending on the marines to do the national defense thing is a really good use of funds, much better than spending it on mercenaries who read Soldier of Fortune.

Now I tend to think there are very few of those situations. Building of interstate highways, building the Hoover Dam, some national parks. Some courts. (The most precise term for what I am is a "minarchist" (short for "believes that there are some "minimum" roles for government.)

And I tend to think most of transfer payments (approximately half of all government spending) are NOT transferring money from those who do things at a higher opportunity cost to those who do things with a lower one. I generally believe transfer payments are a *bad* thing.

(Which is part of the reason Dakota and others like to call me uncompassionate. Big Grin )

Keynes was also wrong in his notions that one could use fiscal policy to smooth out the business cycle. For the opportunity cost reason and because that kind of short term economic manipulation requires timing and information policy makers simply don't have.



By good guys you mean whom? lib good guys, conservative good guys, both?

The problem with politicians is they like power. Sometimes because they think that power will allow them to get the social/economic/strategic outcomes they believe the country needs, sometimes because they just like power for its own sake. I think the latter are far less prevalent than usually portrayed -- I tend to think people in politics generally do things because they tend to believe what they are doing are the right things to do. (Man is inherently fallen/sinful, not inherently evil.)

I simply think they value power-based "solutions" far too highly. I tend to believe that voluntary interaction gets far more "good" accomplished, than using coercive power to "make people do good" does. Acton said that power corrupts, but he meant it in two ways. It doesn't just corrupt the person with the power. It corrupts the interactions between people more generally. "Power" solutions tend to reduce decisions to zero-sum games. Voluntary interaction (e.g., trade) tends to be a positive-sum game.

If I'm watching a Packer game, I want a zero-sum game with the Packers winning. But in just about everything else, I want win-win solutions. And politics to me is, almost always, a zero-sum game with "some gotta win, and some gotta lose." Because everyone can't have power; if someone has it, someone else doesn't.

And that to me is why power is corrupting.



No I do not.

The greatest part of this country IMO is that Americans have regularly refused to be satisfied with the status quo. For most of its history this country has epitomized a world view that to an unprecedented degree (in historical terms) values innovation and the "creative destruction" of entrepreneurship. That to an unprecedented degree is willing to accept criticism from both within and from outside. That to an unprecedented degree has accepted diversity and difference, not in the politically correct sense of "diverse protected groups of race, religion, gender, etc." but in the real sense of voluntary association (Tocqueville's point) and individual difference. America wasn't built, America didn't grow, America didn't become the world economic leader, America didn't become the only surviving "Superpower" by conforming to the status quo ante. America did and became all the things because Americans have, over and over again, millions of times, been willing to say, "to hell with the way things have been done before, there's a better way and we're going to make it happen.

Oh, along the way, a lot of those people saying "to hell with the old way" have been loons, deluded idiots, and dangerous subversives. Absolutely. But America has grown to be great, and it has stayed great because it has allowed those loons, idiots, and subversives to do what they do. Because some of those loons, idiots, and subversives have turned out to have it correct.

Like those loons we call the Founders. Like the loons and dangerous subversives that were the original Tea Partiers. Like the loons who were willing to risk it all on the Frontier, who believed that man could fly, who thought man could land on the moon and return safely.

Am I dissatisfied with this country? I'm dissatisfied with my job, and what I've made [or rather failed to make] of the gifts God gave me as an individual. Profoundly so.

But dissatisfied with this country? Only to the extent that we seem to have been overrun by the naysayers. In my opinion, ours is a time of opportunities with maybe one precedent in human history, the original Industrial Revolution. And unlike Britain circa 1800, where they were starting from a point of historical poverty, we are starting from a point of unprecedented wealth. Not just in the sense of purchasing power, but in terms of life expectancy, health care, and especially in terms of opportunity.

If I were 18, without a penny to my name, *this* is the time and the place I'd choose to be.

Despite the sewer that is Washington DC and American political decisionmaking, despite the screwed up educational system, despite the profound ignorance which my fellow citizens demonstrate daily with respect to history and economics (damn straight I'm an elitist: I don't believe Americans are evil or stupid; but I do believe we're generally damnably ignorant).

Individuals, voluntary associations, people willing to say the hell with the status quo, people who saw power as something always needing to be limited not something to be increased or re-distributed, people who valued trade and craft and innovation -- THOSE are what made the country great.


For a self-proclaimed Libertarian/Anarchist, Wade, you say some interesting things - some of which are very unlike that label. Prime Example: the line about "everyone can't have power; if some have it, others don't". That is as well grounded a statement as anybody could make, but it sure as hell ain't anarchist and almost as surely ain't libertarian.

I like what you say about a Zero-Sum economic situation the pie keeps getting bigger with economic growth - one person's piece doesn't have to get bigger if someone else's gets smaller. I don't think Dakota or Formo or a lot of others in here have a clue about that, and hell yeah, SOMEBODY has to provide structure and rules - your "everybody can't have the power" thing, for the system to work and keep working. I suppose it could be called "Minarchy" hahahaha. The big question is what is that minimum.

The aspect of Keynesian Economics I am mainly talking about is related to that - multiplied GROWTH through expansion of money. It has limits to its effectiveness in general, but when combined with the beauty of our dollar being the Reserve Currency, hence debt not being a problem, the benefit is basically unlimited - IMO.

Your very first paragraph, I think you totally misunderstood my question for you. when I asked what you thought about the "conspiracy theory" thing, I wasn't referring to the concept I call the Dakota Doctrine - the rich/middle class basically keeping the poor people down intentionally. I was referring to the ILLUMINATI thing - the concept which I used to laugh at, but I am rapidly coming around to belief in - that there are INSIDERS - maybe not all or primarily Jewish bankers, but people behind the scenes pulling the strings on politicians of both parties, basically controlling everything. And lest you turn the tables and call ME paranoid, my point of view is not the traditional conspiracy theorist John Birch Society one. I LIKE IT LIKE THAT. My position is that IF indeed this INSIDER group exists, it is NOT to put down/keep down regular people. It is to preserve our wonderful way of life. Think about it, those bankers and big-shots, those INSIDERS whatever/whoever they are would NOT do well in a Communist or Sharia Law situation. They need America to stay on top, same as we, the Good Normal people do.

Which brings us to the concept of STATUS QUO. I can only conclude, Wade, that we have a problem with definition of terms. Sure, we need Dynamism in some areas - Technology at the top of the list, also, arguably - even though I would and do argue strongly against it, social/moral ideas, BUT when I talk about the STATUS QUO, I mean first and foremost, America stays on Top in the world. We - America - are the primary if not only force preventing a wide variety of evil forces from taking over and reeking havoc on the lives of people everywhere. It is arguable - the Isolationist argument that "who cares what sh*t happens to the rabble of the rest of the world" - I'm kinda 50/50 on that hahahha, but it is UNTHINKABLE for the Status Quo to be disrupted here in America - loss of our freedom, loss of our comfortable life, loss of our security. I can't believe that when you so casually dismiss the Status Quo, you are talking about MY concept of the Status Quo - hallmarked by freedom, comfort, and security, and supported by American military power, the Constitution, and free enterprise capitalism - ALL of which are seriously under attack from the left in this country today.

Edited by user Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:23:41 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.949 seconds.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
now / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

37m / Random Babble / Smokey

1h / Random Babble / wpr

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Pack93z

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / AbbaGav

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

11h / Random Babble / Smokey

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / macbob

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

15h / Random Babble / Gilligan

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey


Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.