Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

The Goverment and The Economy.

Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 6:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you fall under more of the Socialism ideology that there should be a active government that controls the major economic sectors? or more of the Libertarianism that wishes that government should have no regulation over the economy?
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 6:57:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 6:14:50 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Do you fall under more of the Socialism ideology that there should be a active government that controls the major economic sectors? or more of the Libertarianism that wishes that government should have no regulation over the economy?

More Libertarian, but there needs to be regulations. A economy with 0 government control is just as bad as the government actively intervening.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:14:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 6:14:50 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Do you fall under more of the Socialism ideology that there should be a active government that controls the major economic sectors? or more of the Libertarianism that wishes that government should have no regulation over the economy?

As long as the State is really ruled by the people and not by an elite of politicians, then of course regulated economy is better. Companies do not care about the economy of a country, in fact the deafult position of any big company is always to steal as much money as possible from citizens and to defraud the greatest possible amount of taxes...
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:24:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.

What about regulations that are not really economic but have a deep impact on economy? Like an increase of labor rights, the ban on products from countries without labor rights, banning environmentaly harming products, regulation on what can be sold, ie why is water being sold? I feel it is absurd to sell such a precious thing as water in exchange of a coloured paper, or better called a dolar, the same goes to other resources like ie iron, etc. Why do we let companies spend, and in fact absolutely waste this resources that are scarce? why is this not regulated? And btw why do capitalist countries give so much value to scarce things? We reach a point in which if you have the three best diamonds in the world, the best you can do is destroying two of them so the third becomes unique and its price multiplies. This is such an absurd and impossible to sustain system...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 9:36:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:24:08 PM, Otokage wrote:
What about regulations that are not really economic but have a deep impact on economy?

I don't really buy the demarcation here, because if those regulations have a deep impact on the economy, they're economic in nature -- and labor rights are obviously amongst those. But let's see.

Like an increase of labor rights,

Depends on the measure. This is extremely vague.

the ban on products from countries without labor rights,

No, that's protectionism, which is a categorically stupid idea. Granted, there are ways to negotiate with and encourage other countries to pursue labor-friendly reforms, but sanctioning in this way is both a horrible economic *and* a horrible foreign-policy move. Not to mention, the notion that capital merely flows to whichever countries has lower labor costs has been proven demonstrably false, particularly because of the efficiency wage hypothesis and the underlying risk calculus.

banning environmentaly harming products,

What types of environmentally-harming products? Give me an example, and we'll see: generally, though, I wouldn't *ban* them so much as tax them, as the most basis Micro 101 model would stipulate, in order to discourage their use. Banning seems to me a step too far.

regulation on what can be sold, ie why is water being sold? I feel it is absurd to sell such a precious thing as water in exchange of a coloured paper, or better called a dolar, the same goes to other resources like ie iron, etc.

This is really just silly... Some things are indeed public goods -- e.g., roads -- but I cannot see a case for water or iron fitting the bill, and thus requiring public provisioning. But, yes, some goods pose a positive externality for society, and thus merit government intervention.

Why do we let companies spend, and in fact absolutely waste this resources that are scarce? why is this not regulated?

This is, again, extremely vague. What precisely are you talking about: what is being wasted in particular?

Also, I think there is a misconception inherent in your remarks that businesses are inherently evil, wasteful, and devious creatures. Indeed, if we were merely talking about monopolization, perhaps you would have a case, but we're not. In many cases, the regulations you're advocating would merely *increase* barriers to entry, reduce competition, and exacerbate these problems, which really means that intervention begets more intervention. The only possible end goal is the government literally telling businesses how to set up shop and how "not to waste things." Let businesses that fundamentally screw up go bankrupt.

And btw why do capitalist countries give so much value to scarce things?

You're not letting up with the vagueness, I see...

We reach a point in which if you have the three best diamonds in the world, the best you can do is destroying two of them so the third becomes unique and its price multiplies. This is such an absurd and impossible to sustain system...

It is an absurd and impossible system to maintain, which is why I'm fairly certain it doesn't exist. If, on a theoretical note, there were businesses actively suppressing supply in order to prop up their prices, this is an issue and merits intervention: I know of no evidence suggesting that this takes place on a large scale.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:03:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:36:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:24:08 PM, Otokage wrote:
What about regulations that are not really economic but have a deep impact on economy?

I don't really buy the demarcation here, because if those regulations have a deep impact on the economy, they're economic in nature -- and labor rights are obviously amongst those. But let's see.

Like an increase of labor rights,

Depends on the measure. This is extremely vague.

Reduction of working hours, bigger salaries, shielding pregnant women so they are not threatened for taking maternity permit, etc. Companies actively fight against all this measures, press political parties to deal with the issue, etc. If government didn't regulate this kind of things, we would be exploited.

the ban on products from countries without labor rights,

No, that's protectionism, which is a categorically stupid idea. Granted, there are ways to negotiate with and encourage other countries to pursue labor-friendly reforms, but sanctioning in this way is both a horrible economic *and* a horrible foreign-policy move.

Or rather, a sensible economic measure that would, for example, increase sales of domestic companies and of companies that care about societies, and also a brave foreign-policy movement.

Not to mention, the notion that capital merely flows to whichever countries has lower labor costs has been proven demonstrably false, particularly because of the efficiency wage hypothesis and the underlying risk calculus.

Demostrably false? Dude everything I buy, I mean everything is either from China, Bangladesh, or any other sh*tty country with a slave-based economy...

banning environmentaly harming products,

What types of environmentally-harming products? Give me an example, and we'll see: generally, though, I wouldn't *ban* them so much as tax them, as the most basis Micro 101 model would stipulate, in order to discourage their use. Banning seems to me a step too far.

It is quite pointless to tax a product that damages the environment, unless the paper that makes the tax dolars serves somehow to clean pollution...

regulation on what can be sold, ie why is water being sold? I feel it is absurd to sell such a precious thing as water in exchange of a coloured paper, or better called a dolar, the same goes to other resources like ie iron, etc.

This is really just silly... Some things are indeed public goods -- e.g., roads -- but I cannot see a case for water or iron fitting the bill, and thus requiring public provisioning. But, yes, some goods pose a positive externality for society, and thus merit government intervention.

Why do we let companies spend, and in fact absolutely waste this resources that are scarce? why is this not regulated?

This is, again, extremely vague. What precisely are you talking about: what is being wasted in particular?

Everything is wasted, I can't see how do you even dare to ask the question... Companies are highly inefficient regarding materials economy, and they generate tons of garbage that could be reused, recycled, or at least managed, btw something they refuse to do and, in many countries, demand that the government should be the one doing it!

What is wasted in particular? For example food (do you see how McDonalds just won't stop throwing perfect hamburgers to the trashcan just because it wasnt the burger your ordered?), water (how many tons of water are polluted a day?), plastic and metals (how many movile phones are trashed everyday because they are literaly made to become obsolete in a few years?), etc.

Such a naive question!

Also, I think there is a misconception inherent in your remarks that businesses are inherently evil, wasteful, and devious creatures.

Businesses are made to make money. Evil, wasteful and devious methods are great to make money, so I expect businesses will use those methods unless regulated.

Indeed, if we were merely talking about monopolization, perhaps you would have a case, but we're not. In many cases, the regulations you're advocating would merely *increase* barriers to entry, reduce competition, and exacerbate these problems, which really means that intervention begets more intervention. The only possible end goal is the government literally telling businesses how to set up shop and how "not to waste things." Let businesses that fundamentally screw up go bankrupt.

No I don't agree. If rules are equal for everyone, then there's no real barrier to anyone in relation to the others.

And btw why do capitalist countries give so much value to scarce things?

You're not letting up with the vagueness, I see...

We reach a point in which if you have the three best diamonds in the world, the best you can do is destroying two of them so the third becomes unique and its price multiplies. This is such an absurd and impossible to sustain system...

It is an absurd and impossible system to maintain, which is why I'm fairly certain it doesn't exist. If, on a theoretical note, there were businesses actively suppressing supply in order to prop up their prices, this is an issue and merits intervention: I know of no evidence suggesting that this takes place on a large scale.

I've worked on the private company, I won't say which one but it was a fruit company. I would see how they reduced offer, DESTROYING the fruit as long as they went out of production: perfect fruits!. Then they would sell the remaining fruit at a bigger price. Customers perceived this particular fruit as a scarce good on that particular season and so they were willing to pay more to pressure the company to increase its production. They probably didn't imagine that it was the company the one that created this supposedly natural scarcity... Also, they would sanction me if I gave the fruit to the staff at the time of lunch, etc. They would also prevent me for giving it to a farmer that wanted it to feed the animals. It was nuts.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 10:38:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 10:03:31 PM, Otokage wrote:
Reduction of working hours, bigger salaries, shielding pregnant women so they are not threatened for taking maternity permit, etc. Companies actively fight against all this measures, press political parties to deal with the issue, etc. If government didn't regulate this kind of things, we would be exploited.

Again, there are a lot of extremely complex issues, making my answer a lot more complex than "government good, businesses bad," and the question of physical exploitation--which is, arguably, even the case now--is also drastically more complex. I would support some, though certainly not all, of these measures.

For instance, "bigger salaries" is wildly silly. Markets set salaries, not government, and surely you would acknowledge that any sort of price control, absent a perfectly inelastic labor supply curve will pose a negative trade-off, and that's one I'm unwilling to accept when there are better alternatives that accomplish the same thing (namely, the EITC). For a "reduction of working hours," I would direct you to Europe, where people work less, productivity is lower, and unemployment rates are higher. Maternity care is interesting, and I could probably support some form of it.

Or rather, a sensible economic measure that would, for example, increase sales of domestic companies and of companies that care about societies, and also a brave foreign-policy movement.

No, this is completely senseless and nationalistic. Protectionism not only undermines the economy long-run capacity, but increases the prices of domestic goods -- final and intermediate. The reason you can buy an iphone today, for instance, at such a cheap price is because the parts were manufactured in several different countries leveraging their comparative advantages.

If by "brave," you mean "conducive to a trade war," then perhaps. That doesn't make it a sensible move.

Demostrably false? Dude everything I buy, I mean everything is either from China, Bangladesh, or any other sh*tty country with a slave-based economy...

I said capital flight, which is a wholly different part of the current account balance inversely related to the trade deficit. And while that's true in many cases, again, the missing piece is productivity, which ironically is undermined by protectionism -- it's why globalization has changed the composition, but not the number, of U.S. jobs. But outsourcing labor is the reason that we can buy stuff so cheaply, which is inherently positive for us.


It is quite pointless to tax a product that damages the environment, unless the paper that makes the tax dolars serves somehow to clean pollution...

No, not even remotely, and a basic Micro 101 model would prove otherwise.

Everything is wasted, I can't see how do you even dare to ask the question...

For the same reason you dare to make this outlandish, unfalsifiable assumptions that "everything is wasted." If that were the case, we can talk about streamlining production processes to improve efficiency, but that's not your case.

Companies are highly inefficient regarding materials economy, and they generate tons of garbage that could be reused, recycled, or at least managed, btw something they refuse to do and, in many countries, demand that the government should be the one doing it!

Many are, I agree, which is why taxing those materials would reduce their use and encourage the production of renewables.

What is wasted in particular? For example food (do you see how McDonalds just won't stop throwing perfect hamburgers to the trashcan just because it wasnt the burger your ordered?), water (how many tons of water are polluted a day?), plastic and metals (how many movile phones are trashed everyday because they are literaly made to become obsolete in a few years?), etc.

How in the world would we fix that?

Such a naive question!

Oh, the unbelievable irony. The protectionist and self-proclaimed socialist dares to call *me* naive, lol.....

Also, I think there is a misconception inherent in your remarks that businesses are inherently evil, wasteful, and devious creatures.

Businesses are made to make money. Evil, wasteful and devious methods are great to make money, so I expect businesses will use those methods unless regulated.

Lol... they are made to make money, and I agree that they have a certain degree of social responsibility, but the "greed is good" narrative advanced by Adam Smith has actually, overwhelmingly, been proven correct.

No I don't agree. If rules are equal for everyone, then there's no real barrier to anyone in relation to the others.

"No real barrier to anyone in relation to others"..... I'm still trying to mentally deconstruct that mess. I think I know what you're trying to say, but the execution is horrid.

I've worked on the private company, I won't say which one but it was a fruit company. I would see how they reduced offer, DESTROYING the fruit as long as they went out of production: perfect fruits!. Then they would sell the remaining fruit at a bigger price. Customers perceived this particular fruit as a scarce good on that particular season and so they were willing to pay more to pressure the company to increase its production. They probably didn't imagine that it was the company the one that created this supposedly natural scarcity... Also, they would sanction me if I gave the fruit to the staff at the time of lunch, etc. They would also prevent me for giving it to a farmer that wanted it to feed the animals. It was nuts.

Okay, I'm sure you know anecdotes don't solve problems or substantiate widespread claims. In other words this micro-level anecdote does not, in any way, substantiate the broad-based narrative -- the same narrative that would be directly implicated in policy. I cannot think of a way you could actually combat waste in individual companies without drastic unintended consequences, which I'm unable to accept to combat this bogey man you've set up.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee308
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:20:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To responsible,,,, something.
TLDR.
Do you know what that means?
Short answer, USSA government bad, capitalist freedom good.

get it?

Yes, some exceptions, you can't pump poison anywhere, but if you want to kill baby seals, go for it.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:35:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 11:20:11 PM, Lee308 wrote:
To responsible,,,, something.
TLDR.
Do you know what that means?
Short answer, USSA government bad, capitalist freedom good.

No, it's significantly more complex, and that you're actually unwilling to read one of my shortest posts -- and I have posts that are a lot longer than that -- shows your degree of willingness, or lack thereof, in actually having a meaningful conversation.

get it?

I get what you're trying to say, yes, and it would be nearly impossible for me not to, given how ridiculously simplistic your worldview is.

Yes, some exceptions, you can't pump poison anywhere, but if you want to kill baby seals, go for it.

This is a ridiculous analogy which doesn't even advance the point you probably think it does.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee308
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 11:57:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
OK, "the government and the economy"

simple answer, neither should have anything to do with the other.

Is that complicated?
Stock market lives or dies on its own, not dependent on the PPT or printing money.

It really is simple, but the "government" pushes the economy one way or the other, for its own good.

I guess that is real hard to understand.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 12:13:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 11:57:33 PM, Lee308 wrote:

You should really respond directly to my post so that I get a notification.

OK, "the government and the economy"

simple answer, neither should have anything to do with the other.

Is that complicated?

No, it isn't. It's a drastic oversimplification, betraying your clear ignorance on this topic.

Stock market lives or dies on its own, not dependent on the PPT or printing money.

I don't know what PPT is, though monetary policy -- which you've incorrectly referred to as "printing money," which makes sense, because it's wildly above your reach -- does in fact move the stock market substantially, though the stock market is a horrible gauge of the broader economy. I wrote a lengthy post on it yesterday.

It really is simple, but the "government" pushes the economy one way or the other, for its own good.

"For it's own good"..... I mean, sure, a booming economy is beneficial to incumbents. I don't see how this is actually undesirable.

I guess that is real hard to understand.

Lol..

It always amuses me when know-nothings like you pull out all the condescending stops. It's nothing more than deflection: a testament to the fact that you're fundamentally incapable of actually contributing a thoughtful point, save for "My opinion is fact, and that's how it is." That doesn't win debates: it exposes you for the clown you are.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 5:06:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.

Only thing we disagree on is that I am super anti single payer. :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 5:07:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 5:06:58 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.

Only thing we disagree on is that I am super anti single payer. :P

I am too, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 5:07:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 6:57:13 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 8/28/2015 6:14:50 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Do you fall under more of the Socialism ideology that there should be a active government that controls the major economic sectors? or more of the Libertarianism that wishes that government should have no regulation over the economy?

More Libertarian, but there needs to be regulations. A economy with 0 government control is just as bad as the government actively intervening.

How are you liberal but support a quasi-libertarian economy? Those ideologies don't jive very well... Your ideology interests me.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 5:08:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 5:07:28 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:06:58 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.

Only thing we disagree on is that I am super anti single payer. :P

I am too, lol.

Your big issues say pro D:
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 5:16:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 5:08:36 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:07:28 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:06:58 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.

Only thing we disagree on is that I am super anti single payer. :P

I am too, lol.

Your big issues say pro D:

Single payer is one of the big issues?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 4:18:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 5:16:38 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:08:36 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:07:28 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:06:58 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.

Only thing we disagree on is that I am super anti single payer. :P

I am too, lol.

Your big issues say pro D:

Single payer is one of the big issues?

National healthcare is
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 4:27:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 4:18:17 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:16:38 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:08:36 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:07:28 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:06:58 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.

Only thing we disagree on is that I am super anti single payer. :P

I am too, lol.

Your big issues say pro D:

Single payer is one of the big issues?

National healthcare is

I'm opposed to that, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 4:28:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 4:27:23 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/31/2015 4:18:17 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:16:38 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:08:36 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:07:28 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 8/29/2015 5:06:58 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:03:25 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I don't think there exists as a clear a spectrum as you're describing, and I think economics is far more complex than a right-left -- or social-capitalist -- spectrum, but I'll try my best:

I think government has a role to play in the economy, but that role is relatively small. The federal government -- i.e., fiscal policy -- should have virtually nothing to do with the demand side of the economy; that can be handled, in its entirety, by monetary policy, the impacts of which are costless and easier to reverse. Some regs might be necessary, but regulation as a general rule is unnecessary and counter-productive, as are distortive taxes, particularly income and capital gains taxes, which depress savings. Thus, the optimal tax system would be a progressive consumption tax, similar to the Bradford X-Tax, with several additional taxes on, say, pollution, which is a genuine market failure.

People who support additional regs -- say, a MW law -- often equate "consumption" with "aggregate demand," which is simply not the case. It makes for a nice political tagline, but isn't borne out by reality. Even if I bought that the real demand effects outweighed the supply effects (and I don't, because that isn't so), monetary policy would necessarily become more contractionary, nulling out any of the so-called gains, all whilst doing little for the "distribution" of income, which is often overstated and mismeasured. Distributional effects can be fixed with, similar to Germany's system, low-wage subsidies, such that we wouldn't need to forego labor-market flexibility which improves resiliency to demand shocks.

From there, there are probably productive investments the government can engage in on normative grounds: green-energy R&D is a worthy venture, for instance, as is education. Some other ventures -- e.g., single-payer healthcare -- are a bit trickier, and tend to be costly relative to their more (the key word is "more") market-based alternatives.

Only thing we disagree on is that I am super anti single payer. :P

I am too, lol.

Your big issues say pro D:

Single payer is one of the big issues?

National healthcare is

I'm opposed to that, lol.

Good :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
prof_mike
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 6:42:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was just called a socialist by my cousins yesterday at a family gathering. When I asked them what they meant by the term, they basically described a liberal democrat and not what is normally understood by a socialist. Part of the problem with labels like this is that many people who use them don't know what they mean.

In the end, I probably would describe myself as a European-style socialist because I favor a government that provides a fairly generous safety net for all citizens. Having studied in Belgium for almost a decade, I honestly do believe that we'd be better off in the U.S. if we adopted this sort of economic model.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 9:57:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
More Libertarian, but there needs to be regulations. A economy with 0 government control is just as bad as the government actively intervening.

This.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 10:09:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I should note that I don't reject the label "libertarian" unless it pertains to monetary policy, in which case the vast majority of "libertarians" are hopelessly disgusting, misinformed and confused.

If monetary stimulus, likewise, is government intervention -- and it really isn't, because the Fed will *in some way* set the base -- then I'll accept the label of an interventionist, statist, or what have you.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: With an active, credible Fed, fiscal policy means next to nothing.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:17:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 6:14:50 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Do you fall under more of the Socialism ideology that there should be a active government that controls the major economic sectors? or more of the Libertarianism that wishes that government should have no regulation over the economy?

Lazzie-Faire, the government can go fvck themselves. Besides Free market Capitalism is great, here I like to quote Ayn Rand, "Under true Capitalism there is no poverty."
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:17:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 9:03:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
socialist-capitalist*

You damn Pinko.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:17:46 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:03:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
socialist-capitalist*

You damn Pinko.

Lol
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:43:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:41:52 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:17:46 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 8/28/2015 9:03:44 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
socialist-capitalist*

You damn Pinko.

Lol

Indeed.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
greatkitteh
Posts: 394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:45:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:17:15 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 8/28/2015 6:14:50 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Do you fall under more of the Socialism ideology that there should be a active government that controls the major economic sectors? or more of the Libertarianism that wishes that government should have no regulation over the economy?

Lazzie-Faire, the government can go fvck themselves.
How Patriotic For the cyber Army of America.
Besides Free market Capitalism is great, here I like to quote :::Ayn Rand, "Under true Capitalism there is no poverty."
lannan13
Posts: 23,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:48:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:45:54 PM, greatkitteh wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:17:15 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 8/28/2015 6:14:50 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Do you fall under more of the Socialism ideology that there should be a active government that controls the major economic sectors? or more of the Libertarianism that wishes that government should have no regulation over the economy?

Lazzie-Faire, the government can go fvck themselves.
How Patriotic For the cyber Army of America.
AMERICA, FVCK YEAH!
Besides Free market Capitalism is great, here I like to quote :::Ayn Rand, "Under true Capitalism there is no poverty."
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~