Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fixing the economy

KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 5:17:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Just out of curiosity what do you guys believe will fix the economy?
I believe:
1. End America's overseas empire which would save the nation 1 trillion dollar each year.
2. Limit welfare so people don't live off the system.
3. End many social programs that have proven to be an utter failure for example:
Veterans Administration, Medicare, and Medicaid.
4. Return to the Gold standard.
5.Remove all regulations on banks.
6. Reduce or completely eliminate the power of the federal reserve.
7. End minimum wage.
8. Lower taxes on the consumer.
9. We should also eliminate the tax on goods manufactured in the U.S. and instead tax American business that manufactures goods outside of the United States.

Any other thoughts on this?

This is just a short list of things I think needs to be done in order to fix the economy.

This thread is not meant to be argumentitive. I just want to hear people's thoughts on fixing the economy.
I win ;D
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 5:19:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sounds familiar...
Hmmm http://www.debate.org...

Government interference has prevented stock from being invested into capital in the most efficient way. Your proposition leaves the market too controlled even still.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 5:22:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 5:17:22 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
4. Return to the Gold standard.
Any other thoughts on this?

Terrible solution. Private currency is a much better solution.

What the gold standard does:
-Establishes a price at which the USFG must buy and sell gold
Which is really no different than fixing gold prices.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 5:24:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 5:19:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Sounds familiar...
Hmmm http://www.debate.org...

Government interference has prevented stock from being invested into capital in the most efficient way. Your proposition leaves the market too controlled even still.

Well, I believe in no Government intervention into the free market. I just gave a short list of things that I believe. WJM do you think Welfare should be eliminated completely? I think if you limit welfare money to 2 years per person it should be fine and nobody could live off of welfare like they do now.
I win ;D
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 5:29:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 5:24:31 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:19:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Sounds familiar...
Hmmm http://www.debate.org...

Government interference has prevented stock from being invested into capital in the most efficient way. Your proposition leaves the market too controlled even still.

Well, I believe in no Government intervention into the free market.

Gold Standard, public currency

Say what?

I just gave a short list of things that I believe. WJM do you think Welfare should be eliminated completely? I think if you limit welfare money to 2 years per person it should be fine and nobody could live off of welfare like they do now.

Of course. Compelling individuals to part with their property in the name of so-called social justice... no.

Public welfare puts private charity out of business. In the absence of compulsory welfare, individuals willing to participate in social justice pursuits will voluntarily contribute to companies, which tend to be more efficient at the allocation of wealth than compulsory authorities.
Private charity will also focus more on those actually in need and stop the birthing of babies for the purpose of recieving welfare.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 10:24:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 5:29:49 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:24:31 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:19:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Sounds familiar...
Hmmm http://www.debate.org...

Government interference has prevented stock from being invested into capital in the most efficient way. Your proposition leaves the market too controlled even still.

Well, I believe in no Government intervention into the free market.

Gold Standard, public currency

Say what?

You think having a public currency is bad? How so?


I just gave a short list of things that I believe. WJM do you think Welfare should be eliminated completely? I think if you limit welfare money to 2 years per person it should be fine and nobody could live off of welfare like they do now.

Of course. Compelling individuals to part with their property in the name of so-called social justice... no.

Public welfare puts private charity out of business. In the absence of compulsory welfare, individuals willing to participate in social justice pursuits will voluntarily contribute to companies, which tend to be more efficient at the allocation of wealth than compulsory authorities.
Private charity will also focus more on those actually in need and stop the birthing of babies for the purpose of recieving welfare.

I guess I am not seeing how welfare is hurting charity groups. Can you provide a example of how this has occurred?
I win ;D
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 10:37:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 5:17:22 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Just out of curiosity what do you guys believe will fix the economy?
I believe:
1. End America's overseas empire which would save the nation 1 trillion dollar each year.

"Empire"? I think you need to reformulate that, as there is no empire. Do you mean NATO? Do you mean the forces in Iraq/Afghanisatan? What?

2. Limit welfare so people don't live off the system.

The US welfare is pretty limited already. But I'm sure it can be improved. I actually think a system you *can* live off (but where you have good incentives not too) is the best, but I haven't seen that implemented in a clear way anywhere, so that's just educated guesswork.

3. End many social programs that have proven to be an utter failure for example:
Veterans Administration, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Don't know enough to say that they have been proven utter failures. But if they had they could be ended, yes.

4. Return to the Gold standard.

The only economists arguing for this is a little clique of crazed Austrians. Nobody else takes them seriously. Most people agree that abandoning the gold standard is what got the world out of the Great Depression. So without being a monetary economists, it seems to me that this isn't a great idea.

5.Remove all regulations on banks.

All? That means we get no-fractional reserve banking and an infinite money-supply. Did you really mean that? That's pretty much the complete opposite of 4, so that seems strange.

6. Reduce or completely eliminate the power of the federal reserve.

Which also contradicts 4, as you in that case reintroduce private currencies (which also has been a less that successful policy historically) since the feds power is all about controlling the currency.

7. End minimum wage.

Sure.

8. Lower taxes on the consumer.

Pretty low already.

9. We should also eliminate the tax on goods manufactured in the U.S. and instead tax American business that manufactures goods outside of the United States.

I'm surprised at this sudden anti-liberal point in the end of this obviously dogmatically libertarian agenda. Very strange. And no, protectionism has always been a really bad idea.

Any other thoughts on this?

I'm pretty sure that your policy would throw US, and as a result the world, into complete economical collapse. It's pretty much the worst policy ever. Sorry.

What *would* fix the economy?

1. End all trade restrictions. No quotas, no subsidies. They need to be ended gradually over a ten-year period, but still.

2. Stop all the bank-help now. Demand back all money immediately. Banks who go bankrupt after this should be nationalized, the debts payed off and then they should be sold. This is the successful policy of the Swedish bank-crisis in 1991, it worked great.

3. Deregulate everything, but not completely. Regulations must be simple to be effective, and the regulations should not try to control market or prices, but only act as protection for consumers.
So prove me wrong, then.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 11:07:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 10:37:47 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:17:22 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Just out of curiosity what do you guys believe will fix the economy?
I believe:
1. End America's overseas empire which would save the nation 1 trillion dollar each year.

"Empire"? I think you need to reformulate that, as there is no empire. Do you mean NATO? Do you mean the forces in Iraq/Afghanisatan? What?

The U.S. owns military bases in 140 countries around the world I would call that an empire.


2. Limit welfare so people don't live off the system.

The US welfare is pretty limited already. But I'm sure it can be improved. I actually think a system you *can* live off (but where you have good incentives not too) is the best, but I haven't seen that implemented in a clear way anywhere, so that's just educated guesswork.

So you think communism is ideal?


3. End many social programs that have proven to be an utter failure for example:
Veterans Administration, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Don't know enough to say that they have been proven utter failures. But if they had they could be ended, yes.

4. Return to the Gold standard.

The only economists arguing for this is a little clique of crazed Austrians. Nobody else takes them seriously. Most people agree that abandoning the gold standard is what got the world out of the Great Depression. So without being a monetary economists, it seems to me that this isn't a great idea.

The austrians predicted the housing bubble burst yet nobody listened. The idea that the gold standard ban is what got us out of the great depression is simply not true.


5.Remove all regulations on banks.

All? That means we get no-fractional reserve banking and an infinite money-supply. Did you really mean that? That's pretty much the complete opposite of 4, so that seems strange.

How is it the opposite of 4? Infinite money supply is a bad thing.


6. Reduce or completely eliminate the power of the federal reserve.

Which also contradicts 4, as you in that case reintroduce private currencies (which also has been a less that successful policy historically) since the feds power is all about controlling the currency.

I don't like the idea of one private bank controlling an entire nations economy. Government would be greatly limited under a gold standard.


7. End minimum wage.

Sure.

8. Lower taxes on the consumer.

Pretty low already.

I am sure many tax payers will disagree. Federal income tax should be eliminated.


9. We should also eliminate the tax on goods manufactured in the U.S. and instead tax American business that manufactures goods outside of the United States.

I'm surprised at this sudden anti-liberal point in the end of this obviously dogmatically libertarian agenda. Very strange. And no, protectionism has always been a really bad idea.

By bringing jobs back to the U.S. is that really such a bad idea?


Any other thoughts on this?

I'm pretty sure that your policy would throw US, and as a result the world, into complete economical collapse. It's pretty much the worst policy ever. Sorry.

I disagree but that is just my opinion.



What *would* fix the economy?

1. End all trade restrictions. No quotas, no subsidies. They need to be ended gradually over a ten-year period, but still.

2. Stop all the bank-help now. Demand back all money immediately. Banks who go bankrupt after this should be nationalized, the debts payed off and then they should be sold. This is the successful policy of the Swedish bank-crisis in 1991, it worked great.

3. Deregulate everything, but not completely. Regulations must be simple to be effective, and the regulations should not try to control market or prices, but only act as protection for consumers.

"Protection" of consumers often back fires on the economy.
I win ;D
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 12:33:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 11:07:45 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 10:37:47 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:17:22 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Just out of curiosity what do you guys believe will fix the economy?
I believe:
1. End America's overseas empire which would save the nation 1 trillion dollar each year.

"Empire"? I think you need to reformulate that, as there is no empire. Do you mean NATO? Do you mean the forces in Iraq/Afghanisatan? What?

The U.S. owns military bases in 140 countries around the world I would call that an empire.

I wouldn't. But OK, if you want to cut down the US military presence, then at least we now know what you are talking about. And I don't know if it's useful enough to be worth the money, and you may have a point here.

2. Limit welfare so people don't live off the system.

The US welfare is pretty limited already. But I'm sure it can be improved. I actually think a system you *can* live off (but where you have good incentives not too) is the best, but I haven't seen that implemented in a clear way anywhere, so that's just educated guesswork.

So you think communism is ideal?

Communism: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Negative Income Tax: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Notice the complete lack of any sort of similarities between the systems, and you'll have your answers. Please know what words mean before you use them.

The austrians predicted the housing bubble burst yet nobody listened.

So did a lot of economists that do not advocate a gold standard. These two things do not correlate.

The idea that the gold standard ban is what got us out of the great depression is simply not true.

Then please explain why a countries economic recovery is closely linked to the abandonment of the gold standard?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

5.Remove all regulations on banks.

All? That means we get no-fractional reserve banking and an infinite money-supply. Did you really mean that? That's pretty much the complete opposite of 4, so that seems strange.

How is it the opposite of 4? Infinite money supply is a bad thing.

4 is about not being able to change the amount of currency on the market. To do that you need to regulate banks. You want to remove all regulation on banks. That means 4 becomes pointless. And yes, an infinite money-supply is a bad thing. So removing *all* regulation of banks seem to be a bad thing.

I don't like the idea of one private bank controlling an entire nations economy.

So nationalize it. It's practically nationalized anyway. Most other countries have a public but independent central bank.

Government would be greatly limited under a gold standard.

Only if they have a currency monopoly.

I am sure many tax payers will disagree.

Three things are sure in life. Death and taxes, and people complaining about taxes. People have been complaining just as much about the taxes when total tax pressure was 5% as 50%.

9. We should also eliminate the tax on goods manufactured in the U.S. and instead tax American business that manufactures goods outside of the United States.

I'm surprised at this sudden anti-liberal point in the end of this obviously dogmatically libertarian agenda. Very strange. And no, protectionism has always been a really bad idea.

By bringing jobs back to the U.S. is that really such a bad idea?

Yes, it's a terrible idea, because it doesn't work. It doesn't bring back jobs to the US, it makes everything more expensive, which means people and companies have less money, which creates *less* jobs.

Reference for that: Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776, and every single textbook on economics since then.

What *would* fix the economy?

1. End all trade restrictions. No quotas, no subsidies. They need to be ended gradually over a ten-year period, but still.

2. Stop all the bank-help now. Demand back all money immediately. Banks who go bankrupt after this should be nationalized, the debts payed off and then they should be sold. This is the successful policy of the Swedish bank-crisis in 1991, it worked great.

3. Deregulate everything, but not completely. Regulations must be simple to be effective, and the regulations should not try to control market or prices, but only act as protection for consumers.

"Protection" of consumers often back fires on the economy.

Yet you argue for protection of all americans. :-)
So prove me wrong, then.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:42:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 5:17:22 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Just out of curiosity what do you guys believe will fix the economy?
I believe:
1. End America's overseas empire which would save the nation 1 trillion dollar each year.
2. Limit welfare so people don't live off the system.
3. End many social programs that have proven to be an utter failure for example:
Veterans Administration, Medicare, and Medicaid.
4. Return to the Gold standard.
5.Remove all regulations on banks.
6. Reduce or completely eliminate the power of the federal reserve.
7. End minimum wage.
8. Lower taxes on the consumer.
9. We should also eliminate the tax on goods manufactured in the U.S. and instead tax American business that manufactures goods outside of the United States.

Any other thoughts on this?

This is just a short list of things I think needs to be done in order to fix the economy.


This thread is not meant to be argumentitive. I just want to hear people's thoughts on fixing the economy.

!0. Ask the mega-rich if they wouldn't mind, you know, if it isn't too much trouble, paying some f****** taxes instead of squirreling away all their assets in offshore bank accounts.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:29:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 10:24:54 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:29:49 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:24:31 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:19:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Sounds familiar...
Hmmm http://www.debate.org...

Government interference has prevented stock from being invested into capital in the most efficient way. Your proposition leaves the market too controlled even still.

Well, I believe in no Government intervention into the free market.

Gold Standard, public currency

Say what?

You think having a public currency is bad? How so?

You trust the government with something as important as currency and yet you claim to be for no government intervention... That would certainly be an intervention.

I just gave a short list of things that I believe. WJM do you think Welfare should be eliminated completely? I think if you limit welfare money to 2 years per person it should be fine and nobody could live off of welfare like they do now.

Of course. Compelling individuals to part with their property in the name of so-called social justice... no.

Public welfare puts private charity out of business. In the absence of compulsory welfare, individuals willing to participate in social justice pursuits will voluntarily contribute to companies, which tend to be more efficient at the allocation of wealth than compulsory authorities.
Private charity will also focus more on those actually in need and stop the birthing of babies for the purpose of recieving welfare.

I guess I am not seeing how welfare is hurting charity groups. Can you provide a example of how this has occurred?

Public welfare hurts private charity in the same way that public education hurts private education. Everyone is required to pay into the public system whether they use it or not, so people are less likely to pay double the amount for private education.
In the same way, private charity is weakened significantly by public compulsory welfare.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:30:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 6:42:47 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Lol, you try and take the Veterans aid away. Just try.

Yep. Even the so-called "free market" conservatives are against that.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:31:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:42:51 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
!0. Ask the mega-rich if they wouldn't mind, you know, if it isn't too much trouble, paying some f****** taxes instead of squirreling away all their assets in offshore bank accounts.

You know what happens when money goes into offshore back accounts, right?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:49:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Could someone explain what is so great about the gold standard? (Is there even $500 trillion worth of gold in the world?)
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:55:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:49:37 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Could someone explain what is so great about the gold standard? (Is there even $500 trillion worth of gold in the world?)

If all owners of gold agreed not to sell any, there would be.
Besides that:
There isn't even one thousandth of that in circulation, MTG.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:56:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:49:37 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Could someone explain what is so great about the gold standard? (Is there even $500 trillion worth of gold in the world?)

It's good theoretically, but realistically, it could never work at this point in time.

Is there even $500 trillion combined of everything in the world? I thought there is less than $200 trillion in the world.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:58:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:56:12 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:49:37 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Could someone explain what is so great about the gold standard? (Is there even $500 trillion worth of gold in the world?)

It's good theoretically, but realistically, it could never work at this point in time.

Is there even $500 trillion combined of everything in the world? I thought there is less than $200 trillion in the world.
Well the total value of the stock market is $500 trillion, so there has to be at least that.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:01:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:58:28 PM, MTGandP wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:56:12 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:49:37 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Could someone explain what is so great about the gold standard? (Is there even $500 trillion worth of gold in the world?)

It's good theoretically, but realistically, it could never work at this point in time.

Is there even $500 trillion combined of everything in the world? I thought there is less than $200 trillion in the world.
Well the total value of the stock market is $500 trillion, so there has to be at least that.

In capital and stock, yes, but not in gold.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:10:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:42:51 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
!0. Ask the mega-rich if they wouldn't mind, you know, if it isn't too much trouble, paying some f****** taxes instead of squirreling away all their assets in offshore bank accounts.

Most taxes come from companies and the upper middle class, not from the mega rich, for the simple reason that they are so few. So it doesn't help. You need to tax the masses if you want tax income.
So prove me wrong, then.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:16:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 3:42:51 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
!0. Ask the mega-rich if they wouldn't mind, you know, if it isn't too much trouble, paying some f****** taxes instead of squirreling away all their assets in offshore bank accounts.

The Top 1% Pay More Than Bottom 95%

In simple terms:
http://www.newsmax.com...

Official Report:
http://www.taxfoundation.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:33:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:58:28 PM, MTGandP wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:56:12 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/12/2009 2:49:37 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Could someone explain what is so great about the gold standard? (Is there even $500 trillion worth of gold in the world?)

It's good theoretically, but realistically, it could never work at this point in time.

Is there even $500 trillion combined of everything in the world? I thought there is less than $200 trillion in the world.
Well the total value of the stock market is $500 trillion, so there has to be at least that.

That assumes that the stock market is never fed by illusion-- primarily, the illusory "money created" by fractional reserve banking.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 9:47:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 2:29:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/11/2009 10:24:54 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:29:49 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:24:31 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:19:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Sounds familiar...
Hmmm http://www.debate.org...

Government interference has prevented stock from being invested into capital in the most efficient way. Your proposition leaves the market too controlled even still.

Well, I believe in no Government intervention into the free market.

Gold Standard, public currency

Say what?

You think having a public currency is bad? How so?

You trust the government with something as important as currency and yet you claim to be for no government intervention... That would certainly be an intervention.

What would you propose? Instead keep the Federal reserve in the name of privatizing currency?


I just gave a short list of things that I believe. WJM do you think Welfare should be eliminated completely? I think if you limit welfare money to 2 years per person it should be fine and nobody could live off of welfare like they do now.

Of course. Compelling individuals to part with their property in the name of so-called social justice... no.

Public welfare puts private charity out of business. In the absence of compulsory welfare, individuals willing to participate in social justice pursuits will voluntarily contribute to companies, which tend to be more efficient at the allocation of wealth than compulsory authorities.
Private charity will also focus more on those actually in need and stop the birthing of babies for the purpose of recieving welfare.

I guess I am not seeing how welfare is hurting charity groups. Can you provide a example of how this has occurred?

Public welfare hurts private charity in the same way that public education hurts private education. Everyone is required to pay into the public system whether they use it or not, so people are less likely to pay double the amount for private education.
In the same way, private charity is weakened significantly by public compulsory welfare.

I don't think there is a correlation between welfare and charity. Charity is still around and I think anybody who is kind enough to give up some of their money isn't going to be stopped by the knowledge that welfare exists.
I win ;D
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 10:09:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 12:33:09 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/11/2009 11:07:45 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 8/11/2009 10:37:47 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/11/2009 5:17:22 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
Just out of curiosity what do you guys believe will fix the economy?
I believe:
1. End America's overseas empire which would save the nation 1 trillion dollar each year.

"Empire"? I think you need to reformulate that, as there is no empire. Do you mean NATO? Do you mean the forces in Iraq/Afghanisatan? What?

The U.S. owns military bases in 140 countries around the world I would call that an empire.

I wouldn't. But OK, if you want to cut down the US military presence, then at least we now know what you are talking about. And I don't know if it's useful enough to be worth the money, and you may have a point here.

2. Limit welfare so people don't live off the system.

The US welfare is pretty limited already. But I'm sure it can be improved. I actually think a system you *can* live off (but where you have good incentives not too) is the best, but I haven't seen that implemented in a clear way anywhere, so that's just educated guesswork.

So you think communism is ideal?

Communism: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Negative Income Tax: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Notice the complete lack of any sort of similarities between the systems, and you'll have your answers. Please know what words mean before you use them.

You said you would support a welfare system that people can live off of did you not? or did I misunderstand?


The austrians predicted the housing bubble burst yet nobody listened.

So did a lot of economists that do not advocate a gold standard. These two things do not correlate.

I was responding to your "crazed" comment I was not arguing for the gold standard.


The idea that the gold standard ban is what got us out of the great depression is simply not true.

Then please explain why a countries economic recovery is closely linked to the abandonment of the gold standard?

What are your arguments supporting your view? I dont feel like reading an entire wikpedia article just to refute. So if you can please give me a brief summary of your arguments I will respond.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

5.Remove all regulations on banks.

All? That means we get no-fractional reserve banking and an infinite money-supply. Did you really mean that? That's pretty much the complete opposite of 4, so that seems strange.

How is it the opposite of 4? Infinite money supply is a bad thing.

4 is about not being able to change the amount of currency on the market. To do that you need to regulate banks. You want to remove all regulation on banks. That means 4 becomes pointless. And yes, an infinite money-supply is a bad thing. So removing *all* regulation of banks seem to be a bad thing.

Banks can't create gold out of thin air, no regulation needed.


I don't like the idea of one private bank controlling an entire nations economy.

So nationalize it. It's practically nationalized anyway. Most other countries have a public but independent central bank.

Nationalizing the fed would be a healthy first step. But you still eventually need to remove the paper money currency and replace it with a stable currency such as gold.


Government would be greatly limited under a gold standard.

Only if they have a currency monopoly.

I support a standardized gold currency.


I am sure many tax payers will disagree.

Three things are sure in life. Death and taxes, and people complaining about taxes. People have been complaining just as much about the taxes when total tax pressure was 5% as 50%

9. We should also eliminate the tax on goods manufactured in the U.S. and instead tax American business that manufactures goods outside of the United States.

I'm surprised at this sudden anti-liberal point in the end of this obviously dogmatically libertarian agenda. Very strange. And no, protectionism has always been a really bad idea.

By bringing jobs back to the U.S. is that really such a bad idea?

Yes, it's a terrible idea, because it doesn't work. It doesn't bring back jobs to the US, it makes everything more expensive, which means people and companies have less money, which creates *less* jobs.

Eliminating taxes on companies to manufacture things here in the U.S. wouldn't bring back U.S. jobs? You are going to have to explain to me how this plan wouldn't bring jobs back. Not only would it bring our American companies back here to the U.S. but it would also bring foreign companies into the U.S. to manufacture and bring even more jobs into the United States.


Reference for that: Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776, and every single textbook on economics since then.

What *would* fix the economy?

1. End all trade restrictions. No quotas, no subsidies. They need to be ended gradually over a ten-year period, but still.

2. Stop all the bank-help now. Demand back all money immediately. Banks who go bankrupt after this should be nationalized, the debts payed off and then they should be sold. This is the successful policy of the Swedish bank-crisis in 1991, it worked great.

3. Deregulate everything, but not completely. Regulations must be simple to be effective, and the regulations should not try to control market or prices, but only act as protection for consumers.

"Protection" of consumers often back fires on the economy.

Yet you argue for protection of all americans. :-)

Please explain.
I win ;D
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 10:36:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 10:09:45 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
You said you would support a welfare system that people can live off of did you not? or did I misunderstand?

Yes. And this has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

Again: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Communism is common ownership of the means of production.

I was responding to your "crazed" comment I was not arguing for the gold standard.

Yes. The Austrian schools and their typically teenage Ayn Rand fan-boys are dogmatic and obsessive and rabid. If they were a religion everybody would call them a crazed sect.

Then please explain why a countries economic recovery is closely linked to the abandonment of the gold standard?

What are your arguments supporting your view? I dont feel like reading an entire wikpedia article just to refute.

I linked exactly to the relevant section. You can't refute, because you are wrong, and you know it. Thus you come up with bad excuses like this.

So if you can please give me a brief summary of your arguments I will respond.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The source: http://www.federalreserve.gov...

5.Remove all regulations on banks.

Banks can't create gold out of thin air, no regulation needed.

This assumes first of all that you have a monopoly currency, which is a regulation. And secondly, no but they can create currency out of "thin air", unless you have fractional reserves. Which is a regulation.

This is repetition. Why do you I have to repeat myself?

So nationalize it. It's practically nationalized anyway. Most other countries have a public but independent central bank.

Nationalizing the fed would be a healthy first step. But you still eventually need to remove the paper money currency and replace it with a stable currency such as gold.

Apparently you don't need that at all, as the economy works well, yes even better, without it.

Only if they have a currency monopoly.

I support a standardized gold currency.

Which is a regulation. Which you don't support. etc.

Yes, it's a terrible idea, because it doesn't work. It doesn't bring back jobs to the US, it makes everything more expensive, which means people and companies have less money, which creates *less* jobs.

Eliminating taxes on companies to manufacture things here in the U.S. wouldn't bring back U.S. jobs? You are going to have to explain to me how this plan wouldn't bring jobs back.

That is correct, it won't, and I just did, above. Do you even read what i wrote before you answer? This is getting pretty ridiculous, to be honest.

Not only would it bring our American companies back here to the U.S. but it would also bring foreign companies into the U.S. to manufacture and bring even more jobs into the United States.

No, it wouldn't. See explanation above. Also see:

Reference for that: Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776, and every single textbook on economics since then.

"Protection" of consumers often back fires on the economy.

Yet you argue for protection of all americans. :-)

Please explain.

Do I already need to remind you of your protectionist measures to "bring back jobs", even though we discussed them just a couple of sentences up?

I'm sorry, you obviously haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about. And that's fine. But what isn't fine is presenting yourself like some god damn expert on a topic which you haven't studied for more than half a minute, tops. Pull yourself together.
So prove me wrong, then.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 11:08:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 10:36:11 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/12/2009 10:09:45 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
You said you would support a welfare system that people can live off of did you not? or did I misunderstand?

Yes. And this has absolutely nothing to do with communism.

In the communist system the government pays all people a even wage(they try to at least) If everyone was on welfare and living off of it what do you get?

Again: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Communism is common ownership of the means of production.

I was responding to your "crazed" comment I was not arguing for the gold standard.

Yes. The Austrian schools and their typically teenage Ayn Rand fan-boys are dogmatic and obsessive and rabid. If they were a religion everybody would call them a crazed sect.

Then please explain why a countries economic recovery is closely linked to the abandonment of the gold standard?

What are your arguments supporting your view? I dont feel like reading an entire wikpedia article just to refute.

I linked exactly to the relevant section. You can't refute, because you are wrong, and you know it. Thus you come up with bad excuses like this.

I am giving you the opportunity to present your case and you refuse to show me your arguments? Is it really that hard man? Seriously?


So if you can please give me a brief summary of your arguments I will respond.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The source: http://www.federalreserve.gov...

5.Remove all regulations on banks.

Banks can't create gold out of thin air, no regulation needed.

This assumes first of all that you have a monopoly currency, which is a regulation. And secondly, no but they can create currency out of "thin air", unless you have fractional reserves. Which is a regulation.

Tell me how banks can create gold out of thin air.

This is repetition. Why do you I have to repeat myself?

So nationalize it. It's practically nationalized anyway. Most other countries have a public but independent central bank.

Nationalizing the fed would be a healthy first step. But you still eventually need to remove the paper money currency and replace it with a stable currency such as gold.

Apparently you don't need that at all, as the economy works well, yes even better, without it.

Apparently you haven't noticed the long recessions the U.S. has beeen getting into since the fed was established that was virtually non existent before the fed.


Only if they have a currency monopoly.

I support a standardized gold currency.

Which is a regulation. Which you don't support. etc.

Okay, I will concede that I don't support the removal of all regulations but normally when people think of regulation they think of the Government looking down your shoulder to make sure your doing the "right thing" that is what I think of as regulation I am sorry I didn't take the term literally like you.


Yes, it's a terrible idea, because it doesn't work. It doesn't bring back jobs to the US, it makes everything more expensive, which means people and companies have less money, which creates *less* jobs.

Eliminating taxes on companies to manufacture things here in the U.S. wouldn't bring back U.S. jobs? You are going to have to explain to me how this plan wouldn't bring jobs back.

That is correct, it won't, and I just did, above. Do you even read what i wrote before you answer? This is getting pretty ridiculous, to be honest.

YOU HAD NO ARGUMENT. You said it makes "things" more expensive but you never explained how.


Not only would it bring our American companies back here to the U.S. but it would also bring foreign companies into the U.S. to manufacture and bring even more jobs into the United States.

No, it wouldn't. See explanation above. Also see:

No explanation above.


Reference for that: Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776, and every single textbook on economics since then.

"Protection" of consumers often back fires on the economy.

Yet you argue for protection of all americans. :-)

Please explain.

Do I already need to remind you of your protectionist measures to "bring back jobs", even though we discussed them just a couple of sentences up?

I argue to protect the business not the consumer.


I'm sorry, you obviously haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about. And that's fine. But what isn't fine is presenting yourself like some god damn expert on a topic which you haven't studied for more than half a minute, tops. Pull yourself together.

Actually I have read multiple books on the economy.
Also, I would never call myself an expert because I know I am not one. I still have trouble with all the terms n words but I am getting there.

WHY ARE YOU GETTING SO ANGRY man? Is it really necessary?
I win ;D
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 11:17:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I started this post in the hopes of hearing different perspectives because I am not an expert on the economy, sadly some people decided to attack my ideas rather then really present their own with the exception of maybe three points by reg.
I win ;D
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 11:38:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 11:08:08 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
In the communist system the government pays all people a even wage(they try to at least)

Well, yes and no.

If everyone was on welfare and living off of it what do you get?

Nothing. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Third time: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I linked exactly to the relevant section. You can't refute, because you are wrong, and you know it. Thus you come up with bad excuses like this.

I am giving you the opportunity to present your case and you refuse to show me your arguments? Is it really that hard man? Seriously?

I have showed you my arguments twice. That you refuse to click on a link is seriously not my problem. The problem is that you are wrong, and you know it.

This assumes first of all that you have a monopoly currency, which is a regulation. And secondly, no but they can create currency out of "thin air", unless you have fractional reserves. Which is a regulation.

Tell me how banks can create gold out of thin air.

That has nothing to do with my answer. What in my answer was unclear?

Apparently you don't need that at all, as the economy works well, yes even better, without it.

Apparently you haven't noticed the long recessions the U.S. has beeen getting into since the fed was established that was virtually non existent before the fed.

1. No, in fact, I haven't. Because that statement is simply not true.
2. The discussion is not the fed, but a gold standard or not. And the longest and most sever recession, the Great Depression, happened while we had the gold standard, as noted above.

Which is a regulation. Which you don't support. etc.

Okay, I will concede that I don't support the removal of all regulations

OK, fine, thank you. God that took a long time. Now, when you have admitted that you don't want to remove *all* regulation, you can instead say what regulation you want to remove. That would be more constructive than the knee-jerk defense you have done so far.

but normally when people think of regulation they think of the Government looking down your shoulder to make sure your doing the "right thing" that is what I think of as regulation I am sorry I didn't take the term literally like you.

There is absolutely no difference between these two meanings.

Yes, it's a terrible idea, because it doesn't work. It doesn't bring back jobs to the US, it makes everything more expensive, which means people and companies have less money, which creates *less* jobs.

Eliminating taxes on companies to manufacture things here in the U.S. wouldn't bring back U.S. jobs? You are going to have to explain to me how this plan wouldn't bring jobs back.

That is correct, it won't, and I just did, above. Do you even read what i wrote before you answer? This is getting pretty ridiculous, to be honest.

YOU HAD NO ARGUMENT. You said it makes "things" more expensive but you never explained how.

Yes, I had an argument, You had a question about that argument, but that does not mean I didn't have an argument. How am I supposed to know what you didn't understand when you didn't say so? You can't go around saying "you have no argument" when I clearly do.

Ask instead.

OK; how do things get more expensive when they are manufactured in the US than in China? Well, for an answer to that, ask yourself: Why is it manufactured in China and not in the US?

Right: Because it's cheaper.

The whole reason jobs move from the US is because it's cheaper to do so. Moving them back means they will get more expensive. It's as simple as that. You want the state to pay that cost by lowering taxes for companies that do this, but that doesn't change the cost, it just changes who pays it.

Questions on that?

No explanation above.

Yes explanation above. Tell me what you don't understand, or I can't explain it to you.

Do I already need to remind you of your protectionist measures to "bring back jobs", even though we discussed them just a couple of sentences up?

I argue to protect the business not the consumer.

That makes no difference (because there are no difference in economic terms. Producers are consumers and consumers are producers).

Actually I have read multiple books on the economy.

I don't believe that. Your knowledge of economy may be better than mine when I was 17, but you still know well... very close to nothing. But you argue and behave like you are an expert.

You need to argue less, especially in the knee-jerk fashion you have argued so far, and listen more.

WHY ARE YOU GETTING SO ANGRY man? Is it really necessary?

I'm not angry. I am slightly frustrated that I have to repeat myself over and over and that you don't even attempt to read and understand what I write, and that your only arguments consist of contradicting things you just said. But I am in now way even remotely angry in any shape way or form.
So prove me wrong, then.
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 5:45:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 11:38:32 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/12/2009 11:08:08 PM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
In the communist system the government pays all people a even wage(they try to at least)

Well, yes and no.

If everyone was on welfare and living off of it what do you get?

Nothing. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.

Welfare for all is a communist ideal period. Obviously they don't call it "welfare" but it is basically the same thing.


Third time: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I linked exactly to the relevant section. You can't refute, because you are wrong, and you know it. Thus you come up with bad excuses like this.

I am giving you the opportunity to present your case and you refuse to show me your arguments? Is it really that hard man? Seriously?

I have showed you my arguments twice. That you refuse to click on a link is seriously not my problem. The problem is that you are wrong, and you know it.

I suppose I will try to read your link and refute it later but I just can't believe you are to lazy to post a couple of arguments I think you are just worried I would refute them.


This assumes first of all that you have a monopoly currency, which is a regulation. And secondly, no but they can create currency out of "thin air", unless you have fractional reserves. Which is a regulation.

Tell me how banks can create gold out of thin air.

That has nothing to do with my answer. What in my answer was unclear?

You said banks can create currency out of thin air I say the currency would be made out of gold. How do you create gold out of thin air? Oh that's right. You can't...


Apparently you don't need that at all, as the economy works well, yes even better, without it.

Apparently you haven't noticed the long recessions the U.S. has beeen getting into since the fed was established that was virtually non existent before the fed.

1. No, in fact, I haven't. Because that statement is simply not true.
2. The discussion is not the fed, but a gold standard or not. And the longest and most sever recession, the Great Depression, happened while we had the gold standard, as noted above.

Fed was established in 1913, years before the depression.
The Fed printed into the depression instead of letting the free market correct itself.
Depression had little to do with the gold standard.

Which is a regulation. Which you don't support. etc.

Okay, I will concede that I don't support the removal of all regulations

OK, fine, thank you. God that took a long time. Now, when you have admitted that you don't want to remove *all* regulation, you can instead say what regulation you want to remove. That would be more constructive than the knee-jerk defense you have done so far.


but normally when people think of regulation they think of the Government looking down your shoulder to make sure your doing the "right thing" that is what I think of as regulation I am sorry I didn't take the term literally like you.

There is absolutely no difference between these two meanings.

With a gold standard the government doesn't have to constantly look over you shoulder. Unless obviously if the bank is using illegal currency. But the gold standard doesn't prevent banks from doing necessary banking like the regulations I was talking about.


Yes, it's a terrible idea, because it doesn't work. It doesn't bring back jobs to the US, it makes everything more expensive, which means people and companies have less money, which creates *less* jobs.

Eliminating taxes on companies to manufacture things here in the U.S. wouldn't bring back U.S. jobs? You are going to have to explain to me how this plan wouldn't bring jobs back.

That is correct, it won't, and I just did, above. Do you even read what i wrote before you answer? This is getting pretty ridiculous, to be honest.

YOU HAD NO ARGUMENT. You said it makes "things" more expensive but you never explained how.

Yes, I had an argument, You had a question about that argument, but that does not mean I didn't have an argument. How am I supposed to know what you didn't understand when you didn't say so? You can't go around saying "you have no argument" when I clearly do.

Ask instead.

OK; how do things get more expensive when they are manufactured in the US than in China? Well, for an answer to that, ask yourself: Why is it manufactured in China and not in the US?

This statement shows how little you know about the economy. Don't bash on me for acting like an expert when you don't even know your subject clearly...

The question is why is it more expensive to manufacture things in the U.S.??? There are two reasons.. Taxes on manufactured goods is the biggest reason why goods made in the U.S. are more expensive. China has little to no taxes on manufactured goods and everyone goes to manufacture things in that country, hmm go figure. The second reason is high wages China has a very cheap labor force and business is attracted to that. To counter that you simply just place a tax on American business that manufactures things in China if it is cheaper for business to manufacture in the U.S. they will come back without government "forcing" them too.

Right: Because it's cheaper.

The whole reason jobs move from the US is because it's cheaper to do so. Moving them back means they will get more expensive. It's as simple as that. You want the state to pay that cost by lowering taxes for companies that do this, but that doesn't change the cost, it just changes who pays it.

Read above.


Questions on that?

No explanation above.

Yes explanation above. Tell me what you don't understand, or I can't explain it to you.

Hardly an explanation.

Do I already need to remind you of your protectionist measures to "bring back jobs", even though we discussed them just a couple of sentences up?

I argue to protect the business not the consumer.

That makes no difference (because there are no difference in economic terms. Producers are consumers and consumers are producers).

A producer creates a consumer takes. I am not protecting the consumer clearly.

Actually I have read multiple books on the economy.

I don't believe that. Your knowledge of economy may be better than mine when I was 17, but you still know well... very close to nothing. But you argue and behave like you are an expert.

I think your the one acting like some kind of expert... lol Please man how are you going to tell me I haven't read any books? If you don't know for sure then don't say anything.


You need to argue less, especially in the knee-jerk fashion you have argued so far, and listen more.

Seeing by your last argument I am pretty sure you should listen more.

WHY ARE YOU GETTING SO ANGRY man? Is it really necessary?

I'm not angry. I am slightly frustrated that I have to repeat myself over and over and that you don't even attempt to read and understand what I write, and that your only arguments consist of contradicting things you just said. But I am in now way even remotely angry in any shape way or form.

I think I am done arguing with you. You take these kinds of things to seriously man.
As I said above the intention of this thread was not to argue but to "listen" to other views.
I win ;D