War on poverty- failure. 3 time more than all US wars

[Peter1469]

War on poverty (1965 to present)- $22T USD indexed to 2012 dollars. That is 3 time more than all US wars combined.

And people say we can't afford war.... :smiley:


Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.

***




http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/rectorchart.jpg (http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/rectorchart.jpg)




Rather than doubling down on the mistakes of the past, we should restructure the welfare state around Johnson’s original goal: increasing Americans capacity for self-support. Welfare should no longer be a one way hand out; able-bodied recipients of cash, food and housing should be required to work or prepare for work as condition of receiving aid. Welfare’s penalties against marriage should be reduced. By returning to the original vision of aiding the poor to aid themselves, we can begin, in Johnson’s words, to “replace their despair with opportunity.”

http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/Bono_1.jpg (http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/Bono_1.jpg)

[Mac-7]

45 million Obama people under the poverty level.

since there are 20 to 25 million illegal aliens doing the lowest paying jobs that uneducated Obama voters are too lazy to do we could take almost every able bodied poor person out of poverty just by deporting the illegals.

[The Xl]

The real war on the poor is our broken economic system that is reliant on constant growth no matter what, which consistently inflates the currency, raising the cost of living for the poor, and rendering whatever savings they have useless over time, effectively making it impossible to improve their situation, and keeping them dependent on dumb, faulty programs.

[Matty]

Now, it just so happens that I was watching a Fox program, The Five. The Wop was explained thusly. The gov. Sets a poverty level. They subsidize those under the poverty level but they never count as income the money that was given the impoverished. That's why the war on poverty will never be won. Poor a trillion in and never count it and it's as if it was never spent. As the economy improves the bar on poverty is lowered. :) no win never.

[Mister D]

War on poverty (1965 to present)- $22T USD indexed to 2012 dollars. That is 3 time more than all US wars combined.

And people say we can't afford war.... :smiley:



***





http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/Bono_1.jpg (http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/Bono_1.jpg)

not sure about "free enterprise" conceptually but he's right about foreign aid and welfare. Those are two ideas designed to help the givers, albeit unconsciously, as much as the receivers.

[Mister D]

The real war on the poor is our broken economic system that is reliant on constant growth no matter what, which consistently inflates the currency, raising the cost of living for the poor, and rendering whatever savings they have useless over time, effectively making it impossible to improve their situation, and keeping them dependent on dumb, faulty programs.

That's the world's economic system. It's not broken. The belief in constant growth is central to liberalism.

[Polecat]

Actually the war on poverty has succeeded in its intended purpose. The name was just a sugar coated lie because they couldn't have gotten away with calling it a plan to divide and concur the American people.

[midcan5]

There never was a genuine war on poverty, many forget that the republicans fought it and still fight any attempt at a fair wage and a just society. Add corporate outsourcing and a global market that pays workers as little as two dollars a day and you must laugh at the right wing use of the war as a stick to further beat down hard working Americans.

I find it particularly hilarious that Paul Ryan, a suckee on the teat of government his entire life is fighting a war on poverty. Someone explain to me how someone who really does nothing earns a great salary and has great benefits to boot? Maybe he should live in the real world and give work a chance.


"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, based on long experience, anticipated Ryan’s line of attack on the poverty programs, and came out with a direct response outlining the effectiveness of programs like SNAP and the EITC. They also released a paper finding that in 2011, public programs lifted 40 million Americans out of poverty." Link below


"Even then, with all that lofty rhetoric, the War on Poverty had many critics who regarded it as piecemeal.Pat Moynihan observed later that it was "oversold and underfinanced to the point that its failure was almost a matter of design" (he exaggerated in that it was not a failure, but point taken). And, even then, with all that lofty rhetoric, what was the first piece of Kennedy-legacy business that LBJ placed before the Congress? A tax cut! The Revenue Act of 1964 stands as the third-largest tax cut in postwar history, after Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s. This hardly made Kennedy or Johnson a supply-sider, but again: The tax cut came first, before everything else.


Worth remembering also about the early 1960s are three crucial points. First, the economy was roaring: GDP rose by nearly 6 percent in 1964, disposable income by 7 percent. Urban and rural poverty notwithstanding, many millions of Americans were simply free of any meaningful economic anxiety, and on the far horizon was nothing but sunshine. Second, more Americans were willing to identify themselves as liberal then, and far fewer as conservative: Gallup’s 2010 numbers show 42 percent of Americans call themselves conservative and just 19 percent liberal; in October 1964, though the categories were slightly different ("very" and "moderately" were attached to the labels), those numbers were 28 percent and 26 percent respectively–imagine what a different environment that made for. And third, many Republicans voted with the Democrats, even more than in FDR’s day. The crucial 67th vote for civil rights in the Senate, the one to break cloture? John J. Williams, Republican of Delaware. On Medicare in 1965, 13 of 30 Senate Republicans voted for it, as did 68 of 138 House Republicans. If we had a Republican Party even remotely like that today, nearly every item on the Obama agenda would have passed already, in some form."


"Indeed, in the years after officials in the Reagan administration radically altered how our government enforces our antimonopoly laws, the American economy underwent a truly revolutionary restructuring. Four great waves of mergers and acquisitions—in the mid-1980s, early ’90s, late ’90s, and between 2003 and 2007—transformed America’s industrial landscape at least as much as globalization. Over the same two decades, meanwhile, the spread of mega-retailers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot and agricultural behemoths like Smithfield and Tyson’s resulted in a more piecemeal approach to consolidation, through the destruction or displacement of countless independent family-owned businesses." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.lynn-longman.html


and a related piece on the war on the war on poverty


"But this view of events ignores the fact that we don’t have enough aggregate demand to support full employment (or anything close to it) in this economy. For the last four and a half years, we have had at least three times as many job-seekers as we have had jobs (including almost seven times as many job-seekers in the summer of 2009). We aren’t lacking in motivated workers, or elbow grease, or personal responsibility, we are lacking in available work. And during sustained downturns such as this, you need federal assistance more than ever." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/08/paul_ryans_war_on_the_war_on_p046225.php

[Ransom]

The real war on the poor is our broken economic system that is reliant on constant growth no matter what, which consistently inflates the currency, raising the cost of living for the poor, and rendering whatever savings they have useless over time, effectively making it impossible to improve their situation, and keeping them dependent on dumb, faulty programs.

So, it isn't any individual's fault? Don't forget to blame crime, drug use, a million abortions a year, and fatherless America on the system either. The fact that our education system is in shambles, our inner cities the same...that's all because of the system. Rendering whatever savings they have...please. What savings? What's more, so many DO improve their situation, many poor...and disabled. Many breaking the expectations of others, many defying this sick and demented mentality that It's some f'n system of economic failure or one wrought with civil inequities and corruption....when in reality you're sitting there today with a higher standard of living than 99% of humanity before you. This nation offers so much more than your dark images.

[Peter1469]

$22T isn't enough since 1965?

Please.

[Ransom]

There has been a war on poverty and it's been waged by the Catholic Church. From meals on wheels to grocery handouts, from battered women's shelters to Catholic Charities. The government the only entity failing at it.

[Green Arrow]

The problem is the system. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to fix anything. If the system itself is broken, no amount of money will fix the problem until you fix the system.

[The Xl]

That's the world's economic system. It's not broken. The belief in constant growth is central to liberalism.

It's broken for everyone but the wealthy.

If what you're saying is that it's by design, then yes, that is correct.

Growth needs to be constant under our fractional reserve system or the system fails. That's why it needs to be changed.

[The Xl]

So, it isn't any individual's fault? Don't forget to blame crime, drug use, a million abortions a year, and fatherless America on the system either. The fact that our education system is in shambles, our inner cities the same...that's all because of the system. Rendering whatever savings they have...please. What savings? What's more, so many DO improve their situation, many poor...and disabled. Many breaking the expectations of others, many defying this sick and demented mentality that It's some f'n system of economic failure or one wrought with civil inequities and corruption....when in reality you're sitting there today with a higher standard of living than 99% of humanity before you. This nation offers so much more than your dark images.

Of course their are other variables, but what I posted is the main one.

The nation is still somewhat great because of the last remnants of free markets we have. Imagine how great we'd be if we had a functioning economic system and no cronyism. We wouldn't have any poverty or suffering whatsoever.

I can't really answer the rest of your post because it's nonsense. You aren't capable of getting what I said.

[Mister D]

It's broken for everyone but the wealthy.

If what you're saying is that it's by design, then yes, that is correct.

Growth needs to be constant under our fractional reserve system or the system fails. That's why it needs to be changed.

no, the assumption of constant growth led to current global system. You are dealing with a ideology that is much older than us both not a conspiracy. Furthermore, it won't change until we change as a people.

[Ethereal]

The belief in constant growth is central to liberalism.

According to who?

[Mister D]

According to who?

Adam Smith, for example. Aren't you always singing the praises of free markets and the prosperity they lead to? Doesn't the pseudoscience of economics (a liberal phenomenon in itself) entail strategies for continued growth? Your society doesn't sell 7 billion people the idea they can all live like Americans?

[Peter1469]

The problem is the system. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to fix anything. If the system itself is broken, no amount of money will fix the problem until you fix the system.

The system created systems that perpetuated poverty. I don't think that was their intention; it was just the results of their policies.

[Ethereal]

Adam Smith, for example.

Could you substantiate that in some way?


Aren't you always singing the praises of free markets and the prosperity they lead to?

Yes, which is why I'm puzzled by the claim that "constant growth" (growth of what?) is central to liberalism. I always thought individual liberty was central to liberalism.


Doesn't the pseudoscience of economics (a liberal phenomenon in itself) entail strategies for continued growth?

I don't think it does, but you seem to think differently, which is why I'm inquiring.


Your society doesn't sell 7 billion people the idea they can all live like Americans?

The standard of living enjoyed by Americans is not exclusively a function of free market liberalism.

[Chris]

Adam Smith, Wealth, Book 2, Chapter 3, wrote of "The uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition" but I don't see him as one who advocated but rather explained economic man.

[Ethereal]

Adam Smith, Wealth, Book 2, Chapter 3, wrote of "The uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition" but I don't see him as one who advocated but rather explained economic man.

This does not express or imply anything about a belief in "constant growth", let alone its alleged centrality to liberalism.

For centuries, economists have considered a transition from a growing economy to a stable one, from classical economists like Adam Smith down to present-day ecological economists. Adam Smith is famous for the ideas in his book The Wealth of Nations. A central theme of the book is the desirable consequences of each person pursuing self interests in the marketplace. He theorized and observed that people trading in open markets leads to production of the right quantities of commodities, division of labor, increasing wages, and an upward spiral of economic growth. But Smith recognized a limit to economic growth. He predicted that in the long run, population growth would push wages down, natural resources would become increasingly scarce, and division of labor would approach the limits of its effectiveness. He even predicted 200 years as the longest period of growth, followed by population stability.

LINK (http://steadystate.org/discover/definition/)

[Chris]

This does not express or imply anything about a belief in "constant growth", let alone its alleged centrality to liberalism.

For centuries, economists have considered a transition from a growing economy to a stable one, from classical economists like Adam Smith down to present-day ecological economists. Adam Smith is famous for the ideas in his book The Wealth of Nations. A central theme of the book is the desirable consequences of each person pursuing self interests in the marketplace. He theorized and observed that people trading in open markets leads to production of the right quantities of commodities, division of labor, increasing wages, and an upward spiral of economic growth. But Smith recognized a limit to economic growth. He predicted that in the long run, population growth would push wages down, natural resources would become increasingly scarce, and division of labor would approach the limits of its effectiveness. He even predicted 200 years as the longest period of growth, followed by population stability.

LINK (http://steadystate.org/discover/definition/)


Yea, agree with ^^that.

If his prediction was correct, we're fast approaching that limit. It's hard to see how we could sustain such growth indefinitely.

http://i.snag.gy/7xDmu.jpg

From Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms.

[Peter1469]

Yea, agree with ^^that.

If his prediction was correct, we're fast approaching that limit. It's hard to see how we could sustain such growth indefinitely.

http://i.snag.gy/7xDmu.jpg

From Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms.

That income is not adjusted for inflation.

The Malthusian Trap was just as incorrect the second it was conjured up as it is today. Looks like the climate change hockey stick.

Despite 7B soul on spaceship earth, man is better off than anytime in human history.

[Chris]

That income is not adjusted for inflation.

The Malthusian Trap was just as incorrect the second it was conjured up as it is today. Looks like the climate change hockey stick.

Despite 7B soul on spaceship earth, man is better off than anytime in human history.

I believe Clark adjusted for inflation.

Malthuse was correct about man up until the Enlightenment. It could collapse.

That we're better off was Clark's entire point.

[Peter1469]

I believe Clark adjusted for inflation.

Malthuse was correct about man up until the Enlightenment. It could collapse.

That we're better off was Clark's entire point.


Malthus was 100% incorrect. His entire thesis relied on man being at the height of scientific achievement.

His only remedies were (1) social controls (i.e. forced sterilization, as an example) or (2) war. He was wrong the second he wrote it down.

This entire fetish with Malthus today is extremely dangerous in my opinion. Heed it at your peril. Our population level today is not any problem at all for current science. It is a matter of corruption and malallocation of resources by third world governments.

Anyway within a couple of generations we will be settling humans on the moon and Mars and mining the asteroid belt- money and resources will become irrelevant. Plenty of room and we will only be moving further out from there.

[Dr. Who]

There never was a genuine war on poverty, many forget that the republicans fought it and still fight any attempt at a fair wage and a just society. Add corporate outsourcing and a global market that pays workers as little as two dollars a day and you must laugh at the right wing use of the war as a stick to further beat down hard working Americans.

I find it particularly hilarious that Paul Ryan, a suckee on the teat of government his entire life is fighting a war on poverty. Someone explain to me how someone who really does nothing earns a great salary and has great benefits to boot? Maybe he should live in the real world and give work a chance.


"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, based on long experience, anticipated Ryan’s line of attack on the poverty programs, and came out with a direct response outlining the effectiveness of programs like SNAP and the EITC. They also released a paper finding that in 2011, public programs lifted 40 million Americans out of poverty." Link below


"Even then, with all that lofty rhetoric, the War on Poverty had many critics who regarded it as piecemeal.Pat Moynihan observed later that it was "oversold and underfinanced to the point that its failure was almost a matter of design" (he exaggerated in that it was not a failure, but point taken). And, even then, with all that lofty rhetoric, what was the first piece of Kennedy-legacy business that LBJ placed before the Congress? A tax cut! The Revenue Act of 1964 stands as the third-largest tax cut in postwar history, after Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s. This hardly made Kennedy or Johnson a supply-sider, but again: The tax cut came first, before everything else.


Worth remembering also about the early 1960s are three crucial points. First, the economy was roaring: GDP rose by nearly 6 percent in 1964, disposable income by 7 percent. Urban and rural poverty notwithstanding, many millions of Americans were simply free of any meaningful economic anxiety, and on the far horizon was nothing but sunshine. Second, more Americans were willing to identify themselves as liberal then, and far fewer as conservative: Gallup’s 2010 numbers show 42 percent of Americans call themselves conservative and just 19 percent liberal; in October 1964, though the categories were slightly different ("very" and "moderately" were attached to the labels), those numbers were 28 percent and 26 percent respectively–imagine what a different environment that made for. And third, many Republicans voted with the Democrats, even more than in FDR’s day. The crucial 67th vote for civil rights in the Senate, the one to break cloture? John J. Williams, Republican of Delaware. On Medicare in 1965, 13 of 30 Senate Republicans voted for it, as did 68 of 138 House Republicans. If we had a Republican Party even remotely like that today, nearly every item on the Obama agenda would have passed already, in some form."


"Indeed, in the years after officials in the Reagan administration radically altered how our government enforces our antimonopoly laws, the American economy underwent a truly revolutionary restructuring. Four great waves of mergers and acquisitions—in the mid-1980s, early ’90s, late ’90s, and between 2003 and 2007—transformed America’s industrial landscape at least as much as globalization. Over the same two decades, meanwhile, the spread of mega-retailers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot and agricultural behemoths like Smithfield and Tyson’s resulted in a more piecemeal approach to consolidation, through the destruction or displacement of countless independent family-owned businesses." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.lynn-longman.html


and a related piece on the war on the war on poverty


"But this view of events ignores the fact that we don’t have enough aggregate demand to support full employment (or anything close to it) in this economy. For the last four and a half years, we have had at least three times as many job-seekers as we have had jobs (including almost seven times as many job-seekers in the summer of 2009). We aren’t lacking in motivated workers, or elbow grease, or personal responsibility, we are lacking in available work. And during sustained downturns such as this, you need federal assistance more than ever." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/08/paul_ryans_war_on_the_war_on_p046225.php
@Midcan, I do believe that between outsourcing, right sizing, down sizing and mergers and acquisitions, there are far fewer available jobs than ever before. Furthermore because the older workforce are frequently divorced people, they haven't the resources they may have had when they were married, so are not giving up those jobs until they are forced to, leaving the incoming workforce with slim pickings.

[Chris]

Malthus was 100% incorrect. His entire thesis relied on man being at the height of scientific achievement.

His only remedies were (1) social controls (i.e. forced sterilization, as an example) or (2) war. He was wrong the second he wrote it down.

This entire fetish with Malthus today is extremely dangerous in my opinion. Heed it at your peril. Our population level today is not any problem at all for current science. It is a matter of corruption and malallocation of resources by third world governments.

Anyway within a couple of generations we will be settling humans on the moon and Mars and mining the asteroid belt- money and resources will become irrelevant. Plenty of room and we will only be moving further out from there.


Please cite Malthus on that.

No one accepts his theory now, what fetish?

Where'd you buy that crystal ball?

[Ransom]

The problem is the system. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to fix anything. If the system itself is broken, no amount of money will fix the problem until you fix the system.

Horse manure. The problem is that these programs began intending to temporarily aid people in hard economic circumstances. To help children who through no fault of their own find themselves without essentials or health care. These programs had good intent. To help the elderly and interned. To help the disabled or unable to work. To help mental illnesses, learning disabilities, there is a government role in promoting these ventures, these responsibilities can be charged to the populace through private and religious entities. The government is unable to facilitate such programs as they always fall into an entitlement, much of the money shaved off by corrupt individuals and government employees.....and then the recipients come to expect and even demand this assistance.....causing it to backfire in some cases. Get off your "it's the system" argument, it's overused, abused, and incorrect to boot.

[Green Arrow]

Horse manure. The problem is that these programs began intending to temporarily aid people in hard economic circumstances. To help children who through no fault of their own find themselves without essentials or health care. These programs had good intent. To help the elderly and interned. To help the disabled or unable to work. To help mental illnesses, learning disabilities, there is a government role in promoting these ventures, these responsibilities can be charged to the populace through private and religious entities. The government is unable to facilitate such programs as they always fall into an entitlement, much of the money shaved off by corrupt individuals and government employees.....and then the recipients come to expect and even demand this assistance.....causing it to backfire in some cases. Get off your "it's the system" argument, it's overused, abused, and incorrect to boot.

Bite me.

[Polecat]

Horse manure. The problem is that these programs began intending to temporarily aid people in hard economic circumstances. To help children who through no fault of their own find themselves without essentials or health care. These programs had good intent. To help the elderly and interned. To help the disabled or unable to work. To help mental illnesses, learning disabilities, there is a government role in promoting these ventures, these responsibilities can be charged to the populace through private and religious entities. The government is unable to facilitate such programs as they always fall into an entitlement, much of the money shaved off by corrupt individuals and government employees.....and then the recipients come to expect and even demand this assistance.....causing it to backfire in some cases. Get off your "it's the system" argument, it's overused, abused, and incorrect to boot.

The program was pushed and sold with good intention. That was either a complete deception or the great minds in the 60's were as ignorant as could be. Which do you believe is more plausible?

[The Xl]

A lot of these programs were put in place as a necessary evil, to prevent total revolt from the poor. This was necessary because of the constant inflation and unemployment/underemployment our economic system inherently perpetuates.

[Mister D]

Could you substantiate that in some way?



Yes, which is why I'm puzzled by the claim that "constant growth" (growth of what?) is central to liberalism. I always thought individual liberty was central to liberalism.



I don't think it does, but you seem to think differently, which is why I'm inquiring.



The standard of living enjoyed by Americans is not exclusively a function of free market liberalism.

I hate this formatting. Just going to break my commnets into sections. Should be easy enough to match them up.

My mistake. I admit ‘em when I make ‘em. I see Smith recognized limits on growth much like he recognized the legitimacy ofstate intervention in the economy. I must have been thinking of his more fanatical descendants. :wink: As for the illusion of development and Western life styles for all, who sells that fantasy? The socialists? The communists? The progressives? Or the liberals (classical in this case)?


The individual liberty to do what? When the social order is determined by the market what are you really at “liberty” to do but pursue commercial ends? Now don’t ask me who engages in such a reduction. Here is Smith, for example: “Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society grows to be what is properly a commercial society.” Smith is talking about a market society not a market economy which is, more or less, a tool. For Smith, the market is not merely a tool tobest distribute scarce resources. It becomes a political and sociological concept much like it does with many if not most of the free market fundamentalists on this forum. You, for example, are perhaps the most extreme advocate for the elimination of the state and its replacement by a system of voluntary exchange.


What do you think it entails? Why study economics as a distinct discipline at all? What is the point if not to maximize growth and efficiency? Growth of what, you ask? The growth of the production, the distribution, and the consumption of goods and services. That should be obvious.


No doubt it’s also a function of good luck and geography but you guys hardly play that factor up. It’s typically capitalism, the American way, "liberty" etc.

[Mister D]

Please cite Malthus on that.

No one accepts his theory now, what fetish?

Where'd you buy that crystal ball?

I really don't understand why his name keps coming up. It seems to be along these lines:

Person A says X

Person B says that X sounds like something Malthus wrote. Malthus was supposedly wrong ergo you are wrong.

Oh, and that's a good example of what I was talking about.

[Polecat]

A lot of these programs were put in place as a necessary evil, to prevent total revolt from the poor. This was necessary because of the constant inflation and unemployment/underemployment our economic system inherently perpetuates.

The economy was not on the skids in the 60's. If fact it was booming. The poor were not about to revolt either. The main issue was the acceptable practice of excluding blacks from opportunity. Then close behind that was the large number of uneducated that could not compete. This was a condition in urban areas. Then there was the rural poverty that was primarily caused by the industrialization of the nation. We boast that we are advanced and all knowing and have made great progress but don't kid yourself that there was no cost. We simply traded away one asset for another and did not always get the better end of the deal.

[Mister D]

Adam Smith, Wealth, Book 2, Chapter 3, wrote of "The uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition" but I don't see him as one who advocated but rather explained economic man.

Must disagree. I Smith quite clearly advocates the market as the primary paradigm of social reality. I do grant, however, that a concept of the public or common good is still recognized by Smith.

[The Xl]

The economy was not on the skids in the 60's. If fact it was booming. The poor were not about to revolt either. The main issue was the acceptable practice of excluding blacks from opportunity. Then close behind that was the large number of uneducated that could not compete. This was a condition in urban areas. Then there was the rural poverty that was primarily caused by the industrialization of the nation. We boast that we are advanced and all knowing and have made great progress but don't kid yourself that there was no cost. We simply traded away one asset for another and did not always get the better end of the deal.

The system we have hurts the poor, but yeah, it hurt the poor less when we were on the gold standard, which we were on in the 60s. When Nixon took us off the gold standard, it allowed banks to go crazy with money creation, and made things much worse.

What you say isn't without merit either. Their is more than one variable.

[The Xl]

no, the assumption of constant growth led to current global system. You are dealing with a ideology that is much older than us both not a conspiracy. Furthermore, it won't change until we change as a people.

The monetary system we have is designed to constantly grow or it will collapse. The system needs reform.

Yes, it hinges on an informed public willing to change.

[Chris]

Must disagree. I Smith quite clearly advocates the market as the primary paradigm of social reality. I do grant, however, that a concept of the public or common good is still recognized by Smith.

To me Smith is a scientist, social scientist, but scientist. He describes society, in Moral Sentiments and Wealth, in terms of how it works. I suppose that could be taken as advocacy to a degree of the market system over the prior mercantilist system, as that was the spirit of the classical liberal age. It was the age of Mandeville's Bee Fable and Darwinian evolution, which borrowed from Smith's invisible hand account of how individual, self-interest action emerged in a market (I may be drifting into Austrian, especially Hayekian, economics).

[Polecat]

The system we have hurts the poor, but yeah, it hurt the poor less when we were on the gold standard, which we were on in the 60s. When Nixon took us off the gold standard, it allowed banks to go crazy with money creation, and made things much worse.

What you say isn't without merit either. Their is more than one variable.

Yes there are many parameters that contribute to any situation. The control of all the money is the big one. Look for who controls the Banks and you will discover that they control a lot more than just the money.

[Chris]

I really don't understand why his name keps coming up. It seems to be along these lines:

Person A says X

Person B says that X sounds like something Malthus wrote. Malthus was supposedly wrong ergo you are wrong.

Oh, and that's a good example of what I was talking about.

It was in the Farewell to Alm's chart, that shows mankind so trapped until the Industrial Age.

http://i.snag.gy/cj5oM.jpg

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap: "The Malthusian trap, named after political economist Thomas Robert Malthus, suggests that for most of human history, income was largely stagnant because technological advances and discoveries only resulted in more people, rather than improvements in the standard of living. It is only with the onset of the Industrial Revolution in about 1800 that the income per person dramatically increased in some countries, and they broke out of the Trap...."

So, yes, the evidence demonstrates we escaped what Malthus described.

The question is, have we, is it just momentary spike that can't be sustained? Is the demand for constant growth self-defeating in the long run?

I suspect so. As The Xl says "The monetary system we have is designed to constantly grow or it will collapse." But I am not a fortune teller.

[The Xl]

Yes there are many parameters that contribute to any situation. The control of all the money is the big one. Look for who controls the Banks and you will discover that they control a lot more than just the money.

Bankers basically own the US, the world, and certainly our politicians. They literally create money out of thin air, profit off the interest, cause inflation, and can easily cause the system to collapse if they so choose.

If people and our government paid off all of our debts, there would be basically no money in circulation, as money is created as debt. Furthermore, the only way to pay off loans and the interest on said loans is by more new money in circulation, more loans, leading to constant inflation.

We're literally indebted to bankers, whether we want to be or not. Of course the poor are going to be fucked. They're hit with debt, and a higher cost of living, not to mention, the savings they accumulate over time is rendered meaningless by constant inflation. Their potential job opportunities are also fucked because most employers are middle to upper middle class, and they're hurt, albeit to a lesser extent, by the same system.

[Polecat]

Bankers basically own the US, the world, and certainly our politicians. They literally create money out of thin air, profit off the interest, cause inflation, and can easily cause the system to collapse if they so choose.

If people and our government paid off all of our debts, there would be basically no money in circulation, as money is created as debt. Furthermore, the only way to pay off loans and the interest on said loans is by more new money in circulation, more loans.

We're literally indebted to bankers, whether we want to be or not.

This is the way it works. There have already been wars created by banks manipulating money flow. Then they profit greatly from loans to all the combatants. They own just about all the media. They own food production. The list goes on but yeah we are in a bad situation. We can't do anything about it now. While we were too busy being white or black - republican or democrat - apple or pc - what ever...........The banks quietly got a firm grip on our nether parts.

[The Xl]

This is the way it works. There have already been wars created by banks manipulating money flow. Then they profit greatly from loans to all the combatants. They own just about all the media. They own food production. The list goes on but yeah we are in a bad situation. We can't do anything about it now. While we were too busy being white or black - republican or democrat - apple or pc - what ever...........The banks quietly got a firm grip on our nether parts.

Our monetary system needs to be changed, a private institution shouldn't be able to create essentially counterfeit money, nor should the money in circulation be created as debt.

[Chris]

I would argue our values need to change. Our current set of values support imaginary money.

[Polecat]

The solution would be barter. That is why it has taken so long for the banks to get this far. It took about a hundred years to render us essentially helpless to provide for ourselves.

[The Xl]

I would argue our values need to change. Our current set of values support imaginary money.

What do you specifically mean by this?

[Chris]

What do you specifically mean by this?

Something like, if we see value in monetary wealth, then we will demand free and easy printing of fiat money however imaginary it is.

Or, it's up to us. Government isn't going to stop on its own.

[The Xl]

Something like, if we see value in monetary wealth, then we will demand free and easy printing of fiat money however imaginary it is.

Or, it's up to us. Government isn't going to stop on its own.

It's not like the majority really benefits from that though. We'd be even more wealthy if not for that. Aside from the constant debt and inflation, crashes, recessions, etc, bankers steal real wealth from the economy by profiting off counterfeit moneys and claiming assets that they really have no legitimate claim over when a loan can't be re-payed.

I'd argue we'd all have a lot more disposable income to pursue whatever values or interests we want to, regardless of how superficial they may be, if the system was different.

[Mister D]

It's not like the majority really benefits from that though. We'd be even more wealthy if not for that. Aside from the constant debt and inflation, crashes, recessions, etc, bankers steal real wealth from the economy by profiting off counterfeit moneys.

I'd argue we'd all have a lot more disposable income to pursue whatever values or interests we want to, regardless of how superficial they may be, if the system was different.

We are all complicit in it though. Perhaps I'm going a step further than Chris in suggesting that we not value this universal equivalent so much because the society we have now is the likely result.

[Chris]

It's not like the majority really benefits from that though. We'd be even more wealthy if not for that. Aside from the constant debt and inflation, crashes, recessions, etc, bankers steal real wealth from the economy by profiting off counterfeit moneys and claiming assets that they really have no legitimate claim over when a loan can't be re-payed.

I'd argue we'd all have a lot more disposable income to pursue whatever values or interests we want to, regardless of how superficial they may be, if the system was different.

I think we do benefit, some more than others--or at least we believe we do.

[The Xl]

I think we do benefit, some more than others--or at least we believe we do.

How do we benefit?

If it's because of easily available fiat money, the government could do that without interest and not as debt.

[Chris]

How do we benefit?

If it's because of easily available fiat money, the government could do that without interest and not as debt.

We benefit monetarily. Everyone is getting richer, just some faster than others.

I'm not arguing that that has true value.

[Ransom]

It's not like the majority really benefits from that though. We'd be even more wealthy if not for that. Aside from the constant debt and inflation, crashes, recessions, etc, bankers steal real wealth from the economy by profiting off counterfeit moneys and claiming assets that they really have no legitimate claim over when a loan can't be re-payed.

I'd argue we'd all have a lot more disposable income to pursue whatever values or interests we want to, regardless of how superficial they may be, if the system was different.

Then offer an alternative system. Once again...it's easy to be critical. You've no dog in the fight...thus able to criticize this 'system' even while being part of it. Amazing. Reality is...you live a higher standard of living than Cleopatra...like you...the queen of de nial. Your argument has no historical perspective is all, Xl....it takes so much for granted it's really not worth me trying to explain.

[The Xl]

We benefit monetarily. Everyone is getting richer, just some faster than others.

I'm not arguing that that has true value.

We're getting richer because of the last remnants of the free market and increases in technology. This system is merely along for the ride, and is actually detrimental.

[The Xl]

Then offer an alternative system. Once again...it's easy to be critical. You've no dog in the fight...thus able to criticize this 'system' even while being part of it. Amazing. Reality is...you live a higher standard of living than Cleopatra...like you...the queen of de nial. Your argument has no historical perspective is all, Xl....it takes so much for granted it's really not worth me trying to explain.

Either a competing currency or a currency that functions similar to this one, only that the government itself is in control of the quantity and value of money, not a private industry. It would be printed out and circulated but, not as debt. Banks would only be allowed to lend and profit off money that they actually have, not create counterfeit units.

You don't really have the capacity to accurately lecture me anyhow, so take a seat and play some risk.

[Chris]

We're getting richer because of the last remnants of the free market and increases and technology. This system is merely along for the ride, and is actually detrimental.

Right, or thereabouts, thus it is not truly valuable. How distinguish, it has materialistic value, not moral value?

[The Xl]

Right, or thereabouts, thus it is not truly valuable. How distinguish, it has materialistic value, not moral value?

I'm not speaking morally, solely in terms of finances and quality of life.

In any case, the system is detrimental from both an economic and moral point of view. It does nothing but serve the interests of bankers. If it's biggest perk is a large quantity of fiat money, that could be easily done without the units of money being created as debt.

[Mister D]

I'm not speaking morally, solely in terms of finances and quality of life.

In any case, the system is detrimental from both an economic and moral point of view. It does nothing but serve the interests of bankers. If it's biggest perk is a large quantity of fiat money, that could be easily done without the units of money being created as debt.

Of course you are. You're equating the 'good' with our finances and standard of living. That's what we do as a society which is part of the problem.

[The Xl]

Of course you are. You're equating the 'good' with our finances and standard of living. That's what we do as a society which is part of the problem.

If you want to make the issue moral, then that's fine, but a lot of that has to do with values and morals taught at home and in school, things of that nature, not economic systems.

In any case, a better system that wasn't based off debt and fraud would increase the morality of our population, because it would alleviate people of economic kinds of suffering, like poverty, debt, and perpetual mediocrity.

[Mister D]

If you want to make the issue moral, then that's fine, but a lot of that has to do with values and morals taught at home and in school, things of that nature, not economic systems.

In any case, a better system that wasn't based off debt and fraud would increase the morality of our population, because it would alleviate people of economic kinds of suffering, like poverty, debt, and perpetual mediocrity.

The answer is to shift the emphasis off of money and material wealth. This is a societal/cultural problem. Directing your anger at "bankers" is to adress but a symptom.

[Chris]

Bankers are greedy because it pays to be so in this society.

[Mister D]

Bankers are greedy because it pays to be so in this society.

Succinctly stated.

[The Xl]

It's not just about greed, that's fine, it's about their ability to literally create essentially counterfeit units of money.

[Chris]

I'm not speaking morally, solely in terms of finances and quality of life.

In any case, the system is detrimental from both an economic and moral point of view. It does nothing but serve the interests of bankers. If it's biggest perk is a large quantity of fiat money, that could be easily done without the units of money being created as debt.


Well, I'd say it's economically materially beneficial in the short run, but I doubt it can be sustained, it's unnatural, and thus immoral--if the economical and moral can be tied together.

Maybe we won't wreck the economy before we ruin the environment.

[Chris]

It's not just about greed, that's fine, it's about their ability to literally create essentially counterfeit units of money.

Right, that's just emphasizing the moral aspect while economically it's fake, fiat money.

[The Xl]

The answer is to shift the emphasis off of money and material wealth. This is a societal/cultural problem. Directing your anger at "bankers" is to adress but a symptom.

Morals aren't going to pay the rent or buy food.

They illegitimately control our countries monetary system.

[The Xl]

Well, I'd say it's economically materially beneficial in the short run, but I doubt it can be sustained, it's unnatural, and thus immoral--if the economical and moral can be tied together. Maybe we won't wreck the economy before we ruin the environment. It's not really fine to anyone but the wealthy because it devalues the currency, kills the ability to save over time, and if the economy doesn't grow, it crashes, people default on their loans, and banks fraudulently claim their collateral, among other things. And I'd say all of those things aren't just non beneficial and mass theft, but inherently immoral. Like I said, if it's easily available fiat money that "works," it could be created and circulated in a different manner.

[The Xl]

Right, that's just emphasizing the moral aspect while economically it's fake, fiat money. It's not just fake, it effects everyone, and they profit off it, stealing from people who create real wealth. It'd say that's pretty immoral as well.

[Polecat]

We value the wrong things. Fame and fortune did not save Robin Williams. Given all the toys available today to play with we will still want more and better. And be miserable if we can't have it.

[Chris]

It's not just fake, it effects everyone, and they profit off it, stealing from people who create real wealth. It'd say that's pretty immoral as well.

Agree.

[The Xl]

We value the wrong things. Fame and fortune did not save Robin Williams. Given all the toys available today to play with we will still want more and better. And be miserable if we can't have it. It's not able "wanting more" per-se, it's about not living paycheck to paycheck, being able to save for the future, not having to worry about the system crashing down, not having your money and wealth stolen.

[Captain Obvious]

We value the wrong things. Fame and fortune did not save Robin Williams. Given all the toys available today to play with we will still want more and better. And be miserable if we can't have it.

I'd still like to test that theory though.

[Polecat]

That is an indictment against accumulation of wealth in the first place. A poor man looses no sleep over worry that his riches will be stolen. Have what you need and no more. In 1929 just about the entire country lost all their savings. In 2008 equity in our homes vanished into thin air. Succeeding in life does not mean financial security. As we have seen financial security can be fleeting thing.

[Polecat]

I'd still like to test that theory though.

We've all been there.

[Mister D]

I'd still like to test that theory though.

Wouldn't we all? To us, that's the pinnacle of existence.

[Chris]

I'd still like to test that theory though.

Proof: http://i.snag.gy/aYay3.jpg

[Ransom]

Either a competing currency or a currency that functions similar to this one, only that the government itself is in control of the quantity and value of money, not a private industry. It would be printed out and circulated but, not as debt. Banks would only be allowed to lend and profit off money that they actually have, not create counterfeit units.

a competing currency would still be pegged to the dollar. Correct? Won't work. Banks "would only be allowed".......Vladimir?


You don't really have the capacity to accurately lecture me anyhow, so take a seat and play some risk.

What is needed....capacity? :biglaugh:that's funny

[Peter1469]

Bankers basically own the US, the world, and certainly our politicians. They literally create money out of thin air, profit off the interest, cause inflation, and can easily cause the system to collapse if they so choose.

If people and our government paid off all of our debts, there would be basically no money in circulation, as money is created as debt. Furthermore, the only way to pay off loans and the interest on said loans is by more new money in circulation, more loans, leading to constant inflation.

We're literally indebted to bankers, whether we want to be or not. Of course the poor are going to be fucked. They're hit with debt, and a higher cost of living, not to mention, the savings they accumulate over time is rendered meaningless by constant inflation. Their potential job opportunities are also fucked because most employers are middle to upper middle class, and they're hurt, albeit to a lesser extent, by the same system.

The people of Iceland decided that they were not going to stay slaves to the bankers....

[Ethereal]

I hate this formatting. Just going to break my commnets into sections. Should be easy enough to match them up.

My mistake. I admit ‘em when I make ‘em. I see Smith recognized limits on growth much like he recognized the legitimacy of state intervention in the economy.

Yes, the entire concept of the steady state economy (where growth stabilizes) was first posited by classical liberal economists like Smith, Mill, and Malthus, which is why I was confused about the claim that constant growth is central to liberalism.


I must have been thinking of his more fanatical descendants. :wink:

I wouldn't really consider them his descendants if they're advocating something that is diametrically opposed to his fundamental theorems on economics.


As for the illusion of development and Western life styles for all, who sells that fantasy? The socialists? The communists? The progressives? Or the liberals (classical in this case)?

Classical liberals are not in the business of selling contemporary western lifestyles, they are in the business of selling classical liberalism.


The individual liberty to do what?

Live in peace with your fellow man.


When the social order is determined by the market what are you really at “liberty” to do but pursue commercial ends? Now don’t ask me who engages in such a reduction. Here is Smith, for example: “Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society grows to be what is properly a commercial society.” Smith is talking about a market society not a market economy which is, more or less, a tool. For Smith, the market is not merely a tool to best distribute scarce resources. It becomes a political and sociological concept much like it does with many if not most of the free market fundamentalists on this forum.

You don't feel like this is an oversimplification of classical liberalism? For example, Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments before he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Where does that fit into your analysis, if it all? And if we'e going to focus on a particular thinker within the tradition of classical liberalism, wouldn't it be more appropriate to concentrate on John Locke, who is considered to be the father of classical liberalism?


You, for example, are perhaps the most extreme advocate for the elimination of the state and its replacement by a system of voluntary exchange.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

:smiley:


What do you think it entails? Why study economics as a distinct discipline at all? What is the point if not to maximize growth and efficiency? Growth of what, you ask? The growth of the production, the distribution, and the consumption of goods and services. That should be obvious.

No doubt it’s also a function of good luck and geography but you guys hardly play that factor up. It’s typically capitalism, the American way, "liberty" etc.

So command economies like the Soviet Union and Maoist China were just suffering from bad luck and poor location? Or was it their disdain for spontaneous order and markets that caused their prolonged socioeconomic stagnation?

[Chris]

...from pages 11-12 of Hayek’s 1948 collection, Individualism and Economic Order; in particular, it’s from one of Hayek’s most profound and important essays, namely, his December 1945 Finlay Lecture in Dublin, “Individualism: True and False”:



[Adam] Smith’s chief concern was not so much with what man might occasionally achieve when he was at his best but that he should have as little opportunity as possible to do harm when he was at his worst. It would scarcely be too much to claim that the main merit of individualism which he and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid.

(source (http://cafehayek.com/2014/09/quotation-of-the-day-1112.html))

[Ethereal]

The answer is to shift the emphasis off of money and material wealth. This is a societal/cultural problem. Directing your anger at "bankers" is to adress but a symptom.

Why does acknowledging the deleterious impact of coercive monopolies on money preclude emphasis on moral and cultural reformation?

[Ethereal]

a competing currency would still be pegged to the dollar. Correct?

Incorrect. Competing currencies would be priced by the market, just like any other good or service.

[Polecat]

A standard that holds common value is essential. That used to be gold. But I have no need of it. Food and energy might be a more practical standard. It would certainly cut down on blue bloods controlling the world.

[Peter1469]

From a geopolitical view, Russia and China were in bad locations- compare to the US with its oceans, major rives for inland transportation, etc. All of these things make for much cheaper economic development.

The US could cheaply facilitate trade from its northern border to the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi. Russia had no cheap and easy way to get goods east and west, much less to world markets.

[Peter1469]

It depends. During a complete crash gold, etc would be useless. Food, skills, etc would be the new economy. But once government re-establishes itself, the gold, silver, etc will be the most powerful currency for a while.
A standard that holds common value is essential. That used to be gold. But I have no need of it. Food and energy might be a more practical standard. It would certainly cut down on blue bloods controlling the world.

[Mister D]

Yes, the entire concept of the steady state economy (where growth stabilizes) was first posited by classical liberal economists like Smith, Mill, and Malthus, which is why I was confused about the claim that constant growth is central to liberalism.



I wouldn't really consider them his descendants if they're advocating something that is diametrically opposed to his fundamental theorems on economics.



Classical liberals are not in the business of selling contemporary western lifestyles, they are in the business of selling classical liberalism.



Live in peace with your fellow man.



You don't feel like this is an oversimplification of classical liberalism? For example, Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments before he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Where does that fit into your analysis, if it all? And if we'e going to focus on a particular thinker within the tradition of classical liberalism, wouldn't it be more appropriate to concentrate on John Locke, who is considered to be the father of classical liberalism?



Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

:smiley:



So command economies like the Soviet Union and Maoist China were just suffering from bad luck and poor location? Or was it their disdain for spontaneous order and markets that caused their prolonged socioeconomic stagnation?

Modern liberals of any stripe are "diametrically opposed" to Smith's "fundamental theorems on economics"? Which theorems? We don't live in a liberal world striving for ever greater wealth, utilization of resources, maximum efficiency etc.? Doesn't the saying go "it's the economy, stupid"? Relatively (it's always relative) free markets aren't predominant in the west? Are you suggesting that Adam Smith et al have not had a significant impact on contemporary life?

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not liberalism is the dominant ideology of modernity. In fact, they are close to synonymous. There is no need to sell it. It's ingrained.

Live in peace with your fellow man? How is that accomplished? For Smith and other liberals, it's through market exchange.

My point is that liberals tend to engage in economic reductionism and, no, I don't think that's oversimplifying things. It's clear, IMO, that Smith does so and we're talking about Smith because he came up. If you insist I'm sure I can find other examples.


D said You, for example, are perhaps the most extreme advocate for the elimination of the state and its replacement by a system of voluntary exchange.



E said Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Wait...you just objected to my characterization of liberal thought as a form of economic reductionism. What gives? This kind of depoliticization through economism is a common thread here.

As for the USSR, were people unhappy? I know that was part and parcel of western liberal propaganda during the Cold War but is it true? In any case, your response is confusing. Are you suggesting now that capitalism is the sole reason for American prosperity? You suggested otherwise earlier unless my sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

Perhaps more importantly, aren't you right now implying that the more economically efficient society is the better society?

[Mister D]

Why does acknowledging the deleterious impact of coercive monopolies on money preclude emphasis on moral and cultural reformation?

It doesn't. That said, where is the emphasis on the latter? That's my point.

[donttread]

War on poverty (1965 to present)- $22T USD indexed to 2012 dollars. That is 3 time more than all US wars combined.

And people say we can't afford war.... :smiley:



***





http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/Bono_1.jpg (http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/Bono_1.jpg)

In Orwellian Doublespeak "war on" must really mean "we want more"
As in MORE Poverty
More drugs and
More Terrorism

[Cigar]

I'm all for Investment, Nation Building and Humanitarian Relief here in America.

After all ... it's American's who die for American Freedom ... no one else.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxxJNTkIQAAaxsk.jpg

[Mister D]

I'm all for Investment, Nation Building and Humanitarian Relief here in America.

After all ... it's American's who die for American Freedom ... no one else.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxxJNTkIQAAaxsk.jpg

no one has ever died for our freedom. We were never in any danger of losing what we call "freedom".

[Ethereal]

Modern liberals of any stripe are "diametrically opposed" to Smith's "fundamental theorems on economics"? Which theorems?

We just went over this. You alleged that "constant growth" was a central element of liberalism. I demonstrated that this was not true for liberals like Smith, Mill, and Malthus. You acknowledged that this was a mistake on your part but hedged by alluding to some unnamed "descendants" of Smith et al for whom this emphasis on "constant growth" remained true. But "constant growth" is diametrically opposed to Smith's postulate about the steady state economy where growth inevitably stabilizes as a result of scarcity. So how could they be his "descendants" if a central element of their belief system (constant growth) is totally odds with one of the fundamental postulates of classical economic theory (steady state economy)?


We don't live in a liberal world striving for ever greater wealth, utilization of resources, maximum efficiency etc.? Doesn't the saying go "it's the economy, stupid"? Relatively (it's always relative) free markets aren't predominant in the west? Are you suggesting that Adam Smith et al have not had a significant impact on contemporary life?

Market economics (which are mostly descriptive and explanatory, rather than prescriptive) are only one part of classical liberal ideology that you choose to fixate on. There is also an extensive emphasis on laws, morals, and ethics that we must consider as well.

And they've had a "significant" impact on contemporary life, certainly, but not nearly to the degree that you are alleging. The 20th century was an outright assault on the foundational principles of classical liberalism, which is why classical liberals such as myself are so politically, economically, and socially marginalized in contemporary American "society".


Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not liberalism is the dominant ideology of modernity. In fact, they are close to synonymous. There is no need to sell it. It's ingrained.

What's so liberal about it, friend? The burdensome taxation? The government monopoly on paper money? The onerous regulation? The pervasive influence of the central government on virtually every facet our existence? The systematic and incremental erosion of individual liberties in favor of false security? The aggressive foreign policy? The mass surveillance? The degradation of the rule of law? Sorry, but I'm not seeing much "liberalism", let alone its dominance in American society.


Live in peace with your fellow man? How is that accomplished? For Smith and other liberals, it's through market exchange.

My point is that liberals tend to engage in economic reductionism and, no, I don't think that's oversimplifying things. It's clear, IMO, that Smith does so and we're talking about Smith because he came up. If you insist I'm sure I can find other examples.

This is only true if you purposely ignore the moral, ethical, and legal aspects of liberal ideology.


Wait...you just objected to my characterization of liberal thought as a form of economic reductionism. What gives? This kind of depoliticization through economism is a common thread here.

As for the USSR, were people unhappy? I know that was part and parcel of western liberal propaganda during the Cold War but is it true? In any case, your response is confusing. Are you suggesting now that capitalism is the sole reason for American prosperity? You suggested otherwise earlier unless my sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

Perhaps more importantly, aren't you right now implying that the more economically efficient society is the better society?

I'm not sure how you arrived at all this.

A great deal of contemporary American prosperity stems from past imperialism, not liberalism.

Were people unhappy? A great many who died due to starvation or execution probably were. I notice you left out Maoist China, where millions died in political purges and shortages.

[Ethereal]

It doesn't. That said, where is the emphasis on the latter? That's my point.

It can be found all throughout the writings of classical liberal thinkers like Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Paine, and many others.

[Chris]

Modern liberals of any stripe are "diametrically opposed" to Smith's "fundamental theorems on economics"? Which theorems? We don't live in a liberal world striving for ever greater wealth, utilization of resources, maximum efficiency etc.? Doesn't the saying go "it's the economy, stupid"? Relatively (it's always relative) free markets aren't predominant in the west? Are you suggesting that Adam Smith et al have not had a significant impact on contemporary life?

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not liberalism is the dominant ideology of modernity. In fact, they are close to synonymous. There is no need to sell it. It's ingrained.

Live in peace with your fellow man? How is that accomplished? For Smith and other liberals, it's through market exchange.

My point is that liberals tend to engage in economic reductionism and, no, I don't think that's oversimplifying things. It's clear, IMO, that Smith does so and we're talking about Smith because he came up. If you insist I'm sure I can find other examples.





Wait...you just objected to my characterization of liberal thought as a form of economic reductionism. What gives? This kind of depoliticization through economism is a common thread here.

As for the USSR, were people unhappy? I know that was part and parcel of western liberal propaganda during the Cold War but is it true? In any case, your response is confusing. Are you suggesting now that capitalism is the sole reason for American prosperity? You suggested otherwise earlier unless my sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

Perhaps more importantly, aren't you right now implying that the more economically efficient society is the better society?



Modern liberals of any stripe are "diametrically opposed" to Smith's "fundamental theorems on economics"?

Yes. Smith advocated, if anything, a market order emerging from individual actions, his invisible hand theory, if you will. And he advocated that against the then predominant mercantilist system which is not unlike our current system of corporate collusion managed by government. About the only liberal school of economics arguing similar is the Austrian School, not even Friedman and the Chicago School relinquishes government intervention into the economy.

[Peter1469]

Yes. Smith advocated, if anything, a market order emerging from individual actions, his invisible hand theory, if you will. And he advocated that against the then predominant mercantilist system which is not unlike our current system of corporate collusion managed by government. About the only liberal school of economics arguing similar is the Austrian School, not even Friedman and the Chicago School relinquishes government intervention into the economy.

Probably because we have no real world examples of a government not intervening in the economy.

[Chris]

Probably because we have no real world examples of a government not intervening in the economy.

Nor do we have examples of government completely intervening. So the point was somewhat meaningless and irrelevant to mine. Smith didn't advocate no intervention, nor do Austrians, they advocate less over more--more as was the case under Mercantilism and is the case now.

[Peter1469]

Nor do we have examples of government completely intervening. So the point was somewhat meaningless and irrelevant to mine. Smith didn't advocate no intervention, nor do Austrians, they advocate less over more--more as was the case under Mercantilism and is the case now.

We certainly have examples of extreme intervention. The Soviets, the Red Chinese. Mercantilism was different. It was more like the state ceding authority to a corporation in a specific endeavor or region.

[Chris]

We certainly have examples of extreme intervention. The Soviets, the Red Chinese. Mercantilism was different. It was more like the state ceding authority to a corporation in a specific endeavor or region.

And we have examples of extreme nonintervention. The US started that way, then got lost.

How is even that Mercantilism different than today's government selling out to big corporations? Where's The Xl to decry this!?

[Peter1469]

And we have examples of extreme nonintervention. The US started that way, then got lost.

How is even that Mercantilism different than today's government selling out to big corporations? Where's @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) to decry this!?


The US's extreme non-intervention days also included a corporate legal scheme that limited corporations to specific purposes for a limited time (like 25 years). That way they couldn't accumulate power.

[Chris]

The US's extreme non-intervention days also included a corporate legal scheme that limited corporations to specific purposes for a limited time (like 25 years). That way they couldn't accumulate power.

Wasn't was US corporate law went back to the founding.

Corporations accumulate wealth not power, that stays with the government so it can sell out to rent seekers.

[Peter1469]

Wasn't was US corporate law went back to the founding.

Corporations accumulate wealth not power, that stays with the government so it can sell out to rent seekers.

Incorrect on both counts. (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america) Government shares the blame. But the concept that corporations are blameless and would be totally harmless if government was eliminated is childish.


In researching nineteenth-century laws regulating corporations, Morris found that in Wisconsin, as in most other states at that time:


Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.2 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#2)



Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legis- lature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).3 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#3)



The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.4 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#4)



The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.5 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#5)



As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.6 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#6)



State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.7 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#7)



Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.8 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#8)



Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.9 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#9)



Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).10 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#10)



Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.11 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#11)



Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).12 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#12)



Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.13 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#13)



Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#14)



State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.15 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#15)



All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.16 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#16)

[Chris]

Incorrect on both counts. (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america) Government shares the blame. But the concept that corporations are blameless and would be totally harmless if government was eliminated is childish.

Huh?

"the concept that corporations are blameless": No one claimed corporations blameless.

"Morris found that in Wisconsin": And I wasn't aware Wisconsin was a state at the time of the founding.

[Peter1469]

And Chris ignores the substance to avoid accepting that his premise is flawed. Typical Chris. Address these if you are serious.




Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.2 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#2)



Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legis- lature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).3 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#3)



The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.4 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#4)



The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.5 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#5)



As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.6 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#6)



State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.7 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#7)



Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.8 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#8)



Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.9 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#9)



Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).10 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#10)



Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.11 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#11)



Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).12 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#12)



Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.13 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#13)



Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#14)



State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.15 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#15)



All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.16 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#16)

[The Xl]

And we have examples of extreme nonintervention. The US started that way, then got lost.

How is even that Mercantilism different than today's government selling out to big corporations? Where's @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) to decry this!?

Don't care much because mercantilism is dead.

[The Xl]

a competing currency would still be pegged to the dollar. Correct? Won't work. Banks "would only be allowed".......Vladimir?

I wasn't thinking next to the dollar, but I suppose it could work if it had too.


What is needed....capacity? :biglaugh:that's funny


So, stating that the banks would only be allowed to lend money they actually have and not be able to create money and profit off the interest makes me "Vladimir?" What a stupid thing to say. Expected, though.

[The Xl]

The people of Iceland decided that they were not going to stay slaves to the bankers....

That is correct. If everyone could follow, their games of stealing wealth, profiting off providing nothing, pushing evil policy, like wars, for the profit, and damaging the economy could be gone for good.

[Chris]

And Chris ignores the substance to avoid accepting that his premise is flawed. Typical Chris. Address these if you are serious.

And typical peter, he can't argue the point so he argues the man.

Peter, you got my premise wrong, that's been demonstrated. Stop trying to cover up.

[Chris]

Don't care much because mercantilism is dead.

It was the same thing as we see today.

[Peter1469]

And typical peter, he can't argue the point so he argues the man.

Peter, you got my premise wrong, that's been demonstrated. Stop trying to cover up.

Right.



Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.2 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#2)



Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legis- lature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).3 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#3)



The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.4 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#4)



The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.5 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#5)



As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.6 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#6)



State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.7 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#7)



Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.8 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#8)



Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.9 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#9)



Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).10 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#10)



Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.11 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#11)



Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).12 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#12)



Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.13 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#13)



Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.14 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#14)



State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.15 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#15)



All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.16 (http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america#16)


Go.

[Polecat]

They are called "robber barons". Unrestrained commerce is no more benign than unrestrained government. Throw religion in that list too.

[Mister D]

It can be found all throughout the writings of classical liberal thinkers like Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Paine, and many others.

But it can't be found in the XL's. Hence my point.

[Mister D]

Yes. Smith advocated, if anything, a market order emerging from individual actions, his invisible hand theory, if you will. And he advocated that against the then predominant mercantilist system which is not unlike our current system of corporate collusion managed by government. About the only liberal school of economics arguing similar is the Austrian School, not even Friedman and the Chicago School relinquishes government intervention into the economy.

Nor does Smith when private initiatives fail to achieve the common good. As I understand it, only Hayek and the Austrian School objects to state intervention on principle. Smith, again as I understand it, does not relegate the state to a watchguard without objectives or a sphere of its own as the Austrians do.

[Mister D]

We just went over this. You alleged that "constant growth" was a central element of liberalism. I demonstrated that this was not true for liberals like Smith, Mill, and Malthus. You acknowledged that this was a mistake on your part but hedged by alluding to some unnamed "descendants" of Smith et al for whom this emphasis on "constant growth" remained true. But "constant growth" is diametrically opposed to Smith's postulate about the steady state economy where growth inevitably stabilizes as a result of scarcity. So how could they be his "descendants" if a central element of their belief system (constant growth) is totally odds with one of the fundamental postulates of classical economic theory (steady state economy)?



Market economics (which are mostly descriptive and explanatory, rather than prescriptive) are only one part of classical liberal ideology that you choose to fixate on. There is also an extensive emphasis on laws, morals, and ethics that we must consider as well.

And they've had a "significant" impact on contemporary life, certainly, but not nearly to the degree that you are alleging. The 20th century was an outright assault on the foundational principles of classical liberalism, which is why classical liberals such as myself are so politically, economically, and socially marginalized in contemporary American "society".



What's so liberal about it, friend? The burdensome taxation? The government monopoly on paper money? The onerous regulation? The pervasive influence of the central government on virtually every facet our existence? The systematic and incremental erosion of individual liberties in favor of false security? The aggressive foreign policy? The mass surveillance? The degradation of the rule of law? Sorry, but I'm not seeing much "liberalism", let alone its dominance in American society.



This is only true if you purposely ignore the moral, ethical, and legal aspects of liberal ideology.



I'm not sure how you arrived at all this.

A great deal of contemporary American prosperity stems from past imperialism, not liberalism.

Were people unhappy? A great many who died due to starvation or execution probably were. I notice you left out Maoist China, where millions died in political purges and shortages.

Yes,we did just go over this. That’s why I was confused when a disagreement over arelatively minor point about a far away future (2 centuries in Smith’s estimation) became diametrical opposition to Smith’s “fundamental theorems on economics”. That’s it? I would hardly describe such a minor disagreement in such strong terms. It’s like you disagreeing with another anarchist here about whether the entire state should be eliminated or just most of it.

Market economics is not mostly descriptive. Market economics is in fact presented as normative and ideal. Most importantly, it is presented as the foundation of the social order. Market economics is not my fixation and it’s not my fault that liberals reduce existence to economics. I’m just acknowledging it.

No, the 20thCentury, as well as the 19th, demonstrated the problems inherent in concepts like the Invisible Hand and the idea that selfishness/self-interest will lead to a better world for everyone. Clearly, they didn’t and they don’t. Social safety nets and the like are the compromises liberals have had to make in the wake of the destruction radical individualism and economism left in its wake. Liberalism is the dominant ideology of modernity. There is no question about that. To suggest that it is not because it does not exist in a theoretically pure form is no different from claiming communism (a liberal ideology) never failed because true communism (i.e. pure theoretical communism) was never tried. Of course it hasn’t been implemented in a pure form. No ideology survives contact with reality intact.

I already mentioned what was so liberal about the contemporary west. The predominance of the free market, economism, individualism, liberty understood as personal autonomy, the ideology of human rights, and depoliticization, for example. If this isn’t liberal what is it? Statist is a mere pejorative at best and a meaningless term at worst. Moreover, statism, presumably a reference to artificial collective constructs and endeavors (including communism), represents an effort at recreating the social bonds liberal individualism destroyed. Furthermore, classical liberalism and socialism go hand in hand (as the contemporary détente between the free marketers and the proponents of a welfare state clearly demonstrates) and they share common premises. The most substantial difference is that the former places more emphasis on legal/theoretical equality while the latter places it on factual equality. IOW, they suggest (and I’m sure Kilgram and perhaps Green Arrow would agree) that legal/theoretical equality is equality in name only. But that’s a liberal quarrel.

The point is that these moral, legal, and ethical ideas are explicitly bound up with economics. I’m not ignoring those facets. I’m commenting on them with regard to how economic thinking permeates the whole and remains central to their realization. Virtually every liberal power has engaged in imperialism.The US and England are easily the two liberal powers that have had the most influence in the last two centuries. Now if you suggest neither was actually liberal than we will have a No True Scotsman.

Millions died in the USSR too. What I’m asking is once therevolution was over were people unhappy? Or was there stability and security for people? Contemporary Russian opinion suggests there remains some fondness for the old system.

[Chris]

Nor does Smith when private initiatives fail to achieve the common good. As I understand it, only Hayek and the Austrian School objects to state intervention on principle. Smith, again as I understand it, does not relegate the state to a watchguard without objectives or a sphere of its own as the Austrians do.

True for Smith, and also Hayek who accepted intervention of two sorts. One, he accepts a sort of provision of a minimum life style, the basics of food, clothing, shelter to pursue happiness from. Two, intervention with only general rules, sort of the rules of the game that apply to all, rules about the means but not the goals to pursue in the pursuit of happiness. An Austrian like Hoppe castigates Hayek for that, Hoppe doesn't even accept the state as watchdog. All three would be against the sort of central planning we see today.

[Chris]

They are called "robber barons". Unrestrained commerce is no more benign than unrestrained government. Throw religion in that list too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

[The Xl]

But it can't be found in the XL's. Hence my point.

That's because I was strictly speaking of monetary issues.

In any case, I think poverty, theft, and suffering is immoral, as is some of the other things the system encourages, like war for profit.

[Chris]

War is the biggest racket of the state. Poverty ranks up there: Take from the middle class to give to the poor so they can purchase basic needs from the rich.

[Mister D]

That's because I was strictly speaking of monetary issues.

In any case, I think poverty, theft, and suffering is immoral, as is some of the other things the system encourages, like war for profit.

Which is why I said you're addressing symptoms.

The system encourages a particular perspective on life and its meaning.

[nic34]

$22T isn't enough since 1965?

Please.

Poverty is a simple lack of money and things: so giving poor people money and things does make them less poor. By that measure the US war on poverty has done very well. It’s only the system we use to measure it that makes it look like a failure.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/09/16/us-poverty-rate-is-still-14-5-but-yes-the-war-on-poverty-worked/

[Mister D]

Let me put it this way: if the goal of life is financial success and wealth is an end rather than a means (after all, it's what we value and admire particularly in the US where the businessman is a archetypal hero) what else could you expect?

[nic34]

the goal of life is to stay alive

[Polecat]

Let me put it this way: if the goal of life is financial success and wealth is an end rather than a means (after all, it's what we value and admire particularly in the US where the businessman is a archetypal hero) what else could you expect?
Surely you don't really believe that.

[The Xl]

Which is why I said you're addressing symptoms.

The system encourages a particular perspective on life and its meaning.

This practice of banking at this level has been going on for 100 years now, long before current society, so you could hardly call it a symptom.

In any case, my point was not necessarily about reform so people could have more money to keep up a materialistic lifestyle, it was more about living comfortably, not from paycheck to paycheck, being able pay the rent, for healthcare, not being in debt, being able to save for retirement, etc.

[Mister D]

the goal of life is to stay alive

That's inspiring, nic.

Now we should note nic's nihilistic and purely mechanistic conception of existence. It is one devoid of any meaning whatsoever. The question is does he understand that? My guess is no.

[Mister D]

This practice of banking at this level has been going on for 100 years now, long before current society, so you could hardly call it a symptom.

In any case, my point was not necessarily about reform so people could have more money to keep up a materialistic lifestyle, it was more about living comfortably, not from paycheck to paycheck, being able pay the rent, for healthcare, not being in debt, being able to save for retirement, etc.

The seeds were planted hundreds of years ago, Xl.

Then they should stop living lifestyles that require debt they obviously can't afford. Of course we agree that's not easy when you bombarded with advertising and live in a culture that puts economic status above...well everything.

[The Xl]

The seeds were planted hundreds of years ago, Xl.

Then they should stop living lifestyles that require debt they obviously can't afford. Of course we agree that's not easy when you bombarded with advertising and live in a culture that puts economic status above...well everything.

The debt is necessary in this system because in a fractional reserve system, money is created as debt, without any debt their would be no money.

That's the real evil of it all.

[Mister D]

The debt is necessary in this system because in a fractional reserve system, money is created as debt, without any debt their would be no money.

That's the real evil of it all.

No, debt is necessary when you can't afford all the shit the idiot box says you should have. The change has to happen on the societal/cultural level. It's not a conspiracy. It's a way of life.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mister D http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=769405#post769405)
Let me put it this way: if the goal of life is financial success and wealth is an end rather than a means (after all, it's what we value and admire particularly in the US where the businessman is a archetypal hero) what else could you expect?


Surely you don't really believe that.

I believe what Mr. D told the forum.

Want to know why?

Have you had too much money? A lot of good is done by people that have extra cash.

They start business and hire workers. They move the economy forward.

There is no shame in having worked to the point you have extra money.

I bring up Oprah Winfrey who rakes in 450 million dollars per year and thus far, over a span of a dozen years, not one left winger has ran her down for making that much money.

She is immune from being harped against.

[Mister D]

Surely you don't really believe that.

Don't believe what?

[Bob]

The debt is necessary in this system because in a fractional reserve system, money is created as debt, without any debt their would be no money.

That's the real evil of it all.

When there was no credit or debt allowed, society was at a standstill.

[The Xl]

No, debt is necessary when you can't afford all the shit the idiot box says you should have. The change has to happen on the societal/cultural level. It's not a conspiracy. It's a way of life.

The money in circulation is literally created as debt, if not for people in debt, we wouldn't have a money supply.

[Mister D]

The money in circulation is literally created as debt, if not for people in debt, we wouldn't have a money supply.

So you can buy all those nice things. Please, dude, we are all complicit in this.

[The Xl]

When there was no credit or debt allowed, society was at a standstill.

Who said to do away with credit or to disallow debt? What I said was, private institutions shouldn't be able to create money out of nothing and then charge interest on it, and that money shouldn't be inherently tied with debt.

[The Xl]

So you can buy all those nice things. Please, dude, we are all complicit in this.

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying, whatsoever.

[nic34]

That's inspiring, nic.

Now we should note nic's nihilistic and purely mechanistic conception of existence. It is one devoid of any meaning whatsoever. The question is does he understand that? My guess is no.

For the poor, the homeless, and the infirm, just making it thru a day is a full time ordeal.

Just because you want to over think this, doesn't mean some folks aren't actually out there just trying to survive.

[Mister D]

For the poor, the homeless, and the infirm, just making it thru a day is a full time ordeal.

Just because you want to over think this, doesn't mean some folks aren't actually out there just trying to survive.

Overthink? Seriously? I'm overthinking it when I say the goal of life is more than mere survival?

[Mister D]

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying, whatsoever.

Yes, I do. The problem is your habit of assigning blame to some mysterious cabal instead of to yourself and everyone around you.

[The Xl]

Yes, I do. The problem is your habit of assigning blame to some mysterious cabal instead of to yourself and everyone around you.

I don't have control over the counterfeit creation and circulation of money, they do. I'm not stealing real wealth from the economy, and profiting via interest and collateral with fake money that shouldn't even exist. Furthermore, I haven't taken out any loans, so....

In any case, the system is dependent on these 'stupid' people and government taking out loans, otherwise it would collapse. That's what you don't understand.

[Mister D]

I don't have control over the counterfeit and circulation of money, they do. Furthermore, I haven't taken out any loans, so....

In any case, the system is dependent on this 'stupid' people and government taking out loans, otherwise it would collapse. That's what you don't understand.

Tens of millions of us have taken out loans for various reasons and survival isn't one of them. Who is they?

Well, yes, our lifestyles are incredibly expensive. We want it all. What do you think the state keeps taking out loans? To pay for Obama's golf outings? No, it's to pay for entitlements.

[Chris]

It is true that at least Americans in general suffer from personal debt. Too many were raised on the idea of easy credit.

I don't. Yes, I borrowed on the house, but bought within easy means and paid off in 10 years. I borrow $10k on my new truck so as to maintain a cash reserve against emergencies, which didn't arise and I paid it off in 6 mos. And then the emergency came, my central A/C went out, which again went on credit to keep cash reserve, and I'll pay it off shortly. I hate debt. Hate living beyond means.

That's not the same thing as living extravagantly, which I don't--I shop at Walmart. :-)

But too many Americans are in debt over their heads, beyond recovery, I'm afraid.

I did read the other day though that Germans pay cash for almost everything.

[Ransom]

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying, whatsoever.

Who really ever does?

[Ransom]

I don't have control over the counterfeit creation and circulation of money, they do. I'm not stealing real wealth from the economy, and profiting via interest and collateral with fake money that shouldn't even exist. Furthermore, I haven't taken out any loans, so....

In any case, the system is dependent on these 'stupid' people and government taking out loans, otherwise it would collapse. That's what you don't understand.

You have no loans? Education, auto, or home? You're also not creating any jobs either....amongst the things you're not doing from above. Did you go to College?

[Ransom]

Yes, I do. The problem is your habit of assigning blame to some mysterious cabal instead of to yourself and everyone around you.

Nice post.

[Chris]

Uncle Sam’s ‘War on Poverty’: A Snapshot History


Look at the graph below (which I get from this Heritage Foundation page). (To enlarge this graph, just click on it.) You tell me if the revving-up of Uncle Sam’s welfare-state activities in the mid-1960s can be considered, by any scientific criterion, to have been clearly successful at reducing officially measured rates of poverty in the U.S.

http://i.snag.gy/1n8oF.jpg

[lynn]

The math is simple when you have a growing population and a economy that is decreasing jobs available, you are going to have an increase in the numbers living in poverty.

[Mac-7]

The math is simple when you have a growing population and a economy that is decreasing jobs available, you are going to have an increase in the numbers living in poverty.

Do open borders with Mexico and the migration of up to 25 million poor people from Latin America help the poverty rate for native born Americans?

no.

it pushes more Americans into poverty or prevents them from getting out of the slums.

[Jets]

In my opinion, we have spent so much on the war against poverty.

That said, for those who say we haven't, what dollar amount has to be reached before its too much?

[Chris]

The math is simple when you have a growing population and a economy that is decreasing jobs available, you are going to have an increase in the numbers living in poverty.

That should only be so temporarily, I think, while the recession lasts.

[lynn]

That should only be so temporarily, I think, while the recession lasts.

The recession is permanent until government radically changes the economic landscape that is preventing business expansion.

[lynn]

Do open borders with Mexico and the migration of up to 25 million poor people from Latin America help the poverty rate for native born Americans?

no.

it pushes more Americans into poverty or prevents them from getting out of the slums.

Our government is responsible for this and they don't care what they are doing to the natives here.

[lynn]

The most number of wage and salary workers was 120 million and that occurred during the housing bubble which never should have take place. Currently we have over 200 million that are 19 years old and up for which we will never have enough jobs for all of them. The population is going to double in 50 years so by this fact, the poverty rate is going to increase substantially in the coming decade.

The next major war is obviously going to be about decreasing resources available to support population growth worldwide. If you think the number of people on welfare now is high, you have not seen nothing yet.

[Chris]

The recession is permanent until government radically changes the economic landscape that is preventing business expansion.

It does seem to be stretching out longer than most recessions. Reminds one of the Great Depression in that regard.

[Ransom]

Perhaps our issue today is focus. We're off trying to get the Redsk........er.......team in Washington DC to change the name of their football team that just took a tough loss to the Eagles yesterday....we're gonna get Donald Sterling, the entire NFL, this George Zimmerman Cat, we're gonna investigate who put cones on some bridge....you'd like to focus on the economy? After stimulus and omnibus spending bills and the continued earmarks that are no longer a focus(they'll make their return as an issue should Republicans win the Senate and keep the House). There is no policy. On energy, taxes, entitlements that are flat out killing us, debt reduction, budget constraints, military, or any foreign policy. Thank you, Democrats.

[The Xl]

Tens of millions of us have taken out loans for various reasons and survival isn't one of them. Who is they?

Well, yes, our lifestyles are incredibly expensive. We want it all. What do you think the state keeps taking out loans? To pay for Obama's golf outings? No, it's to pay for entitlements.
Of course people take out leans they don't need, but that's not my point. My point is, these loans need to be taken out or the system literally collapses. In our system, money is created as debt, as loans from banks, only the principle is given. The only way to pay off these loans and the interest is new loans, and if that doesn't happen, the system will literally collapse.

The system is constant inflation, constant debt, by design, or it collapses.

[The Xl]

Who really ever does?

People who aren't borderline retards like you are generally understand what I'm saying.

[Peter1469]

Warning: Stop with the name calling please.