PDA

View Full Version : FDR was 100% Correct then and he's still Correct Now!



Pages : [1] 2

Cigar
09-30-2014, 08:27 AM
Until America gets back to these principles, it is screwed.








https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByyBZF-CQAEANdz.png

Chris
09-30-2014, 08:30 AM
That's true and it works better when you let the market set wages rather than government intervention. This has to do with the problem of knowledge in society and the economic calculation problem.

Cigar
09-30-2014, 08:40 AM
That's true and it works better when you let the market set wages rather than government intervention. This has to do with the problem of knowledge in society and the economic calculation problem.


How long does that take? :laugh:

nathanbforrest45
09-30-2014, 08:45 AM
How long does that take? :laugh:


Not long if socialist like yourself stay out of the way.

Cigar
09-30-2014, 08:46 AM
Not long if socialist like yourself stay out of the way.

Too Bad ... :grin:

Chris
09-30-2014, 09:02 AM
How long does that take? :laugh:

Not as long as FDR's prolonging the Great Depression or Obama's prolonging the Great Recession.

Mainecoons
09-30-2014, 09:04 AM
FDR was 100 percent right about government unions, however.

Yep, FDR was the first guy to show that constant government meddling and attacking employers will turn the usual recession in a Great Depression or for Obama in newspeak, a Great Recession.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 09:55 AM
Wages should reflect the value of the worker in the marketplace not the cost of living.

Most employers are not being stingy but just realistic.

Cigar
09-30-2014, 10:04 AM
:rollseyes:

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/FellP/2014/FellP20140930_low.jpg

Mainecoons
09-30-2014, 10:09 AM
At least FDR's regime wasn't characterized by the rich getting richer at an unprecedented rate.

He was an even better economic f-up than Obama, he made everyone poor, not just the working class.

Chris
09-30-2014, 10:13 AM
:rollseyes:

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/FellP/2014/FellP20140930_low.jpg



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

Mainecoons
09-30-2014, 10:38 AM
Remember, distracting and diverting discussion is Cigar's major mission here.

He continues to fill this board with crap and the powers that be continue to enable him in doing so.

Cigar
09-30-2014, 10:43 AM
Remember, distracting and diverting discussion is Cigar's major mission here.

He continues to fill this board with crap and the powers that be continue to enable him in doing so.


I think you and your Boyfriend need to see your Proctologist for all your Hurt :laugh:

Cigar
09-30-2014, 10:45 AM
http://i.snag.gy/CgBVO.jpg


Then show us were FDR is wrong ... :laugh:

Chris
09-30-2014, 11:25 AM
Then show us were FDR is wrong ... :laugh:

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

Cigar
09-30-2014, 11:28 AM
... and it Worked :laugh:

PolWatch
09-30-2014, 11:30 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWAgt_YCNuw

you can always trust something that cleavage says...

Kalkin
09-30-2014, 11:30 AM
... and it Worked :laugh:
Nope.

nic34
09-30-2014, 11:31 AM
Remember, distracting and diverting discussion is Cigar's major mission here.

He continues to fill this board with crap and the powers that be continue to enable him in doing so.

It's his thread....

Chris
09-30-2014, 11:35 AM
you can always trust something that cleavage says...

Someone with brains.

Key points:

http://i.snag.gy/p0QSu.jpg

That's what i look at. :D

Chris
09-30-2014, 11:36 AM
It's his thread....

Doesn't matter. Rule 1: "Members are expected to post in good faith. By this, we mean they are expected to engage in and contribute to discussion rather than detract from it."

nathanbforrest45
09-30-2014, 11:46 AM
Hitler had more to do with ending the Great Depression than did Roosevelt. It was America's involvement in the war that actually got industry moving again. We are seeing the same thing with the Middle East today.

When all else fails, start a major conflict.

Chris
09-30-2014, 12:00 PM
Indeed, war is a great racket (Smedley Butler).

However, the end of war kills demand and increases unemployment as the soldiers return home. So how do you deal with that? FDR and his fellow travelers wanted to keep the economy on a war time footing with continued central planning. Congress, however, had other ideas, they dismantled FDR's central planning and deregulated and let the free market adjust itself. The US experience a brief slump before prosperity and growth returned.

Mainecoons
09-30-2014, 12:31 PM
Hoover contributed to the problem by signing Taft Hartley.

I view this pair as very similar to BushObama with very similar results.

nic34
09-30-2014, 12:34 PM
Hitler had more to do with ending the Great Depression than did Roosevelt. It was America's involvement in the war that actually got industry moving again. We are seeing the same thing with the Middle East today.

When all else fails, start a major conflict.

Been reading worldnetdaily too much....

nathanbforrest45
09-30-2014, 12:35 PM
Indeed, war is a great racket (Smedley Butler).

However, the end of war kills demand and increases unemployment as the soldiers return home. So how do you deal with that? FDR and his fellow travelers wanted to keep the economy on a war time footing with continued central planning. Congress, however, had other ideas, they dismantled FDR's central planning and deregulated and let the free market adjust itself. The US experience a brief slump before prosperity and growth returned.

As would have happened without the war getting in the way. The main difference would have been the million or so Americans killed and wounded in Roosevelt's war.

Ethereal
09-30-2014, 12:36 PM
Then show us were FDR is wrong ... :laugh:

The results speak for themselves. He is largely responsible for the longest depression in US history. It's the only economic contraction that was able to cause a noticeable deviation from the US's longterm growth trajectory.

http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu20/KEG1984/e0a84b228b2d9ed5e2b36f7a6263847c_zpsf804dc82.jpg

nic34
09-30-2014, 12:39 PM
Still reading that Amity Shlaes junk history?

Ethereal
09-30-2014, 12:46 PM
Still reading that Amity Shlaes junk history?

Central planning of the economy is a proven failure. It's never worked anywhere at anytime, including when FDR the trust-fund baby tried his hand at it.

Ethereal
09-30-2014, 12:53 PM
FDR was the male version of Paris Hilton in his day.

Never did a day of honest work in his life; born with a silver spoon up his ass; perpetually riding the coattails of his relatives, particularly Teddy Roosevelt; no discernible skills of any kind; a social parasite of the highest order.

Yet, somehow, this blue blood, trust fund baby is the paragon of leftist virtue and civic duty. How ironic.

nic34
09-30-2014, 12:54 PM
I'ts about temporary stimulus to jump start the economy, not about central planning as a permanent fix...

The U.S. economy improved during the New Deal there is no debate.

Historians disagree on which part of the New Deal most encouraged economic growth, but the New Deal did not prevent this recovery, unlike what revisionists are pedaling these days.

nic34
09-30-2014, 12:56 PM
FDR was the male version of Paris Hilton in his day.

Never did a day of honest work in his life; born with a silver spoon up his ass; perpetually riding the coattails of his relatives, particularly Teddy Roosevelt; no discernible skills of any kind; a social parasite of the highest order.

Yet, somehow, this blue blood, trust fund baby is the paragon of leftist virtue and civic duty. How ironic.

He also was disabled by polio.

So what is your point again?

Mainecoons
09-30-2014, 12:58 PM
I'ts about temporary stimulus to jump start the economy, not about central planning as a permanent fix...

The U.S. economy improved during the New Deal there is no debate.

Historians disagree on which part of the New Deal most encouraged economic growth, but the New Deal did not prevent this recovery, unlike what revisionists are pedaling these days.

Every time I think you can't get more misinformed, you post and remind me I'm wrong.

Read the graph, genius:

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cd-depression-unemployment.JPG

In 1940, after 10 years of the Roosevelt debacle, unemployment was higher than in 1930.

Prior to the Roosevelt debacle, crashes lasted on average two years.

Dooh!

Chris
09-30-2014, 12:59 PM
I'ts about temporary stimulus to jump start the economy, not about central planning as a permanent fix...

The U.S. economy improved during the New Deal there is no debate.

Historians disagree on which part of the New Deal most encouraged economic growth, but the New Deal did not prevent this recovery, unlike what revisionists are pedaling these days.

FDR's policies prolonged recovery just as Obama's have, nic, that's what's being argued.

In order to argument positive effects for stimulus spending you would need to show at least a single case in history of a positive multiplier effect. No, not based on estimates, based on real data.

Mainecoons
09-30-2014, 01:00 PM
Everyone ought to be familiar with the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/1930s-great-depression-business-shlaes.html):
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939
And for the record, in April 1939, the unemployment rate was 20.7%. Anybody who thinks that FDR’s policies did anything but dig us deeper into depression are morons.

Note the morons part, Nic.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/fdrs-economic-policies-failed-but-dont-take-my-word-for-it-listen-to-obamas-top-economic-adviser/

And I don't give a damn if you don't like the source. The quote is accurate. I'd say look it up but that is a wasted admonition when applied to you.

Ethereal
09-30-2014, 01:04 PM
I'ts about temporary stimulus to jump start the economy, not about central planning as a permanent fix...

If it's so good for the economy, then why should it be temporary? Is that a tacit admission that it's an unsustainable and suboptimal practice which diverts resources from the productive sector of the economy at the expense of longterm growth?


The U.S. economy improved during the New Deal there is no debate.

Of course it did. Markets are self-correcting. The entire point of a recession/depression is to liquidate malinvestment and realign assets and savings in a more sustainable and responsive configuration. The problem arises when politicians hinder this self-correcting process with central planning of the economy which only serves to delay the correction, as was the case with FDR.


Historians disagree on which part of the New Deal most encouraged economic growth, but the New Deal did not prevent this recovery, unlike what revisionists are pedaling these days.

Economic fundamentals say it did, unless you have some evidence to suggest that politicians are somehow better at allocating resources than the market?

Mainecoons
09-30-2014, 01:06 PM
After 6 years, its still a "temporary" stimulus that is not working. Well it is not working for working folks, it is working great for Obama's rich buddies.

What nonsense, as usual without a fact to back it up.

Ethereal
09-30-2014, 01:06 PM
He also was disabled by polio.

So what is your point again?

That FDR was nothing more than an self-important opportunist who had no idea what he was doing economically or politically.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 01:08 PM
Something of value has to be produced before the economy can grow.

just handing out welfare checks so that Obama voters can buy more stuff made in china is not going to grow the economy.

Cigar
09-30-2014, 01:08 PM
After 6 years, its still a "temporary" stimulus that is not working. Well it is not working for working folks, it is working great for Obama's rich buddies.

What nonsense, as usual without a fact to back it up.


Once again, if your Governor doesn't know how or refused Government Money, that's your problems.

The stimulus money in my area was great ... :grin:

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 01:15 PM
Once again, if your Governor doesn't know how or refused Government Money, that's your problems.

The stimulus money in my area was great ... :grin:

Obama spent $823,000 of the stimulus money to teach his father's people in Africa how to clean their penis.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/09/stimulus-funds-african-genital-washing-study/

nathanbforrest45
09-30-2014, 01:33 PM
Once again, if your Governor doesn't know how or refused Government Money, that's your problems.

The stimulus money in my area was great ... :grin:

Prove it or it's a lie.

iustitia
09-30-2014, 01:35 PM
FDR? Wasn't that the guy that founded United European Investors Ltd. to profit off of German hyper-inflation after WWI in collusion with German politicians and businessmen by investing in Germany's war industry?

PolWatch
09-30-2014, 02:54 PM
if war is such a great economic bonus, how come it didn't work for gwb or his twin, bho?

Chris
09-30-2014, 03:37 PM
if war is such a great economic bonus, how come it didn't work for gwb or his twin, bho?

I think it's working just as well thus I draw the analogy between FDR and Obama prolonging the Depression/recession (note Hoover took us into the Great Depression just as Bush the Great recession). In both cases war helps an economy that would be much worse.

Mind you, it's a false economy in that what is produced in wasted on the battlefield. Like any government spending, it doesn't generate wealth. There's no multiplier effect.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 03:47 PM
If America produced as many products in America as we did in 1960 we would have seen a bigger recovery.

but we have exported much of our manufacturing overseas.

Chris
09-30-2014, 03:57 PM
Government regulation and taxation has pushed manufacturing and other industries overseas. We started dropping in the Index of Economic Freedom under Bush and continue to do so under his clone Obama.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:00 PM
Government regulation and taxation has pushed manufacturing and other industries overseas. We started dropping in the Index of Economic Freedom under Bush and continue to do so under his clone Obama.

Too much regulation hurts also.

but the real villain is less expensive goods from overseas.

and part of the price advantage of stuff from china instead of making it here is wages and benefits.

Bob
09-30-2014, 04:04 PM
That's true and it works better when you let the market set wages rather than government intervention. This has to do with the problem of knowledge in society and the economic calculation problem.

And FDR fixed wages and prices.

FDR gave America a lot of war, but a stark situation for shopping. During WW2, my parents were not able to buy tires for their car.

Bob
09-30-2014, 04:06 PM
That's true and it works better when you let the market set wages rather than government intervention. This has to do with the problem of knowledge in society and the economic calculation problem.

There was a great depression. With the economy in the tank, just where were companies supposed to find the spare cash to pay in higher wages?

Same problem as today.

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:08 PM
And FDR fixed wages and prices.

FDR gave America a lot of war, but a stark situation for shopping. During WW2, my parents were not able to buy tires for their car.

Indeed, rationing, price and wage fixing, the best central planning modelled on why the very enemies we fought, the Nazis and Fascists, not that FDR didn't also admire Communism.

iustitia
09-30-2014, 04:08 PM
Too much regulation hurts also.

but the real villain is less expensive goods from overseas.

and part of the price advantage of stuff from china instead of making it here is wages and benefits.Yes, competitive markets are the villain. :rollseyes:

Bob
09-30-2014, 04:09 PM
if war is such a great economic bonus, how come it didn't work for gwb or his twin, bho?

We in the housing industry bear the credit for the boom in the economy. Not Bush nor Obama.

Why aren't we building it that way again?

See Dodd Frank and the many new regulations. It is a rare borrower able to get a loan now.

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:09 PM
Too much regulation hurts also.

but the real villain is less expensive goods from overseas.

and part of the price advantage of stuff from china instead of making it here is wages and benefits.

Ah, so we have another liberal protectionist who seeks to protect the American consumer from choosing lower priced goods.

We need to seek competitive advantage and let others sell us what they can produce cheaper.

Mac, you're sounding an awful lot like an isolationist. :shocked:

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:15 PM
Yes, competitive markets are the villain. :rollseyes:

Yeah right.

"It isn't who wins or loses but how you play the game that counts."

Sorry that only applies to kindergarten.

I want the poorest people in India or China to have to catch up to America not America slide back to reach them.

iustitia
09-30-2014, 04:18 PM
Yeah right.

"It isn't who wins or loses but how you play the game that counts."

Sorry that only applies to kindergarten.

I want the poorest people in India or China to have to catch up to America not America slide back to reach them.
Yeah fuck those filthy colored people having jobs too. 'MURICA.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:18 PM
Mac, you're sounding an awful lot like an isolationist. :shocked:

When it comes to economics and America's standard of living that's just what I am.

but unlike you I'm not ashamed to admit my views for what they are.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:19 PM
Yeah fuck those filthy colored people having jobs too. 'MURICA.

Exactly.

if they can get their act together and pull themselves up I don't mind.

but pulling us down is not acceptable.

Bob
09-30-2014, 04:20 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mac-7 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=781936#post781936)
Too much regulation hurts also.

but the real villain is less expensive goods from overseas.

and part of the price advantage of stuff from china instead of making it here is wages and benefits.


Ah, so we have another liberal protectionist who seeks to protect the American consumer from choosing lower priced goods.

We need to seek competitive advantage and let others sell us what they can produce cheaper.

Mac, you're sounding an awful lot like an isolationist. :shocked:

Were it not for China, this country could not afford the goods they buy now.

We domestically produce food. And guess what keeps increasing in prices. We domestically produce medicine and guess what keeps sky rocketing including hospital and doctors charges.

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:23 PM
When it comes to economics and America's standard of living that's just what I am.....

So you admit you're your own worst enemy and a walking contradiction to boot.

The protectionism you advocate would make our economy worse.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:23 PM
Were it not for China, this country could not afford the goods they buy now.



When Whirlpool (for instance) closes a factory where wages are $20 to $40 an hour the workers have to take jobs at Walmart for $10 an hour selling appliances made in china by Chinese workers.

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:25 PM
When Whirlpool (for instance) closes a factory where wages are $20 to $40 an hour the workers have to take jobs at Walmart for $10 an hour selling appliances made in china by Chinese workers.

They have to? Please, data or some evidence of that.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:25 PM
So you admit you're your own worst enemy and a walking contradiction to boot.

The protectionism you advocate would make our economy worse.

Our economy was better when we made things here.

workers made more money relative to the rich and fewer people were on welfare.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:27 PM
They have to? Please, data or some evidence of that.

No, I guess people with low educations could go back to school and be brain surgeons or something.

or at least in lib la la land they could.

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:27 PM
Our economy was better when we made things here.

workers made more money relative to the rich and fewer people were on welfare.

Right, and then the US started adopting protectionist policies at the same time overregulating and taxing industry at home--doing exactly what you advocate.

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:28 PM
No, I guess people with low educations could go back to school and be brain surgeons or something.

or at least in lib la la land they could.

IOW, you admit you made it up. Thanks.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:29 PM
Right, and then the US started adopting protectionist policies at the same time overregulating and taxing industry at home--doing exactly what you advocate.

We began lowering protectionist policies which led to the loss of jobs.

over regulation is a problem also but not as much as lower wages in china.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:32 PM
IOW, you admit you made it up. Thanks.

Sure.

instead of working in a factory the workers could all become computer technicians, right?

no.

manufacturing was the engine that drove our economy up until the 1990s and nothing has come along to replace what we lost.

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:33 PM
We began lowering protectionist policies which led to the loss of jobs.

over regulation is a problem also but not as much as lower wages in china.

Give us some examples of what you're talking about, max. Are protectionist policies for steal, sugar, and other products lower today or higher?

So because in China workers are paid less you want to penalize American consumers? How does this make sense to harm those you wish to help?

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:38 PM
Sure.

instead of working in a factory the workers could all become computer technicians, right?

no.

manufacturing was the engine that drove our economy up until the 1990s and nothing has come along to replace what we lost.


Data, mac, not you're own ruminations. For example, you decry the decline of manufacturing without knowing that it's in decline worldwide, Manufacturing’s Declining Share of GDP is a Global Phenomenon, and It’s Something to Celebrate (http://www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/manufacturing-s-declining-share-gdp-global-phenomenon-and-it-s-something-celebrate/34261):

http://i.snag.gy/b1AD9.jpg


You seem to prefer beating a dead horse to moving on to service and information sectors where we have a competitive advantage.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:39 PM
Give us some examples of what you're talking about, max. Are protectionist policies for steal, sugar, and other products lower today or higher?

So because in China workers are paid less you want to penalize American consumers? How does this make sense to harm those you wish to help?

Some commodities may still have protection but most manufactured goods do not.

and Obama and the EPA are trying to destroy coal, agriculture and other things we do make in the name of the environment.

I agree that convincing selfish libertarians that making things in America is better when they may cost more.

but America used to be wise enough to understand.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:45 PM
Data, mac, not you're own ruminations. For example, you decry the decline of manufacturing without knowing that it's in decline worldwide, Manufacturing’s Declining Share of GDP is a Global Phenomenon, and It’s Something to Celebrate (http://www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/manufacturing-s-declining-share-gdp-global-phenomenon-and-it-s-something-celebrate/34261):

http://i.snag.gy/b1AD9.jpg


You seem to prefer beating a dead horse to moving on to service and information sectors where we have a competitive advantage.

The same United Nations will tell us that co2 levels are going up also but the won't write that off as just one of those things that we have to accept.

i don't mind if our economy grows in other sectors as long as it does not shrink in manufacturing.

if we had a good public education system then maybe we would not need so many jobs for low skill workers.

but those people do exist and making products in factories is good for them and the rest of America.

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:49 PM
Some commodities may still have protection but most manufactured goods do not.

and Obama and the EPA are trying to destroy coal, agriculture and other things we do make in the name of the environment.

I agree that convincing selfish libertarians that making things in America is better when they may cost more.

but America used to be wise enough to understand.

Oh boy! You're arguments falter so you toss out troll bait. Are you really telling me you, just like a liberal progressive, don't understand the difference between selfish and self-interest?

And speaking of being a liberal progressive...


Some commodities may still have protection but most manufactured goods do not.

Obama’s Protectionist Policies Hurting Low-Income Americans (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-protectionist-policies-hurting-lowincome-americans)


President Obama and the other Group of 20 leaders delivered their obligatory warning against protectionism at last week’s summit in Pittsburgh. But at home the U.S. president continues to conduct his own trade war, not only against imports from China and other developing countries, but against the most vulnerable of American consumers.

America’s highest remaining trade barriers are aimed at products mostly grown and made by poor people abroad and disproportionately consumed by poor people at home. While industrial goods and luxury products typically enter under low or zero tariffs, the U.S. government imposes duties of 30 percent or more on food and lower-end clothing and shoes - staple goods that loom large in the budgets of poor families.

To win favor with organized labor and other opponents of trade liberalization, Mr. Obama has either defended or actually raised barriers on precisely those products of most interest to poor households....

You sound just like Obama, Democrats, and a few Republicans...

Taking aim at imports: Protectionists in Congress could scupper crucial free-trade deals (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21596939-protectionists-congress-could-scupper-crucial-free-trade-deals-taking-aim-imports)


A PLAGUE of Asian carp afflicts the Midwest, wiping out native species and assaulting unsuspecting fishermen. The creatures were introduced by well-meaning technocrats trying to cure a different problem, but the carp have grown so large and numerous that the government is now formulating expensive plans to curb them. Replace “carp” with “imports” and you have an accurate description of how a large number of Democrats, and a smaller number of Republicans, feel about free trade. This helps to explain why Congress is likely to block two big free-trade deals—one with Asia, the other with Europe—until after November’s mid-term elections, and possibly to scupper them altogether....


Mac, are you a libhater?

Chris
09-30-2014, 04:52 PM
The same United Nations will tell us that co2 levels are going up also but the won't write that off as just one of those things that we have to accept.

i don't mind if our economy grows in other sectors as long as it does not shrink in manufacturing.

if we had a good public education system then maybe we would not need so many jobs for low skill workers.

but those people do exist and making products in factories is good for them and the rest of America.

IOW, you have nothing to counter the data I showed you.

You're sounding more and more liberal there, mac.

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

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 04:55 PM
Oh boy! You're arguments falter so you toss out troll bait. Are you really telling me you, just like a liberal progressive, don't understand the difference between selfish and self-interest?

And speaking of being a liberal progressive...



Obama’s Protectionist Policies Hurting Low-Income Americans (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-protectionist-policies-hurting-lowincome-americans)



You sound just like Obama, Democrats, and a few Republicans...

Taking aim at imports: Protectionists in Congress could scupper crucial free-trade deals (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21596939-protectionists-congress-could-scupper-crucial-free-trade-deals-taking-aim-imports)




Mac, are you a libhater?

I want to protect American wages and our standard of living.

you just want the cheapest possible cell phone that slave laborers in the 3rd world can provide you.

Chris
09-30-2014, 05:01 PM
I want to protect American wages and our standard of living.

you just want the cheapest possible cell phone that slave laborers in the 3rd world can provide you.


And faltering even more when you resort to putting words in my mouth. No, I want the American people free to choose, not dictated by the likes of statists like you. Want wages to rise, standard of living to rise, engage in free trade.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 05:03 PM
No, I want the American people free to choose, .

Free to choose a cardboard box for shelter just like the poorest Indian or Chinese?

no thanks.

Chris
09-30-2014, 05:12 PM
Free to choose a cardboard box for shelter just like the poorest Indian or Chinese?

no thanks.

No, mac, free to choose.

And free to choose to reject your putting words in my mouth, ptoowy.

Dictated to by mac, no way.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 05:14 PM
No, mac, free to choose.

And free to choose to reject your putting words in my mouth, ptoowy.

Dictated to by mac, no way.

Look at Africa.

what are those people free to choose for?

nothin or nothin and that is the future free traders are creating for America.

Chris
09-30-2014, 05:15 PM
And the reason they don't feel it is because incomes and wages are not going up. There are solutions to that. If we raise the minimum wage, if we make sure women are getting paid the same as men for doing the same work, if we are rebuilding our infrastructure, if we're doing more to invest in job training so people are able to get the jobs that are out there right now, because manufacturing is coming back to this country. Not just the auto industry that we've saved, but you're starting to see reinvestment here in the United States. Businesses around the world are saying for the first time in a long time, "The place to invest isn't in China. It's the United States."


That's who you sound like, mac.


Source: Obama: Country "Better Off" Than Six Years Ago But People "Don't Feel It" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/09/29/obama_country_better_off_than_six_years_ago_but_pe ople_dont_feel_it.html)

Chris
09-30-2014, 05:16 PM
Look at Africa.

what are those people free to choose for?

nothin or nothin and that is the future free traders are creating for America.

Because they're not free, they're dictated to, just like you want to do.

And you contradict yourself claiming free trade will make people less free to choose.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 05:20 PM
That's who you sound like, mac.


Source: Obama: Country "Better Off" Than Six Years Ago But People "Don't Feel It" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/09/29/obama_country_better_off_than_six_years_ago_but_pe ople_dont_feel_it.html)

So according to you and Obama Americans are better off but are just too stupid to realize it?

a bad economy is good for the democrat party because it creates more voters who depend on government to take care of them.

so along with a smaller middle class the free traders like yourself are responsible for bigger government also.

Chris
09-30-2014, 05:24 PM
So according to you and Obama Americans are better off but are just too stupid to realize it?

a bad economy is good for the democrat party because it creates more voters who depend on government to take care of them.

so along with a smaller middle class the free traders like yourself are responsible for bigger government also.



So according to you and Obama Americans are better off but are just too stupid to realize it?

So your best argument is to put words in my mouth again? It's your words and his that are comparable, mac, you're both protectionists. Weasel out of it with sophomoric sophistry all you like.



...free traders like yourself are responsible for bigger government also.

And you're flailing with self-contradictions like that and several I've already pointed out. Just more sophomoric sophistry.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 05:29 PM
So your best argument is to put words in my mouth again? It's your words and his that are comparable, mac, you're both protectionists. Weasel out of it with sophomoric sophistry all you like.

i wish Obama were a protectionist.

then at least he wouldn't be a total idiot.

but Obama is all words.

You, otoh are just as I said, a free trader who is dragging the US economy down to the lowest level possible all for the sake of cheap imported toys.

Chris
09-30-2014, 05:40 PM
i wish Obama were a protectionist.

then at least he wouldn't be a total idiot.

but Obama is all words.

You, otoh are just as I said, a free trader who is dragging the US economy down to the lowest level possible all for the sake of cheap imported toys.


I just demonstrated twice that Obama is a protectionist just like you, mac, he says basically the same things you say.



You, otoh are just as I said, a free trader who is dragging the US economy down to the lowest level possible all for the sake of cheap imported toys.

I am a free trader.

You have yet to demonstrate anything negative about free trade while I have demonstrated protectionism only harms the american consumer.

I suggest you go back to slaying straw men, mac.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 06:15 PM
I just demonstrated twice that Obama is a protectionist just like you, mac, he says basically the same things you say.




I am a free trader.

You have yet to demonstrate anything negative about free trade while I have demonstrated protectionism only harms the american consumer.

I suggest you go back to slaying straw men, mac.

I think you can find isolated examples of Obama protecting an isolated company or two.

but the bottom line is that Obama is not a protectionist.

i am because I care about America's future and I don't think the free traders do.

Chris
09-30-2014, 06:58 PM
Protectionist policies raise the price of goods and, like inflation, lower the standard of living.

Like a liberal, your good intentions have negative consequences.

Bob
09-30-2014, 07:07 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=781986#post781986)
Were it not for China, this country could not afford the goods they buy now.


When Whirlpool (for instance) closes a factory where wages are $20 to $40 an hour the workers have to take jobs at Walmart for $10 an hour selling appliances made in china by Chinese workers.

That or if lucky, find a lawyer to put them on disabled, collecting social security.

Bob
09-30-2014, 07:12 PM
I think you can find isolated examples of Obama protecting an isolated company or two.

but the bottom line is that Obama is not a protectionist.

i am because I care about America's future and I don't think the free traders do.

Mac-7, this nation is not in need of protection, it is in need of far fewer rules by the Feds.

You find that high corporate taxes drives out jobs and companies. Those who agree to buy made in China m make out fine. Mr. Bassett who owns Bassett Furniture spoke on CSPAN how he made enemies by refusing to move his production to China. His company is still hanging on. And he says it is hard to hang on and says get rid of the Federal Government regulations and lower corporate taxes and jobs will return paying good wages.

Bob
09-30-2014, 07:16 PM
Chris, I believe you have Mac-7 all wrong. Some how you two crossed swords for some unknown reason.

Both of you watch this video by found on c span.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320942-1/book-discussion-factory-man

Chris
09-30-2014, 07:18 PM
Chris, I believe you have Mac-7 all wrong. Some how you two crossed swords for some unknown reason.

Both of you watch this video by found on c span.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320942-1/book-discussion-factory-man


Wrong? Mac's a protectionist, even says he is.

So is Obama.

Bob
09-30-2014, 07:20 PM
Wrong? Mac's a protectionist, even says he is.

So is Obama.

He should watch the video. I do not consider Mac-7 to be like Obama.

You got hot when you thought he put words in your mouth. Being a protectionist is not bad for the right reasons. But that only means you and I can inform him on why it is bad policy.

Chris
09-30-2014, 07:34 PM
He should watch the video. I do not consider Mac-7 to be like Obama.

You got hot when you thought he put words in your mouth. Being a protectionist is not bad for the right reasons. But that only means you and I can inform him on why it is bad policy.

That's about all mac has done, knock down his own strawmen, oh, and posit unfounded opinions.


Being a protectionist is not bad for the right reasons.

Right reasons? To harm US consumers and take away their freedom to choose? The road to perdition etc.

Bob
09-30-2014, 07:38 PM
Being a protectionist is not bad for the right reasons.


That's about all mac has done, knock down his own strawmen, oh, and posit unfounded opinions.
Right reasons? To harm US consumers and take away their freedom to choose? The road to perdition etc.

I am trying to explain that some don't understand the bad that comes from protectionism. We can correctly inform them as to why it is bad. (about right reasons)

He thinks it is good for America. I don't think he will support it once he learns how bad it actually is.

Chris
09-30-2014, 07:41 PM
I am trying to explain that some don't understand the bad that comes from protectionism. We can correctly inform them as to why it is bad. (about right reasons)

He thinks it is good for America. I don't think he will support it once he learns how bad it actually is.

I've explained reasons it's bad. Mac is not a listener, he's a man of opinion. This is not the only thread that's been displayed.



Protectionism is government intimidation unleashed against consumers to oblige them to buy products that they prefer not to buy. Protectionism is force that enriches the politically powerful at the expense of the politically impotent. Protectionism is business people capturing rents from receiving special favors from the state rather than earning profits from giving good service to the public. Protectionism is the myth that money belongs not to consumers who earned it peacefully but to suppliers who steal it coercively. Protectionism is the corrupting lie that absurdly and insult​ingly insists that mass flourishing results from monopoly and dearth rather than from competition and abundance.

@ Protectionism (http://cafehayek.com/2014/07/protectionism.html)

Chris
09-30-2014, 07:46 PM
Mac wants to save jobs with protectionist policies.

Steel tariffs to save a few jobs doesn’t work if steel tariffs cost more jobs elsewhere (http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/steel-tariffs-to-save-a-few-jobs-doesnt-work-if-steel-tariffs-cost-more-jobs-elsewhere/)


The Obama Administration has decided to impost steel tariffs over in the US. This is because, horrors, foreign companies were willing to sell steel to US consumers at prices they wanted to pay. The argument is that this will save jobs in the steel industry. And quite possibly it will:

On Friday the Commerce Department imposed duties on hundreds of millions of dollars in annual trade with South Korea and eight other countries, including India, Vietnam, Turkey and Taiwan. As punishment for allegedly dumping steel into the U.S. market at unfair low prices, South Korea’s exporters will face tariffs of about 10% to 16%, while smaller players from other countries face rates up to 118%.

...If only people remembered a bit more of history, eh? Bush also imposed steel tariffs and the effects were:



The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) Foundation requested a formal examination of the impact of higher steel costs on American steel-consuming industries,1 and in particular, a quantification of employment losses at those companies. This study employed straight-forward and widely accepted regression analysis using a variety of price and employment data to maximize the reliability of the results.2

We found that:


200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.3
One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.
Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).




That’s not exactly an impartial report, this is true. But losing more jobs as a result of tariffs than there are in the entire industry you’re supposedly protecting doesn’t sound like a very good idea really.

Probably better to have let the steel industry shed a few jobs, offer retraining to those affected and allow the rest of the economy to expand off that cheap steel being subsidised, if subsidies there really were, by Johnny Foreigner.

rembrant
09-30-2014, 08:39 PM
Too Bad ... :grin: What he really meant...import illegals, pay them $5 hr. Bust unions....oh..wait.. we HAVE been doing that.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 08:40 PM
I've explained reasons it's bad. Mac is not a listener, he's a man of opinion. This is not the only thread that's been displayed.

what Chris means is that Mac thinks for himself and does not just blindly drift with the current.

I appreciate Bob saying that I'm not beyond hope.

i listened to the video even though most of it was that woman recounting writing and not enough about Bassett standing up to the Chinese.

but he's a dying breed.

if more businessmen were like Bassett we would not be in the sad shape we are today.

Too many business school graduates are being taught by libertarians who take no pride in being Americans and do not care how they make their money.

I don't think the free traders will be satisfied till America's standard of living is no higher than any other country in the world.

Bob
09-30-2014, 08:44 PM
what Chris means is that Mac thinks for himself and does not just blindly drift with the current.

I appreciate Bob saying that I'm not beyond hope.

i listened to the video even though most of it was that woman recounting writing and not enough about Bassett standing up to the Chinese.

but he's a dying breed.

if more businessmen were like Bassett we would not be in the sad shape we are today.

Too many business school graduates are being taught by libertarians who take no pride in being Americans and do not care how they make their money.

I don't think the free traders will be satisfied till America's standard of living is no higher than any other country in the world.

Maybe you will listen to the great Milton Friedman who debates it with a left winger I think he is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqG6OurHaM

Bob
09-30-2014, 08:56 PM
Mac wants to save jobs with protectionist policies.

Steel tariffs to save a few jobs doesn’t work if steel tariffs cost more jobs elsewhere (http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/steel-tariffs-to-save-a-few-jobs-doesnt-work-if-steel-tariffs-cost-more-jobs-elsewhere/)

I think Max-7 will want to study this very good video by a famous economist who explains it very well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqG6OurHaM

Bob
09-30-2014, 08:58 PM
I've explained reasons it's bad. Mac is not a listener, he's a man of opinion. This is not the only thread that's been displayed.@ Protectionism (http://cafehayek.com/2014/07/protectionism.html)




Protectionism is government intimidation unleashed against consumers to oblige them to buy products that they prefer not to buy. Protectionism is force that enriches the politically powerful at the expense of the politically impotent. Protectionism is business people capturing rents from receiving special favors from the state rather than earning profits from giving good service to the public. Protectionism is the myth that money belongs not to consumers who earned it peacefully but to suppliers who steal it coercively. Protectionism is the corrupting lie that absurdly and insult​ingly insists that mass flourishing results from monopoly and dearth rather than from competition and abundance.

Anybody who wants to be disabused of thinking protection is awesome needs to study what happened to Japan when they used it and still do.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 09:03 PM
Maybe you will listen to the great Milton Friedman who debates it with a left winger I think he is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qqG6OurHaM

Ill watch the video but I'm not hearing these arguments for the first time.

believe it or not I heard about Milton Friedman before today.

there are about 6 billion souls in the world and most of them are very poor.

comparative advantage does not work when two economies are at such vastly different levels.

all that will happen is that the 5.2 billion poor people will combine with their wealthy neighbors and all will be equally poor.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 09:07 PM
Anybody who wants to be disabused of thinking protection is awesome needs to study what happened to Japan when they used it and still do.

If Japan and America and the euros were competing with each other then free trade and comparative advantage make sense.

but including the poorest economies in the mix only creates a race to the bottom for the wealthy nations.

Chris
09-30-2014, 09:24 PM
If Japan and America and the euros were competing with each other then free trade and comparative advantage make sense.

but including the poorest economies in the mix only creates a race to the bottom for the wealthy nations.

Nations don't trade and thus do not compete. Only people trade.

Trade generates wealth so how do you figure that results in a race to the bottom?

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 09:29 PM
Nations don't trade and thus do not compete. Only people trade.



Just a stateless citizen of the world, you?

that figures.

but I'm proud to be an American.

Chris
09-30-2014, 09:40 PM
Just a stateless citizen of the world, you?

that figures.

but I'm proud to be an American.

Well, good for you.

But to say states don't trade but people do is a simple fact. If I purchase products from a seller in Japan, for instance, the US is not purchasing anything from Japan, I am from some seller.

That has nothing to do with being stateful or stateless.


I see you do not address serious questions put to you. But merely distract off topic.

Chris
09-30-2014, 09:46 PM
Ill watch the video but I'm not hearing these arguments for the first time.

believe it or not I heard about Milton Friedman before today.

there are about 6 billion souls in the world and most of them are very poor.

comparative advantage does not work when two economies are at such vastly different levels.

all that will happen is that the 5.2 billion poor people will combine with their wealthy neighbors and all will be equally poor.


Can you give your definition of "comparative advantage" because it sure isn't the one commonly used in economics.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 09:55 PM
Well, good for you.

But to say states don't trade but people do is a simple fact. If I purchase products from a seller in Japan, for instance, the US is not purchasing anything from Japan, I am from some seller.

That has nothing to do with being stateful or stateless.


I see you do not address serious questions put to you. But merely distract off topic.

You are just kidding yourself if you think international trade does not involve countries as well as individuals.

But apparently you are closer to the stateless person with loyalty to no country that I thought you were.

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 10:00 PM
Can you give your definition of "comparative advantage" because it sure isn't the one commonly used in economics.

I have no special definition.

Some nations can make or do some things better than other nations.

so trade can mutually benefit both countries when comparative advantages are considered.

iustitia
09-30-2014, 11:01 PM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) would you agree that @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014) is essentially defending the statist "American System" of Henry Clay aka autarky aka mercantilism aka national socialism aka corporatism?

Mac-7
09-30-2014, 11:10 PM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) would you agree that @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014) is essentially defending the statist "American System" of Henry Clay aka autarky aka mercantilism aka national socialism aka corporatism?

I'm defending the obvious truth that in a world of rich and poor countries its better to be a rich country.

something that pampered libs in rich country's simply don't understand.

iustitia
09-30-2014, 11:14 PM
I'm defending the obvious truth that in a world of rich and poor countries its better to be a rich country.
You don't make the poor rich through taxes, regulations and subsidies. You don't multiply wealth by dividing it.

something that pampered libs in rich country's simply don't understand.
Who are you even talking about?

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 03:45 AM
When Whirlpool (for instance) closes a factory where wages are $20 to $40 an hour the workers have to take jobs at Walmart for $10 an hour selling appliances made in china by Chinese workers.

But the appliances are much more affordable, so workers need less wages to buy them. Markets are not a zero-sum game.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 03:49 AM
Our economy was better when we made things here.

You mean when Europe and Asia were a smoldering pile of rubble and could not compete with our manufacturing base? That was an economic anomaly and those days are never coming back. But it's nothing to worry about because competition benefits the consumer through increased choices and lower prices, even if it reduces the nominal wages of certain workers.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 03:51 AM
...but not as much as lower wages in china.

I'm sure the democrats in California have the same complaint about Texas.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 03:55 AM
You don't make the poor rich through taxes, regulations and subsidies. You don't multiply wealth by dividing it.



I agree.

at least that is one thing I can agree with the libertarians about.

the left wants socialism where government puts everyone on the dole and I'm against that.

but what libertarians fail to understand is that workers need jobs which there will not be enough of if we move all our factories to china.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 04:00 AM
But the appliances are much more affordable, so workers need less wages to buy them. Markets are not a zero-sum game.

Affordable is a relative term.

a street beggar in India can't afford to buy a refrigerator but you can pay him $1 a day to build them in a factory.

after that the street beggar is only slightly better off but the displaced worker in America is much poorer than before.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 04:07 AM
You mean when Europe and Asia were a smoldering pile of rubble and could not compete with our manufacturing base? That was an economic anomaly and those days are never coming back. But it's nothing to worry about because competition benefits the consumer through increased choices and lower prices, even if it reduces the nominal wages of certain workers.

I think America can compete with the euros a and Japanese today because their standard of living is comparable to ours.

Not that Japan ever competed fairly because they didn't.

through a partnership of government and large corporations they targeted US industries the way a hawk targets a field mouse.

Given true free trade on an equal basis America can compete.

but free trade with 5 billion poor people like the Indian street beggar or a Chinese peasant is not possible if you value our standard of living.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:10 AM
If Japan and America and the euros were competing with each other then free trade and comparative advantage make sense.

but including the poorest economies in the mix only creates a race to the bottom for the wealthy nations.

Race to the bottom? Talking points straight from the DNC chairman...

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:24 AM
Affordable is a relative term.

a street beggar in India can't afford to buy a refrigerator but you can pay him $1 a day to build them in a factory.

after that the street beggar is only slightly better off but the displaced worker in America is much poorer than before.

But everyone else in America benefits from more affordable refrigerators. You're basically arguing that a few thousands uncompetitive American workers are more important than hundreds of millions of American consumers.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 04:26 AM
Race to the bottom? Talking points straight from the DNC chairman...

You are the one spouting mindless talking points.

Average American wages will continue to go down as long as libertarians cling to free trade with the poorest countries on earth.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 04:29 AM
But everyone else in America benefits from more affordable refrigerators. You're basically arguing that a few thousands uncompetitive American workers are more important than hundreds of millions of American consumers.


Yeah, right.

Everyone can buy the cheap products - just as soon as the government gives them the money to spend.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:31 AM
I think America can compete with the euros a and Japanese today because their standard of living is comparable to ours.

Not that Japan ever competed fairly because they didn't.

through a partnership of government and large corporations they targeted US industries the way a hawk targets a field mouse.

Given true free trade on an equal basis America can compete.

but free trade with 5 billion poor people like the Indian street beggar or a Chinese peasant is not possible if you value our standard of living.

Our "standard of living" is a function of production.

A bigger labor pool means more production.

More production means more goods and services.

More goods and services means lower prices and higher quality.

Lower prices and higher quality means a higher standard of living.

It doesn't matter where the goods and services are produced or by whom.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:33 AM
You are the one spouting mindless talking points.

Average American wages will continue to go down as long as libertarians cling to free trade with the poorest countries on earth.

Nominal wages may decrease, but real wages will rise. Unfortunately, the economically ignorant cannot see the difference.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 04:40 AM
Our "standard of living" is a function of production.

A bigger labor pool means more production.

More production means more goods and services.

More goods and services means lower prices and higher quality.

Lower prices and higher quality means a higher standard of living.

It doesn't matter where the goods and services are produced or by whom.

Listen to yourself.

the production you speak of is taking place in china while American workers bask in the unemployment line or stock canned goods at Walmart.

libertarian theory sounds ok in the abstract but not in real life.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:40 AM
Yeah, right.

Everyone can buy the cheap products - just as soon as the government gives them the money to spend.

What a stupid remark.

Not every American works for a refrigerator manufacturer, you know.

There are construction workers, fast-food employees, auto mechanics, electricians, etc., all of whom benefit from lower prices.

You would have all these American workers paying higher prices in order to subsidize uncompetitive labor at a refrigerator plant.

How does that benefit America, exactly?

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 04:45 AM
What a stupid remark.

Not every American works for a refrigerator manufacturer, you know.

There are construction workers, fast-food employees, auto mechanics, electricians, etc., all of whom benefit from lower prices.

You would have all these American workers paying higher prices in order to subsidize uncompetitive labor at a refrigerator plant.

How does that benefit America, exactly?

An electrician does not benefit very much from cheaper prices when government has to take more of his earning and give it to the unemployed worker across the street.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:49 AM
Listen to yourself.

the production you speak of is taking place in china while American bask in the unemployment line or stock canned goods at Walmart.

libertarian theory sounds ok in the abstract but not in real life.

Some Americans may go to the unemployment line, yes, but why should the rest of us be forced to subsidize their uncompetitive wages through higher prices?

Your arguments are virtually indistinguishable from the arguments made by democrats who defend bloated union wages where the majority of people are forced to subsidize special interests in the name of higher wages.

And free trade is not "libertarian theory", it's basic economics.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:52 AM
An electrician does not benefit very much from cheaper prices when government has to take more of his earning and give it to the unemployed worker across the street.

Well, you might want to take that up with your fellow democrats, because libertarians don't typically support redistribution of wealth via statist coercion. In our free market economy, that unemployed person will have to rely on family, community, charity, and, most importantly, themselves.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 04:55 AM
Some Americans may go to the unemployment line, yes, but why should the rest of us be forced to subsidize their uncompetitive wages through higher prices?

.

because bleeding heart lib morons insist that we redistribute the wealth.

So you either have a policy of full employment or you will have socialism.

libertarians are playing into the hands of the leftists who want government to control all the wealth.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 04:57 AM
Well, you might want to take that up with your fellow democrats, because libertarians don't typically support redistribution of wealth via statist coercion. In our free market economy, that unemployed person will have to rely on family, community, charity, and, most importantly, themselves.

I'll take it up with you.

see post #130 above for the reason why you are pushing us toward a bigger welfare state.

i don't care what you typically don't support.

thats what we get thanks to you.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:57 AM
because bleeding heart lib morons insist that we redistribute the wealth.

So you either have a policy of full employment or you will have socialism.

libertarians are playing into the hands of the leftists who want government to control all the wealth.

Like I said, take it up with your democrat brethren.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 04:59 AM
I'll take it up with you.

see post #130 above for the reason why you are pushing us toward a bigger welfare state.

You love to blame libertarians for the failures of your own ideological movement.

If anyone is playing into the hands of democrats, it's wishy-washy faux conservatives such as yourself.

Grow a spine and stand up for free markets and maybe things will change.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:00 AM
Like I said, take it up with your democrat brethren.

You are the one that is destroying the American dream with your libertarian economic policies.

the democrats are just using your stupidity against you.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:02 AM
You love to blame libertarians for the failures of your own ideological movement.

If anyone is playing into the hands of democrats, it's wishy-washy faux conservatives such as yourself.

Grow a spine and stand up for free markets and maybe things will change.

There is nothing wrong with my ideology.

i want to keep American jobs in America to preserve the American dream.

you don't.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 05:02 AM
You are the one that is destroying the American dream with your libertarian economic policies.

the democrats are just using your stupidity against you.

My libertarian economic policies are what made this country great in the first place. It's wishy-washy neo-progressive statists such as yourself who destroyed the republic.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:05 AM
My libertarian economic policies are what made this country great in the first place. It's wishy-washy neo-progressive statists such as yourself who destroyed the republic.

America became the largest economy in the world with tariffs and protection of our market from foreign competition.

then you come along and want to give away everything your forefathers created to the Chinese.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 05:06 AM
There is nothing wrong with my ideology.

i want to keep American jobs in America to preserve the American dream.

you don't.

No, you want to subsidize uncompetitive labor at the expense of hundreds of millions of American consumers, just like democrats who want to subsidize uncompetitive unions at the expense of American taxpayers, all in the name of "higher wages".

You're just a typical fake-ass conservative wallowing in neo-progressive ideology.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 05:09 AM
America became the largest economy in the world with tariffs and protection of our market from foreign competition.

then you come along and want to give away everything your forefathers created to the Chinese.

Nonsense. The protectionism you speak of was vehemently opposed by the south and one of the main reasons for the civil war.

The tariffs were used to subsidize northern industry at the expense of the agrarian southern economy.

Your support of the big government northern elites is consistent with neo-progressive ideology, at least.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:10 AM
No, you want to subsidize uncompetitive labor at the expense of hundreds of millions of American consumers, just like democrats who want to subsidize uncompetitive unions at the expense of American taxpayers, all in the name of "higher wages".

You're just a typical fake-ass conservative wallowing in neo-progressive ideology.

You call Americans earning more than $1 a day "uncompetitive labor."

thats the the dumbest thing I ever heard.

So in your world $.90 a day becomes a fair wage and its a foreign worker getting it while the American draws unemployment.

thats insane.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:12 AM
Nonsense. The protectionism you speak of was vehemently opposed by the south and one of the main reasons for the civil war.



A war that you may be surprised to learn the south lost.

meaning tariffs and trade protection continued while America grew to the industrial giant we were until recently.

kilgram
10-01-2014, 05:14 AM
My libertarian economic policies are what made this country great in the first place. It's wishy-washy neo-progressive statists such as yourself who destroyed the republic.
Are you sure?

Libertarian economics, never has existed. As Mac-7 said, USA used extensively protectionism, mainly XIX and XX centuries.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 05:19 AM
You call Americans earning more than $1 a day "uncompetitive labor."

thats the the dumbest thing I ever heard.

So in your world $.90 a day becomes a fair wage and its a foreign worker getting it while the American draws unemployment.

thats insane.

If that's what the labor is worth in the free market, then, yes, it's uncompetitive to subsidize them at the expense of hundreds of millions of American consumers.

You would force all Americans to pay exorbitant prices for goods and services just so some lever-pulling factory worker in Ohio can make the same amount of money as the drill bit operator on an oil rig in Texas. Trust me, you aren't doing anyone any favors with your democrat brand of economics.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:22 AM
If that's what the labor is worth in the free market, then, yes, it's uncompetitive to subsidize them at the expense of hundreds of millions of American consumers.

You would force all Americans to pay exorbitant prices for goods and services just so some lever-pulling factory worker in Ohio can make the same amount of money as the drill bit operator on an oil rig in Texas. Trust me, you aren't doing anyone any favors with your democrat brand of economics.

I want Americans to work instead of laying around on unemployment.

yes your cellphone from china may cost less than one from Ohio but those three unemployed democrats cost money out of your pocket to feed also.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 05:22 AM
A war that you may be surprised to learn the south lost.

Irrelevant. The entire purpose of those protectionist policies was to subsidize northern bankers and industrialists while expanding the size and scope of the central government's authority.


meaning tariffs and trade protection continued while America grew to the industrial giant we were until recently.

All on the backs of the agrarian south.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 05:25 AM
Are you sure?

Libertarian economics, never has existed. As Mac-7 said, USA used extensively protectionism, mainly XIX and XX centuries.

It existed in the agrarian south where hunters and yeoman farmers lived largely independent of the state and corporations. That is, until the northern elites invaded the south and militarily subjugated them on behalf of northern bankers and industrialists.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:27 AM
Irrelevant. The entire purpose of those protectionist policies was to subsidize northern bankers and industrialists while expanding the size and scope of the central government's authority.

now the civil war that you brought up suddenly becomes irrelevant?

The welfare state that you and the bleeding heart libs created through dumb libertarian economic policies is what's driving the growth of the welfare state.

you and your kind have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 05:28 AM
I want Americans to work instead of laying around on unemployment.

yes your cellphone from china may cost less than one from Ohio but those three unemployed democrats cost money out of your pocket to feed also.

Then take it up with the people who support coercive redistribution schemes.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:29 AM
Then take it up with the people who support coercive redistribution schemes.

I'm taking it up with you because your economic policies create the unemployment that the socialists are exploiting.

Ethereal
10-01-2014, 05:30 AM
now the civil war that you brought up suddenly becomes irrelevant?

The welfare state that you and the bleeding heart libs created through dumb libertarian economic policies is what's driving the growth of the welfare state.

you and your kind have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Your stupidity and dishonesty is becoming intolerable.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 05:33 AM
Your stupidity and dishonesty is becoming intolerable.

You create American unemployment for the sake of a cheap cellphone made in china and you call me stupid?

Ha!

Gunny
10-01-2014, 06:01 AM
Until America gets back to these principles, it is screwed.







https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByyBZF-CQAEANdz.png





Interesting. FDR was a commie and ruined this nation. He was also a racist. That your favorite part?

nathanbforrest45
10-01-2014, 07:47 AM
What is truly interesting is that the left is constantly singing the praises of small business in the US while creating an environment in which small business cannot survive and leads to the growth of mega corporations which they claim to hate. But then again they also claim to love freedom and then tell us the way to freedom is by more government control.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:04 AM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) would you agree that @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014) is essentially defending the statist "American System" of Henry Clay aka autarky aka mercantilism aka national socialism aka corporatism?

Not that familiar with Clay but definitely the rest.

He's your typical establishment con.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:06 AM
I'm defending the obvious truth that in a world of rich and poor countries its better to be a rich country.

something that pampered libs in rich country's simply don't understand.


We all want to be better off, mac, the question is how. Protectionist policies diminishes prosperity, and peace, free trade enhances. Something you don't understand.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:08 AM
I agree.

at least that is one thing I can agree with the libertarians about.

the left wants socialism where government puts everyone on the dole and I'm against that.

but what libertarians fail to understand is that workers need jobs which there will not be enough of if we move all our factories to china.


I would guess you're also something of a Luddite when it comes to automation.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:17 AM
You are the one spouting mindless talking points.

Average American wages will continue to go down as long as libertarians cling to free trade with the poorest countries on earth.


Another meaningless talking point.

Do you ever substantiate your claims, mac?


Here's something you probably don't know as well. Say Americans trade with people in the poorest country. Where is the loss? We get in the trade what we value and they get what they value. We both gain. Moreover, those US dollars going to purchase the poor county's goods and service, can only be spent to purchase in turn the products and services of the American people. Yes, those US$ can be traded around but eventually they must return home. So there is no loss.

Something else your shallow opinion fails to see: If we purchase goods and services cheaply rather than dearly then we have more with which to purchase other things we value. We end up richer, and much of that ends up invested in US industry--all of it if you realize US$ going abroad can only eventually be used to purchase goods and services here.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:22 AM
An electrician does not benefit very much from cheaper prices when government has to take more of his earning and give it to the unemployed worker across the street.



But that is exactly what you propose with protectionist policies, mac. I guess this is another thing you don't understand. When the US puts tariffs on foreign goods and services, the foreigner doesn't pay the higher cost, US citizens pay the higher price. This follows on the same principle that corporations don't pay taxes but pass them along to consumers.

Another thing you fail to understand is the US government pays out loads more in corporate welfare than it ever does in social welfare. This government has too be the most corrupt in the world.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 08:23 AM
We all want to be better off, mac, the question is how. Protectionist policies diminishes prosperity, and peace, free trade enhances. Something you don't understand.

free trade with low wage countries put Americans out of work.

how does being unemployed increase prosperity in America?

the answer is that it doesn't.

thanks to liberals and libertarians we have millions of Americans unemployed who used to work and contribute to the economy.

you ask about automation and I don't know how to respond to that.

but lets see.

under the liberal/libertarian plan we move factory jobs to china which means American workers have to settle for service jobs at McDonald's or elsewhere at half the pay.

at the same time you invite every poor person in Latin America to come here for jobs that no longer exist.

so they drive wages down at McDonald's.

then you bring in a robot to put the illegal aliens out of work too.

i must admit that libs leave no stone unturned in their quest for cheap cellphones.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:24 AM
There is nothing wrong with my ideology.

i want to keep American jobs in America to preserve the American dream.

you don't.


But the isolationist protectionist dictatorship you want to manage centrally is what will destroy the American dream.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:25 AM
America became the largest economy in the world with tariffs and protection of our market from foreign competition.

then you come along and want to give away everything your forefathers created to the Chinese.


Another claim you do nothing to substantiate.

Earlier I provided historical facts that protectionist policies have only risen over time.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:26 AM
You call Americans earning more than $1 a day "uncompetitive labor."

thats the the dumbest thing I ever heard.

So in your world $.90 a day becomes a fair wage and its a foreign worker getting it while the American draws unemployment.

thats insane.


That, mac, sounds like a liberal minimum wage argument. You're exposing your liberal underwear.

Common Sense
10-01-2014, 08:27 AM
free trade with low wage countries put Americans out of work.

how does being unemployed increase prosperity in America?

the answer is that it doesn't.

thanks to liberals and libertarians we have millions of Americans unemployed who used to work and contribute to the economy.

you ask about automation and I don't know how to respond to that.

but lets see.

under the liberal/libertarian plan we move factory jobs to china which means American workers have to settle for service jobs at McDonald's or elsewhere at half the pay.

at the same time you invite every poor person in Latin America to come here for jobs that no longer exist.

so they drive wages down at McDonald's.

then you bring in a robot to put the illegal aliens out of work too.

i must admit that libs leave no stone unturned in their quest for cheap cellphones.

You mean the agreements Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 signed?

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 08:27 AM
Another claim you do nothing to substantiate.

Earlier I provided historical facts that protectionist policies have only risen over time.

We have always had tariffs up until the 1990s.

even your stand in lib admitted tariffs were one cause for the civil war.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:28 AM
Are you sure?

Libertarian economics, never has existed. As Mac-7 said, USA used extensively protectionism, mainly XIX and XX centuries.

Substantiate that. Won't be easy because it flies in the face of history.

And, uh, kilgram, there's no such thing as "libertarian economics".

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 08:31 AM
That, mac, sounds like a liberal minimum wage argument. You're exposing your liberal underwear.

Protecting America workers from unfair foreign competition leads to higher wages for Americans.

liberals think an American company can pay any wage the government dictates but that is not so.

libertarians think unemployed Americans are no big deal but they are.

so both wings of libs are wrong.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:31 AM
free trade with low wage countries put Americans out of work.

how does being unemployed increase prosperity in America?

the answer is that it doesn't.

thanks to liberals and libertarians we have millions of Americans unemployed who used to work and contribute to the economy.

you ask about automation and I don't know how to respond to that.

but lets see.

under the liberal/libertarian plan we move factory jobs to china which means American workers have to settle for service jobs at McDonald's or elsewhere at half the pay.

at the same time you invite every poor person in Latin America to come here for jobs that no longer exist.

so they drive wages down at McDonald's.

then you bring in a robot to put the illegal aliens out of work too.

i must admit that libs leave no stone unturned in their quest for cheap cellphones.



Substantiate one thing you say with facts or logic, max. Your platitudes are as shallow as your opinions.



you ask about automation and I don't know how to respond to that

Refreshing honesty!

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:32 AM
You mean the agreements Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 signed?

Great, now discussion digresses into partisan hackery.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 08:33 AM
You mean the agreements Reagan, Bush and Bush 2 signed?

You forgot to mention Clinton who took a lot of campaign cash from the chinese communists when he was in office and rewarded them handsomely with free trade.

but sure, repubs were too free with giving our markets away too.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:35 AM
Protecting America workers from unfair foreign competition leads to higher wages for Americans.

liberals think an American company can pay any wage the government dictates but that is not so.

libertarians think unemployed Americans are no big deal but they are.

so both wings of libs are wrong.


If as a libertarian I argue free trade brings peace and prosperity how then am I promoting unemployment? What you say, mac, makes little sense.


Actually, mac, historically, there are three wings of liberalism, liberals, conservative and libertarians. Only the libertarians cling to classical liberalism's individualism whereas the other two branches cling to war-mongering protectionist statism.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 08:36 AM
Substantiate one thing you say with facts or logic, max.

I gave you logic.

but since it does not conform to your libertarian brainwashing you choose to reject it.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 08:39 AM
If as a libertarian I argue free trade brings peace and prosperity how then am I promoting unemployment? What you say, mac, makes little sense.



You create unemployment by exporting jobs to china all for the sake of cheap cellphones for you.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 08:48 AM
Another thing you fail to understand is the US government pays out loads more in corporate welfare than it ever does in social welfare. This government has too be the most corrupt in the world.

Pays out?

how does the government pay out corporate welfare?

by giving fake green energy companies tax dollars yes.

but that practice is still pretty rare.

I'm starting to think you are a classic leftist who merely pretends to be a libertarian.

because that paragraph is pure leftwing/Marxist bullshit.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:53 AM
I gave you logic.

but since it does not conform to your libertarian brainwashing you choose to reject it.

You gave no logic, max, just a series of disconnected talking points and platitudes.

Let's look at your next claim:


You create unemployment by exporting jobs to china all for the sake of cheap cellphones for you.

Now if you were logical you would explain how that works, max, not just claim it. You would also deal with these counterfactuals: (a) My buying a cheaper product allows me to spnd the rest on other products I value. As an American I have gained, not lost. Other Americans gain from my purchases as well. (b) Those US$ that do go overseas can only be used to purchase products made and sold in the US. (c) Since all exchange involves people trading what they value less for what they value more, everyone gains. So no more platitudes, mac, apply some logic and explain your claim and counterargue (a), (b), and (c). Start talking economics, will ya.

Chris
10-01-2014, 08:57 AM
Pays out?

how does the government pay out corporate welfare?

by giving fake green energy companies tax dollars yes.

but that practice is still pretty rare.

I'm starting to think you are a classic leftist who merely pretends to be a libertarian.

because that paragraph is pure leftwing/Marxist bullshit.


Directly in the form of subsidies. Indirectly in the form of protectionist policies that raise the price of foreign goods and thereby allow US companies to raise their prices. Indirectly again by inflationary policies, the printing of fake money that lowers the purchasing power of Americans and in effect raises the costs of goods.


I doubt you know what Marxism is, mac. To you, a man of opinion, it's just another shallow pejorative.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 08:58 AM
You gave no logic, max, just a series of disconnected talking points and platitudes.

Let's look at your next claim:



Now if you were logical you would explain how that works, max, not just claim it. You would also deal with these counterfactuals: (a) My buying a cheaper product allows me to spnd the rest on other products I value. As an American I have gained, not lost. Other Americans gain from my purchases as well. (b) Those US$ that do go overseas can only be used to purchase products made and sold in the US. (c) Since all exchange involves people trading what they value less for what they value more, everyone gains. So no more platitudes, mac, apply some logic and explain your claim and counterargue (a), (b), and (c). Start talking economics, will ya.

I have explained how free trade with china allows cheap products made in that country to supplant products made by Americans.

yes, you get a cheaper cellphone today but end up growing the welfare state when we have to feed unemployed American workers tomorrow.

so your cheap Chinese gadget is not as cheap as you think it is.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 09:01 AM
Directly in the form of subsidies. Indirectly in the form of protectionist policies that raise the price of foreign goods and thereby allow US companies to raise their prices. Indirectly again by inflationary policies, the printing of fake money that lowers the purchasing power of Americans and in effect raises the costs of goods.



The trouble is that we don't have protectionist polices.

you leave American workers at the mercy of not just foreign companies but foreign government that are taking the American dream away.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 09:08 AM
I doubt you know what Marxism is, mac. To you, a man of opinion, it's just another shallow pejorative.

i think you are spouting Marxist ideas when you lump indirect benefits for American companies as corporate welfare as if all the wealth belongs to the government.

thats what your paragraph implied.

that not making American corporations pay higher taxes amounts to a subsidy to them.

which is much like Obama shouting "You didn't build that!"

Chris
10-01-2014, 09:18 AM
I have explained how free trade with china allows cheap products made in that country to supplant products made by Americans.

yes, you get a cheaper cellphone today but end up growing the welfare state when we have to feed unemployed American workers tomorrow.

so your cheap Chinese gadget is not as cheap as you think it is.



I have explained how free trade with china allows cheap products made in that country to supplant products made by Americans.

That is a claim, mac, not an explanation. What you need to do is show how that benefits the Chinese people and harms the American people. That woukld be interesting since it harms the Chinese people forced to work for lower wages and helps the American people with lower prices.

You will also need to address counterpoint (a), (b) and (c).



you get a cheaper cellphone today but end up growing the welfare state

Again, mac, that is a claim, not an explanation. You need to explain, demonstrate with facts or logic, how that works, not merely leap from one opinion to another: "so your cheap Chinese gadget is not as cheap as you think it is"

Chris
10-01-2014, 09:18 AM
The trouble is that we don't have protectionist polices.

you leave American workers at the mercy of not just foreign companies but foreign government that are taking the American dream away.



The trouble is that we don't have protectionist polices.

Factually incorrect.

Chris
10-01-2014, 09:23 AM
i think you are spouting Marxist ideas when you lump indirect benefits for American companies as corporate welfare as if all the wealth belongs to the government.

thats what your paragraph implied.

that not making American corporations pay higher taxes amounts to a subsidy to them.

which is much like Obama shouting "You didn't build that!"



How is it Marxist, mac, site something Marx said--if you know anything.




as if all the wealth belongs to the government

But that is the assumption behind your protectionist policies which assume the government should control export/import and not leave the American people free to choose for themselves.

Are you the Marxist, mac, in advocating central planning through protectionist policies?




that not making American corporations pay higher taxes amounts to a subsidy to them

Your reading comprehension is lacking, mac. I said nothing about "not making American corporations pay higher taxes amounts to a subsidy to them". I did make an analogy between putting tariffs on foreigners and taxing corporations in that in both cases neither the foreigner nor the corporation pays anything, it's passed along in higher prices so the American people do. Do work on the comprehension, mac.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 11:36 AM
How is it Marxist, mac, site something Marx said--if you know anything.





But that is the assumption behind your protectionist policies which assume the government should control export/import and not leave the American people free to choose for themselves.

Are you the Marxist, mac, in advocating central planning through protectionist policies?





Your reading comprehension is lacking, mac. I said nothing about "not making American corporations pay higher taxes amounts to a subsidy to them". I did make an analogy between putting tariffs on foreigners and taxing corporations in that in both cases neither the foreigner nor the corporation pays anything, it's passed along in higher prices so the American people do. Do work on the comprehension, mac.

Marx hated the private sector that includes corporations.

when you bash corporations the way you did you are parroting Marx.

i don't know if you are a true Marxist but your policies that destroy the middle class will lead to Marxist style government.

government is a necessary evil that we can never do away with.

the question is do we want a simple tax on imported products that allows workers to care for themselves that I want or a wipe-every-nose welfare state that is inevitable under your policies.

Chris
10-01-2014, 11:48 AM
Marx hated the private sector that includes corporations.

when you bash corporations the way you did you are parroting Marx.

i don't know if you are a true Marxist but your policies that destroy the middle class will lead to Marxist style government.

government is a necessary evil that we can never do away with.

the question is do we want a simple tax on imported products that allows workers to care for themselves that I want or a wipe-every-nose welfare state that is inevitable under your policies.


Marx hated the private sector that includes corporations.

Citation of Marx's hate. LOL.


when you bash corporations the way you did you are parroting Marx

You back to putting words in my mouth I didn't post. All I said about corporations was they pass taxes onto consumers. That is well known.


your policies that destroy the middle class will lead to Marxist style government

Substantiate your yet another empty claim. Specify exactly what policies and exactly how they would lead to that--and define "Marxist style government".


government is a necessary evil that we can never do away with

How do you know this?


the question is do we want a simple tax on imported products that allows workers to care for themselves that I want or a wipe-every-nose welfare state that is inevitable under your policies.

False dichotomy of empty claims.

How will a simple tax allow workers to take care of themselves? Consumers, among them, workers, will pay the tax. The tax doesn't go to workers but to government. All government can do is redistribute, but that does not generate wealth, and you've taxed those who do generate wealth. Such a policy can only lead to poverty for workers.

Are you advocating government redistribute revenues to workers? That would fit "to each according to his need". Hey, wait, you';re advocating Marxism!

iustitia
10-01-2014, 12:03 PM
What I've learned from @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014) :

Obama is a Libertarian isolationist
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) is a Marxist

Why, God?

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 12:04 PM
I'm questioning my faith in God right now...

I'll bet you are.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 12:07 PM
Substantiate your yet another empty claim. Specify exactly what policies and exactly how they would lead to that--and define "Marxist style government".



Your economic policies lead to the export of factory jobs to china and other low wage countries.

when the middle class is destroyed - thanks in part to you - the ground is fertile for Marxism.

Chris
10-01-2014, 12:08 PM
What I've learned from @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014) :

Obama is a Libertarian isolationist
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) is a Marxist

Why, God?


And mac is patriotic!

http://i.snag.gy/v7eDg.jpg

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 12:10 PM
How will a simple tax allow workers to take care of themselves? Consumers, among them, workers, will pay the tax. The tax doesn't go to workers but to government. All government can do is redistribute, but that does not generate wealth, and you've taxed those who do generate wealth. Such a policy can only lead to poverty for workers.

!

You keep asking questions as if you know nothing about economics and want me to educate you.

tariffs protect American jobs from foreign competition.

that means workers have jobs that earn the money they need to provide for themselves instead of being unemployed wards of the state.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 12:11 PM
And mac is patriotic!

http://i.snag.gy/v7eDg.jpg


I am patriotic.

are you?

Captain Obvious
10-01-2014, 12:16 PM
I am patriotic.

are you?

Murica!

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140212153712/shipoffools/images/4/4d/Murica_3.png

Chris
10-01-2014, 12:16 PM
Your economic policies lead to the export of factory jobs to china and other low wage countries.

when the middle class is destroyed - thanks in part to you - the ground is fertile for Marxism.



Your economic policies lead to the export of factory jobs to china and other low wage countries.

You keep repeating this claim, mac, explain it, explain the causation.

nic34
10-01-2014, 12:18 PM
And mac is patriotic!

http://i.snag.gy/v7eDg.jpg

Too many pickles.

Chris
10-01-2014, 12:19 PM
You keep asking questions as if you know nothing about economics and want me to educate you.

tariffs protect American jobs from foreign competition.

that means workers have jobs that earn the money they need to provide for themselves instead of being unemployed wards of the state.


No, mac, I'm asking you to explain your opinions, put some meat on the bones of your claims. For example:


tariffs protect American jobs from foreign competition

You keep claiming this without once substantiating it with facts or logic.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 12:19 PM
You keep repeating this claim, mac, explain it, explain the causation.

I keep repeating it and it continues to go over your head.

as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make a libertarian think.

or something like that.

Chris
10-01-2014, 12:21 PM
I keep repeating it and it continues to go over your head.

as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make a libertarian think.

or something like that.


Explain it, use facts and logic and put together an argument.

Ad hom merely raises a white flag.

Do you have an argument or don't you?

Captain Obvious
10-01-2014, 12:22 PM
Too many pickles.

But the amount of sawdust, chemicals, gelatinized horse fetuses and toenail clippings are just right?

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 12:23 PM
Explain it, use facts and logic and put together an argument.

Ad hom merely raises a white flag.

Do you have an argument or don't you?

I keep giving you logic but it never takes root with you.

Chris
10-01-2014, 12:34 PM
I keep giving you logic but it never takes root with you.

No you're not, mac. All you're doing is making outrageous but vacuous claims.

For a good discussion about vacuums go to This thread sucks (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/32537-This-thread-sucks?highlight=vacuum).

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 01:19 PM
All you're doing is making outrageous but vacuous claims.



So are you.

You ignore the loss of manufacturing jobs to china, the decline of the self supporting middle class, and the rise of welfare dependency with vague references to freedom.

but really it all boils down to your addiction to cheap trinkets from china.

Chris
10-01-2014, 01:29 PM
So are you.

You ignore the loss of manufacturing jobs to china, the decline of the self supporting middle class, and the rise of welfare dependency with vague references to freedom.

but really it all boils down to your addiction to cheap trinkets from china.

And now you're back to making things up.

I didn't ignore jobs lost to China. I explained some jobs are lost due to stifling protectionist policies that reduce competition and promote monopoly. And I pointed out that the savings US consumers achieve purchasing cheaper foreign products allows them to purchase even more things they value which demand creates more jobs. I even posted data showing how protectionist policies actually kill jobs.

Just because you ignore these and other arguments I make doesn't mean they don't exist. Open your eyes.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 01:32 PM
And I pointed out that the savings US consumers achieve purchasing cheaper foreign products allows them to purchase even more things they value which demand creates more jobs.

It creates more jobs in china where the products are made and maybe a couple of min wage jobs at Walmart stocking the shelves.

Chris
10-01-2014, 01:42 PM
It creates more jobs in china where the products are made and maybe a couple of min wage jobs at Walmart stocking the shelves.

I see how you are selective in which of my counterpoints you counter with your much repeated claim. But that's OK because (a) you leave the rest of my argument standing and (b) I can wait for you to substantiate your your much repeated claim.

Will you even attempt to substantiate? I doubt it.

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 01:47 PM
I see how you are selective in which of my counterpoints you counter with your much repeated claim. But that's OK because (a) you leave the rest of my argument standing and (b) I can wait for you to substantiate your your much repeated claim.

Will you even attempt to substantiate? I doubt it.

I went went to the gist of your argument.

the loss of jobs to china and the harm that does to working Americans in undeniable except for you.

Chris
10-01-2014, 01:54 PM
I went went to the gist of your argument.

the loss of jobs to china and the harm that does to working Americans in undeniable except for you.

Facts? Logic?

I mean, mac, if this were so simple and obvious, why surely you could state clearly and obviously the facts and logic, rather than merely repeat your claim over and over again. Does the repetition help you to believe yourself?

Mac-7
10-01-2014, 02:02 PM
Facts? Logic?

I mean, mac, if this were so simple and obvious, why surely you could state clearly and obviously the facts and logic, rather than merely repeat your claim over and over again. Does the repetition help you to believe yourself?

Ive presented the logic many times but you refuse to accept it.

and your "logic" only leads to more jobs in china.

Chris
10-01-2014, 02:20 PM
Ive presented the logic many times but you refuse to accept it.

and your "logic" only leads to more jobs in china.


Where's your logic, mac? Point to a post where you do more than make your repeated claim.

http://i.snag.gy/ty70Q.jpg

texan
10-01-2014, 07:02 PM
Cigar and I agree on this point.

But unions are not the answer anymore under their current structure. They are as fat as the companies they pay off.

Safety
10-01-2014, 07:25 PM
Where's your logic, mac? Point to a post where you do more than make your repeated claim.

http://i.snag.gy/ty70Q.jpg

LoL, I remember that commercial....


I'm old.

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 08:38 PM
That's true and it works better when you let the market set wages rather than government intervention. This has to do with the problem of knowledge in society and the economic calculation problem.

Uh, labor union collective bargaining is NOT government intervention.
Just thought I would politely remind you.

But there can be times the NLRB has to intervene, during emergencies, as an arbitrar.

Its part of the checks and balances between management and labor, and worked well for many decades.

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 08:45 PM
FDR was 100 percent right about government unions, however.

Yep, FDR was the first guy to show that constant government meddling and attacking employers will turn the usual recession in a Great Depression or for Obama in newspeak, a Great Recession.

That wasn't what caused either depression, and you know it!
Look no further than the excesses of Wall Street exhuberance, greed and meddling to see the cause.

Both depressions started during Rethuglican regimes, Mr. Hooverville!

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 08:56 PM
Indeed, war is a great racket (Smedley Butler).

However, the end of war kills demand and increases unemployment as the soldiers return home. So how do you deal with that? FDR and his fellow travelers wanted to keep the economy on a war time footing with continued central planning. Congress, however, had other ideas, they dismantled FDR's central planning and deregulated and let the free market adjust itself. The US experience a brief slump before prosperity and growth returned.

Wrong!

The increased spending from WW II kept up after the war, as the US became the protector of the free world. When you pump more $$ into the economy, the economy thrives. Also, our industry thrived because we had little competition from nations that were bombed out. And Union orgs thrived to create the great middle class in 'murica with higher wages and bennies.

You have been reading too much rewritten history by the con holers!

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 09:03 PM
Every time I think you can't get more misinformed, you post and remind me I'm wrong.

Read the graph, genius:

10 years? He wasn't elected until 1932! Duhhhhh!

He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first "hundred days," he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt's New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.
In 1936 he was re-elected by a top-heavy margin. Feeling he was armed with a popular mandate, he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidating key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy.



http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/cd-depression-unemployment.JPG

In 1940, after 10 years of the Roosevelt debacle, unemployment was higher than in 1930.

Prior to the Roosevelt debacle, crashes lasted on average two years.

Dooh!

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 09:08 PM
Hmmmm, Thats odd! Your own chart shows 15% unemployment in 1939, not 20%! And the chart shows declining unemployment since the paek!

Fudge facts much?

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 09:25 PM
Government regulation and taxation has pushed manufacturing and other industries overseas. We started dropping in the Index of Economic Freedom under Bush and continue to do so under his clone Obama.

That's total BS! Since Reagan, we have had extensive deregulation and much lower income and corp taxes! And the elite rich have gotten much richer, and the poor and middle class much poorer!

It was sheer GREED for more profits that sent these companies overseas...nothing else!

You sure do have a problem telling the truth buddy. I'm going to have to hang on your ass like a hemmeroid to keep you honest! jes kiddin!

Chris
10-01-2014, 09:33 PM
That's total BS! Since Reagan, we have had extensive deregulation and much lower income and corp taxes! And the elite rich have gotten much richer, and the poor and middle class much poorer!

It was sheer GREED for more profits that sent these companies overseas...nothing else!

You sure do have a problem telling the truth buddy. I'm going to have to hang on your ass like a hemmeroid to keep you honest! jes kiddin!



I suggest you actually look into the specific sorts of deregulation under Reagan.

I agree the middle class and poor have suffered to make the rent seeking rich richer. What I've been talking about regarding protectionist policies has done a lot of that. Steel, sugar and other tariffs stifle competition and promote monopolies in those industries.


It was sheer GREED for more profits that sent these companies overseas...nothing else!

Now you're agreeing with what I said, do you realize that? Indeed it is the desire to make some profit from investments in capital, in the face of overbearing government taxes and regulations, that drives companies overseas.

So if I'm having trouble with truth, and you agree with me, what are you having trouble with?

Chris
10-01-2014, 09:38 PM
Wrong!

The increased spending from WW II kept up after the war, as the US became the protector of the free world. When you pump more $$ into the economy, the economy thrives. Also, our industry thrived because we had little competition from nations that were bombed out. And Union orgs thrived to create the great middle class in 'murica with higher wages and bennies.

You have been reading too much rewritten history by the con holers!

It is you rewriting history, strange, substituting wht FDR's followers wanted to do for what Congress actually did. Here, in the following chart you see how government spending skyrocketed during WWII, and then immediately following took a deep dive.

http://i.snag.gy/ezx4M.jpg

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending

Let's stick with facts and logic rather than fantasy.

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 09:39 PM
We in the housing industry bear the credit for the boom in the economy. Not Bush nor Obama.

Why aren't we building it that way again?

See Dodd Frank and the many new regulations. It is a rare borrower able to get a loan now.

It is a lot tougher now! The pendulum has swung a bit too far the other way, too much caution, and lenders are afraid of buy backs on loans that go bad, and law suits, and overly anal underwriting doesn't help any.

But if we didn't have Fannie-Freddie and FHA-Va we wouldn't even have a mortgage market to be frank.Investors who buy mortgage bonds are fussy nowadays, for good reason. Big bank lenders make a lot more money on hedge funds and derivitives today than they can with mortgages, so they are beholden to corrupt Wall street interests than ever before.

Chris
10-01-2014, 09:40 PM
That's true and it works better when you let the market set wages rather than government intervention. This has to do with the problem of knowledge in society and the economic calculation problem.


Uh, labor union collective bargaining is NOT government intervention.
Just thought I would politely remind you.

But there can be times the NLRB has to intervene, during emergencies, as an arbitrar.

Its part of the checks and balances between management and labor, and worked well for many decades.


May I point out that I said nothing about unions? You're as good as mac at inventing strawmen to attack.

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 09:53 PM
Right, and then the US started adopting protectionist policies at the same time overregulating and taxing industry at home--doing exactly what you advocate.

When did that happen, Chris?

We have had nothing but free trade agreements, less tariffs, regulations and taxes for 40 years now, and our foreign competitors have prospered, as we slide into decline, and now we have become our own foreign competition, like the injured animal chewing his own arm off.

Its so bad now, even Mexico cannot compete with the Asian slave plants! The US has been WalMarted, and is destroying its own domestic markets now as people become even poorer!

How much further would you like to see us sink into third world shithole status, before we ever turn things around?

Why do you hate America so much?

Mini Me
10-01-2014, 10:09 PM
Free to choose a cardboard box for shelter just like the poorest Indian or Chinese?

no thanks.

Chris live in San Antonio, the US slave trade Utopia for Mexican labor!
I'll bet you prosper off the backs of those hard working slaves, doncha?

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 05:51 AM
Where's your logic, mac? Point to a post where you do more than make your repeated claim.

http://i.snag.gy/ty70Q.jpg

I keep telling you but it doesn't sink in.

free trade with low wage countries like china moves factory jobs from America to china.

that puts American workers on the unemployment line and plays into the hands of the leftwing libs who want government to take care of everyone.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 05:55 AM
Chris live in San Antonio, the US slave trade Utopia for Mexican labor!
I'll bet you prosper off the backs of those hard working slaves, doncha?



Me or Chris?

He's a rightwing lib, aka libertarian, and they tend to want open borders and the more illegal aliens from Mexico the better.

I'm a conservative and do not approve of amnesty or open borders.

Chris
10-02-2014, 06:08 AM
When did that happen, Chris?

We have had nothing but free trade agreements, less tariffs, regulations and taxes for 40 years now, and our foreign competitors have prospered, as we slide into decline, and now we have become our own foreign competition, like the injured animal chewing his own arm off.

Its so bad now, even Mexico cannot compete with the Asian slave plants! The US has been WalMarted, and is destroying its own domestic markets now as people become even poorer!

How much further would you like to see us sink into third world shithole status, before we ever turn things around?

Why do you hate America so much?


What politicians call free trade agreements are better called managed trade agreements in which each county agrees to regulate trade.

I documented earlier how protectionist policies have only increased, go look it up.

If you go look at our dropping lower and lower on the Index of Economic Freedom you'll see why we're sinking to shithole status, overregulation, overtaxation.

Why do you hate liberty so much?

Chris
10-02-2014, 06:09 AM
Chris live in San Antonio, the US slave trade Utopia for Mexican labor!
I'll bet you prosper off the backs of those hard working slaves, doncha?




Like mac you resort to making things up. Pathetic.

Chris
10-02-2014, 06:10 AM
I keep telling you but it doesn't sink in.

free trade with low wage countries like china moves factory jobs from America to china.

that puts American workers on the unemployment line and plays into the hands of the leftwing libs who want government to take care of everyone.


Yes, you keep repeating that manta but offer nothing by way of rational explanation why it would be true. What, it's been three days now you've done nothing but repeat repeat repeat. Boring.

Chris
10-02-2014, 06:12 AM
Me or Chris?

He's a rightwing lib, aka libertarian, and they tend to want open borders and the more illegal aliens from Mexico the better.

I'm a conservative and do not approve of amnesty or open borders.


I'm a libertarian who advocates immigration by invitation only.

Mac, you're a liberal who advocates Marxist policies like tariff to collect revenues to redistribute to workers.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 06:13 AM
Like mac you resort to making things up. Pathetic.

You mean there are no illegal alien Mexicans in San Antonio doing the jobs that American welfare bums refuse to do?

I'd be surprised if even you try to make that claim.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 06:15 AM
I'm a libertarian who advocates immigration by invitation only.


Good for you Chris.

thats the first sensible thing I can remember you saying.

unfortunately most libertarians tend to support open borders.

Chris
10-02-2014, 06:18 AM
Chris live in San Antonio, the US slave trade Utopia for Mexican labor!
I'll bet you prosper off the backs of those hard working slaves, doncha?




You mean there are no illegal alien Mexicans in San Antonio doing the jobs that American welfare bums refuse to do?

I'd be surprised if even you try to make that claim.



So like strange you too like to twist the truth and say SA is full of slaves.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 06:22 AM
So like strange you too like to twist the truth and say SA is full of slaves.

I didn't use the word "slave."

But since you are not an open borders advocate you can disregard the whole post.

midcan5
10-02-2014, 06:37 AM
Not as long as FDR's prolonging the Great Depression or Obama's prolonging the Great Recession. Chris, ET AL

There is so much nonsense in any thread about FDR and the great Depression one can only marvel at the power of corporate propaganda and the lack of historical knowledge of the right wing puppets in America. The history is out there, but the conservatives and most libertarians choose to ignore its reality for the comforting pablum of BS feed to them by corporate sponsored spokespeople and so called think tanks that never think.

A few links for the non corporate puppet mind. A concise timeline is first link.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Summary.htm
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html


Good book on topic below, and check out Galbraith's 'The Great Crash 1929,' as well as his book on economic euphoria as intros.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-New-Deal-Introductions/dp/0195326342/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8

Interesting for today. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/james27


One has to wonder have any right wingers or libertarians ever read a book that wasn't part of the 'Corporate Puppet' curriculum? See also my Education piece in signature.


"A great transformation of American politics began during the years that Ronald Reagan was in the White House. This might not, at first, have appeared the likely outcome of his two administrations. Conservative activists (the same ones who would in later years celebrate Reagan as a saint) struggled during the 1980s with various disappointments: as president, Reagan did not end abortion, he met with Soviet leader Mikhail Corbachev, and he failed to eliminate the welfare state or even notably shrink government bureaucracies. And the enthusiasm within the business community that followed his election did not last long, as the economy sank into a deep recession, with unemployment rising to nearly 10 percent in 1982. As the manufacturing belt began to rust over, political conflicts between industrial companies desperately seeking subsidies and protection and those businesses that were able to thrive in global free markets grew more heated and intense. Tensions erupted between the owners of stock - newly confident and aggressive about using their financial power to compel management to do anything to raise returns - and career corporate executives. Today, the economic changes that began during the 1980s have an air of inevitability about them - the advent of globalization, the shift to a service economy. But at the time these transformations proved devastating to many of the manufacturing companies that had once most vociferously protested the New Deal.

And yet over the course of the decade the old skepticism toward business that had been born in the Great Depression and reawakened for a new generation in the Vietnam era finally began to disappear. The economic transformations of the decade would be interpreted through the framework of the free market vision. The 1970s campaigns to revive the image of capitalism among college students bore fruit in the 1980s. Universities created new centers for the study of business themes such as entrepreneurship. Students in Free Enterprise, a group started in 1975 to bring students together to "discuss what they might do to counteract the stultifying criticism of American business," thrived on small college campuses, funded by companies like Coors, Dow Chemical, and Walmart (as well as the Business Roundtable). The group organized battles of the bands, at which prizes would be doled out to the best pro-business rock anthems, helped silkscreen T-shirts with pro-capitalist messages, and created skits based on Milton Friedman's writings, which college students would perform in local elementary schools. In the workplace, the decline of the old manufacturing cities of [he North and Midwest and the rise of the sprawling suburbs of the Sunbelt metropolises marked the rise of a new economic culture, dominated by companies such as Walmart and Home Depot and Barnes & Noble." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')


Old post: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15815-Where-Keynes-Went-Wrong?p=374400&viewfull=1#post374400

Chris
10-02-2014, 06:41 AM
Chris, ET AL

There is so much nonsense in any thread about FDR and the great Depression one can only marvel at the power of corporate propaganda and the lack of historical knowledge of the right wing puppets in America. The history is out there, but the conservatives and most libertarians choose to ignore its reality for the comforting pablum of BS feed to them by corporate sponsored spokespeople and so called think tanks that never think.

A few links for the non corporate puppet mind. A concise timeline is first link.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Summary.htm
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html


Good book on topic below, and check out Galbraith's 'The Great Crash 1929,' as well as his book on economic euphoria as intros.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-New-Deal-Introductions/dp/0195326342/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8

Interesting for today. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/james27


One has to wonder have any right wingers or libertarians ever read a book that wasn't part of the 'Corporate Puppet' curriculum? See also my Education piece in signature.


"A great transformation of American politics began during the years that Ronald Reagan was in the White House. This might not, at first, have appeared the likely outcome of his two administrations. Conservative activists (the same ones who would in later years celebrate Reagan as a saint) struggled during the 1980s with various disappointments: as president, Reagan did not end abortion, he met with Soviet leader Mikhail Corbachev, and he failed to eliminate the welfare state or even notably shrink government bureaucracies. And the enthusiasm within the business community that followed his election did not last long, as the economy sank into a deep recession, with unemployment rising to nearly 10 percent in 1982. As the manufacturing belt began to rust over, political conflicts between industrial companies desperately seeking subsidies and protection and those businesses that were able to thrive in global free markets grew more heated and intense. Tensions erupted between the owners of stock - newly confident and aggressive about using their financial power to compel management to do anything to raise returns - and career corporate executives. Today, the economic changes that began during the 1980s have an air of inevitability about them - the advent of globalization, the shift to a service economy. But at the time these transformations proved devastating to many of the manufacturing companies that had once most vociferously protested the New Deal.

And yet over the course of the decade the old skepticism toward business that had been born in the Great Depression and reawakened for a new generation in the Vietnam era finally began to disappear. The economic transformations of the decade would be interpreted through the framework of the free market vision. The 1970s campaigns to revive the image of capitalism among college students bore fruit in the 1980s. Universities created new centers for the study of business themes such as entrepreneurship. Students in Free Enterprise, a group started in 1975 to bring students together to "discuss what they might do to counteract the stultifying criticism of American business," thrived on small college campuses, funded by companies like Coors, Dow Chemical, and Walmart (as well as the Business Roundtable). The group organized battles of the bands, at which prizes would be doled out to the best pro-business rock anthems, helped silkscreen T-shirts with pro-capitalist messages, and created skits based on Milton Friedman's writings, which college students would perform in local elementary schools. In the workplace, the decline of the old manufacturing cities of [he North and Midwest and the rise of the sprawling suburbs of the Sunbelt metropolises marked the rise of a new economic culture, dominated by companies such as Walmart and Home Depot and Barnes & Noble." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')


Old post: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15815-Where-Keynes-Went-Wrong?p=374400&viewfull=1#post374400




There is so much nonsense in any thread about FDR and the great Depression....

There is, and you, midcan, just added to it. In fact, once more, you didn't even say anything about the topic.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 06:46 AM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), ET AL
. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Summary.htm)

And yet over the course of the decade the old skepticism toward business that had been born in the Great Depression and reawakened for a new generation in the Vietnam era finally began to disappear. The economic transformations of the decade would be interpreted through the framework of the free market vision. The 1970s campaigns to revive the image of capitalism among college students bore fruit in the 1980s. Universities created new centers for the study of business themes such as entrepreneurship. Students in Free Enterprise, a group started in 1975 to bring students together to "discuss what they might do to counteract the stultifying criticism of American business," thrived on small college campuses, funded by companies like Coors, Dow Chemical, and Walmart (as well as the Business Roundtable). The group organized battles of the bands, at which prizes would be doled out to the best pro-business rock anthems, helped silkscreen T-shirts with pro-capitalist messages, and created skits based on Milton Friedman's writings, which college students would perform in local elementary schools. In the workplace, the decline of the old manufacturing cities of [he North and Midwest and the rise of the sprawling suburbs of the Sunbelt metropolises marked the rise of a new economic culture, dominated by companies such as Walmart and Home Depot and Barnes & Noble." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')


Old post: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15815-Where-Keynes-Went-Wrong?p=374400&viewfull=1#post374400

So the problem as you see it is that too many Americans forgot how to hate corporations?

Chris
10-02-2014, 07:00 AM
mac, midcan is a protectionist just like you. He just doesn't wrap the flag of patriotism around it.

Ethereal
10-02-2014, 07:05 AM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), ET AL

There is so much nonsense in any thread about FDR and the great Depression one can only marvel at the power of corporate propaganda and the lack of historical knowledge of the right wing puppets in America. The history is out there, but the conservatives and most libertarians choose to ignore its reality for the comforting pablum of BS feed to them by corporate sponsored spokespeople and so called think tanks that never think.

A few links for the non corporate puppet mind. A concise timeline is first link.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Summary.htm
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html


Good book on topic below, and check out Galbraith's 'The Great Crash 1929,' as well as his book on economic euphoria as intros.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-New-Deal-Introductions/dp/0195326342/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8

Interesting for today. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/james27


One has to wonder have any right wingers or libertarians ever read a book that wasn't part of the 'Corporate Puppet' curriculum? See also my Education piece in signature.


"A great transformation of American politics began during the years that Ronald Reagan was in the White House. This might not, at first, have appeared the likely outcome of his two administrations. Conservative activists (the same ones who would in later years celebrate Reagan as a saint) struggled during the 1980s with various disappointments: as president, Reagan did not end abortion, he met with Soviet leader Mikhail Corbachev, and he failed to eliminate the welfare state or even notably shrink government bureaucracies. And the enthusiasm within the business community that followed his election did not last long, as the economy sank into a deep recession, with unemployment rising to nearly 10 percent in 1982. As the manufacturing belt began to rust over, political conflicts between industrial companies desperately seeking subsidies and protection and those businesses that were able to thrive in global free markets grew more heated and intense. Tensions erupted between the owners of stock - newly confident and aggressive about using their financial power to compel management to do anything to raise returns - and career corporate executives. Today, the economic changes that began during the 1980s have an air of inevitability about them - the advent of globalization, the shift to a service economy. But at the time these transformations proved devastating to many of the manufacturing companies that had once most vociferously protested the New Deal.

And yet over the course of the decade the old skepticism toward business that had been born in the Great Depression and reawakened for a new generation in the Vietnam era finally began to disappear. The economic transformations of the decade would be interpreted through the framework of the free market vision. The 1970s campaigns to revive the image of capitalism among college students bore fruit in the 1980s. Universities created new centers for the study of business themes such as entrepreneurship. Students in Free Enterprise, a group started in 1975 to bring students together to "discuss what they might do to counteract the stultifying criticism of American business," thrived on small college campuses, funded by companies like Coors, Dow Chemical, and Walmart (as well as the Business Roundtable). The group organized battles of the bands, at which prizes would be doled out to the best pro-business rock anthems, helped silkscreen T-shirts with pro-capitalist messages, and created skits based on Milton Friedman's writings, which college students would perform in local elementary schools. In the workplace, the decline of the old manufacturing cities of [he North and Midwest and the rise of the sprawling suburbs of the Sunbelt metropolises marked the rise of a new economic culture, dominated by companies such as Walmart and Home Depot and Barnes & Noble." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')


Old post: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15815-Where-Keynes-Went-Wrong?p=374400&viewfull=1#post374400

FDR was born into the elite, and a product of his environment. That you would accuse others of falling prey to corporate propaganda while defending a terminal trust fund baby elitist like FDR is quite amusing indeed.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 09:06 AM
mac, midcan is a protectionist just like you. He just doesn't wrap the flag of patriotism around it.

A protectionist who hates the American companies he is protecting?

The children of that marriage must get a lot strange looks from
people on the street.

Chris
10-02-2014, 09:23 AM
A protectionist who hates the American companies he is protecting?

The children of that marriage must get a lot strange looks from
people on the street.

I don't see much difference between hating American companies and hating American consumers like you do. The results of protectionism are the same.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 09:49 AM
I don't see much difference between hating American companies and hating American consumers like you do.

Why would I hate myself?

i would rather have my fellow consumers working to earn the money they consume with instead of taxing me to give to them.

Captain Obvious
10-02-2014, 09:52 AM
Why would I hate myself?

i would rather have my fellow consumers working to earn the money they consume with instead of taxing me to give to them.

Thank God you're here, Chris was desperate for someone to bicker with.

Chris
10-02-2014, 09:54 AM
Why would I hate myself?

i would rather have my fellow consumers working to earn the money they consume with instead of taxing me to give to them.

Not sure why. Think you must somehow exclude yourself. You're the one proposing protectionists tariffs to redistribute to workers.

Chris
10-02-2014, 09:55 AM
Thank God you're here, Chris was desperate for someone to bicker with.

Aw, poor cappy. Spread your BS somewhere else, will ya.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 10:19 AM
Not sure why. Think you must somehow exclude yourself. You're the one proposing protectionists tariffs to redistribute to workers.

Better that the money remains in American hands than going to the Chinese.

Chris
10-02-2014, 10:49 AM
Better that the money remains in American hands than going to the Chinese.

As I already explained US$ going to China can only be used to purchase good made here.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 11:06 AM
As I already explained US$ going to China can only be used to purchase good made here.

china buys it's very little made in America.

the annual trade deficit with china is about $300 billion.

Chris
10-02-2014, 11:11 AM
china buys it's very little made in America.

the annual trade deficit with china is about $300 billion.

Then why'd you say…

"Better that the money remains in American hands than going to the Chinese."


Deficit? As also explained the US and China don't trade, only people trade.

Mac-7
10-02-2014, 11:17 AM
Then why'd you say…

"Better that the money remains in American hands than going to the Chinese."

i support trade policy that does not result in a $300 billion deficit.



Deficit? As also explained the US and China don't trade, only people trade.

That's your twisted logic not mine.

Chris
10-02-2014, 11:26 AM
i support trade policy that does not result in a $300 billion deficit.




That's your twisted logic not mine.

That's not mine nor is it logic but a fact, nations don't trade, people do.

Why do you support reducing something imaginary?

Peter1469
10-02-2014, 11:56 AM
That's not mine nor is it logic but a fact, nations don't trade, people do.

Why do you support reducing something imaginary?

If a Chinese corporation is owned by the Chinese Army, does a Chinese individual trade, or does the Chinese government trade?

Bob
10-02-2014, 11:56 AM
Guys, you are not getting anywhere.

Bear in mind, money spent in China returns a good to the USA. The Chinese desires the cash and the American desires the product. Call it what you want, but each trade is balanced.

To explain further

The America has less desire to keep the cash vs owning the product. The product produces profit when sold in the usa. There is no profit in money unless it is loaned.

The American seeking profits feels the money is best spent on Chinese products.

Should we worry about a trade deficit? I don't worry about it because cash comes from printing presses and if America needs currency, they simply print more of it.

A good way to see it locally, you have cash. You desire a car. You go to the dealer and hand him cash for the car. To you, the car has more value. To the Dealer, he must turn over cars to collect his profit. Each is happy with the transaction. Nobody feels worse off.

Actually due to almost instant depreciation, the auto buyer is worse off yet still is proud to show off the new car.

Bob
10-02-2014, 11:58 AM
If a Chinese corporation is owned by the Chinese Army, does a Chinese individual trade, or does the Chinese government trade?

Nations trade all the time. We know that Peter1469.