Printable View
Citizens of the U.S. don't have to pay taxes, but if they need health care or surgery, it's very expensive. We get it practically for free. You can pay $100,000 for heart surgery or pay little by little for any sort of insurance against health problems through taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT
im ok with taxes if its used for right things. unfortunately in the us, no one pays taxes, and when they raise taxes a little the rich start complaining about paying too much.
Im a center-left authoritarian. Yeah i support higher taxes for bigger corporations, but not complete nationalism where unions control everything.
There are either very few stupid people at DV, or a whole lot of bleeding hearts. And stupid people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
Plus, a bunch of us haven't voted due to the, well, limited voting options.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...4.12&soc=-5.13
Here's what I got.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atras
And because it seems to be something expected of the posters:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...6.25&soc=-5.38
I had not voted yet because of the limited choices as well. Conservatism and Liberalism can be the exact same thing, or opposite depending on the context and reference point you are using. Especially since modern usages of the word differ from historical and dictionary definition of the words. Which is why when asked, I just say I am a small government person. That pretty much sums up my position on most things.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...4.62&soc=-4.62
Mine seems pretty accurate. I'd consider myself a libertarian in many ways and an anarcho-capitalist.
The poll sucks, liberal/conservative can describe many aspects of political belief. I will abstain from voting.
Moderate. :P
Economically in the US, though, I might be considered liberal since I advocate higher taxes and more social healthcare/etc as in Europe/Canada. Although the "invisible hand" kind of theory works quite well, the problem is is that in the meantime your entire population becomes so utterly demoralized and poor that they end up either starving to death or abandoning the system completely. We have to have a heart in government. Anyways, though I do advocate capitalism, it has to be used in conjunction with Keynesian theory.
Socially, I suppose I'm liberal... I do advocate abortion and gay rights. But whatever.
I guess I would be considered liberal after all. I think that's just a shift in the overton window in the US, though. Anywhere else I'm a moderate.
How are those keynesian policies working out for ya?
I don't mean total Keynesian theory. Obviously our debt in the US today is somewhat the fault of those theories. Either way, his theories are essentially what saved us during the Great Depression. So... I wouldn't say it's working out that badly. Basically, my point is... pure laissez faire economics doesn't really work today, we need some intervention. I like capitalism, but I also think regulation is very important. Obviously I'm not advocating the cutting of taxes, which is basically the Keynesian method that worked in the 40's, but isn't really working now. I already said I wanted them raised. :P
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
The worse the economy get the more regulation the government tries to put on it. Which usually has the opposite effect of making things worse. Most of the problems we face are the problems we created our self from bad policy. You pointed out the debt as an example and no one can give a better one than that.
Liberal, this is the Internet, conservatives can't fire out how to work it I don't think :P. They are too bush trying to create logic for the bible and tax breaks for those who have the means to help themselves
As I understand it, the debt today is somewhat the fault of Keynesian theory for the same reason it got us out of the great depression. Basically, he had a theory that saving money is bad, and that when you spend your money and put it into the economy, you get something called the "multiplier effect" which means that your economy is going to be benefited by that money exponentially as it moves through the system. So that whole thing about "inspiring consumer confidence" in order for us consumers to spend freely, not bothering to save, is a philosophy the government has adapted and which, though it got us out the the great depression, is putting us deeper and deeper into debt. But, of course, this policy is only partially responsible. There are many other factors at play, though I wouldn't say I'm informed enough to pick them out.
Also, Alric, I think Keynesian economics says that in times of recession, the government should spend more and put more regulations on the economy (automatic stabilizers) and during times of prosperity, spend less and have less programs. It actually makes sense if you read about it, but I'm not so sure it's really working today because of a lag time.
Before we get into this, what caused the Great Depression?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
http://i41.tinypic.com/317clcx.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
:huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seroquel
You're making me very self-conscious. :c I'll admit I'm not overly informed on economics and politics. I only have a basic knowledge. If you're going to dispute my points, you can go ahead and do it. I probably won't bother arguing about it, since I'll only look ignorant in comparison. :P
But to answer your question, as far as I know, the exact causes of the Great Depression are not really known, and still debated. I've had some brief education in US History, obviously, but nothing in depth.
Fair enough. But I must ask, if you're not all that well-versed in economics, why do you possess the confidence to claim that (1) free-market economics (what you call the "invisible hand" theory) demoralizes people and leaves them poor and (2) that capitalism must be used in conjunction with the ideas of Keynes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Hmm no, not exactly what I meant when I mentioned the invisible hand. What I meant was that because the economy will have a drastic cycle of ups and downs, during the downs quality of life will generally be pretty crappy. That's all I meant. Because we're humans, and we generally want to improve society to a point where we have a minimum of suffering, it's best to have some kind of "welfare" or "social security" type systems in place. It's better to have some regulations so that the inevitable "downs" are cushioned a bit. Also I didn't say they must, rather that I like the ideas from what I've learned, and that I think part of them being used in countries like the US is a good idea.
I'm not well-versed, and I certainly don't have any confidence. But I don't mind throwing ideas out there and being wrong sometimes.
Why isn't there a neither?
What is described with the Keynesian theory is basically the cause of the up and down cycles. It doesn't cushion the downs, it actually makes them far worse.
If you leave the market alone you will see natural movement up and down, but they even them self out. You have mild recessions followed by quick recovery. With all the manipulation we do to our market with the Keynesian view, we cause the market bubbles to form, where the price of stuff are far above what the market can bare long term. Because the prices are pushed to extreme levels when they eventually fall(and they must) the fall is far more severe than normal.
Also if you leave markets alone, when things go down bad businesses are eliminated, and after the recovery happens you are left with a stronger overall economy. With the view our government takes, they bail out companies, or give special tax benefits and stuff to the bad businesses. Which in a way promotes risky business practices. if you look at the bank problems, that is all the fault of the government, because they protect them. If you know the government will save you if things go bad it gives you reasons to take very risky investments. High risk means high profit, and if the government bails you out then there is no real risk. If you are risking your own money and the government wont save you, companies would be far more careful.
I can't really blame you for holding the opinion, because its the same that most people in the government preach. I think the reason the Keynesian view is so popular with government is because the government likes to increase its size so more regulation is appealing to them, and because it promotes short term gain at the expensive of long term stability, which is also appealing to elected officials who are more interested in what happens on their watch, than what happens after they get out of office.
Of course it doesn't work. If you really think about it, it is obvious why. The entire Keynesian theory is based on an increase in consumer spending. It has to always increase, and if it stops you get the bust cycle where the economy collapses until it can reset itself. We cant continue to spending more and more, because eventually we go broke. This is pretty much common sense. Our elected government is full of morons. They know just enough about economy to get them self in trouble, and not enough to fix anything.
The "invisible hand" thing comes from Adam Smith, sometimes called the "father of capitalism" (wrongfully so, IMO). Hence, it's usually attributed to free-market economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Well the first question I would ask is: how do you know such a thing will happen?Quote:
What I meant was that because the economy will have a drastic cycle of ups and downs, during the downs quality of life will generally be pretty crappy.
So the question I would ask here is: how do you know such programs are 1) sustainable and 2) the best options?Quote:
That's all I meant. Because we're humans, and we generally want to improve society to a point where we have a minimum of suffering, it's best to have some kind of "welfare" or "social security" type systems in place. It's better to have some regulations so that the inevitable "downs" are cushioned a bit. Also I didn't say they must, rather that I like the ideas from what I've learned, and that I think part of them being used in countries like the US is a good idea.
This is good, but it just sort of looks odd to see a person who says they aren't very well-versed to throw out all of these recommendations and, when pressed, say they can't defend them (rather, don't feel comfortable doing so).Quote:
I'm not well-versed, and I certainly don't have any confidence. But I don't mind throwing ideas out there and being wrong sometimes.
I dunno, I've been in that position many times. Maybe I'm being too harsh lol