I agree, the politicians took Keyne's ideas and immediately started misusing them. Now we are nearly 100 years in and far beyond a situation in which deficit spending should apply. Not enough economists have spoken out against this.
Hmm, I see what you are saying but it is more complicated. I think there is plenty of evidence out there that third-party payer systems lead to inflated prices. Easy loans have led to high tuition and thus more debt held by individuals than would have otherwise existed. Also you seem to be assuming that just because the government funded something (internet, highways), these things would not have been created otherwise. Do you have any evidence for this? Are there any countries that had privately funded highways, etc.
Also, just because a government solution is ideal doesn't mean a federal government solution is ideal. Could states have handled these types of projects better?
I don't really have answers, I am just pointing out your hidden assumptions. If anyone does please contribute.
Keynesian Economists will tell you that a balance budget when you are trying to grow the economy is a bad idea, as long as the debt can be paid off later during a time of plenty
We should have balanced the budget during the last boom. Instead we went to war and cut taxes for the wealthiest people. Now we are in the shit and can't afford to.
This is exactly right. With reference to your earlier mention of:
Economists will tell you that a balance budget when you are trying to grow the economy is a bad idea.
You are first of all grouping all economists together (don't do that). Second, the economists who will tell you deficit spending is a good idea will nuance it by saying that the debt needs to be paid off during a boom. Deficit spending without paying off the debt is what has been happening, and I don't think any economist will tell you that is a good idea.
So if we have consistently observed that, in practice, deficit spending occurs but no budget balancing happens, should anyone really be supporting deficit spending?
Why do you think anyone is against research funding? It is possible to be against "government-determined" research funding, there are alternatives.
A common argument against a private alternative is that there is no profit motive. But if taxes were lower people may donate to a private non-profit that serves the same function as government in funding basic research. We could argue about how likely people would be to voluntarily donate, and whether a private organization would be more or less efficient than the government... but that would be a different (and much more productive) argument.
Well, the US spends about $150 billion on science research per year. That works out to about $1,000 per income tax payer per year. If you didn't have to pay taxes, how much would you voluntarily donate each year to a private "basic research" organization?
giving women the free choice to engage in sex without shame and with medical attention
Can you please expand on this with reference to the actual law? I know what you are referring to but I just want to hear it explained in your own words.
In answer I'll give a thought from a 36 year old on the issue of prostitution that I didn't consider when I was 18. I think of all women(people really), if you polled their opinions at age 36, as to whether or not the average 18 year old is likely to be maturely educated enough to deal fairly intellegently, and with sufficient basis in knowledge and experience, of life and death issues (such as those with the possible undesired/unintended consequence of the creation of a new life), I'd guess many would say- you know, even 18 year olds it's pretty sketchy as to how wise it is to act as if their consent is the same as what we mean in the ideal when we say 'fully informed consent'. And the same goes with the angle of the serious financial transactions of one's life. I.e. I, and I don't think I'm that unusual in this regard, consider myself to have been extremely naive about the fabric of the global economy at even the age of 18. All I'm really saying with this long winded comment is to take the next steps of your hypothetical journey into kids(or even naive young 'adults') consenting when there is significant $$ changing hands during the same event.
I think you are conflating age with experience. Also you never mention prostitution after the first sentence which is kinda weird.
I would agree that half-assed libertarianism probably doesn't work. I disagree that a system as complex as human society can ever be summed up into a "simple reality".
It wouldn't regulate, it would inform consumers of what is trusted and what is not trusted and offer expert opinion in court. It would be like the FDA without teeth.
Also, keep in mind I am not talking about anything being perfect. I am comparing a theoretical concept to the way it works today. Does the FDA have perfect information? How common are errors in approving drugs? How many contaminated foodstuffs get through? How many false positives are there? If you have enough money can you get around FDA bans?A real discussion about this would include those numbers, which I do not have yet. The answer to the last one is clearly yes, look at cigarettes.
Because an imperfect free market is what we saw during the industrial revolution. When most people say they want a free market, they don't have child labor, unsafe working condition, rampant and unfettered pollution in mind. Profit-seeking entities actively try to move away from the equilibrium price predicted by perfect market economics by violating the tenants of a perfect market economy. They collude with each other, price fix, employ unsafe labor practices, pollute the environment, etc. The only reason they can do these things is because of information imbalances.
Hmm, I still think you are arguing a strawman. All that bad stuff was going on before the industrial revolution (well probably not pollution), so I don't think we can draw any kind of correlation. I also don't see why you think there was a "free market" during the 1700-1900s, please provide some evidence for this. Maybe we are still using two different definitions.
Here's how the argument usually goes. I say "In a free market unregulated by government, companies create unsafe products. This is why we need the FDA." The free market proponent in turn says "In a free market, a competitor will enter the marketplace that does not create unsafe products, and people will buy that product instead. Thus, through the miracles of the free market, the irresponsible company will go out of business and the economy will regulate itself." But again, this does NOT happen in an imperfect free market because of barriers of entry, imperfect information, geographic conditions, etc.
Well whoever you are arguing is dumb. The real argument is whether or not you think an organization would arise to play the same role the FDA does. One of the problems in assessing this is that its hard to tell how much each of us is paying for the FDA. But it is an interesting question and I personally don't dismiss the possibility out of hand like you seem to be doing.
I disagree, it is pretty obvious that free markets will not be perfect. The issue is whether they function better than regulated markets or not. What gave you the idea that people think free=perfect? Maybe it is a cultural difference, or maybe it is just people say perfect when they mean "most perfect", or "better than the alternatives."
I agree with you. However, there are many people who say "well if they're watching me they must be pretty bored, hahaha". Usually putting a face on it (whether your own or someone you know) can drive the point home that this stuff is creepy.
Even if you don't care if the government knows everything about you... do you trust them to keep your info safe from hackers? Do you want ME to know everything you do?
Slashdot Mirror
You are leaving out part of the equation: What is the probability that the investment in cancer research will lead to a cure in 20 years?
Which economists? Name one. I am interested in how this theory works.
I agree, the politicians took Keyne's ideas and immediately started misusing them. Now we are nearly 100 years in and far beyond a situation in which deficit spending should apply. Not enough economists have spoken out against this.
Hmm, I see what you are saying but it is more complicated. I think there is plenty of evidence out there that third-party payer systems lead to inflated prices. Easy loans have led to high tuition and thus more debt held by individuals than would have otherwise existed. Also you seem to be assuming that just because the government funded something (internet, highways), these things would not have been created otherwise. Do you have any evidence for this? Are there any countries that had privately funded highways, etc.
Also, just because a government solution is ideal doesn't mean a federal government solution is ideal. Could states have handled these types of projects better?
I don't really have answers, I am just pointing out your hidden assumptions. If anyone does please contribute.
I think the presidents primary function has become a political "negativity sponge". Congress is far more to blame than any president.
FTFY
This is exactly right. With reference to your earlier mention of:
You are first of all grouping all economists together (don't do that). Second, the economists who will tell you deficit spending is a good idea will nuance it by saying that the debt needs to be paid off during a boom. Deficit spending without paying off the debt is what has been happening, and I don't think any economist will tell you that is a good idea.
So if we have consistently observed that, in practice, deficit spending occurs but no budget balancing happens, should anyone really be supporting deficit spending?
Why do you think anyone is against research funding? It is possible to be against "government-determined" research funding, there are alternatives.
A common argument against a private alternative is that there is no profit motive. But if taxes were lower people may donate to a private non-profit that serves the same function as government in funding basic research. We could argue about how likely people would be to voluntarily donate, and whether a private organization would be more or less efficient than the government... but that would be a different (and much more productive) argument.
Well, the US spends about $150 billion on science research per year. That works out to about $1,000 per income tax payer per year. If you didn't have to pay taxes, how much would you voluntarily donate each year to a private "basic research" organization?
Can you please expand on this with reference to the actual law? I know what you are referring to but I just want to hear it explained in your own words.
I think you are conflating age with experience. Also you never mention prostitution after the first sentence which is kinda weird.
Reversing mods to say this...
Have you ever raked leaves for 80 hours?
Look at the google trends for "housing bubble". It looks like plenty of people saw it coming.
I would agree that half-assed libertarianism probably doesn't work. I disagree that a system as complex as human society can ever be summed up into a "simple reality".
Got any data to back that up?
So, assuming you study this stuff: please explain why "deregulate, lower taxes, and eliminate minimum wage bad"?
I usually do, but for some reason I failed on this one.
Not bad. It is still summing up a complex concept, there are multiple mutually exclusive types of equality and hierarchy though.
Repapetilta?
It wouldn't regulate, it would inform consumers of what is trusted and what is not trusted and offer expert opinion in court. It would be like the FDA without teeth.
Also, keep in mind I am not talking about anything being perfect. I am comparing a theoretical concept to the way it works today. Does the FDA have perfect information? How common are errors in approving drugs? How many contaminated foodstuffs get through? How many false positives are there? If you have enough money can you get around FDA bans?A real discussion about this would include those numbers, which I do not have yet. The answer to the last one is clearly yes, look at cigarettes.
I still don't think the word is being used right. In that case finish the following sentences:
Feudalism is simply about...
Socialism is simply about...
Hmm, I still think you are arguing a strawman. All that bad stuff was going on before the industrial revolution (well probably not pollution), so I don't think we can draw any kind of correlation. I also don't see why you think there was a "free market" during the 1700-1900s, please provide some evidence for this. Maybe we are still using two different definitions.
Well whoever you are arguing is dumb. The real argument is whether or not you think an organization would arise to play the same role the FDA does. One of the problems in assessing this is that its hard to tell how much each of us is paying for the FDA. But it is an interesting question and I personally don't dismiss the possibility out of hand like you seem to be doing.
I disagree, it is pretty obvious that free markets will not be perfect. The issue is whether they function better than regulated markets or not. What gave you the idea that people think free=perfect? Maybe it is a cultural difference, or maybe it is just people say perfect when they mean "most perfect", or "better than the alternatives."
I agree with you. However, there are many people who say "well if they're watching me they must be pretty bored, hahaha". Usually putting a face on it (whether your own or someone you know) can drive the point home that this stuff is creepy.
Even if you don't care if the government knows everything about you... do you trust them to keep your info safe from hackers? Do you want ME to know everything you do?