Clearly you have no clue about the fundamentals of computing. Let's break it into small pieces:
Perl: turing-complete.
Python: turing-complete.
Ruby: turing-complete
POSIX shell: turing complete.
So how exactly are they ``many times more powerful''?
All you're doing is demonstrating how little you actually know, so will happily skip the second half of your gibberish and repeat:
Brain. Do you use it?
Yes, they are. But that it's *possible* to do the same things with any of those tools says nothing about which one provides functionality which makes the job easier. For example, writing a script to gather, parse and reformat log files across multiple, heterogeneous systems is immensely simpler to write with Perl (and its associated modules) than to do so with BASH. Sigh.
Apparently, you've never had to manage large environments or you'd know that. Or worse yet, you're probably a coder with no clue about large-scale systems and network administration. Go upstairs and get another Red Bull from your parents' fridge and let the adults do their job.
Oh, right, because python, perl or ruby scripts totally don't need a python, perl or ruby interpreter/runtime to run.
There is no difference between that, and, say, posix shell.
Brain. Do you use it?
Please. Perl/Python/Ruby are many times more powerful than any POSIX shell and I *can* install ports of those interpreters/runtimes on multiple platforms (including *nix, Linux, Windows, OS X, etc, etc, etc) allowing me to run my management tools *unmodiifed* on multiple platforms. Use my brain? Why would I want to develop/maintain different tools on different platforms to perform the same management and admin tasks, when I can develop and maintain a single set of tools? This is not rocket science here, just simple logic. So, either you're on drugs, never had to manage/maintain large numbers of systems in a heterogeneous environment or you're a troll. Your pick. Have a nice day!
Apparently, I have to. But it's a quick one:
A CLI typically is a 'scripting environment', especially the unix CLI which is what TFA is about.
So your statement really says that using the CLI is superior to using the CLI, or the GUI.
Yes, you can write shell scripts. However, I was referring to things like Perl or Python as scripting environments. They not only provide powerful tools, they can also be used in cross-platform environments and, depending on the functions involved, run unmodified. That's why scripting environments like Perl, Python and Ruby are *often* (note I don't say always) superior to the CLI or GUI.
There are a lot of reasons to criticize powershell (startup time for one, memory usage for another), but sadly the ones here basically amount to "I hate closed source" or "I gave it 5 minutes and I didnt like it" or "im a unix guy and see no need for it". Those may be true, but theyre not faults with powershell
Let me clarify my point from a few replies ago. As an admin, it's not about BASH vs. Powershell, it's about having tools I can use across multiple platforms *without modification*.
If I have to write Powershell scripts to accomplish something on Windows and then Perl or Python scripts to accomplish *the same thing* on UNIX/Linux, I'm duplicating effort in creating and maintaining those scripts.
Us admins hate duplicating work. We like to do things in a way that takes the least effort to do the job correctly. Any kind of "religious war" about this is stupid.
I don't have time to worry about which tool is "cooler" than another. I have real work to do.
I dont disagree, but one of the reasons I love powershell is because there is so much vendor support for it. Rather than having to use crappily written vendor provided scripts, or learn a new set of syntax and instructions for everything, you can just use one set of cmdlets to manage everything. For example, managing storage units, virtual infrastructure, and networking (if you were using Cisco UCS for example) would involve a unified set of syntax and command structure (verb-noun-- GET-nacifsshare; REMOVE-cluster), with output that can easily be manipulated and passed around. Everything is an object; everything can be piped into get-member to discover its methods, properties, and data types.
Obviously it will depend on what platform youre on; if your work involves primarily *nix boxes I imagine you would want to stick with bash. But Ive found that it is incredibly rewarding to work with powershell in a windows environment just because of how easy it is to take knowledge from one task and apply it to many others, and how easy it is to get your bearings in an unfamiliar task.
I know. I've used Powershell for a variety of vendors and it can be quite nice. However, if it's not just proprietary vendors stuff or just UNIX/Linux boxes or just Windows boxes, using Perl or Python scripts (written or at least customized by me, of course) can be the best way to manage across platforms. As far as just a general command-line goes, BASH kicks Powershell's ass every day of the week and twice on Sundays IMHO.
Your finger needs to slip quite a few times to add the --no-preserve-root to that command (it might be GNU coreutils exclusive though).:)
I've clicked the wrong button on a GUI several times, just as I've made typos on the command line. Both have the potential to screw things up unless I'm being careful.
I don't know how many times at my previous job that some Windows admin deleted whole sections of our AD database via the GUI. That GUI doesn't even have an option to prompt before deletion, whereas I can just insert "alias rm='rm -i'" into root's ~/.bashrc. Just sayin'.
Practically speaking, for sysadmins, whether source is available is not always (or often) going to be terribly relevant.
Typical developer outlook. Sysadmins have always dealt with source code, and any sysadmin worth their salt knows at least two languages of any importance.
Having the source allows us to debug misbehaving software (runnin g strace/ltrace/dtrace and compare the output to the source), it allows us to patch bugs or patch to add new features, it allows us to back-port newer software and recompile software against different library versions.
Understanding what the tools do under the hood is important. Using command line tools is not. I could write in assembly if I really wanted to, but I use C# for most stuff. I understand what it does under the hood, but that doesn't mean I have to always work at that level. Using GUI tools is the same thing. I know my GUI tools for administering a Windows server and I can typically make complex adjustments just as fast on it as my UNIX buddy can do using command line tools on his Linux boxes. The difference is what we are comfortable with. Some things go faster with one command, but when you have more complex actions, sometimes the GUI is faster. Either way, you still have to know your system and know what all the buttons or commands actually do.
Absolutely. As an admin, what's important to me is being able to manage the systems I'm responsible for in a sane, sensible, repeatable and documentable fashion. Depending on the situation and the platform(s) involved, that may be a CLI or it may be a GUI. Often, using a scripting environment is superior to both the CLI or the GUI.
Not all of us are poor or need mommy and daddy to give us an allowance. $2000 for a computer isn't even 2 weeks of pay and I'm not even a highly paid programmer.
Oh, and yes that's completely true. cf. Cygnus Tools [cygwin.com] for Windows and, well, OS/X *is* UNIX.
Yes, you've actually gotten the point.
And when you need 100 VMs? Or 1000? Mommy and daddy better have pretty deep pockets then, eh?
Cygwin is the only thing that made life tolerable while doing development work for companies that only allowed employees to run Windows. I don't think I'd call it an abomination, it's perfectly fine if all you need is a bash shell and the standard tools (find, grep, sed, etc). But I hope I never have to use it again, mostly because I hope to never be stuck on Windows again.
As I mentioned above, it's not just the shell and coreutils. Perl, python, ruby and the GNU dev (yes, I know it's very quirky) tools as well as X11 (in multiple window mode), make using Windows quite tolerable for me. Of course, using *NIX is prefereable, but you can't always get what you want, especially in corporate environments.
I cant speak to whether there are things that bash does that Powershell does not, but I get the feeling you havent actually used powershell or understood what it can do.
I know you weren't responding to me with this, but I *have* used Powershell and, for what it is, it can be very useful. However, in a heterogeneous environment, having scripts (and not just shell scripts either, we're talking perl, python, ruby and a fully functional GNU dev environment) that can run unmodified on both Windows and UNIX[like] systems is extremely useful, IMHO.
I guess you did not really contemplate what I stated regarding what it would take for the data to be a scientific study. Those are not studies, those are opinion pieces that use specific statistics to bolster the opinion that social safety nets are good. In order for there to be a study, there would need to be a true capitalist republic to measure against, and we don't have any of those. The US used to be close to that ideal, and if you measure the economy as a whole from 1950-1970 you have something close. Once you hit the Nixon years it all went down the shitter. All "Western" countries have followed the Keynesian principles from roughly the same time.
Now think again, and show me in the World Bank paper where they measured against a country that does not follow the debt policies of Keynesian economics. I'm not going to wait, there is no such comparison. It is pure opinion, not science.
Further, it is using false data to draw their conclusion. Look at Page 4 you will see that their claim simply denies facts. Show me where total poverty has been decreased under Keynesian economics. Show me where the median income vs. inflation has improved. Show me where wealth disparity has improved. You won't find any such thing, yet this is what is assumed in order to move right on the graph and the paper assumes incorrectly that those programs lead to the right. It's rubbish!
I'll say again, that under certain circumstances social safety nets can have value. What they can't have is a prosperous outcome, and it should only take a basic level of reasoning to make that determination. If you go to the bank and borrow money, you are in debt. You can go to a different bank to take out loans to pay the interest, but you don't get out of debt this way. You simply move the debt around. At a certain point, nobody will loan you money any longer. People falsely claim that Governments are immune to this, because they print money. The Weimar Republic should be enough proof that Governments are absolutely not immune, and the default has a catastrophic effect on society. If you believe it can only happen in a history book, look at Greece.
Since you apparently have reading comprehension issues, I'll let this go. I hope your problem doesn't cause you too many issues in your personal life.. Ciao.
What you linked is not scientific study but opinion pieces, and you want a true scientific study to be returned? You gave a Google search which returns lots of opinions about how those programs help, but no studies. Hell, the articles you linked don't even consider an alternative opinion or point of debate. Kind of the state we are in today, nobody can give alternative opinions.
How would you devise such a study? Think about that rationally for a minute and let that question sink in. A "study" is quite impossible! Who's country do we use as the bench mark, the study case, and the "normal"?
Max Kaiser, Milton Friedman, and countless others would have as many pretty graphs as what you see today backing the alternative opinion.
A large number of actual studies have been done. References to and highlights of findings can be found in the annex of this World bank paper on Productive Role of Safety Nets. It includes a large number of studies which look at direct payments (ala unemployment benefits), Food aid (ala food stamps), Education funding, retraining and a number of other areas where the social safety net can improve economic health in addition to alleviating poverty and the conditions that cause it.
People can not be the whole of an economy, it does not work that way. As the old saying goes "when something appears to be too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind. People have no money of their own. People's money is based entirely on the productivity of society. It is therefor impossible for people to "multiply" money by spending money. It is a logical contradiction at every level, often dressed up to appear "good" to someone uninformed.
In short, people are not and can not be producers. People are takers, and can only take from society.
This is _my_ opinion.
I'm sure that every inventor, author, artist, farmer, carpenter and craftsman would agree completely. Not. People are, in fact, producers. Of every invention, manufactured good, idea and lots of other stuff. Are you really that dumb, or are you just trolling?
I can't really cite all of Friedman's books. He gives very credible arguments on why Government run social programs may seem to help, but in reality don't. Friedman also gives numerous examples in his books on where these policies have failed. The book to start with would be "Capitalism and Freedom".
In that book, Friedman lays out arguments against even Social Security. The better method explained is to protect citizens so that they can save on their own. As stated above, this is a rare program that may have worked if not for politicians taking all the money from the coffers. Friedman would use that exact fact as one of many reasons why the Government can not handle social welfare programs of any sort and I would concede to his wisdom.
Nothing Friedman said has been shown to be wrong. Yet Keynesian policies have been shown to be wrong to some degree at least. We can verify the wrongness by looking at a few simple statistics in Countries that have maintained the Government as the energy for economic growth (Keynesian policy). Statistics such as wealth disparity, median income vs. inflation, poverty rates, etc...
As stated above, Economics is not simple. Other factors such as taxes, regulated monopolies, etc.. all play roles. If you want a link to harm of social policies in the News recently, look at the recent articles regarding how being unemployed for too long hurts your prospects for a new job. Here is one of many links.
I appreciate the time you've taken to elucidate your opinion and expound on Milton Friedman's opinions and arguments. They do merit consideration. Thank you.
Theory and logical argument are important to any discussion. All the same, I'm an empiricist. As such, I need data in order to be convinced. Can you cite even one study which hypothesizes about the effect of social safety net programs whose data shows that programs like unemployment benefits and food stamps actually harm the economy rather than help it?
Actually, IIRC the numbers show that those with less money generally spend it all and that drives demand in the economy, which can stimulate jobs growth and generate more economic activity than those who save or invest the money. I know I saw a number of papers about this after the stimulus tax relief a few years back. If I can dig it up, I'll post a link.
The stimulus tax relief a few years back, both the one under Obama, and the one under Bush, and going back farther under Carter, did depressingly little to grow the economy.
I guess I asked for that one. The point I was making was not that the stimulus tax relief was a good idea. In fact it was absolutely not a good idea, IMHO. However, when the stimulus tax relief took effect, we had the opportunity to see what those with lots of money would do with their surplus and what those with little money would do. As I said, IIRC, those with little money spent it all and those with lots of money didn't spend it. My apologies if I wasn't clear.
Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy.
That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense, subjectively we could discuss merits. Your Google search returns gems like claims that spending in this way can is an "Economic Multiplier", which it is not.
No worries. I understand your point and comment. Please give me one citation with credible research that supports the statement "That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense." Pretty please. With sugar on top? I'll beg some more if you insist.
Just to clarify, I'm asking about government spending on safety net programs like unemployment benefits, food stamps and WIC. My apologies if I wasn't clear.
Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy.
That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense, subjectively we could discuss merits. Your Google search returns gems like claims that spending in this way can is an "Economic Multiplier", which it is not.
No worries. I understand your point and comment. Please give me one citation with credible research that supports the statement "That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense." Pretty please. With sugar on top? I'll beg some more if you insist.
Whether the multiplier effect can be applied across the board (for all safety net spending) is an open question.
Whether the multiplier effect is greater when money is given to the person who has no job, or greater when it is not taken from someone in taxes, is also an open question.
There are good reasons to have unemployment insurance other than economic reasons, that's not really why we have the program.
Actually, IIRC the numbers show that those with less money generally spend it all and that drives demand in the economy, which can stimulate jobs growth and generate more economic activity than those who save or invest the money. I know I saw a number of papers about this after the stimulus tax relief a few years back. If I can dig it up, I'll post a link.
I agree that there are non-economic reasons to have programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance. We, as a society, have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.
As an aside, I believe that wealth and income inequality are doing terrible damage to our society and are shredding the social contract. How we fix that, I don't know. But when, in the richest country that ever existed, 1/3 of the children live in poverty, something is terribly wrong. And I don't think a Swiftian solution is a good one.
The point of my post was to show that what we are doing is not right, and that you are not right to claim that government spending fixes everything.
Please show me where I said "government spending fixes everything."
Don't bother. Because I didn't say it. Nor do I believe it. What I said is that a whole bunch of research has shown that government spending on various "safety net" (that would be things like unemployment benefits and food stamps) programs appears to stimulate the economy by more than the cost of the programs.
I'll reiterate to limit any comprehension issues: Data collected from a variety of sources (I wasn't referring to the AARP study either, BTW but it makes its point as well) indicates that for every dollar spent on safety net programs, more than a dollar of economic activity results.
Yes, we could debate the relative merits of Supply Side vs. Keynesian economics for decades. Economists certainly have been. However, please just cite one relevant piece of research that refutes the premise that safety net programs can stimulate the economy. I'm not asking for you to write the paper or do the research. Just cite one to support your argument. Mostly because I'd like to read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you have no clue about the fundamentals of computing. Let's break it into small pieces: Perl: turing-complete. Python: turing-complete. Ruby: turing-complete POSIX shell: turing complete. So how exactly are they ``many times more powerful''? All you're doing is demonstrating how little you actually know, so will happily skip the second half of your gibberish and repeat: Brain. Do you use it?
Yes, they are. But that it's *possible* to do the same things with any of those tools says nothing about which one provides functionality which makes the job easier. For example, writing a script to gather, parse and reformat log files across multiple, heterogeneous systems is immensely simpler to write with Perl (and its associated modules) than to do so with BASH. Sigh.
Apparently, you've never had to manage large environments or you'd know that. Or worse yet, you're probably a coder with no clue about large-scale systems and network administration. Go upstairs and get another Red Bull from your parents' fridge and let the adults do their job.
Oh, right, because python, perl or ruby scripts totally don't need a python, perl or ruby interpreter/runtime to run. There is no difference between that, and, say, posix shell. Brain. Do you use it?
Please. Perl/Python/Ruby are many times more powerful than any POSIX shell and I *can* install ports of those interpreters/runtimes on multiple platforms (including *nix, Linux, Windows, OS X, etc, etc, etc) allowing me to run my management tools *unmodiifed* on multiple platforms. Use my brain? Why would I want to develop/maintain different tools on different platforms to perform the same management and admin tasks, when I can develop and maintain a single set of tools? This is not rocket science here, just simple logic. So, either you're on drugs, never had to manage/maintain large numbers of systems in a heterogeneous environment or you're a troll. Your pick. Have a nice day!
Apparently, I have to. But it's a quick one: A CLI typically is a 'scripting environment', especially the unix CLI which is what TFA is about. So your statement really says that using the CLI is superior to using the CLI, or the GUI.
Yes, you can write shell scripts. However, I was referring to things like Perl or Python as scripting environments. They not only provide powerful tools, they can also be used in cross-platform environments and, depending on the functions involved, run unmodified. That's why scripting environments like Perl, Python and Ruby are *often* (note I don't say always) superior to the CLI or GUI.
What we're both really saying is, use the right tool for the right job.
Amen, Brother!
Often, using a scripting environment is superior to both the CLI or the GUI.
Wow...just..wow. This is probably the dumbest comment I have ever read. Need I explain why?
Probably not. After all, "'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool..." and all that.
Its almost sad to me that so many techies are falling back into the "I dont understand it so I hate it" mentality.
StackExchange has a pretty good explanation of the whole Powershell vs Bash thing, with the takeaway being, they have different designs and are good at different things. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/573623/is-powershell-ready-to-replace-my-cygwin-shell-on-windows
There are a lot of reasons to criticize powershell (startup time for one, memory usage for another), but sadly the ones here basically amount to "I hate closed source" or "I gave it 5 minutes and I didnt like it" or "im a unix guy and see no need for it". Those may be true, but theyre not faults with powershell
Let me clarify my point from a few replies ago. As an admin, it's not about BASH vs. Powershell, it's about having tools I can use across multiple platforms *without modification*.
If I have to write Powershell scripts to accomplish something on Windows and then Perl or Python scripts to accomplish *the same thing* on UNIX/Linux, I'm duplicating effort in creating and maintaining those scripts.
Us admins hate duplicating work. We like to do things in a way that takes the least effort to do the job correctly. Any kind of "religious war" about this is stupid.
I don't have time to worry about which tool is "cooler" than another. I have real work to do.
I dont disagree, but one of the reasons I love powershell is because there is so much vendor support for it. Rather than having to use crappily written vendor provided scripts, or learn a new set of syntax and instructions for everything, you can just use one set of cmdlets to manage everything. For example, managing storage units, virtual infrastructure, and networking (if you were using Cisco UCS for example) would involve a unified set of syntax and command structure (verb-noun-- GET-nacifsshare; REMOVE-cluster), with output that can easily be manipulated and passed around. Everything is an object; everything can be piped into get-member to discover its methods, properties, and data types.
Obviously it will depend on what platform youre on; if your work involves primarily *nix boxes I imagine you would want to stick with bash. But Ive found that it is incredibly rewarding to work with powershell in a windows environment just because of how easy it is to take knowledge from one task and apply it to many others, and how easy it is to get your bearings in an unfamiliar task.
I know. I've used Powershell for a variety of vendors and it can be quite nice. However, if it's not just proprietary vendors stuff or just UNIX/Linux boxes or just Windows boxes, using Perl or Python scripts (written or at least customized by me, of course) can be the best way to manage across platforms. As far as just a general command-line goes, BASH kicks Powershell's ass every day of the week and twice on Sundays IMHO.
Your finger needs to slip quite a few times to add the --no-preserve-root to that command (it might be GNU coreutils exclusive though). :)
I've clicked the wrong button on a GUI several times, just as I've made typos on the command line. Both have the potential to screw things up unless I'm being careful.
I don't know how many times at my previous job that some Windows admin deleted whole sections of our AD database via the GUI. That GUI doesn't even have an option to prompt before deletion, whereas I can just insert "alias rm='rm -i'" into root's ~/.bashrc. Just sayin'.
Typical developer outlook. Sysadmins have always dealt with source code, and any sysadmin worth their salt knows at least two languages of any importance. Having the source allows us to debug misbehaving software (runnin g strace/ltrace/dtrace and compare the output to the source), it allows us to patch bugs or patch to add new features, it allows us to back-port newer software and recompile software against different library versions.
Wish I had mod points. This is spot on.
Understanding what the tools do under the hood is important. Using command line tools is not. I could write in assembly if I really wanted to, but I use C# for most stuff. I understand what it does under the hood, but that doesn't mean I have to always work at that level. Using GUI tools is the same thing. I know my GUI tools for administering a Windows server and I can typically make complex adjustments just as fast on it as my UNIX buddy can do using command line tools on his Linux boxes. The difference is what we are comfortable with. Some things go faster with one command, but when you have more complex actions, sometimes the GUI is faster. Either way, you still have to know your system and know what all the buttons or commands actually do.
Absolutely. As an admin, what's important to me is being able to manage the systems I'm responsible for in a sane, sensible, repeatable and documentable fashion. Depending on the situation and the platform(s) involved, that may be a CLI or it may be a GUI. Often, using a scripting environment is superior to both the CLI or the GUI.
There. FTFY.
Not all of us are poor or need mommy and daddy to give us an allowance. $2000 for a computer isn't even 2 weeks of pay and I'm not even a highly paid programmer.
Oh, and yes that's completely true. cf. Cygnus Tools [cygwin.com] for Windows and, well, OS/X *is* UNIX.
Yes, you've actually gotten the point.
And when you need 100 VMs? Or 1000? Mommy and daddy better have pretty deep pockets then, eh?
Cygwin is the only thing that made life tolerable while doing development work for companies that only allowed employees to run Windows. I don't think I'd call it an abomination, it's perfectly fine if all you need is a bash shell and the standard tools (find, grep, sed, etc). But I hope I never have to use it again, mostly because I hope to never be stuck on Windows again.
As I mentioned above, it's not just the shell and coreutils. Perl, python, ruby and the GNU dev (yes, I know it's very quirky) tools as well as X11 (in multiple window mode), make using Windows quite tolerable for me. Of course, using *NIX is prefereable, but you can't always get what you want, especially in corporate environments.
Powershell looks like a bunch of C programmers got let out of the asylum and were allowed to run amok. It kind of misses the point.
yes. Powershell can be a huge pain in the ass to use. However, for some purposes it can be usefu;.
I cant speak to whether there are things that bash does that Powershell does not, but I get the feeling you havent actually used powershell or understood what it can do.
I know you weren't responding to me with this, but I *have* used Powershell and, for what it is, it can be very useful. However, in a heterogeneous environment, having scripts (and not just shell scripts either, we're talking perl, python, ruby and a fully functional GNU dev environment) that can run unmodified on both Windows and UNIX[like] systems is extremely useful, IMHO.
Cygwin is an abomination.
No, seriously.
Compared with cmd.exe and the standard MS command line, it is heaven, my friend.
In what way exactly? I can use all the same GNU tools on Windows and OS X as you can on your enormously more cost effective Loonix box.
There. FTFY.
Oh, and yes that's completely true. cf. Cygnus Tools for Windows and, well, OS/X *is* UNIX.
I guess you did not really contemplate what I stated regarding what it would take for the data to be a scientific study. Those are not studies, those are opinion pieces that use specific statistics to bolster the opinion that social safety nets are good. In order for there to be a study, there would need to be a true capitalist republic to measure against, and we don't have any of those. The US used to be close to that ideal, and if you measure the economy as a whole from 1950-1970 you have something close. Once you hit the Nixon years it all went down the shitter. All "Western" countries have followed the Keynesian principles from roughly the same time.
Now think again, and show me in the World Bank paper where they measured against a country that does not follow the debt policies of Keynesian economics. I'm not going to wait, there is no such comparison. It is pure opinion, not science.
Further, it is using false data to draw their conclusion. Look at Page 4 you will see that their claim simply denies facts. Show me where total poverty has been decreased under Keynesian economics. Show me where the median income vs. inflation has improved. Show me where wealth disparity has improved. You won't find any such thing, yet this is what is assumed in order to move right on the graph and the paper assumes incorrectly that those programs lead to the right. It's rubbish!
I'll say again, that under certain circumstances social safety nets can have value. What they can't have is a prosperous outcome, and it should only take a basic level of reasoning to make that determination. If you go to the bank and borrow money, you are in debt. You can go to a different bank to take out loans to pay the interest, but you don't get out of debt this way. You simply move the debt around. At a certain point, nobody will loan you money any longer. People falsely claim that Governments are immune to this, because they print money. The Weimar Republic should be enough proof that Governments are absolutely not immune, and the default has a catastrophic effect on society. If you believe it can only happen in a history book, look at Greece.
Since you apparently have reading comprehension issues, I'll let this go. I hope your problem doesn't cause you too many issues in your personal life.. Ciao.
What you linked is not scientific study but opinion pieces, and you want a true scientific study to be returned? You gave a Google search which returns lots of opinions about how those programs help, but no studies. Hell, the articles you linked don't even consider an alternative opinion or point of debate. Kind of the state we are in today, nobody can give alternative opinions.
How would you devise such a study? Think about that rationally for a minute and let that question sink in. A "study" is quite impossible! Who's country do we use as the bench mark, the study case, and the "normal"?
Max Kaiser, Milton Friedman, and countless others would have as many pretty graphs as what you see today backing the alternative opinion.
A large number of actual studies have been done. References to and highlights of findings can be found in the annex of this World bank paper on Productive Role of Safety Nets. It includes a large number of studies which look at direct payments (ala unemployment benefits), Food aid (ala food stamps), Education funding, retraining and a number of other areas where the social safety net can improve economic health in addition to alleviating poverty and the conditions that cause it.
Thanks.
People can not be the whole of an economy, it does not work that way. As the old saying goes "when something appears to be too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind. People have no money of their own. People's money is based entirely on the productivity of society. It is therefor impossible for people to "multiply" money by spending money. It is a logical contradiction at every level, often dressed up to appear "good" to someone uninformed.
In short, people are not and can not be producers. People are takers, and can only take from society.
This is _my_ opinion.
I'm sure that every inventor, author, artist, farmer, carpenter and craftsman would agree completely. Not. People are, in fact, producers. Of every invention, manufactured good, idea and lots of other stuff. Are you really that dumb, or are you just trolling?
I can't really cite all of Friedman's books. He gives very credible arguments on why Government run social programs may seem to help, but in reality don't. Friedman also gives numerous examples in his books on where these policies have failed. The book to start with would be "Capitalism and Freedom".
In that book, Friedman lays out arguments against even Social Security. The better method explained is to protect citizens so that they can save on their own. As stated above, this is a rare program that may have worked if not for politicians taking all the money from the coffers. Friedman would use that exact fact as one of many reasons why the Government can not handle social welfare programs of any sort and I would concede to his wisdom.
Nothing Friedman said has been shown to be wrong. Yet Keynesian policies have been shown to be wrong to some degree at least. We can verify the wrongness by looking at a few simple statistics in Countries that have maintained the Government as the energy for economic growth (Keynesian policy). Statistics such as wealth disparity, median income vs. inflation, poverty rates, etc...
As stated above, Economics is not simple. Other factors such as taxes, regulated monopolies, etc.. all play roles. If you want a link to harm of social policies in the News recently, look at the recent articles regarding how being unemployed for too long hurts your prospects for a new job. Here is one of many links.
I appreciate the time you've taken to elucidate your opinion and expound on Milton Friedman's opinions and arguments. They do merit consideration. Thank you.
Theory and logical argument are important to any discussion. All the same, I'm an empiricist. As such, I need data in order to be convinced. Can you cite even one study which hypothesizes about the effect of social safety net programs whose data shows that programs like unemployment benefits and food stamps actually harm the economy rather than help it?
Actually, IIRC the numbers show that those with less money generally spend it all and that drives demand in the economy, which can stimulate jobs growth and generate more economic activity than those who save or invest the money. I know I saw a number of papers about this after the stimulus tax relief a few years back. If I can dig it up, I'll post a link. The stimulus tax relief a few years back, both the one under Obama, and the one under Bush, and going back farther under Carter, did depressingly little to grow the economy.
I guess I asked for that one. The point I was making was not that the stimulus tax relief was a good idea. In fact it was absolutely not a good idea, IMHO. However, when the stimulus tax relief took effect, we had the opportunity to see what those with lots of money would do with their surplus and what those with little money would do. As I said, IIRC, those with little money spent it all and those with lots of money didn't spend it. My apologies if I wasn't clear.
Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy.
That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense, subjectively we could discuss merits. Your Google search returns gems like claims that spending in this way can is an "Economic Multiplier", which it is not.
No worries. I understand your point and comment. Please give me one citation with credible research that supports the statement "That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense." Pretty please. With sugar on top? I'll beg some more if you insist.
Just to clarify, I'm asking about government spending on safety net programs like unemployment benefits, food stamps and WIC. My apologies if I wasn't clear.
Economic analysis shows that government spending, especially on safety nets has a net positive effect (each dollar spent increases economic activity by more than a dollar) on the economy.
That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense, subjectively we could discuss merits. Your Google search returns gems like claims that spending in this way can is an "Economic Multiplier", which it is not.
No worries. I understand your point and comment. Please give me one citation with credible research that supports the statement "That was what I responded to. It is absolutely false in a general sense." Pretty please. With sugar on top? I'll beg some more if you insist.
Whether the multiplier effect can be applied across the board (for all safety net spending) is an open question.
Whether the multiplier effect is greater when money is given to the person who has no job, or greater when it is not taken from someone in taxes, is also an open question. There are good reasons to have unemployment insurance other than economic reasons, that's not really why we have the program.
Actually, IIRC the numbers show that those with less money generally spend it all and that drives demand in the economy, which can stimulate jobs growth and generate more economic activity than those who save or invest the money. I know I saw a number of papers about this after the stimulus tax relief a few years back. If I can dig it up, I'll post a link.
I agree that there are non-economic reasons to have programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance. We, as a society, have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.
As an aside, I believe that wealth and income inequality are doing terrible damage to our society and are shredding the social contract. How we fix that, I don't know. But when, in the richest country that ever existed, 1/3 of the children live in poverty, something is terribly wrong. And I don't think a Swiftian solution is a good one.
The point of my post was to show that what we are doing is not right, and that you are not right to claim that government spending fixes everything.
Please show me where I said "government spending fixes everything."
Don't bother. Because I didn't say it. Nor do I believe it. What I said is that a whole bunch of research has shown that government spending on various "safety net" (that would be things like unemployment benefits and food stamps) programs appears to stimulate the economy by more than the cost of the programs.
I'll reiterate to limit any comprehension issues: Data collected from a variety of sources (I wasn't referring to the AARP study either, BTW but it makes its point as well) indicates that for every dollar spent on safety net programs, more than a dollar of economic activity results.
Yes, we could debate the relative merits of Supply Side vs. Keynesian economics for decades. Economists certainly have been. However, please just cite one relevant piece of research that refutes the premise that safety net programs can stimulate the economy. I'm not asking for you to write the paper or do the research. Just cite one to support your argument. Mostly because I'd like to read it.