Utopia Talk - Politics - Left/Right economics

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue May 07 09:12:52 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Left/Right economics

habebe
Member Fri Oct 31 01:38:17
I've been thinking/researching alot about economics latley. Most of the politics we debate usually have both sides making good points. Although when it comes to economics atleast IMHO the facts are there laid out for all to see, "conservative economics" or Milton Friedman-style FM economics (not republican economics) are all but proven, the only point I can possibly see crediting positivley to Socialistic economics is for the most part they have less extremes in wealth. The big difference IMO is that they just grade things on a seperate scale so to speak.

That said even MF's FM ideaology is in favor of making sure the bottom rung on the economic class shouldn't be starving and whatnot (GD) and in such cases small amounts more left-wing economics are beneficial, atleast in a humanitarian way.

PhunkyPhishStyle
Member Fri Oct 31 02:14:38
Humanitarianism(as in the form of aid) should not ever be forced on a truly free people. Nor does it need to, because it in the nature of a free people to be humane. Give them a prosperous economy, let them keep more of their money, spend it as they wish, and people in need will be taken care of better than any fucking fat-cat bureaucrats ever have.

KreeL
Member Fri Oct 31 05:06:11
Greed and fraud have corrupted our values in the US. People on welfare that shouldn't be. People getting disability that shouldn't be. People that are wise to the system, live better than most working people, and all without doing much more than filing claims with persistance. When you add in frivolous lawsuits, scam artists, and monies for illegal aliens, it's amazing this country hasn't gone broke 30 years ago. The middleclass is taking the brunt of the responsibility, while the poverty class, and the elites just soak it up. I think that something needs to be done. I used to believe exactly like PPS, but americans don't give a shit anymore about their neighbors. I know I don't.

So for me, I am beginning to think that shifting the burden while attending to the problems I pointed out above could be at least a direction for our country to travel - if only for a while to see if it works or not.

I tire of the rightwingers that are all suddenly ecomonic experts, and somehow know that McCain is the answer. I've looked at McCain's ideas and don't see any solutions. It's far too much like status quo.

habebe
Member Sat Nov 01 00:13:28
"Humanitarianism(as in the form of aid) should not ever be forced on a truly free people. Nor does it need to, because it in the nature of a free people to be humane. Give them a prosperous economy, let them keep more of their money, spend it as they wish, and people in need will be taken care of better than any fucking fat-cat bureaucrats ever have. "

In principle I agree with you, but even as economically right as I am, desperate times call for desperate measures, and while I'm for drastically cutting back our current welfare state I do beleive that some welfare is worth while. But that said , yes the private sector generally does a far better job of providing for the needy, but the government can catch the few that would be missed.

"I tire of the rightwingers that are all suddenly ecomonic experts, and somehow know that McCain is the answer. I've looked at McCain's ideas and don't see any solutions. It's far too much like status quo. "

I (a right-winger, who does know a decent amount of economics) would never say that McCain would be great for the economy, I'd give him a high d+ at best. But I'd give Obama an F- (somewhere in the 10's-20%)

They are both way off base and I really don't beleive either knows much of anything about economics. We are planning to send a lawyer to the whitehouse when the economy is by far the most important issue, thats foolish. We need an economist, or atleast a very good delegator with a good grasp on economics.

Obama will have a short lived economic boost, but in the long run if he passes what he wants to will damage the economy more than any president since FDR.

Reagans best accomplishment in economic terms was nothing, he did nothing the first few years in office, most elected officials if they had high unemployment and inflation would have tried to fix it asap, he used a deflationary policy toward the fed. Res. and the printing of new money. What that did was raise unemployment and make it harder to get loans, but it also cured inflation, and is the only way to cure inflation (deflation AKA print less money)

He also gave the eonomy a long-term boost by cutting the red tape on bussiness regulation by the government almost in half (mostly Nixon's fault, he doubled it under his admin., he was one of the most Socialist POTUS we've ever had)

Dukhat
Member Sat Nov 01 00:28:48
You are correct habebe. Friedman was almost entirely correct. Keynes models is also correct under proper circumstances.

Friedman was all about letting markets work and setting policy to underlie long-term growth.

Keynesian was about the short run and increasing aggregate demand.

Any good economic policy incorporates elements from both. The problem with Keynsian policy is that you must chose winners. The solution from a Keynsian standpoint is to increase spending during a recession to increase aggregate demand and mitigate unemployment losses.

BUt how to spend that money? The obama plan is to spend money on renewable energy, but he handicaps it by saying no to nuclear power and thus he is picking a winner in terms of inefficient solar and wind.

That inefficiency is subsudized and cannot easily be removed because as we know, once a group becomes dependent on the government, they lobby heavily to maintain that dependency.

Keynes would say to stop spending money after a recession is over, but instead, that spending will now stay.

Not only will that spending stay, it will be grossly inefficient. Energy is a key input in many products. Everything that depends on it will now be costlier to produce. We see an easy example of this in ethanol which we can't get rid of it because Iowa is the first primary state. It is not only inefficient to produce ethanol for energy. Car makers are balking at supporting greater ethanol percentages in fuels because it makes engines more expensive and cars as well.

This is the main way which Keynes fails. You have to pick winners, thus undermining the increase in aggregate demand, by enshrining inefficiency and government dependency.

habebe
Member Sat Nov 01 00:40:02
Dukhat, i actually think that Keynes was a good economist, BUT, his ideas were based upon false assumption partly because he did not have adequate information at the time. Milton Friedman actually was a Keynes supporter until he wrote a book about the monetary history of the US, while compiling the information (with Anna Schwarts IIRC) his "new" economic ideas started to arise only because the facts were staring him in the face and then he began to re-evaluate many of Keynes's other ideas.

Keynes's major flaw was that he thought that high unemployment caused inflation. Rather it can actually increase employment temporarily, until the bad effects of inflation hits and then it goes back to normal, However Deflation causes higher unemployment but is the only cure for inflation.

show deleted posts

habebe Member	Fri Oct 31 01:38:17 I've been thinking/researching alot about economics latley. Most of the politics we debate usually have both sides making good points. Although when it comes to economics atleast IMHO the facts are there laid out for all to see, "conservative economics" or Milton Friedman-style FM economics (not republican economics) are all but proven, the only point I can possibly see crediting positivley to Socialistic economics is for the most part they have less extremes in wealth. The big difference IMO is that they just grade things on a seperate scale so to speak. That said even MF's FM ideaology is in favor of making sure the bottom rung on the economic class shouldn't be starving and whatnot (GD) and in such cases small amounts more left-wing economics are beneficial, atleast in a humanitarian way.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Fri Oct 31 02:14:38 Humanitarianism(as in the form of aid) should not ever be forced on a truly free people. Nor does it need to, because it in the nature of a free people to be humane. Give them a prosperous economy, let them keep more of their money, spend it as they wish, and people in need will be taken care of better than any fucking fat-cat bureaucrats ever have.
KreeL Member	Fri Oct 31 05:06:11 Greed and fraud have corrupted our values in the US. People on welfare that shouldn't be. People getting disability that shouldn't be. People that are wise to the system, live better than most working people, and all without doing much more than filing claims with persistance. When you add in frivolous lawsuits, scam artists, and monies for illegal aliens, it's amazing this country hasn't gone broke 30 years ago. The middleclass is taking the brunt of the responsibility, while the poverty class, and the elites just soak it up. I think that something needs to be done. I used to believe exactly like PPS, but americans don't give a shit anymore about their neighbors. I know I don't. So for me, I am beginning to think that shifting the burden while attending to the problems I pointed out above could be at least a direction for our country to travel - if only for a while to see if it works or not. I tire of the rightwingers that are all suddenly ecomonic experts, and somehow know that McCain is the answer. I've looked at McCain's ideas and don't see any solutions. It's far too much like status quo.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 00:13:28 "Humanitarianism(as in the form of aid) should not ever be forced on a truly free people. Nor does it need to, because it in the nature of a free people to be humane. Give them a prosperous economy, let them keep more of their money, spend it as they wish, and people in need will be taken care of better than any fucking fat-cat bureaucrats ever have. " In principle I agree with you, but even as economically right as I am, desperate times call for desperate measures, and while I'm for drastically cutting back our current welfare state I do beleive that some welfare is worth while. But that said , yes the private sector generally does a far better job of providing for the needy, but the government can catch the few that would be missed. "I tire of the rightwingers that are all suddenly ecomonic experts, and somehow know that McCain is the answer. I've looked at McCain's ideas and don't see any solutions. It's far too much like status quo. " I (a right-winger, who does know a decent amount of economics) would never say that McCain would be great for the economy, I'd give him a high d+ at best. But I'd give Obama an F- (somewhere in the 10's-20%) They are both way off base and I really don't beleive either knows much of anything about economics. We are planning to send a lawyer to the whitehouse when the economy is by far the most important issue, thats foolish. We need an economist, or atleast a very good delegator with a good grasp on economics. Obama will have a short lived economic boost, but in the long run if he passes what he wants to will damage the economy more than any president since FDR. Reagans best accomplishment in economic terms was nothing, he did nothing the first few years in office, most elected officials if they had high unemployment and inflation would have tried to fix it asap, he used a deflationary policy toward the fed. Res. and the printing of new money. What that did was raise unemployment and make it harder to get loans, but it also cured inflation, and is the only way to cure inflation (deflation AKA print less money) He also gave the eonomy a long-term boost by cutting the red tape on bussiness regulation by the government almost in half (mostly Nixon's fault, he doubled it under his admin., he was one of the most Socialist POTUS we've ever had)
Dukhat Member	Sat Nov 01 00:28:48 You are correct habebe. Friedman was almost entirely correct. Keynes models is also correct under proper circumstances. Friedman was all about letting markets work and setting policy to underlie long-term growth. Keynesian was about the short run and increasing aggregate demand. Any good economic policy incorporates elements from both. The problem with Keynsian policy is that you must chose winners. The solution from a Keynsian standpoint is to increase spending during a recession to increase aggregate demand and mitigate unemployment losses. BUt how to spend that money? The obama plan is to spend money on renewable energy, but he handicaps it by saying no to nuclear power and thus he is picking a winner in terms of inefficient solar and wind. That inefficiency is subsudized and cannot easily be removed because as we know, once a group becomes dependent on the government, they lobby heavily to maintain that dependency. Keynes would say to stop spending money after a recession is over, but instead, that spending will now stay. Not only will that spending stay, it will be grossly inefficient. Energy is a key input in many products. Everything that depends on it will now be costlier to produce. We see an easy example of this in ethanol which we can't get rid of it because Iowa is the first primary state. It is not only inefficient to produce ethanol for energy. Car makers are balking at supporting greater ethanol percentages in fuels because it makes engines more expensive and cars as well. This is the main way which Keynes fails. You have to pick winners, thus undermining the increase in aggregate demand, by enshrining inefficiency and government dependency.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 00:40:02 Dukhat, i actually think that Keynes was a good economist, BUT, his ideas were based upon false assumption partly because he did not have adequate information at the time. Milton Friedman actually was a Keynes supporter until he wrote a book about the monetary history of the US, while compiling the information (with Anna Schwarts IIRC) his "new" economic ideas started to arise only because the facts were staring him in the face and then he began to re-evaluate many of Keynes's other ideas. Keynes's major flaw was that he thought that high unemployment caused inflation. Rather it can actually increase employment temporarily, until the bad effects of inflation hits and then it goes back to normal, However Deflation causes higher unemployment but is the only cure for inflation.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: