Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned

.

I agree, Vel, the cause is just and is worth fighting for. Mom, apple pie and the American Way.

It is the right to live or not to live the american way that should be the goal. People don't want to live in there own version of america, they just want to be free. (which is not just an american value and nor is america the only place where it can be found).

[Willem]

Duncan:

You can talk all you want to, but you're not going to convince anyone of your socialist utopia. We've all seen enough failed attempts at your ideal society to know that it's just not going to work. No one's ever going to take that approach seriously anymore, the revolution is over. Live with it, get over it, it ain't going to happen, especially on a world wide level.

The best you're ever going to expect is a Social Democracy, along the lines of what we in Canada and some countries in Europe are tinkering with. But though these societies incorporate elements of socialism, they're still essentially capitalist systems. It's not a perfect system, but history has shown that it works, unlike Communism.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why are you supporting the exploitation of the workers by indulging in the crass consumerism of both buying an internet connection and a computer, DuncanK?

Oh, so it's all my fault now?

I'm not some revolutionary freak DinoDoc. I'm not just sitting around waiting for the revolution while life passes me by. I don't expect you to either. I'm just having a nice debate here.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem
Duncan:

You can talk all you want to, but you're not going to convince anyone of your socialist utopia. We've all seen enough failed attempts at your ideal society to know that it's just not going to work. No one's ever going to take that approach seriously anymore, the revolution is over. Live with it, get over it, it ain't going to happen, especially on a world wide level.

The best you're ever going to expect is a Social Democracy, along the lines of what we in Canada and some countries in Europe are tinkering with. But though these societies incorporate elements of socialism, they're still essentially capitalist systems. It's not a perfect system, but history has shown that it works, unlike Communism.

Don't be so sure. You have the seeds of knowledge now. The next depression you will start thinking seriously about a better alternative, especially if your business fails.

[Arrian]

DuncanK,

Anyone who understands how capitalism works understands the boom/bust cycle. It's a part of the system. If government ever figures out that it should save just as private citizens do (during boom, build a surplus, during bust, use said surplus to assist those who lose their jobs), we can do a lot to smooth out the ups & downs.

I'd prefer those ups & downs, though, to communism (a big fat down).

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Don't be so sure. You have the seeds of knowledge now. The next depression you will start thinking seriously about a better alternative, especially if your business fails.

I've already told you, I used to think very much like you do now. What makes you think that I will go back to that belief after already rejecting it is as implausible and impractical? In fact, until we started getting into this discussion, I seriously considered myself a socialist. Now I realize that I'm just a Liberal.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
DuncanK,

Anyone who understands how capitalism works understands the boom/bust cycle. It's a part of the system. If government ever figures out that it should save just as private citizens do (during boom, build a surplus, during bust, use said surplus to assist those who lose their jobs), we can do a lot to smooth out the ups & downs.

I'd prefer those ups & downs, though, to communism (a big fat down).

-Arrian

The thing is that some idiot like Bush isn't even going to use deficit spending until its too late. Then he's only going to use deficits that are too small. By the time he gets his head out of his ass people will be sick of it.

[Arrian]

Deficit spending... I'm not a big fan. I'd rather have a fiscally conservative government that saved money for the rainy day so that it didn't have to go into deeper and deeper debt everytime there was an economic downturn, disaster, war, etc.

Right now, government will spend as much money as it can get its hands on. 300 billion in the red? No problem! We're the government!

During the boom period of the 90s, the government should have been saving money (but of course, advocating that would get you labelled an evil conservative who doesn't care about the poor) so that it could then use it now when times are a bit tough.

But that's just my opinion. I only took a few Econ courses before dumping that major for History, so I concede I could be way off-base about the economics of government. Still, I don't like the idea of spending money you don't have.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK

The thing is that some idiot like Bush isn't even going to use deficit spending until its too late. Then he's only going to use deficits that are too small. By the time he gets his head out of his ass people will be sick of it.

Duncan, Duncan, Duncan, the US is already in deficit spending, to the tune of some $300 billion this year I believe. They have been for over a year now in fact. Granted most of that is for the military and will have little impact on the overall economy, but that just represents the failure of a leader, not the system.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
During the boom period of the 90s, the government should have been saving money (but of course, advocating that would get you labelled an evil conservative who doesn't care about the poor) so that it could then use it now when times are a bit tough.

But you also have to deal with the underlying debt as well. It wouldn't make very much sense to horde a bunch of money when you're also paying out a huge amount in interest payments. If your government was completely debt free, your idea would make a lot more sense, but you currently owe billions, maybe trillions, to various financial institutions.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


Duncan, Duncan, Duncan, the US is already in deficit spending, to the tune of some $300 billion this year I believe. They have been for over a year now in fact. Granted most of that is for the military and will have little impact on the overall economy, but that just represents the failure of a leader, not the system.

A) Those aren't planned deficits. They are mostly the result of economy downturn. There is a diference. These kinds of deficits are an effect, not a cause.

B) The failure of the leader is the failure of the system. A Democrat whould be just as inept. Look at FDR. When the Depression hit he tried to ballance the budget.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


But you also have to deal with the underlying debt as well. It wouldn't make very much sense to horde a bunch of money when you're also paying out a huge amount in interest payments. If your government was completely debt free, your idea would make a lot more sense, but you currently owe billions, maybe trillions, to various financial institutions.

Read my post in the current deficits thread.

[Arrian]

Oh, I wasn't even gonna touch the national debt issue, but since you brought it up, I totally agree. Economists (at least those who like Keynes) don't seem to, though.

I personally hate that a large percentage of my tax dollars go toward debt service (what is it 15-20%?). I want that paid down. Trouble is, no one will get elected by saying "right, for decades now we've spend beyond our means, and now must pay it back."

-Arrian

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
But that's just my opinion. I only took a few Econ courses before dumping that major for History, so I concede I could be way off-base about the economics of government. Still, I don't like the idea of spending money you don't have.

-Arrian

History is good, just don't drop ecnomics. History wont make any sense without it.

[Main_Brain]

Keynes=Bad

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, I wasn't even gonna touch the national debt issue, but since you brought it up, I totally agree. Economists (at least those who like Keynes) don't seem to, though.

I personally hate that a large percentage of my tax dollars go toward debt service (what is it 15-20%?). I want that paid down. Trouble is, no one will get elected by saying "right, for decades now we've spend beyond our means, and now must pay it back."

-Arrian

Arrian,

I take it that you don't own bonds. Otherwise you would favor debt more.

It's true that debt service is a transfer of wealth. That's why rich people should pay even more taxes. Debt service is a benefit that only they get, and they should pay the tax for it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
A) Those aren't planned deficits. They are mostly the result of economy downturn. There is a diference. These kinds of deficits are an effect, not a cause.

Yeah right, Bush instituted all his tax cuts because he sincerely believed that the economy was in tip top shape. It had absolutely nothing to do with fiscal policy! Now I'm not saying that I agree with his approach, but it certainly didn't happen by accident.

B) The failure of the leader is the failure of the system. A Democrat whould be just as inept. Look at FDR. When the Depression hit he tried to ballance the budget.

So a communist leader is by nature more enlightened and infallible? Hell the entire Soviet system has shown that's certainly not the case. They fell hopelessly behind when Reagan brought the whole weight of the US economy to bear on the Cold War. They collapsed like a house of cards!

[Arrian]

DuncanK,

I've been out of college since 1998. I did drop Econ (though I took about 4 courses, and I had a history course that had a heavy dose of economics in it) and got a History degree.

It's true that debt service is a transfer of wealth. That's why rich people should pay even more taxes. Debt service is a benefit that only they get, and they should pay the tax for it.

Excuse me? When I said debt service, I meant that the US gov't pays a huge amount of money each year just to pay interest on the debt. WTF does that have to do with rich people, and how does it justify higher taxes on them? If you mean that rich people own the banks that lent money to the government... how is it their fault that the government has no fiscal responsibility? I just don't follow your argument.

I do not own bonds, btw. Well, actually, that's not entirely true. My IRA account has some money in funds that include bonds.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

The failure of the leader is the failure of the system

Stalin, Mao, etc. Communism's track record is even less impressive than Mr. Bush.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, I wasn't even gonna touch the national debt issue, but since you brought it up, I totally agree. Economists (at least those who like Keynes) don't seem to, though.

I personally hate that a large percentage of my tax dollars go toward debt service (what is it 15-20%?). I want that paid down. Trouble is, no one will get elected by saying "right, for decades now we've spend beyond our means, and now must pay it back."

-Arrian

Maybe you should move to Canada then, that's exactly the approach we've taken for the last 10 years. We've been running a surplus now for several years, about half of which is going towards overall debt reduction.

[Arrian]

Willem,

Canada's ok and all, and my Sister lives near Toronto, but the US of A is my country, even if our government is usually run by incompetant fools. I'm hoping that maybe, just maybe, if a country such as Canada shows that fiscal sanity works, we might at least consider adopting a similar policy. Not holding my breath, mind you...

-Arrian

[Willem]

Arrian,

I just noticed this:

"The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omlette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omlettehood."

I'd say that sums up Duncan's position quite well don't you think?

[Arrian]

I've heard that quote attributed to Mao.

I'm not sure if that's true, but it seems in character for a commie, yes.

-Arrian

[DuncanK]

i don't think that was Mao, but it is good.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
DuncanK,

I've been out of college since 1998. I did drop Econ (though I took about 4 courses, and I had a history course that had a heavy dose of economics in it) and got a History degree.



Excuse me? When I said debt service, I meant that the US gov't pays a huge amount of money each year just to pay interest on the debt. WTF does that have to do with rich people, and how does it justify higher taxes on them? If you mean that rich people own the banks that lent money to the government... how is it their fault that the government has no fiscal responsibility? I just don't follow your argument.

I do not own bonds, btw. Well, actually, that's not entirely true. My IRA account has some money in funds that include bonds.

-Arrian

You are very conservative. Step back from your bias for a second and just think of the impact on the economy. You can't just tax the hell out of the poor and give it to the rich. Allthough that is immoral, if you look at it from an economics thing it will kill the economy.

[Arrian]

Excuse me? When did I EVER advocate "taxing the hell out of the poor?"

I do NOT like your putting words in my mouth, Duncan.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

First off, "taxing the hell out of the poor" is clearly a bad idea because you won't get much money out of them. It's also wrong.

I wasn't under the impression we were discussing the US tax code... and even if we were, I didn't advocate raising the lower tax brackets and granting big percentage cuts for the upper brackets! I'm ok with the progressive tax system. I'm not ok with the demonization of the rich, but that's another issue.

I was talking about fiscal responsibility in government. Not how the government gets its money - how it spends it! I want the national debt reduced (eventually wiped out) and I want surpluses during times of good economic growth so we can support deficit spending in recession. How does that have anything to do with "taxing the hell out of the poor" and how does it make me "very conservative?"

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

Like a broken record I say again, taxes are not the issue. Wages are. We need to find a way to force wages up.

Capitalism is the best economic system because it harnesses human vice...greed. If you forced the rich (corporations and their stockholders) to pay higher wages you would immediately get two great economic boosts. 1) higher consumer spending due to increase wages, and 2) more innovation from corporations as they struggle to restore the profits lost to higher wages.

Win-win scenerio.

[Velociryx]

Again, Duncan, the facts do not support what you are saying. The rich in this country pay far, FAR more taxes than the poor....and that only makes sense, does it not? After all, if the poor are....well, poor, then they don't have much money to take.

Contrast that to the wealthy, who have money in abundance, is it not logical then, to go where the money is?

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DuncanK


You are very conservative. Step back from your bias for a second and just think of the impact on the economy. You can't just tax the hell out of the poor and give it to the rich. Allthough that is immoral, if you look at it from an economics thing it will kill the economy.

Why oh why does everyone do this?

Tax this group and give to that group rhetoric.

Taxes are monies taken period by the governement. Libertarians equate it to theft if you will. But under no circumstances is lowering of tax rate a gift. It only means the government thieves a little less.

There is no giving involved by the government. Even a tax refund is simply a payment of your monies back to you if only after they have had use of it for 6 - 9 monthes.

Finally, yes the so called wealthy of the US do indeed pay the lion share of taxes and also do the lion share of job creation.

The Dem theory that monies in the hands of the poor will find its way into circulation and cause demand for goods and services is IMO not valid as the demand will be mostly for lowest denominator goods and services. These are not likely IMO to create jobs in a complex supply chain.