Deck of Weasels! (morphed to debate on taxes/economics)

Remove all ads!

Chandos,

I am tired of this! You are talking out of your ass Chandos. If you read the sign you might have noticed that there was the word "Corporation" at the end of it! The insurance that is provided to deposits is though corporations that the government set up. The reason that they are corporations is because it limits the government's exposure. Do you know what happens if the "corporation" runs out of money? They start paying pennies on the dollar, and it is done across the board, the poor don't get a break (go educate yourself on Fed policy regarding "too big to fail"). Second, quit playing democratic/liberal heartstrings games, the economic cost of your proposal to "just give" the $500B to people would have been devastating. It sounds so good, and it makes people feel so good to think such thoughts, but in the real world, it makes no sense. I would suggest you quit making statements about how the government should spend its money until you have enough knowledge to know the economic consequences of those choices.

Tell you what, why don't you go down to the local hospital and tell the heart surgeon how he should be doing bypass surgery, you couldn't have any less knowledge on that topic than this one.

 

Breathe, Darkwolf, breathe.

Chandos, the issue isn't really if big business is efficient or not. The question is whether or not the government is MORE efficient, and that I highly doubt. In any event, my original thesis stands -- who has the right to spend the money I earn? The Government or Me? I vote for me, and I vote for every person keeping more of what they make instead of turning those funds over to bureaucrats. Now, this does not make me a full Republican (or as close as I could be given my country of origin) because the Republicans like to spend money too -- just on different things.

I just don't like the argument that other people are more competant than I am when it comes to the money I sweated to earn.

 

At lord Depaara: I like you cooling intervention.

I believe that to. But I belive additonally that the voter decides with his vote, how the money is spend and how "efficient" the spending of the Goverment is. Of course, in a two-party system, the "vote" which is at the voters proposal is very limited, but it is still a vote.

And I believe the concept, that the voter when he votes, he has his own best interest in mind. Voting works like the market. I "buy" what I think is the best option. The problem is, when a lot of voters abstain, the "market" doesn't work properly. So it's OK, when the rich want to pay less taxes. But it's OK for the poor, to say, you have to pay taxes, we want to send our children to school, so they're going to have a brighter future. If all "votes" are in the "market", it is likely, the best way for the community is going to be found.

Now, to the Republican party of the USA. I personally think they are a bad deal. The Democrats are a tiny little bit better. If I had to chose, I would chose neither. But I had, against my will, but the threat of Latin has forced me, some economics classes too. And I learnt, that if one party "is" big goverment, than it's the Republican party. Everytime there in power (like right now), goverment spending sky rocks. And I know, that Darkwolf knows that very well himself, because I guess he had national econimics too.

 

Darkwolf -- I could care less if you are tired of it or not. The fact still stands that the government insures the account. But you are right, if there are large corporations involved then it is unlikely that account holders will get back what they should.

I can't see why we can't give 500 billion dollars to the poor when we are giving it to the rich everyday. What do have against the poor anyway?

The fact remains that the American people need to take back their government from corporate special interest lobbies. Even one of your own republicans, Sen. John McCain, agrees with that point of view and has been fighting for years to reform the system. I still recommend that you check out Ralph Nader's sites to find out what is really going on with the corporate welfare system that is being run by the US government.

There are economists who write on his websites as well and they have a very different view of economics than you. In literary studies there are different viewpoints for approaching any given work or writer. The same is true for economics, and I am surprised that I should have to explain such a basic attitude to someone with your level of education.

I'm sure at some point we will discuss the state of the health care system, but we should leave that for another thread. Also, I should mention to follow-up on our dialogue about the FCC giving away the public airwaves: How much did the public get from broadcasters? The answer is 0. What a surprise.

Added:
Yago - You are right. Democrats are only marginally better than republicans these days. In fact, many of them may as well be republicans. Although they do have a better track record of public service from FDR to about the time of Carter. But Carter was nothing to write home about, and compared to politicians these days, even old Richard Nixon is looking pretty good. Things are that bad!

[ May 15, 2003, 01:25: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I give up, I guess my business sciences degree and 7 years experience in the financial services industry makes me less of an expert on the economy than a computer salesman with a liberal arts degree.

As far as Nader goes, actions speak louder than words, and like I said, why don't you look at his and the other liberals (American standards) actions. Name just one item on their agenda that does not create dependence on the government, just one.

I guess everyone will just have to make up their own minds. Do you want to be responsible for yourself and make your own decisions (Libertarian or Republican views), or do you want the government to take responsibility of you and provide what they choose to give you (Democratic or Green Party views)?

 

At Darkwolf: No one says you don't understand economcis. Nor does anyone pretend to understand more than you. But still, you are not the only economic, who stated his opinion and gave agruments for it. And maybe other people are by arguements of other economists more convinced as by yours. That does not mean, you don't understand your job or your field. Economics is just like every other science, there are different schools of thoughts and opinions and you know that very well too. But I read about your Oklahoma expiriences with Democrats in another thread. I see you point there. But still, as far as I know, neither Demorcrats or Republicans are the champions of free market. They both seem to despise it, in my view.

And it is not, like you live in the only country with such tendencies. But "conservative" mostly means, supporting anti-free-market powers, that's why they are called conservative. That's the irony of political parties

 

Yago,

Conservative might mean anti-free market where you live, but the Republicans and conservatives in this county are the main force behind free markets, the Democrats view on the economy was best summed up by Ronald Reagan:

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving subsidize it"

Though he was speaking of government in general, it was said after a period of Democratic control of the US government.

 

Darkwolf, it may be true that the Republicans claim, that their are for free-trade. Internationally, they have a reputation for wanting the opposite:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2889757.stm

This may be countered with the quarrel about gene-manipulated food. Genemanipulated (Sp ?) food is not a trade thing, it is a health thing. I am against Genemanipulated food, there is a legalization against it in my country (not EU-member) and as scientific facts are now, I don't want to be treated as a lab rat. Other countries have other regulations. Their right. I still refuse import of genemanipulated food.

 

Didn't look at it from an international perspective. Domestically Republicans are all about free trade, but they are also in general nationalistic (not a evil word in America since we don't have the history that Europe does with nationalism), so I could see where they are seen that way from a foreign nation's perspective.

That said, many Republicans feel that the Democrats give far too much away to foreign nations in the way of international trade concessions.

 

But Darkwolf, you see my point, the US and the "allies", East-Asia, Australia and Europe, have different economical interestes. There nearly is no common ground anymore. The US-Dollar so low as it is, hurts Europe. I hope they start to lowering rates for the Europ pretty soon. The thought, that the Americans pay their war bill, by keeping their currency low, so that the other rich countries can pay the bill without wanting it, is slightly annoying me.

 

Yago,

The US has no responsibility to keep the dollar at any level other than one that is beneficial to the US. For too many years the internationalists in this country have punished our economy in an attempt to "help" our "allies". This is just another form of economic aid, or bribery. As long as the US does not act in a predatory manner, the dollar can fall as far as the rest of the world will let it. If the Euro or any other nations currency is too strong and it is hurting their economy, it is up them to fix it.

So I guess what I am saying is that US monetary policy is only being percieved as predatory by those who are used to the US government artificially shoring up their economies by maintaing a "strong" dollar. Now that the US won't provide this form of economic aid, these nations are crying foul, and I say tough luck.

 

Darkwolf, I fully agree with what you said. It's just, that Europe has no other choice, as to start minding their own business. That's just what I wanted to say. And minding their own business has as consequence, reconsidering alliances. I just think, the thought isn't wide spread in Europe enough. But the times are changing and the question will become more and more urgent.

What I meant to say is, those "relationships" between Europe and the US, are changing. That's the way it goes. I mean, there's a connection between countries who are not joining wars of the Americans and countries, who start to rethink, if they alway should do, what Americans want from them. In other words, the days of the Marshall-Plan are over.