hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
Hmm. Either you are redistributing something or not. I didn't know there were different degrees of it.
Hmm. Either you are redistributing something or not. I didn't know there were different degrees of it.
Keynesianists believe that government intervention can be used to improve market conditions.
Untrue. Intervention in cases of force or fraud is deemed acceptable, though the form of "government" need not be the traditionally accepted definition.Austrian economists believe that all government intervention is bad.
Marxists believe that all wealth should be distributed evenly.
Keynesianists believe that government intervention can be used to improve market conditions.
Austrian economists believe that all government intervention is bad.
With the definitions of "government intervention" and "improve" being left deliberately vague, but generally equating to either the forcible redistribution of wealth or the introduction of violence into a formerly voluntary arrangement.
Untrue. Intervention in cases of force or fraud is deemed acceptable, though the form of "government" need not be the traditionally accepted definition.
In purely economic terms, Austrians have proven that every government intervention into the market necessarily results in a net destruction of wealth. This is most often illustrated with the broken window fallacy. Whether the destruction is warranted or not can be a matter of some debate, particularly for those who desire something but are unwilling to pay for it. However, the heterogeneous nature of value makes the entire conversation an implicit discussion of how we shall rob A to give to B and not feel guilty about it.
In light of all the things government has fubar'ed people still believe that they can make something better? Count me in the Austrian camp.
It's deliberately simple, not deliberately vague. As an example, Keynesians believe in ideas like Obama's stimulus package. Austrians do not.
Borrow money from the Chinese, hand it out to reward those who voted for you. Stimulus money going to shovel ready() projects in favored districts sounds more like vote buying than it does stimulus.
I don't really see that as intervention, but that's a matter of semantics. Regulation of commerce is a traditional government function, whether through use of money supply, interest rates, or whatever.
Sure and they suck at it. Look at the track record.
Proven is an interesting word for it. Can you direct me to a study? Economics, by it's nature, is not so clear cut.
The broken window fallacy is not applicable here because nothing is destroyed. I'm not asserting that value can be added to an economy through destruction. Clearly, it cannot.
Taxation is not the same as theft. EVERYOne should expect to pay to maintain a society that has paid to maintain him.
All human endeavor is subject to failure. This is no reason not to try.
When I act on my own interest and fail, I'm more than happy to accept the consequences. It is my responsibility to do so. But I have a real problem with those who believe I'm too stupid to know what's best for me. IE social security. I'm told I'm too stupid and irresponsible to be responsible for my future retirement so they create a great new program to take care of me in my golden years. They risk my money on this program, not their own. Then they squander my money and leave me holding the bag and accept no responsibility for it. Their answer? Well, we had good intentions.
Well I'm smart enought o know that the .gov f's up everything it touches and I won't receive a dime in social security. My solution? I get to pay for my retirement twice. The money the .gov confiscates from me by force and my private retirement savings. Do you know what the icing on the cake is? I know they will further confiscate my "profits" from my private savings to hand out to the douches who relied on social security. Wouldn't want them to have to choose between buying food or medicine!
Wait until they confiscate your 401K to pay someone else's social security.
There's no doubt in my mind that it will happen. That's why I'm tempted to stop contributing to it.
Wait until some demonrat figures out how to use eminent domain to strip your bank account of cash and leave a big old IOU to be repaid at some later time TBD.
Tuoder,
What kind of elitist "I am god" complex do liberals suffer from that they believe without their own personal intervention in others lives they will starve to death? I find the idea that one person must control another to save them is just as morally repugnant as slavery. What makes a liberal more qualified to know how to live my life better than I do?
It's deliberately simple, not deliberately vague. As an example, Keynesians believe in ideas like Obama's stimulus package. Austrians do not.
I don't really see that as intervention, but that's a matter of semantics. Regulation of commerce is a traditional government function, whether through use of money supply, interest rates, or whatever.
Proven is an interesting word for it. Can you direct me to a study?
Unfortunately, you are asserting that very thing, and do not realize it, though you are correct in agreeing that destruction doesn't add value. You speak of money supply and interest rates, but fail to understand that inflation is destruction of wealth in the form of savings, and interest rate manipulation is destruction of wealth through the creation of shortages via price controls. You laud Obama's stimulus package without comprehending the massive destruction of existing savings that accompanies it, or the destruction and disincentivizing of future savings that must surely follow an effectively negative interest rate. You fail to grasp that the stimulus package (and its predecessor TARP) were deemed necessary because the credit shortages they are designed to alleviate were created by the price controls in the previous batch of interventions, which were deemed necessary because of the disastrous effects of the interventions before them, and so on.The broken window fallacy is not applicable here because nothing is destroyed. I'm not asserting that value can be added to an economy through destruction. Clearly, it cannot.
Not even the first to say so... I said pretty much the same thing in a PM to another member earlier today. You shouldn't mistake disagreement with dislike; one of the people I respect most in this world is a flaming leftist. He and I will never see eye-to-eye on politics, and we both know it, but I'd take a bullet for him, and I'm fairly certain he'd do the same for me.That would make you the first person on this forum so far.Tuoder, I like you, I just think you're wrong as 2 boys copulation in church.
It's not their own personal intervention. Libs don't want to personally intervene in anything. That want to make you intervene. It makes them feel good, and they get to keep all their wealth. Two birds, your money.
George Soros is (proported to be) the biggest lib on the planet. Why does he still have billions of dollars in net worth? If he really cared about others he would give it all away. But the truth is that he really just wants to make sure you never get the chance to amass as much wealth as he has.