It's roughly what you expect from a country whose constitution was written by tax evaders for tax evaders. The people who owned the country contrived that they would continue run the country for their own advantage, while setting up a facade of demoncratic elections that always seem to be won by people with loads of money. or by people who are close friends of people with loads of money.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Continuous stimulus - perhaps. Adequate stimulus? Obviously not.
Actually, it comes from the savings of people who won't invest on their own account, because they want to retain liquid funds in case things get worse, but can be persuaded to lend money to the government because the government is willing to promise to give it back at the drop of a hat.
This was Keynes fundamental insight. It involved a rather deeper insight into the actual way that markets work than you can manage, or monetarist economist are prepared to consider, so you don't take it seriously, and concentrate on dealing out your packs of Tarot cards.
Except that in your conceptual world, markets don't have any history, and thus no momentum. Classical economics insists that markets are always in equilibrium, which is a convenient assumption, but misleading in practice.
In physical chemistry this is formalised as the Lindemann-Hinshelwood assumption, where it works rather better (in most cases) because molecules have no memory and can't - in consequence - have experience or expectations. Market traders don't have much in the way of either, but quite enough to panic from time to time, and have consequently been known to drive whole economies into the ground when sufficiently frightened.
Happily, they can be fooled back into doing their job by sufficiently enthusiastic political intervention.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Why ?.
So, we just sit back and do nothing ?...
Regards,
Chris
Because that is not government's function. They dug the hole and all it can do is make it worse.
A deep hole is better than an even deeper hole, as Obama has shown us.
Depends on the viewpoint I guess and many people in Russia still love Stalin. You can't expect everyone to be rational or share our claimed democratic western values. For some people, it's better to be fed, housed, shutup and have stability of any kind, rather than starve on the street.
I'm all for free markets, but not the anarchy that we have at present. It only works if everyone plays by reasonably ethical rules and they don't, so there's no alternative to state intervention to prevent the worst excesses....
Regards,
Chris
Yeah, what's 20-30million people?
Anarchy?
Clueless. The *PROBLEM* is state intervention.
Not quite sure what your saying there ?.
Yes, the kind of anarchy. greed, criminality and complete abdigation of any kind of ethical standards that eventually caused the collapse of the financial system. You might call it something else, but ask any of those who have been defrauded of life savings, years of hard work. This is no violin show, but it's not what I call the civilised values we claim to uphold.
Too much is bad, but most of us agree to live under the rule of law. The debate is only about how much...
Regards,
Chris
Sounds like a plan to me ;)
Jamie
No, we stop voting socialist, and defund the unelected bureaucrats.
Please, don't anyone suggest capping the Hussein - can you imagine a Joe Biden presidency?
Thanks, Rich
-- And, therefore, allow yourself to die without trying to get through to the other side?
Why don't you keep some context so others can try to figure out what you can't?
"Depends on the viewpoint I guess and many people in Russia still love Stalin." I suppose it depends on your viewpoint whether the murder of 20 or
30million people is important? Typical leftist.No, it's not anarchy at all. We've never been more controlled. We're getting
*exactly* what was designed.We have _continuously_ increasing intervention in our lives, by government, and things aren't getting better (rather the opposite). Does that give you a clue?
EEEK!
llect
orrow
Not sure I follow that, maybe you have an example using real numbers? But I am familiar with two sets of books. One set of books is usually used for bankers to view to secure loans, while the second set of books is used by IRS to determine taxes. There are numerous legitimate ways to balance books.
people
ere
Of course, and there is no law that says a 9.5 earthquake won't strike tomorrow.
-Bill
"Government's job" - meaning that it does not get done because NOBODY TAKES RESPONSIBILITY. I say that a majority of those economic problems stem from government influence AKA meddling. Get rid of as much government as possible and let a truly free system to run.
Well, you'd die long before you could tunnel through 8,000 miles of rock, magma, and molten iron/nickel core.
Hope This Helps! Rich
Hear, hear! Amen, brother!
Thanks, Rich
You're a goddamned retard.
No, you call AlwaysWrong.
As any clueless right-winger will tell you. The Great Depression is a prime example of where you can end up in the absence of adequate state intervention, and Japan's economic malaise is another - less dramatic
- example.
As Keynes pointed out, the market can settle in all sorts of different "equilibriums" and it can take government intervention to persuade people to move to an equilibrium involving enough economic activity to keep most of the population gainfully employed.
Keynes was a clever man. Right wing economists are clever enough to understand what kind of economic advice appeals to people with loads of money, who do disproportionally well out of recession, largely by buying up people with less money who were silly enough to exapnd their businesses as the wrong moment. They aren't clever enough to realise that Keynes showed that their central axiom - that the free market always settle at the economic optimum - is false and fatally misleading.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
20 or
Technically speaking, neither Mao nor Stalin murdered the bulk of theoir victims. They ran their countries badly enough that huge numbers died, but if incompetence can be equated with murder, Dubbya is going to g on trial for "murdering" a few hundred thousand Irakis, by insisting that the US invasion force didn't need to be big enough to keep order in the country once they'd dismatled Sadaam's military organisation, which wasn't much good at fighting a modern war, but perfectly adequate at keeping order.
e getting
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was the removal of a control, not an imposition. It certainly contributed hugely to the creation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, it is unlikely that the repeal was designed to create that particular disaster. It looks like one more act of right-wing idiocy. It was certainly proposed by Republicans and passed by Republican-controlled legisaltures.
t,
you a
The clue is to your deranged thinking. Precisely what things can you idnentify as getting worse rather than better? Can you point to the relevant statical measures - as opposed to Tea Party inspired political rants?
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.