The spending needs to stop

Dirk · May 6, 2009

deanhills said:
Thanks for this posting Dirk. Learned quite a bit from it. Question for you. Do we really have capitalism in the US? The Banks for example are just too big to be described as capitalist (in my opinion anyway). And if one can bail them out, is that still capitalism. What system do you think does the US have at the moment?

I don't really know. Some of my friends are saying Keynesian but i usually disagree with them anyway. I suppose it's the whole "yes, i know, let's buy our way out of recession" thing. It is capitalism, yes, because it fits all the basic requirements. But it's not as free a market as Smith or Friedman visualised it, i don't think.

curious said:
Thanks for pointing out that a welfare state isn't socialist. The Libertarians on the forum think that if we provide universal health care, that makes us a socialis country. Run, run, because the USSR had the world socialist in its name, so anything at all that it did must be bad. I wander if all libertarians refrain from Lasik surgery, since the basic technique represents the Soviet Union's one major medical advance not associated with the space program.

But I take issue with the Soviet Union having worked. They went belly up, remember? And our goal really is not to stand in line at stores because we heard a rumor they might have something, anything, to sell.

I'd say the economic failure of the SU was due to Reagan. Gorbachev promised to take down the wall on the condition that he and Reagan regulated the mass of people getting out of the SU. This was to minimise pressure on a poor economy (due to excessive military and nuclear spending). Reagan agreed but he'd lied and let everyone go out as fast as you like. I like Gorbachev. He might have made Perestroika work.

By libertarian, i presume you mean they were neoliberals? (I'm lacking a bit in US politics)

Dirk · May 6, 2009

The Parakeet said:
Good post Dirk. Lots and lots of options that are all workable depending on what the people want.

The only truly bad thing would be a centralized economy similar to the Soviet Union. No central non-god body could ever outperform the market at directing priorities. History has shown that.

Everything else is just varying degrees of capitalism. Socialized medicine really isn't too much of a separation from capitalism though. Subsidizing something is generally seen as a minimally intrusive way to correct a market failure. If the people decide that the benefits of national healthcare outweigh individual tax costs...then that's just how it is.

That's mostly true and, in any case, unethical. The SU was state capitalist, just to clarify. The centralised economy didn't work, no. It might if the organisation is super-efficient, but the Government then takes the role of a big corporation and would end up serving its own ends, rather than those of the people. That means poorer goods for higher prices. And the Government would then take the place of the corporations in exploiting workers and shackling the populace in hypothetical financial chains. Also, the economic control is usually reflected by political control. In Britain or the US, the interests of the big companies control the political agenda. On the delusion of the "trickle-down" theory, they are able to convince the workers that it will help them. That's why some workers will vote for a Conservative/Republican government. The Government, in control of the economy, now also gains more control of the people and uses that control to it's own ends (ie. the purges) Similarly, the Government convinces the populace that it keeps the people's interests at heart ("for the people" etc) with meaningless rhetoric and uses it to oppress, subjugate or eviscerate the populace.

As Hitler once said: "It is fortunate for us, the leaders, that people do not think."

*catches breath* Okay, rant over. As you can see, although i suggested it as an alternative, i don't exactly approve.

deanhills · May 7, 2009

Dirk said:
I don't really know. Some of my friends are saying Keynesian but i usually disagree with them anyway. I suppose it's the whole "yes, i know, let's buy our way out of recession" thing. It is capitalism, yes, because it fits all the basic requirements. But it's not as free a market as Smith or Friedman visualised it, i don't think.

Well then I like MYPs description of too large Government with out of control spending. We still have to find an overall description for it. If Government is too large, then capitalism has to be less than capitalistic?

Dirk · May 7, 2009

deanhills said:
Well then I like MYPs description of too large Government with out of control spending. We still have to find an overall description for it. If Government is too large, then capitalism has to be less than capitalistic?

Well, here's a question for you: who is the Government opening their cash-tills for? The people? The workers? Those below the poverty line? Well, i tell you, we aren't seeing any of it. It's all going to the capitalist fatcat bankers who got us in this mess in the first place - because they weren't regulated enough. That should be enough to prove that the Government still favours them over us. *grim look* It's still a capitalist system, mate.

curious · May 7, 2009

Well, the good old USSR certainly exploited people to a greater extent than capitalism, which at least allows the option of voting with your feet and your currency.

'Trickle down' is based on the Laffer curve, and as I mentioned in a couple of other threads, it only applies to one part of the curve. If you use the supply side economic theory to adjust policy, and it works, you move out of the special circumstances (that's actually your goal) and should go back to traditonal economics.

In other words, the better it works, the sooner it isn't applicable. The Republicans have been using this theory long after it stopped being effective, which was early in the Reagan administration.

deanhills · May 9, 2009

Dirk said:
Well, here's a question for you: who is the Government opening their cash-tills for? The people? The workers? Those below the poverty line? Well, i tell you, we aren't seeing any of it. It's all going to the capitalist fatcat bankers who got us in this mess in the first place - because they weren't regulated enough. That should be enough to prove that the Government still favours them over us. *grim look* It's still a capitalist system, mate.

Totally agreed, and it is one of my pet frustrations, that people actually voted for the 1.2-trillion bail-out, and I note that they are hoping to get even more money to bail out these big banks. All they need to do is give people a little dose of scare tactics, "a crisis" and daylight robbery happens almost instantly. Think the worst part for me are the lies. I seem to recall that Obama right at the beginning when he was trying to get votes for the bail-out was talking about saving the poor people and getting the money to the banks through to the people, but I have not heard any of those mushy talks lately. Obama is now completely into the poor "BIG" banks. He's learned fast.

curious · May 15, 2009

Well, if they provide medical care, that would be something for the people.

Dirk · May 15, 2009

curious said:
Well, if they provide medical care, that would be something for the people.

It would, but be careful there - nationalisation usually does not equal socialism. And i think that each hospital should rely on the taxes of the LOCAL community it serves. That way the people are really only helping to pay for themselves. It's fairer that way. For example, i don't want to pay higher tax because hospitals in the city are more expensive. The one down the road does us just fine and i'll pay for that. That's the one i'm more likely to go to anyway. And it's cheaper. It's more expensive in the city but then you have a more extensive hospital.

curious · May 16, 2009

Dirk said:
And i think that each hospital should rely on the taxes of the LOCAL community it serves. That way the people are really only helping to pay for themselves. It's fairer that way. .

That's how we got our lousy educational system. We rely on local taxes, so the poor get worse educations than the rich. We have no national education standards, and no consistency. Even under the current 'no child left behind' testing standards, each state was allowed to set its own standards. Consequently, what is considered a senior in high school reading level in Alabama is called eigth grade reading level in New York.

Poor neighborhoods will have poor medical care under your scheme.

As far as your not being willing to pay for the poor in cities to get medical care, don't push that idea too far. In general, I think rural areas (where I am assuming you live) often get far more than their fair share of federal money. I might just want some of that money back. And if you have kids, I definitely want the money I paid in property taxes back, since I didn't have any.

deanhills · May 17, 2009

Dirk said:
And i think that each hospital should rely on the taxes of the LOCAL community it serves.

Ditto the banks! I believe that the BIG banks are not serving the communities at all and that there is a great need for smaller banks that are serving LOCAL communities. BIG banks are not successful, that is why they should have been allowed to fail. They need to break the big banks up in smaller units, which would make their businesses more transparent as well, and more difficult to hide complicated accounts.

Dirk · May 18, 2009

deanhills said:
Ditto the banks! I believe that the BIG banks are not serving the communities at all and that there is a great need for smaller banks that are serving LOCAL communities. BIG banks are not successful, that is why they should have been allowed to fail. They need to break the big banks up in smaller units, which would make their businesses more transparent as well, and more difficult to hide complicated accounts.

Definitely! Plus, it'll help uncover the machinations of the big banking corporations. We might be in time to avert disaster next time.

deanhills · May 18, 2009

Dirk said:
Definitely! Plus, it'll help uncover the machinations of the big banking corporations. We might be in time to avert disaster next time.

Think I'm going to vote for your party. Have you thought about starting one in the UK

Dirk · May 20, 2009

deanhills said:
Think I'm going to vote for your party. Have you thought about starting one in the UK

I've recently started writing down my ideals. Party might be a little extreme. I'll try and temporise it.

deanhills · May 20, 2009

Dirk said:
I've recently started writing down my ideals. Party might be a little extreme. I'll try and temporise it.

Good idea! You were so right in the other thread for example about how little democracy there really is, it really is an illusion. Maybe you should start a blog as the first stepping stone for the book, then start a party and then Chancellor?

Dirk · May 21, 2009

deanhills said:
Good idea! You were so right in the other thread for example about how little democracy there really is, it really is an illusion. Maybe you should start a blog as the first stepping stone for the book, then start a party and then Chancellor?

Do you reckon it'd be hypocritical to be a part of something i think shouldn't exist?

DodgeFB · May 21, 2009

Dirk said:
Do you reckon it'd be hypocritical to be a part of something i think shouldn't exist?

It might be.

deanhills · May 25, 2009

Dirk said:
Do you reckon it'd be hypocritical to be a part of something i think shouldn't exist?

No, not hypocritical. You may have good reasons.

The spending needs to stop

Similar threads