Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

The UK, Germany, and France aren't running up debt levels like the USA, but they all have their own problems. In particular, the UK is teetering on the brink of stagflation, and France's economy has been steadily grinding to a halt.

^ That was your statement greatjustice, you mentioned the UK first. And you said that in response to discussion of the Eurozone Debt Crisis. UK hasn't got anything to do with the Eurozone Debt Crisis because UK isn't in the Eurozone.

Which is why I mentioned that they're the only ones floundering out of the Big Guns of Europe.

Anyway WWII shows that it's not true that government spending doesn't grow the economy. I guess the great depression fixed itself? All those people who are hired by the government spend money don't they?

It's good to receive your wisdom that GDP isn't a valid measure of performance. What do you use?

[Leafsnail]

It doesn't much reflect the state of the economy at all, really. If the government takes money and spends it on bombs, has the economy strengthened at all? Again, the private sector has been experiencing huge layoffs, closures, and losses, something that no amount of responsive government spending will fix.

...Yeah, it has, because there is more stuff being made and more people being paid.  Bombs are a bad way to do it because they don't help your citizens twice like actual services do, but that's not really relevant to you arbitrarily discounting a section of the economy.

[Reelya]

One could also state that eating ice-cream doesn't grow the economy either, since the ice-cream is just gone after consumption. And ice-cream actually depresses demand for competing food products, whilst bombs do not. So you could make the argument that ice-cream reduces the economy even more than bombs.

Who do you think makes all those bombs? The private sector. And how many jobs in America do you think are backed by America spending 50% of the world arms budget?

[GreatJustice]

The UK, Germany, and France aren't running up debt levels like the USA, but they all have their own problems. In particular, the UK is teetering on the brink of stagflation, and France's economy has been steadily grinding to a halt.

^ That was your statement greatjustice, you mentioned the UK first. And you said that in response to discussion of the Eurozone Debt Crisis. UK hasn't got anything to do with the Eurozone Debt Crisis because UK isn't in the Eurozone.

To quote my quote with your quote:

@GreatJustice: I was more referring to the fact that the "debt crisis" actually refers to a few of the weakest economies of Europe. It's hardly of a scale that's going to devastate all of Europe, but you'd hardly know that from the news articles. Greece is 1.7% of Europe's GDP

When UK, Germany and France are running up debt levels like the USA, then we can talk about a crisis.

The UK, Germany, and France aren't running up debt levels like the USA, but they all have their own problems. In particular, the UK is teetering on the brink of stagflation, and France's economy has been steadily grinding to a halt.

I'd much appreciate some honesty.

Anyway WWII shows that it's not true that government spending doesn't grow the economy. I guess the great depression fixed itself? All those people who are hired by the government spend money don't they?

WWII featured wage controls, rationing, and a draft. Employment and GDP were both up for incredibly obvious reasons that had nothing to do with the economy improving.

It's good to receive your wisdom that GDP isn't a valid measure of performance. What do you use?

It isn't a valid measure of performance when the government is spending so as to keep up the appearance of a stable economy. Reliable measures of performance vary, but for France? Just look at vehicle sales (Down by record amounts), vehicle production (also down drastically), the PMI (where France barely outperforms such industrial juggernauts as Spain), and the confidence barometer for small businesses, now at record lows.

...Yeah, it has, because there is more stuff being made and more people being paid.  Bombs are a bad way to do it because they don't help your citizens twice like actual services do, but that's not really relevant to you arbitrarily discounting a section of the economy.

Yet whether something is "helpful" isn't a factor in measuring GDP. Furthermore, measuring whether something the government did as "helpful" is rather arbitrary, since the resources involved would have gone to something else had the government not acted.

One could also state that eating ice-cream doesn't grow the economy either, since the ice-cream is just gone after consumption. And ice-cream actually depresses demand for competing food products, whilst bombs do not. So you could make the argument that ice-cream reduces the economy even more than bombs.

Yet people actually want ice cream, which is why they buy it. In this case, ice cream is the end desire, and buying more of it means (on a larger scale) that there will be more to buy later.

People do not (usually) want bombs. The government wants bombs, but the money it spends on building bombs is taken from people who otherwise would have spent it on other things instead.

Who do you think makes all those bombs? The private sector. And how many jobs in America do you think are backed by America spending 50% of the world arms budget?

I didn't know war profiteering constituted the creation of a healthy economy.

Yeah, the private sector bomb companies "benefit", but that money CAME from other individuals who, again, wouldn't have spent it on bombs. The money used to build bombs could very well have been used towards capital investment, hiring people, or research but instead went towards an ultimately unproductive activity. Similarly, the government could commission the construction of a gigantic pyramid in the middle of Nebraska, hire thousands of construction companies, and spend trillions on this project. Certainly, the construction companies would be better off, as would their workers, and GDP would look great, but the overall wealth of Americans wouldn't be improved in the slightest by having a portion of it taken away to build a pyramid.

[Montague]

Defense industry employs a lot of people and contributes greatly to an economy, which isn't the point of it, the point is to make bombs and guns and things to defend the country. So hopefully they are only making as many bombs as they need to do this with their gov't funding.

Employing people or spending money without need is wasteful and ultimately self defeating.

[Reelya]

I think free market types shouldn't use the 'wasteful' argument. A lot of services generate employment but no permanent improvement in wealth. i.e. they consume resources without generating any wealth.

Like taking your dog to a pet salon for an expensive shampoo. You'll have a hard time showing me how that's not wasteful, while building something permanent (even if it's a bomb) is wasteful. At least you can dismantle and recycle the bomb parts.

Also, consumption = waste almost by definition. Eating ice-cream or taking your car for a drive (consuming non-renewable oil) may be a choice, but it's not the most efficient choice in terms of maximizing true, material wealth of anyone.

[Montague]

I think free market types shouldn't use the 'wasteful' argument. A lot of services generate employment but no permanent improvement in wealth. i.e. they consume resources without generating any wealth.

Like taking your dog to a pet salon for an expensive shampoo. You'll have a hard time showing me how that's not wasteful, while building something permanent (even if it's a bomb) is wasteful. At least you can dismantle and recycle the bomb parts.

Also, consumption = waste almost by definition. Eating ice-cream or taking your car for a drive (consuming non-renewable oil) may be a choice, but it's not the most efficient choice in terms of maximizing true, material wealth of anyone.

Yeah you have a point there. I personally tend to sneer at such decadence as pet salons and the sort. But it's not entirely wasteful, the yuppie paid money to have their pet groomed by choice and everybody's happy. Money traded hands and nothing of substance was really consumed besides some time and some shampoo.

Bombs and bomb components are made and stored because they are needed. While it makes sense to produce and stockpile such things, there is a limit. You couldn't be justified in making more bombs/tanks/guns then you needed just because it kept people employed. This is what the Soviets did and now the world is awash in shoddy bombs/tanks/guns because they flooded the market and made too much of it just to keep people employed. Really, the end result of their labor were products worth little more then the materials used to make them.

[GreatJustice]

I think free market types shouldn't use the 'wasteful' argument. A lot of services generate employment but no permanent improvement in wealth. i.e. they consume resources without generating any wealth.

Like taking your dog to a pet salon for an expensive shampoo. You'll have a hard time showing me how that's not wasteful, while building something permanent (even if it's a bomb) is wasteful. At least you can dismantle and recycle the bomb parts.

It isn't wasteful because its what people want; if no one wanted to give dogs expensive shampoos, then people who give them expensive shampoos wouldn't have enough customers and would close down. I agree that I find it to be pretty stupid, but it's their money, and if they want to do such things for their dogs then they can go ahead.

The government, however, is not a person. It does not have any particular end goals the way a person does, and its only real objective is to exist and perpetuate itself. A corporation has a similar problem, though at least in its present form a corporation has the goal of "making money", and it could potentially have goals besides that as corporations did in the past.

When the government spends money, it (A) takes it from unwilling individuals and (B) spends it on something those individuals probably wouldn't have spent it on. Because the government is a monopolistic institution by definition, it has no market mechanisms to draw information of needs or desires from. The entire point of the economy is to maximize the fulfillment of human needs and desires in a world of finite resources; however, the government doesn't have the ability to know what each individual wants, how much he wants it compared to other desires, etc (See the Calculation Problem). Thus, the government has to make broad, sweeping decisions that aren't as efficient with resources as they would have been in the hands of the individuals the money was taken from.

Actually, bombs are probably one of the least inefficient things the government  can buy; after all, defense is basically a public good, and most of the individuals involved would benefit from defense without wanting to actually purchase it. However, the amount of bombs a government needs for "defense" isn't something that can be calculated even by the government. Were they only needed as a deterrent by a peaceful nation, it is likely the amount of bombs needed would be comparably small. War between global powers these days is incredibly unlikely, even if some of them don't have massive defense budgets. However, a lot of military spending is used for interventions into poorer nations for strategic benefit, something that benefits very few and is nothing but a burden on everyone else. Bombs only "improve" the lives of the citizens inasmuch as the country is threatened by foreign enemies, and only then up to the point where the bombs purchased are sufficient as a deterrent towards those invaders.

[Ancre]

I actually strongly disagree with that statement. The government is a representation of the people who formed it ; it makes things that can be done collectively yet cannot be done by lone individuals ; and unlike corporations, it is not here to make profits first, and can work more effectively at meeting needs that are difficult to meet if you try to make a profit out of it.

It doesn't have the ability to know what its constituants want, true, but that's not its role. It can, however, know what its constituants need, or more exactly, do the things that its constituants decide it should do.

The money it takes from its constituants is not forcefully taken. It has been accepted by a vote first, and is used for the goals set by the representants of the people (to whom they are accountable).

Well, at least, in theory. In practice, I don't know, I'm french, it seems to work kinda well. Much better than the US at the very least. There's flaws, like every other human system, but overall the system is good. Having two nationalities, I have been poor in the US and have been poor in France, and while it's not fun to be poor anywhere, living in France is much less dangerous and precarious than living in the US. I don't know much about politics and economics like all of you here, but I have seen which society is best at keeping its people in good health and which one is best at helping them in time of need. I don't know, I guess it always depends on what your goals are in the end.

I don't feel like the government is taking my money by force as well, and while there's a lot of bickering about what the government's goals should be and how should they be reached, I haven't really seen anyone who think taxes are money taken from them by force here. Everyone discuss the details, but nobody think the general idea is flawed and should be scrapped away. That the government steals your money seems to be very american a sentiment.

[Montague]

I actually strongly disagree with that statement. The government is a representation of the people who formed it ; it makes things that can be done collectively yet cannot be done by lone individuals ; and unlike corporations, it is not here to make profits first, and can work more effectively at meeting needs that are difficult to meet if you try to make a profit out of it.

It doesn't have the ability to know what its constituants want, true, but that's not its role. It can, however, know what its constituants need, or more exactly, do the things that its constituants decide it should do.

The money it takes from its constituants is not forcefully taken. It has been accepted by a vote first, and is used for the goals set by the representants of the people (to whom they are accountable).

Well, at least, in theory. In practice, I don't know, I'm french, it seems to work kinda well. Much better than the US at the very least. There's flaws, like every other human system, but overall the system is good. Having two nationalities, I have been poor in the US and have been poor in France, and while it's not fun to be poor anywhere, living in France is much less dangerous and precarious than living in the US. I don't know much about politics and economics like all of you here, but I have seen which society is best at keeping its people in good health and which one is best at helping them in time of need. I don't know, I guess it always depends on what your goals are in the end.

I don't feel like the government is taking my money by force as well, and while there's a lot of bickering about what the government's goals should be and how should they be reached, I haven't really seen anyone who think taxes are money taken from them by force here. Everyone discuss the details, but nobody think the general idea is flawed and should be scrapped away. That the government steals your money seems to be very american a sentiment.

There is a middle ground here, taxes are indeed forcibly taken. The entity obliged and solely authorized for killing and jailing people is taking money from you. This isn't necessarily an evil thing if those funds are being used for a reasonable reason and the government is the only entity able to deliver some service beneficial to the taxpayer. national defense, or road maintenance, public education and the sort are most easily done by the government. Vast majority of people are OK with the government taxing them and spending money toward these things. There needs to be a consensus of course. It is not good governance to tax people and spend the money on something wasteful or stupid, like midnight basketball or whater. The government is there to kill people, not attempt to solve all of society's ills.

There are some things the government is suited to do and they are able to do well and tax money is well spent in this reguard. However the government tends to overstep it's authority and try to solve every stupid problem presented to it. This is the people's fault as well, religious groups trying to have the government legislate and enforce stupid morality issues. It isn't the job of the government and it's immoral for them to take your tax money and use it to deny your rights.

[Reelya]

The government is there to do whatever the people who elected representatives want it to. If the voters want midnight basketball then it's the government's job to comply. That's democracy.

Just because you say your philosophy demands the government only do certain things, that's irrelevant. You guys lost the voter war, so your views are irrelevant.

[Darvi]

Technically the government's job is to do whatever the guys who got voted by the populace want it to do, within the boundaries set by the constitution of course.

[kaijyuu]

The government is there to do whatever the people who elected representatives want it to. If the voters want midnight basketball then it's the government's job to comply. That's democracy.

Just because you say your philosophy demands the government only do certain things, that's irrelevant. You guys lost the voter war, so your views are irrelevant.

If that's the case, then the minorities are under the tyranny of the majorities. I wouldn't want a "true" democracy if everything is popular vote and not at least some objective values.

I'm subjective in most things, but a select few morals and philosophies should be inherent rights, imo.

[GreatJustice]

Prelude: I'm not American, though I do live pretty close to the border. A lot of American right wingers have really weird, inconsistent views of their government. The idea that the government can't be trusted to feed the poor, but it can be trusted with the unlimited power to kill anyone it considers a threat, for example.

I actually strongly disagree with that statement. The government is a representation of the people who formed it ; it makes things that can be done collectively yet cannot be done by lone individuals ; and unlike corporations, it is not here to make profits first, and can work more effectively at meeting needs that are difficult to meet if you try to make a profit out of it.

But who formed the government? I certainly didn't, and no one I know of did. In fact, everyone who formed my government is dead so far as I know.

The people who presently "represent" in Parliament could be argued to fill this role, but their top priority is getting elected and reelected, something that doesn't benefit me unless they decide my vote is incredibly important.

It doesn't have the ability to know what its constituants want, true, but that's not its role. It can, however, know what its constituants need, or more exactly, do the things that its constituants decide it should do.

I'll get to this.

The money it takes from its constituants is not forcefully taken. It has been accepted by a vote first, and is used for the goals set by the representants of the people (to whom they are accountable).

But whether it was accepted by a vote or not is irrelevant. Yes, the politicians are accountable to the majority, but they aren't accountable to each individual voter.

It most certainly is forcefully taken on an individual basis. What happens if you don't pay your taxes, or declare yourself to be "independent" from your country? The tax man comes over and demands you pay up. If that fails, armed goons in uniform with guns come and drag you to a cage, whereupon a person with a gavel decrees that a certain amount of your possessions can be stolen and that you can be kidnapped and held for a set period of time. If you attempt to resist these armed goons, they will quite willingly shoot you and THEN seize your possessions.

What, exactly, makes the government a "legitimate" institution? If everyone on my street has a vote to seize the property of a quarter of the people living here and we vote yes, are we justified in taking their things? After all, we are the majority, and we are the "constituents" of whoever we send to actually repossess that which we consider to be ours. How about our town, our county, our province? At what point do we cease to be criminal and become a government? What differentiates the government from, say, the mafia? Is the mafia legitimate if it provides services of some kind to those it extorts?

Well, at least, in theory. In practice, I don't know, I'm french, it seems to work kinda well. Much better than the US at the very least. There's flaws, like every other human system, but overall the system is good. Having two nationalities, I have been poor in the US and have been poor in France, and while it's not fun to be poor anywhere, living in France is much less dangerous and precarious than living in the US. I don't know much about politics and economics like all of you here, but I have seen which society is best at keeping its people in good health and which one is best at helping them in time of need. I don't know, I guess it always depends on what your goals are in the end.

The welfare state doesn't ultimately improve the lives of its people, it simply shuffles resources around and fools people into thinking their lives are improved. There comes a point where the welfare state is incapable of providing for its people enough to make the costs seem justified, and at this point people begin to resist. This point as already been reached in Greece and Italy, and it likely this point will be reached soon in the rest of the world, including both the USA and France.

I don't feel like the government is taking my money by force as well, and while there's a lot of bickering about what the government's goals should be and how should they be reached, I haven't really seen anyone who think taxes are money taken from them by force here. Everyone discuss the details, but nobody think the general idea is flawed and should be scrapped away. That the government steals your money seems to be very american a sentiment.

Certainly most people, in fact an overwhelming majority, would not consider the government to be illegitimate. It wouldn't work if even a sizable minority rejected it's authority. However, that certainly doesn't make it justified. Even in France, you have people of this viewpoint. In fact, ideologically speaking, you would find that the earliest and most important people who viewed the government this way were French, in particular Bastiat and De Molinari. American proponents of this view only really existed because of European migrants in the 1920s and 30s.

[Montague]

The government is there to do whatever the people who elected representatives want it to. If the voters want midnight basketball then it's the government's job to comply. That's democracy.

Just because you say your philosophy demands the government only do certain things, that's irrelevant. You guys lost the voter war, so your views are irrelevant.

Yes, this is how free democracies do things, but philosophically, at a base level, this is a rather stupid way of doing business. This is 4 wolves and 3 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. The government needs to be pure, to have a real mission, purpose for existing that is neutral and unbiased. It should not demand it's people to do irrational things, nor should it's people demand it to do irrational things. It should keep the peace and nothing else, leave people to create their own solutions to petty matters below it's scope of responsibility.