Are you a conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date

Are you a conservative? Pick all that apply

  • I oppose multiculturalism

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • I believe Islam is a threat to my country

    Votes: 7 100.0%

  • I hate Marxism

    Votes: 7 100.0%

  • Liberals are traitors who should be punished

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Total voters
    7
Socrtease said:
Read this entire post. Here's what I got. Lefties and Righties calling eachother names like racist and faggot, talking about how people are pussies and mama referrences. Intermingled with some pretty good info on Keynes, Hayek and some light economic theory. This place has become a microcosm of our country in general. One side or the other whining about who is in power and doing everything in their power to stall or derail progress and then heap the blame on the other side. We have all forgotten we are Americans. When the water rises all our boats float, when it subsides, we run aground. Nobody wants to sacrifice, nobody wants to compromise. The longview on things is now 4 years, the next election. To win power, BOTH the left and the right would screw their own mom out of her money and her freedom. A pox on the left and the right.
Click to expand...

As usual, pure bullshit mixed with just enough truth that most fools buy it. Democrats/ liberals want power- it is their nature. Conservatives want the federal government that we were promised- one that is small and limited in scope.
 
Damn Yankee said:
As usual, pure bullshit mixed with just enough truth that most fools buy it. Democrats/ liberals want power- it is their nature. Conservatives want the federal government that we were promised- one that is small and limited in scope.
Click to expand...

In other words, conservatives want the power to make over the federal government to their liking.
 
Damn Yankee said:
As usual, pure bullshit mixed with just enough truth that most fools buy it. Democrats/ liberals want power- it is their nature. Conservatives want the federal government that we were promised- one that is small and limited in scope.
Click to expand...

Right. :palm:

You want a gov't that is small and limited in scope. But you want that small, limited gov't to define marriage for everyone, stop owners from allowing legal activities in their businesses, and set up zoning laws not to protect an environment but to protect your personal property values. In other words, protect what you want and leave everything else alone and unrestricted.
 
Socrtease said:
Read this entire post. Here's what I got. Lefties and Righties calling eachother names like racist and faggot, talking about how people are pussies and mama referrences. Intermingled with some pretty good info on Keynes, Hayek and some light economic theory. This place has become a microcosm of our country in general. One side or the other whining about who is in power and doing everything in their power to stall or derail progress and then heap the blame on the other side. We have all forgotten we are Americans. When the water rises all our boats float, when it subsides, we run aground. Nobody wants to sacrifice, nobody wants to compromise. The longview on things is now 4 years, the next election. To win power, BOTH the left and the right would screw their own mom out of her money and her freedom. A pox on the left and the right.
Click to expand...

great... a lawyer entered the conversation.... everyone should immediately proceed to the nearest shower. ;)
 
Damn Yankee said:
You choose your economics professor unwisely, learning that Keynes had any brains whatsoever. Spending money to get out of a recession is stupid. Supply side is much better, let the market do its thing, which is cyclical:
Click to expand...

Spending money in a recession is stupid? So you would prefer no one spend money? Stop for a moment and THINK this through.

If government spending on infrastructure were to be $100b in each of the next ten years, what Keynes is suggesting is that during a recession when the labor market is weak, you take the money you WOULD have spent in years 6-10 and spend it instead in years 1-3. Tell us, how is that a bad thing? The government would actually be spending MORE efficiently as they are taking advantage of a weaker labor market. In addition, during a recession you will typically find that cost of materials is LOWER, hence another potential savings for the tax payer.

1. When the economy is strong confidence is high, people spend more and save less, historically down to about 1% of their income.
2. The reduced money in banks causes interest rates to increase. This stifles growth.
3. Reduced growth causes a recession and confidence is eroded. So people start saving again, historically to about 10% of their income.
4. The increased money in banks causes interest rates to drop. This stimulates growth.
5. Proceed to step 1.
Click to expand...

I understand the market cycle and for the most part you are correct in stating that we should allow the above to occur (though we haven't seen anywhere near a 10% savings rate in recent history, even during recessions). That said, there are times where a downward cycle spirals out of control. Where instead of the above we see....

1) unemployment is high and people are concerned about their ability to pay bills so they start to save more, pay down debt and spend less
2) companies see people spending less and lay off more people
3) unemployment rate goes higher causing more concern among consumers and so more people pay down debt, save and spend less
4) repeat the above....

What do you propose in such a situation? We have had historically low interest rates for the better part of a decade (especially the past five years)... yet we have seen little growth. so you are stuck in a loop....

Any time the government increases spending at step 3 it just makes the recession longer and deeper since it is bureaucrats making inefficient decisions for everyone else (your Keynes item 1) instead of millions of consumers making their own, very efficient decisions. This also makes the next recession even worse.
Click to expand...

politicians have indeed proven to be imbeciles, but their inability to implement what Keynes suggested doesn't make Keynes wrong. It makes the politicians wrong. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that the consumer is the more efficient spender. I totally agree that supply side is the better strategy. I just disagree with your 'absolute' position with regards to Keynes.

Keynes item 2 is entirely appropriate but I'd prefer that taxes be low to begin with, since it forces government to be smaller (Constitutional) and more efficient. If taxes are too high in a recession then by all means reduce taxation but spending must be reduced in order to avoid deflating (thus reducing confidence and destabilizing) the currency.
Click to expand...

No question that in the long term government spending needs to be reigned in. The idiots in DC are completely out of control. But again, that has little to do with Keynes.

Keynes Item 3 is unnecessary because with a stable currency interest rates fluctuate less. And, as noted in step 4, interest rates will drop.
Click to expand...

Adjustments to the Fed Funds rate have proven effective in the past. Though, like anything, if done improperly, they can also be detrimental.

Keynes item 4 is idiotic during a recession, since it deflates the value (thus reducing confidence and destabilizing) of the currency. The money supply should be increased only when the economy is growing, which will act to stabilize its value.
Click to expand...

an increase in money supply is INFLATIONARY, you would NEVER want to do it when an economy is growing strong as it would lead to hyper inflation.
 
Superfreak said:
Spending money in a recession is stupid? So you would prefer no one spend money? Stop for a moment and THINK this through.

If government spending on infrastructure were to be $100b in each of the next ten years, what Keynes is suggesting is that during a recession when the labor market is weak, you take the money you WOULD have spent in years 6-10 and spend it instead in years 1-3. Tell us, how is that a bad thing? The government would actually be spending MORE efficiently as they are taking advantage of a weaker labor market. In addition, during a recession you will typically find that cost of materials is LOWER, hence another potential savings for the tax payer.



I understand the market cycle and for the most part you are correct in stating that we should allow the above to occur (though we haven't seen anywhere near a 10% savings rate in recent history, even during recessions). That said, there are times where a downward cycle spirals out of control. Where instead of the above we see....

1) unemployment is high and people are concerned about their ability to pay bills so they start to save more, pay down debt and spend less
2) companies see people spending less and lay off more people
3) unemployment rate goes higher causing more concern among consumers and so more people pay down debt, save and spend less
4) repeat the above....

What do you propose in such a situation? We have had historically low interest rates for the better part of a decade (especially the past five years)... yet we have seen little growth. so you are stuck in a loop....



politicians have indeed proven to be imbeciles, but their inability to implement what Keynes suggested doesn't make Keynes wrong. It makes the politicians wrong. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that the consumer is the more efficient spender. I totally agree that supply side is the better strategy. I just disagree with your 'absolute' position with regards to Keynes.



No question that in the long term government spending needs to be reigned in. The idiots in DC are completely out of control. But again, that has little to do with Keynes.



Adjustments to the Fed Funds rate have proven effective in the past. Though, like anything, if done improperly, they can also be detrimental.



an increase in money supply is INFLATIONARY, you would NEVER want to do it when an economy is growing strong as it would lead to hyper inflation.
Click to expand...
1. Of course the government should spend money, at the same rate or lower than it did prior to the recession. A balanced budget amendment would force it to spend only what it takes in. If it spends now to 'take advantage of a weak labor market', it has to borrow, and the interest payments will me much more than any market savings. Besides, government always pays high union wages anyway. It's unrealistic to think that the government will pay lower wages.
2. In your scenario people are saving money in step 1 so interest rates come down and they have less incentive to save and they have more incentive to borrow. Again, I propose that the government let the market work its magic.
3. But I've proven that Keynes is wrong.
4. You always need to increase the money supply when the economy is growing exactly to reduce inflation. People are making more money, buying more goods, and building wealth. The supply of money should match the demand for it; too much and, you are correct, inflation will occur.
 
Even without a debt default, it looks increasingly possible that the world's credit rating agencies will soon downgrade U.S. debt from the AAA standing it has enjoyed for decades.




A downgrade isn't catastrophic because global financial markets decide the creditworthiness of U.S. securities, not Moody's and Standard & Poor's.




The good news is that investors still regard Treasury bonds, which carry the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, as a near zero-risk investment.




But a downgrade will raise the cost of credit, especially for states and institutions whose debt is pegged to Treasurys.






The debt stalemate in Washington is creating stress in a little-known but vital corner of the bond market, increasing the risk that banks, hedge funds and other investors will have to pay billions of dollars in additional costs if the U.S. defaults or is downgraded.






http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576470551476951590.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top