MINARCHY AT WORK!!!!"I love my peasants! Pull!"I hear they make excellent skeet. Can we shoot them with our boom stick?Can we use a less pejorative term than "stupid poor"? I prefer "unwashed masses," but I can also live with "primitive screwheads."
Dohp!
Ummm....they started it!
Firstly, taxation is not punishment, it is your DUTY as a citizen.
Then what does it say about our society when we not only don't tax some individuals, but we even give them extra money?
Go to the Philly/Delaware border and see it. Look how many stores, not just high end stores, are just on the other side of the border in tax-free delaware. Look at the means people are willing to take to avoid paying sales tax, do you really think this will not extend further? Think about your taxes every year. You know, that line where you are supposed to declare all goods purchased on the internet so you can pay says tax, how much do you think that line gets used?
I've found the easiest way to avoid paying cigarette taxes.
I oppose federal control of education not public education per se. I have a lot of problems with how we conduct public education now and the dreadful results that we are getting for a massive expenditure, but I don't local public education is unconstitutional.I would definitely agree we should be able to do better for our children, but how?
On the one hand, I think the Feds should stay the hell out of telling schools what to do, especially when they require something dumb and then don't give funding to back it up (I'm looking at you NCLB). On the other hand, I think we as a nation need to have more set objectives for the entire nation that everybody has to cover. e.g. in 6th grade, the students will have to learn X, Y, and Z. As someone that moved around some while growing up, it can be really frustrating to move to a new school and have something totally different being taught in a class that was supposable the same topic. I don't the methods or even every single topic needs to be universal, but there does need to be some standards across the board. Though get rid of standardize test, they waste time.
Okay, compromise. Move to a progressive sales tax. Purchases up to X incur 7% sales tax. Purchases up to Y incur 15%. So on and so forth. Thus we incentivize earning more and saving, and allow the rich to buy their million dollar items while supporting the government. Meanwhile the poor have an easier time saving and moving up. What are my flaws here?
Besides the other issues already raised, you will also create a lot of waste, physical and environmental waste with such a system. If I have to pay extra tax if I purchase $2X of goods, I will just purchase $X of goods and then come back and purchase another $X of goods later. Thus I've waste time, I've created additional waste in paper (2 receipts instead of 1), waste of landfill (2 shopping bags instead of 1), and any other number of indirect costs. Not to mention that this would disincentives purchasing in bulk, a method that helps middle and lower income families.
Well in that case, I'm pissed. I've received help before, I'm not going to lie...my wife was on WIC while she was pregnant and I even got food stamps when I was first starting my family (let the record show I was working full-time the entire time), but to say I receive welfare just because I get a tax refund is a dick move.
Well considering that many say the same about corporations and farms, I guess you are in good company.
Progressive taxes are fair, a flat tax just puts more money in the pocket of the rich.Yeah, keeping more money in the pockets of the people that invest and create jobs is a bad thing. Statements like this make me cry about the state of education in basic economics in the world.
Tax dollars do the same thing. Government collects the taxes and uses the collected money to pay for various programs. The programs support jobs one way or another. Mostly through direct salary payments but, in some cases, through buying physical things from the private sector.
Corruption is when some rich dude collects an unauthorized 'tax rebate' and pockets some large chunk of the money - often by providing some service that was not actually worth a fraction of what they were paid.
You know, The Great Depression went a lot longer than it should have, because FDR thought he could tax his way out of it. Those evil rich people had zero incentive to invest and make money, so private sector jobs weren't created. They took their toys and put them where FDR couldn't touch them. Even Keynes said at the time FDR was making a HUGE mistake with his tax policies.I'll look to real world examples of economic idiocy before I agree with the "progressive" (in quotes because the only Progressive president who ever got it right was Teddy R.) crap I learned in college, the crap that real world examination has proved false.
We know you can tax and spend your way out of downturns - World War II was a tax and spend program of epic proportions and it worked like a charm.
Okay, compromise. Move to a progressive sales tax. Purchases up to X incur 7% sales tax. Purchases up to Y incur 15%. So on and so forth. Thus we incentivize earning more and saving, and allow the rich to buy their million dollar items while supporting the government. Meanwhile the poor have an easier time saving and moving up. What are my flaws here?
At first glance I see a structural problem. How to you levy these taxes? How does a business know what to charge each customer?
Beyond this your incentively those with money not to spend it on things that are taxed and yet its just these things that support the economy. Are there taxes on stock options? Even if there are you've given me a good incentive to make my money in the States but spend it at a resort in Cuba or stash it at a bank in Switzerland.
|
We know you can tax and spend your way out of downturns - World War II was a tax and spend program of epic proportions and it worked like a charm.
You know, The Great Depression went a lot longer than it should have, because FDR thought he could tax his way out of it. Those evil rich people had zero incentive to invest and make money, so private sector jobs weren't created. They took their toys and put them where FDR couldn't touch them. Even Keynes said at the time FDR was making a HUGE mistake with his tax policies.I'll look to real world examples of economic idiocy before I agree with the "progressive" (in quotes because the only Progressive president who ever got it right was Teddy R.) crap I learned in college, the crap that real world examination has proved false.
It also had an amazing effect on shrinking the job pool. Maybe every tax increase should come with a Shirley Jackson style lottery...
|
At first glance I see a structural problem. How to you levy these taxes? How does a business know what to charge each customer?Beyond this your incentively those with money not to spend it on things that are taxed and yet its just these things that support the economy. Are there taxes on stock options? Even if there are you've given me a good incentive to make my money in the States but spend it at a resort in Cuba or stash it at a bank in Switzerland.
First question, price. If an item costs a certain amount, it gets a certain tax rate. Who is buying it does not matter.
You make a good point about people not wanting to spend money. However, that's only for luxury purchases. Food, gas, housing, you have to spend money in the States for these if you're going to live here. Spending it at a resort in Cuba doesn't help you live on it. And stashing it in the bank in Switzerland is a good thing. It means you are saving and setting yourself up for retirement and being able to support yourself instead of relying on government social programs.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, and I'm aware there are hidden pitfalls. (Like the economic effects of encouraging people to save instead of spend that you point out, which I understand is a problem in Japan.)
|
It also had an amazing effect on shrinking the job pool. Maybe every tax increase should come with a Shirley Jackson style lottery...We know you can tax and spend your way out of downturns - World War II was a tax and spend program of epic proportions and it worked like a charm.
You know, The Great Depression went a lot longer than it should have, because FDR thought he could tax his way out of it. Those evil rich people had zero incentive to invest and make money, so private sector jobs weren't created. They took their toys and put them where FDR couldn't touch them. Even Keynes said at the time FDR was making a HUGE mistake with his tax policies.I'll look to real world examples of economic idiocy before I agree with the "progressive" (in quotes because the only Progressive president who ever got it right was Teddy R.) crap I learned in college, the crap that real world examination has proved false.
Now that is just harsh. It will kill the long term Tax base too.
The ability to look at history and see, exactly, where any economic theory that depends on the government to efficiently manage an economy, other than regulation to ensure companies don't screw each other or the public has failed, usually miserably? Otherwise, any argument boils down to "we're smarter than [insert every instance of failure]were!".
Name some nation states that managed to become economic success stories without the government on board? I think it verges on impossible - The one and only nation state, I can think of, where this argument might apply is the British Empire and even here private industry made extensive use of the British Military in acquiring what where essentially economic ingredients for their wealth. Most Nation States that developed after the British but prior to World War Two utilized an industrialization process known as Import Substitution Industrialization - you put super high tariffs on industries that don't currently exist domestically in the home state and wait for them to spring up since foriegn competition has been effectively stifled. The United States of America is the poster child for this form of economic development which took place from around the 1890's-through 1920's.
Since World War II other methods, mainly export driven, have sprung up but the Nation States that have had the most success with this model, Germany, Japan and later South Korea have all derived their success from technocrat led expansion, government policy was the bedrock upon which these nation states led their countries out of the wilderness.
Even Europe is feeling the pain of idealistic reliance on "cradle to grave" government social umbrellas, and have been vocal about it for at least the last year. Anyone paying attention to the G20 conference in Toronto would know that.
Europe has a lot of countries in it. The most left leaning of them - The Nordic countries are also some of the ones doing the best. Maybe the most right leaning country in the EU, Ireland, is meanwhile on the verge of collapse. Sure Greece is floundering and bad government policies are at the core of that but Greece's problem is it spent like mad and was not even able to force its people to pay their taxes. So sure, super low taxes combined with a massive government spending is a recipe for disaster. But then no one on the left went out and held Greece up as an example of Good Governance or how to run an economy - the same cannot be said for the Celtic Tiger.
And all of those umbrellas were based on the economic theory taught in most of our post-secondary institutions of higher learning for at least the last 70 years (Keynesian economics dominates these days, after all) . So, again, the real world is disproving theory.
What was taught in our post secondary institutions of higher learning up until 2007 was not Keynesian, in North America at least its Chicago School. That's certainly what I was taught when I took economics in university in the 1990's and, having spent the last 7 years selling economic texts to universities I can tell you that I've never seen one based on Keynesian Principles - they simply don't publish such texts. Its all Chicago School as far as the eye can see. Its the Chicago School and its rise to prominence that serves as the ideological foundation for economic policy from the '80's until 2007.
|
|
Ok, so serious question: if the Chicago school is preeminent, when will our Government start adopting its principles? All I know about the Chicago school is von Hayek and Friedman (my favorite economist, btw), and I really haven't seem much of their theory applied to the way our government approaches our economy. It still looks Keynesian to me. Especially right now. And during the previous administration. I didn't see Bush's people doing much Friedman would approve of, for example.
Ok, maybe a little bit during Clinton when he had a hostile Congress and tacked toward the center, but that's about it. Reagan may have tried, but other than a split in the Senate for two years, he, also, was dealing with an opposition Congress.
Ok, so serious question: if the Chicago school is preeminent, when will our Government start adopting its principles? All I know about the Chicago school is von Hayek and Friedman (my favorite economist, btw), and I really haven't seem much of their theory applied to the way our government approaches our economy. It still looks Keynesian to me. Especially right now. And during the previous administration. I didn't see Bush's people doing much Friedman would approve of, for example.
Ok, maybe a little bit during Clinton when he had a hostile Congress and tacked toward the center, but that's about it. Reagan may have tried, but other than a split in the Senate for two years, he, also, was dealing with an opposition Congress.
+1
Personally all the econ courses I took in college were overwhelmingly Keynesian in their assumptions.
|
|
Ok, so serious question: if the Chicago school is preeminent, when will our Government start adopting its principles? All I know about the Chicago school is von Hayek and Friedman (my favorite economist, btw), and I really haven't seem much of their theory applied to the way our government approaches our economy. It still looks Keynesian to me. Especially right now. And during the previous administration. I didn't see Bush's people doing much Friedman would approve of, for example.
Ok, maybe a little bit during Clinton when he had a hostile Congress and tacked toward the center, but that's about it. Reagan may have tried, but other than a split in the Senate for two years, he, also, was dealing with an opposition Congress.
+1
Personally all the econ courses I took in college were overwhelmingly Keynesian in their assumptions.
Me too. I suppose if you went to the University of Chicago, they taught that type, since, apparently that's there all of its proponents taught or matriculated from.
My economics classes beyond "intro" at the U of Texas were most definitely slanted towards Keynes. And, apparently, that's the theory that most economists (e.g. everyone's favorite, and often referenced here, Paul Krugman) that wind up in D.C. subscribe to.
The ability to look at history and see, exactly, where any economic theory that depends on the government to efficiently manage an economy, other than regulation to ensure companies don't screw each other or the public has failed, usually miserably? Otherwise, any argument boils down to "we're smarter than [insert every instance of failure]were!".
Even Europe is feeling the pain of idealistic reliance on "cradle to grave" government social umbrellas, and have been vocal about it for at least the last year. Anyone paying attention to the G20 conference in Toronto would know that. And all of those umbrellas were based on the economic theory taught in most of our post-secondary institutions of higher learning for at least the last 70 years (Keynesian economics dominates these days, after all) . So, again, the real world is disproving theory.
An acknowledgment of this would go a long way towards my not dismissing someone's opinion. Otherwise, I feel free to dismiss away. Sorry.
Hi there!
As an european guy, I can tell you that the current hot topic here is the utter failure of the "reaganomics" theory, and the need to come back to a better regulated economy (regulated by the government, that is). In a word, more Keynes, less Friedmann. Even right wing political parties now agree (publicly) on that...
So all the talk is about improving/streamlining/strenghtening the social umbrella to preserve it, not about tearing it down..
Sorry!
|
|
The ability to look at history and see, exactly, where any economic theory that depends on the government to efficiently manage an economy, other than regulation to ensure companies don't screw each other or the public has failed, usually miserably? Otherwise, any argument boils down to "we're smarter than [insert every instance of failure]were!".
Even Europe is feeling the pain of idealistic reliance on "cradle to grave" government social umbrellas, and have been vocal about it for at least the last year. Anyone paying attention to the G20 conference in Toronto would know that. And all of those umbrellas were based on the economic theory taught in most of our post-secondary institutions of higher learning for at least the last 70 years (Keynesian economics dominates these days, after all) . So, again, the real world is disproving theory.
An acknowledgment of this would go a long way towards my not dismissing someone's opinion. Otherwise, I feel free to dismiss away. Sorry.
Hi there!
As an european guy, I can tell you that the current hot topic here is the utter failure of the "reaganomics" theory, and the need to come back to a better regulated economy (regulated by the government, that is). In a word, more Keynes, less Friedmann. Even right wing political parties now agree (publicly) on that...
So all the talk is about improving/streamlining/strenghtening the social umbrella to preserve it, not about tearing it down..
Sorry!
Of course they're going to say that IN Europe. They don't want to see the troubles in the street Greece saw when the citizenry was told they couldn't expect government to do everything any more.
BUT...
Wasn't at all what they were saying at the G20. Whatever the "hot topic" is on an economic theory Europe never used and The States only partially used for eight years is, again, irrelevant. The fact is, Europe has been running on almost pure Keynesian economics since WWII. Friedman's theories never got even a half-assed try here, really. to say anyone but Poland and Ireland gave Friedman an honest try is pretty disingenuous.
And, yeah, Germany, France and others are seriously concerned (or the leaders of said countries were just joshing Obama when they asked him why he thought going even further into debt would solve anything) about the social umbrella completely collapsing under the weight of an aging and shrinking population. Keynesian economics and a cradle to grave social umbrella are unsustainable in an aging and shrinking population situation. Not enough people paying in and too many drawing from the well. They weren't discussing "streamlining", they were preaching hardcore belt tightening.
So, whatever they're telling voters over there, it isn't jibing with what they were explaining to Obama in Toronto.
Sorry.
Of course they're going to say that IN Europe. They don't want to see the troubles in the street Greece saw when the citizenry was told they couldn't expect government to do everything any more.
BUT...
Wasn't at all what they were saying at the G20. Whatever the "hot topic" is on an economic theory Europe never used and The States only partially used for eight years is, again, irrelevant. The fact is, Europe has been running on almost pure Keynesian economics since WWII. Friedman's theories...
I didnt' realize you were such an expert on european policies!
Three points:
1) yes, our various governments mean to scale down spendings and augment taxes, mainly by shutting down tax exemptions and superfluous investments, not by removing down social umbrellas during an economic storm. THAT would be sheer idiocy, leading straight to meltdown.
Our "social welfare" is what protected us from the full impact of the current financial crisis. So again, with some exceptions (czech republic, for instance), the current trend is to reinstate it. Citizens on welfare can still participate in the economy; hobboes can't.
2) we have newspapers too, so we know what was said in Toronto, and are well acquainted with the notion of double talk, thanks! :)
I agree that in Europe, only some countries (UK, Ireland) truly went for "reaganomics" (or "thatcherism", as it is called here). It's no coincidence that they were the most badly struck by the financial crisis.
Iceland (which is not part of the UE) turned itself into a banking haven... and went bankrupt last year.
3) where did you get the idea that our overall population was shrinking ? The UE counts 500M inhabitants in 2009, with a slower growth rate than the USA, but still a growth rate. I know that among neocon circles it's trendy to talk about the "Old Europe", but it's not litterally true.
In fact you have a wide spectrum, with Germany at one end (shrinking population) and France + UK at the other (growing population).
If I may, I add that one billionnaire doesn't have the same positive impact on the economy than an thousand middle class families. You have to cover basic needs only once, and buying a fifteenth house or a third yacht quickly becomes stale. So, excess money is hoarded and used to make more money, which in turn widen the gap between the super-rich and the rest of the population, which ultimately leads to social unrest, in a well-known historical pattern.
Also, for one self-made Bill Gates you have hundreds of "sons of", whose only merit was to be well born, on top of a big heap of money.
So, taxes are also a way of enforcing social stability. Wealth would otherwise tend to pool in private hands.
Yes, you can call me socialist if you want... We are used to it. :D
3) where did you get the idea that our overall population was shrinking ? The UE counts 500M inhabitants in 2009, with a slower growth rate than the USA, but still a growth rate. I know that among neocon circles it's trendy to talk about the "Old Europe", but it's not litterally true.In fact you have a wide spectrum, with Germany at one end (shrinking population) and France + UK at the other (growing...
Good question. We've been hearing that over here for some time now as an explanation for why all of the social programs instituted over in Europe will fail horribly over time. I do blame that on conservative spin-doctoring, at least in part, I believe the vast majority is that even for all our information and speed in communicating with each other, Europe is still a world(and several hours) away; there is going to be a fundamental disconnect.
|
|
stuff
I had a nice long response typed out, forgot to copy before posting and it was eaten. Lazarus can no longer be relied upon to do its job. sorry.
So, the Cliff notes version of my response:
I concede a couple of points, disagree with a couple, and am willing to debate a point or two. Sorry this is vague, but I'm still miffed at myself for relying on Lazarus instead of copying.
:)
stuffI had a nice long response typed out, forgot to copy before posting and it was eaten. Lazarus can no longer be relied upon to do its job. sorry.
So, the Cliff notes version of my response:
I concede a couple of points, disagree with a couple, and am willing to debate a point or two. Sorry this is vague, but I'm still miffed at myself for relying on Lazarus instead of copying.
:)
It's heartbreaking, ain't it? I've lost posts that took me 40 minutes to compose.
Use the right browser and you can just hit BACK and it's all still there.
I had a nice long response typed out, forgot to copy before posting and it was eaten. Lazarus can no longer be relied upon to do its job. sorry.
So, the Cliff notes version of my response:
I concede a couple of points, disagree with a couple, and am willing to debate a point or two. Sorry this is vague, but I'm still miffed at myself for relying on Lazarus instead of copying.
:)
Ouch. I hate it when it happens.
Take your time: anyway, Europe and USA are so far apart on policies and basic tenets that we could as well live on separate planets. I am just arguing for the sake of argument, to better know your point of view; I don't believe that I can convince you of anything, or the other way around.
ROFLMAO, WTF? BBQ!How progressive do you want?
'String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution'
or are you looking for something a little more Conservative?
FTL.
Ok, so serious question: if the Chicago school is preeminent, when will our Government start adopting its principles? All I know about the Chicago school is von Hayek and Friedman (my favorite economist, btw), and I really haven't seem much of their theory applied to the way our government approaches our economy.
Friedman is quintessential Chicago School but Hayek is Austrian School.
Personally all the econ courses I took in college were overwhelmingly Keynesian in their assumptions.
Maybe its because it was a college? I'm not sure but I'll point out why its Chicago School that institutions of Higher Learning teach.
The first thing that should be made clear is that this is all about cash-money. Institutions of Higher Learning are highly financially incentivised to provide certain kinds of economic programs. There are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of foreign students that come to North America each year to enroll in our institutions of Higher Learning and the universities fight ferociously in order to get as big a share as possible of these students. Each one pays far and away more enrollment money then would a citizen of the home country - often as much as 5 times the price one gets from a citizen.
Now these students don't, usually, come to learn Aristotle - they are here for the business courses. Furthermore they have come to learn 'American Economics' and, from the 1980's through to 2007 that was very much Chicago School. Quite litterly a university that tried to teach these students Keynesian would find that they got less foriegn students next year - they're selling the wrong 'product' and loosing market share to Universities selling the right 'product'.
So we get to a case where the administrations of the Universities are very clear about what will be taught to the students (at least at the undergraduate level). They are passing their orders on to faculty in no uncertain terms. Now if your one of the lucky souls that has tender you can buck the administration - but you better really deeply believe in what your doing 'cause the first thing thats going to happen is your going to get a new office from administration - and it'll be a closet in the basement of an abandoned building on the edge of campus. Fighting Administration takes an extraordinary passionate individual because, while Admin cannot fire you, they can really make your work life a living hell.
You might also hav ea couple of other exceptional situations. Maybe your university is so committed to academic freedom and the flowering of the minds of its students that it is beyond base things like petty greed. There probably are a few that really are morally and ethically head and shoulders above the rest. I don't know of any but I sure hope some exist somewhere.
Finally you might have had a rock star professor. There are maybe 10 or 20 economics professors in North America who have such big names and powerful reputations that they can teach whatever the f!~* it is they want. They'll have contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and it'll basically stipulate that admin not only does not question them but in fact bends over backward to get them whatever the heck it is they are asking for. Such a professor could teach Keynesian should that be desired, but even here it'd likely be a case where the rest of the professors had to stick with the program - the one about giving valuable foreign students what they are looking for in order to get more of them.
Bottom line - Teaching Keynesian was bad business while teaching Chicago School pays dividends. You can bet that after 2007 all thats changed, I'd not be a bit surprised if some one taking an economics course today might not be being brought up to speed on what Keynes thought.
I find it interesting that progressivism is being used as a negative term by some these days, considering that reformers of that initial movement were responsible for a lot of good: child labor laws, protection for workers, oversight on food production to prevent harm to consumers, etc. Look far back enough, and the "good old days" really weren't all that good.
Personally all the econ courses I took in college were overwhelmingly Keynesian in their assumptions.Maybe its because it was a college? I'm not sure but I'll point out why its Chicago School that institutions of Higher Learning teach.
The first thing that should be made clear is that this is all about cash-money. Institutions of Higher Learning are highly financially incentivised to provide certain kinds of economic programs. There are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of foreign students that come to North America each year to enroll in our institutions of Higher Learning and the universities fight ferociously in order to get as big a share as possible of these students. Each one pays far and away more enrollment money then would a citizen of the home country - often as much as 5 times the price one gets from a citizen.
Now these students don't, usually, come to learn Aristotle - they are here for the business courses. Furthermore they have come to learn 'American Economics' and, from the 1980's through to 2007 that was very much Chicago School. Quite litterly a university that tried to teach these students Keynesian would find that they got less foriegn students next year - they're selling the wrong 'product' and loosing market share to Universities selling the right 'product'.
So we get to a case where the administrations of the Universities are very clear about what will be taught to the students (at least at the undergraduate level). They are passing their orders on to faculty in no uncertain terms. Now if your one of the lucky souls that has tender you can buck the administration - but you better really deeply believe in what your doing 'cause the first thing thats going to happen is your going to get a new office from administration - and it'll be a closet in the basement of an abandoned building on the edge of campus. Fighting Administration takes an extraordinary passionate individual because, while Admin cannot fire you, they can really make...
I'm not sure what to tell you, Jeremy. Keynesian economics were basically what was taught in secondary civics in west Texas. It's what was taught in the UCCS econ I took, and I found nothing remarkable about the professor. I'm told it's what is taught at CC and CSU also. That's certainly how the text books were geared.
I was in secondary school in the early eighties, and I was at UCCS in the early nineties.
I'm not sure what to tell you, Jeremy. Keynesian economics were basically what was taught in secondary civics in west Texas. It's what was taught in the UCCS econ I took, and I found nothing remarkable about the professor. I'm told it's what is taught at CC and CSU also. That's certainly how the text books were geared.
I was in secondary school in the early eighties, and I was at UCCS in the early nineties.
Agreed; I had the same experience as an undergraduate (mid-nineties).
|
|
Agreed; I had the same experience as an undergraduate (mid-nineties).I'm not sure what to tell you, Jeremy. Keynesian economics were basically what was taught in secondary civics in west Texas. It's what was taught in the UCCS econ I took, and I found nothing remarkable about the professor. I'm told it's what is taught at CC and CSU also. That's certainly how the text books were geared.
I was in secondary school in the early eighties, and I was at UCCS in the early nineties.
Same deal at U of Texas early Nineties.
Well seems odd, I went to a left leaning University myself (York University was founded in the 50's by ex pat American profs fleeing McCarthyism) but their School of Business sure wasn't due essentially to the value of foreign students. I'm unclear how the universities you went got around that.
Certainly the texts I'm selling are Chicago School but this could, I suppose, be regional. I'd only really sell to students in the Toronto area.
I'll note that its Chicago school thats gotten the bloody nose due to the recession. The idea being 'we tried Chicago School and look where it got us'. It seems to me that the feeling among most economists in North America was that Chicago School was ascendant and for those that have changed their stance its been a lot more from Chicago School to Keynesian then vice versa.
One can argue (and many do) that Chicago School was not really given a chance. It was never fully implemented. Which is true but philosophies that only work when fully implemented almost never really come about. I mean you hear this argument from the far left as well - we don't know if communism works or not because its never been done properly. If you some how have to end history and start completely from scratch to implement an economic philosophy one might as well toss it in the dust bin because that will likely never happen.
Was in Vienna last week, where the economic mood is pessimistic. Previously, they pegged taxes vs. wages, then set things up so that the tax rate would support you until you entered the work force and after you retired (health care, retirement, etc. all covered in full), with money left over for infrastructure, parks, culture, etc. This was balanced based on salaries and % unemployment, and worked marvellously for them for years. Currently, they're looking at an exploding Islamic population -- with generally lower-wage jobs, high unemployment, non-working women, and approx. 10x the reproduction rate of the native Austrians. The costs are therefore, for the first time since roughly WWII, rapidly outstripping the revenue, and it's getting worse every day. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with as a solution; any way you look at it, their current way of life is just about over.
Any Oesterreichers on the boards, please step in and give comments and/or correct any misrepresentations I might be making!
|
|
Well seems odd, I went to a left leaning University myself (York University was founded in the 50's by ex pat American profs fleeing McCarthyism) but their School of Business sure wasn't due essentially to the value of foreign students. I'm unclear how the universities you went got around that.
Most major American universities do not rely on the money foreign students bring in from their higher tuition. The revenue from NCAA athletics, alumni endowments and research grants dwarfs anything less than 5% of most campus populations represent, so there is no need to pander to their desires.
Now, colleges here will bend over backwards to get a hotshot kid for a science program, but the economics programs do whatever they want, and in my experience it's been teach Keynesian economics. I mean, they'll mention Friedman and von Mises as cautionary tales of "how it simply isn't done", but that's usually about it.
I can understand why Canadian universities might pander like that, they probably aren't pulling in hundreds of millions in research grants and tens of millions in football and basketball revenue annually, but we don't have the same funding issues here, as noted above. Some of the University of Texas' alumni endowments are probably larger than more than a few entire budgets for universities in Canada, for instance.
As far as the Chicago School never getting a chance, you have to consider that the party least likely to implement those principles has run Congress, which controls the purse strings, for all but twelve of the last seventy eight years. That may have a large deal to do with the theory not getting a fair shake here. And of that twelve years, a speaker committed to Friedman's theories was only seated for six. After Bush 43 took office, it would be difficult to assert that his congress was anything but Keynes lite...
|
|
Was in Vienna last week, where the economic mood is pessimistic. Previously, they pegged taxes vs. wages, then set things up so that the tax rate would support you until you entered the work force and after you retired (health care, retirement, etc. all covered in full), with money left over for infrastructure, parks, culture, etc. This was balanced based on salaries and % unemployment, and worked marvellously for them for years. Currently, they're looking at an exploding Islamic population -- with generally lower-wage jobs, high unemployment, non-working women, and approx. 10x the reproduction rate of the native Austrians. The costs are therefore, for the first time since roughly WWII, rapidly outstripping the revenue, and it's getting worse every day. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with as a solution; any way you look at it, their current way of life is just about over.
Any Oesterreichers on the boards, please step in and give comments and/or correct any misrepresentations I might be making!
You forgot to add in the zero to negative population growth (native) and lack of corporate taxes in many European countries as well. Those also contribute to a rapidly untenable social umbrella situation.
You forgot to add in the zero to negative population growth (native) and lack of corporate taxes in many European countries as well. Those also contribute to a rapidly untenable social umbrella situation.
The idea was to keep costs low enough so that, on average, your taxes during working years covered your costs after retirement (and your health care during) -- if I understand it correctly, social programs were intended to be self-sustaining regardless of overall population, rather than being modeled on a U.S.-style Ponzi scheme, in other words. But like I said, that was modeled using existing wages and unemployment rates. Now you've get an increasing segment of the population not working, and the ones who are increasingly have lower-paying jobs -- but the mean costs for social benefits are still the same for each person. And that's the crux of their dilemma, if I understand it correctly. The Islamic population in Vienna, for instance, has a disproportionately low number of entrepreneurs who create new business and hence more revenue, vs. people on the lowest end of the pay in vs. cost ratio.
Important Note: By talking in generalities, it's hard to avoid giving offense -- I'm sure that there are Muslim millionaires who voluntarily pay more than their share of taxes, and I'm certain there are any number of native Austrians who are unemployed and/or have low-end jobs, with lots of kids and stay-at-home moms. All I'm talking about are general trends, not absolutes. But it's the general trends that move the economy, not the exceptions.
|
|
You forgot to add in the zero to negative population growth (native) and lack of corporate taxes in many European countries as well. Those also contribute to a rapidly untenable social umbrella situation.The idea was to keep costs low enough so that, on average, your taxes during working years covered your costs after retirement (and your health care during) -- if I understand it correctly, social programs were intended to be self-sustaining regardless of overall population, rather than being modeled on a U.S.-style Ponzi scheme, in other words. But like I said, that was modeled using existing wages and unemployment rates. Now you've get an increasing segment of the population not working, and the ones who are increasingly have lower-paying jobs -- but the mean costs for social benefits are still the same for each person. And that's the crux of their dilemma, if I understand it correctly. The Islamic population in Vienna, for instance, has a disproportionately low number of entrepreneurs who create new business and hence more revenue, vs. people on the lowest end of the pay in vs. cost ratio.
Important Note: By talking in generalities, it's hard to avoid giving offense -- I'm sure that there are Muslim millionaires who voluntarily pay more than their share of taxes, and I'm certain there are any number of native Austrians who are unemployed and/or have low-end jobs, with lots of kids and stay-at-home moms. All I'm talking about are general trends, not absolutes. But it's the general trends that move the economy, not the exceptions.
The problem is, no matter how they think they designed the system, unless they're utilizing Chilean style private accounts, it is always a Ponzi scheme. The first wave of recipients never pays nearly what would cover themselves into the system. And it always falls on the next generation to support the last. So, when you run into negative population growth or stagnation, and throw inflation, rising costs of living etc, the situation is FUBAR.
It also had an amazing effect on shrinking the job pool. Maybe every tax increase should come with a Shirley Jackson style lottery...We know you can tax and spend your way out of downturns - World War II was a tax and spend program of epic proportions and it worked like a charm.
You know, The Great Depression went a lot longer than it should have, because FDR thought he could tax his way out of it. Those evil rich people had zero incentive to invest and make money, so private sector jobs weren't created. They took their toys and put them where FDR couldn't touch them. Even Keynes said at the time FDR was making a HUGE mistake with his tax policies.I'll look to real world examples of economic idiocy before I agree with the "progressive" (in quotes because the only Progressive president who ever got it right was Teddy R.) crap I learned in college, the crap that real world examination has proved false.
First off it does not really work like that. Kill large numbers of the working age population and a country or province or city suffers economically from that. There are States in the US that where brutally set back, economically speaking, by the American Civil War just by dint of that State taking disproportionately large casualties.
WWII however did not see this for the US (or Canada) though losses did detrimentally effect places like France, Britain, Germany and Japan.
The reality is that if you look at US losses as a proportion of its total population the US ranks very low on the list compared to almost all other states of any size that participated. America had the luxury of choosing where and when it would fight and had a firepower based doctrine that minimized losses.
In reality if your trying to update this for modern use its not a Shirley Jackson Lottery thats the key economic component but a government funded Pacific or European vacation for roughly 25% of the population.
The first wave of recipients never pays nearly what would cover themselves into the system.
I fail to see why that has to be the case. Say you work from 18 to 65 (47 years) and are retired (on average) from 65 to 93 (28 years). Say it costs $30K/yr. to live during retirement. Say your employer pays on your behalf $36K/year working in taxes*, of which probably half goes towards other things.
$18K/yr * 47 years = $846K
$30K/yr * 28 years = $840K
You've still got $6K left over to pitch in towards unemployment.
* Yes, their tax rate is insanely high by U.S. standards, but all their health care and retirement comes out of that sum, so most of them previously thought it was a pretty good deal. Especially since, if I undertood correctly (my German is really lousy), it sounded as if people who work for companies don't file tax returns -- the company witholds for all of them, files one big joint tax return, and just hands them the leftover amount, which is declared their "salary." So if you would make $50K in the U.S. and turn around and give $15K to Uncle Sam, leaving you with $35K (out of which you pay your share of health insurance costs), there you might have a salary of $30K, and your company already paid your share of taxes to Uncle Austria without you having to fret over it, so the $30K is all yours.
|
|
The first wave of recipients never pays nearly what would cover themselves into the system.I fail to see why that has to be the case. Say you work from 18 to 65 (47 years) and are retired (on average) from 65 to 93 (28 years). Say it costs $30K/yr. to live during retirement. Say you pay $36K/year working in taxes*, of which probably half goes towards other things.
$18K/yr * 47 years = $846K
$30K/yr * 28 years = $840KYou've still got $6K left over to pitch in towards unemployment.
* Yes, their tax rate is insanely high by U.S. standards, but all their health care and retirement comes out of that sum, so most of them previously thought it was a pretty good deal.
The problem is, they don't only cover the people who paid in from 18 to 67. They cover the people who paid in from 66 to 67, 53 to 67 and all points in between. If they had said when they passed the program in the first place that you had to pay in for x amount of years to collect any benefits, and exempted people who wouldn't be able to put the time in from paying in, they'd have that nice x amount of years buffer. But, as far as I can tell, they didn't do that. Here or in Europe. Heck, people that never paid in collected retirement benes.
*shrug*
The problem is, they don't only cover the people who paid in from 18 to 67. They cover the people who paid in from 66 to 67, 53 to 67 and all points in between.
Correct, you'd need an initial large capital outlay to cover those folks, before things leveled out. Beats simply putting your nation deeper into debt every year, though...
Ok, so serious question: if the Chicago school is preeminent, when will our Government start adopting its principles? All I know about the Chicago school is von Hayek and Friedman (my favorite economist, btw), and I really haven't seem much of their theory applied to the way our government approaches our economy. It still looks Keynesian to me. Especially right now. And during the previous administration. I didn't see Bush's people doing much Friedman would approve of, for example.
Ok, maybe a little bit during Clinton when he had a hostile Congress and tacked toward the center, but that's about it. Reagan may have tried, but other than a split in the Senate for two years, he, also, was dealing with an opposition Congress.
I think your looking for a revolution but the elements needed for that sort of thing are almost never in play (and its got a pretty awful track record when radical economic philosophies have been tried in the wake of revolutionary circumstances).
Instead things just kind of tack in one direction or another. For example the US had, for an unprecedented 5 terms Alan Greenspan as head of the Fed, certainly one of the most powerful and influential economic institutions in America. Greenspan is pretty close to as right as they get at least in someone willing to actually hold a government post. He describes himself as a rightwing libertarian and is very proud of being among only a small select group of people in Ayn Rand's inner circle. I seriously doubt that we'll see some one, right wing or left, with these kind of credentials from their perspective political pole any time in the future - certianly not under succsessive administrations.
In other words I think you just witnessed, over the last few decades, the American equivalent of the system tacking away from centre toward one pole at high speed...relatively speaking of course, from any individuals view point the whole thing appears to be set to geological time.
Ok, so serious question: if the Chicago school is preeminent, when will our Government start adopting its principles? All I know about the Chicago school is von Hayek and Friedman (my favorite economist, btw), and I really haven't seem much of their theory applied to the way our government approaches our economy. It still looks Keynesian to me. Especially right now. And during the previous administration. I didn't see Bush's people doing much Friedman would approve of, for example.
Ok, maybe a little bit during Clinton when he had a hostile Congress and tacked toward the center, but that's about it. Reagan may have tried, but other than a split in the Senate for two years, he, also, was dealing with an opposition Congress.
I think your looking for a revolution but the elements needed for that sort of thing are almost never in play (and its got a pretty awful track record when radical economic philosophies have been tried in the wake of revolutionary circumstances).
Instead things just kind of tack in one direction or another. For example the US had, for an unprecedented 5 terms Alan Greenspan as head of the Fed, certainly one of the most powerful and influential economic institutions in America. Greenspan is pretty close to as right as they get at least in someone willing to actually hold a government post. He describes himself as a rightwing libertarian and is very proud of being among only a small select group of people in Ayn Rand's inner circle. I seriously doubt that we'll see some one, right wing or left, with these kind of credentials from their perspective political pole any time in the future - certianly not under succsessive administrations.
In other words I think you just witnessed, over the last few decades, the American equivalent of the system tacking away from centre toward one pole at high speed...relatively speaking of course, from any individuals view point the whole thing appears to be set to geological time.
I'm back.
Freedom lost.
Coming from a european perspective, it's fascinating to see so many terms used in different ways by americans. I find that going back to the beginnings of modern politics sometimes helps.
Coming from feudal societies, Europe had changed with the coming of the merchant class when the cities became power centers. The merchants could reach power through other means than the divine mandate of the kings and the nobility. Through loans and contacts, they had a different kind of influence. To prosper, they needed economic freedom, which set them in opposition to the taxation-hungry royals. Variously, in different countries, they managed to define their own role in the politics, and often managed to limit the king's power, such as by demanding that the parliament be the only organ that could lawfully set up new taxes. This also opened the way for other reforms, but what should be done was always heavily debated. Some cried for the state to do this or that to improve living conditions, while others argued that change was risky and even destructive. With time, politicians defined their role as progressive or conservative.
So what is a liberal, and what is the difference between a liberal and a progressive? A liberal is someone who considers the individual the defining role in society. As a consequence of this, the state's powers as regards the individual must be severely curtailed. Certain freedoms must be guaranteed, and are seen as far more important than the individual having all sorts of rights to receive things. These rights can't be given to groups, either, because a group is not a relevant unit. The liberal movement has done two major things in history: It has removed the privileges of the nobility by extending them to all people, and it has removed institutionalized slavery. These are clear examples of their views. No individual is more worth than any other, and discrimination is always wrong, since it hurts individuals. Thus, affirmative action is a no-no. A good shorthand would be "What shouldn't the state be allowed to do?"
A progressive is a somewhat different creature. They consider the state their greatest tool, a tool to shape society into the utopia they feel they can create. At their best, they stand up for things that give every citizen a better life (for an example, how about investments in health care and corrective surgery for children, sanitation and quality control of foodstuffs). At their worst, they act according to "see problem, forbid problem" with no thought to what the consequences of their solutions may be. They give rights to groups, reasoning that if a group is not well-to-do, it's because some other group is being unfair to it, and a good solution then is to forbid discrimination of the particular group. Eventually, almost all people will belong to such a favoured group, and almost everyone will count in society. A good shorthand would be "How shall we get the people to act as we want them to by using the state's power?"
Given this, it's fascinating that the left in the US consider themselves liberals. They are progressives, nothing more, nothing less. The liberal movement as it was had more to do with the republican party, and some liberal basics still show in their dogma.
|
stuff
That was an interesting read, I don't know the validity/truth of it, but by the definitions you set I'm certainly liberal. I've always described myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I.E. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your home as long as it doesn't harm/impede the freedoms of others, and I'm a tightwad when it comes to government spending.
|
Given this, it's fascinating that the left in the US consider themselves liberals. They are progressives, nothing more, nothing less. The liberal movement as it was had more to do with the republican party, and some liberal basics still show in their dogma.
Actually, some time ago the term liberal stood for individual rights vs. the state in the USA, I don't know when the term was co-opt by the left, probably after the Great Depression in the 1930's and the advent of Keynesian economics.
I believe the term (when assigned to individual rights) is called Classic liberalism, something closer to the Libertarian Party or some aspects of the Republican Party, where Modern Liberalism is associated with giving more power and authority to a centralized gov't, or gov't in general.
I don't care what you do in the privacy of your home as long as it doesn't harm/impede the freedoms of others, and I'm a tightwad when it comes to government spending.
Of course that's true of me as well... but the thing is -- nearly everyone says this is true of them -- they just pick and choose which spending is OK vs. "waste," and which social constraints are "values-based" vs. "excessive government control."
I view the whole current Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios as infinite-spending loops with no end in sight, and I'd cut those costs before eliminating public schools, for example. A lot of people flip those two. Given health care costs, I'd say some form of insurance is pretty well mandatory in the U.S.; I'm fine with making that official, so that uninsured people don't default on bajillion-dollar hospistal bills. On the other hand, I view artificial restraints on stem-cell research as basically giving our biomedical edge to places like Singapore on a platter. A lot of people seem to feel that the pre-existing health care setup was perfect, and that government needs to ban embryonic stem cell research in order to support God. YMMV.
|
|
I don't care what you do in the privacy of your home as long as it doesn't harm/impede the freedoms of others, and I'm a tightwad when it comes to government spending.Of course that's true of me as well... but the thing is -- nearly everyone says this is true of them -- they just pick and choose which spending is OK vs. "waste," and which social constraints are "values-based" vs. "excessive government control."
That's not quite true, no one who says that we need laws preventing gays from marrying/adopting or wants harsher anti-drug laws, or who are pro-life can say that.
That's not quite true, no one who says that we need laws preventing gays from marrying/adopting or wants harsher anti-drug laws, or who are pro-life can say that.
You've just described the views of at least 50% of the self-described "libertarians" I know, and of 100% of the self-described "Tea Partiers" that I personally know.
|
|
That's not quite true, no one who says that we need laws preventing gays from marrying/adopting or wants harsher anti-drug laws, or who are pro-life can say that.I don't care what you do in the privacy of your home as long as it doesn't harm/impede the freedoms of others, and I'm a tightwad when it comes to government spending.Of course that's true of me as well... but the thing is -- nearly everyone says this is true of them -- they just pick and choose which spending is OK vs. "waste," and which social constraints are "values-based" vs. "excessive government control."
And yet, they most certainly do, regardless of whether you think they should be able to. They think the same about you, by the way.
True progressives do not believe in thread necro. :P
I'm back.
Freedom lost.
Did you get married? Did I miss the memo? If so, congratulations!