Audio of Obama lamenting lack of socialism in U.S.

Post Reply New Topic

I'm back, AG!

No you can't, because that's hypocritical. I attacked your anarchism because anarchism is a bad idea. No, your second comment is meaningless. "All we have seen from gradual change has been gradual death" is simply a false statement.


It may be possible to analyze just about anything from an economics standpoint, but it's not necessarily useful or preferable to do so. In reality, other fields of study exist for valid reasons and can't be so easily dismissed. So I suppose I am attacking economic imperialism.


Because a small/unobtrusive state is fundamentally different from no state. It should not because it would lead to less optimal results.


I've only ever made one Hobbes quote (life in nature is nasty, brutish, and short) and I have not argued for an all-powerful state so much as I have argued for a particular style of administration (monarchism as superior to democracy). I have stated little (if anything) in this thread on what the nature and scope of government should be and more on how an existing government should be run. Why do you consider minarchist monarchism to be a contradiction?


People are rational in the sense that they do not generally jump off bridges or do other obviously maladaptive things, but evolution hasn't reached so far as to give all men a good sense of political affairs.


OK then, I say that some government is better than no government.


The first one is largely impractical, because even if you are able to get smaller government, it is much harder to make that final step of eliminating it entirely. Ignoring it involves some negative consequences (unless you're happy living in the woods with militia movement nuts) and overthrowing the government, aside from the difficulty, introduces too much stability to end with a workable system. The Russians learned that towards the end of WWI.


Increasing local control is fine, I have no real problem with that.


Too much of a good thing? I would say that a minarchist system attains most of the benefits anarchism can legitimately claim, without the many downsides it would necessarily bring.

We don't need that crap in this country. If Obama wants that he can just go over to Russia where Socalism still exists. However I highly doubt Obama thinks that way due to the fact that most of his cabinet is made up of a bunch of Third-Way Moderate Democrats like Hilary Clinton & Richarson. The governor of New Mexico.

In most scenarios presidental-elect Obama is like JFK. Charismatic and cares for his country. Along with being a reformist who got elected president at a young age.

I myself am a Moderate Independent. Was never a big fan of Right-Wing Nuts like Bush, Cheney & Hitler. However a country run by George McGoven, Micheal Dukakas & John Kerry will also be something I wouldn't like.

Even if Obama was a Socialist in any way it would be unlikely that a lot of Socialist Bills will be passed as president. His cabinet for one full of people who previously worked in the cabinet of President Clinton. A lot of the people in Senate or Congress are not Extremely to the Left either.

I go to church may self & here are the reasons why Right-Wing Christians think redistrbution is wrong.

1] most christans I talk to think that redistrubution is stealing from people who have rightfully earned money.

2] it gives excuses for the society to become more morally corrupt & lazy.


I don't agree with that due to these facts.

1] Tax hikes are only going to the weathiest.

2] The lower and middle- class people have needs to that aren't being fullfilled. like money for college and retirement funding.

Darn, and I thought you were gone.
I don't have to have non-arbitrary standards, you do though, as you attacked me. You have to prove me inconsistent, I just have to be consistent. No, it is pretty true, look at the size of government over time. Is there any reason to expect this growth to stop at a terminating point? I doubt it.


No they don't. Sociology was a mistake. Same with theology. Economics is God, and he demands that we maximize our utility in a rational manner, amen. In any case, certain fields might have some light they can shed, however, economics is a sufficient framework to study everything.


It is somewhat different, but the closer we get, the more the differences decrease, particularly if we recognize that most goods, including defense and police, are not absolute but rather have a scale. If we allow for greater contractual doings and private creation of money, and if there becomes greater need for private allocation of defense services, then the market becomes more powerful.


Well, the major issue is that the cynicism you promote on human nature seems as if it would fall in line with a number of matters where distrust of the market would come in, like quality control and such. In any case, minarchist monarchism does not seem stable in the long-run, as a monarch will likely seek to expand power beyond a minarch, in a manner that Machiavelli might approve of, of course. I don't think I mentioned monarchism in the post you responded to, only that Hobbes seems to be a thinker that libertarians could not use very effectively.


People don't have a good sense of political affairs as they have no incentive to individually show a good sense of political affairs.


Bah, some government would either eventually scale up, or scale down, as the government would have to keep up with the market.


Hmm... I doubt it, if the government becomes small to the point of pointlessness then it is small to the point of pointlessness, and the government, in order to keep up with the workings of society would likely have to grow to keep up. Ignoring it only requires the underground economy and growing that out. Overthrowing the government does introduce a lot of instability, but I don't see how these options are impossible.


Well, I figure that smaller nations is a good substitute for anarchism as it still would invoke high competition.


Minarchism still has to defer to the market on a lot of subjective matters to make sense, unless you think externalities objectively exist(they don't). So, either it becomes non-minarchist, or we have to let the market handle a lot of legal issues.

America's upper class should have been asking that question OF THEMSELVES a loooooong time ago... Doncha think????



This might come as a surprise to you - but the government HAS BEEN *letting* us give as much money as we want to whomever we wish since this country was founded!! Do you see the problem now??? MOST people who make over $250,000 DON'T give back - for whatever reason they just don't.

You seem to think that people would give back on their own - well nothing has ever been stopping them from giving back to society. So REALLY, the question is this: Why don't we ALREADY have private organizations that solve socio-economic problems, on a mass scale, independent of the government?? SHOW THEM TO ME. Where are these organizations?? They don't exist??? Because, in the words of Neitzche "In order for a thing to exist, it must be sufficiently desired." The Upper Class has NEVER - in the history of humankind - NEVER "desired" to solve the problems of the working class. Humankind functions within its own pyramid scheme and the people at the top all know that they are only there because they are supported by the masses beneath them and to desire ANY sense of equality to THOSE people beneath you is to give up your status as a "have".

I don't know why Randian's can't get past this mental block, but it's very simple: America was a two-tiered society before WWII and unless we do everything we can to avoid another Economic depression, we will end up there again.



Because the government has an understanding of macro-economics and the interconnectedness, not only of national industries, but also global industries and how changes in the world economy affect the geo-political landscape. WAKE UP PEOPLE: The economy could collapse if we don't change the way we're doing things, and I'm sorry to break it to those myopic randians out there - but one person's whining about how they won't get to upgrade their 42" flatscreen to a 60" because of taxes, WILL take the backseat to the STABILITY of the damned institution that gave them their freedoms in the first place!

Duty Calls



You have to be consistent with an external standard, though. Internal consistency is useless if it has no connection to reality.


OK, but that is not the same thing as gradual death. Most people would agree that gradual change has been mostly beneficial, I mean, I doubt you are seriously advocating that society should have been left stagnant for the past couple centuries.


Well, I know you're being facetious, so I won't bother with a refutation.


I eagerly await the Cato Institute's next paper on viral proteomics then.


Defense and police are public goods, and are more difficult to distribute on a market framework because of their very nature. The same goes for much of the infrastructure, along with certain areas of R&D.


Cynicism towards human nature is the cause of my opposition to democracy. Quality control is (in most cases) easily enough determined by markets, as products that are known to cause people to die slow, miserable deaths are rather likely to see a decline in sales. Still, some things do benefit somewhat from regulation, and there have been studies demonstrating this.


Machiavelli was actually in favor of a republic. A monarch still typically has limited powers, and if the scope of government is defined to a certain area it is hard to see where they would get the power to expand those powers significantly.


Again, I just cherry-picked on Hobbes quote to undermine total anarchism. I haven't exactly been leaning heavily on his ideas.


And so those people should be prevented from having political power. Broad distribution of political power reduces the individual incentive to show a good sense of political affairs to almost zero, hence my preference for an elitist style of government.


Transitioning from public to private provision of many services would be needlessly difficult, especially for dubious gain. The underground economy becomes difficult if you get caught or if you have any respect for the rule of law, not to mentions that there tends to be more problems in an underground economy when things are not out in the open. Overthrowing the government would be a problem, no matter how it's done.


I'm not so sure about smaller nations as I would simply rather have more permeable borders, fewer international restrictions on movement and trade, and generally better international cooperation. Competition between smaller nations tends to be of a violent character.


So you have learned something new about externalities? I must not have gotten that far yet, and I'm probably not bothering with higher level econ anyways. Yes, minarchism defers to the market on a lot of things. So?

Actually, the income distribution theory of the depression is usually not that popular. I think John Kenneth Galbraith, who has always been outside of economic orthodoxy, put it up, as did some thinkers at the time, but I think most economists assume that the Great Depression was a deflationary spiral caused by monetary and financial problems, or perhaps underlying issues of production, but had nothing to do with income distribution.


Really? I haven't seen that. The average politician knows very little about economics, and the little that he does know is abused for the purposes of helping one of his political interests, and even then, macroeconomists have a terrible time with macroeconomic policy due to the complexity of the phenomenon. In any case, the notion that "America will collapse if we don't fundamentally change our economic system" is not a notion that I think the majority of economists believe in. Long-run taxation policy from an economic perspective is usually guided by the following concerns: efficiency, growth, social equality, government funding and things like that, but rarely is stability considered a concern, and as it stands there are a number of current prominent economists who support tax cuts, and major macroeconomists in the 20th century who've supported tax cuts

You are addicted to xkcd and I love it.


What reality do I have to connect to? None! I can be as arbitrary as I want in defining my standards just so long as I don't misrepresent logical facts.


Most people are wrong. In any case, I am not saying that society should have been left stagnant, only governmental actions perhaps.


Oh, come on, the economics of Calvinism: God as a rational utility maximizer with no constraints, created a world that provided the highest utility and selected people based upon the marginal utility of their salvation.


Ok, not everything everything, but in the social sciences.


More difficult does not mean impossible, and these public goods made into private goods might take a different structure. Defense might be more based upon swift and violent retribution, policing might be based more upon electronic monitoring, etc. Not only that, but the benefits of research seem relatively excludable.


See, you are losing your minarchism! Eventually you will become an orthodox Keynesian, and then a Marxist. Well, I am not going down your terrible trail! I am taking a principled stand. But right, I am not surprised that in some cases, some interventions can for some period of time, have a positive impact. In any case though, "some studies" can be a problematic basis, as what needs to be done is more of a meta-analysis as I assure you, I could probably find a study proving anything if I were bored enough, had enough resources, and so on.


I know, but everyone reads "The Prince", and I was implicitly referring to the advice given there, as I am sure you are probably aware.

Well, that problem already arises with the actions of the president, the actions of the supreme court, and other issues involving the constitution. The scope of government is difficult to maintain, unless there is some greater limit, like size of the governed region, or non-existence of the government(harder to expand with the latter).


Ah, I hardly see how a Hobbesian cherry-picking really does a fat lot of good.


People also show a lot of interest in the things that directly impact them, hence my preference for a market based system.


True. But even the argument for anarchism does some good, if only by coming into conflict with your Keyneso-Marxist totalitarianism.


Well, I'd think that smaller nations would need more permeable borders, fewer restictions on trade, and generally more cooperation. When I am saying "small nations" I mean small. I want something that has very little internal resources, and surrounded by other things with the same issues, where balance of power would be rather problematic to disrupt. The major problem that could emerge might be coalitions, however, I see coalitions and wars being on a smaller scale unless we are going to have a bajillion country coalition.


No. Externalities are subjective though, and that is something a minarchy would not be able to fully deal with, and issues of externalities can be very complex, part of Coase's theorem was to put forward that there is no "violator" of rights, only one side doing something that reduced the utility of another side. Let's say that there was a factory, and a town moved downwind of it, should the factory be punished? Well, hard to say, the town moved *after* the factory, and the people who moved there did so knowing the externality, thus for the factory to be punished would be an unwarranted improvement of their own conditions. But should we let people suffer from all sorts of pollution? It reduces utility? How much? We don't know!

An objective, absolute reality that exists and is external to your beliefs and perceptions. Same as the rest of us.


If governmental actions should be left stagnant, then aren't you promoting the statist status quo?


Given that for an omnipotent God, marginal costs are essentially 0, diminishing marginal utility doesn't seem all that relevant.


Economics may have broad applicability to other social sciences, but it is not able to replace all the other outright.


More difficult means less preferable if you can get good results with less trouble, and I think you know that. Violence doesn't seem to be what libertarians traditionally advocate, and electronic monitoring would seem to be an abhorrent violation of personal privacy.


I should probably just ignore this claim. You can't be serious?


No, Keynesianism has too many flaws. For one, the type of broad discretionary policymaking it calls for can not be effectively coordinated because of the challenges of effective information gathering. Besides, Keynesianism has never (to my knowledge) been fully implemented. Marxism is outright stupid.


So you are opposed to what works?


Some interventions work, others do not. The ones that fail should be eliminated or improved, the ones that succeed retained until they outlive their usefulness.


If people don't have a say in governance they have no opportunity to demand that the government solve all their problems, thus the government has no need of expanded powers.


Right, as do I except for certain things, and that is not only my stance but also that of almost every major free-market economist in history. Government serves a purpose.


Come on now. Remember what Rothbard said about Marx? "At least he was not a Keynesian." Those are two very different schools of thought, and disliking both of them isn't a valid reason to lump them together.


I think you are being quite naive in your predictions of international relations.


Doesn't that go against libertarian principles of negative rights?

I don't comprehend. There is a reality that exists *and* is external??? In any case, I don't see what you are asking, or how I've failed.


No, the status quo is growth.


So, you are a universalist?


Sure.....


Well, the only thing is that you'd be right, if governments were perfect. They obviously aren't though. Not only that, but governments certainly can't do all issues of provision. Libertarians advocate the non-aggression rule, not the non-retaliation rule, so I am not going against libertarianism. And electronic monitoring already exists in home security systems, and it also already exists in most stores, and I don't think most libertarians object to either of those, nor do I think either is considered a violation of privacy.


If I don't give you the data, how do you get the knowledge? I suppose you might be talking about backtracking another person's technology, or public research though, both of which cause problems for exclusivity.


Sure... sure... that's what they all say, until they become the undead Paul Sweezy!! !


Of course, people might do it wrong, and the legislation will remain in the long-run, but the effects of the regulation might not.


The world rarely works that way.


I think some of it is just egotistical powergrabbing. I mean, the supreme court has little to do with democracy, but I listed it as going beyond what I think ought to be it's aims.


There are some who've disagreed: Gustave de Molinari, David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, etc. In any case, I think that most people will avoid going too far from the status quo.


Well, actually, there have been attempts to synthesize the 2 schools, I think. Like I think economist Paul Sweezy is known for promoting a Keyneso-Marxism.


I don't.


Well, libertarian principles of negative rights are somewhat flawed, as can be seen from this.

the era of Keynasian economics that lasted from the 1930's until the early 1970's was great. from 1946 until 1974 was the greatest period of economic growth in american history. recessions were very brief & mild. if you didn't have work you were a lazy @$$.

sadly politicans like LBJ, Goldwater & Reagan killed one of the best economic systems this country ever had. c

yeah the economic growth with classic capitalism was grand. however every 2- 5 years we had a major depression that literallly killed industry. the stability of the economy was also very low.

Good discussion, I just had one thing to add: am I the only one that noticed the audio clip is spliced and altered?

Actually, the greatest period of economic growth in American history was during the classical gold standard, from the 1870s to about 1910.

Yeah but every 2-4 years you had a severe depression that killed any bit of economic activity for @ least 3-6 years. the stability of the banking system also wasn't really good. you put money in the bank and for the most part you were not sure the money would even come back.

Gamefreak, that simply is not historically accurate. At all. Depressions that did occur were generally very short in duration (a year or less) and the banking system, while less dependable than the government guarantees under FDIC, was more stable than it is often represented as. It was mainly in the late 20s/early 30s that we really had an extremely unreliable banking system. The main cause of the problems during that time period was the rapid transition to an industrial economy, and the market was unable to adjust quickly enough in many cases, which made the transition rough. Any transition of that scope would not be expected to be smooth, though.

The Keynesian era was also unsustainable, as part of that was likely the economy catching up to where it should have been if it had not gone through such devastation, as well, the monetary policy during that era was generally expansionary, which was unsustainable due to the long-run Phillips curve, as such actions lead to long-term inflation. In any case, Keynesian stimulus was also often considered relatively ineffective, part of the monetarist rebuttal to Keynesianism was that it generally took too long to initiate a Keynesian stimulus, and by the time one was put forward it was harmful rather than helpful.